Sunday 5 July 2009

Affirmative history

Whenever black racists, or indeed most black people, together with the majority of, white cringe infested, white liberals, list the great names from history, they invariably include the standard troika in their top three, or if they are really trying to be inclusive, within their top five. Those inevitable names are Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and of course the sainted Mandela.

Once those three have been carefully placed on the top plinths in the Parthenon of Greats, the black racist or white liberal apologist may, although it is certainly not guaranteed, grudgingly select a few white figures from history to rank below these three historical Gods, however, that selections is seldom quite so predictable.

The selection of white candidates is usually issue driven, and, as such, Lincoln may often appear, on account of his role in the emancipation of the small fraction of 19th century slaves who were lucky enough to be in America, although the list makers will seldom mention what Lincoln actually said about black people. William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, or their US abolitionist counterparts such as John Brown are now far less assured of a place in the list as they might once have been, given that we are now obliged to pretend that a few Haitian slaves cutting white French throats in 1791, and the fabulously successful outcome that produced, had a far greater impact on the ending of the slave trade than the efforts of a few dead white men. (Alternatively, their position will be usurped altogether by the likes of Olaudah Equiano, a freed slave who write a book.)

(Memo to those considering doing good: make sure you leave a paper trail, for historians will seek to undermine you once you become unfashionable)

Setting slavery aside, and also the US civil rights movement, where King and Rosa Parks generally take most of the plaudits, largely on account of the general unattractiveness of LBJ (despite the fact that the latter did so much more than either to end segregation), the candidates for inclusion in the non-obligatory quota of great whites become even more random.

Kennedy is always a possibility, his early death blessing him with the imagined greatness of promise, untarnished by the disappointments of reality. From Albion's shores, one might imagine that Churchill, Dickens and Shakespeare are potential candidates, but none are now shoe-ins, for all sorts of politically correct reasons. Increasingly, they are very likely to be replaced by any number of figures with more acceptably left wing credentials.

Equally, the sad truth is that in almost any contemporarily compiled list of the greats from history, any white historical figure you can think of, however great his achievements or impact, now risks the humiliation of being replaced by Bob Dillon, John Lennon or even Bob Marley.

No such indignity awaits the non-white triumvirate however, their positions at the top of the politically correct list of history's titans remain un-threatened, their names are spoken with reverence, their achievements, real or imagined, are burnished daily and their flaws unacknowledged, ignored, or more likely denied. These three are acclaimed for a greatness which does not require truth to sustain it and their seats at the top table of public reverence reserved eternally for them, whilst their white counterparts must forever struggle to retain their place against fashionable revisionism and the lies of agenda driven historians.

To question the greatness of all or any of the blessed trinity of the new order is a modern day form of blasphemy, mitigated only by the fact that such questions are usually spoken from within a vacuum from within which it is almost impossible to communicate with the wider world, for none of the usual means of communication will carry your message.

Yet, who are these historical giants who we must all revere and who's claim to greatness can not be questioned?

Martin Luther King, was, in truth, a sexually depraved communist and proven serial plagiarist, with a known penchant for brutalising women. King was a man who's only real achievement, other than being able to attract crowds, was a clever way with words (sound familiar?) who's FBI surveillance file is so potentially damaging to his memory that the courts have locked it away until 2027.

Even King's own son dismisses the official version of his death, allegedly at the hand of white assassin, as a lie. Yet he is treated as a saint, and a martyr and granted the honour of having a public holiday named after him, whilst, until Obama day is declared, all 44 US presidents have to share a single day between them. I guess that is quite an achievement for a brutal, treacherous adulterer and intellectual thief.

Then there is Gandhi, the pacifist darling of the multiculturalists and subject of one of the most stomach churningly sycophantic movies every made outside North Korea. This is a man who's rabid anti-black African racism, possibly acquired during his time in Durban, prior to returning to India in 1915, was extreme even for its time, and would make many a contributor to Stormfront blush.

Of the three, Gandhi has the strongest claim to greatness, but not to the degree claimed for him, and honesty behoves those who praise his memory to acknowledge those sides of him which they would unreservedly condemn had he been white.

No such ambiguity applies to the surviving member of the trinity, the so called living saint Nelson Mandela, most readers here will know my views on him. A convicted terrorist and self confessed murderer, that he has achieved the role of international statesman is more a testament to public gullibility and capacity for self delusion, together with the media's skill at creating a myth on the back of a lie than it is to any substance in the man himself.

Mandela was a gangster who led a gang of criminals, murderers and thugs, he presided over the start of the decline of what was once one of the most prosperous nations on Earth, and revealed his true nature by his recent endorsement of the corrupt thug who will oversee the latter stages of the decline and fall of once great South Africa. If you will allow me the indulgence of quoting from my own essay “Mandela – the legend and the Legacy”:

“Nelson Mandela's lasting achievement is that, in the face of a world wishing him well, he, and the party he leads, have shown the world that, for all its flaws, Apartheid was a more benign system than what replaced it, and that the average South African was immeasurably better off under the hated white rule than they are under the alternative which black rule has created.”

Three flawed and men, two of them, at least were brutal criminals, and one of those a self confessed murderer, and yet it is a testimony to the dishonesty and moral devastation of the world we now inhabit that these, above all others are portrayed to us and our children as heroes and ultimate role models.

The secular beatitude of this unwholesome trinity, is a further symptom of that dishonest phenomenon best demonstrated by those ludicrous black inventions myths which are rolled out each February in America (So called “Black History” month) when schools lie to their pupils and pretend that black people invented any number of things from air-conditioning units to traffic signs, whereas, even the most cursory examination of the facts shows that they patently did not, albeit there are still some questions over peanut butter. Like a form of Springtime Halloween, but with far more despicable characters, the black inventions myths are nothing less than historical theft, where the hard earned achievements of white inventors are stolen from them and given to randomly chosen non-whites for the sake of a pretend equality.

It is perhaps understandable that, faced which such overwhelming evidence of a achievement by one culture, there is a temptation to exaggerate the achievements of other cultures, but why does it always have to be done by belittling the real achievers.?

For example, across Britian, children in our schools are being taught that Mary Seacole, a part Jamaican nurse, who followed the British troops to Sevastopol in 1854 with a bag of herbal remedies and folk medicine, had a greater influence on the well being of Crimean soldiers than Florence Nightingale, known for a century and a half as the Lady with the Lamp.

Seacole was a brave and worthy woman, who nursed and comforted wounded soldiers in dangerous conditions, and she deserves recognition, but her achievements pale into insignificance next to Nightingale, who set up hospitals in the Crimea and who's pioneering work influenced nursing a century after her death. However, merely acknowledging Seacol's contribution is not good enough for the Multicultural revisionists, they have to pretend that their mixed race darling was better and more historically important than the unforgivably white Florence Nightingale.

This reversal has so far resulted, not only in the fact that a, possibly well deserved, statue of Mary Seacole is being planned for the grounds of St. Thomas's hospital, and the somewhat less deserved addition of study of Mary Seacol's achievements being added to the school curriculum, but with Channel 4 producing a documentary called “Mary Seacole: The real angel of the Crimea”, together with a wider effort to diminish Nightingale's achievements and slander her reputation, in order to boost Seacol's.

In effect, the now less fashionable Nightingale is being posthumously robbed of her achievements in order that the more fashionably coloured Seacole's more modest achievements can appear the greater.

The same form of affirmative action criminality takes place when the meagre achievements of the King/Mandela/Gandhi trinity are inflated, and their grimy reputations sanitised, in order to attribute to them undeserved places ahead of the truly great men and women who created our civilisation, whilst the stature of those who truly deserve the designation of “great” is being simultaneously revised downwards so as to better offset the chosen trio.

I suppose we should, in some respects, be grateful that Robert Mugabe behaved so badly that even the BBC, who covered up the massacres he committed in the early 1980's for over 20 years, could no longer protect him, for had things gone as they were planned in 1981, he would surely by now have ascended the fourth plinth on Olympus as the saviour of “Great” Zimbabwe from the wicked white Rhodesians.

So, following Mugabe's fall from grace, who will be the next non-white to be raised up to the status of greatness irrespective of merit, bypassing higher achieving whites disqualified on account of colour.

To suggest Michael Jackson (or “the People's Paedophile” as one black commentator refreshingly described him in Friday's London Evening Standard, parodying the, then still popular, Tony Blair's description of Princess Diana as “the People's Princess”) may seen bizarre, yet we can already see history being re-written before our eyes. The Hustlers such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, who invested so much in promoting the myths of King and Mandela, but who had distanced themselves from Jackson in his later years, are now back circling amongst the frenzy of smaller fish and praising the “black” king of pop.

More importantly, those who are too young to remember the names of Gavin Arvizo, let alone Jordy Chandler are being lured into hero worshipping Jackson, in the same way that youngsters who were still unborn when the dead lay strewn around Church Street paid homage to the grinning and gaudy Nelson Mandela in Hyde Park last year.

Jackson was a competent singer, although, apart from “Ben” which he first sung when I was two and he was still black, not to my taste, and a more than competent dancer, yet throughout his life his career benefited from his colour, even when he was privately working so hard to change it. It seems that the same affirmative action will apply in death, and that he will be granted a far greater posthumous fame than most white singers will achieve, and certainly greater than his post “Thriller” (here performed by Filipino convicts) career deserves.

The next of the "Greats"?

However, I think we all know who the fourth plinth on the mountain of the assisted greats is reserved for. That honour is set aside a man who had already been endowed with the mantle of greatness before he had any achievements to speak of. A man who gained a position of greatness because others wished greatness upon him. A man for whom truth and fantasy are already conveniently blurred, for no reason other than that those who call him great care more about their fantasy of him than they do about the truth.

It is certainly the aim of those who have elevated the likes of King and Mandela to undeserved levels of historical greatness in the public mind that Barack Obama will join them there. Indeed to hear many speak of him, you would think he had already achieved that status. To be fair, their hero has certainly gone a long way on the strength of very little. Seldom in our history has a single individual been raised so high after having done so little to deserve it, without the benefit of being part of a hereditary system.

Of course he had help, the media and half the world fell in love with the idea of Obama, and even now, very few have yet woken up to the reality of him. Barack Obama did not become president because of anything he had done, or anything he had said, after all he had done nothing to speak of, and said very little without the assistance of an auto-cue, he became President because enough people decided that it would be really neat to have a black president. For others Obama's ascendency was part of their life's work.

Significant numbers of those who felt it would be cool to have a black POTUS, or were eager to throw off the burden of self imposed white guilt, worked in the US media, and they, more than most, made it happen for Barry. As one US news source recently admitted, the American press, all but literally, picked up Obama and carried him cheering across the finish line, without bothering to ask uncomfortable questions. I would go further than that, not only did they carry Obama through the campaign, but they actively sought to trip up his opponents, particularly Hillary Clinton, and later Sarah Palin, whom they perceived as the greatest threats to their darling.

However, now that they have achieved the first ever Affirmative Action presidency we are in a very different ball game. Unlike affirmative action based history, where the opinion formers can edit out the parts that they want people to forget as with Gandhi and Mandela, lock the truth away for decades as they did with King, or simply not report uncomfortable news, as they did when Mandela became President of South Africa in 1994, they now have to contend with reality in real time, and, of course. their boy has to perform.

The usual outcomes of affirmative action can still be largely hidden in every day life. When the occasional bridge or building falls down, news stories can still be constructed in such a way as to gloss over the number minority hires were involved in their design and construction. When thousands of patients die due to medical “blunders” and incompetence, politicians and journalists can pontificate about “budget cuts”, “safety procedures” and “priorities” rather than third world doctors and nurses, as is currently happening in the UK National Heath Service. However, how long can they hide these outcomes when they occur in the White House?

As the months roll on since Obama's inauguration it becomes less plausible to adopt the South African excuse mechanism and blame all the problems on the old white president.

The public can only be distracted for a while. There is a point beyond which swooning over the chosen ones auto-cue prompted humour, gushing over how cute his doggie is, or gasping at his unmatched prowess at swatting flies ceases to be enough. To be a great leader, there is an ultimate requirement to get round to doing something great.

Likewise, there is only so long that the media can pretend that thing are not happening. Just how many times can the press corps pretend not to notice that their president is reading the wrong speech on his auto-cue? And how long can they continue to portray as cool self confidence behaviour which is scarily starting to resemble arrogance and even megalomania?

Rewriting the present is not so easy as re-writing the past, we no longer live in an age when failure to report facts means they remain unknown. The press continue to refuse to acknowledge the questions about Obama's birth certificate, however, those questions continue to be asked. In fact that particular farce is beginning to resemble events in the old soviet union, where the Kremlin would continue to insist that some ageing leader was in first class health, when everyone on the street knew he was on the brink of death, or beyond. Will there come a time when a progressively more desperate media starts reporting fake news, Pravda like, which only the most faithful still believe in?

The answer depends upon how committed those in power are to their new truths and to their refined version of history, how far they will go to preserve their fantasy, and how seriously they calculate that an Obama failure would damage their cause.

Despots before them have long known that to create a truth from a lie you must silence other truths, and moves are already under way to achieve just that. New “hate” laws and other legislation has been drafted for the primary purpose of curtailing and discouraging free speech. Moves to reintroduce the so called “fairness doctrine”, which might be better termed the “Censorship through boredom” doctrine, is clearly intended to smother those voices which question the new truths, but this is just the beginning.

Once they have achieved that how much further will they go? Will they turn off the internet? I wouldn't put it past them. To make a lie become the truth it is necessary to control access to information. As the internet is fast becoming the only access to real information, its days in its present form may well be numbered.

One thing is for certain, as those with the means to do so have rewritten history to achieve an affirmative past, if they are able to they will re-write the present in the same image. Whether Obama joins King and Mandela amongst the affirmatively assisted greats of our reinvented history depends upon how much those in power and news management are able to hold reality at bay and stop the truth from spoiling their fantasy.



misterfox said...

I used to live and work in the inner cities of Birmingham and had similar conversations with Black people not the White posuers who make the argument for Black history.
The honest answer is that if Blacks want their history then the should write it. It is an important thing to them. But we, like they, must have our ethocentric history and heroes.
The attack on ethnocentricity was begun in a paper for the 1951 UNESCO conference in London by Claude levi-Strauss, the creator of Structural Anthropology.
UNESCO wanted to get away from "people being closed into their culture" Nazism and wanted a return to the values of progress of the Enlightenment. L-S changed that to taking the content out of cultures and comparing the structures. Therefore, a primitive tribe in the Amazon were comparable to Europeans and their cultural productions. What we are suffering from is a reaction to that crackpot, Hitler!

Anonymous said...

Fantastic post Sarah !

Tim Johnston said...

Great Essay
While I agree with the overall theme and criticism here, I'm not sure I go along with it 100%. Gandhi was no doubt a great man and did much to prevent India turning into a civil-war zone. Who cares if he hated black Africans? doesn't everybody?! specially in 1915. MLK Jr. was also a product of his time, and is worth honouring, although it is true he is admitted to anyone's top 5 list more out of charity than anything else.
As for Mandela, nobody doubts he was a terrorist - but the point is he gave it up in favour of a peaceful solution. That's what makes him great, not his criminal past.
It shouldn't be such a stretch to find great people in history we can all agree on, but it depends if we mean influential or just "great".
In ancient times, heroes were loved in spite of their flaws.
I put Alexander the Great in my top 5, but that says more about my personality than his - in the same way as someone who includes Bob Marley (who was half-white).
Churchill, definitely. Lincoln, no, but maybe Ben Franklin. Kennedy, again no, but what about FDR?
For non-whites, maybe Gandhi. The author of this article needlessly slanders him to make a point. Jesus certainly (also non white but depends on your definition..). Henry VIII and Martin Luther (not King haha). The Duke of Wellington would be on the shortlist.
In short, your choices would almost certainly depend on your definition of "great", and would say much more about yourself than about those choices.
Fact is, nowadays people are embarrassed by the old heroes, and prefer to idolise those who are seen as peacemakers.

Quartermain said...

Fair Sarah, that was one great wonderful article. It is my hope and wish that multi-culturalism dies with truth returning to the forefront.
I loved Mister Fox's comment on black history
To complement your post, I would like to give a link to an article about a crooked president that got affirmative action rolling:

Anonymous said...

A very well written piece Sarah, i wish i had your way with words. Your article is spot on by all accounts. The way the left present their twisted version of history never ceases to amaze me.
I have recently re-read the chapter "white technological revolution" in Arthur Kemp's book "March of the Titans" and it's quite clear that whites invented just about everything of note from the first radio to the jet engine, but hey, in a few years time i wouldn't be surprised if they were also accredited to a darker skinned genius somewhere

alanorei said...

A most well researched and well written post, Sarah, thank you.

It does need to be highlighted, I feel, who educated the members of the triumvirate and where, or at least who founded the institutions that educated them.

I believe that could be very revealing.

There's a joke in the southern US about a northerner who goes there to research and write a book on black history and meets up with a white southern ole boy, who says he's writing a book on black history as well.

The northerner asks, "What are you putting in it?"

The southerner says, "Well, I thought I'd have a chapter on entertainment, so I'll put Denzel Washington in there. Then I'll have a chapter on sports, so I'll put Tiger Woods in there. I'll have a chapter on politics, so I'll put Jesse Jackson in there and so on."

The northerner asks, "Have you got a title for your book?"

The southerner says "Yes, I have. I thought I'd call it 'Some [Afro-Americans] I have known."

[The original is a little stronger.]

A lot of truth in that story, I think.

Interesting that Michael King (aka M.L. King) adopted the illegal alias of Martin Luther. It seems strange that he should gravitate to the 16th century white German Reformer, when he could have chosen the pseudonym Shaka after the great Zulu warrior chief of the 18th and early 19th centuries, 1787-1828.

But maybe he decided that he should appeal most strongly to the arguably wealthiest and most influential part of his audience.

One of the best things, though, is the profound, homespun wisdom of some of these black Baptist preachers (who never got into politics).

One of them once said, commenting on Exoduse 15:3, "The Lord is a Man of war and you cain't whip Him."

A shed load of truth in that, for sure.

Dr.D said...

Very fine post, Sarah.

I really enjoyed your comment on Kennedy where you said, "...his early death blessing him with the imagined greatness of promise, untarnished by the disappointments of reality." Imagined greatness is precisely correct. I was always puzzled as to why people were so impressed with this somewhat less than ordinary man.

MLK is another of the most disgusting of these modern "heroes." The man was a large scale adulterer with an insatiable appetite for women, and his plagiarism is well establish. But we simply must not talk of these things today because of all the great things he has done -- I just can recall what they were. The "I have a dream" speech seems to be the one thing that people remember, and nothing else matters. That is pretty shallow, to say the least.

Gandhi, and his disciple Nehru, seem to have done much to start India on the road to Communism, a disaster from which the country still has not been able to break loose entirely. That is hardly the way to help people.

To include Mandela in in list of great men is simple insanity. Any time you include murderers in a list of great men, you should know that your criteria have been severely warped.

That gets to the whole problem, namely the warped values by which greatness is established today. In the past, we have understood great men to be those who did things of lasting value to society, things that we remember with appreciation long after the man himself is gone. Thus Shakespeare, Newton, Washington, Franklin, Churchill, Aquinas, Charlemagne, etc. are all great men without question. Men who are not great include Chamberlain who wanted to appease Hitler, Lincoln who began the destruction of Constitutional government in the US, FDR who accelerated the destruction of Constitutional government and promoted socialism, and of course those you mentioned at the beginning of your article.

Among the very least among men is the great FRAUD Zero who has been unmasked to day when Occidental College in California has released his records showing that he enrolled as a foreign student. He is clearly shown to be a liar and a cheat, as he has demonstrated in spades in his every action. [-- censored --]

Anonymous said...

Somebody should put this essay on Obama's teleprompter. He'd be half way through before he realized what he was reading.

fellist said...

Terrific post.

headache said...

People need to look at the long term. Recently there have been a series of articles in German mainstream financial press about the declining value of paper money, including the EURO, since most paper currencies are somehow hooked to the USD via the Bretton Woods system. Prof. Hanke, one of 4 specialists to go to court in order to prevent the change from DM to EURO, summarized all of this in a book he wrote 5 years ago. He predicted the current crash. He also predicts a new world financial system in which Gold will again play a role, though it will not be exclusive.
Since Nixon dumped the Gold Standard, paper money has been losing its value. And since governments feel bound to spend their way out of problems, and can print dollars without having to worry about having enough Gold against it, the mechanism feeds on itself. Thus, built into the post-Bretton Woods system is a self-destructing mechanism which ultimately has to lead to a financial meltdown and thus a new global financial structure. Countries such as China and Russia do not want to be part of the unstable western paper money system. Apparently the incident in China where Chinese economics students openly laughed at Geithner was turning point. The press says that nobody would have laughed at a US treasury sec. before. It shows how little respect there is for Bretton Woods 1.0. Unfortunately the western nations are going to be the losers at Bretton Woods 2.0.

Dr.D said...

The press says that nobody would have laughed at a US treasury sec. before. It shows how little respect there is for Bretton Woods 1.0.

The Zero administration is hell bent on turning the USA into a laughing stock, and the appointment of crooks like Geithner to positions of major authority is one of his main tools toward achieving that goal. The man was unable to figure out TurboTax - what a whiz kid!

The destruction of the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world is almost complete. I regret to say that this was done by design of the US government, all of whom are thieves (except Dr. Ron Paul).

Anonymous said...

Superb essay...keep it going Ma'am!

Robin Hind said...

I am not sure what Viking means by saying “As for Mandela, nobody doubts he was a terrorist - but the point is he gave it up in favour of a peaceful solution. That's what makes him great, not his criminal past.”

What “peaceful solution” did Mandela engineer? He contributed minimally to “independent” South Africa, failing to provide a stable administration, whilst occupying himself, along with cronies, in self enrichment.

Viking’s comment is a variant of the myth that Mandela was “All forgiving.”

Does Viking believe that the judicial system should be forgiven for convicting a lawyer who chose not to defend himself, knowing that he was in breach of laws common to all civilisations, and that his plans to kill were indefensible?

Or does Viking believe that two million white taxpayers should be forgiven for funding and evolving (what is now demonstrating itself forcefully to have been) a workable and mutually beneficial compromise for thirty five million peasants who, during five hundred years of pre-colonialism, and then three hundred years of white presence (which provided patient education in expectation) made no significant creative contribution to a nation?

The reality is that there was nothing for Mandela to forgive, and he certainly cannot claim any cause for retribution.

Instead Mandela should plead forgiveness from all racial groups in South Africa for the butchery of people and social structure, in which he was very much part.

Can I suggest Viking reads this?

Robin Hind

Viking said...

@Robin Hind
I assume your repetition of my name in the third person is a rhetorical attempts to rubbish my opinion, rather than ask me about it.
I am one of those "two million white taxpayers" who supports the peasants of South Africa and have no illusions about this country or how it is run.
My point about Mandela is not that he is some kind of hero, but that prison did him some good. He went in a terrorist and came out a politician.
There is a general belief that the black South Africans have "forgiven" the whiteys and are owed some moral credit for this benevolence - when in reality it was the whites who handed over their country out of their sense of fairness and goodwill, not to mention international pressure.
The point about Mandela is that he was the man who represented black South Africans and came to the negotiating table and was involved in hammering out one of the world's most tolerant and democratic constitutions.
The jury is still out on how long it will take for the ANC to rewrite it.

Anonymous said...

Whenever black racists, or indeed most black people,

There is a difference?