British Blasphemy

By R.J. Godlewski

©February 19, 2013, All Rights Reserved

 

I often wonder why Americans often attribute a great deal of affinity with the British, particularly the English. I suspect that it has much to do with the common language, though I marvel over how many Americans find trouble following the dialect of British television shows airing within the United States. Perhaps, a great measure of this filial obligation rests with the United States, as a nation, wresting its freedom from the Crown. Still, what constituted the original thirteen colonies pales in comparison to America today. Remove the slice from, say, Georgia to Maine and the rest of America bears decidedly Spanish and French heritage, the former controlling virtually every portion of “modern America” west of the Mississippi River.[1] Although, eventually, the British came to control even my native Michigan, most of our towns and rivers bear decidedly French and Indian names. True, I live next to Brighton, but I have to tell everyone where that is in relation to Detroit.

The British also possess a checkered history with Americans, going to war against us twice in 1776 and 1812, fueling the division of the nation during the Civil War by supplying the Confederacy, and conniving to force us into war against Nazi Germany during the early 1940s through falsified intelligence, such as the infamous map supposedly showing Nazi designs on Latin America. Granted, in the latter case, Hitler’s regime had to be stopped, primarily for what they did against the Jews and countries such as my ancestral Poland. The British, however, were not particularly supportive of the world’s Jewish population. The British Navy blockaded Jews escaping war torn Europe from entering their own ancestral homeland.[2] In other words, the post-war British government “found itself on a collision course with the Jews in Palestine.”[3] They further resisted the efforts of U.S. President Harry S. Truman’s calls for allowing 100,000 homeless Jews to migrate from Europe.[4] Eventually, the British Army did provide some support to Jewish settlers – but only after British territory had been invaded by the Arabs.[5]

British policy has always been somewhat self-centered and exclusive of the international community. For instance, most of the world’s anti-Catholic sentiment emerges from the propaganda machine of the Crown irrespective of facts and England’s own actions. During the colonial days, Protestant Britain routinely blamed the French, for instance, of maltreating the Indians upon the frontier. Unfortunately, “Puritans had little luck winning over the demonic pagans to a doctrine whose severely unpretentious religious ceremonies offered little compared to the rich and numinous rituals of the more ancient faith.”[6] Furthermore, the French Catholics permitted the indigenous Indians to retain most of their customs and beliefs whereas the British sought to erase these cultural identities.[7] Often wrongfully attributed to Roman Catholics, sadly, it was the British in North America who killed dozens, if not hundreds, of Indians with smallpox-laden blankets intentionally traded as gifts.[8] Further to the south, in Latin America, the Catholic Spanish rescued many indigenous tribes from the cannibalistic Aztecs, opening schools for Indian girls in 1534 and, by 1539, the first printing press in the New World.[9]

Catholicism throughout Latin America did not spread by way of the sword, as the British and other Protestants are wont to believe, but from the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God.[10] For a nation that abandoned ~1,500 years of holy tradition simply so that its monarch could marry (after already having received one annulment from the Church) again, it remains no big surprise that the British “already call our time ‘the post-Christian era’”.[11] Perhaps they really mean the post-British era, for I find very little to consider about the islands today.  Great “Britain” bears prominent enclaves of Islamism that befuddle the local authorities. For a nation that once quipped to never have had the sun set upon its empire, it seems that the crescent has definitely outshone the Crown. The British certainly give more respect to hostile Muslims than they do their own comical monarchy. As for me, I possess only one King…and, in fact, one Queen as well.

The once-British world, apparently, has done rather well for itself despite having once been subjugated to the always-tarnished Crown. Great Britain developed nuclear weapons largely because they peered over America’s shoulder when we finally broke the atom. India and Pakistan both had to develop their nuclear devices largely from the ground up. Israel, arguably, brought more peace and opportunity to the heretofore largely undefined Palestinian territory than had Britain. The Anglican religious community within the United States dwindles in comparison with Roman Catholicism. In fact, the only reason that America rests as a “Protestant” nation is that that group is normally accorded every Christian at odds with Roman Catholicism.[12] As a standalone denomination, the Catholic Church in America dwarfs any other Christian church. Its members have contributed more to charity, built more schools and universities and established more hospitals than any other religious group in the country. And, folks, Catholics did it while being persecuted by British Protestants (and other non-Catholic Christians), brutalized by the Ku Klux Klan, and stifled by Progressive government. Greatness often comes from experiencing unfathomable challenges and no other religious body on the planet has suffered more than Catholicism in terms of sheer numbers.

Fortunately, while the sun may have finally set upon the British Empire, the Son still shines upon the United States of America. This despite our closet Brit, President Obama (anti-Christian, pro-Socialist government, anti-gun…who else could endorse so many British policies other than a true British sympathizer?), doing everything humanly possible to destroy both this nation and its rich Christian heritage.[13] As Britain destroys the church that Henry VIII created, many Anglicans and Episcopalians are flocking to Roman Catholicism in record numbers. Perhaps they have realized the Truth that thousands upon thousands of influential Catholics had already discovered.[14] Nevertheless, all Christians within the United States emerge stronger, collectively, than those of other nations for America has learned from its earliest inception that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” comes from our Creator, not government. That Great Britain still fancies a monarchy, no matter how ineffective and expensive, suggests that the island nation still prefers to isolate itself from God in preference for earthly administrators. God Save the Queen, my…

************

 

R.J. Godlewski (GOD LESS KEY) is an independent counterterrorism consultant, the director of the private International Nuclear Emergency Response Team [INERT], and the author of several novels, commentaries, and professional articles. He is the author and architect of the Web-based Independent Counterterrorist training program. He is currently a graduate student at American Military University completing his M.A. in Military Studies, Asymmetrical Warfare concentration, and graduate certificate in Security Management. Mr. Godlewski holds a B.A. in Intelligence Studies, Terrorism Studies concentration with a minor degree in Area Studies – Middle East with honors from American Military University. He further holds an undergraduate certificate in Explosive Ordnance Disposal and is a veteran of both the United States Navy and Navy Reserve. His most recent professional article is “Financial Counterintelligence: Fractioning the Lifeblood of Asymmetrical Warfare” in American Intelligence Journal 29 no. 2 (2011): 24-33. His latest book, Of What Price, Heaven? Encountering God Within a Highly Secularized Society (ISBN – 13: 978-1481902342) is available for order from wherever books may be purchased.

 

---

NOTES:

 

[1] William H. Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire: The Explorer and the Scientist in the Winning of the American West (New York: History Book Club, 2006), 11.

[2] Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Services (New York: Grove Press, 1991), 37.

[3] Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East from the War of Independence through Lebanon (New York: Vintage Books, 1984), 12.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 24.

[6] John F. Ross, War on the Run: The Epic Story of Robert Rogers and the Conquest of America’s First Frontier (New York: Bantam Books, 2009), 37.

[7] Ibid., 38.

[8] Diane Moczar, Seven Lies About Catholic History: Infamous Myths About the Church’s Past and How to Answer Them (Charlotte: TAN Books, 2010), 148n.

[9] Ibid., 157.

[10] Ibid., 159. See especially http://infallible-catholic.blogspot.com/2012/04/miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of.html.

[11] Peter Kreeft, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven but Never Dreamed of Asking (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 193.

[12] http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

[13] It remains interesting to read the religious affiliations of U.S. Presidents. See http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

[14] See http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_catholic.html for a sampling of persons.

Comments

[GoneWithTheWind]

Ahh! The famous smallpox laden blankets. First appeared in a movie from Hollywood and we all know how accurate they are in portraying history. In fact the famous smallpox laden blanket never happened. I great fantasy especially if you dislike the British but it is pure fantasy. The interesting thing is smallpox was an equal opportunity killer and killed as many and undoubtedly far more "white" in the new land then it did Indians. Smallpox was so feared that no man no thinking individual could have been coerced to actually carry a blanket loaded with smallpox in an attempt to give it to Indians. But the fantasy goes even further; rembering the time period even educated scientists and doctors still were unaware of germs and viruses never mind having connected them with smallpox. No one, certainly no one on the frontier would have had a clue that you could carry a blanket laden with smallpox and give it to the Indians thus infecting them. And lastly modern science has indeed found that you cannot. Smallpox is very difficult to catch from surfaces and very easy to catch from close association or breathing the same air as a patient. The Indians got smallpox in exactly the same way that the immigrants got smallpox. No mystery, co conspiracy, no biological terrorism. But speaking of biological terrorism the Indains were the ones who introduced that into the fight. They would commonly contaminate wells and springs to kill the immigrants and soldiers. Ironic isn't it? A perfectly good anti-British pro-Indian diatribe that when fact checked ends up being a pro-British anti-Indian story.

[R.J. Godlewski]

@Gone with the Wind,

I offer,

“The concept of using Variola virus in warfare is an old one. British colonial commanders considered distributing blankets from smallpox victims among Native Americans as a biological weapon.”[1]

Although admittedly suspect, “The first documented attempt to use smallpox as a biological weapon occurred during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767) in North America. British colonial commanders serving under Sir Jeffrey Amherst allegedly gave blankets from smallpox weapons as gifts to susceptible North American Indians.[2]

If little else, these alone cast doubt on the ignorance or innocence of the British in North America.

R.J.

References

[1] Ross D. LeClaire and M. Louise M. Pitt, “Biological Weapons Defense: Effect Levels” in Biological Weapons Defense: Infectious Diseases and Counterbioterrorism eds. Luther E. Lindler, Frank J. Lebeda, and George W. Korch (Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press, 2005), 48.

[2] Robert G. Darling, Timothy H. Burgess, James V. Lawler, and Timothy P. Endy, “Virologic and Pathogenic Aspects of the Variola Virus (Smallpox) as a Bioweapon” in Biological Weapons Defense: Infectious Diseases and Counterbioterrorism eds. Luther E. Lindler, Frank J. Lebeda, and George W. Korch (Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press, 2005), 101.

[GoneWithTheWind]

First of all you need to get your data straight. The famous Amhesrt letter 'suggested" it was not proof of it or a decision to do it. Secondly the British archives have long been used misused and hacked. It is impossible to know if the Amhearst letter is real or a forgery placed their by special interest groups with an agenda. This is/was common not very different from the infamous George Bush AF reserve letter. But for Amhearst to have actually known or believed this was possible in 1763 he would have had to have been about 150 years ahead of the scientific world. The best and brightest still thought things like Smallpox were caused by "bad blood". It is also important to understand that Amhearst had just experienced the most criminal most savage most disgusting brutality known to man; the Pontiac Rebellion where the Indians performed disgusting torture on captured women and children. Amhearst may have simply been trying to express his anger and frustration over the vile deeds and tried to come up with a equally vile idea for revenge. But in fact it never happened and the facts in the letter make it obvious it was written in the 1940's and 1950's when most of the hacking against the Archives in Great Britain occurred.

As for the ignorance or innocence of the British at that time they merely reflected life as it was then. The French were no better and the Spainish were much worse. In fact you could make your case and far more using the Spanish for an example. Their conquest in South and Central America was brutal and bloody and had little to nothing to do with protecting lives. The British may have done things you don't approve of but they did it to protect not just out of blood lust as the Spanish did.

So while it is true that diseases like smallpox killed millions of Indians the same diseases killed millions and even tens of millions of the immigrants. No one (or very few) were immune. Most/many died and if you were lucky and survived you had an immunity to that disease but the next one could kill you just as easily.

[R.J. Godlewski]

"worse. In fact you could make your case and far more using the Spanish for an example. Their conquest in South and Central America was brutal and bloody and had little to nothing to do with protecting lives."

How so? ALL the information regarding the atrocities of the Spanish within Latin America came via British propaganda. The same people that made the Aztecs out to be simple, decent people.

Yes, some of the Conquistadors were bad people -- every group has bad people -- but the English, as exemplified with the Protestant Inquisition versus the Spanish Inquisition, were the worst culprits.

[GoneWithTheWind]

Wow! You really believe the Spanish in Central and South America were moderates who's reputation was trashed by the British. I think what you have is a serious prejudice against the British and non-Catholics. I don't want to rehash people's old prejudice. Everyone 200-300 years ago acted brutally by today's standards. The British were no exceptions but in the new world the Spanish went over the line even for the standards of the time. And both the Spanish and the British were wimps when it came to how the muslims in Africa treated their own people and their slaves. And even the muslims were wimps during this same era when compared to how the Chinese and Japanese treated their people. It all depends on your persepective and your willingness to see things in the context and beliefs of the time period. I have no doubt 100 years from now even the most moderate country will be accused of some crime by that later periods standards. I rally have no ax to grind in this except to understand history, not the rewritten history or the history as told by someone with an agenda but the truth as best it can be determined.