In a comparison of “free speech” in the USSR and the USA, Lev Tsitrin wrote that there is little substantive difference between restrictions placed upon such speech by the dictators of Communist Russia and the limitations placed upon it today here in the US by the sweetheart alliance of Big Government, Big Corporations, and the Mass Communications/Propaganda industry.
From their standpoint, Mr. Tsitrin concludes, “free speech that is epitomized in ‘samizdat’ [i.e., self-published writings] can — and should — be suppressed. In their mistrust of free speech, …. the US and the USSR ultimately converge.”
IMAGINE a novel about “the end of black people.” One day the main character, a black man, wakes up and finds that his skin is white. The same thing happens to black people everywhere on earth. The character does not like being white.
Imagine this literary work, titled The Last Black Man, being celebrated by all the major publicity organs of the entire Western world, and maybe the rest of the world too. The novel is compared favorably with Franz Kafka’s bleak tale (obligatory reading for impressionable adolescents) The Metamorphosis. Some words used to describe the book:
“Deliciously ominous,” “deft,” “on-the-ground immediacy,” “transformative,” “breathless, incantatory,” “compellingly readable and strangely musical,” “strange, beautiful,” “Sincere,” “earnest,” “peculiarly hopeful,” and more.
The New York Timesprominently promotes it and proclaims that the book offers “a vision of humanity unvexed by racial animosities” because all people in the world are at last white.
Can you imagine all this? No, you can’t.
Any author who wrote a novel favorably envisioning “the last black man”would be a few legalisms away from a jail cell. The chances of his book receiving a review even in a local weekly would be nil. The only publicity he would get would come from a police report. The only photo of him that would appear would be a mugshot.
The Last White Man, however, is a real, recently published, fantastically celebrated novel, so brilliant, so “strangely musical,” it is hailed by the whole world. Its author is a Pakistani immigrant to Britain, Mohsid Hamid, who is now fantastically rich for serving up a literary vision of the destruction of one race. My local library system has eight copies, not surprising given the promotion and that suburban whites are particularly prone to the masochistic thrills of racial self-obliteration.
Interestingly, even though Hamid’s book describes the end of white people, the author is accused of a racial misdemeanor:
“we … don’t hear anything about how Black people feel about their numbers being swelled by all these dazed-and-confused involuntary converts.”
“WE ought to run after crosses as the miser runs after money. Nothing but crosses will reassure us at the Day of Judgment. When that day shall come, we shall be happy in our misfortunes, proud of our humiliations, and rich in our sacrifices.”
Bombardment of Fort Sumter, 1861 (Currier and Ives)
THOUSANDS and thousands of books have been written about the American Civil War, more accurately called the “War Between the States,” and vast legions of scholars have spent their entire careers immersed in it. Ordinary people have also devoted immense, independent labor to studying it. Gee, it’s intimidating to discuss. I am not remotely an expert, not even one of those highly informed amateurs. Let’s say, I’m an amateur’s amateur.
But it interests me. And it’s important to discuss it.
The War Between the States led to an oppressive form of federal government that remains with us today. The ongoing rhetoric about the war is deliberately inflammatory, unnecessarily divisive and involves systematic defamation of Southerners. It distracts from today’s entrenched, despotic system of debt slavery, a bondage shared by black and white. We are living everyday in the war’s aftermath. I plan to highlight intermittently some myths about the conflict as food for thought and as inspiration for your further study. I remain open to correction. Bear in mind, the American Founding itself, despite many noble principles and provisions, established a form of secular government that was not ideal, based as it was on rationalistic, “Enlightenment” ideas.
It is often said that the South started the war. According to this view, the South was the aggressor, first, by seceding from the United States and, secondly, by firing on Fort Sumter near Charleston in 1861.
Was the South unwise in seceding? Probably it was, given the outcome of the war. But it had every right to do so under the terms of the Constitution, which established the united states not the united state. The Founders deliberately avoided the word “national” in the founding documents, preferring federal. They were establishing a federation of sovereign entities. The federal government was not authorized by the Constitution to prevent states from leaving.
As Philip Mericle writes in a review of Adam Miller’s books on the war, which I highly recommend: Read More »
“WHAT our country, — indeed, what every Christian country under the sun, — needs most, are these great-souled wives, mothers, and sisters in the dwellings of our over-burdened laborers; women for whom the roof above them and the four walls which enclose their dear ones are the only world they care to know, the little paradise which they set their hearts on making pleasant, sunny, and fragrant for the husband who is out in the hot sun or the bitter cold, beneath the pelting of the rain or the snow or the sleet, who, poorly clad and shod, with his scanty fare of hard bread and cold tea, is working away for the little home and the wife and babes, and who is singing in his heart as he bethinks him of the warm welcome that awaits him when the long day is over, of the bright smile and the loving words that will be sure to greet him when he crosses the threshold of his own little Eden, of the cheerful fire in winter and the humble meal made so delicious by the love that prepares it and the sweet words that season it, of the rest and the security and the peace which force the over-flowing heart of the husband and father and brother to think and to say that there is no spot of earth so dear and so blessed as the little sanctuary built up and adorned and made full of song by a true woman’ s heart.
“O woman, woman! If you only knew how much you have it in your power to do, with His assistance who can never fail us when we do our best, to make true men of the husband of your choice, of the sons whom God has given you as his most precious treasures; true women, in their turn, of the little girls who are growing up at your knee, to be, when you are gone to your reward, mothers blessed and praised by all who know them!”
“PERFECTION is founded entirely on the love of God: “Charity is the bond of perfection;” and perfect love of God means the complete union of our will with God’s: “The principal effect of love is so to unite the wills of those who love each other as to make them will the same things .” It follows then, that the more one unites his will with the divine will, the greater will be his love of God. Mortification, meditation, receiving Holy Communion, acts of fraternal charity are all certainly pleasing to God — but only when they are in accordance with his will.When they do not accord with God’s will, he not only finds no pleasure in them, but he even rejects them utterly and punishes them.
“To illustrate:—A man has two servants. One works unremittingly all day long— but according to his own devices; the other, conceivably, works less, but he does do what he is told. This latter of course is going to find favor in the eyes of his master; the other will not. Now, in applying this example, we may ask: Why should we perform actions for God’s glory if they are not going to be acceptable to him? God does not want sacrifices, the prophet Samuel told King Saul, but he does want obedience to his will: “Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices; and to hearken, rather than to offer the fat of rams. Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel; and like the crime of idolatry to refuse to obey4 .” The man who follows his own will independently of God’s, is guilty of a kind of idolatry. Instead of adoring God’s will, he, in a certain sense, adores his own.” [emphasis added]
Federal troops burn the railway station at Madison, Harper’s Weekly, Jan. 7, `1865
MANY PEOPLE to this day believe the American “Civil War” was fought to end slavery. This falsehood dates to the war itself and has been perpetuated by apologists for the sort of lawless, centralized government that emerged during the war. As Adam S. Miller, author of three books on the war, wrote:
The war between the North and the South was not fought by the North (Union) to secure the freedom of slaves, nor to end slavery itself as many were told and others still think. Here are facts which prove this:
– At a conference in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 1861, Northern delegates met and voted against a constitutional amendment to end slavery. Why would they not vote to end slavery if they were supposedly about to go to war to do so? The reason is because the war was not fought to free the slaves. The war was fought by the North to keep the South from seceding and to strengthen Northern control over the Southern states. The North, or Union, was fighting against the rights of states; it was fighting to destroy the agricultural way of life of the South so as forcibly to bring about the dominance of the industrial way of life of the North.
– On July 25, 1861, a bill was passed in Congress -the Crittenden Resolution- which declared that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to stop, or even change, slavery in its established form.” (Source)
Furthermore, as Miller points out, Abraham Lincoln and his government solicited the support of slave states, including Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri. The Union included more slave states at the start of the war than the Confederacy. “Thus, the North could not have been fighting to end slavery, for it would have been fighting against a large portion of itself when the war began,” Miller states.
Only one in fifteen white Southern adults were slave-holders. The vast majority of those who fought for the Confederacy had no direct stake in the institution.
The idea that the North was fighting to end slavery was propaganda, inflaming passions and rallying both whites and blacks to the federal government’s acts of aggression against its own people. Read More »
“THE DIGNITY which chivalry required was removed at an infinite distance from any disdain of men and from any selfish vanity. It arose from a reliance upon God; it was connected with all that was pure and holy; it was united to faith and love; it abode with him only as Wordsworth says:
Who in the silent hour of inward thought Could still suspect and still revere himself In lowliness of heart.
Any opportunity to disestablish tyrannical American government is now long past. Most Americans today have made it clear that they are perfectly comfortable with a tyrannical government so long as it papers over its tyranny with enough do-gooder slogans including the word “help” and does not deprive them of their toys and amusements (TV, rock music, movies, porn, sports, alcohol, and loud cars).
ALAN writes:
It is remarkable to consider how seldom over the span of my life I have seen or heard any mention in the mass communications industry of Fabianism or Fabian change agents. People who imagine themselves to be the best-informed people in the world remain astoundingly ignorant of those who have been working quietly for more than a hundred years to convert the USA into a Communist nation. In the 1940s, journalist John T. Flynn named the Fabians as more dangerous than the Communists to Americans’ liberty and rights.
Thomas Cole, Cora Kneeling at the Feet of Tamenund, 1827
IN ITS Sunday afternoon “teatime” series in the 1970s, the BBC produced serial versions of classic novels and these were then shown on Masterpiece Theater in this country as wholesome entertainment that could be viewed by all ages. Among the best was the 1971 version of James Fenimore Cooper’s 1826 novel The Last of the Mohicans, the famous story of the American frontier set during the French and Indian War, when France and Britain fought for control of the American wilderness and recruited American Indians as their allies.
The TV series included eight 45-minute episodes. (Technically then, this isn’t a movie night, but many evenings.) They can be purchased today in DVD form on Amazon or viewed in their entirety on Youtube.
Other film versions of this renowned novel have apparently turned it into an action thriller, which it definitely is, but it’s not only that. This series is more true to the novel, a penetrating tale of human conflict and aspirations with romance, war, betrayal, loyalty, race, death, political intrigue, the ravishing beauty of the wilderness — and thrilling adventure. This is a tale of European fighting European, of Indian warring Indian, of confused allegiances and of heart striving for heart. The characters include both the British and French commanders, other military figures, the daughters of the British leader, a British wilderness scout and Indian allies and enemies.
This low-budget production was directed by David Maloney, of Dr. Who fame, and produced by John McRae. Harry Green was the writer who brilliantly adapted the novel to the screen. It was shot in the studio and the Scottish highlands, which serve as a beautiful stand-in for the hills and mountains of the Adirondacks in upstate New York where the novel is set, parts of which are almost a wilderness to this very day, though now devoid of those warring tribes. You can go there and almost see the scenes of the book unfold before you.
Viewers accustomed to more sophisticated visuals may definitely find this version slow-moving, clumsy and somewhat campy. But they would probably agree that the acting is superb and though this is not a dazzling spectacle, it is a riveting teleplay, as true as film can be to great literature. The dialogue and characters provide a sensitive portrayal of the lives of both colonists and the Indians.
Particularly outstanding among the actors is Philip Madoc, who plays the Huron scout, Magua. The actor communicates Cooper’s complex mixture of dignity, strength and ruthless cunning. In the story, Magua is plotting revenge against the British commander, Colonel Munro, whom he accuses of giving him hard liquor and making him drunk, leading to punishment and exile from the Hurons. Magua also despises Munro for later whipping him at a post. He is determined to recover his pride and wants the colonel’s daughter as his squaw. Here is a man ready to fight for his people to the end. Not a nice guy, but there is awe-inspiring nobility in his strength and stubbornness.
All of the actors are British; those playing the Indian characters are slathered with skin bronzer — clearly an offense by today’s standards, but the costumes (or, in the case, of the natives, lack of costumes) are so authentic, it doesn’t seem fake. And the actors so vividly convey the humanity and individuality of the Indian characters, can they really be accused of political crimes? Besides, the politically correct will not be entirely scandalized by this production, as Green has Munro boast of Cora’s deceased non-white mother. And Uncas’s attraction to Cora, and her openness to him, are movingly portrayed.
Kenneth Ives plays Hawkeye, the scout for the British who travels through the backwoods with his two Mohican friends, Chingachgook (John Abineri) and his son Uncas, (Richard Warwick.) He may be dull for those who have seen Daniel Day-Lewis in the part (I haven’t so I don’t know which is better.) Still, he comes through with an equal measure of roughness and honor. The friendship between the scout and his Indian allies is beautifully captured; we see a white man who is sincerely loved and loves in return. These are not cardboard characters.
This is a novel of masculine men and feminine women, strong in their complementary ways. Patricia Maynard and Joanna David play Cora and Alice Munro, respectively, daughters of the British Colonel Munro, who leave England to seek their father, holed up in Fort William Henry. These are women not afraid to venture into the wilderness. The director and actresses are able to preserve the highly-civilized decorum and kindness to all of the book’s characters. These heroines are gems, so lovely and strong. The actor Andrew Crawford, who plays Munro, does not fully convey the deep attachment of the novel’s character to his daughters and his grief at the eventual tragedy of Cora.
This would be a good series for homeschoolers to watch before or after studying the novel. These are truly great performances — and the haunting theme song by Dudley Simpson, featuring only a flute and percussion movingly opens and concludes each of these wonderful episodes.
The Last of the Mohicans is a story of racial conquest told by Cooper with enormous sympathy for the defeated and with none of today’s brutal contempt for the ‘paleface.’ In light of current events, some may find this television adaptation all too painfully real.
FROM The Free Pressby Hilaire Belloc (George Allen & Unwin, 1918):
Side by side with the development of Capitalism went a change in the Press from its primitive condition to a worse. The development of Capitalism meant that a smaller and a yet smaller number of men commanded the means of production and of distribution whereby could be printed and set before a large circle a news-sheet fuller than the old model. When distribution first changed with the advent of the railways the difference from the old condition was accentuated, and there arose perhaps one hundred, perhaps two hundred “organs,” as they were called, which, in this country and the Lowlands of Scotland, told men what their proprietors chose to tell them, both as to news and as to opinion. The population was still fairly well spread; there were a number of local capitals; distribution was not yet so organized as to permit a paper printed as near as Birmingham, even, to feel the competition of a paper printed in London only 100 miles away. Papers printed as far from London, as York, Liverpool or Exeter were the more independent. Read More »
RUSSIAN opera singer Vadim Cheldiyev has been sentenced to ten years in a maximum-security prison for organizing a protest in 2020 against COVID lockdowns in the North Caucasus. Cheldiyev never attended the protest because he was arrested after posting about it online. He said he planned the event because he was worried about job losses due to lockdowns, which were initiated after two alleged COVID deaths in the region.
Several years ago, Cheldiyev suspended his career at the famous Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg in order to return to his native town in the Caucasus to start a charity. He explained his move in this video, which offers a fascinating glimpse of “The Man Who Quit Opera to Help the Poor.”
But as your worke is woven all above,/with woodbynd flowers and fragrant Eglantine:/so sweet your prison you in time shall prove,/with many deare delights bedecked fine.
- Edmund Spenser, Amoretti (71.9-12)
“We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”
----Fr. Frederick Faber, 1861
