"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy,
And the dogs that bark revolution.
Drunk with talk, liars and believers.
I believe in my tusks. Long live freedom and damn the ideologies!"
(Robinson Jeffers)
As my Gentle Readers already know, a great part of political combat is conducted through clever (and occasionally not-so-clever) choices of rhetoric. That makes it imperative that we who love freedom stay informed about what new and incisive rhetorical weapons are being deployed.
The Left has been considerably more adroit in its rhetoric than the Right. Consider its transition from “global warming” to “climate change.” Once it became clear that the Earth is not warming, its flacksters moved from the previous phrase to the current one. They made it the spearhead of a new attack: “Senator do you believe in climate change?” Some public figures were unprepared for the shift and handled it ineptly. A similar rhetorical shift is observable in the Left’s campaign against the right to keep and bear arms: from “gun control” to “gun reform” to “gun safety.”
For a change, the Right has struck back, specifically with regard to the Left’s tendency to use recent tragedies as bludgeons against gun rights. The phrase that’s just made the news, courtesy of Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy, is “coffin surfing.”
Braden is one of the most articulate popular defenders of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. He’s been at it for a while and is conversant with all the Left’s gimmicks. This latest sally pertains to Leftists’ piling demands for gun control onto news of mass shootings. The meaning he gives to “coffin surfing” could not be more obvious, nor its impact more acute.
Leftist ghoulishness about shooting deaths has been obvious for some time. The new phrase is a powerful blow against the psychology behind their tactics. Second Amendment defenders and other devotees of freedom should look for opportunities to use it. It lays bare the perversity that lies behind the Left’s habit of politicizing every tragedy that comes along. Leftists will cringe before its implications.
If you haven’t been watching the open-market prices of gold and silver, I have two bits of advice for you:
Check them;
Don’t check them.
Advice #1 is for those with sound constitutions. Advice #2 is for those who are prone to fret.
The U.S. dollar may yet survive as a respected currency, but over a long baseline it’s not looking good. The experiment in planned inflation that’s been going on since 1913 has reaped a terrible reward. The gold-to-dollars and silver-to-dollars curves are beginning to go asymptotic. Given the availability of this data, I’ve begun to worry about mass disaffection from the dollar as a store of value. The more people notice the deterioration, the more people will notice. Then things get spicy.
The dollar, like all fiat currencies, is sustained by faith: specifically, the faith of millions that dollars will continue to purchase what they need and want. undermined. Faith is a deposit of hope in the truth of a given proposition. Events can undermine faith. When faith in a currency is undermined, we have financial panics.
When a majority of depositors become convinced that a majority of depositors have become convinced that a majority of depositors are going to try to get their money out simultaneously, a majority of depositors start trying to get their money out simultaneously.
Why are all those depositors trying to get their money out simultaneously? Some have this reason: they can see that the purchasing power of their money is sliding ever more swiftly downward. Others have another: they see other depositors making mass withdrawals, and they suspect that those others know something they don’t. Those two motivations cause one another to accelerate. They bring about a panic.
Underlying the panic is a loss of faith in the enduring ability of the dollar to store value.
If a panic against the dollar is to occur in the near future, the availability of information that for many years was kept away from private citizens is the most likely trigger. The Internet has made that information freely available. More private citizens than ever before are making use of it.
As always in an approaching-panic situation, being among the first to act will confer a large advantage. This site is about the promptest and most reliable provider of regular information about the money metals and their dollar values. I check it regularly. I’d advise you to do the same. (Don’t neglect copper!)
Finally, for more of the whys and wherefores, review these pieces:
Allow me to open this piece with a snippet from Frederic Bastiat’s great pro-freedom treatise The Law:
[A celebrated traveler] arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks — armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."
"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."
Give that a moment to sink in while I start a second pot of coffee.
***
The patterns that run through human history are of many kinds. Some are distinct and easy to trace; others are less so, even if they’re equally critical to the understanding of Mankind and his societies. I’ve harped on the political ones frequently enough to be sick of them... as you might be too, Gentle Reader. But there are others that require more patience and more perspicacity to tease out. One of them is exemplified in the Bastiat snippet above.
Virtually all societies recognize a class of experts,distinct from other members. The expert is conceded certain privileges, even if they’re never publicly specified. One of those privileges manifests as a social predisposition in favor of letting him have his way, at least on subjects where his expertise is acknowledged.
What’s insufficiently discussed in this regard is the expert’s predisposition toward intervention: his active insertion into the affairs of others, often contrary to those others’ preferences. In modern societies, the law has been shaped to put many experts’ prerogatives over those of the others. He gets to intervene in their affairs whether they like it or not.
In some cases, private, non-expert citizens manage to resist the intrusions of even the most assertive experts. But they must fight a strong, socially reinforced current – the presumption that the expert knows best – to pull it off.
The midwife's words hang in the delivery room air like a casual afterthought: "We'll just give baby the vitamin K shot now." Just a vitamin. Nothing more than what you'd find in your morning orange juice. The language itself is the first deception - calling a synthetic blood-clotting agent manufactured by Pfizer's subsidiary Hospira a "vitamin" transforms an industrial pharmaceutical intervention into something as wholesome as sunshine.
In those first raw hours after birth, when parents are overwhelmed by the miracle of new life, the medical system strikes with practiced precision. The entire infrastructure - from the delivery nurse to the pediatrician, from the hospital protocols to the documentation systems - has been calibrated for this moment. Every medical professional in that room has been trained, not in the science of whether a newborn needs synthetic phytonadione, but in the art of securing compliance. They've learned to frame it as routine, to present it as universal, to make refusal seem like dangerous eccentricity.
Murphy's father, one of the few who came prepared, discovered what awaits those who dare say no. After his daughter was delivered using vacuum extraction five times - creating a visible blood-filled sac on her head - the red-shirted pediatrician entered within three minutes. Not to examine the baby. Not to celebrate the birth. But to begin the assault. When Murphy's father cited the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit study showing only six deaths from vitamin K deficiency bleeding in five million babies over 25 years, with none occurring in hospital births where vitamin K was refused, the doctor didn't engage with the data. Instead, he turned to the mother: "Do you feel differently?"
The pattern revealed itself through escalation. First the doctor. Then the nurse lecturing about irresponsibility. Then the NICU admission - not for medical necessity, but for "monitoring" a baby whose parents had refused the injection. Then the failed attempts to insert cannulas, the repeated heel pricks for blood tests. Strange behavior for medical professionals who claim the baby cannot clot blood properly. If she truly couldn't clot, why were they so eager to make her bleed?
Please read it all.
My purpose in citing this upsetting piece is to underscore the exercise of “medical authority,” to which we have been conditioned to defer. The physician is an expert: specifically, in neonatal care. He only wants “what’s best” for the baby, right? No physician would deliberately harm a newborn, would he? Surely we should let him do as he pleases!
Maybe not. Quite a lot of “routine” medical interventions are anything but good for the patient. When the patient is a helpless infant, the odds of an uncorrectable error are much higher than otherwise.
But as the cited article indicates, physicians and the like dislike to be balked. They become officious. They strive to convince you that if you don’t defer to their judgment, you’re committing a sin against your child. Sometimes they invoke the weight of the law. At other times, they perform what amounts to a kidnapping to get their way without your interference. They seldom suffer any penalty for any such action, while the parents of the newborn are often subjected to humiliating interrogations by “child welfare” bureaucrats.
Fighting the pressure to defer can take everything a parent has. Should the law become involved, it could destroy the family. Their newborn might be taken from them, to disappear into “supervised foster care.” It happens more often than most people are aware.
***
That’s just the medical aspect of things. Arrogant, brutally assertive experts are everywhere today. They all expect deference from the rest of us. Many are capable of enforcing their will with police assistance. And we, trained from birth to defer to “authority,” more often than not tend to go along as the easiest course.
Give this a long think, Gentle Reader. How many kinds of “expert” have tried to contravene your will? Did you resist successfully? What were the consequences? I’d like to hear about it.
I can’t imagine a reason that you “should” know Evan Barker. She’s worked in left-liberal / progressive political circles for some time. That involvement recently soured on her, with unfortunate consequences.
You see, Miss Barker committed a faux pas. She said something that made her friends and acquaintances – all left-liberal Democrats – doubt her fidelity to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Here’s the nub of it, in her own words:
When I decided to go to the DNC in 2024, I wasn’t entirely sure if I was ready to move on from politics completely, or if I’d find myself re-inspired. After I got home, I went to a dinner party in San Francisco, and when a friend asked me how the DNC was, excited to hear about it, I decided to say how I really felt about the party, finally unafraid to do so. “I’m not sure if I’ll be voting for Kamala. I hated the DNC.” I watched as a familiar expression of moral superiority began to spread across her face. “You’re saying that from a place of privilege” she chided me.
A lot of people have asked me what the exact moment was at the DNC that made me realize I wasn’t on board with the party I’d worked for nearly half of my life. The truth is, it was everything. The crowd that mindlessly chanted “joy”, the vasectomy van offering free tacos, the coronation of a candidate with zero policies or platform available, and the final straw: Oprah Winfrey. Her tone deaf lecturing turned me off so much, I left the building, getting an uber straight to my hotel, where I booked a flight home a day early, not even staying for Kamala’s acceptance speech.
I left the dinner party early too, heading straight home, where I made a selfie video airing my true thoughts. On August 24th, 2024, I hit upload, announcing to my meager following of sixty people, many of whom were former colleagues and friends in politics, that I wouldn’t vote for Kamala Harris.
Please read it all. It’s both eye-opening and heartbreaking.
Miss Barker frames her decision in terms that we’ve heard from former Democrats before this: the party has “lost touch;” it’s “left its base;” and so forth. That treats the Democrat Party a bit too kindly, but it’s understandable: it also exculpates Miss Barker for her protracted association with the party. But as a certain writer I quote far too often wrote in a similar case:
But it occurred to [Ransom] that this was possibly the first occasion in his whole life in which Weston had ever acknowledged himself in the wrong, and that even the false dawn of humility, which is still ninety-nine per cent of arrogance, ought not to be rebuffed—or not by him.
The title of Miss Barker’s piece is most significant: “One Year Ago Today I Ruined My Life.” Ruined her life? Really? But what happened?
In the past year, nearly all of my old political friends have stopped speaking to me. One of them said: “fascism doesn’t look good on you”, another said “why couldn’t you have waited until after the election?” The social ostracism has trickled out into my non political life, too. I’ve lost friends I’ve known for fifteen years. My toddler stopped getting invited to birthday parties. He was rejected from preschool. We even had to move to a new town.
Those are all unpleasant and unjust consequences of her decision to disaffiliate herself from the Democrats. But properly regarded, they actually strengthen her case for having done so. A party whose members treat a departing member in such a fashion is diseased. It doesn’t represent anything that could be defended with reason and evidence. It’s a specimen of what Eric Hoffer called “a compact and unified church” – and outside that church there is no salvation.
Miss Barker will surely reflect on that in time. So should we in the Right, for it shows us a pitfall we must avoid. Any of our fellows who announces that he’s moving to the Left should be treated courteously, however much we may deplore his decision. Political positions are not faiths, and political realignments are not some kind of secular apostasy.
I just encountered the following awesome statement from Tulsi Gabbard:
God is love. The very essence of God is love. Therefore, during times of hardship, sadness, pain and suffering, we naturally and spontaneously take refuge in Him — in love itself — because we know in the core of our hearts that it is only the power and light of God’s love that…
I beseech you: please, please read it all. Reflect on it. The simple truth contained in Tulsi’s words is the weapon that has brought down tyrannies.
Hardly the sort of emission you’d expect from a politician, is it? Yet there it is. It says much that must be said – that needs to be said – if the madness that has come close to ruining the world is to be quenched. Then compare its message to the scorn high-profile Democrats and other leftists have poured on prayer in the aftermath of Robert Westman’s mass murder of Catholic schoolchildren.
***
From our origins to our present time, Mankind has known evil. That’s not because we’re evil; we’re not. We’re what God made us: temporal creatures with individual desires and free will. In every generation there will be some who misuse their free will to prey upon others. A great part of the human struggle is to come to grips with evil when it manifests among us.
Some have more ability than others to confront evil directly. Those of us who aren’t so equipped must do what we can: we must safeguard our characters and those of our children. When evil strikes, we must rely upon our understanding of our fallen state, and be prepared to explain it to our children.
Prayer is critical at such times. Character is formed from a host of influences. Prayer – regular, humble submission to the will of a loving God – is essential to it. Children must be brought to the understanding that it’s not just a way of wishing for a new pony. To pray is to recognize our limitations. To pray is to say to the One who has no limitations, “Thy will be done.”
But as Tulsi said in the tweet above, politicians and hangers-on who denigrate prayer will have none of that. They cannot defer to God without admitting to their own fallibility and limitations, which is anathema to them. Why else would the very idea that others are praying for love and understanding upset them so? What are they really saying in their scorn? “Don’t trust God; trust us!”
Their vision, however misty, is of themselves on the throne of the universe. Their will, not God’s, as the determinant of all things.
Once more, with feeling: Put not your trust in princes. (Psalms 146:3) Trust God. Trust in your conscience, for it is He who speaks to you through that channel. And trust in the words of the Redeemer:
But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
My thoughts this morning run in another direction: How did Britain fall this low? It’s worth a lot of thought, though I doubt it will get even a fraction of the thought it deserves.
From anyone else, that is.
***
Let’s have a little music before we proceed to the analytics – no, wait; I think the thoughts expressed below deserve to be part of the analytics:
Another suburban family morning
Grandmother screaming at the walls
We have to shout above the din of our Rice Crispies
We can't hear anything at all
Mother chants her litany of boredom and frustration
But we know all the suicides are fake
Daddy only stares into the distance
There's only so much more that he can take
Many miles away
Something crawls from the slime
At the bottom of a dark Scottish lake
Another industrial ugly morning
The factory belches filth into the sky
He walks unhindered through the picket lines today
He doesn't think to wonder why
The secretaries pout and preen like cheap tarts in a red light street
But all he ever thinks to do is watch
And every single meeting with his so-called superior
Is a humiliating kick in the crotch
Many miles away
Something crawls to the surface
Of a dark Scottish loch
Another working day has ended
Only the rush hour hell to face
Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes
Contestants in a suicidal race
Daddy grips the wheel and stares alone into the distance
He knows that something somewhere has to break
He sees the family home now looming in the headlights
The pain upstairs that makes his eyeballs ache
Many miles away
There's a shadow on the door
Of a cottage on the shore
Of a dark Scottish lake
Many miles away...many miles away...many miles away...
(Sting, “Synchronicity II,” 1983)
Yes, I’ve used it before. It’s potent. It’s penetrating. It asks the same question I posed above: How did Britain fall this low? And it asked it forty-two years ago.
Forty-two years before Synchronicity was released would be 1941: the year of The Battle of London. Britain was still in decent shape before the Nazi bombing campaign. It wasn’t as well off as the United States, but its economy wasn’t yet dismissible and its men included a fair number of actual men. The American-British alliance that won World War II’s Western European Front was powerful. It suggested that British men were still masculine, a force to be respected.
But appearances can deceive. Britain was already sinking into the Slough of Despond. In part, that was because its economy hadn’t progressed as far as the American and German economies. In another part, it was because of the deaths of so many British men in World War I, up to then called “The Great War.” And in a third part, it was because of the sense that the ineptitude of His Majesty George VI’s government was responsible for Britain’s involvement in the new war that was devastating their homeland.
The sense of having been battered by events and bad governance was already at work on the minds of the British. Popular will had begun to wane. When socialist Clement Attlee took the reins from the Churchill government, it received further “humiliating kicks in the crotch:”
Attlee led the construction of the first Labour majority government, which aimed to maintain full employment, a mixed economy and a greatly enlarged system of social services provided by the state. To this end, it undertook the nationalisation of public utilities and major industries, and implemented wide-ranging social reforms, including the passing of the National Insurance Act 1946 and National Assistance Act 1948, the formation of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948, and the enlargement of public subsidies for council house building. His government also reformed trade union legislation, working practices and children's services; it created the National Parks system, passed the New Towns Act 1946 and established the town and country planning system.
There was no disguising the direction of Attlee’s program. He aimed to make Great Britain – soon to be renamed United Kingdom – into a socialist state.
Nothing enervates a people as swiftly, or as thoroughly, as socialism.
***
Other things must be sketched in for a complete picture: the rise of the trade unions and the accompanying violence; the deterioration of Britain’s “public services,” especially the NHS, from the administrative bloat and underperformance characteristic of a socialized system; the flowering of the various “rebel” movements: “punks,” “skinheads,” “rude boys,” and the like; the decline in marriage and fertility; the retreat from Christianity; the “brain drain;” the opening of Britain to unlimited immigration from the Third World; and so forth. Many causal threads are intertwined there. Suffice it to say that none of the trends that emerged after World War II favored the development of a masculine, self-reliant British man. He was being transformed into a villein.
Villeins seldom rebel against their masters. They depend on those masters for far too much.
Today, Britain’s “law enforcement” targets Britons who dare to resist the forces of depredation and degradation. Mayah Sommers was arrested for her courage. As for the multitudes of rapists and despoilers The State has allowed into the Sceptered Isle, they’re under official protection. Their numbers are still increasing, despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s declaration that immigration be slowed. The Muslims among them have become arrogant, publicly assertive, and impossible to discipline.
Popular will is supposedly being expressed by Operation Raise the Colours. Yet those flags are being ripped down as fast as they’re put up. Who stands against that counter-movement? Who will stand against it? One might surmise that the flag-raisers are waiting for Mayah Sommers to do it.
Talk is not enough to save Britain. Neither are flags.
It’s been suggested, by Larry Correia among others, that American arms makers go to emergency production levels, and their output be airdropped over Britain. Yet British hoplophobia is so advanced that it’s likely that the airdropped weapons would remain untouched until “trained firearms officers” should arrive to “safe” them.
A recent email from my dear friend Margaret Ball contained this gem:
I've been reading a lot of British mysteries lately. The cultural differences are sometimes amusing. Recently, for instance, I read one which started with 3 chapters of the cops agonizing because they've learned that in a certain house in Leeds there may exist...
A GUN!
Leads me to suspect that if a bunch of British cops were suddenly transported to the US they'd have a collective nervous breakdown.
Britain needs men. Have any survived Britain’s century-plus of degeneration? Or are they waiting for Mayah Sommers to lead her sisters and her neighbors’ daughters to save them?
It’s been a while since I last touched on this subject. However, the processes in motion have remained in motion. They won’t stop politely to allow us to catch our breath. To misquote Robert A. Heinlein, since they don’t take long lunch breaks, neither should we.
My dear friend and frequent commenter Pascal, in referring to yesterday’s emission, sent this:
That Mayah was immediately arrested for brandishing a weapon is the most important lesson to be driven into thick, sheepish human skulls of the subjects of that decadent realm. The most influential seats of UK law-makers are occupied by even more deadly death cultists than the Islamists they continue to import and protect. These rulers are so passively evil and cowardly they don't bother bloodying their own hands. Instead they simply continue to write laws that are not only quick to condemn those who defend themselves or the vulnerable, but consistently remove all obstacles to, and any fear of facing justice by, active psychopaths.
When the justice system is officially turned on its head in this manner, how much more proof is needed that the country's law makers are even more evil than the common criminal?
This is an indirect swipe at a phenomenon that was once commented on by someone whose name I’ve forgotten. The essence of it was as follows:
The State demands a monopoly on violence.
Yet violent criminals are seldom prosecuted,
While persons who defend themselves violently
Often face The State’s wrath.
Therefore, the criminal is an agent of The State.
In the United Kingdom, which seemingly grows less united with each passing day, this appears incontrovertible. It also applies to parts of these United States.
This is not a parody. Two bioethicists have argued in the prestigious professional journal Bioethics that we should breed ticks to cause more infections of a condition that causes an allergy to red meat. Seriously.
Why would anyone want ticks to become more dangerous? Meat-eating is wrong, and so anything (apparently) that causes fewer of us to eat meat is “beneficent“:
Eating meat is morally wrong.
If (1), then eating meat makes people morally worse and makes the world a worse place.
So, people would be morally better and the world would be a less bad place if people didn’t eat meat.
If an act makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place than it would otherwise be, then that act is morally obligatory. [Corollary of consequentialism]
Promoting tickborne AGS [a tickborne syndrome that causes a meat allergy] makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place.
So, promoting tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.
“Bioethicists” -- ? How much would you be willing to bet that these... persons’ ethics stop short at ethical mandates such as “Thou shalt not kill,” eh? When “bioethicists” make statements such as “Life should end at seventy-five” (Ezekiel Emanuel) or “The elderly should not receive medical care” (Daniel Callahan), they forfeit any claim to being dispensers of “ethics.” They are death cultists, pure and simple.
I could go on about this, but as I’ve done so before, and at length, I’ll spare you. Allow me one quick mention of my collection of essays on this subject, and I’ll allow us both to pass on to happier thoughts and climes.
A couple of days ago, something unusual happened Across the Water: A Briton dared to defend another Briton against the threat of rape by an immigrant.
If you aren’t familiar with the details of the event, the defender was a 14-year-old Scottish girl named Mayah Sommers. The intended victim was her 12-year-old sister. The would-be rapist was from... somewhere else, probably the Middle East or Africa. Mayah protected her sister by brandishing a large knife and a hatchet at the immigrant. Apparently that was enough to daunt him, and thank God for that.
The story is resounding throughout the U.K. I have no idea how much currency it’s achieved here or elsewhere. Young Mayah is drawing comparisons to Boadicea, to Joan of Arc, and to other courageous women known to history. She deserves as much praise as she’s received, and more.
However, her courage has had other consequences, not all of which were easy to foresee.
The one that’s drawn the most cries of outrage was Mayah’s immediate arrest for brandishing a bladed weapon. In emasculated Britain, that’s a criminal offense, and never mind the wherefores. The probability is high that popular sentiment will compel the dismissal of that charge, but as in all such things we must wait and see.
After that comes the dawning recognition that the U.K.’s laws against even the most minimal personal armament – even carrying pepper spray is outlawed, barring specific police permission – are utterly insane. They amount to a license for the would-be predator to do what he likes to less aggressive and weaker prey. Horror at the idea that innocent Britons – men and women both – are forbidden to possess and carry the means of self-defense has taken a long time to ripen, but today it’s fully upon the Sceptered Isle.
Third is the de facto position of The State: protect the predator from the consequences of his deeds, especially if he’s an immigrant, a Muslim, or both. Put baldly, it seems incomprehensible. Yet U.K. governments maintain that posture so consistently that one must infer that it was deliberately chosen. It lends weight to the suggestion that The State values the immigrants above the lives and well-being of native Britons.
Fourth and last is the rising hope that some measure of masculine courage and native pride might be kindled in the larger British populace by Mayah’s actions. I must admit that I hope for that as well. Britain deserves better than to be Islamicized and removed from the brotherhood of Western civilization. But the odds are against it, for a simple reason.
Britons fear weapons more than their invaders.
The technical term for a fear of weapons is hoplophobia. It seems endemic in the U.K. The suggestion, made by Larry Correia among others, that we should mass-produce and air-drop handguns to beleaguered Britons has been met with rejection by Britons themselves. They fear the consequences of mass armament more than what’s being done to them by the invading hordes.
Robert A. Heinlein was adamant that a slave must free himself. What of the slave who prefers slavery to freedom?
This saga may have a few more stanzas to run. Mayah Sommers is being hailed as a symbol of reborn British courage and defiance: a Mockingjay, if you will. Her example may yet galvanize what masculinity and defiance remain buried in the British soul. If it’s simply too ironic that a young teenage girl must teach those things to British men, then so be it. The Sceptered Isle needs her example too badly to quail at the disgrace of it.
