Pat Anderson's Blog: THE ILLUMINATI DISCO ROADSHOW

THE HOLY BIBLEAUTHORISED McMURDO VERSIONTHE BOOK OF GENESIS

IN THE BEGINNING
And God was alone and said, 'Let Us make Man in Our own image.' And He did make Man and Woman but they did get on his nerves; yea, exceedingly so. And the Man and the Woman did breed so that God did become a stranger in His own home. And God had so made then that the people did come back after they did die. And God did say, 'Fuck Me, wherefore is Nigel Farage when you need him?' And God did decide that He would only keep some of the people after they had returned from death.
 And so God made Hell, where most of the people He made would end up, just to get them out the way. Some of the people, though, would come to stay with Him in Heaven.
And God made a world for the people to live in and made a special country for those that would go to Heaven. He called this special land Scotland. And God said, 'All the chosen people in this land, whom I shall call The Peeppul, may enter Heaven only if they keep My Covenant and vote 'NO' in the referendum. Everyone else in the world will burn in Hell.'
And God did have a piece of clay left over, which He did bung onto the North-East of the land of Ireland as an extra place for The Peeppul to live. 
And He did make The Peeppul with large, protruding foreheads and long arms so that their knuckles did drag along the earth. God did this to show that His Peeppul were special. 
And God did look upon it and it was good.



NOAH'S ARK
And God did say to Noah, 'Takest thou thy Cal-Mac ferry and fill it with two of every animal. And collectest thou all men named Billy, and their wives, that they might be saved.' And God did then send a flood unto the world and killed all the evil men on it. And Noah did sail for forty days and forty nights and then did send a green budgie out to find land. And the budgie returned not. He did then send a green parrot. And the parrot returned not. Noah did then release a lark, which returned and did lead Noah to dry land. And Noah and the Billies and the Billettes did build a temple unto God in that place and, remembering the lark, they did name the temple Larkhall. And they did remember the budgie and the parrot and did allow not the colour green to be shewn in their land.



THE TOWER OF BABEL
And lo! The evil men still flourished and did conspire to build a tower that they might reach Heaven. And they did build said tower at the top of Rosemount Street. And God was angry and did smite the tower down. And he did scatter the people of the place known as Garngad to the corners of the earth. Yea, verily, even unto the lands of Easterhouse and Castlemilk.



 

JOSEPH
And Jacob did have many sons and the youngest of these was Joseph. And Joseph was the favourite son in his father's eye and his brothers were pure dead jealous. And Jacob did buy Joseph a sash of orange colour. And Joseph's brothers did hate him even more. And they did sell him into bondage in the land of Coatbridge and pretend to Jacob that he was dead.
And Joseph did become favourite of the Pharaoh of Coatbridge and became powerful. And a mighty famine did fall upon the land and Jacob and his sons did have to leave the land of Larkhall to beg succour in the land of Coatbridge. And Joseph did recognise his father and brothers and did take them in. And he did sing to them, 'Where would you have been, if I hadn't taken you in?' And his brothers did seethe with anger and resentment and vowed revenge, yea even unto the last generation.

How many 'Better Together' campaigners does it take to change a light bulb? None, of course, they want us all kept in the dark as much as possible.

The Daily Record yesterday treated us to an article on how 'Celebrities' would vote in the Independence Referendum. Unfortunately for them, they mucked things up and the 'gallery' they asked us to 'click on' just wasn't there! So, in effect, the only one we heard from was Billy Connolly. The Big Yin gave an emphatic 'No,' saying that he doesn't like nationalism of any kind. Either Connolly is thick or he's being deliberately disingenuous, but he shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the issues at stake.

To me, this isn't about nationalism; quite the opposite, in fact. I'm a firm believer in closer ties between countries and am a firm supporter of the European Union. So is the SNP, which has promised to negotiate for Scotland to remain in the EU come independence. Despite the usual scare stories from the 'No' camp, it appears that there will be no problem with this.

On the other hand, if we were to remain in the UK then there's every chance that we'll be out of Europe within the next few years. The meteoric rise of UKIP in England shows where the real cause of nationalism in this debate lies and it is something that the next UK government will have to come to terms with. There's every chance that UKIP will hold the deciding vote in Parliament after the General Election and if the Tories want to be in power then they'll have to bring Farage and his stormtroopers onboard.

I for one don't want to live in a country like that, where Daily Mail readers hold the upper hand and dictate the laws of the land. It'll be back to the old £sd, metric measures will be outlawed, racism will be de rigeur, anybody that's black will be 'repatriated,' Islam will be illegal and if you don't wear a poppy throughout October and into November you will be shot! You think I'm exaggerating? Then you should pay more attention to what your average UKIP voter writes online and in the papers.

We've had one UKIP MEP elected in Scotland and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of his votes came from certain areas in Lanarkshire. It surely can't be coincidence that leading bloggers and speakers on the Unionist side are also members of UKIP? McMurdo for example, and his friend, holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie. These are the folk that want us to break away from Europe and yet they have the cheek to call those in favour of Scottish independence 'insular' and 'parochial'.

So the choice isn't between an independent Scotland, where we've all to eat haggis, wear tartan and conform to the Wee Frees' sabbatarian pronouncements and a free, modern, internationalist UK. On the contrary, it's between a modern, vibrant Scotland taking a full part in Europe and a bunch of Little Englanders that want to go back to 'Splendid Isolation.' I know which one I want.

Basically, the 'No' side of the debate depends on bigotry and ignorance. Have a look at these comments on McMurdo's blog:

"Next on their agenda would be for all of us too (sic) turn into RC’s"

"...my Mother and Father fought against one of the most evil regimes ever during the Second World War and they did it voluntarily believing that it’s what we stood for a Union of People who defended our Faith and what was right."

So apparently the Second World War was a religious war to uphold the Reformed tradition and the SNP is closely linked to the Vatican! Are people really that thick? Sadly, it appears so!

I recently e-mailed The Scottish Book Trust, asking if they reviewed works by independent authors. I sort of expected that they would answer me by saying, 'Thanks, but no thanks.' Instead, they did not bother to reply at all. I e-mailed them again, asking why they had not deigned to reply the first time, pointing out that even a one-word answer would have been better than none. Again, however, I received no reply. A good look over their website provides some kind of reason why they should be so rude.

They claim to be looking to promote reading in Scotland and to support Scottish writing. The truth is, however, that it is a particular type of Scottish writing that they want to support and promote. My work would not look right next to the pretentious claptrap of Alasdair Gray, whose writing seems to be put on a pedestal as something wonderful, even though it is shallow, inaccessible garbage. I was once given 'Lanark' to read by a friend and found it a worthless experience. I'd never encountered anything so self-indulgent and twee and wondered why it had been published at all.

The problem with the Arts in Scotland is that it suffers from trying too hard to be 'intellectual'. I think this stems in large part from the English perception of Scotland as full of monosyllabic drunks, junkies and gorgers on junk food. To counter this misconception a culture has arisen of 'overegging the pudding'. This extends to consumers as well as producers.

I remember as a teenager the feeling of superiority gained by sitting in a pub discussing Samuel Beckett, knowing that others around you are totally ignorant of the writer and his works. I think most folk go through this kind of stage, thinking that they're better than their parents and their peers because of what they read, the films they watch, the music they listen to etc. Some of us, however, get into our twenties and realise that the Emperor is naked and that we're not quite as clever as we thought we were. Many, though, continue to admire said monarch's new suit and expect to be looked up to because of it.

We can all be a bit snooty about the likes of Hello magazine or Katie Price's new book but, in reality, we know that people actually enjoy these pieces of writing. Many, however, take this snobbery to extremes and will look down their nose at anything that is in any way popular or populist. But isn't reading meant to be a pleasurable activity?

When I was a teacher I used to take in all my old comic annuals, like the Dandy and Beano (I've got a good collection - and still read them!) into my class for my pupils to enjoy. Whenever they had time they would dive on these books and actually read them, instead of just holding a book up to hide behind while they chatted. A senior teacher expressed her displeasure at this, 'School is the only opportunity these children get to be exposed to quality literature,' she said. She couldn't answer me when I asked her to define 'quality literature'.

Not long after, I went to Portugal on holiday. I took up my usual position at the poolside, with a bottle of lager, my fags and a book of science-fiction short stories. A Scottish man sitting nearby said that he couldn't understand why anyone would take a book on holiday with him. To him there was nothing pleasurable about reading at all.

I related this story to that senior teacher when the new term started. Needless to say, she backed down and my class were able to enjoy reading about Biffo the Bear, Dennis the Menace and Minnie the Minx. They would continue to see reading as a pleasure and might even read some 'quality literature' later on in life.

Which brings me back to where I started. The Scottish Book Trust, despite its avowed aims, is not there to promote reading; not as a pleasurable activity anyway. It is there to promote an elitist idea of Scottish literature and to perpetuate a snobbery about books.

To give but one example, take the children's books they promote, supposedly written in the 'language that Scottish children speak.' They are, in fact, written in old, Robert-Burns-style Scottish, which nobody has spoken for a couple of hundred years. Any child reading these books would need recourse to a glossary. So they're not written in the language that the children speak, but in the language that some elitist adult thinks they should speak.

The Scottish Book Trust also runs competitions to find new authors. The winner, however, does not get a publishing deal. Instead, you get a grant so you can take a short time off work in order for established writers to help you to make your work 'better'. In other words, anything that anyone outside the clique writes is unsuitable and has to be made to fit.

No doubt I sound bitter. Am I? You bet I am! I don't publish my books independently because they're not good enough for publishing houses. It might well be that they're not that great; that's for others to decide. The fact is, however, that a look round a Scottish bookshop or on the Scottish Book Trust website, shows the sort of pretentious cack that they want to publish in Scotland. So why should I waste my time and money sending an MS to different publishers and agencies when I know in advance what their answer is going to be?

I always remember years ago when Glasgow was European City of Culture. I was living in Edinburgh at the time and it really got up a lot of folk's nose that a city full of thick, dirty people, who all lived in slums had been chosen to present a cultural face to Europe. I remember one guy in a pub in Leith, pissed out his head, bits of vomit clinging to his shirt and a large piss stain on his trousers, shouting, "What the fuck diz Glesgy ken aboot culture? If people waant culture they should come tae Edinburry!" It's worth pointing out that this 'hater of all things Glaswegian' was a season-ticket holder at Ibrox!

Culture is a word that gets bandied about a lot these days. The Neo-Nazis of the EDL claim that their 'Inglish coolchah' is being destroyed by Muslims, while our own, Scottish versions of these clowns see their 'culchur an' tradishuns' being eroded by the descendants  of Irish Catholic immigrants. Anthropologists  and human-rights activists are at each others' throats over Middle-Eastern and African cultural traditions like female genital mutilation, marriage and sex with children and 'dry sex'.

At the moment we're being subjected to claims of 'British Culture' by our government, both as part of the desperate 'Better Together' campaign and as an integral part of the lie that 'We're all in it together'. Unfortunately, this 'shared British experience' extends no further than taking part in wars and attempting to enslave half the globe! Apart from that there's not much more to be said about 'British Culture.'

Some folk seem to think that the days when large portions of the world map were coloured pink are still with us. Enter one George (Lord) Robertson, he of the face like a Halloween cake that ended up at the bottom of the shopping bag. He informs us that if the UK is broken up then the world faces revolutions, 'Balkanisation' and dictators running riot. According to Robertson, a vote for independence is a vote for the 'Forces of Darkness.' All the miscreants in the world, it appears, are only stopped by their fear of the UK. What a load of keich! It seems Robertson doesn't realise that this is the Twenty-First Century, not the Nineteenth!

Of course, a 'Better Together' spokesman puts the tin hat on it by saying, “George Robertson is right to say that people need to come together to solve the many problems in our world.” That'll be the same 'Better Together' that includes all the Tories that want to leave the EU? Of course, the real reason for all this scaremongering is added onto the end of Robertson's tirade, when he says that Scottish independence will 'de-stabilise Northern Ireland'. That, of course, is the real reason for the Scottish Establishment's fear of a YES vote.

Robertson has previous for this kind of nonsense, claiming that Scotland has 'no culture of its own'. I wonder how he makes that one out. Yes, we share a common language, even though our regional dialects make it sound as if we are all speaking different ones. Is Robertson, then, going to claim that America has no culture of its own? What about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados? Like I said, the guy seems to be stuck in a time warp.

Back when I was a teacher I would often be told to do a project about Scotland with my class. I interpreted this differently from other teachers, who would usually do things about the clans, tartans and Scottish kings. I, on the other hand, looked at the way of life of ordinary people in Scotland. This would involve visits to the Edinburgh Story, Glasgow's People's Palace, bringing in older folk to talk and show photos and memorabilia and learning old Street Songs. The pupils would usually be amazed to discover that the lifestyle, leisure activities and children's games and songs have been pretty standard across Scotland.

Quite a few of my brighter pupils discovered for themselves, and pointed out to me, how Scottish working-class culture has been marginalised, especially in their closest city of Edinburgh. The 'shortbread-tin' culture that many NO campaigners accuse the SNP of promoting has actually been imposed on us from outside. It's something the English promoted in the Nineteenth Century as they turned large tracts of Scotland into their playground. Now, it's something that the tourists have come to expect. It's worth noting, however, that most of the shops in Edinburgh selling tartan tat are actually run by Pakistanis!

There are all different ways in which Scotland is different culturally than England. There are places in the Highlands and Islands where people's first language is still Gaelic, the Church of Scotland, with its fierce Presbyterianism is vastly different from that of England, Catholics in Scotland have none of the unquestioning obedience to the Church seen elsewhere and there has been a long tradition of radicalism in Scotland that has always been more intense, active and longer-lasting than that evident in parts of England. Scottish Chartism was a different beast from its counterpart in England, while Red Clydeside had its counterparts in other places in Scotland, but not in England. Scottish radicalism was essential for helping the Liberal Party and then the Labour Party get elected. When huge droves of English people deserted the Liberals and Labour, Scotland always remained true. That's something that George Robertson should remember instead of taking the traditional Scottish vote for granted.

It could be argued that many in Scotland's big cities have more in common with the likes of Liverpool or Manchester than they do with people that live in the Scottish Highlands and Islands. Be that as it may, the fact is that we are not currently being governed from Liverpool or Manchester but from London, a place none of us have anything in common with. It's been shown time and time again that the Westminster government's priority is always the South of England, no matter who is in power. It is not inconceivable that some time in the future the likes of Liverpool or Manchester might want to join an independent Scotland to escape thralldom to the selfishness of London and the Home Counties. They'd be more than welcome!

As usual, the arguments coming from the 'Better Together' camp contain nothing but doom and gloom. I've yet to hear one positive reason for staying in the Union; all I've heard is how bad things will allegedly be if Scotland becomes independent. Strangely the English media is normally calling us benefit junkies and go out of their way to argue that we rely on the hard-working tax payers in the South of England to keep us going. If they honestly believe this then it begs the obvious question: why are they so desperate to hold onto us?





"Guess what? Ah'm no' deid at aw. Noo Ah'm jist waitin' ma chance fur world domination. D'ye know the only thing that's stoappin' mae? Ah'm scared-y the mighty United Kingdom, especially wae Scotland in it. See if Scotland leaves it then that's me gonnae pyoor get stuck intae everybody, so Ah um. Aye, a vote fur independence is a vote fur Al Qaeda!"

The laughable 'Better Together' campaign probably prompts everyone to think the same as me: is that the best they can do? Surely Westminster has all manner of resources at its disposal to wage a decent propaganda war? Then again, the best kind of propaganda war would be one where nobody knows that they are being fed propaganda at all. It would be infinitely preferable for people to think that they'd made up their own minds. Maybe, then, the propaganda war is already being waged.

Everybody knows the old adage about divide and rule and those with any sense can see that this has been going on in Scotland for a long time. The majority of the Scottish population has traditionally been encouraged to consider itself as being part of The Establishment. Even in the Twenty-First Century there are those that think they have a vested interest in the status quo, that the Queen and the Royal Family has a special affection for them and their loyalty. These deluded souls are, thankfully, in a minority.

It was not that long ago, however, that such views were actually in a majority in Scotland, where voting Tory was the done thing if you were a Protestant. Anyone that wanted to drive a wedge into Scottish society could do worse than try to resurrect these views and cause folk to run to the Unionist camp. It would be playing with fire to stir up old sectarian hatreds but, to those trying to keep the Union together it would be worth it.

So how would one go about it? Well, how about starting with the football team associated with Scottish Protestantism: Rangers FC. HMRC could hound it into liquidation, causing anger, bitterness and resentment. Then, what about inventing the story that the club and company are separate entities, helping to cause more polarisation. So, when the new club starts over in the lower divisions, the supporters can claim that their team, the same club, has been relegated and treated unfairly. This will create a paranoid, angry, backs-against-the-wall mentality.

But if you really want to stir up old, latent, sectarian hatreds, you need to bring Northern Ireland into it. How about soldiers singing sectarian songs at Ibrox and posing for pictures with scarves saying, 'Keep Ulster Protestant'? Of course, most right-thinking folk would condemn this so you need to add something else into the mix. How about the Green Brigade exhibiting a huge picture of Bobby Sands? And just to add insult to injury, what about a picture of William Wallace alongside in an attempt to equate the two? Will the condemnation of those soldiers still be so vocal?

Not enough? Well how about this? A BBC documentary detailing the use of death squads by the British Army in Northern Ireland. One part of the Scottish population is outraged, while another sees it as an entirely justifiable way of combatting terrorism. Again, the outrage on one side will help to foster the reactionary justifications from the other.

The veneer of modern Scotland is gradually being chipped away. I'm willing to bet there will be more 'revelations' about Northern Ireland and more accusations of jingoism, triumphalism, sectarianism and the support of terrorism lobbed around. If it continues then by the time the day comes to vote for Scottish independence the vote will be seen as one between Protestant Loyalty or Catholic Republicanism. It can't be a coincidence that the Tories have  returned to their old name of the 'Conservative and Unionist Party' instead of just the usual 'Conservative Party'!

Probably everyone in Britain is familiar with Wilfred Owen's poem, 'Dulce et Decorum Est.' Every English teacher in the land insists on their pupils studying the poets of World War One; so much so that it is hard to think of the Great War without them. Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves and others wrote of the mindless slaughter and struggled to find a reason for it all.

In the aftermath of the war the whole population of Britain felt nothing but a sense of loss. Spiritualists and mediums did a roaring trade as people tried to get in touch with lost loved ones. Interest in the Occult increased, as did the influence of exotic religions as everyone strived to come to terms with what had happened. Even working-class folk subscribed to spiritualist magazines and organisations. Remembrance Day was instituted, to remember the dead and to make sure that it never happened again.

There was no sense that the Great War had made the world a better place, that the dead had sacrificed themselves for 'freedom.' On the contrary, war was evil and to be avoided as much as possible. Even the Oxford Union passed a motion that they would never again fight for their country.

All of which makes absolutely disgusting the jingoistic language used by the followers of the team at Ibrox. On Bill McMurdo's website someone decided to post Wilfred Owen's famous poem. He then repeated the last line, with a translation, 'It is sweet and right to die for your country.' I'm not sure I would agree with his translation of 'decorum,' but the main thing that stands out is that he is missing the point of the poem. In the last two lines, Owen calls the saying 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,' a lie. It is neither sweet nor fitting to die at any time. The person that posted this is guilty of either gross stupidity or breathtaking cynicism.

The rest of McMurdo's blog is filled with folk boasting about Scottish soldiers fighting, and dying, to build and maintain the British Empire; heroes, all of them, they maintain. So, firing a Maxim gun into natives, armed only with spears is heroic? Invading China with gunboats and heavy artillery to force that country to let British drug dealers in is heroic? Burying Muslims alive, wrapped in pigskins and firing canons with people tied to the font because they had the nerve to mutiny over their religious beliefs being trampled over is heroic?

During WWI itself the high command on both sides were terrified that the working classes might refuse to fight. The scenes at Christmas 1914, when ordinary soldiers met up and played games of football etc, absolutely terrified those at the top and soldiers were threatened and even shot for not fighting. And yet, we are told that they were there to safeguard our freedoms?

And what of WWII? After it was discovered what had been going on in Nazi Germany, it was easy to convince everybody that it was a morally just war against the forces of evil. But is that why Britain went to war? If everyone was so concerned about the treatment of Jews then why were they all so keen to participate in the 1936 Olympic Games? Not one word was raised in our country to suggest a boycott. The truth is that, just as in WWI, the war was about 'Realpolitik'; in fact, most historians see WWII as just a continutation of WWI.

At the end of WWII, in the General Election, Churchill turned on his erstwhile Labour colleagues in the War Cabinet, comparing them with the Nazis. The election of a Labour government was seen by many at the top as a betrayal. Airey Neave wrote how disgusted he was with the changes in Britain; this was not what he fought for, he said. Neave swore to get things back to how they were and got his chance when his protégée, Margaret Thatcher, won the 1979 General Election.

All the rhetoric and propaganda about fighting for freedom also fired the ambitions of the people in the British Colonies, who wanted their own freedom. This is not what Britain meant to happen and the loss of the Empire caused a deep hurt among the ruling classes and their forelock-tugging followers among the middle and working classes.

The vile posturing and jingoistic rhetoric displayed by right-wingers in association with Remembrance Day pollutes the memory of all those that died. The poppy is now more to do with support for war, the armed forces and the myth that all those men died to preserve 'freedom.' Meanwhile, that 'freedom' is being trampled over by the very people that constantly spout the word. Those that do not agree with the new meanings behind the poppy are to be reviled and treated as pariahs; freedom is only for the few, it seems.

In the past few years, football teams have taken to wearing the symbol of the poppy on their tops. Now it is being claimed that this has been a long-standing tradition and those that do not comply are to be made an example of. So much for freedom!

The Ibrox hordes have started sending e-mails to the SFA to complain about teams that did not hold a minute's silence on Saturday or did not wear printed poppies. Probably the players and fans went to church services on Sunday and observed the silence on Monday but it seems that is not enough. It appears that you've not just to remember the fallen but turn the whole thing into a circus by making sure that everyone sees your bleeding heart, while you desperately try to make yourself look good. A wee read of the Parable of The Widow's Mite in the Gospels might let these people see how disgusting their acts are.

Meanwhile, McMurdo takes the opportunity to remind everyone that there was now an 'isidious threat from within.' In a vile move, he equates the referendum on Scottish independence with 'external threats,' whom our 'fallen heroes' died fighting in order to stop. As has often been stated on McMurdo's website, this 'internal threat' is actually comprised of Catholics, descended from Irish immigrants, trying to turn Scotland into a republic! These are exactly the kind of scare tactics used by the Nazis in the 1930s in order to turn Germany into a totalitarian state.

So, on the one hand, we've to celebrate the death of thousands, if not millions, of soldiers, who died to keep us free from Nazi tyranny, as well as to destroy an evil regime that discriminated against minorities to the extent of killing them. And on the other hand, the memories of those dead soldiers are being evoked to discriminate against a minority in Scotland! Plus ça change...

Further to my blog yesterday about some of the ludicrous historical theories bandied about, and believed, by extremist Protestants, I decided to do some research of my own and have made some startling discoveries relating to the Orange Order.

I think everyone knows that the name of this organisation came from William of Orange, but not many people know where his family name came from. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the colour orange, even though the family adopted the colour to represent its name. The name actually comes from an area in Southern France, which is also called Orange. In Medieval times this area was called the Principality of Orange. With all the intermarriages going on in Medieval Europe among the ruling families, quite often titles and places fell into the hands of someone that, hitherto had nothing to do with the place. In 1544, William the Silent, Count of Nassau, inherited the lands and the title Prince of Orange. This led to the family being named the House of Orange-Nassau. This is the family from which William of Orange came, he being Prince of Orange when he invaded Britain and became king.

The place-name Orange and the colour orange have different and completely separate eymologies. The colour orange was named after the fruit and has its roots in India and the Sub-Continent. The place-name, although the same, came from Latin, which, in turn was derived from a Celtic word. The place was called Arausio in Roman times, taken straight from the Celtic. This was later corrupted into Aurenja, which later became Orange. The word Orange being used as the place-name predates the use of the word for the fruit by several centuries.

Arausio was actually named after a Celtic river god, also called Arausio, whom the local people and their druids worshipped. Essentially, then, William of Orange's name comes from a pagan god. Since the Orange Order was named after him, then it is not incorrect to call the Orange Order a pagan organisation, or, in effect, a pagan cult, which worships ancient Celtic gods.

When Celtic druids were officiating at religious ceremonies they always dressed in white, which signified purity. White robes, white hoods and white gloves were worn on these occasions. This tradition has survived in the Orange Order to this day and members can always be seen to be wearing white gloves on ceremonial occasions, such as when they are marching.

Druids were not only priests but were warriors as well. When the skull of an ancient druid warrior was excavated it was discovered to be wearing quite distinctive headgear.






Put a body round the skeleton of this hat and cover it in black felt and it would look extremely familiar. The wearing of bowler-hats has nothing to do with respectability or some such thing; it is a cover that contains the above skeleton within it. The Orange Order, in line with its pagan Celtic roots, insists that its members wear a druid's crown.

The Fifth of November is an important date in the Orange calendar. It is a time when they build bonfires and burn the effigy of a man. Ostensibly this is about celebrating the failure of Guy Fawkes and his accomplices when they tried to kill the king and his cabinet and restore England to Catholicism in the Sixteenth Century. In truth, however, this ceremony has its roots much further back.

Part of druidical worship was human sacrifice. Ancient sources tell us how the sacrificial victim would be imprisoned in a wooden effigy, the Wicker Man of folklore, and then burned alive. The current yearly ceremony of burning a human effigy is a continuation of this pagan ritual.





It is easily seen, then, that far from being the Christian organisation that it purports to be, the Orange Order is, in fact, a pagan cult. It is named after an ancient Celtic god and continues to use the practices and accoutrements associated with pagan, druidical religious ceremonies.

I feel a book coming on. Do you think Bill McMurdo would advertise this one on his website?

Bill McMurdo claims on his blog that he encourages 'lively discussion' but that he doesn't want abusive remarks or bad language. A quick perusal of the posts on his blog shows that he doesn't adhere to this policy too strictly. In fact, there are only two kinds of post that Merlin doesn't like. The first is calling 'Rangers' a new team or saying that the club went into liquidation. The second is any criticism of the many pseudo-histories that Orangemen, and other extremist, right-wing Protestants hold so dear. Such a post is usually moderated out of existence.

Of course, they don't hold with any of the daft theories about Freemasons running the world or the Royal Family being alien lizards. Their reading matter of choice is almost exclusively about Roman Catholics running the world behind the scenes and about Roman Catholicism being a pagan religion, usually derived from Babylon somehow.

One of these was written by some headbanger of a Free-Church minister in the mid-Nineteenth Century, by the name of Alexander Hislop. His book is called 'The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.' As you might expect, this book is a load of half-truths, utter shite and downright lies. The Orange bigots, however, lap it up like mother's milk.

If you've never heard of Nimrod, he's some king in the Book of Genesis, who supposedly lived around the time of Abraham. Nobody has figured out who the hell this guy is, although plenty of candidates have been put forward. Auld Hislop, however, has it all figured out. Nimrod was king of Babylon and he insisted that he be worshipped as a god. Nimrod's wife, Semiramis, was also worshipped as a goddess. The fact that Semiramis was apparently born a couple of hundred years after the time that Nimrod was supposedly shagging her in a god-like fashion seems to concern Hislop not a jot.

Anway, Hislop posits all kinds of convoluted theories about ancient religions to reach the point where the Catholic Church, at the time of Constantine, adopted the worship of pagan, Roman gods. Why they should have done this is not explained. He makes the claim that pictures of Mary with the baby Jesus are, in reality, some Roman goddess, while the baby was 'Jupiter-Puer' or the baby Jupiter. The fact is that the Romans had no such cult of Jupiter as a child and Hislop was the first person to come up with the name, 'Jupiter-Puer.'

Hislop outlines the practices of the Ancient Greek Eleusinian Mysteries, even though nobody knows anything about this cult's practices or even who they worshipped. His whole book is made up of ridiculous nonsense like this, which normal scholars find laughable.

Another bam they all orgasm over is Tupper Saussy, a bitter wee man with a chip on his shoulder about the American Government. This guy spouts the same pish as Hislop and tries to prove that the 'pagan' RC Church runs the world. Again, his book is full of all manner of crap. He claims that the Dog Star, Canis Major, is named after Cain, when anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Latin knows that 'canis' is Latin for 'dog.' He also says that the title 'Pontifex Maximus' was a Babynonian one, which was adopted in Rome in 48BC, even though the title went back to the times of the kings in Rome, about 500 years before!

Another guy called Ralph Woodrow wrote a similar book, based on Hislop's 'findings' and was embarrassed to later discover that it was a load of Craig Whyte. He pulled the book from circulation, even though it was a bestseller. Of course, he has since received death threats from extremist Protestants around the world. It seems that The Peeppell are the same everywhere!

If you have a look on Amazon you can find dozens of these pathetic attempts to rewrite history. Or you can find some of them on McMurdo's website, including some that he's written himself! They all have one thing in common: anti-Catholicism. Haven't these people got anything better to do with their lives?

From believing these ridiculous versions of history, which even David Icke would laugh at, it's but a short steop to believe any old crap, like Ireland refueling U-boats and even a dead club not being dead after all!

It's fast approaching that time of year again. No, I don't mean Christmas; I'm talking about Remembrance Day. Years ago you would buy a poppy, observe the silence and think about those poor souls that were butchered on the fields of France and Belgium. Nowadays, however, it's a different matter entirely. It's turned into some kind of maudlin circus, where it's no longer to do with remembering the dead, but as a test of loyalty and support for the British armed forces. The display at Ibrox last year is a case in point; it had nothing to do with remembering the dead and everything to do with jingoism and nationalism.

The story we are being fed time and again is that all those men died to guarantee our freedoms. Did they? What threat to our freedom did Germany pose in 1914? The answer is none whatsoever. The truth is that the First World War was a war of imperialism, nothing else. No doubt the ordinary people in Austria, France, Italy, Russia, Turkey etc were told that they were fighting for their freedom as well. We know full well that this was certainly the case in Germany. You only have to read Remarque's 'All Quiet on the Western Front', or watch the film, to find out that the Germans were told the same lies.

So what was the war really all about? The jury is still out on that one. Only one person has seen fit to look behind the scenes and find out what was going on. Fritz Fischer's 'Germany's Aims in the First World War' caused outrage in his native land when it first appeared in the early 1960s. He shows that the German elite went to war with the sole purpose of gaining more land, especially in the East. His book is now required reading for any serious student of the First World War. It also encouraged German historians to look more closely at what went on in their own country under the Nazis.

So what about the other countries? Austria was determined to hold onto her splintering empire in the Balkans, Turkey was in the same position, Russia had been after ports in the Mediterranean/Adriatic for at least a century, while France was looking for revenge for the Franco-Prussian War and the return of Alsace-Lorraine. Italy, although allied to Germany and Austria, joined the other side, partially through opportunism, partly through long-standing hatred of Austria. It should be remembered, of course, that when I am talking about a country I am really talking about that country's ruling elite.

But what of Britain; why did she enter the war? I remember a tutor at university telling us that there was a book written about Britain's reasons for going to war. The woman that wrote it, however, was related to many in the upper echelons of British society and her book was a whitewash. It was a salutory lesson in checking the credentials of your sources, said our tutor. The problem is that, even a hundred years later, nobody has performed a critical analysis of why Britain went to war. A search on the internet shows that the story of Britain going to war for noble and altruistic reasons is still the general opinion.

This makes the idea of four-years' worth of 'commemoration' of the First World War, starting next year, a bit suspect. Part of the four-years' programe includes 'education.' Considering what I've already pointed out, this 'education' is going to be nothing more than propaganda; reinforcing the myth that all those men died to protect our freedom.

Everyone has somebody that died in the First World War in their family and I'm no exception. Equally not exceptional, sadly, was the circumstances of my relative's death. My grandfathers were too young to have fought in WWI, while my great-grandfathers were too old. My maternal grandfather's older brother, Michael, however, joined up. Michael was only fifteen when he took the King's Shilling, no questions asked. After nearly a year in the trenches he was quite probably a nervous wreck. One morning they were ordered 'over the top'; Michael just could not do it. He was terrified, a frightened young boy, and cowered, crying, curled up in a ball on the floor of the trench. His captain shot him in the head.

That's not the end of the story. The ordinary soldiers were quite protective of young Michael and the Captain caught a 'stray' bullet in the back during the attack. Friendly Fire, I think they call it nowadays. So, on Remembrance Day, am I to remember the poor great-uncle I never knew, or just the 'heroes' that fell in the heat of battle? And what about that captain; am I to remember his 'sacrifice'?

Hundreds of broken men, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or shell shock, were lined up and shot by firing squad or by their immediate commanding officer if it was during a battle. Are we to remember these 'cowards,' as they were termed, even being accused of cowardice after the war was over?

After the war my grandfather's family's grief was compounded by the death of his grandmother. She was an aged widow, who still lived in a small cottage in Ireland. She was dragged from her cottage for no reason by the Black and Tans. They poured petrol over her and set her alight, making bets as to how long it would take her to die. Am I to remember her and how she died with 'heroes' of the British Army laughing and joking and stopping anyone that tried to help her? If those men were later killed by the IRA am I to rememer, and be grateful for, their 'sacrifice'?

Till the day he died my grandfather always went on about hating the British, after what they did to his family. My granny used to tell him to 'shut up' and said that his family were all 'Communists' anyway! If I was to tell certain people about my grandfather their answer would be that he should have 'fucked off home,' even though he, and his mother before him, was born in this country. It seems that to criticise any past, or current, behaviour of our government, or its representatives, is seen to be disloyal and anti-British and as proof that you don't belong here.

This is what the poppy has come to represent; not remembrance, but support for any and all wars that our armed forces have ever engaged in. I have seen letters in the newspapers suggesting, nay demanding, that everyone should boycott shops where the person behind the counter is not wearing a poppy, that we should refuse our custom to any place that does not have poppies on display and that no business should be done with anyone that does not wear a poppy. 'Poppy Fascism,' people are starting to call it. It reminds me of something in the Book of Revelation: everyone has to wear the 'Mark of The Beast' and nobody can do business or any transaction if they do not carry this mark.

That's why I'm not wearing a poppy this year. The whole thing has changed beyond recognition and is no longer about remembrance. Rather than remembering our war dead, we are now to remember their 'sacrifice' and pretend that all those young men died at the Somme, Ypres and Paschendale to protect our freedom, instead of the reality of dying for the ambitions of our ruling elite, as they continue to do.

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

This is what Winston Churchill said regarding the Soviet Union being suddenly thrown on the side of Britain by Hitler's invasion of Russia. It is quite apt and worth bearing in mind when reading or hearing the usual Orangeman's diatribe about the Irish during the Second World War.

The Vanguard Bears website yesterday carried the usual disinformation about Ireland during WWII. The piece was written by somebody calling himself General Schomberg, who decides to regurgitate the same old lies that have been peddled for years. These include the lie that Ireland allowed German U-Boats to refuel in Irish ports and the ridiculous story that the Irish kept their lights on at night to guide German bombers to Liverpool etc. They must have been really strong lights!

The reality is that, although Ireland was ostensibly neutral, the Irish government actually worked closely with Britain against the Nazis. This included the forwarding of intelligence information, the allowing of Britain to enter Irish airspace and waters and the drawing up of plans in the event of a German invasion of Ireland. Plan W, as it was called, detailed the sending of troops from Britain to fight, along with the Irish, against the invaders.

In point of fact, many Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British army against the Nazis and Irish coastal areas suffered destruction from German bombing raids that had overshot their targets. (So much for them being guided in by Irish lights!)

Contrast this with the behaviour of another neutral country, Switzerland. Although the Swiss stayed out of the war they provided banking services for the Nazis, with no questions asked. Bank vaults were filled with stolen treasures, money stolen from Jewish businesses and even gold gleaned from the fillings of Jewish extermination camp victims. But, then, Switzerland is a Protestant country so the Orangemen will gloss over any infractions of that particular nation.

Meanwhile in South Africa, a British Colony, which joined the war on the side of the Allies, members of the Dutch Reformed Church, a Calvinist Presbyterian church like the Church of Scotland, formed the Ossebrandwag to oppose South African participation in the war and to support Nazi Germany. Members of this organisation openly attacked soldiers in the street and even caused a riot in which many soldiers were seriously injured. The Ossebrandwag also had a paramilitary wing, called the Stormjaers, who carried out a campaign of terrorism in South Africa, including bombings, to disrupt the war effort. There was even an attempt to assassinate Jan Smuts, the Prime Minister.

So while the neutral Irish Catholics were helping the British war effort, Presbyterian British citizens in South Africa were waging a campaign of terror on behalf of the Nazis!

The bile on the Vanguard Bears page continues with the story of Sean Russell, an IRA man that died aboard a German U-Boat. What the piece fails to mention, however, is that the IRA was actually outlawed in Ireland during this period and Russell was regarded as a renegade even in IRA circles. Before he visited Germany Russell went to the USA to drum up support for his terrorist campaign, which did not have the full support of the IRA. At any rate, his Nazi credentials are pretty much non-documented and his eagerness to work with the Nazis can be attributed to the same sentiments as those expressed by Churchill, which I quoted above.

General Schomberg, on Vanguard Bears, tells us gleefully that there is a statue of Russell in Dublin. What he fails to mention is that the statue has been repeatedly vandalised by Irish anti-fascists. This fact would not fit in with the myth of the whole of Ireland being in league with the Nazis.

He also details how a visit by the Israeli football team to Ireland resulted in the team being spat upon while Nazi salutes and chants were aimed at them. Such actions are to be deplored and the Irish government spoke out against these idiots, as well as some members of the Garda, who seemingly turned a blind eye. I did not hear such condmnation from any quarters, however, when Rangers supporters behaved in the same way towards the Israeli team and its fans. The old excuse of the 'Red Hand Salute' was trotted out, even though such an explanation was ridiculous in the extreme, especially in the circumstances.

He, rather disingenuously, mentions the Limerick Pogrom (or Boycott) of 1904. The way he presents it, this was an isolated incident in a world of tolerance and enlightenment. On the contrary, however, it has to be seen in the whole context of European anti-semitism. Hitler's ideas were not original; he learned them on the streets of Vienna and the undercurrent of anti-semitism was always there throughout Europe, ready to bubble to the surface at any time. Prime examples are the attacks on Jews in Whitechapel during the Jack the Ripper murders and the formation of the British Brothers League in London at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Of course, such attacks on Jews in England were never called 'pogroms' but an attack by Irish Catholics on Jews had to be made as dramatic as possible to feed the anti-Irish zeitgeist.

The piece then goes on to outline anti-semitic attitudes in Ireland after the war. Again, this is being extremely selective and Jews throughout the Western World would recognise these attitudes still prevailing well into the post-war period. A worthwhile film to see regarding this is 'Gentleman's Agreement' made in 1947 and starring Gregory Peck. A perusal of the speeches made by Senator Joe McCarthy and much of the work of the House Committee on Un-American Activities also shows an underlying strain of anti-semitism.

There is no denying that Ireland no doubt had its share of Nazi sympathisers during the War, but so did every other country, including Scotland. Equally, Ireland is not the only country where neo-Nazism and modern-day anti-semitism is to be encountered. To state, or even imply, that this is the case is merely to serve the same ends as the Nazis that the writer purports to hate.