The problem of internal trafficking in white girls, some as young as twelve, by syndicates of Iraqi men throughout the UK has been recognised by the British authorities for years.
Now the problem of Pakis trafficking in young white female sex slaves turns out to be endemic in Britain, and perhaps to be present in the States as well. Something well-established in the Dar al-Islam has, thus, come to the West through the dictates of mass Third World immigration and ethnic diversity.
By Melanie Phillips in The Daily Mail on 10th January, 2011:
Mr Straw, whose Blackburn constituency is heavily populated by Muslims, spoke out after two British men of Pakistani descent were jailed last week for a series of rapes and sexual assaults on vulnerable young girls, whom they also groomed for sex with other gangs members or their relatives.
This was far from a one-off case. Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.
This has typically involved abducting, raping or otherwise sexually attacking hundreds of mainly white girls aged 11 to 16, as well as enslaving them through alcohol and drugs and grooming them for sex.
Mr Straw said the reason was that some British Pakistani men regarded emotionally ‘vulnerable’ white girls as ‘easy meat’ whom they trapped through plying them with gifts and drugs.
[...]
White girls also tend to be seen as sluts. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation, says: ‘These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls.’
[...]
For in this debauched British society, highly-sexualised behaviour by even pre-teens is ignored, excused, condoned or encouraged.
Who can be surprised that young white girls willingly go with these sexual predators who pick them up when so many stagger in and out of pubs and nightclubs in a drunken haze wearing clothes that leave little to the imagination and boasting of ‘blow jobs’ or how many guys they have ‘shagged’?
[...]
The disgust felt by some Muslim youths at such sexually promiscuous girls can then feed into a more general hatred and hostility towards Britain and the West. Such youths form themselves into gangs bound by a common feeling of being outsiders united by a profound hostility to the society into which they were born.
But because they are indeed also part of British society, and have therefore been exposed to an education system which gives them precious little education about Britain and even less moral guidance, such youths often descend into the same pit of drugs, alcohol and sex as their ‘unbeliever’ peers.
Yet they come from backgrounds where, all too often, women have second-class status — a world in which some particularly extreme communities have a mindset that divides them into either virginal slaves to their husbands or prostitutes.
The resulting conflict set up in the minds of these British Muslim boys sometimes creates a disgust that turns upon the ‘slags’ and ‘slappers’.
Or — far more lethally — it leads to a self-disgust which makes them vulnerable to the message that they can purify themselves by destroying the society that has led them into such evil and ungodly ways.
It is remarkable that, even though the obscenity of rape and the inviolable rights of women over their bodies are among the shibboleths of the age, feminists and other liberals are almost totally silent when Muslims violate these sacred codes.
Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.
Some Muslim sexual predators may now be behind bars. Others, according to the police, may still be very much at large.
But it is multicultural, reverse-racist, sickeningly hypocritical Britain which is actually in the dock.
Of course, Muslim men will rape and sell any kafir woman. It is that way in Kosovo, and it is that way in Britain as part of the perpetual celebration of diversity and The Other that our communal life has become.
Now it appears that this charmingly quaint aspect of the Orient may have reached America, the homeland of multiculturalism:
Girl, 13, says she fled home to avoid a forced marriage in Pakistan
Authorities searching for Jessie Marie Bender, 13, of Hesperia found her Wednesday at an Apple Valley motel. She told them that her family had planned to take her to Pakistan, where they were going to marry her off.
 |
Standing in front of TV cameras at a Hesperia gas station Monday, the distraught mother of a missing teenager made an urgent plea.
“If you are holding my daughter, please let her go,” Melissa Bender said. “Please, I beg you to let my daughter go. She’s just 13 years old.”
Jessie Marie Bender had been missing a week. Her mother told authorities she feared the girl had run away with a Chicago man she met on Facebook. Following the family’s initial report, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department launched a massive search in the High Desert town for the girl, bringing in agents from the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Chicago police.
On Wednesday afternoon, detectives found the girl at an Apple Valley motel. She was hiding there, authorities said, with the help of an uncle who said she was running away from a forced marriage in Pakistan.
Investigators are now trying to find out whether such a marriage was being planned, said sheriff’s spokeswoman Roxanne Walker. But they know that the girl left home because she was scared.
“Jessie was afraid to go to Pakistan with her mom,” Walker said. “She was concerned about the situation, and she didn’t want to go.”
Melissa Bender, holding the door to her home slightly ajar, told a reporter Thursday that a forced marriage was not being planned. In a voice just above a whisper she said the family had planned a trip to Pakistan in February to visit the family of her 6-year-old daughter’s father.
“I just wanted my daughter to see it and experience it,” Bender said.
She said that she and her significant other, Mohammad Khan, a Pakistani man, passed lie detector tests and that she didn’t expect any charges would be filed against her.
“We’re all just very happy Jessie has been found,” she said. “I thank the community for all their help.”
When Jessie first disappeared Feb. 22, her mother told detectives that her daughter might have run away because she did not want to go on a two-month family trip to Pakistan, authorities said. A few days later Melissa Bender told them about the Facebook relationship.
Neighbors said a team of investigators showed up at the home earlier this week and searched inside and out.
“They shut down the cul-de-sac,” said Ryan Halstrum, 23, who was inside his home when investigators arrived. “They wouldn’t let anyone go through.”
After combing through cellphone records and computer data and interviewing Jessie’s friends and relatives, sheriff’s detectives found no evidence that her disappearance was related to her correspondence on Facebook and determined that the family’s initial reports were false.
“The evidence in the investigation never revealed any of that,” Walker said.
Jessie Bender and three siblings are now in protective custody. The investigation into the case is ongoing, and a report will be forwarded to the district attorney when it’s complete, Walker said.
Rape is part of jihad. Kafir men who import Muslim men into the Dar al-Harb are asking for their female relatives to be raped. Kafir women who import Muslim men into the Dar al-Harb are asking to be raped.
Our leaders will have to decide if they want to side with the Brits they love to hate against the Muslims they love to coddle.
Tags: Britain, california, iraqis, jessie marie bender, jihad, kosovo, melanie phillips, multiculturalism, Pakis, pakistan, promiscuity, rape, rape jihad, UK
March 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
I’m still waiting for American feminists to open their hypocritical mouths about the Bender case. I think I’m in for a very long wait. Robin Morgan, where are you?
Can you just picture the abysmal stupidity of the poor girl’s mother who, with all the blissful ignorance and fatuity of leftish liberalism, was willing to drag her young and nubile daughter to a Third-World cesspool? Mothers as profoundly asinine as that bitch Melissa Bender are all too common today.
March 7, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
Feminists have not opened their mouths in Britain or in Europe. Did feminists open their mouths when Christa Datz-Winter, a German civil court judge, decided it was all right for husbands to beat their wives as long as the couples “came from a Muslim cultural environment”, and quoted Qur’an 4:34 as part of her decision?
Feminists tend to be more multiculturalist than feminist, so they will not denounce brown men for beating white women, or black women for mutilating each other. (Perhaps there exists “a woman’s right” to mutilate girls’ genitalia?) I expect they are the same in America.
I suspect, based on what little acquaintance I have with white women who are attracted to non-white men, that Melissa Bender is not merely willing to drag her daughter to that Third-World cesspool, but truly in search of The Other — in this case Pakistani savagery –, and that she believes marrying her daughter off to a brown man in a Third-World backwater will prove her to be tolerant (i.e., not an evil, rich, white, Northern, imperial-capitalist pig, exploiting the world’s indigenous, poor majority in the global south with her spatially unjust carbon emissions).
My inclination is to say she is, in her narcissistic indifference to her daughter’s plight, every bit as complicit as her Paki boyfriend.
March 7, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
We have a strange breed of white female here in the States — the type who initiates a correspondence with vicious black felons (usually rapists or murderers) held in maximum security prisons. This female will then spend years writing to the prisoner, and doing legal leg-work for him, and agitating for his parole or pardon. You are right; this is basically “a search for The Other,” and a deep emotional rejection of one’s own culture and race. If the prisoner is released, the woman will either marry him or become his sex slave… assuming, of course, he doesn’t just kick her aside with contempt as a “useful idiot,” as Lenin once put it.
Yes, feminists are more multicultural than feminist. But when push comes to shove, they will dump the multiculturalism too. I once attended an academic conference where the leftist Barbara Ehrenreich showed up as a speaker. The subject was multiculturalism and how to “protect” it on campus against the attacks of American conservatives. The argument became deeply involved, and Ehrenreich blurted out the following: “OK, OK, but remember: when you really get down to basics, the left isn’t multi-ANYTHING!”
That’s when I had an epiphany as to the utterly totalitarian mindset of leftish liberals.
March 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
Yes, this breed of white female exists in Britain and in Europe, too.
One underground writer called modern humanism “the third totalitarian ideology“, in addition to Nazism (which is really modelled on classical fascism) and Communism; I agree with this designation, although I would add Islam — which has been despotic and Manichean since its founding by the accursed Mohammed — to the list.
Modern humanism is really a Continental European — especially Franco-German — ideology. It was imported to the Anglosphere, where it took root.
I recently debated two intelligent nationalists, from Romania and Sweden respectively, both of whom appear to be thoroughly convinced that European multiculturalism is entirely America’s fault. I have tried to explain to them that Europe bears a great deal of blame for this, too, but they are not interested in changing their belief that “Americanism” — which they equate with multiculturalism and replacement of population — is worse than Soviet Communism.
The Swede went so far as to claim “The historical meaning of America is about promoting the ‘self-murder’ [i.e., självmord] of white people.” Of course, the American Naturalisation Acts of 1790 and 1795 confined the possibility of naturalisation to “free white persons” who could prove to American courts they were of good moral character and would uphold the Constitution. That doesn’t sound suicidal to me, so I must be a Gramscian or a multiculturalist.
March 9, 2011 at 12:11 am |
I fully sympathize with the frustration and resentment of your Romanian and Swedish friends; there have been plenty of occasions when I have cursed my own country for its blindness and stupidity. And we are in fact today the major engine behind racial degeneration, multiculturalism, the savaging of cultural traditions, self-indulgent hedonism, and mindless consumerism. So your friends have their guns pointed in the right direction.
But what they may fail to recognize that it isn’t just the idiocies of the Enlightenment, an out-of-control German Idealism, and Marxism that have invaded what was traditionally a solid, white-supremacist nation like the United States. The really powerful force behind America’s current insanity is as old as 1620: Puritanism.
Your first Stuart king made a big mistake by allowing those damned fanatical Dissenter maniacs to settle in New England. Puritanism has been the diseased gene in American identity ever since. Even when no longer tied to Calvinist religion, it remains a powerful impetus to the secular thinking of far too many Americans. Puritanism was behind the fury that started our Civil War (the bloodiest in our history). It was the force behind Progressivism, the utopian movement that slowly created our monstrous welfare-statist-bureaucracy. It was behind the sheer lunacy of Prohibition, and our current insane Drug Wars (which are currently turning our poor neighbor Mexico into a combat zone). It is behind the neocon rhetoric about democratizing the planet; it is behind feminism; it is behind all the countercultural and Caucasophobic movements of the last fifty years.
Have you ever noticed how many dimwitted Protestant clergymen there are pushing all the worst ideas of the last century? It’s no accident.
March 9, 2011 at 12:57 am |
First of all, please let me express my happiness that you indicted “an out-of-control German Idealism”. In his essay “Perpetual Peace“, Immanuel Kant lay the groundwork for the EU and the UN, two supranational organisations which I believe Britain ought not to have joined.
The Romanian pointed out an article published in Time Magazine in 1942 about some prominent radical American Protestant clergymen involved in the war effort, “American Malvern“. These so-called “men of God” were all involved in revolutionary causes, yet substantial numbers of them had been isolationists before Pearl Harbour, and still refused to condemn the fascists in any personal sense. However, neither the Romanian nor the Swede ever alluded to Puritanism as contributing in any way to the clergymen’s admittedly outlandish political proclivities.
I am curious: How is Puritanism behind the Caucasophobic and countercultural movements, when the Puritans themselves were largely (i.e., except for a few Separatists like Roger Williams) so reactionary in every conceivable way? Also, why is it that counterculture and Caucasophobia have such an appeal in the once-Lutheran regions?
Clearly, the descendants of the Puritans in the States and in England have been been among the prominent figures in liberalism (e.g., Sir John Bowring, the Roosevelts, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., ), and it is well known that the Boston Brahmins in general supported the Civil Rights movement in America. However, none of the Puritans’ descendants who come to mind were involved in the countercultural movements, although some of the American nouveau riche fit this description (e.g., Abby Rockefeller).
March 9, 2011 at 3:25 am |
The Puritans (Separatists, Dissenters, Nonconformists… whatever term you wish to use for them) were “reactionary” only in certain superficial ways. They followed a strict sexual morality, they were devout churchgoers, they enforced rigid codes of behavior, and they had a ferocious work-ethic. But in fact they were the very essence of sociopolitical and cultural radicalism. Who were the soldiers in Cromwell’s armies, who destroyed merry old England and killed a king? Puritan Dissenters. Who were behind the Whigs? Who never gave up their hatred of the Anglican episcopacy, and the monarchy that sanctioned it? Who were in Wilkes’ mobs? What was the social background of the founder’s of the (Old) Labour Party? Who fought tooth and nail against Catholic emancipation, and still today foam at the mouth when the Pope is mentioned?
These representatives of what I call Low-Church Protestantism are at the heart of every social plague that has hit us. It’s this sick need to preach to the world, to foster change, to annoy and bother people, to overturn or question tradition, to mind everyone else’s business… all this garbage goes back to Calvin in Geneva and Knox in Scotland. Those two fanatics are the face of Puritanism.
The Boston Brahmins didn’t just support the Civil Rights movement. They were the engine behind the venomous abolitionist agitation that sparked our totally unnecessary Civil War.
What you need to realize is that this is no longer something based on racial heritage. You don’t need to be a Mayflower descendant today to be profoundly influenced by these sick Puritan attitudes, which permeate American society like mites in a cheese wheel. They are assiduously cultivated in our schools, and in our mainstream media. People with last names like Goldberg and DiBella and Wieloszinski and Ramirez now share these attitudes as well, and in fact they have come to prize them as a mark of high social status! Social status in the United States is associated with being leftish and “progressive,” and has been for a very long time now, at least since the days of Alger Hiss.
Countercultural attitudes and Caucasophobia are big in Lutheran areas simply because of the generalized breakdown of ALL Protestantism over the last two centuries. In a secularized and denatured Protestantism that has been reduced to mere feeling and good will, there is no longer any intellectual pith that can resist ideological poisons. As Dr. Revilo P. Oliver said, people who lose their faith in God often form “an attachment to secondary and tertiary derivatives of the lost faith and to forms of sentimentality or affectation that were illogically associated with that faith in their own minds. They thus become perfect suckers for a ‘social gospel’ that will serve emotionally as a partial substitute for religion. In the hands of clever manipulators, they become the unwitting instruments of revolution and ravening barbarism.” (letter to F.C. Falque, September 7, 1967).
March 9, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
Most of what you say is interesting and doubtless true. I have, however, a few comments.
With respect to the Boston Brahmins and Abolitionist agitation, it seems from what I have studied that the agitation was fairly widespread and fanatical throughout New England. Perhaps, in fact, it was the ghost of witch-hanging Puritanism — the Confederates certainly thought so — but it seems unfair to blame the Boston Brahmins in particular for the horrible mess that ensued. In fact, real Calvinist churches have often not been particularly friendly towards blacks. To name one example, the Afrikaner NHK decided blacks were damned and whites were the elect. Boston in the Puritan era was segregated, while Boston in the post-Calvinist era became a hot-bed of Leftist radicalism. That said, many in America who were anti-slavery were not Abolitionists (e.g., free-soilers). What do you make of their motives?
The British aristocracy supported the Confederacy in the Civil War, while the commoners tended to support the Union, even though British factories depended on agricultural exports from the Southern states. Apparently, our aristocracy became less enchanted with the hierarchical society (planter aristocracy, negro slaves, poor white trash, et al) the Confederates were trying to create when they realised a shortage of supplies to British factories would not spell their own ruin.
The Whig Party (or “Country Party”) made the emancipation of Catholics one of its priorities. Thus, I find it odd that you group it in with the other Puritan and Puritan-derived tendencies in our politics, which should doubtless be neutral at best towards non-Protestants.
I am not sure as to why you describe the old Labour Party as a Puritan tendency. One of its early leaders, Arthur Henderson, converted to Methodism from Congregationalism (i.e. he was an Arminian, not a Calvinist). Another, Ramsay MacDonald, was a Presbyterian (i.e. a four-point Calvinist who would have been burnt at the stake in Calvin’s Geneva).
The Labour Party was — and is — simply a fellow-traveller organisation ideologically descended from the New Liberalism of the Liberal Party. In fact, many of Labour’s constituency were former Liberals.
March 10, 2011 at 12:19 am |
New England (along with the Northern states in general) was anti-slavery. As a matter of fact, a number of loyal Confederates also disliked the “peculiar institution,” which would have certainly disappeared in the course of time–as it did in Brazil–without a war. But being an active abolitionist was something rather different; it took the wealthy and politically active types among the Boston Brahmins and others like them to stir up a hornet’s nest about it, and to fund the terrorism of John Brown. You can honestly be against slavery while also deciding that a murderous civil war is not a required response to its existence. But Puritanism doesn’t think that way. It insists on turning its moral beliefs into existential facts.
Many persons who fought on the Northern side had no particularly pressing feelings about the slavery issue, but fought merely to “preserve the Union,” as it was expressed back then. And some merely fought on the sound Machiavellian grounds that they could not let a rival part of the country become strong enough to threaten their political interests. The “free-soilers” whom you mention are the best example.
Segregation of the races was a pattern EVERYWHERE back then, and can’t be taken as a sign of anything other than a common perception that the profound differences between blacks and white precluded social mixture. Even our most thoroughgoing democrat, Thomas Jefferson, said that the two races could not live in the same land in a condition of sociopolitical equality. If early Calvinist churches saw this too, it merely speaks well for their racial instincts.
To my mind, the Whigs supported Catholic Emancipation solely as a backdoor to their other goals, which were anti-establishment. Removing the bar to Catholic political freedom meant that the same bar would have to disappear for Dissenters.
The British aristocracy may have supported the Confederacy, but they never managed to get Queen Victoria’s government to recognize it formally. The British kept up a diplomatic correspondence with the Confederacy, and allowed Confederate shipbuilding orders to be filled, but with typical British cool they adopted a wait-and-see attitude. After Gettysburg, it was clear that Dixie would lose.
I don’t quite follow your argument concerning supplies to British factories… should the word “not” be omitted at the end of your final sentence in that paragraph?
About the Labour Party–the issue is not which particular sect of Low-Church Protestantism a leader was in. He might have been Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Congregationalist, Simeonite, or Plymouth Brethren. But has there ever been a Labourite politician who was a solidly High-Church Anglican? Or do they come from overwhelmingly Dissenter backgrounds? Sure, today they are just milquetoast Gramscians or Marxists at best, and have lost their otherworldly beliefs, and only go to Chapel to please their elderly parents.
The smartest domestic political move the English ever made was to prevent anyone from attending Oxbridge unless they subscribed to the Anglican 39 Articles. This kept an entire range of fanatics out of public life and the professions. Revilo P. Oliver, who was himself a convinced atheist, made this argument.
March 10, 2011 at 1:04 am |
Admittedly, many of the Labour Party politicians have non-Anglican backgrounds (especially Presbyterian). However, Tony Blair was born an Anglican (he eventually converted to Catholicism), and he attended St. John’s College, Oxford. Blair, who was responsible for the change of name from “Labour” to “New Labour” when he was elected Party leader, is a member of the Fabian Society, and being an Anglican nowadays does nothing to prevent one from becoming a socialist, as the Church of England is itself socialist.
I don’t think Oxbridge requires its students to subscribe to the 39 Articles anymore. That’s probably why they all went daft quite some time ago.
I am aware that segregation was standard of old, a policy that is sadly lacking today. I simply wished to draw attention to its presence in Calvinist Boston in particular. As for the NHK, it gained notoriety for being the ideological force behind apartheid.
The “not” is correct. The aristocracy believed the English lower classes would rise up in revolution in the event the aristocracy supported the Union, since English factories depended on agricultural imports from the American South.
When it became apparent that support for the Union was ideological enough amongst the English factory workers for the loss of work not to result in revolution in England, the aristocracy relented in their support for the Confederacy.
March 14, 2011 at 6:01 am |
Thank you for mentioning Thomas Jefferson in his capacity as an eloquent speaker on race relations. Here are some quotes from him concerning the relations between blacks and whites:
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.
“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonising them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.
Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, who fought solely — as you mentioned some did — to “preserve the Union”:
“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.”
Lincoln was in favour of making citizens only of those blacks who had served honourably in the Union army; he had no interest in awarding what is now called “birthright citizenship” to all blacks born in America to slaves, freedmen, and their descendants.
March 11, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
I suppose that these days, when very few people in the mainline churches are seriously religious at all, it hardly matters anymore about one’s denomination. All the churches have been sucked into the whirlpool of “the social gospel,” which essentially means that religious dogma is jettisoned in favor of doing whatever left-liberals think is “morally required.”
Being a Roman Catholic while also being a Fabian would have been bloody unthinkable in 1910. Blair’s adherence to both parties is a sign of how far intellectual incoherence has befogged our society.
Subscribing to the 39 Articles of Anglicanism has not been required at Oxbridge since the nineteenth century. I think that Shelley was the last student who was kicked out for refusing.
Thank you for the clarification abut the English aristocracy’s attitude during our Civil War. The South had, with overconfidence, thought that “Cotton was King,” and that English dependence on cotton imports would trump any sympathy for the North. They did not reckon on the horrendous force of a fanatical ideology like abolitionism, and how it would easily brush aside British national interests.
Concerning the malign influence that Puritanism and all Dissenter sects have had on our civilization, let me suggest that anyone with an interest in the question should read “New English Canaan,” a book written by Thomas Morton of Merrymount, a learned man from Devonshire who had face-to-face conflict with the Separatists at Plymouth back in the 1620s and 30s. What happened to him and his colony on Merrymount, when faced by the raging fanaticism of the “godly folk” at Plymouth Bay Colony, speaks volumes about contemporary political correctness and its savage treatment of non-believers. Morton’s book was so powerful and damning that it caused the English Crown to revoke the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Company. Unfortunately, there were too many Roundheads in England to make the cancellation enforceable.
March 14, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
The notion that Abraham Lincoln was in favor of complete sociopolitical equality for blacks is one of the most fiercely and hotly defended myths of American liberalism. It is, quite literally, a sacred dogma and a shibboleth. To question it is to put oneself beyond the pale of humanity. Saying that Lincoln shared the general nineteenth-century American viewpoint of white cultural-racial supremacy (which he certainly did) has consequences similar to denying that Mohammed was Allah’s Prophet in Moslem countries, or questioning the literal fact of the Genesis account in our Bible Belt. You will provoke a heated argument, or worse.
I experienced this first hand when I was in high school back in 1962, and brought up in an American history class the very text that you have quoted. The teacher cut me off short, and refused to let me continue making my point. He bellowed “I don’t care where you got that quote, SHUT UP!”
Recently, liberal historians have tried to get around the fact of Lincoln’s actual words by positing that he “grew” as the Civil War went on, and that he “had an epiphany” that saved him from his previously racist opinions about blacks. Notice the surreptitiously religious tone of that argument… somehow Lincoln “had a new vision,” like St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Here is the Puritan tradition alive and well, right in the history departments of our universities, spouting pseudo-religious drivel about Lincoln’s divinely inspired rebirth as an apostle of equality. Do you see what I mean now about the Dissenter-revivalist-Puritan mentality that still grips America like a straitjacket?
Even our pseudo-conservative movement here in the States refuses to tolerate the slightest criticism of Lincoln, or the slightest suggestion that he might have been what is today called “a racist.” William F. Buckley Jr. would silence anyone in the movement who dared to undermine the Great Liberal Myth of Lincoln the Liberator. He would allow that poisonous little toad Harry V. Jaffa to spit venom at anyone who presumed to even discuss this stupid myth, or who dared to show sympathy for the Confederate position. Ask ANYONE on the American Right about what happened to M.E. Bradford… that is, if they actually have the guts to talk about it openly. Or to Joseph Sobran. Or to Patrick Buchanan.
Anyone in the American conservative movement who gets “too Right” is immediately ostracized and shunned. That’s why political conservatism in the U.S. is merely a showcase opposition, and not a really serious one.
March 15, 2011 at 12:27 am |
I fully expect that many Americans are gullible enough to swallow clever pseudo-religious apologetics with respect to Lincoln, but whether or not it was still Puritanism — over two hundred years after the Mayflower arrived in Plymouth Harbour — that motivated the Boston Brahmins and other prominent New England Abolitionists is another question entirely. As far as I know, Northern liberal churches tended to view slavery in general as perfectly Christian, but the implementation of it in the South in particular as overly cruel.
That does not mean Puritanism — especially of the Anglican variety — is necessarily to blame. Most of the Boston Brahmins, for instance, were liberal, social Episcopalians — not devout Calvinists like John Brown. I suspect they picked up their Abolitionism from Britain when it became the fashion. After all, it is well-known that many Americans who became well-established in colonial times resented the Revolution bitterly, and retained close ties with Britain. In any case, Calvinism is rather prevalent to this day amongst Southern Baptists, whose ancestors broke with mainstream Baptists over the question of the peculiar institution; thus I am suspicious of tying Calvinism to Abolitionism.
Perhaps you are correct in your assessment. I am not familiar enough with this history to render a proper judgement.