Are our great men really worthy?

As we saw in recent weeks, and as I wrote in my previous post, many great individuals of our past are now under scrutiny — in part because of their policies and more so because they committed the ‘wrong’ of holding the opinions and attitudes common to their generation.

That is what is under discussion in this article from the Iconclast.

Winston Churchill, being one of the dominant personalities of the 1940s and 1950s in particular, has been heavily criticized and condemned. I notice that many of Gen X-ers and many Millennials have a special animus toward Churchill because of his ‘warmongering’ attitudes toward the Germans. The younger generations are decidedly pro-German where both World Wars are concerned.

But since the post-WWII era, the main obsession of the West, of former Christendom, is race and everything to do with racial matters. Those educated since the middle of last century have been imbued with a mindset and morality that puts race and ‘diversity’ above all. Viewed through the “anti-racist”, pro-diversity lens, most people of past generations are judged very stringently, and Winston Churchill was not exempted from such criticism.

In our time, this aspect of life, and the crucial nature of what opinions we hold on the matter, has been the focus of much of the school and university curricula, as well as the media. Since there is only one viewpoint allowed, this is more or less a matter of social conditioning, of assuring that  people adopt the ‘correct’ view, or they have to accept unpleasant consequences.

This is probably the number one reason why Churchill’s statue was targeted by the vandals. Churchill was a ‘racist’, you see. Obviously he was much more than that; he was a complex figure. But he does not deserve to be reduced to ‘racist’.

Of late I’ve been thinking a lot about how and why we arrived at this point. It appears that individuals (and countries, and peoples) are judged almost 100 percent through the racial lens, specifically as seen by black people. Why, I’ve wondered, are we focused on judging someone’s worth as a human being strictly on their degree of commitment to ‘diversity’, (which we are daily assured is our ”strength” though why or how is not clear). If someone utters a taboo word, even innocently, that in itself is enough for someone to be banished to the outer darkness, to lose their position or their livelihood and their good name.

I believe the unspoken consensus is that having what are deemed ‘wrong’ attitudes on racial or HBD matters is considered the most heinous and unforgivable sin.

How does Christianity reconcile with this? And why is ‘racism’ not included in our age-old list of sins? Do we now in fact have a new religion, a humanistic one?

Meanwhile our statues of heroes are being toppled, and we are told that our heroes did not merely have feet of clay, but that they were in fact bad people, haters, bigots, and that they deserve either to be erased from history or to be disgraced and cursed.

What does this do psychologically to a people, to be told that the men we admired, men (and yes, women; we can’t be sexist) we looked up to, are worthless?

Certainly there are still some honest people defending Churchill, as the linked Iconoclast article shows, but the question still needs asking: why should we assess people based on their attitudes on race or Human Biodiversity? James Watson was fired from his own institution, despite his genius and his scientific accomplishments, because he said something impolitic regarding human differences. Notice that the link refers to him as a ‘racist.’

How many careers and human lives have been left in shambles because of one word?

None of our former exemplars will survive the scrutiny that everyone must undergo now. Statues of our greats will continue to be pulled down and defaced, and worse, their reputations dragged through the mud.

Should we not return to viewing people as complex, and as being in part a product of a particular culture, a people, a time, a place? Can we all accept that human differences exist? Or is even that small concession to reality a ”thought crime”?




The furor over statues is unabated

It seems that the recent trend for demolishing statues of the important and notable people has not gone away, despite the willingness of those in power to enable this vandalism. In fact, on both sides the Atlantic, the people in power appear fully consenting to the destruction. Why is that? Is it not aberrant and simply weird for this to be allowed and tolerated?

What is tolerated will in time be accepted, even exalted, as we’ve seen in most Western countries; what was formerly considered deviant is now celebrated and cheered. In the U.S. most of the big corporations are handing out lavish monetary rewards to the people who are wreaking very real destruction. These corporations for some inexplicable reason are lending their support, financial and otherwise, to those who do violence and scoff at our laws. Apparently mayhem is now a positive good in the eyes of these corporate powers-that-be.

I would love to see them asked to defend their policies, to ask them point-blank if they approve of violence and destruction. They should ‘own’ it, and be asked to defend it in so many words.

It appears the same kind of thing is occurring in the UK. Well, we no longer live in separate nations, it seems; it’s all one global system, though they are being coy about it.

As far as the statues in the UK, and the fact that the vandals’ thirst for destroying our history has not been sated, it appears that the main target now is Queen Victoria of all people. Why her? Because the British Empire reached its pinnacle of power under her reign? Notice that the target for destruction (including destruction of the target’s reputation as well as their image) is always the most successful. I think the vandals particularly hate and envy success, and want to destroy all evidence of it. Notice that Shakeena Johnson, one of those who proposes to topple more statues, specifically says ‘monarchs’, all of them, should come down.

Many people in the Western world have been indoctrinated to hate monarchs in general, all monarchs. Why? Well, Americans have the excuse that they’ve been taught that monarchy is intrinsically evil because it is not ‘democratic’ and it does not honor ‘equality’, wherein we are all theoretically equal to, and ‘as good as’ everyone else, including kings, queens, and assorted aristocrats. There is undoubtedly a little Jacobinism in the American ideals, though most of us would deny it — or maybe not.

I can understand why conquered and ‘colonized’ peoples would feel resentful if they think it humiliating to be colonized or ruled over by Western peoples. Why, again? Because it violates their illusion of ‘equality’ — in the real world, nobody is equal to anybody else, except in a court of law — but is there ‘equality’ or ‘democracy’ in allowing a handful of disgruntled and angry people to destroy public property, without the consent of the majority? ‘Democracy’ is supposed to depend on the ‘will of the majority,’,  otherwise it is not any kind of ‘democracy’, but then that doesn’t matter to the complainers and the vandals who just want to smash all visible signs of their former rulers.

Mind you, I don’t idolize’ democracy’, or the illusory equality. But if the statue vandals and the royalty-bashers are going to use those ideas to justify their high-handed demands, we’ll pretend for a moment.

Then why not stay at home where you will not be troubled and angered by those statues of other people’s heroes and icons? Since when do people from outside the country have some kind of special prerogative to take away something that belongs to others?

I have also heard that the Duke of Wellington’s statue may be pulled down by these self-appointed wrecking crews. I think that would be a shame. Bit by bit, they are smashing the history and heritage of England and Britain, directing their childish anger towards statues and images — for the moment.

It’s futile to plead with those in power to hold out against these perpetual complainers and professional malcontents. That’s true in this country and in the UK, where the people who hold power (many of them behind the scenes) evidently want this destruction to be done. If not, why do they not put a stop to it? Are they admitting to their own powerlessness and impotence? That’s not a good signal to send; it only encourages the rest of the coalition of the disgruntled to make more and more outlandish demands.




On the negative image of Puritans

Hardly a day goes by that I don’t read something scathing or harshly critical about Puritans. I certainly don’t go looking for it, but it’s very easy to find.  No matter what the topic is someone manages to bring Puritans into it, and in a negative way.

My best guess why this is so is just that most Americans are dedicated hedonists and they dislike anyone they perceive as being opposed to their particular pleasures or vices. Puritans have always been associated with prudishness and killjoy-ism.  Whether that association is accurate is questionable; it’s a facile stereotype for lazy people.

‘Prudishness’ is loathed by most Americans it seems. Sometimes plain old healthy morals are labeled ”narrow-minded’ or ‘judgmental.” Does anybody honestly believe that our decadent and lewd society is ”too judgmental”?  Seriously?

But the fact is that most Americans know little factual information about Puritans or who they were, how they lived. It would take a book, at least, to convey that kind of in-depth information, though there are some good books out there — if someone wants to read them, which I doubt. Much easier to cling to hackneyed stereotypes.

Still, if you want to see an example of some very biased tropes about Puritans, look at this.

The author asserts that Puritans were ‘just as violent as Muslims.’ The writer is, I think, from a Middle Eastern country.

“These Puritans were no different than Muslims in their violence and sanguine fanaticism. They took the king, Charles I, and sentenced him to be beheaded. Before he was decapitated, this king spoke the words of a martyr. “I go,” he said, “from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown, where no disturbance can have place.” The savage heretic snapped his head off, and then lifted his head up high before the wicked mob, and said with demonic fury:

This is the head of a traitor!

Once the Puritans took over England they, like most revolutionaries, had no idea how to properly run a nation without the frenzy and rapacious nature of a vicious and mobbish tyrant. The Puritan terrorists now ran the country, they did no under the guise of a fundamentalist cult and religion.”

Well, first of all, there were many people beheaded in Europe during that era; it was not some barbaric innovation of the Puritans.  And at the beginning the Puritans, or Separatists, were a small, powerless group not in a position to ‘persecute’ anyone, only to react in self-defense. To liken them to Moslems is not justified.

The Puritans, or my Separatist-colonist ancestors, did not ‘behead’ anyone, including King Charles I. Their means of defense was to go to the new colony in Massachusetts and live amongst people with whom they agreed, rather than to wage a campaign of terrorism. Then they have been criticized for not wanting to welcome dissenters like Anne Hutchinson. To do that would have eventually put them back in the same predicament they faced in England. Then their arduous trip across the ocean would have been in vain. Can we blame them for not wanting more dissension and possible religious schisms?

By the way, I don’t agree with regicide, even of Charles I. ”Fear God, honour the King”  (I Peter, 2:17). But does the author really not know that both Puritans and other sects. both Protestant and Catholic, engaged in the ‘religious wars’ of the 16th-17th centuries? Henry VIII beheaded people rather cavalierly, and he was not a Puritan;  his Protestantism was not a matter of theology but expediency. Does the author condemn him or just the Puritans? I don’t have the patience to read the whole ‘hit piece’.

The comments add only more vilification of Puritans or Protestants generally, as well as Anglo-Saxons. And these people who write such comments are always out in force on certain blogs with their anti-Anglo and anti-Protestant diatribes. It’s beyond old.

More than a few comments are from Irish or Irish-Americans who have never forgotten past ‘outrages’, real or imagined. Haven’t we got enough grievance-mongering and demanding reparations and apologies over long-ago disputes? Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations or something?

But here’s the question that begs to be asked: why did the author choose to live or work or earn his living in a country founded by Anglo-Saxons, or a country in which Puritans made up a sizable portion of the settler stock? Why not find a country whose people are more to one’s liking? Why did the ancestors of the other Puritan-loathers choose the ordeal of crossing the Atlantic if they had past, longstanding, bitter, unforgiving grievances against the people who created that country, and who opened their doors to their settling there?

Like it or not, all these complaining people have benefited from this country and the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant/Puritan legacy — or they wouldn’t have remained all these centuries. Just as with today’s people who do nothing but condemn our country and folk and yet they won’t get up and become expatriates as integrity would dictate.

I’ll offer here, oddly enough, a quote from a Puritan descendant, James Russell Lowell.

“New occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth.

They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth.

Lo! Before us gleam her campfires! We must ourselves Pilgrims be,

Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly, through the desperate winter sea!”

Lowell, in the first line of the quote, about ‘new occasions’ teaching ‘new duties’, is referencing slavery. He was an abolitionist like most New England intellectuals at that time, and they had the idea that God intended for them to ‘discover’ new religious truths, though this is not Biblical; Christians are warned not to ‘add to, or take from‘ the Word of God. Was this from Puritanism? I doubt it; it seems more to be influenced by the New England ‘Transcendentalism’ which was in turn influenced by Eastern religions.

Though their religious beliefs took a wrong turning (in my opinion) there is no justification for the kind of unreasoning malice and resentment of many people towards Puritans, or for Anglo-Americans in general. Yet few of us ever speak up and try to give responses to this trashing of our forebears.

There are lots of good books out there about the early history of our colonies, and about Puritans generally. Be wary of newer books with their biases; go to older sources. That’s what is lacking in most people’s education today: a historical perspective and an open mind.

We find ourselves, like Lowell, in “the desperate winter sea” of a crisis. In part it is, sadly, because of the virtue-signaling Puritans like Lowell –and  John Brown was the other side of the same coin; another Yankee who felt two wrongs make a right. They helped to create the unsolvable problem we now face. But then we cannot blame the original Puritans; they were cut from a different cloth, in a different time, and don’t deserve infamy.






“America: Do you have a people?”

Those were the words of the late David Yeagley, who was a musician, academic, writer and blogger who died some years ago. Oh, and he was also American Indian, from the Comanche tribe, and he was also a believer in the importance of tribe, nation, kindred, and tradition. He defended the rights of the European colonists and settlers who ultimately defeated his people. In a world in which other indigenous people bear grudges and nurse grievances, he was a friend to European-descended Americans.

I happened to come across something he wrote posing the above question. I thought it was apropos for this blog.

America: Do you have a people? Who are your people?

As an Indian, I say it’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and that includes also Scots, Welsh, and Irish. The language is English. The culture is a freed-up British culture (whatever that is!)

It’s not Spanish, Arab, or Chinese.

If Americans can’t keep these basic realities straight, as to who created the country, than America will do worse than Balkanize. America will become a[n] ethnic trade center, not a country. This is what’s happening.

Indians are a living reminder of what America should be, and what America should do.

Preserve thyself!


Yet another attack in the UK

In Wolverhampton, UK, a man in his 20s was attacked with a machete by another man. This was the gist of the story as I read it in one of the British newspapers. The details were scant — by design, of  course, lest we find out who did what to whom, and try to determine why. In these strange times, instead of the classic story of a newspaper providing ‘who, what, and where’, and possibly why, newspapers give readers cryptic versions of the event in which a generic Man has attacked another generic Man, and in many cases the generic Men have no names, nationalities, (forget inquiring about Race, you bigot!) nor do the nameless victims and ‘alleged perps’ have homes. We are expected to try to guess these details — but then only a bigot would want to know. (Remember the recent news item in the U.S. about some locality forbidding the use of mug shots because seeing photos of wanted men or women might contribute to racism prejudice.)

We live in strange times. And violent times.

But a look at another newspaper provided some details. It appears both men may have been immigrants to the UK. The victim (the deceased man) was Paulius Petrasiunas, which appears to be a Lithuanian name — and sure enough the Express News story says he was Lithuanian.

And he was a father.


Plimoth Plantation to be no more

What with the statue-toppling frenzy seemingly running out of targets to destroy, the aggrieved and disgruntled turn to things like changing names— any name that has European origins must be changed to something ‘indigenous.’

The name of Plimoth Plantation, the living history museum, has to be changed because it reflects the English origins of the place, and the people who make the decisions at Plimoth Plantation feel that ”inclusion” is the important thing. One must be inclusive and diverse above all.

Actually this trend of replacing names in order to patronize the ‘indigenous’ has been going on for decades. For instance, the renaming of Mt. McKinley in Alaska in the 1970s. Now of course the name of the mountain is Denali, an indigenous name. The famous Ayers Rock in Australia is now Uluru.

Slowly but surely it seems that in the U.S. the English or European names will disappear as the soon-to-be-dominant ethnic groups demand renaming because they claim they are ‘hurt’ by European place-names (and other names).

Personally I think names matter, and our pandering politicians and officials are too eager to cave on these kinds of issues. Years ago on a plane flight I was seated near two Hispanic men who were counting all the American towns and states that have Spanish names. The fact that there are so many Spanish names seemed to bolster their sense that they are the rightful owners of this country, or even the North American continent.

As things are going, I am beginning to wonder if future generations on  this continent (if any) will be able to find any trace of us and our ancestors.

Plimoth Plantation is apparently taking comments from the community about the name change. But it looks like the only question is what the ‘indigenous’ name will be. And this does seem like it’s part of the whole project of the left to obliterate what is left of the Old America.

Our troubles go global

From the Cambrian Dissenters blog, we read of how the UK is undergoing the same kinds of turmoils and troubles. The UK, despite the clear results of the Brexit referendum, is still somehow tied to the EU:

Since that historic vote, the political class and the establishment elite have used every trick in the book to ignore and eventually overturn that result. Over four years later the British people are still shackled to the corrupt and failing political union and subject to its rules, regulations, and Court of Justice.

The unelected European Union bureaucrats still control Great Britain’s borders and the resources contained in her territorial waters; for this subjugation, the British taxpayers are forced to hand over billions per year for the privilege.”

And thanks to recent events in the US which led to widespread destruction of property and looting, as well as random mayhem, the UK is caught up in this same effort to impose some kind of Marxist or otherwise totalitarian system on the citizenry, without regard to their will.

Why should events here affect the UK? The same frenzied mania for destroying all symbols of tradition and history has manifested in the UK, with statues of revered heroes and statesmen being pulled down and shattered.  The history of the United Kingdom is being rewritten with the usual ‘social justice uber alles‘ slant being set forth as the new dogma.

Can it be that we are really no longer separate countries, in any real sense of the word? I can’t help thinking that the same people are working to a purpose, both here and in the UK. Across the Western world, former Christendom, it seems that the people who are the ‘foot soldiers’, perpetrating most of the disruptive or destructive acts, are following the same orders. Or can we write all of this off as a series of random coincidences?

So is Brexit a dead letter? After all this time it seemingly hasn’t become fact.





What’s another 3 million?

I wrote a while back about the possibility of the self-made ‘refugees’ from Hong Kong being admitted to the UK and eventually granted citizenship. Why not? What’s a few million more?

So here we read of how Boris Johnson is confirming the ‘path to citizenship’for the Hong Kong migrants, who choose to leave their homes to come to one of the Anglosphere countries — likely, as I said, Canada will receive some, as it already has a large Hong Kong ‘community’ and the U.S. of course is now one of the most ‘diverse’ plots of land (sorry, I almost said ‘nations‘ but we are hardly a ‘nation’ anymore) on the planet.

I am a little surprised at the reaction of the Guido Fawkes commentariat at the article link, with so many people cheering for the influx of the (possible) 3 million, for the reason that these ‘refugees’ are said to have bundles of money, which the UK economy must have. These immigration enthusiasts are willing to sell their birthright, like Esau, for a mess of pottage.

Immigration is forever. Once the population is changed in the degree we see in the UK or in Canada or the U.S.A., there is no reversing it. Some people hold onto the myth that “lots of immigrants just earn enough money to buy a home in their native land, then they go back.” I say that event is very rare. Once the ‘enrichers’ get their taste of living in a Western country they are more likely to send for their extended family than to go back home to stay. The 3 million number will be bolstered, eventually, by bringing aged family members to the new country, and of course by natural increase.

This, of course, is for the people of the UK to decide, but for those of us who are Anglophiles and of English descent, it’s sad to see our ancestral homeland being given away, piecemeal, to people who have no historical ties nor ancestral connection to our forebears’ homeland. It cannot possibly mean to them what it means to us. To them it is just an expedient.

I have more ancestors buried in the soil of England than I have here in the U.S.

Will all the newcomers, who seem destined to become the majority, treat our ancestors’ bones with respect? There was talk a few years ago of an old cemetery being plowed over and a Moslem burial ground replacing it.

It’s sad to see a country being lost to people (like the recent waves of immigrants from far-off countries) who care nothing for the traditions, the history, the culture — and most of all, the existing, indigenous people of Britain. The recent attack in Reading was but one example of the hostility of the newcomers toward the native English or British. If frequent attacks, both verbal and physical, portend the future of a polyglot, multicultural Britain, it does not look bright.

Am I saying that the future Hong Kong residents are likely to be that hostile? Obviously not, as they lived under British rule for so long, but the more ‘diversity’ the less peace and harmony. This seems to be an ironclad rule of reality, though people have been taught the opposite for the last half-century and more. The Hong Kong Chinese are still Chinese, and thus different from Western, European descended people. Just speaking English doth not an Englishman make.

On a hopeful note, there were some comments on the Guido Fawkes thread that expressed a healthy point of view, by which I mean they expressed a concern for their folk and their kinship-ties and for the country in which they grew up, pre-‘diversity.’

H/T: Amerika