Monday, December 31, 2012

Lawrence of Arabia: The Balcony Scene, Redux

2012 has been the year of Lawrence of Arabia. This blog's favorite movie celebrated its 50th anniversary with a theatrical release, a beautifully-remastered Blu Ray, an homage in Prometheus, and assorted other goodies. All year I've been geeking out like a Tolkien fan waiting for The Hobbit, be it blogging interminably, re-reading Seven Pillars of Wisdom or, honest to God, making a Lawrence t-shirt. Thank my friends and family effusively for not throwing me out a plate glass window.

Anyway... Last Friday I received Lawrence's 50th Anniversary Collector's Edition Blu-Ray. This gargantuan set comes with a three-disc Blu-Ray, along with an 88 page making of book (lots of nice pictures), a remastered copy of the original soundtrack (cool, but I prefer the City of Prague Philharmonic's re-recording) and a 70mm film frame. Mine is a shot of Lawrence just before the Tafas Massacre - as good a frame as any.

Among the goodies, of course, is the newly-restored balcony scene. I've dissected this piece at length here, judging solely by its transcript. Having now actually seen it, I'll offer further commentary.

The scene runs about five minutes in length. It starts with Allenby informing Lawrence "there's blood on your back" and continues until "the best of them won't come for money." Thus we see not only extended footage, but alternate editing and presentation of the sequence.

The editing differences proved jarring. This version dissolves from Allenby's "tell me what happened" to Lawrence and Allenby chatting on the balcony. After the added footage it cuts to Bentley and Dryden's brief argument, then back into Allenby saying "Not many people have a destiny" - thus, even later than in the existing film. Besides which, the early dissolve jars with the hard cut later. It's a sloppy, irritating juxtaposition.

Then there's the dubbing. Charles Gray sounds absolutely nothing like Jack Hawkins. I know Gray dubbed Hawkins in films after the latter lost his voice to cancer, but doing that for a whole film is different. Having bits of Hawkins dialogue book-ending the new footage makes an already drastic difference insurmountable. On this basis alone it's easy to see why Robert Harris and Co. didn't reinstate this sequence in '89, and why it was good to leave it as an extra.

Don't believe me? Here's a short 40 second clip via Youtube:



Adrian Turner suggests this scene was originally cut because David Lean couldn't fit it into the narrative. This is borne out, I think, by the editing style. It just will not do to have the dissolve and then, much later, a hard cut. This makes the time elapse unclear and throws off the pacing. Did Lawrence tell Allenby the whole story of his Deraa defilement? How long was Dryden hanging around Allenby's office before exiting? This is unusually sloppy work from Lean, himself an ex-editor, but attests to the scene's problems.

Why view the scene? It's one of the few times Allenby lets down his guard and shows himself a human being. Jack Hawkins lost this and at least two other scenes in earlier cuts of Lawrence, which must have rankled. It provides Lawrence more pointed motivation for his final change of heart. It shows more clearly the paternal relationship between the two men - Lawrence eager for a father figure, Allenby exploiting that weakness. And as expected from Robert Bolt, it contains elegant dialogue.

But this points up its problems, too. It's primarily a character scene, interesting but not strictly functional. While not overly long, at its specific place in the film - Lawrence's last attempt to opt out of his "destiny" - it slows things down considerably. In other words, it's that most unfortunate thing: a beautiful superfluity.

So my curiosity is satisfied yet disappointed. I'm glad I've seen this scene, yet it wasn't all I'd hoped it would be. Oh well, unreasonable expectations and all that.

Exit 2012! I'll have my best and worst movies post up a few days late, but rest assured it's coming. Here's to another year of fabulous blogging. Happy 2013 everyone!

There'll Always Be An England!


So, we see out the year of Our Lord, 2012, and see in the year Our Lord, 2013, and the great battle of Britain - the battle for Britain - is looming and about to commence! The World did not end this year, but those who threaten the destruction of marriage will do their level best to destroy this civilization anyway.

This battle, in which we all must play our part, is for marriage, its meaning, definition and it is a battle to safeguard (key phrase banded around so often today) the institution of Marriage, not just for this generation, but for all those generations who will come after us. This is a battle not just for the family, but for the human family.

Those who cherish true freedom must now stand up and be counted among those who fight for genuine freedom and for human dignity. We who fight for freedom must stand up and proclaim those timeless truths which have served us, as well as those who came before us, so well.

Mothers and fathers, despite hardships and heartaches, sacrifices and pain, perhaps even break-up, poured out their sacrificial love for us, however wonderful or imperfect, or a mixture of the two, our parents were or are. We are only here because they gave us the opportunity to live and gave us paternal and maternal love! Their love brought forth us and it is only because of their love that we live today!

Take up the fight now. Be soldiers for Christ and your country! Let us take upon ourselves the weapons of Faith, Hope and Charity and the breastplate of Salvation! Despite what some Bishops have said, this is a battle worth fighting, for Christ, for His Blessed Mother, for Holy Mother Church, for the Queen (pray for her) for all generations to come and, indeed, for the memory of all those brave soldiers who fought for freedom in this country in the first and second world wars.

To see the memory of those husbands and fathers desecrated by a Conservative-Liberal Government, only for that wicked Government to take all the freedom, honour and dignity they fought for to keep this country free from tyranny, would be a grave and heinous crime. Those men and there will have been women and children too who died in bombings, sacrificed themselves and their earthly lives so that this country may live free - so that others could have families and live in peace not under a dictatorship of relativism and disharmony - but in peace!

Mr Cameron: Did these husbands and fathers die for 'gay marriage'?
They did not die in vain! They did not lay down their lives to see the institution of marriage smashed to pieces! They did not die to see the innocence of children smashed to smithereens by State education in schools! They deserve better than this!

They did not sacrifice themselves to see an Etonian 'Conservative' who used to wreak restaurants in Oxford with his Bullingdon Club mates use his same artful handiwork to wreak the family and impose upon the whole population an ideology that accepts as legitimate only those beliefs that that ideology can tolerate!

Those who survived the world wars did not come home to wives only to see the very meaning of their marriages destroyed by an evil Government serving a misanthropic elite beyond the corridors of power within just a couple of generations of the allied victory!

Yes! We shall fight them on Twitter! We shall fight them on Facebook! We don't even care if GCHQ are reading it all! We are not afraid of you who seek the destruction of this nation and all that it has ever stood for! Unto the shedding of our own blood, we shall not be silenced! We shall fight them on the blogs, on The Telegraph and shall fight them even places where Comment Isn't Free.

If our Bishops pluck up the courage to call for it, we shall take this onto the streets with the countless non-Catholics that still believe marriage is between one man and one woman and who are fed up to the back teeth with this whole 'equality' agenda - an agenda so sick, twisted and totalitarian that it demands that all who do not swallow the Marxist claptrap to be sacrificed for what they maintain is the 'greater good' of a small minority of the population!

"So, what is marriage?": 'Sir, I know the answer!'
There are 9-year-old children in non-Catholic schools who have a more advanced notion of marriage and what it really means than our Prime Minister! That's how deep into the toilet this country has sunk and I'm not even thinking of the economy! Neither are we cogs in a financial machine! We are human beings! Never shall our Government fully succeed in redefining the very institution that binds families and the nation together!

Our brothers and sisters who fought for this country did not lay down their lives to see the country overran by a hoard of Guardian readers and second-rate, nauseating State-worshipping communists who rely on the crushing of dissent from the official State religion to maintain their stranglehold over the nation! I really don't care whether Churchill was a 33rd degree Freemason! He still wouldn't have stood for this Cameron garbage! I don't care if he spent most of the war in a bunker drinking whiskey and getting smashed! He wouldn't have stood for this!

The Court of Heaven
We have no swords, nor have we need for them, because the pen, or rather than the keyboard, is mightier than them all! Mark my words, come what may, to those who want to destroy the family, destroy marriage and trash this beautiful country for a sinister new dictatorship - this is a battle you will lose! Why? Because we in this for Eternity!  That's right! The long haul!

You have, on your side, the Devil and all his fallen angels. On ours, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mary, Most Holy, the white-robed Martyrs, Virgins and Confessors, numbered among whom are English intercessors in Heaven.

We have the Heavenly Hosts, for those who defend marriage - we - we are all are on the side of the Angels now! You cannot win! You will be crushed by the Sceptre of Truth! You will be vanquished and He Who is Truth, Who is Mercy, Who is Justice and He Who is Love will be victorious! For who is like unto God! The Lord our God! To Him be Glory and Power forever!

Take your plans to destroy marriage - the fundamental cell of every flourishing civilization and stuff it where the sun don't shine! There'll always be an England!

“There are two places only where socialism will work; in heaven where it is not needed, and in hell where they already have it." - Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill: 'Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Cameron!'
Happy New Year!

The Bishop’s top 10 New Year Resolutions






  1. Must sort out my Primary and Secondary Schools and get some decent, orthodox textbooks and lessons underway

  1. Set myself a target of establishing a series of Latin Mass training programmes for all of my priests

  1. Join with the next SPUC and Forty Days for Life abortuary prayer sessions

  1. Issue an urgent pastoral letter regarding the sanctity of marriage and how all of my flock should protest to their MP about proposed same-sex legislation

  1. Appoint one of my priests as Latin Mass Co-ordinator with the target of establishing EF Masses in at least 20% of my parishes by year end

  1. Issue an Ad Clerum requesting that Benediction be restored and that the grille type of confessionals and communion rails be replaced

  1. Plus….all clergy (and nuns) should be dressed in clerical wear at all times (other than in bed)

  1. Request that all OF Masses should be celebrated Ad Orientum from now on

  1. Ask the FSSP or ICKSP to host one of my parishes

10. Invite the local SSPX group round for drinky poos


NB: This list is not exhaustive, please feel free to suggest more resolutions

A Pastoral letter is the same as an Annual Report

Back in the dim and dark depths of the 1970s, someone or some organisation (please don't ask me to verify it, it was pre the computing age) carried out some research into the marketing elements of  Annual Reports.

Vast sums of money are spent each year by the multi national companies (and by Colleges and Universities) in producing glossy and colourful Annual Reports.

The research showed that the recipient of such a report (postage was another considerable on-cost) took something like 3.5 seconds upon opening the postal envelope and to then make the decision whether to read or not.

Mostly, when the 3.5 seconds was up, the 300 page glossy would be consigned to the round file conveniently placed beneath the desk.

The message being, of course, that you needed to be pdq at getting your message across; it had to be precise and visually gripping.

The human attention span is not a long one. If you are on the receiving end of an Annual Report it is a mere fraction of time betwixt determining success or failure.



I think that it is probably much the same with a Pastoral Letter. How many are actually read?

And, if the letter is read out aloud at Mass, how many switch off after 45 seconds (the average concentration span for the reception of oral communications).

And why do people switch off? Because, invariably,  the message is parcelled up in unimaginative, boring sentences.

Because the letters are too long; and the content too ambivalent.

I am not going to go through the various pastoral letters issued on the same-sex "marriage" issue, that would be tedious.

But here are the main points that should be addressed:-

1. Keep it to one A4 page

2. Encapsulate the message in the first concise sentence eg "I am asking for your support in upholding the teachings of Holy Mother Church by opposing the Government's plans to introduce same sex "marriage."

3. Keep the wording simple; that is not to say that the audience is cerebrally challenged, it is just that the message gets through faster and remains if it is straightforward.

4. Have short, clearly defined requests (preferably a bit more than "write to your MP")

5. Leave the recipient with a final sentence that contains an action request ("Join the March in London on X date").

That's it really. It's not rocket science but, if you should wish to verify that this post is necessary, please go to the pastoral letter issued on the Feast of the Holy Family in 2011 by Bishop John Rawsthorne of Hallam Diocese. It is not on the SSM issue but it warbles on blindly oblivious to the fact that, if the Diocese did research its impact, they might be surprised to find that yawning came top of the list. It is, in reality, an annual report in pastoral letter format.
You may read it HERE

Sunday, December 30, 2012

RIP Harry Carey Jr.

Last Thursday, legendary Western actor Harry Carey Jr. passed away at 91.

Son of silent movie star Harry Carey and actress Olive Carey, "Dobe" Carey was a featured member of the John Ford Stock Company. He appeared in a great many Ford movies, including Three Godfathers, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, The Searchers and Cheyenne Autumn. His largest and best role came in 1950's Wagon Master with Ben Johnson. Carey was also a regular fixture in television and Westerns generally.

In later years Carey remained active in film, appearing in small roles in Gremlins, Back to the Future III and Tombstone. Always amiable and pleasant, Carey left behind many interviews and commentaries for fans of his work. While many of John Ford's proteges found him a hateful bastard, Carey always revered Pappy's memory. 

RIP Dobe, you will be missed.

Universal Church or Individual Church?

Mac, at Mulier Fortis, perhaps inadvertently, touched a raw nerve with me in her post
One by One.

The post deals with the latest Bishop of England and Wales to step up to the mark and condemn the British Government's attempts to legalise same-sex "marriage."

Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham Archdiocese has issued a pastoral letter and also plans for the same letter to be read out at Masses on the Feast of The Holy Family, (January 13th in my Missal).

By a rough reckoning that means that some half dozen or so Bishops have taken similar actions, all welcome but all rather late in the day.

They have also taken these actions "domino" fashion; that is, not so much in the name of the Lord as in domino chequers, those that, once lined up, all begin to move once the first one moves.


                   *Thirty three Lone Rangers would be so much more effective than one


That is rather a pity, I feel.

An all out statement or a general pastoral letter agreed by the Bishops of England and Wales, would have had so much more punch to it.

As it stands, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, may get the impression that we are not too gifted on the coordination front; he may feel that he has enough strength behind his 'initiative' to proceed with his ill thought out plans.

I am trying not to be churlish; the moves by the various Archbishops and Bishops are most welcome, it's just that they would have more effect if they came from the one true Church as opposed to the Church in Shrewsbury, Portsmouth, Westminster or Birmingham.

The fact that pastoral letters are being issued and that the Feast of The Holy Family has been highlighted as the day (in Birmingham) to deliver the contents to the faithful may not so much have been prompted by this post HERE as by the priest who originally suggested that such events should take place.

He would not like to be named, he is much too humble for that, but we could offer up some prayers on his behalf while we also pray for all of the Bishops to get behind the initiative.

* Estimated number of Bishops in England and Wales

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Django Unchained

At different points during Django Unchained (2012) I felt like I should be amused or excited, offended or sickened. But Quentin Tarantino's new flick mostly inspired indifference. You can only see the same tricks umpteen times, and Django's only marked distinction from Kill Bill or Inglourious Basterds is its genre.

Texas 1858. Dentist-bounty hunter King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) frees slave Django (Jamie Foxx) and enlists him as a partner. King needs Django to identify the Brittle brothers, three slave overseers-turned-outlaws. The two quickly bond, with King agreeing to help Django track down and rescue wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Unfortunately Broomhilda now works for Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a brutal Mississippi plantation owner with a nose for intrigue.

Tarantino's nominal branching out from crime films has paid off handsomely. Audiences loved Kill Bill's blood splatter and Uma Thurman's strong performance, while Basterds won acclaim as a deconstruction of war films. Yet Groggy finds Tarantino's style extremely grating when applied to other genres. Django Unchained approaches the Western as Pulp Fiction in Stetson and chaps. (Aside from cribbing Luis Bacalov's title tune and a cutesy Franco Nero cameo, it bears no resemblance to Sergio Corbucchi's Django.)

Django Unchained is a lumpen, self-indulgent mess. Scenes go on interminably for their own sake, dissolving the expected tension and humor. You initially admire Tarantino's audacity in staging a Birth of the Nation-style Klan rally with the vigilantes complaining about ill-fitting masks. When it goes on for five minutes though the charm wears off. Every scene is like this, with Tarantino seeing no need to cut a single frame. For all the pretty scenery and loquacious persiflage there's not enough to justify the 165 minute run time.

The film's treatment of slavery raised many eyebrows. Suffice to say Tarantino dwells on its nastier side, from whippings and dog maulings to brutal slave fights. These scenes aren't played for laughs but feel jarring contrasted with Tarantino's jerky zooms, blood-gushing shootouts and jaunty hip-hop score. Django Unchained riffs on exploitation films like Mandingo and Boss Nigger, without their sleazy earnestness. Instead it plays like a really rotten joke.



In fairness, Tarantino gets some things right. Django's evolution from submissive slave to self-assured action hero is an effective character arc, making him an amiable black avenger. His buddy dynamic with King provides the film drive and focus. Tarantino sends up "scientific" racism by making Candie a phrenologist who justifies slavery by studying a Negro skull. Making Candie's house servant (Samuel L. Jackson) an even worse villain is another nice touch. These bits show the film Django Unchained could have been.

But mainly Django is just repetitive and overly familiar. Long passages merely rehash Basterds: King's verbose introduction, a "private" conversation auf Deutsch, Candie's tense dinner party, the explosive ending. Robert Richardson provides gorgeous photography but the landscapes and luscious detail don't advance the story. The last 20 minutes are completely superfluous. Tarantino throws in nifty homages to Spaghetti favorites like A Professional Gun (the bleeding carnation) and Sabata (King's derringer-rig) but they're fleeting moments.

Jamie Foxx is solid. Django's not the deepest character but Foxx has the perfect defiant swagger to pull him off. Christoph Waltz though falls too readily back on Hans Landa shtick. If Waltz has anything else in his repertoire he'd better break it out soon. At least he's less irritating than Leonardo DiCaprio, whose cartoon Southerner quickly grows annoying. Samuel L. Jackson's vicious Uncle Tom proves the most memorable character.

Tarantino provides numerous B-lister cameos. Not only Franco Nero but Bruce Dern, Don Johnson, Robert Carradine, James Remar, James Russo, M.C. Ginley and Michael Parks make brief appearances. More ill-advised are Jonah Hill as a budding Klansman and Tarantino himself, sporting the gnarliest Aussie accent this side of an Outback commercial. These walk-ons are fun but don't add up to much.

Which sums up Django Unchained perfectly. A movie with this much violence and controversial content ought to provoke some reaction. Sadly, Django Unchained is just more Tarantino silliness in a slightly different package.

None Dare Call It Eugenics

I have recently been introduced to the stories of three different people all with different issues, but all three linked by a common assault on their innate dignity by the State.

One is a girl whose children are in care.  She became addicted to heroin. Her husband, from whom she fled later, beat her up regularly. Not only were her children taken into care, but her recent child, six months ago, was taken away from her at birth to be put up for adoption. With this child she will have letter contact, though there is no guarantee the child will see her letters or reply until the age of 16 or 18. She said that social services never gave her a chance and that the court were totally dismissive of her. She desperately wanted to quit and keep her child, but the odds were stacked against her and social services offered her no support. She claimed her own legal advisers behaved like they were her enemies. She claimed they took her child as a newborn because they knew they could make more money out of a newborn.

Another, a man with mental health issues has to receive a depot injection for paranoid schizophrenia. He claims the injection, which he has to receive every few weeks, does nothing to combat the 'voices' in his head, but does successfully render him infertile. If he doesn't receive this injection, he'll be sectioned and put away for months. He's a gay man, but I assume that if he were the other way inclined or fell for a lady and got her up the duff he would have his child taken into care. I'm convinced, though I'll never know for sure, that it was all the acid and weed that he did in his youth that contributed to his schizophrenic condition today.

Another woman was told by her 'keyworker' at St Patrick's hostel that she would be 'well-advised' to receive a contraceptive implant. An alcoholic who had her two children taken away and placed into care, she was drunk at the GP surgery where she received the contraceptive implant under the influence of alcohol and now regrets the decision. I'm told she has a liberal attitude to sex and is promiscuous. If she did not have a liberal attitude to sex and alcohol, would the State be in a position to 'advise' her to accept something she doesn't want? But then, I suppose she's only doing what the society says is good - living free and for the moment.

She claims she felt like she was being "coerced" or even 'forced' into receiving the implant, which has caused her a great deal of sickness, abdominal pain and irritation, as well as vaginal bleeding. She was talking about getting it out with a knife. I told her to go see her GP. What else can you say?

It strikes me that the sexual liberation and liberal attitudes towards drugs has worked well for those who can adopt a libertine lifestyle with wealth and impunity, but not so well for those who embrace the lifestyle and who live in poverty - on the ever-scanning radar of social services and the health authorities - or even those who just want to have a family and struggle by because, let's face it, everything is in the 'best interests of the child'.

Those of us who were not born Catholic or who have been cradle Catholics and lapsed from the Church, I am sure, all have our stories about how we drifted away from the Church to adopt 'interesting' or eccentric 'lifestyles' that involved sex, drugs, rock and roll, or all three. For most of us, overcoming our vices with virtue is a daily struggle that involves a degree and likelihood of failure. It is this that enables us to be compassionate.

Habits we adopted in earlier life are harder to break with and, if you're anything like me, we need God's grace perhaps even to get out of bed in the morning. It is likely, however, that despite the personal cost and cost to others that we discovered upon welcoming vice into our lives, we never suffered or do suffer the degree of humiliation and crucifixion encountered by the very poor whose crime is to go along with the hedonistic spirit of the age adopted by the rich.

The total abandonment of objective, traditional morality, egged on by media, musicians, artists, governments and pretty much everyone but the Popes and a few more has done tremendous damage to individuals, families and society across the social spectrum.

It is, however, the poor who have suffered the most from this horrendous social experiment and who count the cost in broken hearts, dreams and families.

The universal acceptance of liberal social values and moral relativism has allowed vultures to pick at the corpses of the poor and defenseless, because it seems that nobody in society or in public life has been able to criticise the liberal agenda lest someone be offended. Political correctness has stifled all debate on morality and things once thought taboo, it has become taboo to criticise.

This week one of Brighton's homeless died from kidney failure, a girl of just 34. Pray for her. Her body gave in after years of drug abuse, rough sleeping and alcohol abuse. I've no doubt her story, her past, is a harrowing one along with that of a good friend who she leaves behind who is bereaved. Street homeless in Brighton are still shocked that a beautiful girl of 34, whose family are apparently rich, died on the streets of Brighton a beggar.

Once the poor have embraced a libertine lifestyle it makes it very easy for those working in authority to rob them of more fundamental human rights that people used to fight for and champion before the age of 'equality' really kicked in. The right to 'reproductive freedom' - the right to a family - becomes a right easily eroded when the poor are judged unfit to raise children, because of alcohol and drug abuse.

One could easily be forgiven for thinking it was in some way planned by those with a eugenic interest in manipulating society to accept all liberal values so that the same society would accept the removal of the rights of the poor. Social chaos is required - necessary in fact - in order for a new social order to emerge that relies upon constant State intervention.

Along with being a morally perverse society, we've become a totally hypocritical society at the same time. We say of this generation that it is 'anything goes', but it really isn't that. It is 'anything goes' for the rich and 'anything but' for the poor. When the poor do what the rich do, the rich are horrified and strip them of their rights, while refusing to amend their own lives. They don't dare call them sinners, lest they have to admit their own sins or that such a thing as sin exists. That would be to tear their own playhouse down!

Of course, it won't stop with the poor, but the mentally ill, the others deemed 'unfit' and presumably, if the Royal Society's Richard Dawkins and all his Royal Society mates gets his and their way, the religious types, too. That was certainly the implication of what Dawkins was saying when he said that being brought up Catholic was 'worse than child abuse'.

We talk a lot about the future and that we are concerned that the Government is becoming more atheistic and brazenly totalitarian - asserting control over institutions and words. The sad truth of the matter is that this has been the case for many years. It is only now that we feel that it could start to happen to us that we complain. That's the only time, it seems, that we become genuinely concerned. As is usually the case, the graver sin belongs to the rich because while local authorities and family courts and health authorities have been shafting the poor, I never once heard the Catholic Church in England and Wales stand up for the rights of the children of the poor robbed by the State to be placed with the rich. Perhaps now that it is the children of the Church and its families who will, in an atheistic State, perhaps in years to come be in line for forced adoption and forced contraception, the Church will call this disgusting attack on human rights the evil that it is.

Laying on a Buffett for the Brave New World

According to Buffett, women will 'save' the US economy
According to Warren Buffett, billionaire investor, unleashing the human potential of 50% of the human population - that is - women, will 'save' the US economy.

Is it just me, or are the World's billionaire investors so caught up in a World divorced from the real life of ordinary people's family lives that they really do think of people in purely economic terms?

Whatever economic benefits women have experienced from having been liberated from '200 years' of marginalisation from the workforce, there has, surely, been a social cost.

Women, having gone from a situation in which they were 'shackled' to the home, now have no choice but to work. Empowerment has become slavery, so much so that it is financially almost impossible for a woman who makes the choice to stay at home and be a full-time mother to her children. Does Mr Buffett think of the social cost in an economy that now rests in tatters unless women come to the rescue? Seemingly not! How interesting it is that women will only 'save' the US economy if they agree to becoming economic cogs in a financial machine that treats human beings as products, consumers and producers? Meanwhile, the future of the human race itself depends upon the foundation of the family.

Isn't there a kind of reverse misogyny going on here? Why should a woman be tied to a computer desk at an office, or in some other role that sees her opportunities to fulfill a perfectly natural role of motherhood severely hampered? Why should wife and husband (traditional language I know) be financially penalised for wanting to be mothers at a younger age and give up the idea of a rewarding career in the workplace in order to raise the future of humanity? Is this not, in itself, a rewarding career? A high and noble calling? No?

There is, if I may suggest, something quite disturbing about a society and a group of powerful men (and it is powerful men - not women) leading a society in which men and women are told that they are no different to each other and that they are equal - to the point that they should be treated as if they are the same. As alluring as this idea is to both modern man and modern woman, it is a total distortion of our innate human natures.

It is disturbing on the same level that men and women are told they are no different to the point that men can form unions and 'marriages' with men and women form unions and 'marriages' with women.

The message for the genders is that there is no difference between them despite the fact that men cannot give birth and women cannot impregnate women (without some assistance from men). As long as these men and these women are living in economic servitude, what does it matter that they cannot have children. Perhaps they will be able to 'buy a baby' - another product, through adoption or IVF using someone else's sperm or egg? I suppose it doesn't matter that biological parents are not known to the child because the child born into the world doesn't have true links with parents, but with the State and the financial system in the City. Everyone is born thus into servitude - not familial ties, bonds with religion or anything but the State. Didn't someone write a book along these lines?

It doesn't seem to matter to men like Buffett if there is a crisis in men, a crisis in fatherhood and that the effects upon society are so drastic, having been ravaged by assaults on the family, that little children ask Santa for a 'dad' for Christmas.

So long as men and women see themselves as economic producers then the World is a happy place - a banking utopia - despite the misery of children who grow up to be miserable adults. Recreational drugs will fill these miserable people's lives, which will be legal anyway, once they have been pumped into society so much so that the only answer seems to make it legal in order to 'reduce crime' and 'deal' with addiction in the only way possible left.

I suppose the idea of these billionaire investors is to forge ahead with a vision of society in which human dignity is all but disregarded - a new age in which all people see themselves as useful only in as much as they produce and spend for the sake of the economy and a financial system that depends upon all 'pitching in' to be stakeholders in a brave new world. I suppose that this vision of every man and woman being a worker until they're deemed useless does kind of rely upon us not breeding too much.

As harrowing and as terrible as it sounds, every unborn child now comes with a price tag attached. It is the unborn child's price tag that stops many people allowing that child to live and be welcomed into the World. Our crisis is one of economics in as much as everybody is seen in economic terms. We cannot afford children. We cannot afford the elderly's care. But Mr Buffett, on the other hand, can afford, presumably, as many children as he wants and to live to a ripe old age with the best medical treatment and care money can buy. I suppose the rest of us are just 'useless eaters'.

The price tag of the unborn child works even as a positive value, since human embryos can be sold and bought in IVF. Perhaps the dream of the architects of the brave new world is one in which human reproduction will no longer be even natural, since new technology will afford children to be genetically free from original genetic anomalies. Thus the vision of a super-race of not that many people at all is secured, a vision born in the minds of eugenically minded Nazis

Investors like Buffett are sociopaths who would never dream of this vision for their own family, since they'll never have to live it, but wish to visit it upon the rest of us because they have money and power and we do not.

How we ever got to the stage that when a rich billionaire investor speaks we listen and give him credibility is a mystery as great as that of the Incarnation, in which the Lord God Himself descended into the womb of a Virgin Mother and condescended then to be born for our salvation in a stable.

I suppose it would have been a better story - the Nativity - if after Our Lady had miraculously given birth to the Son of God, she'd taken a few months maternity leave and got back to making computers for Microsoft in a sweatshop, to place the Son of God not with St Joseph (who was out working for a multi-national carpentry company), but a childcare unit for which Our Lady had to pay with the help of some weird tax credit system set up by King Herod. Three years of Earthly Ministry walking around with His Apostles would not have fitted well into this vision that well either, since the sick, lame, lepers and crippled, as well as the poor, would have been eradicated by a society given over completely to eugenics, abortion and post-birth euthanasia.

I've no problem with calling people like Mr Buffett and his billionaire mates servants of the Antichrist. For that is what they are. We have to remember, of course, that the Lord was born for the exceedingly rich as well as the exceedingly poor, but the exceedingly rich don't have that much time, jetting around the World in their private airplanes, to worry about Almighty God being born in a manger, surrounded by farmyard animals, nourished by the breast milk of the Immaculate Virgin Mother. I mean, what's that got to do with the rising and falling of markets?

It is the rising and falling of many in Israel and across the whole World, however, the rising and falling of whole civilizations indeed, that this Child will oversee.

MSN Website: Should human beings be economic units in a machine?


Should more shops be open on Christmas Day?

  1. 11 %
    Yes
    5,685 votes
  2. 89 %
    No
    44,356 votes
Total Responses: 50,041
Not scientifically valid. Results are updated every minute.

How long before this comes true? The poll was at http://weather.uk.msn.com/

Friday, December 28, 2012

A fine excommunication!

Today is the feast of St Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Catholic, of course), who did not hesitate to penalise those who committed serious offence against Holy Mother Church.

Richard Burton made a fine Thomas Becket and his scene of excommunication is, for me, one of the highlights of the film 'Becket'



When, eventually, King Henry II uttered those immortal words about a troublesome priest he set in motion the actions that would lead to St Thomas Becket's martyrdom.

As he was hacked at by his attackers at the altar, he uttered the following sentence:-

 "Here I am ready to suffer in the name of He who redeemed me with His blood; God forbid that I should flee on account of your swords or that I should depart from righteousness."

He died at Canterbury on 29th December 1170 - St Thomas Becket, ora pro nobis!

And now......another Archbishop speaks out against the state - thank you Archbishop Vincent Nichols -
 A Reluctant Sinner has it covered.

We Don't Need UKIP


We need Solidarity.

Why? Because we're fighting an atheistic communist Government. Not merely our own but a European one and then a global one.

Form cells, meeting groups - across the country.

Get all the Catholics you know, especially the Polish ones, those who still have memory of fighting communism as well as people of good will and start meetings with the express agenda of bringing down the Government and restoring democracy, by peaceful means and by activism and prayer.

There is a massive polish community in this country. We need them to understand that what is going on here is the extension of an evil empire we thought was vanquished, not the liberation of 'gays' and 'lesbians'.

Educate everyone you meet about the reality of what is going on here as much as you can.

Form under the banner of the Cross and of Our Lady.

A blanket of communism is falling across the whole world. The destruction of the definition of marriage is the latest, and will not be the last example of this. After 'same-sex marriage' it will get worse, not better.

Pray and fight under the mantle of Our Lady. Take as intercessors those who have died at the hands of totalitarian regimes in the last century. They haven't been raised to the altar to be just admired.

God and Our Lady will complete what we begin.

What will the New Year bring for two Glasgow midwives?

Connie Wood and Mary Doogan are the two senior midwives at the centre of the dispute as to whether Catholic or other Christian denomination nurses or midwives should be forced, by law, to assist in abortion procedures.

          The role of a midwife is to ensure the safe delivery of a baby - not to destroy life in the womb

In February 2012, (see here) the legal judgement was that they must oversee abortions carried out by other midwives  on their labour ward and now, in January 2013, they will be appealing against this ruling.

SPUC has  fought their case through the courts but that comes at a high cost and more financial aid is vital to speed the process.

If you would like to support this cause click on the link HERE for details

You could also help by spreading this information and linking to SPUC on your own blog and/or, most importantly, by praying for success

With death comes absolution



Turning to my missal for today's Feast of The Holy Innocents I noticed, in the prologue, two things that had, either through ignorance or familiarity, passed me by in the past.

The first thing is that the "Innocents" are given the status of martyrs.

Why? They were not Christians in the sense that we speak of being Christian today.

But they died in the name of Christ; it may have been involuntary as far as they were concerned but the fact remains nonetheless.

The second thing to strike me was the fact that the Collect for the day makes note of the fact that "the Innocents, by dying confess".

In other words, the blood of their martyrdom washes away the stain of Original Sin.   

Is it then, just pushing the limits of what is meant by"martyrdom" too far to attribute the same absolution for those infants who, today, are murdered in their mothers' womb?

They, too are "innocent" and many of them die, if not on Christ's behalf, then certainly in involuntary support of Catholic doctrine, the teachings of Christ and the revelations of the Almighty.

Vox in Rama audita est, ploratus et ululatus:
Rachel plorans filios suos, et noluit consolari,
quia non sunt

A voice in Rama was heard,
lamentation and great mourning:
Rachel bewailing her children,
and would not be comforted, because they are not

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Lose weight with a Catholic diet

The aftermath of Christmas festivities means, inevitably, the usual round of diet fads designed to remove the excesses of too much food and drink.

I have come across a diet that appears eminently sensible and feasible; I have not tried it (I need to) but the author is a good friend and has a background both as a family GP and a researcher into all matters concerned with health.

                             Fast and do penance - and lose weight!

Dr Caroline Shreeve is a lover of the Latin Tridentine Mass and she resides in Wales, not far from me.

Her book is based on a 14 day diet plan that can shed up to 19lbs in the same period - yikes!

What is more, she claims that, on her FBF (Fat Burner Foods) diet you will not feel the pangs of hunger - double yikes!

On the down side you must forgo alcohol (well, what did you expect?) and you must stick to the plan.

Caroline's premise (in one brief sentence) is that some foods actually burn off more calories than they contain.
A portion of Brussels Sprouts, for example, contains, say 50 calories but the body utilises 75 calories purely in the digestion process, some 25 calories are, therefore, effectively "burnt off"

That is a crude example and one would not wish to make sprouts the basis of a daily menu ( look what happened to Richard Dawkins) but Caroline has researched and tested this diet over quite a few years.

Of course, weight loss is also aided by physical exercise or, even, breathing exercises. I would not like to give the impression that it is all down to food type intake.

I suspect that, if the great and the famous came across this diet, Dr Shreeve would rapidly become the food guru of 2013 - meanwhile, if you would like a copy of her book it is available on Amazon (at a very modest price).

Christmas is just a myth

The first time this sentence was uttered in my presence I felt a few shockwaves flow through my body.
I have heard it several times since and it still tends to rock me back on my heels somewhat.

There is, it appears, a sizeable proportion of the population (certainly of the British Isles) who regard the birth of Jesus Christ as pure fantasy; it didn't happen, after all it was 2,000 years ago, where's the proof?

These same folk often have a keen interest in things historical, ancient even .

Egyptology, Paleantology, you name it, they like it, in fact, they appear to be fans of quite a lot of ologies.
Most of these interests pre date the birth of Christ by a couple of thousand years at least.

So, where's the proof that Tutankhamun existed?  How do we know that Sabre toothed tigers once prowled around Westminster Cathedral? And where's the evidence that early man fashioned tools and weapons out of stone?


Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Best & Worst Books Read in 2012

This year Groggy looks at his best and worst 2012 reads. Usually I post these lists on Facebook, since this is after all a film blog. But glitches in Facebook's Note system deleted at least one of my previous lists, so this seemed a safer alternative.

Despite having a full-time job (and hence next to nil free time) I still managed over 100 books this year. Sure, many of them were re-reads, which is why you won't see any Flashman books on this list. And yeah, a handful of Goosebumps books pad out the list. So it's not like I'm reading Crime & Punishment 100 times. Still it's enough for a list.

Anyway, without further adieu:

Best Ten Books Read in 2012:

Groggy reads 99% percent history and other nonfiction these days. Back in college of course there was more time and hence more variety of subjects; now I have to be pickier. Nonetheless, even within this narrow confine I found a lot of worthwhile books this year, a few classics and a few recent volumes.

10. Gertrude Bell: Queen of the Desert, Shaper of Nations - Georgina Howell
Gertrude Bell is a truly remarkable woman: Alpine adventurer, explorer, archaeologist, Arabist, intelligence operative, Middle East Kingmaker. Howell's sprawling biography does her justice. The book explores Bell's myriad talents, unique, vivacious personality, her personal frustrations and public achievements. Its main success, perhaps, comes in illumniating an incredible personage shamefully overlooked.

9. Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century - Mark Mazower

 
Mazower's provocative book eschews traditional 20th Century narratives for barbed analysis of European politics. His sociopolitical dissection points up uncomfortable facts: the differences between Nazism and "old right" Fascism, appeal of totalitarian movements to interwar Europeans, Stalin's remarkable economic achievements coupled with political oppression, Thatcherism's inherent unworkability, the USSR as Europe's last traditional empire. Mazower's chapters on Nazi imperialism and internationalist idealism presage more recent volumes. The European Union has proven more successful than Mazower suggests, but the book remains a remarkable volume.

8. Bloom County: The Complete Collection, Vols. 1-2 - Berke Breathed
Berkeley Breathed's brilliant '80s satirical comic strip, part Doonesbury and part Calvin & Hobbes, now comes in beautifully-packaged compilations, complete with Breathed's commentary. True, many jokes are very dated: who remembers James Watt or Joan Jett? But Breathed's playful art, lovable characters and colorful sense of humor remain timeless.

7. The White Nile - Alan Moorehead
Aussie author Moorehead was a brilliant narrative historian, mixing colorful prose with a warm human touch. Moorehead chronicles European exploration and exploitation of the Nile, the 19th Century's greatest frontier. His subjects are a diverse lot: the contentious Richard Burton and John Hanning Speke, the glamorous adventure couple Stanley and Florence Baker, Henry Stanley and Dr. Livingstone, the messianic Mahdi, the enigmatic Gordon of Khartoum. Moorehead ties them splendidly together, crafting a vivid, compulsively readable epic. His complementary volume The Blue Nile is a bit sloppier but also highly recommended.

6. A Line in the Sand: The Anglo-French Struggle for the Middle East, 1914-1948 - James Barr
Much has been written about Britain and France's conniving to divide the post-WWI Middle East. Less often told is the resultant imperial rivalry. In this fascinating chronicle, Barr analyzes the fissures in the Anglo-French alliance, as the two powers jealously jockeyed for power, influence and oil. Both powers used regional nationalism, be they post-war Arab movements or the rising tide of Zionism, to undermine each other, with disastrous results. Barr's account is lucid, eye-opening and compellingly written.

5. The October Country - Ray Bradbury
The literary world lost a giant with the passing of Ray Bradbury. This story collection is one of his best, here leaning towards overt horror. Some of Bradbury's scariest stories are here: the killer baby of "The Small Assassin," the pitiless fate of "The Scythe," the shocking image which concludes "Skeleton." For Bradbury fans whose tastes skew darker, this is invaluable.

4. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery - Eric Foner
Foner delivers an invaluable account of Abraham Lincoln's views on race. In Foner's view, Lincoln underwent a painful personal evolution, from a "moderate" Whig accepting white supremacy while restricting slavery's spread, to an abolitionist advocating resettlement of freed blacks, to a full-throated advocate for equality. Honest Abe comes off as extremely flawed but admirable, seeking to sublimate his prejudices to the greater good. Foner treats Lincoln with admirable delicacy, avoiding modern value judgments to show a statesman both very much of his time, yet undeniably revolutionary.

3. The Siege: The Full Horrifying Account of the Kut Disaster - Russell Braddon
Braddon's account of the Siege of Kut bests even Woodham-Smith's The Reason Why as a study in military failure. Braddon seethes with anger at this masterpiece of mismanagement, when arrogant British generals sent 6th Division to do an army's job, underestimating logistics and numerically-superior Turkish opponents. At book's center is Charles Townshend, a self-proclaimed genius who launched a disastrous campaign against impossible odds, trapped his division in a disease-ridden village, panicked his superiors into ill-advised rescue attempts and enjoyed a cushy captivity while his men endured forced labor. True, it's not objective: Braddon makes his contempt for Townshend plain, and his own POW experiences color his empathy for the soldiers' plight. Faced with a craven villain like Townshend though, who could blame him?

2. The Destruction of Lord Raglan: A Tragedy of the Crimean War, 1854-1855 - Christopher Hibbert


For readers unwilling to slog through Kinglake's nine-volume history, this is the best popular account of the Crimean War. Hibbert gives a brilliant grunt's-eye view of the conflict, mixing blow-by-blow battle accounts with the terrifying monotony of life in the trenches. His main point, that Lord Raglan's been unfairly smeared from 1855 onwards, is highly debatable; Raglan still comes off as a decent man with no business leading an army. Contextualizing his performance amidst bureaucratic muddle, poor weather and a military completely unprepared for a major war makes it more understandable, and Raglan himself sympathetic.

1. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 - Gordon S. Wood
Wood's entry in the Oxford History of the United States never fails to impress. It's a truly remarkable tome, overwhelming the reader in its sheer breadth and depth. Wood touches on every conceivable topic - the rise of evangelical religion, women and minority roles, attitudes on slavery, the contrast between America's high ideas and low culture - with skill and sensitivity. He couples these microhistories with shrewd analyses of the Federalist-Republican split, Hamilton's financial system, the Revolution's international impact and the Republic's hesitant early foreign policy. A masterpiece.

Honorable mentions: Glory Road (Catton), The Arab Awakening (Antonius), Quartered Safe out Here (Fraser), (Kabaservice), The Great Anglo-Boer War (Farwell), Founding Brothers (Ellis), The Fierce Pawns (Macrory), Rule & Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party (Kabaservice)

Worst Ten Books Read in 2012:

I also found time for some truly wretched works. Their sins range from sublimating history to a political agenda, to tackling an impossible subject, to intellectual laziness and sloppy construction, to just plain bad writing. And yes, there's an R.L. Stine book included.


10. Chitral Charlie: The Rise and Fall of Major General Charles Townshend - N.S. Nash


This biography sets about the thankless task of rehabilitating Townshend, the antagonist of Kut. Soldier-turned-journalist Nash tries his hardest to be fair, approaching his subject with brusque humor and inside knowledge of armed forces social climbing. For all Nash's pleading, Townshend still comes off as an arrogant twit who needlessly sacrificed his men in pursuit of selfish glory. Not a bad book, just a fatally misguided one.

9. The Crimean War: A Reappraisal - Philip Warner 


After reading some really great Crimean War histories this year - not only Hibbert but Orlando Figes' The Crimean War - it was inevitable I'd find a bad one. Warner presents interesting arguments that our understanding of the Crimea is flawed, and that it was really a success and credit to the Anglo-French-Turkish alliance. Unfortunately they're couched in a dull, dry, meandering book that becomes too saturated in details to see the big picture. When a 200 page book takes four months to read, it probably hasn't succeeded.

8. Three Empires on the Nile: The Victorian Jihad, 1869-1899 - Dominic Green
One of the pitfalls of narrative history is it forsakes analysis for storytelling. Woe then to the historian who can't tell a story. Green ties together several related topics - the collapse of Khedivist Egypt, Urabi Pasha's nationalist coup d'etat, the Mahdist Wars. Unfortunately he presents each story in spectacularly superficial and uninteresting fashion, providing zero insight into this epochal clash of imperialism, Islamism and nationalism. Attempts to equate the Mahdists with al-Qaeda do its author no credit, either. With so much ink spilled over the Mahdi already you're well-advised skipping this one.

7. Military Blunders: The How and Why of Military Failure - Saul David
There are some things you don't expect from a book written in 1997 and reprinted in 2012. For instance, the author referring to Russians as "Asiatics of low intelligence." Or repeating the canard that Singapore fell to Japanese troops because all its guns faced the sea. Or confusing Matthew Ridgeway with Maxwell Taylor. Even the accurate bits are just regurgitation of Geoffrey Regan's work - pretty damning in and of itself, considering Regan's been recycling himself for years. A shame as I enjoyed David's biography of Lord Cardigan.

6. Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East - Karl E. Meyer & Shareen Blair Brysac
Ostensibly a look at how British and American policymakers shaped the last 150 years of Middle Eastern politics. In reality it's a scatter-shot, meandering collection of biographical essays, some scarcely connected to the topic. Fiona Shaw and Lord Lugard are interesting figures but how on Earth do they relate? Last time I checked South Africa wasn't part of the Middle East. A longish chapter on the CIA in Beirut rambles without divulging any points-of-interest. Chapters on T.E. Lawrence, Gertrude Bell and Paul Wolfowitz border on superficial. The book's only interesting in the margins, and the margins aren't worth it when most of these figures have biographies of their own.

5. Planet of the Lawn Gnomes - R.L. Stine
Picking on Goosebumps books, especially the new Horrorland series, is like shooting fish in a barrel. But childhood nostalgia compels me to read them, so here we are. Glance at the title and spend about 30 seconds shaping a story around it. You've given it more thought than R.L. Stine did.

4. The Meinertzhagen Mystery: The Life and Legend of a Colossal Fraud - Brian Garfield
Novelist Garfield vindictively destroys Richard Meinertzhagen, one of England's most eccentric heroes of the 20th Century. He's admittedly convincing in spots, deflating some of Meinerzhagen's more egregious anecdotes (the "Heil Meinertzhagen" silliness) and showing him an ornithological fraud (an argument made before). But Garfield goes beyond into extreme nuttiness, for instance hinting with Glenn Beck-ish "just asking questions" delicacy that Meinertzhagen murdered his wife. It's a tiresome screed, bloody-minded in its willingness to promote any nonsense that reflects negatively on its subject.

3. American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us - Jesse Ventura
This semi-literate rant, courtesy of America's favorite wrestler-turned-politician, is more funny than offensive. While reading, I couldn't help remembering Ventura's appearance as a Man in Black (with Alex Trebek!) on The X-Files. "Mr. Ventura, your scientific illiteracy makes me SHUDDER!"

2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire - H.W. Crocker III
The PIG Guides never cease to amaze with their vacuous demagoguery. Groggy readers know I'm an unrepentant Anglophile, but even I blanch at Crocker's high Victorian jingoism. Given the plethora of recent pro-empire books by Niall Ferguson, Lawrence James and Saul David its premise of an intellectual conspiracy to slander Britain is dubious to begin with. But Crocker's reactionary racial and political attitudes - calling the Irish "shiftless, ignorant, stubborn, contumacious and cruel," deeming the Maori genocides "fun with muskets," claiming the Opium Wars a "defense of free trade" - are shocking in a book published last year. All wrapped in a smug, self-satisfyingly contrarian attitude that reflexively deems dissenters part of a liberal-Marxist-Muslim conspiracy to hide the truth. Charming.

1. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War - Thomas DiLorenzo
This mendacious piece of garbage makes the PIG Guide look like Sir John Fortescue. Not only does it slander America's greatest President to promote an extremist neo-libertarian agenda; that would be obnoxious enough. But it's painfully obvious that DiLorenzo is a hack who can't even keep his propaganda straight. He arrogates states the right to secede and repudiate the Constitution, then chastises Lincoln for claiming seceded states outside Constitutional protection. He claims that Lincoln ignored chances for "peaceful abolition" when the South rejected precisely that. Or selective facts: He cites Andrew Jackson as a guru of small government, ignoring how Jackson overrode the Supreme Court re: expelling the Five Civilized Tribes, or his decidedly Unionist reaction to the Nullification Crisis. Or brazen lies, like saying the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave. Or paranoid rants about the "Marxist" Lincoln cult. The result? A book that commits every conceivable sin: it's poorly argued, ideologically slanted, inaccurate and painfully unreadable.

An equivalent film-related list will come in the next week. There are still some year-end theatrical releases to catch so stay tuned!