“Why not put them in a field with Trots and Islamofascists, give them knives and pitchforks, and let them all kill each other.”

One lot might win. I don’t think you or I would be happy, whichever it was.

Thank you for taking me seriously enough to post such a lengthy response.

1) the monastic tradition was crushed by King Henry the wife murderer. Education properly began when the state started financing it. Everything before that was merely about small minorities.

2) “The establishment-liberal tradition is hardly distinguishable from the establishment-reactionary position.” Hardly? Please do not try to explain. Life is too short.”

If you accept that some of us assume that the modern world began the day that Clement Attlee became Prime Minister, it might all fall into place. Asking you to accept that some of us have those assumptions is not the same as asking you to agree!

3) Not sure where you’re coming from. For me, the (club) football season ended on Sunday 3 May, but that is because I follow a club that plays in the English Championship. No state attempt to suppress the character of the Scottish Kirk has been made since the Civil War era. The sectarian murder in Coleraine is revolting, but it fits into a projection of Northern Ireland divisions onto Scotland. A few years ago, a lad was murdered outside a Gaelic sports club. Actually, his family were protestants and he had been chatting to a Catholic mate.

Thank you for taking me serioulsy enough to post such a lengthy response.

You’re conflating your disagreement with my expressed views, with your disagreements with some other people. I’m not sure I know who they are or what they think.

I think Shakespeare was a huge cultural figure of his time. His continuing importance has two dimensions for me:
1) he wrote some very good plays that still have lots to say to us, 4 centuries later.
2) he lived at a crucial period of history, witnessing the extinction of the last English Royal Family and the Union of the Crowns (as the Scottish historians summarise it, to widespread English ignorance).

Why not put them in a field with Trots and Islamofascists, give them knives and pitchforks, and let them all kill each other.

Watch the following clip on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RMUyAy9zU0

Is the woman lying?

“When the Danes and the Jutes came to England they were not welcomed by diversity officers and signposts in Danish. ”

In those days there was no international law, no citizenship, no work permits and no Immigration controls. At the time, hardly anybody could read or write!

Your first par makes little sense. The Liberal Establishment position on British history and identity is as follows: 1) We’re a mongrel nation (correct) – this is manufacturing consent for the argument that we need effectively unrestricted immigration into a hellishly overcrowded country, as par the Labour Party’s manifesto pledge that it is ‘good for Britain’ (they should have written the truth: it’s good for corporation bosses) and that we have nothing to worry about from an expanding Muslim power bloc grown spoiled and truculent on years of liberal/left pandering.
2) We don’t know what England or English culture is. This has been the Radio 4/Guardian/Socialist idea for many moons, sometimes playfully dealt with, some times handled with the severity of utmost Scotchness. The warm beer/old maids at communion comment is duly dragged out and sneered at; then English low culture is usually scoffed at. Shakespeare – who the BBC and RSC have convinced themselves is a lefty – is usually temporarily forgotten (not to be snatched from the toybox until The Tempest is deconstructed for a critique of our wicked imperialism).
Your retort to my ironic comment about Danes and Jutes was STATING. THE. BLEEDING. OBVIOUS. If that is the best you can come up with, maybe you should argue about ufos or something. I note with interest that you allowed my detailed criticisms of your new Labour sloganeering to stand unremarked upon. Interesting.

So perhaps you can explain why there are very few Welsh words in English, but lots of Latin words in Welsh?

Scene: Interlaken in my teens.
On the way there I’d had a difficult conversation in my rubbish French, trying to explain to two helpful, but German-speaking, Swiss that my sister was not very well, but a glass of water would probably do her a world of good.
Someone about my age was in the lake, chatting to her friend on the bank. I didn’t undetstand wht. When the second one jumped in and said “Ah Das ist Kald” I didn’t need any translation.” – Alan Ji. 26 May 6.22 pm

2. No, those arguments are my perspective on a part of British History. The establishment-liberal tradition is hardly distinguishable from the establishment-reactionary position. It assumes that England absorbed Scotland in the same way that England had earlier absorbed Wales. How else could there be such acclaim for a work of fiction like “The English Constitution” by Walter Bagehot, written by a man born years after the founding of the UK?

“When the Danes and the Jutes came to England they were not welcomed by diversity officers and signposts in Danish.”

In those days there was no international law, no citizenship, no work permits and no Immigration controls. At the time, hardly anybody could read or write!– Alan Ji. 26 May 6.43 pm.

3. ““Charles I was always broke, he needed the money and signed for cash, not principle. ” (Larkers)

But the Presbyterian Governance and Lutheran theology of the Church of Scotland was never again seriously threatened or challenged. It wasn’t even necessary to mention it in the Treaty of Union.” 26 May 6.46 pm.

Somewhere in this melange of words, personalities and disparate events, is a “perspective” trying to struggle into shape and failing.

You ask for answers.

1. Education. Please see the Monastic tradition. Hint: Yesterday was the feast of St Augustine of Canterbury.

2. This is perhaps the most confused of all your posts. It would require line by line examination and I and other posters do not have the patience to go though it. It also requires I take some of these frankly bizarre statements at face value. For example what does this sentence mean? – “The establishment-liberal tradition is hardly distinguishable from the establishment-reactionary position.” Hardly? Please do not try to explain. Life is too short.

3. 1745. In my first post to this thread I mentioned that the football season is over. You may wish to examine reports of the last day’s play in the Scottish Premier League (24th May) and a subsequent vile murder of a Catholic man in Northern Ireland and reconsider your “perspective” that Presbyterian Govanance (sic) was “never again seriously threatened or challenged” (though precisely what significance this “perspective” has for Scotland, the UK or anything connected to Luton’s brush with the B.N.P.s version of social cohesion, I fear I cannot say).

Best Wishes.

Which is why Khomeini authorised sexual intercourse with a young girl of 9 years.
To be fair, Khomeini did not advise it before then, but then again he also said that sodomy with her was OK.

This is utter drivel. A brief trawl of the net shows that transliterations of mufakhadhah (مفاخذة) appear on all the loony sites frequented by Muslim-haters. Surprise, surprise, the very first search result using the Arabic term produces a fatwa condemning this hoax and associated practices.

Could you show me a copy of the Farsi/Arabic text of Khomeini’s fatwa, please? If not, how do you know that Khomeini sanctioned this practice? Is it because that cypher Hugh Fitzgerald said so?

I really shouldn’t get into this, but I remember Chris Hitchens in an interview saying that that Khomeini’s grandson (who he says hates his grandfather and the regime) says that from a room away he could hear his grandfather molesting a toddler that visited them, the girl crying.

—-

Hear, hear!