Anti-history Protesters are Destroying Tourism in Gettysburg

For their refusal to surrender fact to immature and insecure emotion, the museum, along with the battlefield will be subjected to militant anti-history protests planned by Antifa groups on the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. These Antifa groups plan to burn Confederate battle flags and desecrate graves.

Source: Anti-history Protesters are Destroying Tourism in Gettysburg

And kudos to the Gettysburg Museum of History for refusing to give in to the dictates of political correctness, of which “Antifa” is the logical (if that word even applies) outcome:

Would that more people and institutions applied similar high standards!

“Antifa” supposedly stands for “Anti-Fascist.” Yet they are not only fascistic themselves – if by that is meant violent and totalitarian – but in some ways at least, worse than fascists: fascists, whatever their other faults, at least loved their own people. These barely-human scum hate their own people, and their own heritage. They seem to think that destruction of history and desecration of the memorials – including, reportedly, grave-sites – to men who were more courageous than the likes of these scoundrels can even imagine is somehow an acceptable way to demonstrate that “Love Trumps Hate.”

Of course, slogans like that are just for show. Their real motives and goals are far more sinister and far-reaching, and history – at Gettysburg or elsewhere – is not all they want to destroy. This is part and parcel of the larger assault on Western civilization itself (as recounted in numerous posts on this blog and far more numerous accounts elsewhere), and the creation of a “brave new world” of their own ideological design, out of the rubble. And history is a goal for the destroyers because a rootless people, a people severed from a strong and sympathetic sense of their own past, is a people weakened and vulnerable to ideological assaults.

Slime-buckets like “Antifa” claim to be part of a “resistance” against the policies (and person) of the current US President. But whatever one’s thoughts on President Trump, it is ruffians like this that truly need to be resisted. As the inscription graven in stone above the National Archives so accurately puts it, “What is past, is prologue.” Those who seek to destroy the past are undermining both present and future.

Resist them!

Tennessee Responds to California’s Travel Ban to the State – Page 2 of 2

The bullies in California picked the wrong state to mess with.

Source: Tennessee Responds to California’s Travel Ban to the State

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge the other forty-eight states to refrain from imposing their unfounded moral judgment on their sister states as California has done in order to prevent escalating foolishness…

“Tennessee is pleasantly surprised that California will not be sending its economic development teams to Tennessee to recruit our businesses.”

I have loved Tennessee ever since spending two (academic) years there, in Nashville, getting my Master of Theological Studies from Vanderbilt Divinity School. I love the state even more, now!

If Middle Earth were the 21st century West….

 

I especially “like” this one:

Gondor calls for aid

Not that thoughts and prayers are not important! They are. And sometimes prayer is all one can do; if so, then one has an obligation to do what one can. I am not one of those who disparages people for doing all they can, or know how to, do! Even “positive energy” has its place. But if that is all King Theoden had done, not suiting actions to thoughts, Orcs and Haradrim would have been feasting in Minas Tirith, while the Lord of the Nazgûl reigned from the throne of the Kings of Men…

In real-world history, if thoughts, prayers, and positive energy had been all King Jan III Sobieski sent to the relief of Vienna, instead of Winged Hussars, Ottoman Turks would have ruled from the Imperial City, and the history of Europe and the world might have been much different!

The Central European Defence Cooperation commited against mass migration | Visegrád Post

On Monday, June 19, representatives from the countries of the Central European Defence Cooperation (CEDC) – Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria Slovenia and Croatia – met in order to pledge a closer cooperation on tackling illegal migration by the use of common civil and military means.

Source: The Central European Defence Cooperation committed against mass migration | Visegrád Post

Take a close look at this picture, and you will see why this is happening. I see maybe one possible woman, and perhaps one possible child. Maybe. All the rest are young men of military age. Think about that. Ponder the implications. This is not a refugee crisis. This is an invasion. And the sooner the rest of the West realizes this, the better. Until then, God bless Visegrád! Last, best hope of Europe…

Were Confederate Generals Traitors? – Walter E. Williams

Source: Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

A superb, detailed, and well-reasoned article that should – in my opinion – be read by every citizen of these United States. And especially every politician, media pundit, and “talking head”!

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 “free sovereign and Independent States” did not believe that they had the right to secede…

Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who’d label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I’m sure Great Britain’s King George III would have agreed.

Well said, Mr. Williams! Well said, sir.

As an “Anglophilic Anglican,” I may mourn the necessity of separation from Great Britain in the late 18th century, but I do not doubt that necessity. Not once our Founders’ attempts to reassert their rights as Englishmen had been repeatedly and disdainfully rebuffed! Nor do I doubt the accuracy with which the War Between the States (a.k.a. the erroneously-named American “Civil War”) has been called “the Second American War of Independence.”

Sadly, on that occasion, the forces of independence, freedom, and self-determination were beaten down by superior numerical and materiel resources, especially after Mr. Lincoln created his “poison pill” (the so-called “Emancipation Proclamation,” which freed not a single slave in areas under Union control, purporting only to “free” those in areas in which his writ did not in fact run) which effectively prevented the intervention of any European powers on behalf of the Confederacy, as France had assisted the infant United States.

However, as Mr. Williams so skillfully points out, the right of secession was and remains a Constitutional right, inherent in the very nature and essence of the compact that Constitution enshrines. Although he does not use the term, it is in fact one of those “inalienable rights” with which the Declaration of Independence – on which the Constitution depends, and without which it is meaningless – accurately asserts that we have been “endowed by our Creator.”

Deo vindice – God will vindicate!

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

 

 

Queen and Country, God and Guns – The Burning Platform

Source: Queen and Country, God and Guns – The Burning Platform

Sad but brilliant post by a Brit, who sees the way things in the UK are going, all too clearly…

Governments which no longer guarantee the security of their citizens are worthless, and those that disallow the right to defend oneself are worse than negligent, they are clearly dangerous to support in any way. People here are beginning to get this, but I still feel it’s too late to prevent the rivers of blood alluded to by the brilliant Enoch Powell, king of ‘racialists,’ true patriot and martyr…

Such are the times we live in. My American friends, you are surely aware that you don’t have to own a gun to fight like hell to retain your right to bear arms, as well as the freedom to play anything you damn well please on your karaoke machines. Preserve those rights, defend them, they are more precious than you know. Never sell them. Never soften.

Sweden’s “Civil War”: National Police Chief pleads, “Help us, help us!” | Geller Report

Source: Sweden CIVIL WAR: National Police Chief, “HELP US, HELP US!” – Geller Report

“The government does not seem to understand that it has lost control. There is a point where you can no longer stop a situation’s development. I do not know if Sweden has reached this point when it comes to [the consequences of] immigration, but I fear we are drawing close. If we right here and now take a clear and powerful action – including stopping immigration and the political promotion of multiculturalism – we might with some difficulty be able to save Sweden.”

– Johan Patrik Engellau, research expert on destabilized countries

I am appalled at what is going on in Sweden, but I am not sure they need outside help as much as they need to re-embrace their Viking spirit and heritage. Mr. Engellau may be right that this is the end for the “decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now,” but that may not be a bad thing. There is such a thing as being too decent and egalitarian, and Sweden is reaping the bitter fruit of that fact, currently!

I have some (albeit not much) Swedish blood, too, so I have some skin in this game. These are among my ancestors, and they are the descendants of those who became the Kievan Rus, founding both Russia and Ukraine, and who formed the core of the Varangian Guard. How would those ancestors like what is happening now – and what would they suggest that today’s Swedes do about it? I don’t know, but I can imagine!

Sweden may indeed need some external assistance to regain control in the short-term. But if they do not wake up and re-Viking-ize themselves, and soon, I’m not sure any amount of outside assistance will do much good, long-term. Sweden needs to become Sweden once again! But that could be said about much of Europe, currently.

Perspectives on politicizing history: the Confederacy, “white supremacy,” and tribalism

I wrote the following essay in response to a Facebook thread, in which some of those involved were invoking the all-too-predictable bugbears of “racism” and “white supremacy” to justify opposition to the Confederate flag, monuments of Confederate heroes and honoured dead, and so on. Basically, the left-wing narrative is that the Confederacy was racist and white-supremacist, and so, consequently, are any or all of its memorials, heroes, and iconography. As should be needless to say, I take exception to that notion; thus, this essay. I was told by a friend that I should blog it, so here it is!

It is problematic, for a number of reasons, to apply (post-)modern standards of “racism” to historical contexts. For one thing, it is an innate human characteristic to associate and affiliate primarily with one’s own people, and to mistrust and/or look down upon those who do not “belong.” Although of course, definitions of “one’s own people” vary; those who do not view the matter in ethnic or racial terms nonetheless tend to prefer the company of people who think like they do: merely switching one “tribe” for another.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was commonplace to think of Africans (and Asians, for that matter) as inferior – intellectually and morally, as well as technologically (the latter being true enough, at the time) – to Europeans. Those who did not hold that viewpoint were the exceptions.

Britain may have ended slavery in its territories in the early 19th century, but quite late in that century, well after the War Between the States had ended, the noted British author and poet Rudyard Kipling famously wrote about “the white man’s burden.” That burden was to “uplift” Africans and Asians from their (as it was seen) benighted, backward, and primitive existence; to “civilize” and Christianize them, for their own good.

This was a paternalistic view indeed, but one that would have found resonance with many or most Southern slave-holders, and one which was certainly not grounded in racial hatred. If Europeans (in Europe itself or in America) had hated them, why would they have helped them?

And if we were to consider the matter objectively and with open eyes, we would discover that all or nearly all cultural, racial, or ethnic groups on the planet are “racist” to some extent, depending on how we define our terms. And while I am not aware of any specific studies on the matter, anecdotal evidence from personal observation – not just of my immediate surroundings, but using a global and historical perspective – suggests to me that Asians and Africans are, on average, about as “racist” as Caucasians.

And anthropologists tell us that just about every single indigenous group that has ever been studied calls itself by a name that translates approximately to “the People,” with the strong implication that others, outside that group, are not really or fully “People.” I am not making a moral judgement in saying this, just expressing an objective reality.

Returning to the era of the War Between the States, it can be reasonably argued that, despite the fact that some whites – and a surprising number of free blacks – held people of African descent as slaves, the Confederacy as a whole was significantly less “racist” than the Union. It had integrated units, with blacks fighting alongside whites (Nathan Bedford Forrest’s personal bodyguard being perhaps the most famous, but not unique); it had troops from Native American nations, troops (and at least one Cabinet secretary!) of Jewish heritage, it had Hispanic soldiers and even (IIRC) a few Asian ones.

The Union Army, in ironic contrast, was lily-white, except for the “US Colored Troops,” who were strictly segregated, and fought under the command of white officers. The antipathy and aggression of Union troops, both during and after the WBTS, toward Native Americans is well-known; that toward people of Jewish heritage is less well known, but no less real; and Union actions and attitudes toward Southern blacks, both slave and free, were hardly what anyone could consider exemplary.

And what are we to say about the Northern ship-captains who transported African slaves – who had been captured and sold to these merchants, not by Europeans or Americans, but by other Africans of rival tribes, or sometimes Moslem Arab slavers – to these American shores? Are they somehow less racist than the owners of plantations? The Confederate Constitution actually forbade the importation of any additional slaves, and no slave was ever brought from Africa on a Confederate-flagged ship. The same cannot be said about merchant shipping flying Old Glory.

Or what are we to say of the English Colonies, later the original United States, who engaged in the “Triangle Trade” transporting slaves, cash crops such as sugar and tobacco, and manufactured goods between Africa, the Americas (including the Caribbean, as well as the North American continent), and Europe, for some two centuries before the so-called “Civil War”? What are we to say of the Northerners who, when their states abolished slavery, did not set their slaves free, but sold them south?

What are we to say about the plantation-owners – always a very small percentage of Southern society – who went off to war, leaving their lands, women, and children in the capable hands of trusted black “servants”? Nor did any of them, to my knowledge, have cause to regret that decision. A general slave uprising would have been relatively simple, and likely quite successful, during the War, but it never happened. It is hard to escape the conclusion that many or most African “servants” felt a greater affinity for their own “white folks” than for the invaders from the North.

And perhaps most of all, what are we to say of the so-called “Great Emancipator,” whose famous Proclamation freed not one slave in areas under Union control – including both Union slave states and even areas of the Confederacy that had fallen to Union armies – and who only “emancipated” slaves in areas where his writ did not run, whose words and writings made it clear that he believed blacks to be inferior to whites, did not like them or feel that they could ever be part of an integrated society, and who advocated for their removal to “colonies” in Africa or Central America?

These are considerations that are ignored or, at times, actively suppressed, when speaking of the South, the Confederacy, and its iconography – including flags and monuments – as being indicative of “white supremacy.” While it is true that there were aspects of superiority and inferiority ingrained in the worldview of most 19th century persons, the matter is far more nuanced than many on the left, whether in ignorance or arrogance (most likely some of each), are willing to admit.

And of course, that leads to the grandest irony of all: that the very same human impulse to tribalism – to favouring one’s own group, and disparaging those who are not part of it – that led people of European heritage to first enslave, then endeavor to “uplift” and “civilize” Africans, is operational in those whose left-leaning social and political views of both history and contemporary life leads them to try to “convert” those who do not share their views, and to hate those who will not join them.

With the exception of those who are so completely relativistic that literally anything goes (in which case they would have no right to complain about any views held by anyone at all), we are all to a greater or lesser extent convinced of the rightness of our positions, and intolerant of those who do not share them. Some of us, however, have more grounds for our perspective than do others!

So to those who say (or imply), “check your white privilege,” I say, “check your ‘liberal’ privilege.” And perhaps, consider looking at the world through the larger lens of objective history, rather than the tiny aperture of ideology.

That is all.