Bleeding Edge

EMPIRES OF THE MIND 

Empires of the mind are those cultural ideas the live inside the minds of humans. They are the Empires that are made not of brick and mortar, but of the far stronger world of Ideas and Principled Beliefs. Empires of the mind multiply and spread as they go from one host to another as they are communicated and migrating from the brain of one person to another using the modern communications networks like the civilizing influence of modern Internet, ideas like Democracy and the networks that seek to spread that one, and the ‘Telecoms Convergence’ and ‘Communications Revolution’ of the various Social Media, that has allowed our world to shrink to the basic ‘Symmetry and Size’ of the ‘Global Brain’ operating with about the same number of synapses and nodes of communication… as a human brain does.

 

 

Empires of the Mind, are very much like Brain Software, as another one of my books explains. There is good software and bad software. As there are good ideas and bad ideas. The good empires of the mind are the ones based on good ideas like Christianity, the Power of Reason, Analytical thinking, Justice, Democracy, and Liberty. And the bad empires of the mind are those that despise slavery, killing, despotism, slavery, savagery, injustice, hate, and destruction of the individual, like Islam demands of it’s adherents and followers. ISIS is an emanation of the Evil Empires of the Mind, much like Islam finds it’s success by spreading from the brain of one host to another, always weakening the mental capacity of the host and often times directing them to kill themselves, just os they can spread this evil virus. That explains the Islamic terrorists, committing suicide by exploding themselves up, hoping to spread their virulent form of hateful ideology to many other disillusioned youths by example. And that’s how you build an evil empire of the mind.

Yet originally the definition of ‘Empires of the Mind’ was defined by none other than Winston Churchill, who clearly stated that the future empires will be the only Empires of the Mind. And we see plenty of evidence of that today, regardless of when we speak of ‘Western Civilization’ or of the ‘American Dream’ or of NATO, or speaking of Chinese Soft Power, and alas when we speak of ISIS, this veritable Empire of the Mind Caliphate without geographical borders and without any of the traditional vestiges of the Empire, but with terrible presence inside more than 92 countries already.

 

 

 

 

But we digress… and we need to go back to our timeline as guided by the times and life of Winston getting into his maturity…

‘Res ipsa loquitur’ is all the Latin language skill young pupil Winston Churchill ever needed, or bothered to learn, and actually memorize. This is only significant because he used this phrase as ‘this thing that actually speaks for itself’ often enough, after having given up on speaking to the ‘Mensa’ from his early Harrow schooling days….

Indeed now that he had found his “metier” in studying the things that he liked to do with his Life; and specifically the skills of Leadership & Statesmanship — Winston Churchill thrived. He not only thrived but he started the practice of really immersing himself in all the things he was exposed to amidst the Military Arts, because he loved the method of teaching at Sandhurst, the disciplined approach to battle strategy learning, the constant regimental exercises, and the fighting & sporting equestrian lifestyle of the Royal Military Academy of Sandhurst where he was learning how to be a Cavalry officer and a soldier of the Empire.

Indeed ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ he always thereafter translated for his listeners, means “the thing speaks for itself” and that explains the sea change that came upon Winston Churchill and turned him from an indifferent devious young cad, to a real student, and a smart bright young officer cadet. ‘Res ipsa loquitur’ otherwise known in strong & simple Anglosaxon language, as ‘the proof is in the pudding.’

For the first time he stopped joking, or simply horsing-around, and instead started studying in earnest. He simply did this, because at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst the lessons started and ended with the things he loved: Strategy & Tactics. And thereafter his learning simply consisted of Strategic Thinking, Tactical warfare, Preparations for battle, Operations, Logistics, Positioning, Fortification, Topography, Battle plans, and Military Law.

Notably, Winston learned how to lead men into war, how to fight on horseback, how to mount campaigns, and he also learned how to blow up bridges, and overcome breastworks. Yet he also constructed masonry fortifications, that in turn he was able to destroy with mobile field artillery, and he also learned how to make road reconnaissances, and how to work out all of his battle plans on actual topographically correct, contoured maps.

Here is where he came to study the Art of War, and Leadership of men. And this he accomplished rather well.

Yet, he also learned so much more…

 

 

 

 

Churchill, loved the subject of his study to bits, and indeed the wars he loved to study, were not only the ancient Greek-Persian wars, and specifically the battle of the 300 at Thermopylae, or the battle of Marathon, and that defining battle for Western Civilization, the Battle of Salamis — but also the most modern battles of his time, such as the American wars of independence and beyond.

Of course Winston Churchill loved the study of the ancient Peloponnesian Wars, and he also studied carefully the Roman wars of Julius Caesar, but he loved the study of the American battles because he saw the Americans as innovators and kindred folk of his Mother.

He spent a lot of time studying the more recent battles of the European Wars, including the battle of Blenheim and the two pivotal battles of Poitiers. Winston Churchill first developed his distrust towards Islam, after studying the first Battle of Poitiers, of 732 AD now known alternatively as the first battle of Poitiers, or the Battle of Tours, to distinguish it from the second battle of Poitiers that happened some 600 years later. The Battle of Tours followed two decades of Militant Islamic Jihad summed up as the “Umayyad” conquests in Europe which had begun with the invasion of the Visigothic Christian Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula in 711 AD and the bypassing and displacement of the Eastern Roman Empire centered in Constantinople and renamed as the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium, with it’s Greek language, leadership, and Christian religion, of a strong humanistic and humanitarian custom.

The battle of Poitiers represents the end of the original militant muslim jihadist conquest of Europe, that had started by Islamic settlers, traders, and refugees; when all these were followed by raids and full fledged military expeditions into the heart of Europe as far North as Bordeaux, Paris, Tours, and all the Frankish territories of then Gaul. Gaul or ‘Gallia’ being today’s France and large parts of Germany – at the time were all provinces of the Holy Roman Empire and were fully Christianized. The area that was Gaul extended far, into what are the modern neighboring countries of France. Generally, Gaul is considered the home, from about the eighth century B.C., of ancient Celts who spoke a Gallic language. People known as Ligurians had lived there before the Celts migrated from eastern Europe. Some areas of Gaul had been colonized by the Greeks, especially Nikea modern Nice, Massilia modern Marseilles, and Paris.

This is what the Muslim Umayyad military campaigns wanted to conquer in order to occupy the great European cities and their centers of learning, their wealthy monasteries serving as the first Universities, like ‘Le Sorbonne’ in Paris, the fertile lands, and to also gain the productive agricultural regions and populate them with their People who were pushed due North because of another spell of dry weather and food scarcity in the Northern African and the Middle Eastern lands. The Muslim plan for Europe was to swiftly change the religion and the culture of Europe, in order to build the Great Islamic Caliphate of Europe and Maghreb, and rule it in dynastic succession through the particularly strong method of nepotism and corruption that is so much part of that failed Muslim culture.

Yet, like many other Conquerors of ancient Europe through the Ages — the Muslim Arabs and the Saracens under the control of the Umayyad Caliphs, sought to unify all of Europe using their sharp Damascene curved swords, and the banners of their cultish religion.  And they nearly succeeded, because they came uncomfortably close to bringing all of us, under their foot as they sought to conquer all of the European petty bickering kingdoms, And that is why they mounted their most vicious war of conquest against the Frankish Kings, dukes, and princes, because they were all vastly divided and hating each other.  If this reminds you of anything going on today — holler. Indeed, more heads of nobles, royals, dukes, priests, bishops, and other leading Europeans — rolled away from their bodies, and off their shoulders, serrated by Arab swords — at this time. Far more people lost their heads under the Arab European conquest, than at any other time in history. That must be a nice reminder of the civilizing influence of Islam being the ‘Religion of Peace’ all the cunning Muslim liars keep telling the silly people who still believe them today, and who admit them into their homes unwittingly…

 

 

 

 

Decapitating the heads of the population was the ‘Modus Operandi’ of the Muslim invaders, because they knew that this was indeed the easiest way to turn the people into sheep and rule them forever. Stalin learned this nifty trick from the Muslim invaders of Europe and used it, in order to kill-off all the Polish leadership from his half of the country, by machine gunning them when he moved them as prisoners in the forests of Katyn. This is what this Asiatic communist monster did, when he overrun Poland after the secret agreement between Hitler and himself, to divide her ‘flesh’ amongst them, like a couple of hyenas splitting up a corpse. This was the barbarity that he learned from the Muslim conquerors and Stalin thought it wise to emulate and apply on the innocent peaceful and vanquished Poles. And this is what started the Second World War, more than anything else.

The vast cultural divide between the Monsters and the Innocents is insurmountable, same as it is between Western Civilization and the Communism and Islam, as the looming barbarism of the East. Talk about an Empire of the Mind… fighting another evil empire of the mind.

But don’t despair. There are still people practicing this form of mayhem and decapitation today. And some of them do this in a metaphorical sense — yet very much like some modern era conquerors who seek to turn people into ‘sheeple’ in order to enslave them and rule over them. It is here that you should feel free to fill in the gaps with your favorite culprits, like the Globalists, the Communists, the Socialists, or the Democrats of the DNC today.

Yet back to the Muslim Conquest of Europe — the scale of decapitations of clueless and innocent Europeans, by the Ummayyad Muslims, who were vicious, murderous, and quite numerous, remains unparalleled in human history. And they of course, were quite successful in their campaign of terror. Much like ISIS is today. An Empire of the Mind, starts by controlling the minds of the people and focusing them upon that thing they want you to focus on. Namely Fear and Obedience. That is how the Muslims pushed northward into the heart of France then and that is how they do it today. Back then, the Umayyad controlled large parts of Gaul, the Aquitaine, Burgundy, and even Normandy; through rapid raids, and pirate sorties, that they advanced in order to soften-up their targets, and then they followed  with major military engagements that led to the sieges of fortified cities, and invariably engaged in massive decapitations, mass rape, mass looting, bloody mayhem, and complete sacking of the wealthy upland cities falling in their hands. And fall they did. Strongly fortified cities, like the richest city of France — Bordeaux, capitulated and had the whole lot of their population decapitated, slaughtered, and murdered. And the Muslims left a few survivors, so they can tell the horrible story to others, so that the rest of the Cities will not resist their terrible fate, and thus willingly open their gates, in order to be sacked, and their citizens become enslaved, abused, raped, mauled, and sold off into the slave trade, or exploited as slaves without rights, forever. This was their ‘Modus Operandi’ because the Muslims, then as they are now — were engaged in a vast Terror campaign in order to first enslave the Minds and the Hearts of the population, before they took over their homes and their hearths. And this pattern of rapid conquest, served them well for a few hundred years, until the people cottoned on to that reality, and woke up to fight. This is what happened in Gaul back then when the Muslims, started a full scale raid on Autun. By now the Muslim armies, were vying to conquer the rest of France, and Europe, as they had met only limited resistance from the divided Franks. It was a rather dicey situation and the Muslims took complete advantage of that.

In retrospect we recognize, that should they had succeeded in completing their conquest of Gaul, then, there would be nothing to stop them from crossing the channel and invade England in order to conquer London itself, another wealthy city of the time, that they had set their sights upon. The Muslim armies, were also known to target Germanic, because they had with them good river fording engineers among their military personnel, in order to be able to rapidly construct wooden bridges on barges, that would allow them to ford and cross the rivers Elbe and the Rhine, and thus conquer the Germanic Saxon Christian lands as well. All in order to fulfill their ancient aim of a global Umma of religious Islam, where the whole world would live under strict Islamic Sharia law in blind obedience to a Muslim Theocratic leader. That is what they had in mind, based on the maps they left behind, when their camp, their Caliph’s tent, and their baggage train, were all overrun by the Christian cavalry, at the battle of Poitiers, and that is why the name of their dynasty is Ummayad. Because ‘Umma’ means the whole lot of the community of Muslims. All the faithful, as compared to the Infidels, and as bound together by their ties to this servile cult that is their form of religion, and as distinguished by the infidels. Indeed the distinction between the Muslims and the infidels is so strong in the description of Umma,  and their faith — that the good Muslim, have the duty to terrorize, decapitate, enslave, and eventually convert all the infidels to their own faith. That is what makes Islam dangerous, and that is why in this case ‘Yad’ means the ‘hand’ and that is why, when put together the word ‘UmmaYad’ means the ‘hand of Umma.’ This was also the nom-de-guerre of one of Muhammed soldiers, and thus the members of the Muslim dynasty that ruled the whole of the Islamic world as Caliphs, from 661 AD to 750 AD, and thereafter ruled the European Caliphate through Moorish Spain and the Maghreb, from 756 AD to 1031 AD. This virulent Muslim dynasty alternatively also claimed descent from Umayya, a distant relative and soldier of Muhammad.

The decimated Christians of Europe understood that the Muslims, had to be stopped, before they completed their conquest of Gaul, because otherwise — if they were allowed to do that, then the last remaining Christian kingdom would have been Byzantium. And as we all know, that would have been overrun quickly, when surrounded by the Muslims — as indeed it happened some 700 years later. That was when the Ottomans were laying siege on Vienna itself, on their Second European War of Conquest — this time having come streaming into Europe, through the conquered Balkans. Does this remind anyone of the Muslim hordes streaming into Europe by the Millions between the years 2010 and today?

And could that be the Empire of the Mind that the modern version of the European Caliphate seeks to create in line with ISIS, and the Wahhabi cult of Islam?  Here is why the significance of the battle of Poitiers cannot be overestimated; and as Edward Gibbon the historian that Churchill loved above all others, clearly stated, about what is at stake from this battle: “A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Muslim Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland, because the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile, or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the river Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur’an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed.” Certainly, the Islamic invasions were an enormous danger to Christianity and Western Civilization and Culture, during the window of 721 AD from Toulouse to 737 AD, and the Arab defeat at Narbonne. But the window was closing fast, because the unified Caliphate collapsed into civil war in 750 AD at the Battle of the Zab, which left the Umayyad dynasty literally wiped out except for the Princes who escaped to Africa, and then Iberia, where they established the Umayyad Emirate, in opposition to the Abbasid Caliphate leading the Muslims and all the ‘faithful’ from Baghdad in today’s Iraq.

In short, we dodged a right bullet here…

 

 

 

 

The Battle of Poitiers, also called the Battle of Tours took place on the 10th of October 732 AD. The same battle was called “The Battle of the Palace of the Martyrs” (Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء‎, Ma’arakat Balāṭ ash-Shuhadā’‎), by the losing Arabs, because they lost so many warriors that they had to glorify them and memorialize them if they had any hope of further recruitment. Because indeed the vast majority of the Arab cavalry fighters were killed along with the head of their Caliphate, the Emir-King Abdul Rahman Al Gafiqi. This is why they were called “Martyrs” by the losing side. Overall, the battle was fought between the Frankish and Burgundian forces arrayed under Charles Martel, and positioned against a great army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by the Emir ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi’ governor-general, of the ‘Al Andalus,’ the Iberian Muslim Arabic kingdom of the Maghreb. The battle of Poitiers was fought in the heart of the French soil, in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, in northern France, near the village of “Moussais-la-Bataille” resting about 20 kilometres northeast of today’s Poitiers. The location of the battle was close to the border between the then Frankish realm and the then independent Aquitaine. The battle turned and the warring Franks were victorious. ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi’ the Islamic king was slayed, as were most of his fighters. Thereafter the victorious King Charles continued to advance and thus extended his authority in the South, all the way into the weakened parts of the Al Andalus Iberian stronghold…

 

 

 

 

Contemporary chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martel, as in the latin ‘Martellus’ meaning ‘The Hammer.’ The later historical chroniclers along with the pre-20th century historians also praised Charles Martel, as the great champion of Christianity, because they characterized this battle of Tours (or Poitiers), as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam in Europe. And indeed they were correct because in hindsight, a struggle which managed to allow the space for the further development of the Empire of the Mind that is the Western Civilization of today, and it also allowed and preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe and the Western World. According to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, “most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Edward Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe.” Leopold von Ranke felt that “Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world.”

There is little dispute that the battle helped lay the foundations of the Carolingian Empire and Frankish domination of Europe for the next centuries. Still most historians agree that “the establishment of Christian Frankish power in western Europe, shaped that continent’s destiny and the Battle of Tours (or Poitiers) in 732 AD, confirmed that power.” Yet it was this pivotal moment when Charles’s victory against the Muslims came and this is what is widely believed to have fully stopped the northward advance of the Muslim Jihadist Umayyad forces streaming out from the conquered and therefore Islamic Iberian Peninsula, and thus we have managed to preserve Christianity in Europe during a period when the virulent and vigorous Muslim tide was overrunning all the remaining vestiges of the old Greco-Roman, the Byzantine, and the Persian Empires.

 

 

 

 

The two vastly different armies; represented by the vast armada of the darkly attired Muslims, on one side, and the luminously dressed and boldly white clothed Christians on the other side, met at the intersection where the rivers Clain and Vienne join-up, between the ancient cities of Tours and Poitiers. The exact number of troops in each army is not precisely known, but as the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, a Latin contemporary source which describes the battle in greater detail than any other Latin or Arabic source, states: “The people of Austrasia [the Frankish European forces], fought against a Muslim force far greater in number of soldiers and cavalry and formidably armed, yet the Europeans quickly killed the Muslim king “Abd ar-Rahman” and turned the battle in their favor. This pivotal military anomaly, in the turning of a battle by decapitating it’s leadership, agrees with the many Arab and Muslim historians, virtually all of which estimate the Europeans with only 30,000 men at arms, being woefully inadequate in force numbering far less than half and maybe about a quarter of the Muslim military force. Yet the Christian Frankish and allied forces, were led well by King Charles, and by being disciplined, and well organized managed to withstand the cavalry charges of the Muslim cavalry and footmen, and then turned the numerical superiority of the enemy into a disadvantage by swinging their wings in a turning battle that led to the defeat of the far greater number of crowded Islamic Jihadist forces. The Europeans by closing in their wings, boxed-in the enemy’s cavalry and slaughtered them all along with their King, putting to end this battle in such a terminal way, as to have the Muslims  completely rooted, annihilated, and overrun. It is significant to mention that the Europeans rejoiced at this Victory, after so many years having suffered a series of humiliating defeats amidst the constant onslaught of the tide from the Muslim & Arab Jihadists who enslaved and put to sword all of the territories that their contemporary European sovereigns had lost over the last few decades. Now after the battle of Poitiers the Frankish King and the Europeans finally got their revenge once and for all…

Charles, the Christian leader was merciful and magnanimous, yet his armies could not be restrained and upon Victory continued the slaughter indiscriminately until they were restrained by Charles Martel, after the battlefield had become muddy from the spilled blood of human and horse. Such is the severity of war that no quarter was given in this battle of Civilization, that to this day is remembered as the greatest battle of Christendom.

With the victory at Poitiers, the Europeans were finally stemming their territorial losses and thus managed to finally put an end to the Arab conquest, and the Islamization of Europe, in such a defining way, that the Battle of Poitiers is considered the defining “Full Stop” of the Muslim Jihadist Arab Army’s expansionary European conquest. The generalized bloodshed was such that the Muslim historians call this the “The battle of the Place of Martyrs” because of the large number of Muslim warriors that were put to the sword, and that is where the beginning of the modern myth of the Muslim “Martyrs” receiving 72 virgins and giant plates of rice-pilaf, really got started. After this total rooting of the Islamic forces in Europe — the recruitment drive of the Muslim jihad had to rekindle itself and they came up with this piece of malarkey, promising the jihadists a Paradise that is similar to the Earthly delights they hoped to get through the conquest and enslavement of all the European people.
Good thing it turned pear-shaped for them, and all the Muslim fighters at Poitiers were displaced to Hell or whatever place is reserved in the afterlife, for all those seeking to terrorize, decapitate, and enslave free people all over this good God’s Green Earth.

 

 

 

 

And here is how the Vatican Latin library recalls the Battle of Poitiers and that is how Winston Churchill had studied the :battle in his time as well, always form the best original sources as masticated by Historians like Gibbon and other notables.

“BATTLE OF TOURS (732 A.D.)

The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 10, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and a massive invading Islamic army led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, near the city of Tours, France. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. This battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula, and is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it halted the Islamic conquests, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith in Europe, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires.

Combatants

Franks, led by Charles Martel. Estimates of the Frankish army defending Gaul vary, but by most accounts were between 15,000 and 75,000. Losses according to St. Denis were about 1,500.

Muslims, between 60,000 and 400,000 cavalry, (most likely closer to the lower number) under Abd er Rahman; besides source differences, this army is difficult to estimate in size, since it was often fractured into raiding parties to carry out the pillaging and plundering of various richly cultured Frankish centers; however, the entire Muslim army was present at Tours by Arab accounts. During the six days he waited to begin the Battle, Abd er Rahman recalled all those columns raiding and pillaging, so that on the seventh day, when by both eastern and western accounts the Battle began, both armies were at full strength.

Prelude

The Muslims in northern Spain had easily overrun Septimania, had set up a capital at Narbonne which they called Arbuna, giving its largely Arian inhabitants honorable terms, and quickly pacified the south and for some years threatened Frankish territories. Duke Odo of Aquitaine, also known as Eudes the Great, had decisively defeated a major invasion force in 721 at the Battle of Toulouse, but Arab raids continued, in 725 reaching as far as the city of Autun in Burgundy. Threatened by both the Arabs in the south and by the Franks in the north, in 730 Eudes allied himself with Uthman ibn Naissa, called “Munuza” by the Franks, the Berber emir in what would later become Catalonia. As a gage, Uthman was given Eudes’s daughter Lampade in marriage to seal the alliance, and Arab raids across the Pyrenees, Eudes’ southern border, ceased [1].

However, the next year, Uthman rebelled against the governor of al-Andalus, Abd er Rahman. Abd er Rahman quickly crushed the revolt, and next directed his attention against the traitor’s former ally, Eudes. According to one unidentified Arab, “That army went through all places like a desolating storm.” Duke Eudes (called King by some), collected his army at Bordeaux, but was defeated, and Bordeaux was plundered. The slaughter of Christians at the River Garonne was evidently horrific; Isidorus Pacensis commented that “solus Deus numerum morientium vel pereuntium recognoscat”, ‘God alone knows the number of the slain’ (Chronicon). The Muslim horsemen then utterly devastated that portion of Gaul, their own histories saying the “faithful pierced through the mountains, tramples over rough and level ground, plunders far into the country of the Franks, and smites all with the sword, insomuch that when Eudo came to battle with them at the River Garonne, and fled.” Eudes appealed to the Franks for assistance, which Charles Martel only granted after Eudes agreed to submit to Frankish authority.

In 732, the Arab advance force was proceeding north toward the River Loire having already outpaced their supply train and a large part of their army. Essentially, having easily destroyed all resistance in that part of Gaul, the invading army had split off into several raiding parties, simply looting and destroying, while the main body advanced more slowly. A military explanation for why Eudes was defeated so easily at Bordeaux, after having won 11 years earlier at Battle of Toulouse, was simple. At Toulouse, Eudes managed a basic surprise attack against an overconfident and unprepared foe, all of whose defensive works were aimed inward, while he attacked from the outside. The Arab cavalary never got a chance to mobilize and meet him in open battle. At Bordeaux, they did, and resulted in absolute devastation of Eudes army, almost all of whom were killed, with minimal losses to the Muslims. Eudes forces, like other European troops of that era, lacked stirrups, and therefore had no armoured cavalry. Virtually all of their troops were infantry. The Muslim heavy cavalry broke the Christian infantry in their first charge, and then simply slaughtered them at will as they broke and ran. The invading force then went on to devastate southern Gaul, preparing it for complete conquest. One of the major raiding parties advanced on Tours. A possible motive, according to the second continuator of Fredegar, was the riches of the Abbey of Saint Martin of Tours, the most prestigious and holiest shrine in western Europe at the time. Upon hearing this, Austrasia Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, collected his army of an estimated 15-75,000 veterans, and marched south avoiding the old Roman roads hoping to take the Muslims by surprise.

Location

Despite the great importance of this battle, its exact location remains unknown. Most historians assume that the two armies met each other where the rivers Clain and Vienne join between Tours and Poitiers.

The battle

Charles chose to begin the battle in a defensive, phalanx-like formation. According to the Arabian sources they drew up in a large square. Certainly, given the disparity between the armies, in that the Franks were mostly infantry, all without armour, against mounted and Arab armored or mailed horsemen, (the Berbers were less heavily protected) Charles Martel fought a brilliant defensive battle. In a place and time of his choosing, he met a far superior force, and defeated it.

For six days, the two armies watched each other with just minor skirmishes. The Muslims waited for their full strength to arrive, which it did, but they were still uneasy. No good general, and Abd er Rahman was one, liked to let his opponent pick the ground and conditions for battle — and Martel had done both. Creasy says, and his theory is probably best, that the Muslims best strategic choice would have been to simply decline battle, depart with their loot, garrisoning the captured towns in southern Gaul, and return when they could force Martel to a battleground more to their liking, one that maximized the huge advantage they had of the first true “knights” mailed and amoured horsemen — the Franks, without stirrups in wide use, had to depend on unarmoured foot soldiers. Martel gambled everything that Abd er Rahman would in the end feel compelled to battle, and to go on and loot Tours. Neither of them wanted to attack. The Franks were well dressed for the cold, and had the terrain advantage. The Arabs were not as prepared for the intense cold, but did not want to attack what they thought might be a numerically superior Frankish army. (most historians believe it was not) Essentially, the Arabs wanted the Franks to come out in the open, while the Franks, formed in a tightly packed defensive formation, wanted them to come uphill, into the trees, (negating at once some of the advantages of their cavalry). It became a waiting game, which Martel won. The fight commenced on the seventh day, as Abd er Rahman did not want to postpone the battle indefinitely.

The Emir Abd er Rahman trusted the tactical superiority of his cavalry, and had them charge repeatedly. This time the faith the Muslims had in their cavalry, armed with their long lances and swords which had brought them victory in previous battles, was not justified.

In one of the rare instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. But despite this, Franks did not break, and it is probably best expressed by a translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book: “And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like North a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe.”

It might have been different, however, had the Muslim forces remained under control. According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day, scouts from the Franks began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder). A large portion of the army broke off and raced back to their camp to save their plunder. What appeared to be a retreat soon became one. While attempting to restore order to his men, who had managed to break into the defensive square, Abd er Rahman was surrounded by Franks and killed.

According to a Frankish source, the battle lasted one day. Frankish histories claim that when the rumor went through the Arab army that Frankish cavalry threatened the booty they had taken from Bordeaux, (Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Muslim base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe, it succeeded beyond his wildest dreams), many of the Muslim Cavalry returned to their camp. This, to the rest of the Muslim army, appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it was one. Both histories agree that while attempting to stop the retreat, Abd er Rahman became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Muslims returned to their camp.

The next day, when the Muslims did not renew the battle, the Franks feared an ambush. Only after extensive reconnaissance by Frankish soldiers of the Muslim camp was it discovered that the Muslims had retreated during the night.

Aftermath

The Arab army retreated south over the Pyrenees. Charles earned his nickname Martel, meaning hammer, in this battle. He continued to drive the Muslims from France in subsequent years. After Eudes died, who had been forced to acknowledge, albeit reservedly, the suzerainty of Charles in 719, his son wished independence. Though Charles wished to unite the duchy directly to himself and went there to elicit the proper homage of the Aquitainians, the nobility proclaimed Odo’s son, Hunold, whose dukedom Charles recognised when the Arabs invaded Provence the next year. Hunold, who originally resisted acknowledging Charles as overlord, had no choice when the Muslims returned.

In 736 the Caliphate launched another massive invasion — this time by sea. This naval Arab invasion was headed by Abdul Rahman’s son. It landed in Narbonne in 736 and took Arles. Charles, the conflict with Hunold put aside, descended on the Provençal strongholds of the Muslims. In 736, he retook Montfrin and Avignon, and Arles and Aix-en-Provence with the help of Liutprand, King of the Lombards. Nîmes, Agde, and Béziers, held by Isalm since 725, fell to him and their fortresses destroyed. He smashed a Muslim force at the River Berre, and prepared to meet their primary invasion force at Narbonne. He defeated a mighty host outside of that city, using for the first time, heavy cavalry of his own, which he used in coordination with his planax. He crushed the Muslim army, though outnumbered, but failed to take the city. Provence, however, he successfully rid of its foreign occupiers.

Notable about these campaigns was Charles’ incorporation, for the first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx. His ability to coordinate infantry and cavalry veterans was unequaled in that era and enabled him to face superior numbers of invaders, and decisively defeat them again and again. Some historians believe Narbonne in particular was as imporant a victory for Christian Europe as Tours. Charles was that rarest of commonities in the dark ages: a brilliant stategic general, who also was a tactical commander par excellance, able in the crush and heat of battle to adapt his plans to his foes forces and movement — and amazingly, defeated them repeatedly, especially when, as at Tours, they were far superior in men and weaponry, and at Berre and Narbonne, when they were superior in numbers of brave fighting men. Charles had the last quality which defines genuine greatness in a military commander: he foresaw the dangers of his foes, and prepared for them with care; he used ground, time, place, and fierce loyalty of his troops to offset his foes superior weaponry and tactics; third, he adapted, again and again, to the enemy on the battlefield, cooly shifting to compensate for the foreseen and unforeseeable.

The importance of these campaigns, Tours and the later campaigns of 736-7 in putting an end to Muslim bases in Gaul, and any immediate ability to expand Islamic influence in Europe, cannot be overstated. Gibbons and his generation of historians, and the majority of modern experts agree with them that they were unquestionably decisive in world history. Despite these victories, the Arabs remained in control of Narbonne and Septimania for another 27 years, but could not expand further than that. The treaties reached earlier with the local population stood firm and were further consolidated in 734 when the governor of Narbonne, Yusuf ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri, concluded agreements with several towns on common defense arrangements against the encroachments of Charles Martel, who had systematically brought the south to heel as he extended his domains. He believed, and rightly so, that it was vital to keep the Muslims in Iberia, and not allow them a foothold in Gaul itself. Though he won the battle of Narbonne when the army there came out to meet him, Charles failed in his attempt to take Narbonne by siege in 737, when the city was jointly defended by its Muslim Arab and Christian Visigoth citizens. It was left to his son, Pippin the short, to force the city’s surrender, in 759, and to drive the Arabs completely back to Iberia, and bring Narbonne into the Frankish Domains. His Grandson, Charlamagne, became the first Christian ruler to actually begin what would be called the Reconquista from Europe proper. In the east of the peninsula the Frankish emperors established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a buffer zone against Islam across the Pyrenees.

In Western history

Christian contemporaries, from Bede to Theophanes carefully recorded the battle and were keen to spell out what they saw as its implications. Later scholars, such as Edward Gibbon, would contend that had Martel fallen, the Moors would have easily conquered a divided Europe. Gibbon wrote that “A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur’an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed.” Certainly, the Islamic invasions were an enormous danger during the window of 721 from Toulouse to 737 at the Arab defeat at Narbonne. But the window was closing. The unified Caliphate collapsed into civil war in 750 at the Battle of the Zab which left the Umayyad dynasty literally wiped out except for the Princes who escaped to Africa, and then Iberia, where they established the Umayyad Emirate in opposition to the Abbasid Caliph in Baghdad.

Both ancient, mid, and modern historians agree that Martel was the father of western heavy cavalry, and literally stole the technoloy from his slain foe! He had no trouble using his enemies tools against them, no pride stopped him from seizing any advantage he could in defending his faith, his father’s home and homeland, and his people, from what he saw was a danger that would destroy them if not checked. His foresight in moving to strike first, to stop them short of his “front door,” reminds one of Winston Churchill’s famous statement, that “it is better to fight in your neighbors back yard, than have to defend your own front door.” In 5 short years, from the Battle of Tours, to the Battle of Narbonne, he fathered western heavy cavalry, and used it in conjunction with his planax with devastating effect.

In the modern era, Norwich, the most widely read authority on the Eastern Roman Empire, says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it. A more realistic viewpoint may be found in Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels by Antonio Santosuosso, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario, and considered an expert historian in the era in dispute in this article. It was published in 2004, and has quite an interesting modern expert opinion on Charles Martel, Tours, and the subsequent campaigns against Rahman’s successor in 736-737. Santosuosso makes a compelling case that these defeats of invading Muslim Armies, were at least as important as Tours in their defense of western Christianity, and the preservation of those Christian monastaries and centers of learning which ultimately led Europe out of the dark ages. He also makes a compelling case that while Tours was unquestionably of macrohistorical importance, the later battles were at least equally so. Both invading forces defeated in those campaigns had come to set up permanent outposts for expansion, and there can be no doubt that these three defeats combined broke the back of European expansion by Islam while the Caliphate was still united. While some modern assessments of the battle’s impact have backed away from the extreme of Gibbon’s position, Gibbons’s conjecture is supported by other historians such as Edward Shepard Creasy and William E. Watson. Most modern historians such as Norwich and Santosuosso generally support the concept of Tours as a macrohistorical event favoring western civilization and Christianity . Military writers such as Robert W. Martin, “The Battle of Tours is still felt today”, also argue that Tours was such a turning point in favor of western civilization and Christianity that its aftereffect remains to this day.

In Arab history

Contemporary Arab historians and chroniclers are much more interested in the second Umayyad siege Arab defeat at Constantinople in 718, which ended in a disastrous defeat. After the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674-678) ended in complete failure, the Arabs Umayyad Caliphate attempted a second decisive attack on the city. An 80,000 strong army led by Maslama, the brother of Caliph Umar II, crossed the Bosporus from Anatolia to besiege Constantinople by land, while a massive fleet of Arab war galleys, estimated between 1,800 and 2,000, sailed into the Sea of Marmara to the south of the city. Fortunately for the Byzantines, the great chain kept the fleet from entering the inner harbor, and the Arab galleys were unable to sail up the Bosporus as they were under constant attack and harassment by the Greek fleet, who used Greek fire to level the differences in numbers. (The Byzantine fleet was less than a third of the Arab, but Greek fire swiftly evened the numbers). Emperor Leo III was able to use the famed Walls of Constantinople to his advantage and the Arab army was unable to breach them. (it must be noted that Bulgar forces had come to the aid of the Byzantines, and constantly harassed the Muslim army, and definitely disrupted resupply to the point that much of the army was close to starvation by the time the siege was abandoned. Some Muslim historians have argued that had the Caliph recalled his armies from Europe to aid in the siege, the city might have been taken by land, despite the legendary walls – such a recall would have doubled the army laying siege, allowed a full attack while still beating off Bulgar forces attempting to end the siege by harassing the army from outside while the defenders held the walls.

Some contemporary historians argue that had the Arabs actually wished to conquer Europe they could easily have done so. Essentially these historians argue that the Arabs were not interested enough to mount a major invasion, because Northern Europe at that time was considered to be a socially, culturally and economically backward area with little to interest any invaders. Some western scholars, such as Bernard Lewis, agree with this stance, though they are in a minority.

This is also disputed by Arab histories of the period circa 722-850 which mentioned the Franks more than any other Christian people save the Byzantines, (The Arabian chronicles were compiled and translated into Spanish by José Antonio Conde, in his “Historia de la Dominación de los Árabes en España”, published at Madrid in 1820, and in dealing specifically with this period, the Arab chronicles discuss the Franks as one of two non-Muslim Powers then concerning the Caliphate). Further, this is disputed by the records of the Islamic raids into India and other non-Muslim states for loot and converts. Given the great wealth in Christian shrines such as the one at Tours, Islamic expansion into that area would have been likely had it not been sharply defeated in 732, 736, and 737 by Martel, and internal strife in the Islamic world prevented later efforts. Other relevant evidence of the importance of this battle lies in Islamic expansion into all other regions of the old Roman Empire — except for Europe, and what was retained by Byzantium, the Caliphate took all of the old Roman and Persian Empires. It is not likely Gaul would have been spared save by the campaigns by, and the loyalty of, Charles Martel’s veteran Frankish Army. Finally, it ignores that 4 separate Emirs of al-Andalus, over a 25 year period used a Fatwa from the Caliph to levy troops from all provinces of Africa, Syria, and even Turkomens who were beginning conversion, to raise 4 huge invading armies, well supplied and equipped, with the intention of permanent expansion across the Pyrenees into Europe. No such later attempts however were made as conflict between the Umayyad Emirate of Iberia and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe.

Given the importance Arab histories of the time placed on the death of Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman and the defeat in Gaul, and the subsequent defeat and destruction of Muslim bases in what is now France, it seems reasonably certain that this battle did have macrohistorical importance in stopping westward Islamic expansion. Arab histories written during that period and for the next seven centuries make clear that Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman’s defeat and death was regarded, and most scholars believe, as a catastrophe of major proportions. Their own words record it best: (translated from Arabic) “This deadly defeat of the Moslems, and the loss of the great leader and good cavalier, Abderrahman, took place in the hundred and fifteenth year.” (Islamic Calendar) This, from the portion of the history of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the great Arab period of expansion, also translated into Spanish by Don Jose Antonio Conde, in his “Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabos en España,” appears to put the importance of the Battle of Tours in macrohistorical perspective.

Contemporary analysis

Had Martel fallen at Tours the long term implications for European Christianity may have been devastating. His victory there, and in the following campaigns, may have literally saved Europe and Christianity as we know it, from conquest while the Caliphate was unified and able to mount such a conquest. Had the Franks fallen, no other power existed stopping Muslim conquest of Italy and the effective end of what would become the modern Catholic Church. In addition, Martel’s incorporation of the stirrup and mailed cavalry into the Frankish army gave birth to the armoured Knights which would form the backbone of western armies for the next five centuries. But had Martel failed, there would have been no Charlemagne, no Holy Roman Empire or Papal States. The majority view argues that all these events occurred because Martel was able to contain Islam from expanding into Europe while it could. His son retook Narbonne, and his Grandson Charlamagne actually established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a permanent buffer zone against Islam, with Frankish strongholds in Iberia, which became the basis, along with the King of Asturias, named Pelayo (718-737, who started his fight against the Moors in the mountains of Covadonga 722) for the origins of the Reconquista until all of the Muslims were expelled from the Iberia.

No later Muslim attempts against Asturias or the Franks was made as conflict between what remained of the Umayyad Dynasty, (which was the Umayyad Emirate and then Caliphate of Iberia) and the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad prevented a unified assault on Europe. It would be another 700 years before the Ottomans managed to invade Europe via the Balkans.”

This is an example of the comprehensive study of a historical battle as Winston Churchill must have studied all the pivotal battles that interested him and after thoroughly studying that one ancient Battle of Poitiers that was eternally to be remembered as the pivotal battle that allowed Western Civilization to continue, by remaining free of the barbaric Occult Islamic doctrine of savagery, subjugation, and slavery. And by allowing Europe to start coming out of the Dark Ages, and the total obedience to theocracy as was dictated and is still dictated by Muslim faith and by the contemporary Caliphate of ISIS.

The study of these subjects in detail gave Winston his foundational knowledge of why Christian Civilization trumps the occult Islamic barbarism and that is is exactly why Churchill had enough of Islam and it’s constant bend to barbarity. After studying the effects of that faith, on the Human race, he had developed a strong dislike, and a serious distaste for that barbaric cult, that came to last him a whole lifetime, because from then on, Churchill described Islam as having an effect similar to what “rabies” causes to the brains of infected dogs. This is what this virulent cult causes when it enters the minds of men. He turns their brain to mush. Winston recalled this saying always, and he repeated it often, especially when as a young officer, had to fight the forces of the crazy “Mahdi” in Sudan or the militant Islamic Pashtuns in the Northwest frontier of India where today’s Afghanistan — the graveyard of the Empires — is located.

Still, it is important today to remember that the Caliphate started back then, and yet today we are still dealing with it, in a resurgent form long after the last Caliph abdicated along with the dissolution of the Ottoman empire after having given plenty of suffering to all enslaved people under their command.  We are faced with the same crossroads, and if we ever want to remove the threat of the modern Caliphate enslaving the people once again — we should strike at the root of it, because the rise of the Islamic State beyond the borders of Syria and Iraq, over the past few years can easily draw comparison with the rapid spread of the Islamic Caliphate between the sixth and the eighth century and beyond in the 14th and 15th century as well.

Yet in a very Churchillian and strategic way of thinking — the Caliphate of ISIS today, presents us with an opportunity to improve and innovate on the ways and tactics we can deal with a virulent ideological enemy, because ISIS has also pitted the standard Army Generals and the proponents of kinetic realpolitik seeking military defeat of the inimical extremist group, against the far fewer supporters of the correct notion that jihadism poses primarily an ideological threat, and needs to be dealt intelligently through Psych-Ops and Education of the people via the forced and admired Reformation of Islam to a new peaceful religion.

And although we all know that the longevity of Islam is because of it’s ideational value — yet both schools of Strategic Thought on how to defeat militant Islam, still debate the violent nature of the threat, and contemplate only the use of Military Means as Ways to neutralize its military threat. Methinks that when you only have a hammer… you see every problem as a nail.

So we are still doing this, nailing our ideological opponents — many centuries after Charles  Martel, “the Hammer” won the Battle of Poitiers, although we already have discovered that rather than putting all of our eggs in the basket of military solutions, we ought to also focus on what has sparked the current menace of violence and darkness. And on what has been that virulent serpent’s egg that is germinating and mushrooming over decades in our lands. Because in my mind it should be the root causes that ought to loom large in the context of our competing visions of how ISIS can be defeated or how it can be successfully confronted; and methinks that the best way is to neutralize the Islamic Caliphate fully and securely in the ideological propaganda wars, before we snuff them out in the battlefield of honor and blood.

Yet, instead of engaging in this ideational debate and reforming Islam starting by taking over the mosques in America and Europe and teaching a form of reformed, restored, and peaceful Islam — instead of allowing Saudi Arabia the emanator of 9/11 and many other disasters to continue it’s mosque busing program across the United States and the spread of virulent militant Islamic Wahabbism.

It is high time for Islam to experience it’s own Protestant Reformation and this become a civilized religion that can co-exist with Western Thought and Liberal Democratic ideas. And since the Islamic leaders would never do that in a million years, it has to be a State Effort looking at the long future that has to become the common-place Restoration and Reformation of this errant religion.

 

 

 

 

Much like the Roman Emperor of Byzantium Constantin who sought to integrate the Christian faith under the religious wing of his administration, as he sought to unify and streamline the first Christian Churches under the Council of Nicea, that he convened in 325 AD, and through the first mass production of the Bible — we also need today to take decisive action and foster similar steps in order to regulate the virulently extremist religion of today that threatens the World and divides and terrorizes the various Peoples and individual people through recurring and constant acts of terror, bloody wars, and constant conflagration.

 

 

 

 

The Byzantine Emperor Constantine 280-337 AD, at the opening of the Council of Nicea, sought Peace as he explained to the assembled Bishops and the Elders of the Christian Churches of his day. And they agreed that for the benefit of all — Peace was an essential ingredient for the common safety and prosperity of the Empire and the peoples. To that end he not only delivered the opening address, and set the tone of the conference, but he also gave very clear direction about what he expected from the assembled bishops of the early Christian churches, by explaining that the doctrine and policy of the state and of the Roman Empire, was not up for re-evaluation or reconsideration, but rather that the new church had to unify and adhere to the principles of the State and thus adjust itself and it’s aims accordingly.

 

 

 

 

That is why the Roman Emperor Constantine convened and presided over this pivotal First Nicean Christian conference, in order to enforce his will and the interests of the State, to preside over a peaceful and large Empire made up of different Peoples, many nations, and people following differing religious beliefs. To this end he apparently succeeded in both of his main tasks masterfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly to Constantin ordering the first mass production of Christian Bibles in 325, the King James bible was readied at the behest of the King James of England, in 604 when he sought to create a sense of compatibility of the various protestant, papist, puritan, and reformation movements existing in his country. He went one further than Emperor Constantin by calling his translation of the bible the King James Bible instead of the commonly held name of the Christian Bible as the Old and the New Testament. This way he gave his stamp of approval and the stamp of his language to the New Bible and in that way he furthered the reach of the English language into all the corners of the world through the standardization of the Christian faith book.

History rewarded him greatly because in retrospect this was the greatest cultural and civilizing achievement that the advent of the British Empire enabled to reach all the corners of the Earth, and thus in turn made English the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the World.  The King James Bible, and the works of William Shakespeare, that exist in every library across the world today — have accomplished this singular feat, and along with the help of Constantin, Charles Martel, and Winston Churchill — they all together defeated the forces of darkness over the long haul.

That is why today, we all speak English, instead of Arabic, or some high pitched ‘Heil Hitler’ Germanic dialect…

 

 

 

 

 

 

King James the First, ordered the Hampton conference and the resultant comprehensive simplified Bible to be produced, in order to help common people align themselves more fully with the Crown and with the Church of England, that James always considered a stabilizing influence for the realm he was leading. Having come from Scotland and having seen the vagaries caused by the various warring protestants, he sought to unify and pacify the various strong religious voices. James comes to the English throne, as James the First, and prepares to receive the Crown, amidst strong stirrings of religious discontent that had caused him grave concerns. Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603, after ruling for 45 years. James received word of his cousin Elizabeth’s death, and his appointment to the throne, and on April 5, he began his journey from Edinburgh to London for his coronation.

 

 

 

 

The newly emboldened King James’ journey towards the South to London, was marked by an important interruption, when a delegation of Puritans presented James with a petition that outlined their grievances and the reforms they desired from the Church. The document came to be known as the Millenary Petition, and had over 1,000 clergy signatures, representing about ten percent of England’s clergy. This petition was the catalyst for the Hampton Court Conference. From the beginning the petition sought to allay suspicions regarding loyalty to the crown. It treated four areas: church service, church ministers, church livings and maintenance, and church discipline. It also set forth objections that perhaps sound rather frivolous to us today, but were serious matters to the Puritans. Among the things they objected to were the use of the wedding ring, the sign of the cross and the wearing of certain liturgical clothing. However, the Millenary Petition contains no mention at all of a new Bible translation.

 

 

 

 

James took the petition seriously enough to call for a conference. In a royal proclamation in October 1603, the new king announced the Conference of All Christian leaders, to take place at the Hampton Court Palace, a luxurious 1,000-room palatial estate just outside of London, built by Cardinal Wolsey, the chief Advisor to King Henry VIII, who had indeed started the Church of England, that the new king was tasked to chart a new course, in order to serve the Security of the State, and the Safety of its many and varied Peoples.
The participants in the conference were the King, his Privy Council of advisors, nine bishops and several deans. There were also four moderate representatives of the Puritan cause, the most prominent being Dr John Reynolds, head of Corpus Christi College. It was clear the deck was stacked against the Puritans, but at least they were given a voice.
King James set the tone and timbre of the Conference by presiding above all the factions in a solemn manner.
Like Emperor Constantine of the Eastern Holy Roman Empire had spoken at the opening of the ‘Council of Nicea’ three hundred years earlier – it was here that King James also delivered the opening address to the assembled “Greats” at the Hampton Conference. King James immediately set the tone and gave clear cues of what to expect, by stating that the doctrine and polity of the state church, was not up for evaluation and reconsideration. King James immediately proceeded to state bluntly that he found a great deal of security in the structure and hierarchy of the English church, in contrast to the Presbyterian model, he had witnessed in Scotland. And of course he made no effort to hide his previous frustration as he had experienced with the Presbyterians and the Puritans in his old home In Edinburgh as King of Scotland.
The Puritans were not allowed to attend the first day of the conference. On the second day, four Puritans were also allowed to join the Conference. Dr John Reynolds took the lead on their behalf and raised the question of church government. However, any chance of his being heard was lost by one inopportune and, no doubt, unintended reference.
He asked if a more collegial approach to church administration might be in order. In other words, “Let’s broaden the decision-making base.” Dr Reynolds posed his question this way: “Why shouldn’t the bishops govern jointly with a ‘presbyterie’ of their brethren, the pastors and the ministers of the Church?”
Yet the very word ‘Presbyterie’ was like waving a red flag before a bull, and the king exploded. His reply is recorded as such: “If you aim at a Scots ‘Presbyterie’ it agreeth as well with monarchy, as God and the devil! Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick shall meet and censure me and my council.”

He then uttered what can be considered his defining motto and summarizes his belief system, as he put an end to the presbyterian aspirations by crying rather bluntly: “No bishop — no King!”

At this point, the King also warned Dr Reynolds: “If this be all your party hath to say, I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harrie them out of the land, or else do worse!”

Yet while Dr Reynolds’ unfortunate use of the term ‘presbyterie’ damaged the Puritan case, he does get credit for proposing the most significant achievement of the conference. Reynolds “moved his Majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII and King Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.”

Thereafter, King James the First, warmed towards the need for a new translation of the Bible, because he despised the then popular and corrupted ‘Geneva Bible.’ Indeed King James, was bothered more by the ‘Geneva Bible’ for it’s revolutionary marginal notes, than by the actual quality of the translation.
So James ordered a new translation. It was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed fifty of the nation’s finest language scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results.
James also wanted a popular translation. He insisted that the translation use old familiar terms and names and be readable in the English idiom of his day, by simply saying: “Get to Work!”

Similarly to Emperor Constantin and King James’ visionary actions towards unification and pacification, today we need to convene another Conference to secularize Islam and the Muslim faith, and make it applicable for the New Millennium and not allow it to further disrupt our lives, by becoming a singular force for Evil, by driving its people towards the darkest of the dark ages of the past millenniums.

To that end we need to speak with one voice, and demand to create the ‘proper setting’ that addresses the common-sense idea that a stabilizing influence is needed through the  reformation of Islam. Because only a reformed Islam that is in obedience to the State laws and to our Constitution, can exist in these shores. And to that end we need to tackle the root causes of Islamic fundamentalism in that fairly barbaric cult ideology, that makes ISIS, the most brutal insurgent group in recent history. And we need to act fast because the simplicity of this barbaric cult and it’s ideological hatred of everything else, is what makes the crazy Islamic Caliphate attractive to millions of disaffected youth across the globe, and in our neighborhoods.

 

 

 

 

We ought to organize the first Islamic Reformation Conference and to that end we are all working to achieve this in these United States of America. Let’s nail the proposal for the reformation of Islam towards a moderate and normal Islam upon all the doors of the mosques in America  and Europe, and the rest of the world will follow soonest. Think of course in terms of centuries and not in years and electoral seasons. This is an effort at cathedral building and not at achieving quarterly results…

Yet today, in our PC world, translating that notion into policy, and finding a Sovereign leader who can institutionalize this policy for the long term — is proving difficult, if not outright impossible, primarily because the solid returns of this policy are steeped into the far off future. But it proves to be a difficult policy because it is based on a ‘Common sense truth’ that has a far-reaching impact on the International Community and World Affairs — irrespective of how close or how far its nation members are, from the ISIS Caliphate’s current borders, and how much their citizens might suffer from the terrorism that the Caliphate has inflicted upon them. Different strokes, for different folks, and for different nations, makes it impossible to coalesce all of them in a clear policy for Islamic reformation, therefore a singular leader has to lead and take over this Historically pivotal task.

 

 

 

 

Yet this reformation of Islam that is necessary in order to tame it, and thus make it civilized and normal, is a giant undertaking. But only then will we find that Islam can become a stabilizing factor in the world. To do this, it involves changing our long-standing, ingrained policies, both at home and abroad. We simply ned to rethink, the mindset and the policies that marginalize, exclude, and stigmatize, the segments of society we do not like, or those who don’t think like us. We truly need to emphasize that perceived as increased security the assault against liberty, freedoms, and debate, is not productive. We also need to learn that striving to be politically correct is tantamount to living under a dictatorship or maybe like living in an autocratic state. It is the same as being a subject of these dictatorial puppet regimes, that are propped-up by the Western powers for the singular purpose of producing oil and gas.

To solve militant Islam, we need to stop the regional despots from reducing their citizens to obedient subjects through harsh repression, and through the attenuation of religious belief to suit the interests of dystopian rulers, as we do in Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries, but instead we must foster radical Social and Libertarian Democratizing reforms towards both the religious and the secular leadership of these marginalized states, in order for their people to look forth towards a hopeful future. Only then these Islamic agent states will stop exporting Terrorism and join the league of normal states that exist in peace and harmony with the rest of the World, fostering progress and prosperity for all.

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, ISIS has to be defeated not in its Syrian capital of Raqqa, or in Mosul, but in the dismal “banlieues” of the French big cities and in the ghettos of Brussels and other towns, that furnish ISIS with the largest contingent of European foreign fighters. We need to win the war against ISIS in the populous neighborhoods in Tunisia, that account for the single largest group of foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq. We also need to defeat them in Riyadh and Jedda, Saudi Arabia, whose citizens account for the second largest number of foreign fighters, and whose decades-long effort to propagate a rather militant, puritan, and intolerant, interpretation of Islam; has been a far more important breeding ground for jihadists who follow the writings of militant Islamist thinkers like Sayyid Qutb. We need to defeat ISIS in the ghettos of all the European cities, but most importantly we need to defeat ISIS in the corridors of Power in Washington, and in Brussels; same as we need to do in all the Western capitals, like London, Berlin, and Paris, and in all the NATO alliance cities led by Washington and her State department and the Generals, who view retrograde, repressive regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as part of the solution, rather than the biggest part of the problem — they truly are.

For me and for all thinkers of today, focusing on root causes means broadening scholarly and policy debate to concentrate not only on what amounts to applying Band-Aid solutions that fail to heal the festering open wounds, but also to question assumptions made by the various schools of thought on how to solve the problem. And methinks that at the heart of it rests the need for a Restoration of Islam today.

 

 

 

 

The facts on the ground have already convincingly contradicted the notion that ISIS will be quickly defeated through a straight forward military campaign. Several years into military efforts, air strikes, predator drones, and commando raids, have failed to put a serious dent in ISIS’s universal appeal or on the amount of territory it controls. Today the combined Iraqi regular and irregular forces, along with the Kurds, and the NATO support, have been unable to shift the balance of power on the battlefield, and it is notable that no other member of the 60-nation coalition assembled by the US has been willing to deploy a ground force that potentially could defeat the jihadist group. Even the Russian forces are supporting their Syrian ally with Air Force cover only, but without any army boots or personnel of any kind on the ground.

 

 

 

 

Now for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we can wipe out today’s ISIS Caliphate from the map with straight forward Military means. In the world of General Mattis and President Trump cooperating with allies and enemies alike and making deals with the local warlords, maybe such a scenario is possible. Yet, even such a hypothetical defeat of ISIS, would not solve the basic root problem. After 9/11, the Osama Bin Laden organization of Al Qaeda was degraded, [we use here the language of the Obama administration], yet it was never defeated. Instead of reducing the threat of political violence, it produced ever more virulent forms of it, embodied by ISIS. So much so that today it may be hard to imagine anything more brutal than ISIS, but it is a fair assumption that defeat of the group without tackling the root causes would only lead to something that is even more virulent, violent, and vicious, and that is hard to imagine even for a seasoned person who has seen his XL share of horrors human beings can inflict upon each other.

 

 

 

 

There is much to be said for the notion of containment rather than defeat of ISIS; in other words, the belief that over time the extremist group would be forced to adapt its expansionist ambitions and brutal tactics as reality kicks in and the responsibility of government forces it to come to some kind of accommodation with the international community. Containment addresses the immediate problem but ignores factors that fuel radicalization far from the warring state’s borders and make jihadism attractive to the disaffected across the globe.

 

 

 

 

Similarly, the notion that the very existence of ISIS poses a greater threat to regional stability and security in the Middle East and North Africa than conventional or unconventional military power, only serves to elevate jihadism, — this violent establishment of pan-Islamic rule — to the status of a root cause, rather than a symptom, and an expression of a greater and more complex problem.

 

 

 

 

Moreover, the ideological challenge posed by ISIS despite its discriminatory, exclusionary, narrow-minded interpretation of Islam, is primarily its equally problematic readings of the faith. ISIS shares some puritan concepts with Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism, but rejects notions of monarchic rule and a clergy that uses puritanism, to bolster the power of an autocratic family. It is worth noting that the ISIS Caliphate also contradicts Iran’s concept of the “Welayat-al-faqih” the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. Its model of governance flat out opposes the Muslim Brotherhood’s precepts, and their ideas as propagated by Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, support of an Islam that first and foremost prescribes absolute obedience to a ruler…

 

 

 

In other words, the ideological debate waged in the Muslim world is to a large extent dominated by schools of thought that do not advocate more open, liberal and pluralistic interpretations of Islam, but instead look at going back further into the Dark Ages of Barbarism and Resolute Ignorance. That is where the real challenge lies. The international community ought to give more liberal Muslim voices significant credibility by creating the First Conference for the Reformation of Islam. This is where Trump can be useful and helpful to the whole World if his Administration where to put its money where its mouth is.

 

 

 

 

This effort towards the birth of an American and a European tolerant and peaceful Islamic faith, that it places itself in concert with the Constitution and the Liberties and Democratic privileges, that our countries enjoy and believe into.

 

 

 

 

Only an Islamic Reformation will lead Islam to a humanizing future and help all of us toward peace with this virulently Barbaric cultish faith that cries out for radical reform just n order to catch up with it’s Abrahamic faith brethren with whom it shares the Jewish Old Testament, and even parts of the New Testament too. So now as we move resolutely inside the second Millennium AD we best help Islam and our Muslim brothers and sisters transcend to the present time, instead of allowing their leaders to keep driving them back towards the Dark Ages of bloody mayhem, and ignorance.

This has to be the Number One priority of our modern Foreign Affairs Diplomacy, and even Domestic Policy — in order to solve the problem the militant jihadist Islam represents for all of us today, as it did in the time of Charles Martel, that led to the battle of Poitiers in 732 AD.

Today’s US President Donald Trump that in some critical ways resembles Charles Martel — at the very least he has the “Hammer” and he ought to use it by offering a Conference for a Non-Violent and Civilized or Reformed Islam starting from right here in the United States. And of course he has a pallet of policy options, that take a stab at reforming, restoring, and liberalizing Islam, and thus rooting out the problem and its underlying causes, rather than confining himself and the solutions to the military generals, the self-serving Arab regimes, and the various religious Theocratic or Secular pseudo-Islamic leaders.

We need to pay attention and start acting quickly here, largely because some of those who emphasize ISIS’s ideational challenges to the World; also warned us that jihadism, very like the concepts of Umma, Arabism, and Arab nationalism, that were all very popular in the past — could provoke conflict not only with the West but also between the many dissatisfied Arab states, as we se today with the exclusion of Quatar from the Arab league. Reality on the ground has put that notion to rest. ISIS, with its territorial base, coupled with multiple other factors, has demonstrated the fragility of existing Arab nation states and likely condemned to dustbins of history notions of Syria, and Iraq, as the nation states, the world has known since the end of colonial rule, and the drafting of their borders largely under the influence of Winston Churchill and his contemporaries.

 

 

By the same token, reducing the significance of recent attacks on mosques and tourist sites by ISIS fellow travelers in Tunisia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia‎ to challenges to the political legitimacy and authority of those states, is to fail to recognize that ISIS fundamentally feeds on the failures of those regimes, same as it feeds on the failures of Western regimes when we see the explosions of suicide bombers and other terrorists in our capital cities and in our neighborhoods. These attacks on London, Edinburgh, Berlin, Brussels, Paris, include the failure to provide our youth with social and economic opportunity, and to adopt policies that are inclusionary not exclusionary, pluralistic not discriminatory, and encourage participation in political debates and processes, rather than cutting off all avenues for the expression of discontent.

Therein lies the root causes of the jihadism threatening the international community. We need more freedoms and not less, and we need to work smarter, not harder. Same as we need to imagine new solutions by thinking creatively and not just like a hammer that sees all problems as nails that need to be hammered in. May Charles “Martel” the “Hammer” rest in peace — we don’t need only that kind of hammering today… but we need ideological Supremacy if we are to avoid another Battle of Poitiers tomorrow.

Capice?

Yet Winston Churchill, also studied in passing, the other Battle of Poitiers — the one that took place between the English and the French in 1356, and here is where he skimmed and moved on, to the latest historical and military strategy views on the Napoleonic wars, and their important battles.

Of course, Winston Churchill, while in Sandhurst, also studied meticulously the American Civil War battles, and his hero Abraham Lincoln whom his lovely American Mother Jennie, and her father, Winston’s grandfather Leonard Jerome, loved beyond compare. Yet he also studied, the Russo-Turkish War, and the Franco-German War, in sufficient detail; in order to complete his strategy and tactics battle education, and his European Theater of Wars learnings.

Still for his daily regiment, horseback races, point to point, and steeple chasing, were his greatest pleasure. Besides the daily instruction he received at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst — he elected to take an additional course during his vacation and holiday times — with the Royal Horse Guards. That’s where he spent all of his money: Hiring quality horses, and organizing the best point-to-point races and most dangerous steeplechases.

Finally Winston Churchill was in his element. Yet, he still retained a lively if not subdued interest in the politics of the day — at least where his father’s political party and political affiliations were concerned. On that front, things were not going well for the Churchill name, because Randolph towards the end had specialized in burnt all bridges…

 

 

 

 

Yet at this otherwise dark political time for his family, it was when Winston Churchill managed to make his first ever public speech during his next to last term at the Royal Sandhurst Military Academy. Because that is when Winston was roused to Anger at the major Indignation directed against so e lady friends of his, and thus made his first public speech in their defense. This is a somber story and yet something that all Historians writing about Churchill, have glossed over it, because it appears to not be an important political speech, nor a pivotal episode  Winston’s life. Yet I disagree and consider this a remarkable example of his genuine faith in Humanity and of his Libertarian politics, but above all else, it is e clear reminder of Winston Churchill, where the puerile, the pure, and the pertinent, are intermingled and therefore it is time to tell all, because the circumstances of his losing his Oratorial Virginity, in this Speech; were both unusual and comedic. Both at the same time, since he meant to speak up in order to save some Damsels in distress. Except that these particular damsels didn’t need much saving, because they were managing rather well on their own — Thank You very much.

 

 

 

 

But to put the story to rights: Back in the summer of 1894 a certain Mrs Ormiston Chant, launched a “Purity Campaign” which received much publicity. The chief object of her attention was the promenade of the “Empire Theatre,” which was a large space behind the dress circle with a massive lounge containing several bars, that were usually filled with willing men, and somewhat professional debutante and all too willing ladies, that do not ‘protest too much.’ Now since the Empire Theatre promenade was a favourite place for all the cadets of the Sandhurst Academy who came out to see the plays, have a few drinks, and lose their virginity, with the ‘easy girls’ of the Empire promenade. Many of them were naturally indignant at Mrs Chant’s ‘unproven’ allegations of general debauchery, carnal relations, biblical rows, insobriety, and immorality, being pervasive at the Empire promenade. But they were also especially incensed, at the possibility that the whole thing could be shuttered, because of the blasted “Purity Campaign.”

 

 

 

 

Thus the Sandhurst cadets reasoned that they would lose their chief source of amusement, and outside education, if not their outright edification of becoming “Men” and the sex lessons given fairly freely from the all too willing and unprotesting ladies. Now we all are aware that these ‘arangements’ have existed since the dawn of professions, or the dawn of time. But the Empire promenade was the favorite place to lose one’s virginity, with the ladies sharing their charms there, in a perpetual state of questionable purity. Even the newspaper of record, “The Daily Telegraph” got into the action when they ran an article against the Puritanical lady Mrs Ormiston Chant, titled: ‘Prudes on the Prowl’ and thus the war between Prudes, and Libertines got started in earnest. Naturally for young Winston Churchill, the battle was on spectacularly because this is where he lost his virginity and he was a loyal sort of chap — so he thought to defend the ladies and the lads. So just like any good lad, he got on his high horse, and started railing informally against the forces wanting to deprive young men and women, of their Liberty to cavort freely, and enjoy drunken sex, in Honor of the Empire…

The stakes could not have been higher. Winston had already decided that this Refusal of Liberty should not stand, because “Drunken Sex” is an ancient time-honored British tradition that most people experience not only at home, but also abroad in the Empire, during their Vacation & Holiday times all around the British Empire, where the sun never sets. And as such it needs to be preserved as any other sport and manly avocation for eternity. He said that we should save the service industry of the ladies of the Empire promenade “lest everybody lapses to some kind of faggotry” as Winston was keen to remind all listeners…

 

 

 

 

So Winston followed the controversy with immense interest, and one day read in the paper that a certain gentleman was proposing to form a League of Citizens under the name ‘The Entertainments Protection League’ and was calling on all interested people to come forward and help form committees. Winston was most enthusiastic in joining the battle and he was splendidly prepared to deliver his bombastic artillery piece of a great Speech in support of the ‘fallen’ women, those beautiful and mysterious Ladies of the Empire…

 

 

 

 

To that end, he immediately responded at once to the advertisement, and wrote to the founder of “The Entertainments Protection League” saying that he would travel forth to London for the first meeting of the League, if he were allowed to offer a speech in support of the ‘Entertainments Protection League’ and of the Empire. He then sat down and composed a speech, dealing with the rights of the individual, which he learned by heart. On the appointed day he travelled to London with the good wishes of his colleagues. He was surprised to find the hotel small and dingy. But he was even more surprised to find only one person waiting there, the founder of ‘The Entertainments Protection League.’  At this momentous occassion, the Founder sadly admitted that save for the young Cadet Winston Churchill, there had been no other response to his eloquent plea to ‘Save the Empire.” Winston was crushed, and with the papers of his speech firmly ensconced in his breast pocket, he swallowed his pride, if not his disappointment, and returned to the Sandhurst, pawning his gold watch on the way, just to pay for his dinner. Apparently at this moment of his life, logistics were not a subject he excelled upon, but the defense of women and general feminism, was always uppermost in his mind…

Yet this was not to be the end of ‘The Entertainments Protection League’ story, nor the end of Winston’s continued efforts at women’s suffrage. And in a spectacular show of camaraderie, Winston and his friends attended the “Empire promenade” frequently and at one point, they were disturbed to see that “fences and screens” had been erected, and being placed all around the bars, the pubs, and the brothels – in order to shield them from the innocent promenading public eyes, and also in order to obscure the vision of the less innocent connoisseurs, like himself and the other cadet, the lads, the cads, and the assorted virile menfolk.

According to Winston, this thieving of the People’s Liberty, was not going to stand, be cause it was an entirely inimical action, and Churchill’s back was stiffened, and his ire was surreptitiously raised, against that dastardly injurious act for the public morale. And that is the point where he started to feel his angst rising and thus he took the leading role as the Rogue Star, of the infamous “Battle of the Tarts” where he acted by tipping over one of the aforementioned “Purity” screens with his cane, as another cadet pushed another erected screen, and a third cadet kicked more screens inwards. In the usual Winston way — he was leading his men from the front, and they brought about a swift and unhesitating destruction of the puerile censorship, by demolishing all the Purity erections, screens, and mechanical devises in a few minutes. This gambit was well organized and the lads came away swinging as Winston started priming the pump, and after a moment’s hesitation, the melee became a generalized jumble, and suddenly there were more than a few hundred young people rushing to destroy all the purity screens, and the propriety fences. Winston Churchill was the most conspicuous among these valiant Defenders of Liberty, and at the height of the excitement here was Churchill after embracing a prostitute, and promising her undying affection, he leapt-up onto a tall chair, and delivered his speech, in a most heated style of oratory, as conveyed to us today by none other than a participant in the infamous and unscripted morality play as seen playing that evening at  the Empire promenade, and presented by none other that Winston Churchill the miraculous Cavalry cadet…

 

 

 

 

Indeed not only this was Winston’s maiden speech, but it was especially hot stuff, because he had to impress not only his fellow cadets, but the ‘tarts’ and the ‘easy girls’ all arrayed to listen to their young and victorious Liberator. The young Liberator who fought on their behalf against the tyranny of the savage Puritans who wanted to install a Theocracy no less. Here is where Winston found out that he could harness the power of his Soul and the Righteousness of his Cause, and therefore his rhetoric was no longer the cold, reasoned, and prepared constitutional effort, that he had constructed so many weeks prior to this opportune moment.

This speech was from the heart.

And indeed it was a ‘panegyric’ and a singularly Churchillian overture, to the Gods of Liberty and Life, and a Pean to the Rights of men to live Free amongst Free people and to arrange their Love and Sex lives at will. In this instance Winston, spoke from the cuff, without any written notes, and yet his remarks were ebullient, and took the people way over the top, through his stentorian voice, his audacious and loquacious humour, and his unquestionable enthusiasm for the subject at hand. He was indeed overheated, and overbearing, and was way over the top, but he offered a rather rousing speech, on behalf of the Ladies of the Empire and even Lady Liberty, and his speech was fairly well shouted, to be heard above the tumult of the confrontation going on at his feet.

This infamous first speech must have broken some kind of record because he was shouting, in order to be heard above the cacophony of sounds coming up from the ebullient and celebratory groups of the carousing young fighters, already steadying themselves with fresh pints of various ales, and whiskeys, having started to comfort the ladies of the Empire, while wearing freshly installed grins, like those of the Cheshire cat that ate the canary, all decked out in their best dress uniforms.

If all wars and victorious battles are anything like that – please sing me up forever….

 

 

 

 

Luckily Winston’s maiden oration, escaped the notice of the English newspapers, and of the London press in general — yet fortunately for us, an American author named Richard Harding Davis, who had met Churchill in London, was given a version of the long and eloquent speech by Winston as delivered to his fellow officers, and to the scantily dressed and demure ladies of the Empire promenade. And thus this amazing speech to launch a thousand cadets into the arms of the Ladies, got preserved for eternity, and here is the poetical portion of it that is what we can safely publish without injuring anyone’s reputation and good sense of humour…

“Churchill cried in a loud booming voice when the fellows were all around him:

‘Where does the Englishman in London always find a welcome?’

‘Where does he first go when, battle-scarred and travel-worn, he reaches home?

‘Who is always there to greet him with a smile and join him with a drink?’

‘Who is ever faithful, ever true?’

‘The ladies of the Empire Promenade.”’

Although this incident was apparently not brought to the attention of the London Society, Winston’s battle was won in a triumphant manner. Thereafter the wreckage of the screens was disassembled and permanently removed from the Empire Promenade and the Ladies of the Empire were once again allowed to cavort liberally, with the Victorious defenders of all that represents “Truth & Beauty and the English Way.” And thus Winston Churchill earned his first stripes of Victory. He also celebrated this unique Victory, by visiting the grateful ladies of the Empire promenade, often and by retelling this slight “gauche” story again and again to the amusement of the gathered throngs. Still his strict commanding officer, neither punished him, nor mentioned anything to him, although the whole Sandhurst knew and celebrated the victorious military campaign against the tyrannical forces of Puritanism at the Empire promenade as if t was another victory against Napoleon. And although the ears of the London press were sufficiently pricked, amid much hilarity that ensued since the toppling of that “wall” and about Churchill’s defense of the Realm with his First Public Speech, this never came to print. And of course this exquisite story, never became an embarrassment for Winston Churchill whose need for sarcastic humour if anything caused him to regale this story often enough as he was always telling stories at the dinner table, and to celebrate always raising a glass to the ladies of the Empire… (wink-wink).

With this one battle won, there were many more of the same ilk, to follow. That is until Winston was persuaded to tone down his humour, and to become a serious warrior, and much later a serious Speaker as well…

He of course, did not listen to those voices often, but when he did — his speeches were serious, measured, and magnificent, as was the speech he offered on his father funeral, because on January 1895, two months ahead of Winston receiving the Queen’s Commissioning as a Cavalry Officer — Lord Randolph Churchill died. Indeed it was a severe blow to his son, but he always considered it a sort of Liberation for his “Dad” who according to Winston, had suffered way too much adversity in his short and meteoric Life.

As for his family — things were a bit more complicated now, because although the disappointed statesman had been increasingly ill in the past few years, through this syphilitic meningitis, the family still clung doggedly to the hope that he would somehow recover, although the disease was largely incurable at this time. Still Winston hoped that Randolph’s health and his political position could be rescued and he made an effort to reform both — if not i real life, at least in print, as he had started keeping notes for writing Randolph’s history the way he would have liked it to be. It was all in vain, because Winston was still awaiting the day when his father would accept him, if not as an equal, at least as a prized son. Sadly that day would never come. Still, during Winston’s first two years at Royal Academy at Sandhurst — Lord Randolph had occasionally taken him to dinners, and week-end parties, and thus Winston was confident that they were moving toward a closer understanding. But Lord Randolph never really dropped his mask. This is how Winston describes the relationship with his father in his proud biographical book about him: “If ever I began to show the slightest idea of comradeship, he was immediately offended, and when once I suggested that I might help his private secretary to write some letters, he froze me into stone.”

Winston wrote the words above many years later, and the fact that he membered this quote verbatim, is a sure sign of the hurt he had received from Randolphs purposefully errant behavior. And yet in his mind young Winston already cultivated in his minds eyes, the Empire of the Mind, that he wanted to construct for himself, now that he was free and unfettered to define himself.

 

 

It appears, that Lord Randolph knew his son so little, that it never even crossed his mind that Winston even toyed with the idea of entering politics. Certainly it never entered his head as a feasible proposition. Politics were expensive in those days and the Members of the British Parliament were unpaid. Besides that, Randolph could not even pretend to himself, that this boy Winston was clever. He actually knew this “boy” so little, that he thought him stupid. This is on the record, because some months prior to this, he had written a long letter to a friend of his in South Africa, asking him if there were any prospects in the Colonies for his son — because he did not feel that Wilson was likely to make his way alone in old England.

It appears that he was somehow a bot of the mark, and surely mistaken, if we see the career of his son Winston who was just twenty years old, when Lord Randolph Churchill died, and who at once assumed his role as head of the family, and embraced his responsibilities as few other young men of his age and standing ever would. Indeed a strange sense of urgency occupied Winston from there onwards. And as some Churchill relatives remember Winston at the funeral, being officious, self-possessed, and quite capable of handling the many family requests, the disposition of guests, and the care for the friendly visitors who participated in this memorial to his family father. They vividly remember the hundreds of telegrams that poured-in, and seeing Winston reading each one carefully and then impaling it dramatically on a metal spike for safekeeping and with all of them impaled on the pike, he was making a dramatic foot long tower of paper telegrams proving the popularity of Sir Randolph, and also the mountain of telegraphic correspondence that he had to duly reply to. It must have dawned on Winston that right about now — a private secretary must indeed be rather useful to assist with the necessary replies for this mountainous task.

And although he was in control of the family from then on — the young man’s future was now a large question mark, because Lord Randolph Churchill, apparently had left his two sons with no money inheritance whatsoever…

So how could Winston continue his sporting lifestyle?

And how could he afford his Officer’s commission?

Or how he could even afford his polo ponies?

 

 

 

 

Apparently Randolph Churchill’s estate was just large enough to settle his sizable debts, and thereafter Lady Jennie Churchill, Winston’s Mother told the boys that there was nothing left over for her sons and family, except what she had scrounged over all her wedded years, and her personal jewelry collection…

Now that places Winston at a disadvantage, because one must understand that in the Victorian times that Churchill was living into at the time — this was a severe handicap for a member of the ruling class, since without money the road to politics and the court, was completely barred.

Even to continue attending the Sandhurst Military Academy, it was necessary to have money as a cavalry officer, in order to pay for most things, including all of his ‘horse duties’ and the rest of his equestrian expenses.

 

 

To this end, and to primarily cover his equestrian costs as an Officer of the Cavalry, his mother Lady Jennie Jerome Churchill, gave Winston Churchill, an allowance of 500 pounds a year.

He accepted it gratefully with a determination to make himself financially independent as quickly as possible; and in order to accomplish that end — he started writing feverishly, while looking for publishers and newspapers that would accept his stories, and he also started defining the future of his Empire of the Mind.

Because he now had to become quickly a mature man, as it happens with all boys when they lose their father. Same as it came to be for Winston who set out to make something of himself, and maybe along the way put his dent in the universe.

He reckoned that history waited long enough for his arrival…

To be continued…