0 comment Friday, October 17, 2014 | admin
A ''British'' ''historian'', writing in Newsweek, tells us our Founding Fathers were flawed. As if we don't hear this kind of leftist jeering every day of the week in our media. And as if we don't have homegrown leftist professors galore belittling our ancestors, we have to import the likes of Schama to do this?
He makes sure to mention the old Jefferson canard:
''He may have written the Declaration of Independence, but were he around today Thomas Jefferson wouldn�t have a prayer of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency. It wouldn�t be his liaison with the teenage daughter of one of his slaves nor the love children she bore him that would be the stumbling block.''
This 'historian' can't even be bothered to check out various sources, and instead smugly repeats these charges as if they are true. It's true, so they like to think, because other leftists and assorted malicious idiots with axes to grind repeat it endlessly.
Even many purported pro-Whites, WNs, and others, repeat this story as if it were proven fact. It is not.
And yes, I am not unbiased, being a Jefferson descendant. It just infuriates me that this one slander is given the status of near-gospel truth. I feel duty-bound to speak up against this thing.
But it isn't just his snide gossipy stories about Thomas Jefferson; it's the whole snarky article, from a man who is not an American, nor even our kin, sitting in judgment on us, and not even making an attempt at objectivity.
I am ready to say our Founding Fathers (including Jefferson) were flawed. Of course they were; they were human. But that does not mean that we drag their names through the mud and defame them as the inferiors of today's self-designated 'enlightened' ones.
It's more than obvious that today's politicians -- and history 'scholars' -- are pygmies compared to the generation of 1776. Look at the state of our world and our country, and compare with the Founding Fathers' era. The critics and character assassins, if they have any honesty, have to know that, even with the Founders' flaws, they were head and shoulders above these post-modern nonentities.
Schama would be equally annoying if he were sitting in London writing this stuff about us and our forefathers, but the fact that he is here as a guest in our country writing to us or about us in this fashion is especially egregious.
He makes sure to mention the old Jefferson canard:
''He may have written the Declaration of Independence, but were he around today Thomas Jefferson wouldn�t have a prayer of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency. It wouldn�t be his liaison with the teenage daughter of one of his slaves nor the love children she bore him that would be the stumbling block.''
This 'historian' can't even be bothered to check out various sources, and instead smugly repeats these charges as if they are true. It's true, so they like to think, because other leftists and assorted malicious idiots with axes to grind repeat it endlessly.
Even many purported pro-Whites, WNs, and others, repeat this story as if it were proven fact. It is not.
And yes, I am not unbiased, being a Jefferson descendant. It just infuriates me that this one slander is given the status of near-gospel truth. I feel duty-bound to speak up against this thing.
But it isn't just his snide gossipy stories about Thomas Jefferson; it's the whole snarky article, from a man who is not an American, nor even our kin, sitting in judgment on us, and not even making an attempt at objectivity.
I am ready to say our Founding Fathers (including Jefferson) were flawed. Of course they were; they were human. But that does not mean that we drag their names through the mud and defame them as the inferiors of today's self-designated 'enlightened' ones.
It's more than obvious that today's politicians -- and history 'scholars' -- are pygmies compared to the generation of 1776. Look at the state of our world and our country, and compare with the Founding Fathers' era. The critics and character assassins, if they have any honesty, have to know that, even with the Founders' flaws, they were head and shoulders above these post-modern nonentities.
Schama would be equally annoying if he were sitting in London writing this stuff about us and our forefathers, but the fact that he is here as a guest in our country writing to us or about us in this fashion is especially egregious.
Labels: American History, Founding Fathers, Leftist Bigotry, Thomas Jefferson
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
Recently we discussed the idea of the Northwest redoubt, and on the other end of the spectrum, the downside of city life, the conditions that have caused many people to seek some refuge where they may still live free, outside the oppressive system that has been imposed on us.
Coincidentally, from the Daily Mail (UK) here is a piece about Kalispell, Montana, which we are informed is a 'haven for extremists'. When I read the headline, I thought of the recent article by Chuck Baldwin, wherein he explained his reasons for relocating to that part of the country. And seeing this headline, I thought, surely, the media won't be brazen enough to include Pastor Baldwin in the 'extremist' category. But sure enough,
''Others include patriot leader and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who believes the U.S. is headed for a fight between big-government globalists and independent patriots...''
Shamefully, the Daily Mail article quotes the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, as the authority on 'hate groups' and extremists. This is the prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know whether the Daily Mail's British readers know that the SPLC is not to trusted, being itself a far-left, hate-mongering group which has somehow insinuated its way into the position of arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. If the SPLC had its way, there would be no free speech; the only ideas permitted to be expressed would be those which agreed with their own.
As for the other 'extremists' named in the article, I am not familiar with most of them, but I never take the media's word for it when they label people in this fashion; if they call someone an 'extremist' I take it that the person so named is probably someone who is a sane and normal person who hasn't submitted to an insane system. The truth is 'extremist' today.
This article does illustrate very well that there seems to be an ironclad rule: you can be just as careful and respectable as you like, avoiding all controversial language and inflammatory rhetoric, but if you take exception to the party line and the orthodoxies of the day then you are a dangerous extremist. Pastor Baldwin's very reasonable, non-extremist views have him painted as some sort of dangerous fanatic, and his community, by extension, tarred with that brush. That's an injustice.
The comments to this article are moderated, and there are only four there as I write this. I have a feeling that posting comments critical of this article or the SPLC would be a waste of time.
The unquestioning 'journalists' who write these pieces are never challenged on their facts, and they, in turn, never seem to question the authority of the SPLC . Neither the media nor these witch-hunting leftists are called out for being openly biased and bigoted. The game is rigged in their favor, and people remain blind, thanks in part to this one-sided media machine.
Coincidentally, from the Daily Mail (UK) here is a piece about Kalispell, Montana, which we are informed is a 'haven for extremists'. When I read the headline, I thought of the recent article by Chuck Baldwin, wherein he explained his reasons for relocating to that part of the country. And seeing this headline, I thought, surely, the media won't be brazen enough to include Pastor Baldwin in the 'extremist' category. But sure enough,
''Others include patriot leader and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who believes the U.S. is headed for a fight between big-government globalists and independent patriots...''
Shamefully, the Daily Mail article quotes the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, as the authority on 'hate groups' and extremists. This is the prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know whether the Daily Mail's British readers know that the SPLC is not to trusted, being itself a far-left, hate-mongering group which has somehow insinuated its way into the position of arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. If the SPLC had its way, there would be no free speech; the only ideas permitted to be expressed would be those which agreed with their own.
As for the other 'extremists' named in the article, I am not familiar with most of them, but I never take the media's word for it when they label people in this fashion; if they call someone an 'extremist' I take it that the person so named is probably someone who is a sane and normal person who hasn't submitted to an insane system. The truth is 'extremist' today.
This article does illustrate very well that there seems to be an ironclad rule: you can be just as careful and respectable as you like, avoiding all controversial language and inflammatory rhetoric, but if you take exception to the party line and the orthodoxies of the day then you are a dangerous extremist. Pastor Baldwin's very reasonable, non-extremist views have him painted as some sort of dangerous fanatic, and his community, by extension, tarred with that brush. That's an injustice.
The comments to this article are moderated, and there are only four there as I write this. I have a feeling that posting comments critical of this article or the SPLC would be a waste of time.
The unquestioning 'journalists' who write these pieces are never challenged on their facts, and they, in turn, never seem to question the authority of the SPLC . Neither the media nor these witch-hunting leftists are called out for being openly biased and bigoted. The game is rigged in their favor, and people remain blind, thanks in part to this one-sided media machine.
Labels: Biased Media, Controlled Media, Cultural Marxism, Leftist Bigotry, Leftist Intolerance