The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
Tearing Down Statues Isn’t Vandalism. It’s at the Heart of the Democratic Tradition
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It is easy to forget how explicitly racist British society was within living memory. I’m not talking about unconscious prejudice, or social media tropes. I’m talking about openly celebrating racism in the public space, about major companies making racism integral to their brand, a selling-point.

Roberston’s, Britain’s leading jam maker, made their orange marmalade sweeter to generations of (white) British children by associating it with a “golliwog”. One of the fondest memories I have of my childhood breakfasts was collecting golliwog tokens on the jar label. Collect enough and you could send away for a golliwog badge. More than 20 million badges were issued. I remember proudly wearing one.

Most white children, of course, absorbed – with the unquestioning trust of a young, unformed mind – the racist assumptions behind those golliwog figures. There are still Britons, like this Conservative councillor in Bristol, who never grew up. They continue to celebrate their breakfast-time lessons in racism – and can count on a newspaper, like the Metro, to give their views an unchallenged airing.

Racism was not just a feature of my childhood breakfasts. Friends had golliwog dolls in their beds, and Little Black Sambo story books on their shelves. Leisure time was spent watching TV shows like the BBC’s Black and White Minstrels Show – black-up as family, round-the-campfire entertainment – or comedies like It Ain’t Half Hot Mum (with grinning, ridiculous locals providing the exotic backdrop to a nostalgic romp around the British empire) and Mind Your Language (with simple-minded “immigrants” from the former colonies struggling through English-language classes).

Victims of empire

Britain’s education system played its part too. History and other subjects took it as read that Britain had a glorious past in which it once ruled the world, spreading enlightenment and civilisation to the dusky natives. The only significant event I can recall from lessons on Britain’s colonial involvement in India is the Black Hole of Calcutta, a dungeon so cramped with prisoners that many dozens suffocated to death one night in 1756. That event, from more than 200 years ago, was obviously explained to me with such impassioned horror by my teacher that it left an indelible scar on my memory.

Many years later, overlaid by my much later leftwing politics, I recalled the Black Hole deaths as referring to British crimes against the native Indian population, and saw it as a hopeful indication that British schools even in my time were beginning to address the terrors of colonialism.

But when I looked it up, I found my assumption about the episode was entirely wrong. It was native Indians rebelling against the rule of the East India Company, a trading corporation that became more powerful than the king through its pillage of India, who forced British mercenaries into the Black Hole. Paradoxically, the East India Company’s foot-soldiers – there to oppress the local population and plunder India’s resources – died in the very dungeon the firm had built to punish Indians.

History classes were designed to impress on me British victimhood even as Britain was in the midst of raping, pillaging and murdering its way around the globe.

Jar sales versus complaints

Until I researched this post I had also assumed that Roberston’s quietly shelved the golliwog badge back in the early 1970s. But no. Apparently the badges were still available for children until 2002. In the tiniest of makeovers in the 1980s, Robertson’s reinvented the golliwog as a cuddly “golly”.

It is hard to imagine a spokeswoman for a major corporation – in this case, Rank Hovis McDougall – defending the use of the golliwog now as they did back in 2001:

We receive around 10 letters a year from people who object to the [golliwog] character. That compares to 45m jars of jam and mincemeat sold annually.

The scales of trade: 45 million jars a year weighed against 10 killjoys. Golliwogs were simply good for business, given the cultural climate that had been manufactured for the British public. In a way, you have to appreciate the corporation’s honesty.

The linked Guardian article is worth reading too. Less than 20 years ago the country’s only “liberal-left” newspaper felt quite able to report the dropping of Robertson’s golliwog character in faintly nostalgic terms, an example of “Gosh, how the times, they are a-changin” journalism, instead of the unalloyed disapproval we would now expect.

Corporate sloganeering

Those approaches contrast sharply, of course, with today’s sloganeering from Nike, Reebok, Amazon and many other corporations as they hurry to show their support for Black Lives Matter in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin late last month.

Have the assumptions of the corporate world changed so dramatically over the past 18 years, or have their priorities remained exactly the same: to make money by making us identify with what they need to sell us?

Golliwogs no longer shift product. What does is empty corporate slogans about equal rights, humanity and dignity – as long as corporations don’t have to deal with inequality in their boardrooms, or, more importantly, recognise the humanity of labourers in their Third World factories or their local warehouses.

The trade that built Bristol

All of this is a prelude to discussing the pulling down at the weekend of a statue in Bristol to Edward Colston, a notorious slave trader in the late 17th century. He helped to build the city from the profits he and others made from trafficking human beings – people whose lives and suffering the traders considered as insignificant as the animals many of us consume today.

Slave traders like Colston headed a business that had only two possible outcomes for those who were its “product”.

For countless millions of Africans, the slave trade forced them into permanent servitude in conditions set by their white owner, who did not consider them human. For countless millions more, the slave trade meant death. Death if they resisted. Death if the traders lacked food for all of their human cargo. Death if the slaves fell ill in the appalling conditions in which they were transported. Death if their bodies could no longer take the punishment of their enslavement.

Colston’s slave trade – and related trades like the colonial plunder run by the East India Company – built cities like Bristol. They funded the British empire. These trades enriched a political class whose descendants are still educated in private schools venerating that ugly past – because those same schools produced the merchants that once ruled and pillaged the planet. The same children then go on to attend prestige universities where they are still trained to rule and plunder the world – if now largely through transnational corporations.

Some even go on to become prime minister.

Spotlight on history

ORDER IT NOW

The ignominious removal of Colston statue’s and its dumping in Bristol’s harbour are being widely condemned from all sides of the narrow political spectrum: from Sajid Javid, until recently chancellor of the exchequer in the ruling Tory party, to Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour party.

The rationales for opposing this act of rebellion by ordinary people against the continuing veneration of slave traders and white supremacists are illuminating. They tell us more about how we are still shaped by our golliwog upbringings than we may care to admit. After all, by today’s standards Colston would qualify to stand trial in the Hague on charges of crimes against humanity and genocide.

Some have compared the tearing down of his statue to the 2001 destruction of the Bamyan statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Other see in it the equivalent of book-burning by the Nazis. But obviously the erasure of Colston’s statue in a shared public space – a central square in Bristol – neither disappears a work of art nor does it erase Colston from history.

Those who value the statue as a historical record – or even as a work of art – are fully entitled to dredge it up from the harbour and install it in a museum, ideally one dedicated to the horrors of the slave trade and British society’s long ignorance of its own imperial history and crimes.

Those who fear censorship or the erasure of historical knowledge should not worry either. They can still find out all about Colston in history books and on the internet. Here is his Wikipedia page. None of that has been erased or is ever likely to be.

In fact, far from erasing history, the protesters managed to shine a very bright spotlight on a part of British history our political elite would much rather was glossed over or ignored.

Who to commemorate?

Other critics suggest that it is wrong to impose modern standards and values on a man who died 300 years ago. And that if we did the same more widely, there would be no statues left in Britain’s city centres. It is the tyranny of political correctness, they argue. Instead, we should acknowledge that cities like Bristol would not exist without the trade that enriched it, and that the British public would not be able to enjoy our cities’ public parks and grandiose buildings.

Except Colston did not simply abide by the standards of his day, appalling as we view those standards now. There were abolitionists prominent when Colston was around. He made a choice, an economic choice to be on the wrong side of history. He made a decision to put profit before conscience, as many of us do to this day. He set a terrible example to those around him, as many of us do now. His is an influence we should wish to oppose and diminish, not venerate and emulate.

True, there is no point in judging Colston himself all these centuries later. He was a product of his time and class. But we should judge those who wish retrospectively to approve a decision taken in the 1890s to erect a statue to Colston, more than 170 years after he died, when slavery had long ago been abolished in the UK. We should also judge those who think it fine to gratuitously insult today, through the elevation of a statue, the many people in Bristol whose ancestors suffered unimaginable horrors and suffering because of Colston. That has nothing to do with democracy; it is race hatred.

The choice we can make now is to celebrate in our most public, most collective, shared spaces the values we hold dearest – not values that appeared acceptable to our ancient forebears. No one would oppose Russians pulling down a statue of Stalin, or Germans destroying statues of famous Nazis. Nor, we should note, did most westerners object in 2003 when a group of Iraqis were helped – by US and UK troops after an illegal invasion – to pull down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein on primetime TV.

The public square is public. It should represent values that can be embraced by wider society, not just those who cling to a narrow, ugly and outdated idea of Britishness – or still cherish, like our Bristol councillor, the role of slave traders like Colston in building his city.

Shared values in public space

Even without Colston, Britain will continue to commemorate its imperial past – and obfuscate its historic crimes. Books and art works in this vein litter libraries and art galleries across the country. But those are different spaces from the public square. We choose to read a book or enter a gallery, but we cannot avoid our city centres. By definition, a statue in a public park or square commemorates and venerates the person it depicts and the actions associated with them. Books and art galleries are where we contemplate, study and discuss. If an art exhibition is well curated, the products of imperial and colonial history should not glorify the past to visitors, but clarify and contextualise it.

Rather than oppose the protesters for targeting Colston’s statue, or worry about the fate of similar statues, critics should consider why it is that so many British cities are stuffed with art works commemorating Britons who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What does that say about our supposedly glorious past or about the wealth that paid for our cities? Is that a history we should continue to glorify? Should we shrink from the truth, pretending it never happened? Or is time we confronted the past honestly? Should we not wonder what it tells us about the present that we and our parents have been so insensitive to the hostile spaces we created in our major cities for those descended from the victims of our imperial crimes?

ORDER IT NOW

And even more challenging, should we not wonder how far we have actually moved on from the imperial “adventures” of slave traders like Colston? Are modern Britain’s foreign “adventures” – now called “interventions” – in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so very different? Like Colston, we have tried to shape black and brown people’s destinies in our interests, with little regard to the death and suffering we have inflicted on them in the process. Exposing Colston’s crimes hints at the crimes to which we are party too.

Fear of the ‘mob’

The concerns of those opposed to the pulling down of the Colston statue aren’t really about erasure of history or about anachronistic values. Their worry is located elsewhere.

For some it is the sense that a part of our collective nostalgia, our evenings warmed by a cathode tube as we watched It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, with us imagining that our Britishness – our identity, culture and institutions – represented something wholesome and good has been snatched away. We do not want to feel bad, so we cling on the past as though it were good.

Our cuddly golliwog has been kidnapped from our bed. How will we ever be able to go back to sleep?

But for others, I think, the concern is more contemporary than nostalgic. It is sublimated into the criticisms of Javid and Starmer that the crowds who pulled down the statue were lawbreakers, they were violating the democratic process, they were taking the law into their own hands, they were unleashing chaos and anarchy.

There is an obvious rejoinder. People in Bristol had spent many years trying to get the statue of Colston taken down through democratic means. They should not have needed to. It should have been obvious to the city’s authorities that it was offensive to revere a slave trader in a public square. The city should have taken action without prompting. Instead it did nothing.

It is a sign of the absolute failure of the democratic process – its calcification – that popular pressure could not bring about the removal of Colston’s statue. Had Bristol’s councillors really been sensitive to the issue, had the local media really represented the values we all profess to believe in, Colston’s statue would have been removed long ago. The lack of any urgency to end his elevated status in Bristol only emphasises how Britain’s political class actually relates to imperialism and colonialism.

Stripped of all rationalisations, what this is really about, once again, is a fear of the mob.

Progress through protest

In his TV series A House Through Time, historian David Olusoga has been documenting Bristol’s history through a single grand house, built on money earnt from the slave trade. Last week he considered the period when it was the abode of John Haberfield. In the early 19th century Haberfield twice had a role – first as Bristol council’s legal adviser and then as mayor – in dealing with activists who would soon become the Chartists. They were the “mob” of that time who believed political corruption should end and that they, and not just the gentry, should have the vote.

Bristol’s leaders tried to jail the ringleaders in 1831 but that provoked larger demonstrations. The protesters took over Queen’s Square. Notably, paintings from the time disapprovingly show a drunken man carousing on top of a statue to a venerated public figure (Colston’s statue had yet to be erected). Bristol’s leaders responded by sending in the dragoons, the police force of the day. The dragoons charged towards the crowds on their horses, using their sabres to cut down dozens of the protesters for demanding a right we all take for granted today. Some 100 protesters were put on trial, and four men hanged, despite a petition from 10,000 of Bristol’s residents appealing to the monarch for clemency.

It seems Bristol’s political class today are little more responsive to the popular will than they were 200 years ago.

The point is that the gains made by ordinary people, and conceded so reluctantly by the establishment, always came through confrontation. Rights were won because of events termed “riots”, because of popular protest, because of disobedience. Protest – violent and non-violent, explicit and threatened – was at the root of everything we now identify as progress.

Comforting illusions

It is a comforting illusion that things today are so very different from 1831. We want to believe our voice now counts, that we have the power, that we are in charge, even though the vote our ancestors struggled so hard for has been stripped of value, our voices silenced. We are given a choice between two political parties equally captured by corporate money and interests.

We want to believe we have a free press even though the media is owned by billionaires. Its job is to keep us uninformed, docile, disorganised and divided. We want to believe that our police forces are there to serve, even when they prevent demonstrations and use violence against us (and against some of us more than others). We want to believe our societies no longer exploit and enslave, our wilful blindness helped by corporations that keep modern slavery out of sight in far-off lands. Goods are sold to us on the basis of the deception that all lives matter.

All lives will matter when the weakest among us, the poorest, the most oppressed and the most exploited are given the chance for dignity and the right to flourish. That cannot happen when we live in deeply unequal societies, when we reward bankers before nurses and teachers, and when we refuse to address the historical injustices that continue to shape both our understanding of the world we live in and our opportunities to succeed.

Colston and his statue represent everything ugly and debased about our past and our present. If British leaders are still in thrall to the poison of our imperial history, then ordinary people must show the way through protest, defiance and disobedience – as they have done down through the ages. As they did once again at the weekend.

 
Hide 234 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Malla says:

    But when I looked it up, I found my assumption about the episode was entirely wrong. It was native Indians rebelling against the rule of the East India Company, a trading corporation that became more powerful than the king through its pillage of India, who forced British mercenaries into the Black Hole. Paradoxically, the East India Company’s foot-soldiers – there to oppress the local population and plunder India’s resources – died in the very dungeon the firm had built to punish Indians.

    You are sayin B.S. East India Company was not pillaging anybody as they did not rule any major region in India when the Black hole incident happened. It was not even possible at that time. The Black hole incident happened on the orders of Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah, who was known to be a cruel ruler himself. There was no plundering of resources or oppress the local population by then because when the incident took place, the East India Company did not rule much territory. Only factories on the coasts of India.
    Indeed it was Siraj Ud Daulah’s stupidity which led to the British East India Company getting a chance to conquer Indian territory.

    Many Indian mercantile Hindus supported the British East India Company against Siraj Ud Daulah because of his cruelty.

    In the book ‘The British Conquest and Dominion of India’ Sir Penderel Moon writes “some influential Hindu bankers in the capital of Bengal, Murshidabad, alienated by Siraj ud Daulah’s violence and caprice, had secretly informed the British that they were meditating his removal”.
    And who were these guys? They were Oswal Jains, led by a man whose title was Jagat Seth, meaning “banker to the world”.

    Siraj ud Daulah was a psycho, who ruled by whim and did not know anything about running an economy. The only good thing he did was screw the maratha looters for a while but anyways later he agreed to pay cauth or 1/4th of the revenue of Bengal to the looter dacoit marathas. That was how the mighty Hindu Maratha Empire (pride of hindutva) ran, by looting and freebooting, Muslim, Hindu and Europeans alike. They were fair looters, Hindu, Muslim or European, the rate was 25% or chauth (1/4th). Remember for the blood thirsty Mughals, loot rate was 20% and that of the British mere 5%.

    Sir Penderel writes: “Siraj Ud Daulah is said to have struck Jagat Seth, the leading Hindu banker, in the face…. It seems to have been Jagat Seth who took the lead in approaching the English for help in overthrowing him.”

    It was another trader in Bengal, Amin Chand who brokered the deal of Plassey along with Jagat Seth. Amin Chand cemented the deal between Robert Clive and Mir Jafar, but then blackmailed the British saying he would tell Siraj ud Daulah unless he was paid ₹ 30 lakh.

  2. Paul says:

    Does the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., need to be torn down? He plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation, and his treatment of women in private (as has been exposed by his associates) was appalling.

  3. Anon[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    East India Company and Jardine Matheson sold opium in China.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @Malla
    , @ivan
  4. JimDandy says:

    I am reminded of the legendary human rights activist Gandhi, who said that black people “are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.”

    CANCELLED

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-53025407

    • Replies: @niteranger
  5. RSDB says:

    “Mind Your Language” was somewhat distantly based on the “Hyman Kaplan” stories written by Leo Rosten, the Yiddish-speaking son of Polish Jewish (and also Yiddish-speaking, of course) immigrants, who taught an ESL class one year during the Great Depression.

    A quote of his: “A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they’re dead”. Perhaps since he is now a “racist” it should be reformulated: “A radical is one who despises radicals a generation after they’re dead.”

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Alden
  6. Anon[368] • Disclaimer says:

    In the grand scheme of human problems, racism isn’t even in the top 100. Plus, nobody cares anymore, the “Boy Who Cried Racist” having been both wrong and/or over-the-top so many times that as soon as the word “racist” is uttered, no matter how earnest or well-intentioned, any semi-awake human being just moves on.

    @CouldntBRighter

    • Agree: thordaddy
    • Replies: @Herald
  7. Zimriel says:

    If a mob tearing down a statue is “at the heart of the democratic tradition”, then so is – say – hacking a website and deleting (e.g.) Jonathan Cook articles. If that is democracy then I want no part in it.

    • Agree: Getaclue
  8. The Holocaust memorial museum in Washington should be stormed by Americans outraged by Israel’s theft of US resources and its corruption of US politics, and for Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty.

    This may or may not include the defenestration of the directors, the casting of exhibits into the street, and the bulldozing of the entire structure into a landfill.

    Yes, more democratic tradition, please, until justice is done and seen to be done.

    • Agree: Zumbuddi, anarchyst
    • Thanks: Pat Kittle
  9. Frothing over a harmless doll when Sub-Saharan Africans are busy murdering real pale-skinned people, be it Afrikaner farmers in South Africa or albinos.

    As for ‘noble’ Hindus, didn’t the Brits put an end to some of their savage norms like suttee or sati (widow-burning)? I don’t even have time to talk about their caste system AKA social predestination plus female infanticide (aborting baby girls).

    P/S: feral imported brown and black mobs are being allowed by the evil ruling class to run amok. Contrast with anti-lockdown protesters who were arrested in Hyde Park, London last month.

    • Replies: @Jatt Arya
  10. “If a mob tearing down a statue is “at the heart of the democratic tradition” then so is say, hacking . . .”

    These are two very different constructs. One is breaking into a private or secured server to access said information . . . the other,

    is a public expression in a public space. Unlike the server where the data may be accessed or not one walking into the public space has no choice but to be confronted or share the space of someone celebrated for something Great Britain herself condemned ad abolished.

    I tend to think the statue response is incorrect, our founders (I live in the US) right or wrong our a part of history and instead of bringing down such statues a more appropriate response is raise statues of those who represent a counter narrative.

    Our confederate issue is complicated because though they were traitors to the US, to the states and even to North East, West and South they represent men figures who forged a nation – the fact that south needlessly started a war that killed nearly 1 million people, it didn’t have to is often lost

    Pres. Lincoln had no intention of freeing a single by edict or legislative process —

    Still I think the counter narrative is a better choice.

    I think it’s a brave article that acknowledges that even in the day — the issue of slavery was very divisive.

  11. “Frothing over a harmless doll when Sub-Saharan Africans are busy murdering real pale-skinned people, be it Afrikaner farmers in South Africa or albinos.”

    I think that manner of vengeance is tragic. Just because whites engage in far worse in South Africa is not a cause for a small number of blacks to reek vengeance on albino children . . . or farmers and the open and seizures and swindles, murders, disappearances, poisonings, rapes and terror campaigns they engaged in and/or supported.

  12. @Anon

    At that time ( early to mid C19th ) opium, especially in the form of laudanum, was an article of commerce like any other – bread, cheese, potatoes etc. You could go into a shop or merchants’ premises and buy it over the counter, no questions asked. This was in Europe, North America and other parts of the world.
    Laudanum was one of the very few painkillers available at the time, and by far the most effective in dealing with serious illnesses like cancer. Not very surprising as Laudanum is the forerunner of Morphine.
    The downside of this policy was the large increase of opium and laudanum addicts – Thomas De Quincey, Dante Rossetti and Edgar Allan Poe spring to mind. This problem only eased with increasing restrictions in the late C19th.
    The Chinese Empire opposed the import of opium into China. The so called Opium Wars – actually much more complicated than that – resulted in the mass importation of Opium to China. As in the West, a large number of addicts resulted. However, the Chinese gained access to the only effective painkiller for serious and critical diseases. Imagine facing terminal cancer without opiate painkillers. Before the 1840s, that’s what Chinese people had to deal with.
    Of course, opium addiction in China was much more obvious and serious than in the West. Unsurprising. C19th in China was dire. Insurrections, famine, warlords and the rest. Instead of turning to alcohol or Oxycontin, they turned to opium. The rest is history.

  13. Altai [AKA "Altai_2"] says:

    I have to disagree. Small minorities taking it upon themselves to topple and destroy statues is not democracy. You may conflate the image of the toppled statue with a popular revolt but that is because we’ve never seen as disarmed and atomised population as we have reached now who have as yet not begun a backlash against the unending mission creep we see in this movement.

    In some cases, like in towns and cities that have developed significant black majority populations, the removal of confederate monuments that was blocked by the state from happening democratically may have a case.

    But the statues in Britain and elsewhere in Europe are often much older in general and not controversial. They are often prominent parts of the public space that are well-loved. A statue’s meaning can change with time and right now these statues are increasingly being targeted not because they irredeemably cause offense but because they are tied to ethnic enemies of the core of these protests.

    The Columbus statues are a good example. The one in Virginia was initially opposed in 1925 by Virginians of old stock Anglo settler ancestry and prominently by a politician who turned out to be tied to the KKK, causing the situation to become a national one in the US leading to pressure that lead to the statue being erected. To all parties involved this wasn’t really a statue of Columbus, it was an ethnic totem. Almost 100 years later and the context of the statue being an ethnic totem for Italian-Americans is not visible to the protestors, to them it’s a totem of white America and European colonisation. The context of the statue being originally placed as an ethnic marker in opposition with America’s existing identity (A kind of activism very similar to what they’re doing) was invisible to them. Who was right? Were the Anglos in the 1920s right? Were the Italian immigrants right? Were the local Native American groups right? Were the BLM protestors right?

    In 1925, Frank Realmuto (a Richmond barber) organized a campaign to donate a statue of Christopher Columbus to Richmond’s Monument Avenue; this campaign was supported by Richmond’s approximately 1,000 Italian-American residents. In May 1925, the Richmond City Council rejected a proposal to donate land for the statue alongside Monument Avenue on the basis that Columbus was both a foreigner and a Catholic; most of the council members believed that putting Columbus near monuments to revered Confederate figures would be inappropriate. This decision was widely criticized in newspaper editorials published across the United States, especially when it came to light that an opponent of the statue who spoke at the meeting was a member of a coalition that included the Ku Klux Klan. In June 1925, a committee of the Richmond city council decided to allocate land near Byrd Park for the statue. Fundraising began in February 1926 while Ferruccio Legnaioli, an Italian immigrant to Richmond, was selected to design the statue. Ground was broken in June 1926.

    For decades, members Richmond’s Italian-American community gathered near the statue on the eve of Columbus Day to celebrate Columbus and their culture. During the 2010s, the statue was repeatedly vandalized; these vandalizations coincided with increased opposition to Columbus Day and efforts to recognize indigenous peoples. On June 9, 2020, the statue was torn down, spray-painted, set on fire, and thrown into a nearby lake by individuals protesting the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.

    The destruction of these statues is basically a form of ethnic provocation and is not conductive to any kind of social solidarity that Johnathan supports. So far I’ve seen zero mentions of Palestine in all the hubbub about racism. Indeed, with all the noise about identity politics which often prominently includes Muslims and arabs and even a surprising number of people of Palestinian descent in the US, I don’t see any mention of Palestinians.

    Churchill wasn’t a very sympathetic man, yet the statue of him isn’t about that. He is a personification of WW2 and Britain. People who fully know all about his deficiencies and crimes walk past and feel fine or even a little comforted because it’s not a statue celebrating those things or perhaps even really the man himself but the idea of him. And that is partly why the protestors want to destroy it. Nobody is really offended by it because nobody really thinks about those aspects of his character, not even the protestors. I fear the protestors are attacking it because of what it does represent.

    But it goes further because this is centering an effective non-English perspective about the English perspective. You can’t understand the notion of ‘decolonisation’ of London otherwise.

    Ultimately the destruction of these statues feels very similar to the destruction of place names and monuments by the Israelis after 1948. All of this is the greatest bonfire of social solidarity the West has ever seen and all it will lead to more victories for oligarchy and neoliberalism. All of it will beat people down and make them hunker down.

  14. Just the title – tearing down statues, is the same as burning books, or burying scholars.

    History is history – deal with it or STFU. Honestly, debate is about considering what has been, what is now, and what will or could be in the future. Without having signs to what has been, knowing what is now is difficult. And knowing how to forge the future, is a lost cause.

    Brits built statues to Churchill – he was a genocidal, forgerist, drunk maniac. Germans built statues to Hitler – he was an aggressor, perhaps genocidal (to the Slavs). Russians built monument to Lenin – he wasn’t genocidal, just indifferent to murdering some decent fraction of any people’s to get his goal.

    But those people, whether in understanding, or in failure of understanding, built statues to them. Both serve as lessons – either as a lesson to the power of propaganda, or herd behaviour. Even without those two, statues to moral decay shine a light on that condition.

    ‘the fool is not the one who doesn’t know, but the one that does not want to know’ – someone else (if anyone knows! 🙂 )

    • Replies: @Anon
  15. @EliteCommInc.

    Our confederate issue is complicated because though they were traitors to the US,

    No, no they weren’t. They were loyal to their home states, the creators of the Federal government. The creator has more of a claim of loyalty than the creature.

    • Agree: Rogue, Kratoklastes
  16. Now that I’ve read it – it is as if the author believes that only positive lessons, pats on the back, can serve as lessons to the individual or society.

    In my experience however, error is what offers both progress. Or suffering – if the lesson from the error is not learnt.

    Success is heady. Statues of heroes and heroes only bring pride, a deadly emotion. We must remember the faults of humanity, and what better way than through the errors of our predecessors? Christians put up statues to slavers, rapists, murderers. Is this not enough for reflection? Can’t we stand around a statue of Churchil, and debate power by considering he wished to drop 10 million Anthrax bombs on Northern Germany in a drunken stupor? How would this be possible without the statues?

    The author is a babe, an infant – that in shuttering his eyes with his hands, believes all the danger and evil disappears from the experience that is in front of him.

    It doesn’t.

  17. @EliteCommInc.

    Just because whites engage in far worse in South Africa

    Dang those White people. How dare they bring civilization to a howling wilderness. Food to the starving, medicine to the sick.
    How dare those Dutch allow the Bantu blacks into their nation when on their own the Bantu would have taken another 200 years to reach the site of Cape Town on the Atlantic. Of course if the Bantu had not had white men in their way, they would have completely exterminated the San and Khoikhoi.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  18. Maybe it would be fairer if equal prominence were given to:

    The massive enslavement of millons of Europeans and others by Muslims

    The massive enslavement of millions of African blacks by other blacks

    The massive role in enslavement of millions played by profit-seeking Jewish slave traders

    Slavery practiced by non-white slave-owners, being quite a bit larger in terms of tens of millions over history, than that by white slave-owners

  19. Biff says:

    Tearing down statues = book burning

  20. Any article discussing ‘democracy’ without defining it is the work of a hack.

    Oh yes, it’s supposed that everyone knows ‘democracy’. He doesn’t. It’s a bullshit word meant to gloss around the writer’s refusal to reason by way of first principles. It’s cowardice.

    We are all supposed to accept as the major premise that democracy’s good, and thus desirable. Ergo, if the writer can somehow tie his conclusion to ‘democratic’ roots, he’s carried the day.

    Shameless fraud. Thousands of words of spittle.

    Interesting truth: No form of the word ‘democracy’ is found in the US Declaration of Independence or Constitution. To the contrary, democracy is forbidden by Constitution Article IV Section 4.

  21. It seems Bristol’s political class today are little more responsive to the popular will than they were 200 years ago.

    Britain’s populace is still 92% white. Why would their “popular will” have any validity?

    the continuing veneration of slave traders and white supremacists

    You want “white supremacism”? Here’s a recent classic:

    The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously called the “Kill the Gays bill” in the western mainstream media due to death penalty clauses proposed in the original version)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014

    There was nothing wrong with Uganda’s statute. Pederasts deserve to die. It just got white folks’ knickers in a twist, including those of the half-white US president.

    George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin

    Had Officer Chauvin been assigned to the desk giving out concealed carry permits, and denied one to Mr Floyd due to his prison record, would that also have been police brutality? It would be even harder for him to get one in Mr Cook’s UK. Assuming they let him enter in the first place.

    Sajid Javid

    @sajidjavid
    I grew up in Bristol

    God help us, why?

    If British leaders are still in thrall to the poison of our imperial history…

    …then they differ little from Chinamen, Zulus, Malians, Araby, Persians, Mongols…

    That Britons are the only ones who feel any guilt for their past pretty much proves their unfitness as a race. That, and the legal buggery. The only tradition left over from the “public” school days.

  22. Dannyboy says:
    @Beavertales

    Excellent post, sir!

    I’ll certainly take part in that Democratic Tradition.

  23. RodW says:

    It seems Bristol’s political class today are little more responsive to the popular will than they were 200 years ago.

    Bristol’s political class today is full of minorities, including the mayor who is a negro, all of them much hated for their corruption, incompetence, and favouritism to their own minorities. Bristolians love their trees, but minorities don’t seem to like leafy suburbs, so they have all the trees cut down. If they had cared a hoot about Colston’s statue, they could have had it moved to a museum any time they wished.

    The people who threw Colston in the docks appear to be largely white children, probably at Bristol University, which has become a cancer growing on the city, a vast and ravenous corporation buying up property using tuition fees from the wealthy ruling classes of other countries. Their act of vandalism was motivated by empty and ignorant slogans, impatience with actual democracy, and a total intolerance of opinion which differs from their own. Also by a pathetic urge to mimic what’s going on in the US.

    This lawlessness and its encouragement by the minority power holders will have been noted by hitherto law-abiding people. Nobody should be surprised if the next figure to go into the docks is Bristol’s black mayor, accompanied by some brown councillors.

  24. “Tearing Down Statues Isn’t Vandalism. It’s at the Heart of the Democratic Tradition”

    Hey Jonathan Cook:

    Sure!

    Let’s tear down ALL statues glossing over historical crimes & hypocrisy — prioritizing the most notorious hagiography of all — the ubiquitous idolatry of “Holocaust” industry shysters.

    How about it, Jonathan?

    Jonathan??

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  25. @Beavertales

    I have read several claims, seemingly credible, that George Soros funds BLM and supports their violent rioting. It is also documented, rebellious Jewish sources, that the Jews collectively hate non-Jews and and are at war with, seek to subvert, the societies in which they, the Jews, live. It happened historically, e.g. the Cyrene uprising in the 2nd century AD whose largely successful objective was widespread massacres of Gentiles. There seems reason to believe organized subversions of society, BLM, LGTQXYZ and more have that connection.

    We have here the current article by the Le Pen woman pointing out that permanent victimhood is behind BLM and the like. But that, being eternal victims and so eternally hating, is notoriously Jewish.

    The Holocaust museums everywhere are central to that victimhood and it is not permitted to examine the truth of the Holocaust, though some have dared and say it’s largely devoid of credibility.

    So yes, you are right. One of the answers to the current turmoil plus the other things you mention, USS Liberty etc., is that the Holocaust museum in Washington should be stormed by Americans.

    Disclaimer: I am not an American.

    But the time is long overdue for fair and balanced and open and loud reaction to the eternal Jewish war against society.

    • Agree: Getaclue
    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    , @brabantian
  26. @RSDB

    “Mind Your Language (with simple-minded “immigrants” from the former colonies struggling through English-language classes).”
    I used to play episodes of this program to one of my very multicultural ESL classes. Although it’s over 40 years old they really enjoyed it. It’s funny, if a bit silly. Every race/nation comes in for ribbing. Stereotypes, yes. But for sheer fun.
    Of course, it’s a sin to have a laugh at each other now… What a shit culture we seem to have concocted.

  27. cranc says:

    “We will take whatever measures are necessary both to destroy this world as quickly as possible & to create the world we want

    -Extract from manual handed out to those in attendance at Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle [emphasis added].

    People in Bristol had spent many years trying to get the statue of Colston taken down through democratic means.

    (JC above)
    Which people ? How many ?
    These two examples exemplify a certain attitude toward ‘democracy’.

  28. The rationales for opposing this act of rebellion by ordinary people against the continuing veneration of slave traders and white supremacists

    So Mr Cook supports the demolition of the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, and the Washington Monument?

  29. @EliteCommInc.

    You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. The Southern States took it upon themselves to secede from, not declare war on, the Northern States. This occurred after petulant Northerners had threatened secession on at least three different occasions. The first was with the acquisition of territory gained by the Louisiana Purchase. New Englanders feared their influence would wane in an enlarged Nation. The second time Yankees raised the cry of secession was during the War of 1812. They complained that the war, waged on behalf of New England Shipping Interests, was interfering with their commerce with the British. Yankees permitted the White House to be burned and refused to send troops to aid in repelling the British. The Governor of Massachusetts, Caleb Strong, actually committed treason by sending a secret envoy to England in an effort to negotiate a separate peace treaty. This was in violation of the Constitution. The third time Northerners threatened secession was over the U.S. – Mexican War. This time, expansion of Slave territory was expressed as a reason. The problem with that reasoning is that plantation slavery could not exist in the desert Southwest. Interestingly, none other than Abraham Lincoln, as a Representative from the State of Illinois was proclaiming the right of the people to amend or overthrow the existing government and form a new one. He called it a most valuable and sacred right and one that he hoped would liberate the World. Later, the Illinois State Legislature would denounce the Emancipation Proclamation, calling it a diabolical attempt to incite a servile insurrection in the South.

    The Arizona Territorial Government passed an ordinance of Secession and Southern California was also a hotbed of Southern Sentiment. The Los Angeles Mounted Rifles rode with Albert Sydney Johnston across the Continent to Richmond, Virginia, where they were mustered into Confederate Units. Maryland’s Legislative body was arrested and jailed to prevent them from seceding. The Governor of Kentucky, Beriah Magoffin, condemned Lincoln’s call for troops and the elected members of the Legislature of Kentucky passed a measure to secede in absentia. Governor Claiborne Jackson of Missouri was forced to flee from office.

    The Mayor of New York, Fernando Wood, spoke of seceding and siding with the Confederacy. In the Draft Riots, a Negro Orphanage was burned, many Negroes were killed, and the others were forced to flee the City. The last Confederate Community to rejoin the Union was Townline, New York, in 1946. Many Northern people, newspaper editors, politicians and civilians, who wrote or spoke against the war, were jailed without due process. Prominent Copperhead Senator Clement Vallandigham of Ohio was exiled to Canada.

    The South tried to send representatives to negotiate with Lincoln, but he refused to see them. Jefferson Davis tried to pay for “U.S. Property” but no offers were considered. Lincoln attempted to resupply Fort Sumter by sending The Star of The West while there was a supposed truce in effect. When Robert Anderson took possession of the Fort, he boasted to the U.S. Adjutant General, Colonel Samuel Cooper, that he had the City of Charleston completely in his power. He could shell the city or prevent ships from coming into the harbor. Sam Cooper soon resigned his commission and became the highest ranking officer in the Confederate Army.

    The property that the Confederacy was offering to pay for had already been purchased by them many times over. Not only that, much of what had been built in the North had been paid for by them as well. The issues of Internal Improvements and Tariffs had been a point of contention since Hamilton instituted the American Plan. This took money from solvent agrarian States and gave to the speculating industrial ones. Some early opposition came from the State of New Hampshire. Land locked and hard scrabble, the State was, nonetheless, economically sound. Franklin Pierce, as President, continued to oppose the tariffs and the system of internal improvements in one section at the expense of others. Pierce was a steadfast friend of Jefferson Davis, who had served in his Cabinet as Secretary of War. An outspoken critic of the war, a mob in Concord threatened to burn his home when Lincoln was assassinated. The Tariffs of Abomination in the late 1820’s to early 1830’s led the State of South Carolina to pass the Nullification Act. Georgia stood ready to resist the extortion as well. Jackson flinched, the threat of force was removed and the tariffs were lowered back to their previous levels. At the commencement of the War, the Morrill Tariff was set to raise the rates to exorbitant amounts that would have tripled the tax burden on the South. Lincoln was willing to sign the Corwin Amendment to protect Slavery in the States where it existed perpetually. He was not willing to surrender the Revenue. He repeated spoke publicly about his inability to legally interfere with the institution of Slavery, but emphasized his resolve to collect the impost duties. This was the reason that coastal installations like Fort Sumter had to be held.

    Finally, only six percent of the Africans transported across the Atlantic were brought to the Colonies or the United States. The majority, ninety four percent (94%) were taken to South America and the Caribbean. It was New England Shipping Firms that were engaging in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, bringing sugar from the Caribbean and South America to New England to be turned into rum, which was exchanged for Negro Slaves in Africa, who were sold to work on the sugar plantations, and the ship’s holds would be washed and loaded with more sugar to be taken North to be turned into rum, and so on and on and on…. This continued for 33 years after the War to Prevent Southern Independence had ended, when Brazil and Cuba became the last regions in the Western Hemisphere to outlaw slavery in 1888.

    To say the issue is complicated is to say the least.

  30. If someone stomps the sh*t out of Jonathan Cook and destroys everything he owns, is that Democracy? Is Howdy Dowdy a favorable depiction of a freckled faced White Boy or is it derogatory or is it merely humorous? I know Fat Shaming or Body Shaming is a thing, but what about justice for Baldos? I think that every woman who ever turned me down because I’m follicly challenged should have to sleep with me. On second thought, they’re all too old now. Maybe, their daughters or granddaughters should bear the burden of their prejudice, just like I’m expected to atone for “the sin of slavery” committed by my ancestors.

  31. Rahan says:

    When a guy from Slovakia enters the USA, the moment his airplane lands, he is automatically classified as “evil white your ancestors enslaved blacks”.

    Although his “ancestors” not only never enslaved any blacks, but actually helped aggressively the blacks to achieve independence all across Africa, back when his country was part of the communist half of the world.

    So this is pure racism bullshit. You see a guy and you literally assign him guilt and sin due to the color of his skin.

    Next, say you import some chaps from the Congo into the USA. The USA never had any slaves from the Congo. The Belgians oppressed the Congo. However, the moment these Congo negroes arrive to the USA, they automatically inherit the “my ancestors were slaves here” points.

    Thus, on one hand, a Slovak who has literally zero connection to the slave trade in any shape of form (and instead has connection to helping fight colonialism), is automatically classified as “hereditary oppressor” when he enters the US, and then a negro, who has also literally zero connection to the slavery in the US, is automatically awarded “oppression points”.

    Thus we see, that even if we were to accept the left’s fascist ideas about inherited racial guilt, or inherited systemic guilt, it all falls apart when you zoom in. It’s made up mumbo jumbo which throws around privileges and sins literally based solely on the color of someone’s skin.

    So let’s put this “muh slavery” and “muh ancestors” crap to rest. There are no “ancestors” let. Probably 4% of the population have slaver ancestors, of whom 2% are Jews, same with the blacks.
    Everything else is simply a huge cloud of bullshit perpetuated by the scum who feed off it and use it as leverage to infiltrate and dismantle civilization, and many other people have their noble humanist instincts hijacked by this.

    Yes, gollywogs is fine. Feel sad? Don’t buy them. Still feel sad? Get therapy. Still feel sad? Go live elsewhere. Especially in Britain and Europe, nobody forced you to come. Can’t adapt and want instead force society to adapt to you?

    Hop on a flight and buzz off.

    No, taking down statues is not OK. It’s a tragedy every time. At the most, if there’s too many of them, they should be moved to special city parks dedicated to a specific historical period. But tearing them down is Taliban and Bolshevik behavior, and even with a double dose of Jewish rhetoric, Bolshevik and Taliban behavior is not “democratic”.

    With blacks, with Jews, with everyone else, humanity needs to agree to a cutoff point. Say 30 years. After whatever evils have befallen you, you get gibs and an easy ride for 30 years. After this, you compete within society on the exact same conditions as everyone else. Can’t handle it? Want to be a privileged group forever and ever?

    Madagascar.

    Blaming your parents for everything is OK until 3 years after you’re a legal adult. Then it’s on you. Blaming historical trauma for everything is OK for 30 years. After that it’s on you.

    Can’t handle free will and individual responsibility?

    Your place is not here.

    • Replies: @Cowtown Rebel
    , @Miro23
  32. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Why do you leave out that many Indian merchants made a lot of profit in the Opium trade as well? And the Jewish Sassoons were the big fish.

    • Replies: @Anon
  33. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    How about if instead of tearing down Holocau$t museums, we simply re-purpose them to reveal the enormous (((fraud))) that they are, and furnish them with exhibits exposing the (((foulest war criminals in history, bar none)))?

    THAT will be JUSTICE!
    🙂

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
    • Replies: @anon
  34. @Rahan

    I agree with almost everything you said. I had an ancestor, Scotch-Irish, whose father fought in the American Revolution and who owned three slaves. A founder of The Republic of Texas, his name, that of his first son, and the names of the slaves are contained in a painted (not stained) glass window in a Church. The Church was built in the 1920’s, but the windows were contained in an earlier edifice that the congregation used before. They were made in Germany, transported up the Red River and carted by wagon to North Texas in the 1880’s. The Slave’s names were included because they had been founding members of the Church.

  35. Stogumber says:

    Cook here represents a tradition of progressive pseudo-democracy which contradicts liberal democracy.
    In progressive pseudo-democracy, men “at the side of history” have a privilege in destroying other people’s values.
    In liberal democracy, the defenders of the old system are recognized as a legitimate opposition with the possibility of becoming the government again. so there are no privileges for “men at the side of history”. Of course there can be changes who are, in hindsight, consensually accepted by both sides. Nearly nobody sees a reason to reestablish slavery – but the acceptance of a gollywog or the acceptance of a statue is not slavery, not even similar to it. The “pain” of people who conflate these matters is self-inflicted.

  36. Anon[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    British empire wasn’t run by Indian merchants.

    It was run by White British ‘gentlemen.’

    Who turn out to be every bit as greedy as Jews and Indians you continuously insult. If Indians made a lot of money, it’s because they were better traders than British. Not because they were greedier than Jardin Matheson.

    A lot of those Jewish and Indian traders brought valuable goods to Britain, so the Raj happily tolerated their opium trade.

    The Chinese, who are a wise people, do not trust British, Jews, or Indians.

    • Agree: Rev. Spooner
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Really No Shit
  37. @Cowtown Rebel

    Thanks. However, I’m not sure Elite.Comm is capable (whether that be dispositionally or in terms of reading comprehension abilities) of reading your post.

    • Agree: Cowtown Rebel
  38. karel says:
    @Malla

    It sounds all good and reasonable what you say but you entirely miss the asymmetry of the relationship between India, or its various provinces, to be more accurate, and the GB. The British came to India to spread western values, democracy and religion, no doubt all in support of a very honourable cause. Unfortunately, there was no reciprocity as the very evil Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah together with his henchmen has never made it to the shores of GB failing to bring a bit of eastern civilization to the savage people of these dismal islands. The eastern devil had also a little chance to gang up with the worst segments of the British ruling class to suck even more blood from its indigenous slaves. Had he made it, then Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah would have been awarded by haveing a nice statue of him erected in every major town of GB.

    The problems of asymmetry between east and west are perennial. I still vividly recall one amusing event an EFEO meeting in Pondichery in 2008. One beautiful lady from Thailand raised the problem of this asymmetry by claiming that we westerners study them and observe them their evil eyes the as if they were exotic animals a then write strange things about them at pleasure. Not being a skilful diplomant I proposed her to come to Europe where she could observe me in my natural enviroment and investigate my habits a participate in

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  39. karel says:

    sorry, had no time to redact the contribution after pressing the wrong button.

  40. Jatt Arya says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    White Nationalists against caste & Sati, both practices found among the Norse and other Euro tribes।।

    Find another larp. 🤷‍♀️

    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  41. “The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors”
    (Encyclopedia Britannica, Slavery)

    There are no groups of people who are wholly good or bad save for the golden halo brigade who carry the heavy burden of self-righteousness.

  42. Silly leftist nonsense because it is written avoiding any consideration or discussion of ethnicity and the ethnic dimension to these statue removals. Which is just ignorant and insane given that the Political Correctness movement/religion is explicitly racialist.

  43. Alden says:
    @RSDB

    There are still occasional sit com episodes of an ESL class.

  44. Alden says:

    This article is a collection of ridiculous liberal cliches My reaction is to laugh.

    Maybe it’s his diversity and inclusion statement for an application for a 12 hour a week community college job in BS studies.

  45. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Jonathan Cook, like all international Marxists of today’s fashion, an anti-(Rothschild) Zionist propagandist, but for (Rothschild/Soros) Globalism. His greed, hypocrisy, and self-delusion have no limits. Must be his self-righteous, elite British heritage. They have a long tradition of licking satanic Rothschild boots, who themselves have a long tradition if cynically crucifying “backward” decent folk standing in the way of their global Moneychanger ambitions.

    Some things never change. Satanists never change. Like reptiles.

  46. Malla says:
    @karel

    asymmetry of the relationship between India, or its various provinces, to be more accurate, and the GB.

    Agreed but the Europeans wanted a way to the Indies (East Indies – a territorial description in those days which included South Asia and South East Asia all the way to Indonesia.) Indeed it was Indonesia which was the first prize (spices) which the Dutch got. India was the second best price, some spices yes but most importantly garments. And they Western Europeans (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, British, Danish [very small players]) wanted a way to the Indies to beat the monopoly of this trade by the Muslims and Venice. And when Constantinople fell to the Turks, this desire to find an alternative route increased further. I did not ask the Turks to conquer Constantinople. The whole colonial Empire chapter of mankind started thanks to the actions of the Turks.

    a bit of eastern civilization to the savage people of these dismal islands.

    Savage people? Abu Taleb Khan’s book on British Society gives the opposite picture.

    The eastern devil had also a little chance to gang up with the worst segments of the British ruling class to suck even more blood from its indigenous slaves. Had he made it, then Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah would have been awarded by haveing a nice statue of him erected in every major town of GB.

    The East India Company itself stamped out all such corrupt practices with time. That is why Robert Clive was sent for a second time.

    The British came to India to trade. But rivalry with other European powers especially the French led to the conquest of India. The earliest conquest of Indian regions of India by the English was primarily because of rivalry with France. It was originally France which started interfering in Indian affairs forcing the British to do the same in response out of fear of losing trade rights in India. Before that the English policy was to not interfere in local affairs much but just concentrate on trade. India for a while (especially) South India was going more French than British. However French ambitions depended on one person Joseph François Dupleix, a Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of. However the French East India Company Directors lambasted Dupleix to not waste energy on conquests and empire buildings but concentrate on trade.
    Must add that many Indian powers like Hyder Ali of Mysore were friends of Dupleix, unlike the French East India Company directors, the local powers were not complaining about his actions.
    And how can we forget the Maratha Empire. It were the Maratha raids which would give the best help to the conquest and expansion of the British Empire in India. Marathas raided and decimated Bengal. They looted it out by their heavy taxation of Chouth (1/4th taxation i.e. 25% of the conquered/raided ) as well as killed many. So heavy were the impact of these Maratha raids, that the fierce Rajput Kings themselves voluntarily signed an alliance with the British East Indian Company for protection. Travancore Kingdom in South India signed a similar treaty with the English to save them from Tipu Sultan’s invasions. Also must add that Nawab Shiraj Ud Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal crushed the Borgees, Maratha raiders who would raid and kill and rape and loot Bengal. One must add that a Peshwa (Prime Minister of the Royal Maratha Bhosle Family but defacto rulers) of the Marathas tried to stop all this raiding but before he could take any action in Bengal he had to return to Pune (the capital of the Peshwas and Maratha power center).

    And what about Nader Shah the brave Sultan of Iran. Nadir Shah looted out of India multiple times of what the British East India Company earned in India till the mutiny. During the course of one day (March 22) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were brutally killed by Iranian troops and as many as 10,000 women and children were taken as slaves, forcing Indian Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah to beg Nader Shah for mercy.

    In response, Iranian Emperor Nader Shah agreed to withdraw, but Indian Emperor Mohammad Shah paid the consequence in handing over the keys of his royal treasury, and losing even the fabled Peacock Throne to the Iranian emperor. The Peacock Throne, thereafter, served as a symbol of Iranian imperial might. It is estimated that Nader took away with him treasures worth as much as seven hundred million rupees. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader also looted the Koh-i-Noor (meaning “Mountain of Light” in Persian) and Darya-ye Noor (meaning “Sea of Light”) diamonds. The Iranian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May 1739, but before they left, he ceded back to Muhammad Shah all territories to the east of the Indus which he had overrun. The booty they had collected was loaded on 700 elephants, 4,000 camels, and 12,000 horses.
    I let us not even start about Ahmed Shah Abdali, the Lord of the Afghans who had his own lootings in India. The British East India Company got peanuts compared to the above two Empires. LOL.

    You think Iranian Emperor Nadir Shah, would feel guilty about slavery? LOL. Imagine a bunch of pussyboy leftist SJWs & anti fa thugs going to manly Nadir Shah’s court and calling him evul because he enslaved people. Nadir Shah would roar with laughter so hard, the SJWs/anti-fas would collectively pee in their pants. He would probably keep the male SJWs & anti fas as nautch boys and females would be forced into his harem or distributed to his courtiers.

    • Replies: @karel
    , @anonymous
  47. @brabantian

    Not at all. Slavery by the whites and Jews was on an industrial scale. Now the white christians are trying to dump the whole bag on the jews and the jews are understandably silent as they are modern forever victims & martyrs and they were coerced by the evil whites.

  48. Malla says:
    @karel

    Not being a skilful diplomant I proposed her to come to Europe where she could observe me in my natural enviroment and investigate my habits a participate in

    Very interesting. There was this TV program “Meet the Natives” where Micronesian/Melanesians from the Pacific island of Tanna would go to America and observe the Americans as natives in their cultural habitat. There was a sequel, “Meet the Natives UK”.
    Two things I found interesting was that, they had one member of that Tanna team whose job in the village was “Happy Man” just like how there would be a medicine man. Quite a cool job description!!!
    And secondly, the elders of Tanna believe that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is a God!!!!They got to meet the Duke in the UK series where they asked some mysterious questions something about “has the time come yet” or something of that sort and the Prince exactly understood what they were sayin. Strange.

  49. Malla says:
    @Anon

    British empire wasn’t run by Indian merchants.

    It was run by White British ‘gentlemen.’

    British Empire had its own Jew lobby just like how Jews control America today.

    But the people whos topped that evil trade were all British Protestant missionaries. No Indian Baniya or Parsi or Bengali cared about the Chinese dying. Do you really think the typical Indian baniya trader would give a rats ass about the deaths of chinkis (East Asians) or Goras (Whites) or Kalus (Blacks)? They would not Giva a f**k. The Jews definitely did not care about Chinese dying. It were evul Whitey Anglos who led a campaign to stop this trade.

    The opium trade faced intense enmity from the later British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone. As a member of Parliament, Gladstone called it “most infamous and atrocious” referring to the opium trade between China and British India in particular. Gladstone was fiercely against both of the Opium Wars and ardently opposed to the British trade in opium to China. He lambasted it as “Palmerston’s Opium War” and said that he felt “in dread of the judgments of God upon England for our national iniquity towards China” in May 1840. Gladstone criticized it as “a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace,”.

    In the 1890s, the effects of opium use were still largely undocumented by science. Protestant missionaries in China compiled data to demonstrate the harm of the drug, which they had observed. They were outraged that the British Royal Commission on Opium visited India but not China. They created the Anti-Opium League in China among their colleagues in every mission station, for which the American missionary Hampden Coit DuBose served as the first president. This organization was instrumental in gathering data from Western-trained medical doctors in China, most of whom were missionaries. They published their data and conclusions in 1899 as Opinions of Over 100 Physicians on the Use of Opium in China. The survey included doctors in private practices, particularly in Shanghai and Hong Kong, as well as Chinese who had been trained in medical schools in Western countries.

    In England, the home director of the China Inland Mission, Benjamin Broomhall, was an active opponent of the opium trade; he wrote two books to promote banning opium smoking: Truth about Opium Smoking and The Chinese Opium Smoker. In 1888 Broomhall formed and became secretary of the “Christian Union for the Severance of the British Empire with the Opium Traffic” and editor of its periodical, National Righteousness. He lobbied the British Parliament to stop the opium trade. He and James Laidlaw Maxwell appealed to the London Missionary Conference of 1888 and the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 to condemn the trade. As he lay dying, the government signed an agreement to end the opium trade within two years.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Really No Shit
  50. Another great virtue signalling piece (of merde) from Cook!

    • Agree: ariadna
  51. In a way, it’s not about statues.

    It’s about the fact that blackness and radicalism are about destruction.

    What have blacks built in Africa? Nothing. But they sure are good at tearing things down. It’s not just statues. Look at Detroit. Blacks tore down everything. When whites build cities and factories in Africa, what do blacks do to them?

    Blacks see books and say, ‘sheeeeiiit, what dat be?’

    Blacks only know how to destroy, not build. Sure, they have a ‘moral’ excuse to bring down certain statues, but they burn and loot and destroy everything around them. They Africanize Africa, America, and Europe.

    As for the radicals, they just love the thrill of anarchy, nihilism. But since it doesn’t feel good to destroy stuff for the hell of it, they latch onto some ‘moral’ excuse to go about burning and smashing. White radicals are losers who want some thrills.
    It’s no different with ISIS, young punk nihilists pretending to be Islamic purists. They just love to tear things down. Look at their vandalism in Syria and Libya.

    There are those who destroy to build. Creative destruction.
    But there are those who destroy just to destroy. Destructive destruction.

    If anyone thinks black violence has anything to do with morality, they are deluded. Blacks act the same wherever they are.

    By rights, American Indians should be looting and burning everything in the US as they were the biggest victims of US history. But it’s the blacks. Look how blacks act on Fartin’ Poother Bling boulevard. Them streets are in honor to the Dr. Reverend Jr. but blacks still act black.

    Who act the worst in Australia? Recent blacks. They were brought over and given free everything. They still act oogity.

    Also, every people can find reasons to act violent cuz of …. history. Russians can bring up the Mongol invasion, Poles can bring up Russian imperialism, Greeks can bring up Ottoman rule, Spanish can bring up Moorish invasion, and etc.

    Stop excusing black violence and mayhem. They act like savages at all times and all places. And before the white man came to Africa, they had no written language, no wheel, no nuttin but bongo drums and spears to chuck at hippos. But in today’s world, Negroes chuck and whiteys cuck. The Chuck-Cuck Syndrome will destroy the West.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
  52. Malla says:
    @Anon

    A lot of those Jewish and Indian traders brought valuable goods to Britain,

    The valuable goods were brought to Britain by the East India Company itself.

    Indians made a lot of money, it’s because they were better traders than British.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.in/chinas-opium-war-was-completely-indian-enterprise-not-british-indian-author-amitav-ghosh-628177

    China’s Opium War Was ‘Completely Indian Enterprise’, not British: Indian Author Amitav Ghosh

    At this juncture he found that the first opium war in China was an Indian undertaking. “The first opium war (was) planned in India, it was financed by Indian money, it was fought with Indian soldiers. But it has all completely vanished from our historical memory,” Ghosh, whose third book of Ibis series ‘Flood of Fire’ is all about migration in the 1830s, told IANS.

    The putting together of the expeditionary force took place in India. The British naval ships for the expedition were accompanied by 50 supply ships, all provided for by Parsi merchants in Bombay (now Mumbai). From top to bottom, it was a completely Indian enterprise; all the wherewithal for it came from India,” he added.

    http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=SPOILS-OF-WAR-History-of-capitalism-is-written-27112016018050

    What role did India Inc play in the opium trade war?

    They [Indian companies] played a pioneering part. In large parts, the opium war was financed by Indian money – by old Bombay money. Many of t he big Indian families made their money in opium. This is equally true about America.

    Many American companies and families have made their money in opium -President Franklin Roo sevelt‘s family, t he C a l v i n Coolidge family, Forbes family from where you get the current secretary of state, John Kerry, even institutions like Yale and Brown. Singapore and Hong Kong wouldn’t exist today without opium.Essentially opium was the most important commodity of the 19th century.

    Are companies hesitant to acknowledge their past connections to opium?

    Very hesitant . Jardine Matheson was one of the most important opium trading companies in the 19th century. Their closest partner was Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy, who built half of Bombay. To this day, Jardine Matheson does not like this connection mentioned. In fact, they’ve been known to threaten journalists. Similarly, people who’ve been trying to work with papers of various Indian companies find it very difficult to access documents. Let me just say it tactfully that several companies don’t like this to be spoken of in public.

    Would it have been difficult for companies to hide their past if there was social media at that time?

    The opium war was a very modern war. It was sold to the British government by merchants. They collected money and sent William Jardine to London to bribe politicians into starting this war. It’s a collusion between the State and the private sector, which benefited not only from the policies of the opium trade, but also from the whole war being sub-contracted to them, in terms of provisions, supply ships etc. It was the template of the Iraq war. First, you pick up something, drum it up by publishing some articles about it, the people will get worked up, then you start the war. You keep hidden what is actually happening.

  53. Malla says:
    @Malla

    But the people whos topped that evil trade were all British Protestant missionaries.

    Sorry dangerous typo.
    It is
    But the people who stopped that evil trade were all British (& American) Protestant missionaries.

  54. “No, no they weren’t. They were loyal to their home states, the creators of the Federal government. The creator has more of a claim of loyalty than the creature . . .’

    1. If you are a US citizen and you attack the US , if make war on the US – you are a traitor – period.

    2. There was no reason to make war on their country as their country was going to for them the same as it was before the election of Pres. Lincoln — which makes their war more egregious.

    3. The presidents Washington and Andrew Jackson (neither fond of blacks for anything but slaves) had both made clear that the Constitution was sacrosanct. When the south attacked Ft. Sumpter and unprovoked attack — they violated Federal law and such were subject to the Supremacy Clause —

    4. They were traitors to a one. One can applaud their state loyalty and still acknowledge a legal reality — they were traitors in every way the word is intended to be applied.

    5. The southern states routinely utilized the federal system, demanded it judgement be enforced and allowed themselves subject to the same — well on occasion — and for anyone to take seriously their states rights bid, they would have to name a single court case in which a state sued the federal government for abolition of it relationship. The states joined the Union for the purpose of union, entirely of their volition, knowing full well they were joining a national entity by which they were bound. They routinely called upon federal authority to act on their behalf —

    .i.e. John Brown: Col Robert E Lee.

    As members of the union their act was an act of violence against the union was and remain an act –

    — of treason .

  55. “You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. The Southern States took it upon themselves to secede from, not declare war on, the Northern States.”

    this is interesting to be told I don’t know what I am taking about by an individual who has no clue that calls for cessation n as complaint is something very different than an act of war against the federal institution.

    1. Louisiana territories became states in the union under the Supremacy clause and those territories did so eagerly and of their own volition. Your entire response here is about complaints regarding cessation — no kidding, the issue was hardly uncommon from immediately after the Constitution was adapted. And two President’s reinforced that the Union was not a social club one could join on a whim.

    Pres. Washington — putting down the whisky rebellion on federal authority — on behalf of maintaining the union’s laws and policies.

    Pres. Andrew Jackson with the crisis of nullification:

    “On December 10, 1832, Pres. Andrew Jackson issued his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina,” asserting the supremacy of the federal government and warning that “disunion by armed force is treason.” Congress then (March 1, 1833) passed both the Force Bill—authorizing Jackson to use the military if necessary to collect tariff duties—and a compromise tariff that reduced those duties. ”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/nullification-crisis

    “”Our Union: It must be preserved.”–After-dinner toast at the Jefferson Day banquet in the midst of the nullification crisis

    “If one drop of blood be shed in South Carolina in defiance of the laws of the U.S., I will hang the first of the nullifiers I can get my hands on.”

    https://trivia-library.com/b/u-s-president-andrew-jackson-quotes-from-and-about-jackson.htm

    2. There is a difference between complaint and action, and actions against the Union in any state was returned with a federal response, including Noe the above actions of Pres. Jackson and Pres Washinton were endorsed by Congress North and South regarding maintaining the union and it’s legal identity. And make clear — acts against it by violence (war making) were acts of treason

    3. The Arizona Act was an act of treason and nonunique as part of the Southern Treason, most states past acts of nullification and when they sided with southerners who made war on the Union — were subject to the same response as traitors.

    https://metropolis.cafe/2020/02/12/march-16-1861-arizona-secedes-from-the-union/

    4. Pres. Lincoln openly expressed his position, that he had no intention of freeing a single slave nor could he, not by edict nor had any legislation intended to do so — the South’s temper tantrum at his election was to acted in r by attacking Fort Sumter, an act of treason.

    5. The south had two issues:

    a. according to them — excess federal taxes which they found overly burdensome and in their position, unconstitutional. Those taxes each time were reduced in the spirit of compromise — imagine that compromise in Congress and that by the cooperation of southern states. As you self cite — no cause then for war — a traitorous act and totally unnecessary.

    b. potential freeing of property. Here’s hint of exactly where Pres. Lincoln stood on slavery Emancipation Declaration.He had no intention of freeing a single slave.

    c. Your dance about where most slaves were shipped to is entirely worthless as they have no impact on the issues here in the Union – none. I will infer that your introduction o the matter as nongermaine as it is – is to suggest that the Union’s slaves wasn’t all that bad by comparison to the colonial plantations in the southern hemisphere.

    huh . . and so what — Unless you are referencing some US territory in the region, that has absolutely nothing to do with the traitorous behavior of the states that seceded or attempted to here in the US and did so by an act of war. The Triangle trade is a nice hat trick but it has absolutely no bearing on the choice by Southern states to make war on the union. The participants to a single one for any reason were betraying their country – period.

    d. Firing on Fort Sumter changed every complaint into an act or traitors.

    ————————————
    Side issues

    1. The question of whether states could nullify their relationship is very intriguing, just as intriguing still would be how to do so . That would have been a fine debate in Congress. A fine debate in the Supreme Court. But the states chose war. That act against their fellow country men was an act of betrayal that cost the lives of nearly a million people.

    2. the choice by the founders to make a war for freedom and then condone and legally codify the matter is the sword through the heart of the Declaration that may have forever undermined the supposed great experiment. All the haranguing about the intellectual tour de force of the founders and at the end of the day one has to admit they destroyed, betrayed themselves and their purpose by maintaining people as property — it is tragedy. And the Civil which was not to correct that self inflicted wound but to maintain the very same.

    Freedom by happenstance – not purpose. And while most blacks see Pres. Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator” and the country of whites do everything to maintain that image — the reality is that Pres. Lincoln was more ta willing to sacrifice every black to maintain the Union deadened experiment of not.

    Now in the War of the Phillipones a small number of black troops came to the decision/conclusion that they were fighting a people that had not hared them and they saw Phillipmo rebels as kindre spirits. That small number of blacks made the following observations:

    in the US could not vote
    they could not and were barred from living where they chose
    they were bared from equal educational opportunities
    etc. etc . . . a multiple list of legal violations of their rights as citizen

    defend them and their choice to side with the rebels and maybe just maybe — you have some ground. At the very least you ave moral consistency . . .

    • Replies: @Cowtown Rebel
    , @Curmudgeon
  56. “defend them and their choice to side with the rebels and maybe just maybe — you have some ground. At the very least you ave moral consistency . . .”

    And you don’t even have that the southern states had venues by which they could complain via access to the legal system, for the average or even above statused blacks person, that system was out of reach.

    You do realize that the War of 1812 was approved by Congress – north and south. And that DC is located in both the North and south, but largely in the south. And while the war was over by the time Col/Gen Jackson won the battle of New Orleans – many claim that it was the battle that saved the Union. Southerners are very proud of that incident – saving the union sentiments.

    My positions are politically incorrect and definitely inconvenient — but correct on the data they are.
    Traitors to a one. i don’t engage in discussion for political, personal or social popularity. It is not a manner to win fiends and influence people white or black —- so be it.

    Treason

    n. the crime of betraying one’s country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/treason

    https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2153

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/treason

    ————

    President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty. No friend of blacks, the north or his cabinet understood what the south had done — granting two general pardons.

    https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/december-25-1868-president-andrew-johnson-pardons-all-confederates/

  57. @JimDandy

    Cook is another lightweight Leftist that loves to take things out context like BLM and Antifa. His understanding of History is limited. Slavery has been around for thousands of years and their were more whites taken captive than people of color if you decide to study it.

    This isn’t about slavery. It’s about the attack against all Western Civilization and Whites and funded by mostly Jews including Soros. If this were an attack on those who practiced slavery then all the Mosques of the world would be burning. Arabs were the greatest slave traders and did it for the longest period of time 14 centuries and in some areas it is still practiced today.

    Unfortunately for us the Arabs usually castrated the black males (about 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 survived depending on sources) and females were put into harems and their mulatto children killed. That’s why there isn’t much of a black race in most Arabs. If any it’s usually a recent admixture. We fought for their freedom and look what it got us. Maybe the Arabs knew something we didn’t.

    • Agree: Cowtown Rebel
    • Replies: @JimDandy
    , @anonymous
  58. Wally says:
    @Paul

    Indeed.

    And since the slave trade in the Americas would not have happened if black African tribes had not sold part of their own huge stocks of black slaves to largely Jew white slave traders, perhaps all sub-saharan African country embassies should be burned down.

    Come to think of it, all civilizations worldwide had slavery, so ….

    And how about those Aztec, Mayan, & Incan human sacrifices?

  59. @EliteCommInc.

    More Moronic Nonsense from the Unz Chief Buffoon. This Country is splintering and the sooner the better. The Social Club is becoming extremely Anti-Social. When the lights go out, we won’t be having this debate. Then, you’ll see how well all of your ideological mumbo jumbo and word twisting works for you when push comes to shove. I bet my dick is bigger around than your biceps. When the conflict really ramps up, I wonder if you can “bar” them from entering your home. I hope you can stay hidden in your mama’s basement. It’s a shame that she didn’t abort you.

    You can call an attempt to peacefully secede an act of war if you wish. You can ignore the fact that the only reason Northerners never followed through on numerous threats to break away is because they were dependent on the economically prosperous portion of the country to develop their State’s infrastructures and to buy their shoddy merchandise. Plus, the Southerners would have been glad to see them go, there would have been no war declared by any of the Presidents to force them back into the Union. You can pretend like the Yankee Slave Trade doesn’t wreak of the foulest hypocrisy when viewed in the light of their bogus claims to have freed the Negroes. You can avoid the twin issues of emancipation and colonization and Lincoln’s numerous speeches on the subject. Gideon Welles, James Mitchell, Benjamin Butler and George Julian all maintained that Lincoln never gave up on the idea of colonizing the Negroes. That would have been the only good thing the man ever did. Which I’m certain would be one more good thing than you’ve ever done.

    “The choice to make war for freedom… is the sword through the heart of the declaration…” Your supreme idiocy is on full display. Who has ever gained freedom without fighting for it? The South honestly tried. Lincoln, duplicitous wretch that he was, was willing to sacrifice the lives of over 350,000 Union soldiers and have millions more descend upon the Southern half of the Continent to murder and starve Southern Civilians and make war on Men who were defending their homes. Lincoln and Grant didn’t care how many lives, Northern or Southern, were lost in order to achieve victory. “the founders… betrayed their purpose…” No. Since you like things to be codified, try the Federal Naturalization Law of 1790 which defined citizenship as being reserved for Free White Men. The purpose was betrayed by enfranchising Negroes.

    How Post-War Republican Imperialism got into the discussion, I have no idea. But, that’s how your convoluted mind works, it doesn’t.

    I know your type. You will quickly look up anything that someone says, and then comeback and pretend like you know something about it. You offer the lamest and most cliche’ arguments, because you can only scratch the surface by Googling a topic. Rest assured that I spend relatively very little time online. I read a lot of books. I share my point of view openly and frequently and I retain information without having to look it up on the internet every time. So, my audience is considerably larger than what I can reach on a message board. I am gaining adherents. In light of recent events, their numbers are increasing exponentially. I have the right message at the right time and I am in the right place to deliver it. So, if you delude yourself into thinking you have a better argument matters not in the least. I am in a position to change minds and influence people, and I do.

  60. Pandora says:

    Imagine

    Let us imagine a black general from Virginia led a war of secession from the Union, and at the same time defending a feudal system based on White Slavery.

    Say this black general was completly and utterly defeated. Would the flag he represented, monuments, statutes and his exploits be glorified not only in black areas but all over the United States.

    After this treasonous act and surrenderq, say this black general became the president of a university, instead of being hanged.

    At the other end of the spectrum imagine a homocidal maniac, also a black destroyed the South using scorched earth policy similar to the tactics used by the SS in the Soviet Union.

    The army he lead looted and pillaged the South and conducted total war against the Confederate States. Think of this black general blowing and burning down Atlanta with explosive so as not leave any trace of southern power and culture.

    Roughly 5 to 7 % of the population, an estimated 1.5 million men (new estimatel) lost their lives in the line of duty during the war, not taking into account civilian casulties. Taken as a percentage of today’s population, the toll would have risen as high as 8 million souls.

    Most of the victims of the Civil War were whites, with Blacks being collateral damage. In context Johh Brown a white abolitionist killed only five people and was tried and hanged for treason, hunted down by General Lee.

    So both Sherman and Lee are glorified depending on your perspective. Their monuments, statues and flags dotting the landscape of United States.

    If this is not White Privilage, I am not sure what is.

  61. “We fought for their freedom and look what it got us. Maybe the Arabs knew something we didn’t.”

    laughing.

    1. I will forgo the debate about black arabs, brown arabs, white arabs . . . colonialism has really done a number on the value of color.

    2. But anyone who claims that the purpose of the Civil War was to “free slaves” doesn’t understand the war.

  62. How will people in the year 2320 judge us?

    It’s futile to speculate, but surely makes the point – is morality really so plastic that we must be forever fearful of what others may or may not think of us? Are we to conduct ourselves in accordance with “anything-but-the standards-of-today” in the certain knowledge that out successors will damn us in the future no matter how conventionally virtuous we may appear today?

    I don’t think I am either homophobic or racist, and I am certainly not a smoker; however, when I attended Reading Rock Festival in 1978 the joint themes were “Glad to be Gay” and “Rock against Racism”, and as this article points out, both homophobia and racism were rife back in the 70’s. And a lot of people smoked like chimneys. Nowadays, less so, and things have changed

    However, nowadays we abhor paedophilia, cannibalism and incest, whilst revelling in Twitter feeds and inane Facebook posts; will the former have become mainstream, and the latter morally and socially abhorrent 40 years from now? To be honest, even if I knew with certainty that they would, there is no way I am going to indulge in them just to be “on the right side of history”.

    Slavery and colonialism are WRONG, and always have been; so let’s sue the Italian government for the Roman invasion of 43 AD and the brutality wrought on Boudicca and her daughters. Let’s sue Germany for the Anglo-Saxons invasions, the Danes for the Vikings, and the French for 1066 and all that.

    Or rather, let’s not. Let’s just get on with our lives as best we can, living by the moral compass we have inherited from our families, our current societies and our consciences. And let’s stop judging – either our contemporaries, or our ancestors. They, like us, were just trying to make the best of the circumstances which life cast upon them – some were good people, some bad, most a bit of both. Just like us. And I, for one, am in no position whatsoever to assert that my principles and moral values are superior to – or more enduring than – theirs.

  63. Willem says:

    Anyone who sees anything else in a statute than a safe space for gulls and pigeons to sit on and to shit on must be out of his or her mind. No reason to admire statutes. No reason to bring them down.

  64. How about we take down the Statue of Libertas and that wretched Goldman “poem” with it?

    • Replies: @Cowtown Rebel
  65. Miha says:

    People who get upset on behalf of others when they see a doll, a toy caricature of the most trivial & obvious features of people from a race, region or culture or perhaps of an individual (puppets of politicians), privately believe those people to be in need of patronizing concern because they see them in the same category as vulnerable children who have to be protected. In other words, their concern stems from a supposed superiority to that group of people who are privately considered their inferiors.

    Cartoonists can draw the most hideous caricatures of politicians and no one, least of all the politician, objects? Indeed they sometimes write to the artist to try to buy the original.

    Concern over a golliwog betokens a profound unexpressed racism hiding deep within their psyche in the sense of a ‘negative pre-judgement of a whole group of people who share certain physical characteristics’. In other words, they make a gross category error and reveal non-confected bigotry.

  66. GMC says:

    There is one War that is being waged on the populace of the world , especially in the West, and it’s the War on Knowledge, Truths and Common Sense. Ask a previous forged history question to a person who has read extensively Alternate Websites like Unz Rev. , ICH, the Late Robt. Parry etc. and then ask someone who hasn’t – and the war on knowledge, truth is quite visible. When the Author shows his history lessons from the British Educational system, { the same as the American ones } with regards to the India history, the Brits are always in the right . But real knowledge and truth are just the opposite. The so called History Websites I used to read are 50% BS, and so are their Professors that are writing for them.

  67. SafeNow says:

    Those who allow the tearing-down are projecting their own mindset of rationality and compromise onto those doing the tearing-down. They are assuming that that the statue-removers will be placated.
    But exactly the opposite is true; they will be not placated, but rather, encouraged to escalate to the next kind of tear-down. Among those making the error is Mr. Trump, a dealmaker, who will think he has made a deal; that this is a “deal” situation. The statues are just the tip of the iceberg.

  68. Anon[215] • Disclaimer says:

    Malla sounds like a sick slave, s**king master’s dick. If the master come in her face, it proves to her how much the master love her. If the master beat her instead, it must because she did something really bad, maybe she did not clear her mouth before.
    Malla and her people alike makes perfect servent. More knowledge Malla has, better slave she make. She can even run the house like a lady for her master.
    With this slave mentality, Malla will never free herself. Why should she, she enjoy the life being a slave lady. Whomever dare to critisize her master of being a slave owner, Malle will jump out screw you.
    How dare you! Master is so nice!

  69. robwin says:

    The lesson I learned from this piece is less than an historical one than a complete wonderment as to how the Western nations have so lost the self-confidence they once had in themselves, their principles, values, political institutions, and religious faith. An inquiry into that phenomenon would be of greater value than arguments about who are the bad guys of history.

    • Agree: SafeNow
  70. So, in Bristol local democracy failed because it didn’t accept the will of a minority of its citizens. Real democracy occurred when the minority imposed its will on the majority. Persuading people of the validity of a proposed course of action is just another example of oppressive white rationalism, I suppose. In short, it’s only democratic if we approve of the outcome?

    Regarding the ownership of slaves, this was common practice in white societies across Western Europe from the beginning of Classical Antiquity until the end of the Early Middle Ages. However, most of the slaves were of the same ethnicity as their owners, who were themselves predominantly white. In that sense, it was non-discriminatory. If you come from white European ancestry there is a significant chance that you yourself are the descendent of slaves.

    My own neck of the woods was under the Danelaw as recently as the 9th and 10th century. The Danes weren’t sentimental about that sort of thing, having little concern for the human rights of subject peoples. Perhaps I could make a case for reparations against one of the affluent Scandinavian countries?

  71. “DemocraticTradition” is another mindfuck term, a bit like the politically distorted ‘discourse’ littered with these mindtraps. They run election spectacles to create a dweeby simulacra of participation, call it ‘democracy’, and proceed as normal. John McAfee’s recent video interviews make this point better than I can.
    Nothing wrong with elections, very generally, and nothing wrong with people participating in stuff, but this article is bullshit. Similar deceptions in all of the alt-media — e.g. A. Crooke’s most recent article at ZH.
    The DT is mostly one of diversionary spectacle, unfortunately. Direct local control and self reliance with participation channeled up levels of abstraction to the federal level; such a model the individual’s justification for belief that his political representatives (“leaders”? really?) actually represent him and not some foreign cabal. The republican model delivers epistemological grounding, where the DT spectacle model provides a simulacra placation, an illusion. Nothing to do wth parties, both of which are engaged in the deceptions. The deceptions are no more use to the elite than in providing a window to loot. Fundamentally deception creates stupidity, dysfunction.

  72. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Lots of nonsense in this article.

    No one would oppose Russians pulling down a statue of Stalin, or Germans destroying statues of famous Nazis.

    On the contrary.

  73. “Critics seize on how the BLM-backing Guardian was built on a fortune from cotton picked by slaves, sided with the Confederates and branded Abraham Lincoln ‘abhorrent’ ”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8414917/Guardian-accused-hypocrisy-backing-BLM-protests-despite-branding-Abraham-Lincoln-abhorrent.html

  74. Miro23 says:

    The same children then go on to attend prestige universities where they are still trained to rule and plunder the world – if now largely through transnational corporations.

    Hardly. They’re trained to get down on their knees to BLM and become Antifa Red Guards.

    The rationales for opposing this act of rebellion (pulling down the Colston statue) by ordinary people against the continuing veneration of slave traders and white supremacists are illuminating.

    Very deceptive. They’re not “ordinary people”. The nearest you’ll probably get to the voice of ordinary people is the Daily Mail comments section – Britain’s most widely read daily with thousands of comments of every description. By my judgment, the public are 9 : 1 against BLM mobs defacing and pulling down statues, and they are outraged that the police stand by and watch while a “protester” tries to burn the Union Jack on the Cenotaph (memorial the British soldiers fallen in the two world wars). They clearly take the rational line that the statues are part of British history, and you can’t judge the 19th century by 21st century norms. If this was the case, most of the world’s historic monuments would have to go starting with the Egyptian pyramids (built by slave labour).

    Should we not wonder what it tells us about the present that we and our parents have been so insensitive to the hostile spaces we created in our major cities for those descended from the victims of our imperial crimes?

    Weird. Have the many generations that have passed by the statue of Colston every regarded it as a “hostile space”?

    Are modern Britain’s foreign “adventures” – now called “interventions” – in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so very different?

    Yes they are. 1) We’re now in the 21st century 2) The British were tricked into these criminal acts by US neocons and their local puppets (Tony Blair) 3) Still not a squeak out of Antifa or the radical left about the million+ Arab people murdered and their countries destroyed.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
    , @anon
  75. @Malla

    An “Uncle Tom” enlightening the masters as to why he should be kept on as a slave or coolie …

    • Replies: @Malla
  76. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    In this context one should mention here, that the author of this Unz article Jonathan Cook, is himself Jewish

    Few of Cook’s readers seem to know this despite Cook living in Israeli-controlled territory

    And this is relevant as Cook joins so many of his Jewish co-ethnics, in making excuses for the destruction of monuments of white European gentile culture

    A white gentile culture which quite a number of leading Jewish figures have openly said they want to destroy

  77. @Malla

    A minority profited from the opium trade yet you are labeling a nation of wretched people as complicit in the illicit trade and suggesting that they wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass about the resulting suffering by the then population of China. For a lout who copies and pastes copious amounts of pages, you’re an ignoramus … do yourself a favor and get a real education and enlighten yourself instead of bamboozling us with your dubious claims. May the half naked Kali spare you the Black Hole of Calcutta!

    • Replies: @Malla
  78. Miro23 says:
    @Rahan

    Thus, on one hand, a Slovak who has literally zero connection to the slave trade in any shape of form (and instead has connection to helping fight colonialism), is automatically classified as “hereditary oppressor” when he enters the US, and then a negro, who has also literally zero connection to the slavery in the US, is automatically awarded “oppression points”.

    This is the very important “class enemy” concept as used by the Bolshevik Jews. It had some big advantages for them.

    – They could imprison whole groups of opponents without concern for legal safeguards relating to individuals.

    – They could position themselves as the leading cadre of the “saintly ones”. In other words, they became the new high priests and their 1% ethnic minority group could dictate to the masses and liquidate opponents with relative safety.

  79. ivan says:
    @Malla

    The British conquest of India was facilitated by Jain businessmen who wanted to the Muslim Mughal business for themselves. So we have a paradox, Mughals when the resisted the British should in theory be seen as fighting for the honour of India, but then the Hindus preferred that the Mughals be taken down as they were oppressors of the Hindus. So were they the Hindus – the majority in India – collaborators of the British? Then we have Tippu Sultan, regarded as another supposed fighter for the honour of India, and possibly the most effective fighter against the British. But no Hindu or Christian in Karnataka or Northern Kerala thinks highly of this cruel jihadist. In Punjab too it was a similar pattern, there the Muslims preferred the stoic British to rule by the mercurial Sikhs. We have another type of conflict, this time not between adherents of different religions but between different castes, the Bhima Koregaon or Elgar Parishad battle which resulted in losses for the Marathas. The Dalits preferred the British side in the conflict since the British treated them much better, and for their troubles their descendants have been jailed as “Maoists” by the Modiot government.

    If Jonathan Cook doesn’t want to carry the white man’s burden, that is his right, though more out of laziness than any kind of moral outrage I would surmise, but he should not pretend that had the British not been around the world would have been a lovelier place.

    • Agree: Malla
  80. ivan says:
    @Anon

    I don’t think in that era, opium addiction counted for much. It was one more poison to die with. Opium was already available to the Chinese via the Silk Road. Then when the British got Jesus and left the trade in a few decades, the business all passed to the locals. I don’t see anyone guilt tripping the Chinese who traded in the stuff after the British banned the trade to themselves.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  81. Rmjtools says:
    @Paul

    No. MLK is a sacralized figure. Similar to being sainted. George Floyd sainthood is in progress. These will be the only 2 statues allowed in the future.

  82. Emily says:

    Just the latest from Britain – you may not have seen.
    The outrage, I imagine, will be huge.
    The British police have all been ordered to take the knee when confronted by the the BLM.
    Yep!
    Ordered to kneel.
    And woe betide those who cause trouble by refusing.
    Presumably an order supported by the British Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.
    I voted for Boris.
    You think Trump lied – its beginning to be clear that Johnstone was economical with the truth as well – and I was fool enough to vote for him.
    Once Great Britain – now the collective of what are being regarded as a pack of cowardly and political police and with total contempt – subjucating and ALL to take the knee – under order of the government and top police brass.
    The knee to a pack of violent political far leftists and actual racists who just last week end injured 62 policemen and who want to deface and destroy British heritage and history.
    Lovely isn’t it?.
    Take a look at the comments
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8418061/Backlash-police-warned-trouble-refuse-knee-Black-Lives-Matter-protests.html

    • Replies: @Rogue
  83. @Beavertales

    The destruction that you would hope for is coming but the real culprits, like the ones whose nefarious actions brought about the destruction of Judea but who nonetheless went on to establish themselves in the heart of Europe in the past centuries, would escape their comeuppance once more and leave a defenseless brethren holding the bag. If you want the real defenestration then not only the Jews who are truly responsible but their gentile accomplices must fly out of windows without parachute. Until you clean your own den of vipers, nothing good will come from it!

  84. @Anon

    The Limey, the Jew and the Hindoo are bad the one who takes the first prize for unworthiness is the slanty-eyed, dirty yellow rat … go preach to the gullibles!

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  85. Funny how these feckless commies never tell a complete story, they only cherry pick events to fit their narrative. You want to tell the story of slavery and oppression of one human by, then tell the whole story or Shut The Fck Up..

    Let’s have a look at how this whole slavery thing started in America shall we?

    Slavery in America, typically associated with blacks from Africa, was an enterprise that began with the shipping of more than 300,000 white Britons to the colonies. This little known history is fascinatingly recounted in White Cargo (New York University Press, 2007). Drawing on letters, diaries, ship manifests, court documents, and government archives, authors Don Jordan and Michael Walsh detail how thousands of whites endured the hardships of tobacco farming and lived and died in bondage in the New World.

    Following the cultivation in 1613 of an acceptable tobacco crop in Virginia, the need for labor accelerated. Slavery was viewed as the cheapest and most expedient way of providing the necessary work force. Due to harsh working conditions, beatings, starvation, and disease, survival rates for slaves rarely exceeded two years. Thus, the high level of demand was sustained by a continuous flow of white slaves from England, Ireland, and Scotland from 1618 to 1775, who were imported to serve America’s colonial masters.

    These white slaves in the New World consisted of street children plucked from London’s back alleys, prostitutes, and impoverished migrants searching for a brighter future and willing to sign up for indentured servitude. Convicts were also persuaded to avoid lengthy sentences and executions on their home soil by enslavement in the British colonies. The much maligned Irish, viewed as savages worthy of ethnic cleansing and despised for their rejection of Protestantism, also made up a portion of America’s first slave population, as did Quakers, Cavaliers, Puritans, Jesuits, and others.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_forgotten_history_of_britains_white_slaves_in_america.html

    • Replies: @schnellandine
  86. @Miro23

    “If this was the case, most of the world’s historic monuments would have to go starting with the Egyptian pyramids (built by slave labour).”

    No they were built by corvee labour which was a form of taxation in a pre money society. The village of the workers was uncovered in the early 1990’s. Slavery did exist in Ancient Egypt as it did throughout the known world at that time but some scholars are uneasy about using that term because it was mild compared to the African form of millennia later.

  87. MLK says:
    @Paul

    I get your point and as reasonable as it is in the end it’s self-defeating.

    Cook’s position is untenable as process, even if we were to ignore his narcissistic historicizing,

    . . . . far from erasing history, the protesters managed to shine a very bright spotlight . . . .

    If true, then they’re pikers compared to the Taliban:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

    The concerns of those opposed to the pulling down of the Colston statue aren’t really about erasure of history or about anachronistic values. Their worry is located elsewhere.

    This is an all too common indicator of a totalitarian mindset. If we’re to believe that Cook isn’t being disingenuous in presenting the view of those opposed to mob action, then how would anyone grade his understanding and appreciation of his ideological opponents?

    Protest – violent and non-violent, explicit and threatened – was at the root of everything we now identify as progress.

    That isn’t all that political violence is associated with, as I’m confident Cook understands but won’t say here. This makes his conflation of violent and non-violent protest bone-chilling as a veiled Who?Whom?

  88. Racist is Yiddish for white. Whenever anyone cries about “racism” they’re upset that whites dare to put their own interests first. I don’t care if Britain was (or still is) racist, fragile darkies need to get over it.

  89. I read somewhere that out of 100 million African slaves shipped to the Americas only 10% survived the transports. Is that possible, that 90% died and were thrown overboard? And it was still a profitable business? You’d have thought the slave traders would have been better off shipping fewer slaves but making sure most reached their destination to make an even bigger profit.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  90. So should we tear down statues of all those European kings and emperors who committed mass murder against other European nations in the past?

    Here is a statue of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest mass murderers in history:

    Genghis Khan killed countless Europeans yet I would never dream of asking the Mongolian people to tear it down and can appreciate that they should be able to celebrate one of their own greatest warlords, even though he murdered masses of our own white ancestors. Something is seriously wrong with all you people cheering on this erasure of history and culture in public spaces. Seriously wrong!

  91. @Johnny Walker Read

    these feckless commies

    What are you complaining for if they’re feckless. Apparently, they’re the opposite of feckless. May be a lesson in there somewhere.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  92. Emily says:

    Here are a few more slaves.
    White slaves.
    Some 1,000,000 or so white slaves – captured along the coasts of Ireland, Britain and France – by the barbary pirates etc.
    The black US slaves had a cushy number compared to the awful fate of these poor white kidnapped victims.
    But they are white – so lets forget them.
    Not black, not jewish.
    They don’t count….
    The deserve all they got…..um!
    Here is the book.
    Worth a read.

    Bit more been written out of history…..
    White lives certainly don’t matter to the bigots of Antifa and BLM.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read

  93. Maybe you will figure it out before it’s too late Amerika, but I have my doubts.
    https://fitzinfo.net/2020/06/14/the-adl-in-the-world-communist-offensive-part-iii/

    • Agree: Miro23
  94. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:
    @brabantian

    Have a look at the late Australian philosopher David Stove’s take on race reality and forget Jonathan Cook:

    https://archive.org/details/RacialAndOtherAntagonisms

    The term “racism” didn’t appear in the OED until 1971–more or less coinciding with the Holocaust shtetl fairy tale of that name that’s also been instrumental in condemning the non-Jewish white race for non-existent crimes. If “racism” signifies anything, it signifies white liberals’ belief that blacks are so inferior to them that, not only can blacks not distinguish right from wrong or accomplish one thing on their own, but rather, they live in need of liberal feeding and housing, and are chiefly of use perpetually maintained as a disaffected voting bloc imprisoned in hellish projects to serve as human cannon fodder in the destruction of Western Civilization.

    The last thing in the world liberals want is equality with blacks, and in fact the relationship between blacks and white liberals in America is one of servant and master. This despicable cynicism is paid for, it turns out, because the Dem bureaucrats administering welfare take for themselves something like 70 cents out of every dollar appropriated by Congress for blacks in need. No wonder those chanting liberals in Bethesda who work in DC and their vile offspring can afford to pay blacks to clean their toilets and do their laundry.

    • Replies: @ivan
  95. Rogue says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Just because whites engage in far worse in South Africa

    Utter, utter, totally misinformed nonsense.

    Black violence against Whites (and to a lesser extent Asians) is far higher on a per-capita basis than the other way round in South Africa.

    Furthermore, some of the violence is truly barbaric.

    Nor was there anything like the same scale of violence against Blacks when Whites ruled the country.

    Truly a subject you know utterly nothing about.

  96. Malla says:
    @Really No Shit

    yet you are labeling a nation of wretched people as complicit in the illicit trade

    Kindly point out in which part of my comments was I labeling the whole nation as complicit in the trade.

    suggesting that they wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass about the resulting suffering by the then population of China.

    I did the exact opposite.
    Do you even read?

    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  97. El Dato says:

    This is a religious article, a priest’s wailing in the arched hallway or a sermon to the congregation.

    “The perfect world is not attained, we are not worthy! We are evil people! Atone! Atone! Remember! Remember!”

    NO! GO AWAY.

    There is tons of work and endlessly wailing over slavery which has no relevance to current events (except maybe in the Sinai, where the slave trade is booming) is not one of them.

    The rationales for opposing this act of rebellion by ordinary people against the continuing veneration of slave traders and white supremacists are illuminating.

    I SAID GO AWAY, FALSE PRIEST.

  98. Rogue says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Of course if the Bantu had not had white men in their way, they would have completely exterminated the San and Khoikhoi

    Very possibly. Though there was also some intermixing between Bantus and Khoikhoi.

  99. What appears to be lost on Mr Cook, is when the British first landed on African shores, they made the observation that the natives were “savages.”
    African blacks have been living in advanced western societies for hundreds of years now, and with all the attempts to civilize them via education, welfare, affirmative action and all out kissing their black asses, the original British assessment of them still stands… THEY ARE SAVAGES!

  100. Jonathan Cook, you’re such a gamma. So Judaized.

  101. Malla says:
    @Really No Shit

    In reality Uncle Tom means the person who speaks harsh blunt truths.

    • Agree: ivan
    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  102. Hodd says:

    More left wing rubbish. No mention that all the ships that carried slaves were owned by Jews. No mention that all the slave markets were run by Jews. This writer is totally at sea on this issue.
    Speaking personally, once you have been mugged a couple of times by blacks, once you have been let down by idle good for nothing blacks at work, once you have been verbally insulted in public by blacks, you realise blacks and their left wing Marxist supporters like this writer just aren’t worth the trouble.
    At school there was no mention of Jews…you learn about them later, but you learn that blacks are just trouble. And mulattos, half castes, are an even bigger trouble. We were taught to avoid ‘dagos’, half black and half Mediterranean men most of all because they are pure evil.
    Without racial awareness in modern Britain you are dead. All this equality rubbish is just Jewish politically correct lies. No indigenous person who wants to survive bothers about the drivel this writer delineates.

  103. Gast says:

    Life is too short to read articles by Jonathan Cook beyond the headlines. Let’s just say: He is an ugly Brit, living in Israel…

  104. @Commentator Mike

    This passed PBS muster so it must be true:

    by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/

    The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the  Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. . . . Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
    And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.

    Among other data the Eltis-Richardson project reveals is the Top Ten British Slave-Trading Families:
    Gregson
    Hodgson
    Tarleton
    Aspinall
    Earle
    Davenport
    Boats
    Case
    Dawson
    Laroche

    So, about 2 million African slaves did not survive passage from Africa; only 388,000 Africans were shipped directly to North America. Of those, certainly many lost their lives in unjust and horrible circumstances.

    But in comparison, even Africans have been more fortunate in the way they were treated by Anglos.

    In World War II alone, the British and their Anglo offspring, USA, firebombed to death at least a million Germans; at least 300,000 Italians; and just under 70,000 French men, women and children.

    Regarding erasure of history: I’ve been suspicious of the activities of libraries in this time of closure of those repositories of history.
    In one of the library systems that Andrew Carnegie first established, that in Pittsburgh, PA, the online catalog shows nearly 2500 items concerning the holocaust ™ but fewer than six under the heading “firebombing” and none that record the massive firebombing raids on Germany, Italy, France and also Prague and other European nations.

  105. anarchyst says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    You are wrong–completely.
    It must be due to your “public school” education…I will teach you, you will learn…
    There was no united States at the time. Notice the word “united” was not capitalized in any documents and writings of the day.
    Citizens of their respective states considered themselves to be citizens of their respective states first, peripherally joined in a loose “union of states”-the reason for the federal government.
    When asked about citizenship, those who resided in the various states considered themselves to be citizens of their respective state. Virginia citizens considered themselves to be Virginia citizens, not united States citizens.
    That all changed after the “war of northern aggression” when the power of the federal government was greatly expanded.
    The right of secession was always a part of the united States and was instrumental in getting the first thirteen states to agree to confederation.
    That all evaporated after the “war of northern aggression” except for Texas, which never signed a “no secession” clause.

  106. ivan says:
    @Anonymous

    If people don’t bring up their grievances from the past, there is a chance that races can get along given time. But the Jews spent all of the 90s and the years since then, scabbing at old wounds real or imagined. Some TB uncle was denied entry at Ellis Island, another denied entry into a yacht club, a Polish kid whacked some Jew in Chicago. Then they use their influence in academia to deny a voice to anyone who does not go along as willing idiots to their agenda. The Blacks and Muslims have seen seen how successful the Jews have been in cornering the Whites. They are just following in the masters’ wake.

  107. @Malla

    “Do you really think the typical Indian baniya trader would give a rats ass about the deaths of chinkis (East Asians) or Goras (Whites) or Kalus (Blacks)? They would not Giva a f**k.”

    Who are you speaking of if not the Hindoos?

    • Replies: @Malla
  108. The entire article keeps coming back to Colston. Colston the slaver, Colston the villain, Colston and the blood of Empire. Yonatan here appears to have turned the news off a week ago; either that, or he’s deliberately choosing the most egregious example to elide the fact that figures like Gladstone are also being targeted for The Big Forgetting. At least have the dignity to admit that’s what you want. What a coward you are, Yonatan.

    How’s this for democracy: my ingroup will dictate terms instead, and you can cry about it?

  109. “You can call an attempt to peacefully secede an act of war if you wish.”

    Laughing.

    A. Excuse me —

    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter

    Hardly a peaceful choice.

    B. ” You can pretend like the Yankee Slave Trade doesn’t wreak of the foulest hypocrisy when viewed in the light of their bogus claims to have freed the Negroes.”

    Pres Lincoln stood the same ground as the Constitution and that pride of South Pres. Andrew Jackson. I am unclear where you ever formulated that I consider the Triangle trade some kind of benign enterprise. It is part an parcel the enterprise of slavery and such occupies the same hypocritical space. At no time do i defend it. I simply state clearly, it not relevant to the matter of nullification. The civil conflict was not fought to free saves.

    C. The record is very clear on this, Pres. Lincoln oppose slavery. However, he had no intention of setting a single on free by edict or by legislation, especially if it threatened the Union. There was nothing for the president to agree to on the question — he was ok with slavery.

    D. Nice try.

    “Your supreme idiocy is on full display. Who has ever gained freedom without fighting for it?”

    That is not the argument, you conveniently cut from that position why the revolution was hypocrisy — because it maintained slavery. The freedom is not the issue. Freedom to maintain slaves is the issue and the nexus of the hypocrisy.

    E. I think you mean the intention that Pres. Lincoln had to “recolonize” slaves. I have no idea how deeply he was committed to that agenda. I know he considered it seriously. Had he survived, it would have been interesting how he intended to deal with 4 million new free people. But that is another issue that has nothing to do with the choice by southern states to engage in treason.

    F. “No. Since you like things to be codified, try the Federal Naturalization Law of 1790 which defined citizenship as being reserved for Free White Men. The purpose was betrayed by enfranchising Negroes.”

    And in accordance with the Constitution, the law. The hypocrisy again lies in a war for independence and at the same time maintaining a slavery system and one predicated on skin color. The hypocrisy is the very purpose of who we are and intended to be and the laws that we passed to justify that hypocrisy only make matters worse. You are indicating laws of legality — well no kidding, the founders made that hypocritical choice in 1776 and then in 1788 upon ratifying the Constitution. The point is that what is legal is not by definition what is ethical or moral. And the choice to maintain slavery based on the country’s philosophical principles was deeply unethical and immoral. And that verdict is via the standards of their space and time.

    As for me personally,

    Laugh: if you scout the archives, you find tat this is an old discussion. It’s not new. It regularly pops and sometimes, I respond to it. you will find my responses fairly consistent on the question. And though the sources may be different, the use of sources and their content is not. I won’t respond to the personal desires that I was dead.

    I have no idea or investment in ambitions of ” . . . How to Influence People” gambits. I made a contend. You challenged it. I am defending my position.

    The Southern States and its members who waged war on the Union engaged in treason and were traitors. One might say,

    they violated the standards of

    “law and order” and did so without cause as Pres. Lincoln made abundantly clear

    He no authority to free slaves by edict and he had no intention of advancing legislation that did so, and I ill say with confidence that had such legislation arrived at his desk, he would have vetoed the measure.

    What name calling . . . no way! There’s a shock.

    Look you made your arguments. I responded to the same and I provided the required data sets to support them.

    The south made war on the US – period. when they fired on Fort Sumter, the matter was closed. if they had merely rioted. That would be different. But they attempted to break their on country.

    The independent states route had been tried and rejected. The States opted out of the Articles of Confederation and in response to that failed process

    “”We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    They created the US by consent. There’s no mystery here. There’s no diaspora southern pride, mystical we were all independent countries . . .

    They were part and parcel members of one country and their attempt to sever it was traitorous. It’s one of the few national mandates for which the Constitution states as common standard —

    no treason.

    I have already acknowledged state pride and all that comes with it, but the minute they made war on the US their country — they became traitors.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @Cowtown Rebel
  110. @Malla

    Really? Did you ever read the book? Old Tommy was a sucker for punishment at best … he wouldn’t have known if “harsh blunt truths” hit him on his way down the river.

    • Replies: @Malla
  111. @EliteCommInc.

    1. If you are a US citizen and you attack the US , if make war on the US – you are a traitor – period.

    Well, the “attack” by the Confederacy was in response to being attacked by the US. When you attack someone, why would you be surprised if there was a response in kind, if not more forceful?

    All that aside, you exceptionalism is showing. By your logic, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson et al were traitors to their country – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – for making war on it.

    • Replies: @lysias
  112. JimDandy says:
    @niteranger

    Is there a succinct explanation for why Soros is funding this?

    • Replies: @4891
    , @niteranger
  113. @EliteCommInc.

    You do realize that the Louisiana purchase involved buying land from the French that was not theirs to sell, don’t you? Part of it was privately owned by a British company. But, hey, the charade must go on.

  114. @brabantian

    I tried to e-mail Ignatiev years ago asking him why he didn’t lead by example in abolishing the white race, by offing himself.
    As for Cook, yes, he’s one of the tribe, and from what I understand, a big fan of Alan Shatter
    https://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2015/07/shatters-legacy.html

  115. ” By your logic, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson et al were traitors to their country – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – for making war on it.”

    You are absolutely correct. And to their credit, they acknowledged that what they were doing could get them hanged – they knew and admitted that they were traitors.

    They were to a man and women who engaged in that war — traitors who engaged in treason. Absolutely.

    God save the Queen.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  116. lysias says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Actually, the country the Founding Fathers rebelled against was the Kingdom of Great Britain. It only became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after Ireland joined the kingdom in 1800.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  117. Mefobills says:
    @Malla

    You are sayin B.S. East India Company was not pillaging anybody as they did not rule any major region in India when the Black hole incident happened. It was not even possible at that time.

    Basically, they pillaged wherever they went and ruled by hidden string pulling. The construct is important to understand, because it set up our current finance capitalist jew world order. This is ground zero.. the big bang event. Privateering merged with and controlled a country.

    The East India company received its charter in 1600. Dutch east india company charter was in 1602.

    From Wiki (Dutch):

    With its pioneering institutional innovations and powerful roles in global business history, the company is often considered by many to be the forerunner of modern corporations. In many respects, modern-day corporations are all the ‘direct descendants’ of the Dutch East India model.[ It was its 17th-century institutional innovations and business practices that laid the foundations for the rise of giant global corporations in subsequent centuries – as a highly significant and formidable socio-politico-economic force of the modern-day worldto become the dominant factor in almost all economic systems today.

    and

    The company was historically an exemplary company-state[j] rather than a pure for-profit corporation

    What happened with “British East India” company is slightly different, but also company-state Company which was private at first, and then merged with the Bank of England. The merger happened gradually, but was fully consummated especially after the Indian rebellion of 1857.

    The construct of a Finance Company (Bank of England) controlling a country with debt means, and also being tied to a mercenary company (East Indies) first popped onto the world scene in England and was centered on finance in London.

    Debt instruments and corporate bonds were on-sold into markets, and if debts were not paid, then the “owned” country would send in the marines. Privateering controls the sovereign. Capital is over the polity. Finance capitalism appears on the world scene, and creditors are backed by the military. East India company had its own soldiers with 250,000 or so in India by 1850, but soon after the rebellion, England/BOE took over with Royal Marines.

    Royal soldiers became the new enforcers for private companies. Company power was no longer subservient to the Sovereign but vice versa. Hidden string pullers were running the Empire.

    King George was coerced by Bank of England/British East India company which ultimately led to the American Revolutionary war.

    The United States did not revolt over ‘taxes without representation’. According to Benjamin Franklin the real reason for the War of Independence was that Whitehall forced scarce money through Britain’s Gold Standard on the Colonies, who had thrived with their own Colonial Scrip. A depression was the inevitable result.

    East India company was pillaging wherever it went.

    • Thanks: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Malla
  118. Laugh

    “Well, the “attack” by the Confederacy was in response to being attacked by the US.’

    No the confederacy was in response to an emotional kneejerk assumption that Pres. Lincoln would violate his own statements that he would make no attempt to free slaves by edict nor could he do so. He further had no ambitions to enact legislation in tat direction.

    The Southern states acted as Union in accordance with Union as members in every way:

    1. abided by and negotiated via the laws and regulations regarding commerce
    2. complied and negotiated paying taxes
    3. used the Union Court system to address disputes intra state and interstate
    4. used the union to defend themselves against foreign threats
    5. they applied themselves vigorously in congress to affect decisions in the Union as the Union they
    were a part of
    6. agreed to and understood the supremacy clause

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    Article VI
    “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”

    https://legaldictionary.net/supremacy-clause/

    7. Four Southern states disagreed entirely as did southern leaders:

    https://angrystaffofficer.com/2019/04/01/debunking-the-myth-of-southern-hegemony-southerners-who-stayed-loyal-to-the-us-in-the-civil-war/

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  119. “You do realize that the Louisiana purchase involved buying land from the French that was not theirs to sell, don’t you? Part of it was privately owned by a British company. But, hey, the charade must go on.”

    Wholly irrelevant but interesting that the states carved out of that purchase never saw fit to return to the rightful owners as independent republics.

    They joined the union to a one — and did so by choice. An in very short order joined the Union in act to ensure that the owners were brought to heel – using the union in that process.

    ————
    Texas, New Mexico, etc. were eager to have the Union beat back Mexico.

    Clearly they were citizens of the United States and acted accordingly.

  120. lysias says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    If a revolution ostensibly to gain freedom that maintains slavery is hypocritical and illegitimate, then the American Revolution was hypocritical and illegitimate. After Lord Mansfield decided in the Somerset case that there could be no slavery in Britain, American slaveholders felt threatened, especially in the South. Then, once the Revolution started, Virginia royal governor Lord Dunmore offered freedom to any slaves who fought for the British side, as many did. This action of Dunmore’s was regarded as outrageous by the American revolutionaries. Once those revoltionaries won their war, slavery was maintained.

    Myself, I regret that the South did not get its independence, because a United States without its South, while it would still have been a great power, would not have become a superpower.

    • Replies: @Erzberger
  121. Rogue says:
    @Emily

    Truly unbelievable.

  122. Mefobills says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    The confederacy didn’t want to pay the “Tariff.”

    https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

    Tariff’s and Imposts are allowed by the Constitution.

    The North by levying the tariff increase was effectively screwing over the South by making higher prices.

    The North did NOT redistribute Tariff Gains back to its source… the south.

    It takes two to tango.

    The South was “Libertarian” and wanted free markets and be able to buy slaves and sell its goods to England. Northern Capital Markets (Wall Street and London Jews mostly) funded the Atlantic slave trade. The South was being drawn back into the colonial system, and was becoming an extraction economy centered on King Cotton.

    It takes two to tango.

    All wars are banker wars… which really means that economic interests are behind everything. When you hear flowery language about states rights, etc. your bullshit detector should be going off.

    I’m going to side with the North even though both sides were screwing up massively. Had the “libertarian” south won, the entirety of the south and west of the U.S. would have filled up with negros, with an attendant feudal plutocracy of land “owners.”

    King cotton was funding a resurgence for slaves.

  123. anon[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Tear down the statues, a statue of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington doesn’t make sense and they are entirely in contrast to todays “American(?)” society. We need statues that make sense. We need statues of the Clintons, Obamas, MLK, Lenin, Mao, Castro.
    Some of the following people would be good.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
    New York

    [MORE]

    State Senator George D. Maziarz (R) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for offering a false instrument for filing to avoid five felony counts and a trial for filing false campaign expenditure reports. (2018)[179]
    State Senator Marc Panepinto (D) convicted of sexual harassment. (2018)[180]
    State Assemblywoman Pamela Harris (D) pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud, one count of making false statements to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and one count of witness tampering. Sentenced to $10,000 restitution, 6 months in jail followed by three years of supervised release, 400 hours of community service, and restitution of $70,400. (2018)[181][182][183][184][185]
    Majority Leader of the New York State Senate Dean Skelos (R) convicted of federal corruption. (2018)[186]
    Minority Leader of the State Senate John L. Sampson (D) was convicted of obstructing justice and making false statement. (2015)[187]
    Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver (D) was convicted on federal corruption charges (2015).[186]
    Majority Leader of the State Senate Malcolm Smith (D) was found guilty in federal court of conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery and extortion for trying to bribe a Republican Party official to let him onto the Republican ballot in the 2013 New York City mayoral race. (2014)[188]
    Maryland

    State Delegate Tawanna P. Gaines (D) pleaded guilty to misuse of campaign funds (2020)[99]
    State Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D) convicted of fraud. (2019)[100]
    State Senator Nathaniel T. Oaks (D) was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 3 1/2 years. (2018)[101]
    State Delegate Michael L. Vaughn (D) was convicted of bribery. (2017)[102]
    State Representative Movita Johnson-Harrell (D) convicted of felony theft. (2019)[238]
    State Representative Vanessa L. Brown (D) convicted of bribery.(2018)[239]
    Treasurer of Pennsylvania Barbara Hafer (D) convicted of lying to the FBI. (2017)[240]
    State Representative Marc Gergely (D) convicted of conspiracy. (2017)[241]
    State Representative Leslie Acosta (D) convicted of embezzlement. (2016)[242]
    Attorney General of Pennsylvania Kathleen Kane (D) was convicted of perjury. (2016)[242]
    State Representative Louise Bishop (D) was convicted of corruption. (2016)[243]
    State Representative Michelle Brownlee (D) was convicted of a conflict of interest. (2015)[244]
    State Representative Harold James (D) was convicted of corruption. (2015)[245]
    State Representative Ronald Waters (D) was convicted of bribery. (2015)[245]

  124. Herald says:
    @Anon

    A major looming threat are the various Bill Gates coronavirus vaccines, now being brewed up by myriads of his “scientific” hirelings.

    Nearly everything else, including racism, pales into insignificance, compared with Gates’s manic quest to save the planet, by ridding it of the great mass of its inhabitants. Yes, that’s why we had COVID-19, which in reality was and still is 99% hype.

    Although Gates may have point, with humans still trashing the planet at breakneck speed, the brutal reality is that all of us are included in this epic scheme of global purification.

    The Georgia guide stones have never looked so apt.

  125. Mefobills says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    God save the Queen.

    The Hereditary King/Queen system of England had been usurped. Why bend a knee to usurpers?

    The Orange King invasion had begun as a concerted effort by Amsterdam’s Jews to re-enter England.

    https://www.savethemales.ca/englands_jewish_aristocracy.html

    Also, the sovereign wasn’t really sovereign. King George even if not Jewish, was not the brightest bulb on the tree, and was coerced and maneuvered by “financial interests.”

    https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/10/reflections-on-jewish-intermarriage-into-native-elites/

    “I want to thank my Jewish daughter. I have a Jewish daughter. This wasn’t in the plan but I’m very glad it happened.” – Donald Trump, February 2015.

    It is part of Jewish method to insert themselves by hook and crook into the controlling organs of a Polity. If your sovereign is not of the body; if the sovereign is an alien usurper, then it is illegitimate.

    Would England be filled with the dregs of the third world if it had a REAL king?

  126. “The North by levying the tariff increase was effectively screwing over the South by making higher prices.’

    And they negotiated a settlement . . .

    Oh there’s a shock states in disagreements settling the issue . . .

    There was no case for the South to start that war and betray their fellows. It was treason with or without a settlement.

    ——————————

    The question was whether the founders and the citizens who took up arms against their country were traitors — they were.

    I usually pursue counter-factuals. But on this matter today no. At the time of the revolution the parliamentary system was well on its way and the founders were traitors and they engaged in treason.

  127. Mefobills says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Black negroes have been attacking albino negroes since forever.

    Black African’s were eating each other and they especially wanted Albino negro body parts for its magical and medicinal properties.

    https://archive.org/details/negroesinnegrola00helpiala

    Download it. Got to chapter 32 page 223 for albinos. These are accounts from the age of exploration, when white men first ventured into africa. These accounts are not what you get from public skoooool indoctrination.

    With regards to slaves, that was the natural condition for black africans, as they enslaved each other.

    • Replies: @ANZ
  128. karel says:
    @Malla

    Malla, I value you contributions but cannot really address all the points you make.. The GB was a really a dismal country. If you find some time, please read ” The People of the Abyss” by Jack London and you will have no doubts. There are other rather dreadful descriptions of the low life by Charles Dickens, I can send you some links.

    • Replies: @Malla
  129. “There is an obvious rejoinder. People in Bristol had spent many years trying to get the statue of Colston taken down through democratic means. They should not have needed to. It should have been obvious to the city’s authorities that it was offensive to revere a slave trader in a public square. The city should have taken action without prompting. Instead it did nothing.

    “It is a sign of the absolute failure of the democratic process – its calcification – that popular pressure could not bring about the removal of Colston’s statue.”

    I find it strange that Cook does not describe the previous efforts to get rid of the statue. What were they? Did a majority of the city’s population want to eliminate it? How do we know? Did those who wanted to tear it down pursue a referendum in order to demonstrate majority support for such a measure?

    I am suspicious that there was never more than a minority of support for discarding the statue, and the fact that Cook doesn’t detail the democratic efforts to effect its removal reinforces those suspicions.

    A little research provides support for the idea that a majority of the citizens of Bristol did not want the statue removed:

    In a 2014 poll in the local newspaper, the Bristol Post, 56% of the 1,100 respondents said it should stay while 44% wanted it to go.[19]

    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Statue_of_Edward_Colston

    The City council agreed to a new replacement plaque for the statue, the design of which then became a controversy of its own. The proposed new version was totally negative and provided nothing but slavery-related information. This original version was drafted by a group featuring a California-born professor of British history. No one will be surprised by the revealing information her bio-blurb contains:

    “Dr Madge Dresser was Associate Professor of History at UWE and is now Honorary Professor of History at the University of Bristol. Her life long research on race, ethnicity and social justice grew out of her experiences as the grandchild of Eastern European Jewish immigrants and an American student during the era of the Civil Rights movement.”

    Unsurprisingly, her version was then modified, against her wishes, into a more balanced second and third versions which she assailed as not slavery-centric enough. Finally, a fourth compromise version was adopted and the brass plate was cast.

    But at that point–March, 2019–with Dresser still complaining, the mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, vetoed its emplacement and demanded another rewrite, claiming he had not been kept in the loop:

    “It’s an oversight to put it mildly not to even have had a conversation with Mayor Marvin Rees, Europe’s first mayor of African heritage and the mayor of a city whose wealth has been inseparable from slavery and plantations and who is himself the descendant of enslaved Africans.

    “The proposed words are unacceptable. We will pick this back up as part of our wider work on improving our cultural offer around the transatlantic slave trade,” he added.

    And what can we learn about Marvin Rees from Wikipedia? Well, only this:

    “Marvin Rees was brought up in Bristol, partly in Lawrence Weston and Easton, by his British mother and Jamaican father.

    And here’s his resume from before he became mayor of Bristol:

    “Rees has worked in diverse areas throughout his career. He was a freelance journalist and radio presenter at BBC Radio Bristol and Ujima Radio. He was the Communications and Events Manager at Black Development Agency (now Phoenix Social Enterprise), an agency devoted to empowering individuals and communities through opportunities to work abroad. Marvin Rees was employed in the city of Bristol as the Programme Manager for race equality in mental health issues at NHS Bristol. His experiences in the United States included work as an outreach assistant at the Sojourners Community and as a Youth Co-ordinator at Tearfund.”

    So, in summary, it’s far from clear that a majority of Bristolians wanted to remove the statue of Colston, a point on which Cook’s article is entirely vague. And the attempt to devise a balanced plaque for the statue covering both the good and the bad was derailed by an aggressive, Californian, academic Jewess who inserted herself into the process and by the vibrant, community-activist mayor-of-color. Ultimately, as we know, a spartacist posse ended up casting aside any sort of democratic approach to dealing with the statue and its controversies and simply destroyed it.

    Where’s the Freikorps when you need them!?

    I find many of Cook’s articles here useful, but his failure to provide the actual backstory to this fiasco in Bristol borders on intellectual dishonesty. The bottom line with him, as with so many on the left, is that when “bad” people and ideas are at issue, democracy and the rule of law can legitimately be tossed out the window–a la Charlottesville.

    Sorry, but that doesn’t work for me.

  130. @EliteCommInc.

    “Our confederate issue is complicated because though they were traitors to the US, to the states and even to North East, West and South they represent men figures who forged a nation – the fact that south needlessly started a war that killed nearly 1 million people, it didn’t have to is often lost”
    Nonsense. The war was wholely Lincoln’s. The Confederacy had peace envoys in Washington throughout the conflict, even before Sumter, seeking a peaceful separation. Lincoln issued standing orders that the envoys were to be ignored.
    And nobody who is fighting a purely defensive war against a power trying to invade and subjugate their people can justly be called “traitors.”

  131. eah says:

    It is easy to forget how explicitly racist British society was within living memory.

    Great start dude; yes, please do remind us.

    And to show/prove how not racist you English are now, you’ve allowed Paki scum to sexually brutalize young English girls (I don’t need to say white because only white girls can be English) for decades — you know, just to make extra sure there was zero chance anyone would even think of calling you racist.

    You dumb English cuck.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
  132. Che Guava says:
    @ivan

    Actually, Japan made heavy use of opium in the China adventure. Who do you think made Pu Yi’s wife an addict? Sure, neither Brits nor Chinese.

    • Thanks: ivan
  133. Che Guava says:
    @Pat Kittle

    He is never replying to anything at all here.

    As an upper-class twit, he does not need to.

    I don’t understand why Mr. Unz is posting the articles by this upper-class twit.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    , @Malla
  134. ”Black negroes have been attacking albino negroes since forever.
    Black African’s were eating each other and they especially wanted Albino negro body parts for its magical and medicinal properties.”

    ——————–

    The history of humans eating other humans for various reasons is long and global.

    However, the Southern states engaged in treason and I am not aware of any cases of humans eating humans in the ensuing conflict of that treason (maybe Andersonville Prison).

  135. dfordoom says: • Website

    And even more challenging, should we not wonder how far we have actually moved on from the imperial “adventures” of slave traders like Colston? Are modern Britain’s foreign “adventures” – now called “interventions” – in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so very different?

    They’re really no different. Britain still clings to dreams of empire and fantasies of being a Great Power. Those foreign adventures as the lackey of the United States are a kind of vicarious imperialism. It’s just like the good old days when Britain would send a gunboat to cower a bunch of uppity dirty foreigners.

    Britain never really developed a healthy nationalism. British nationalism was inseparable from imperialism.

    That’s one of the reasons it would be a very healthy thing for the United Kingdom to break up.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  136. “Nonsense. The war was wholely Lincoln’s. The Confederacy had peace envoys in Washington throughout the conflict, even before Sumter, seeking a peaceful separation. Lincoln issued standing orders that the envoys were to be ignored.
    And nobody who is fighting a purely defensive war against a power trying to invade and subjugate their people can justly be called “traitors.”

    a. There was nothing for Pres Lincoln to do. He had no intention of freeing slaves by demand or by legislation. You might want to take note of the Emancipation Proclamation which left slavery in place for states not engaged in treason. At no time did Fort Sumter ever make an offensive against the state in which it reside. Not even in it’s own defense.

    b. The president of the Union was not authorized to nullify the union. That was accomplished via an of the states as congressional members and they would ave had to amend the Constitution, as it was the law of the land to enact that separation. or,

    c. the states could have made their arguments through the judicial process.

    They chose war and they lost — the treason was put down. And while I am very sympathetic to the pain of losing and then the added pain of wearing the banner of traitor. It’s long past time that we stop dancing around the obvious to assuage white sentiments both North and South who then used that war to brow beat the black population into some manner of “greatful disposition” for which they were punished further from the resulting wounds for something that was neither their creation, nor their doing to maintain.

    That their voices were silenced on the question of what to do about their treasonous fellow southerners at the time is a testament to just how deeply systemic hatred for black was across the country as North and South embraced men and women who betrayed their country and caused the death of nearly a million citizens and persons. And if that is painful

    — it ought to be.

    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
  137. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    If one were to rate British men of the past 100 years and give a positive 100 rating to Enoch Powell and Sir Oswald Mosley, weak, sniveling little pansies like Jonathan Cook would get a negative rating in the hundreds. He’s representative of the pathetic class that rule Britain and the English speaking world today who prostrate themselves before anyone black, brown or yellow and licking their feet or anything else their ordered to. Nobody in the world respects such pathetic creatures that beg for forgiveness about whatever perceived wrongs Britain perpetrated against their ancestors. Every group and nation has done bad things to others in history and all the snivelling won’t change that. Rather than being proud of the greatness that Britain and the British Empire were, the Jonathan Cooks of the world tiptoe around hoping that they don’t offend any non-whites with their presence. Tearing down the statue of a slaveholder in Bristol is just the beginning, next will be the banning and burning of all books by Rudyard Kipling. Unless those of European heritage start fighting back against this zionist drive to erase white history, we will be a people without a past and no hope for a future.

  138. @dfordoom

    “Britain never really developed a healthy nationalism. British nationalism was inseparable from imperialism.”

    I agree that the Brits are perhaps still in the mode of having “lost an empire and not found a new role.”

    But just for comparison’s sake, could you give some examples of what you think of as “healthy” nationalism?

    • Replies: @Culpepper
    , @Malla
  139. Anon[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    “Germans built statues to Hitler”

    I don’t think so, the Germans are so scared of Hitler that even the mention of his name in a positive manner will get you thrown into the slammer.

  140. “With regards to slaves, that was the natural condition for black africans, as they enslaved each other.”

    Slavery is and was a global phenomenon with a long history with various traditions and practices, it also has a dual history of revolts – under cutting its natural state or natural condition suggestion.

    However, slavery in the Union, was the the most egregious offence of ethical, moral and social hypocrisy based on the principles upon which we were founded. And no amount of hopscotching around the globe to indicate it’s standard use is going to blight that out. It only deepens the depth of its depravity and that of the founders by denouncing the Union as nothing unique and nothing exceptional on the world stage – just like everyone else.

    Laugh. That’s one way to go.

  141. Agent76 says:

    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell

    Jun 12, 2020 Scaffolding erected to protect statues ahead of London protests

    British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vented his frustration over Black Lives Matter protests after statues and monuments were vandalised across the country.

    • Replies: @Robjil
  142. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Paul

    Does the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., need to be torn down?

    Whether you’re erecting a statue to any political figure or tearing it down you’re committing a political act. It is propaganda. It is a way of telling your enemies that you now have the power and they have none.

    It makes no difference whether it’s a statue of Cromwell, Churchill, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Martin Luther King Jr or Lenin.

    Where’s the fun in winning a cultural or ideological war if you don’t get to humiliate your enemies? You want to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women. That’s what cultural and ideological wars are all about.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  143. Anon[375] • Disclaimer says:

    The “Democratic Tradition” is something that I think right-wingers never talk about, and possibly don’t care about. I think it is just a euphemism for the history of liberal movements.

  144. In a way, violence pays.

    Why was the South respected and honored by the North? Even though the North won, the South put up a tough fight. And after the war, Southern guerrillas and gangs resisted Reconstruction.
    So, to pacify the South and arrive at some compromise, the North had to make concessions to the South. Southern Pride has to be respected.

    It was the same reason the white man respected the American Indians. Sure, they were ‘red savages’ and there was much white hatred of them. But they were also legendary warriors led by chiefs like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull.

    The reason why the South is no longer respected and why Confederate flags and monuments are being removed is that the South is now chicken and cucked. South is all about white guys cheering for college football where blacks dominate and hump white girls. South is all about taking orders from Jews and neo-carpet-baggers and homos who bribe southern politicians. South is all about cucking to Israel and Zion.

    If white southerners still fought back like Jesse James and others, I guarantee the memorials would not be coming down. Confederate flags would not be messed with.

    In contrast, blacks are violent. Blacks are angry. They do act like Jesse James gang. THAT is why they get respect. They are seen as stars of sports and rap music. And they kick butt all over.

    But nowadays, white southerners get no respect. Not only have southern elites been pozzed by PC education but southern white male pride is gone, gone, gone. White southerners just watch college football and do nothing as their daughters go with black men.

    And why have American Indians, once a respected people, no longer get any respect? No one associates Indians with tough warriors anymore. They are just reservation losers who drink too much and get some money from casinos.

    Violence pays. Whites don’t know how to act violent for white pride. The only white violence that is allowed is in fighting in Wars for Israel and cucking to Zion.

    If whites really got angry and burned down cities and used mass intimidation, the political climate will change. White rage will be respected once again, and the Power will try to placate that anger.

    But why should the Power show any respect to an identity that is so cucked and wussy?

    It’s like… even though the US supported South Vietnam and fought North Vietnam, it felt no respect for South Vietnam(a cunt-pussy-whore of the US empire) while having growing respect for the North, the land of tough nationalist warriors.

    • Replies: @Culpepper
    , @jbwilson24
    , @ANZ
  145. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    They were traitors to a one. One can applaud their state loyalty and still acknowledge a legal reality — they were traitors in every way the word is intended to be applied.

    It might be worth pointing out that the Founding Fathers were all traitors. Had they lost then Washington and his cohorts could have been, quite legitimately, hanged for treason.

    If you attempt revolution and you win you’re a hero and a patriot. If you lose you’re a villain and a traitor. The lesson is, don’t lose.

  146. @Che Guava

    I don’t understand why Mr. Unz is posting the articles by this upper-class twit.

    Ron Unz takes freedom of expression seriously.

  147. Paradoxically, the Floyd Riots were so wild and crazy NOT BECAUSE police brutality against blacks is so commonplace but because it’s so rare.

    The Narrative was a hungry beast craving for an event that would finally satisfy it.

    Trayvon and Michael Brown incidents weren’t entirely satisfying cuz they happened under Obama, and there were doubts from the beginning. The Arbury case wasn’t satisfying cuz the black guy grabbed the gun.

    But the Floyd case was perfect optics for the Narrative. Smirking white cop with knee on what looks like helpless Negro.

    Its rarity was the trigger for the riots. The lunatics reacted like they finally hit the jackpot.

  148. “If you attempt revolution and you win you’re a hero and a patriot. If you lose you’re a villain and a traitor. The lesson is, don’t lose.”

    Uhhhhhm no.

    The founders were traitors win or lose.

    The confederate states were traitors win or lose.

    In neither case did the choice fir war have deep salience.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
    , @dfordoom
  149. vot tak says:

    This commentary by Cook is very well reasoned and written. A breath of fresh air.

  150. 4891 says:
    @JimDandy

    There’s a number of succinct explanations for why Soros et. al. fund this stuff.

    One is simple ideological agreement and self-hatred. A second is that the rich and powerful believe that a more violent, racially obsessed country will be good for business. It drives any smaller competitors out of business, provides a useful outlet for people, divides the country into racial factions that are unable to coordinate any anti oligarch policy etc.

    The third view is that Soros and Jewish billionaires desire multiracial societies, where they as a race will blend in more and not be at risk of being thrown out of a country. This of course would be in contrast to Jewish Israel, which has committed to being a mono-ethnic homeland for Jews, and rejected the view of Jews being a wandering people.

  151. This is nothing more than a long-winded confession to the new priests of the left.

    Which is quite amusing. Because if you think your faux religion comprehends or indulges in forgiveness, then you are going to learn the hard way when your pets come for you that it does not.

    But I don’t wish the Pet Army on anyone, and I pray the scales drop before things go south for you.

  152. Robjil says:
    @Agent76

    Who controls the press controls the present in our time.

    These MSM zombies jump at whatever MSM stirs up.

    The entire Middle East has been ripped up for decades for Zion and friends.

    Isis and Al-Qaeda are US/Israel toys. They are Empire cops, the worst type of cops on the planet.

    A few of these “protesters” may have been in one of the many Isis events promoted endless in the ME and in civilian centers world-wide in the later 2010s.

    Yet, silence from these MSM zombies. MSM didn’t say jump, so they did not jump.

  153. Culpepper says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    But just for comparison’s sake, could you give some examples of what you think of as “healthy” nationalism?

    Hungary?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  154. Culpepper says:
    @Priss Factor

    I coul not agree with you more.

  155. @EliteCommInc.

    “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

  156. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    Liberals and Democrats won’t stop at Confederate statues or ones of Columbus.

    They will tear down all statues and memorials and engage in sex orgies on the pedestals.

    It’s like in the book The Camp of the Saints.

    We are witnessing the end of the America we knew and the beginning of the new Africa and the Dark Ages.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  157. @Priss Factor

    True, denizens of the Stone Age do not adapt well to civilization.

    Nevertheless, you ignore the Jew supremacist role in global mayhem.

    It’s no different with ISIS, young punk nihilists pretending to be Islamic purists. They just love to tear things down. Look at their vandalism in Syria and Libya

    ISIS was created by Israel lobby war criminals, specifically to keep Western goyim in the Mideast, fighting wars of aggression for the Terrorist Theocracy of Israel.

    Jews then funnel the Muslim refugees into the West (NOT ISRAEL!), knowing fully well what the consequences would be.

    You do know this, right?

  158. “Indians rebelling against the rule of the East India Company, a trading corporation that became more powerful than the king”

    And who ran that corporation exactly? Useful to note that ‘English’ merchant marine law is Sephardic in origin. Hmm.

    It takes no balls to go after statues of a long dead slave trader.

    Why not notice that the ‘City of London’ is an autonomous zone within England. Why not start asking who was able to tear away a piece of England and make it autonomous.

    You’ll find there are plenty of families who profited from ill deeds. Oppenheimers (diamonds, black slaves), Sassons (drug dealing, flooding China with opium), etc etc etc. The major sugar plantation owners were all Sephardics.

    But no, going after people in power is dangerous. Much better to blame middle and lower class whites, topple a few statues of irrelevant people.

    I notice that in the USA, no one has toppled David Yulee Levy’s statue. Nor Benjamin Judah’s. Odd, no?

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
  159. @Priss Factor

    “In a way, violence pays.”

    Tribal people with honor cultures do not respect the mechanisms that we, in the west, use to settle disputes. To these people it is a sign of weakness to engage in negotiation or conciliatory behaviour.

    Hence bowing one’s head and feeling shame over past deeds is a sign of weakness to most of the peoples on the planet. It might virtue signal to whites, but to Somalis, Afghans, Arabs (etc) it shows weakness.

    When predators smell weakness, they become more aggressive. It’s like white people never watched a Nature documentary on wolves.

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
  160. Malla says:
    @Mefobills

    I agree with you, you are right. What I am saying is that when the black hole incident in Calcutta happened, the EIC did not rule much territory to do much pillaging. That incident happened BEFORE the EIC got the diwani rights (right to tax) Bangal Subah (Bengal province=Bangladesh+West Bengal State of India+ Bihar State of India.), the richest province in India BTW. It was only after they conquered Bengal did they pillage, and Bengal was the first real estate they got control over. But eventually even that was stamped out. Folks like Robert Clive and Warren Hastings faced lengthy court trials in London on this account. During Mir Jaffer’s reign in Bengal, the British EIC illegally, via bullying tactics wrestled away even the internal trade in Bengal from Indians but later via strict directive from the directors of the EIC, the internal trade was returned & reserved for Indian merchants and only foreign trade was reserved for the EIC. The EIC, a trading company banned Sati, a social work, not needed to by done by any company, answerable to directors. The East India Company built educational institutions to protect ancient Indian history in Calcutta, a company did this which answers to directors!!!! The East India Company banned female infanticide and built up a police force to enforce it.

  161. ANZ says:
    @Mefobills

    Morbidly interesting read on some of the “pinnacles of civilization” that Africans had created for themselves before European conquest. My mind jumps to the question if civilizing these people to western standards is even remotely possible. I think not. They are of an incompatible racial soul.

    It does shed some light on current American black disfunction. American negroes are lucky to be here and white Americans are unlucky to have them.

    How much would black America regress without evil, oppressive whitey holding them down? Black ghettos are just a more refined version of what’s in the book.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  162. ANZ says:
    @Priss Factor

    It’s time for the Saxons to find their wrath, ala Rudyard Kipling. The backlash has the potential to be epic.

    http://www.europeanamericansunited.org/school1/Fiction/kipling/awakened.htm

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  163. “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

    I am not sure the point of his comment however,

    The US founders were traitors — and today we have the US. And that in no small part invited the founder’s betrayed themselves by violating the very premise for which they founded the country. And the primary price and the burden has been paid by the black citizen.

  164. Malla says:
    @karel

    I have read Charles Dickens, I know what you are talking about. But not that Jack London’s work yet. The Persian-Indian nobleman (eventually governor of Bundelkhand province in India) Abu Taleb Khan wrote his book before them and his Britain was more pre industrial or in the early stages of the industrial revolution. According to him Britain was close to Paradise but he also criticized certain elements of British society. Like a typical Muslim he was like “Anglo Saxon Law is good but still inferior to Islamic Sharia”, things of that sort. He obviously wanted to go to Turkey to meet the Padishah or the Turkish Sultan as the Sultan was Caliph of all Islam. So on that journey to Turkey, when he comes to Paris, he felt like he came to Hell from Heaven (Britain). When he later came to Italy now he felt France was Heaven and this is Hell. But when he went to Turkey, it was Italy was Heaven compared to this hell and so on. Some kind of Heavenly North West to Hell like South East gradient. He even had a high opinion of Ireland and the Irish people, that is where he landed first.

    Maybe all those years of exploitation via the Industrial system broke down the working class population of Britain and Britain with time became more dismal. Like if you watch that movie (based on the novel) “How Green Was My Valley”. How that village in Wales which was so bright and green and full of happiness becomes darker and sadder later on. Maybe that is why William Blake wrote about the holy pleasant pastures and green mountains of England contrasted with the Satanic Mills.

    And as far as being dismal. Read Mark Twain’s travelogue of the Middle East. In the Arab World, the poor were living shity lives a large chunk of them were beggars and lepers. Mark Twain writes about poverty in India too, he is shocked & horrified when a poor Indian servant spends his time outside in the cold for him without him knowing about it till early morning. But according to him, fortunately India now has the British Raj and he is hopeful that eventually with time, things for most Indians will now improve. If you read Jean-Baptiste Tavernier’s travelogue on India, the average Indian was quite poor with poor housing while the aristocrats was the richest he had ever seen, gold and gems all around.

    • Replies: @ivan
  165. @JimDandy

    Soros is a complete Globalist. He wants open borders and basically the destruction of Western Civilization. He knows whites won’t go for it and that’s why he is doing this. He wants low wages and dim witted idiots so he can continue his foundations which overthrow governments and wants us fighting with each other. He has done the same thing in Europe and has ruined governments by his currency manipulations and illegal tactics on world markets.

    • Replies: @Nick J
  166. Malla says:
    @Really No Shit

    Old Tommy was a sucker for punishment at best …

    Old Tommy may have loved his punishments but fools ever since have been throwing that term around on non Whites who speak unpleasant, bitter facts, so much so that the meaning of the term has changed. Whitey speaks unpleasant facts call him racis, argument won. But what does one do when dealing with a non White especially a darky speaking harsh facts, call him “Uncle Tom” or something of that sort. That will shut him up, you do not have to listen to those hard facts no more and can live in your pleasant lies.

    was a sucker for punishment at best, huh. You know who does that remind me of? Lower caste Hindus. For millenia they were taught that if they served us upper caste Hindus, do their duty well, clean our shit well, in their next birth via karmic gain they would be reborn among us. If they refuse to serve and do their duty well they would be reborn as something lower, maybe a cockroach. No wonder the poor hapless lower caste Hindu slaved around, bowed down to us. The Brahmans sat on their fat asses, mumbled some mantras and life was swell. Their party was goin strong until those evul Brits arrived on the scenes.
    One of those Brits, Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, wrote the Indian penal code for India. According to this code, the Brahmin was the same as the lower caste under the law. Oh the horror. Many brahmin priests in Varanasi fainted with horror. Something like this woz unthinkable before ever. And outside the realm of the Hindus, the Islamic rulers considered us non Muslims as Kafirs and dhimmis and thus lessor under the Sharia law. No sez Baron Macauley, Muslim and non Muslim are all equal under the law. Oh the horror. Many Mullahs fainted in horror. Those lowly idol worshiping Khaffirs will be equal as us Muslims, unthinkable. But that was law now, forced on all of us by British Imperial Power.

    Similarly, if a woman’s husband died before her, she was encouraged to jump in his funeral pyre after him to get him again in her next life. You had cases of old men marrying teenage chicks dying and now the teenage chick was encouraged or coerced to jump in. After the bodies burned up, the greedy brahmins would go through the ashes to get the melted gold and jewelry for themselves, nobody dared question. All was cool until those evul mleccha Brits showed up. Those idiot Brits banned the whole thing. God damn…

    You know what, if the Brits would have kissed Brahmin ass (like the earlier invaders) maybe they would have ruled forever.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Really No Shit
  167. Malla says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    I agree that the Brits are perhaps still in the mode of having “lost an empire and not found a new role.”

    I do not see why that is so hard. Empires come and go, nations endure. Iranians had their empire (actually many Empires). Iran is a nation today. Turks had their empire, Turkey is a nation today. The Zulus had their Empire once, they do not even have a independent country of their own (thanks to the Brits) but they are a proud nation today. Marathas had an Empire once, they do not even have a country of their own, justa state in the Union of India (ironically thanks to the Brits) but they are proud of their ethnic group. Criticize the Maratha Empire in Maharashtra state in India and a bunch of local youth would beat you up to a pulp. Seriously, no joke. Turks are not only proud of their country but of their Ottoman Empire as well. I remember a Turkish guy commenting somewhere “we fed these people once and now they raise their eyes against us” when talking about the peoples they conquered. Imagine a Brit or a Frenchman talking like that. Iranians are still proud of their Nadir Shah who invaded India and looted and enslaved thousands. Mongols still worship Genghis Khan and take pride in their imperial achievements.

    The truth is thanks to Christianity especially Protestant Christianity there is a guilt based psychology especially in North West Europe (ironically even the Catholics like the French have picked this up). Secondly the European Empires especially the British Empire was considered as a big impediment to the worldwide spread of Communism and why such industrialized nations of Western Empire never turned Communist (as Marx had predicted) was explained away on these empires. And hence the B.S. theories that the Capitalist systems of the Industrialized West survived because of their Empires. Which is total B.S. Which is why even after de-colonisation, Western Europe remained prosperous and most of the Third World, well poor. This explains why these European Empires (and maybe the Japanese Empire) are uniquely targeted among all the Empires in history for historical abuse. Humans have built Empires like forever and most have been far far brutal than say the British Empire. But why only these Euro+ Jap Empires are targeted???
    And one other European Empire is normally given a pass, the Russian Empire which conquered Central Asia, Caucasus region and Siberia. Why so?
    Because Marxists dominate the academia and the media. If Britain or Western Europe was to go Communist tomorrow, all this criticism of colonial Western European Empires will stop. Like magic all the so called “wrong doings” of these colonial Empires will go down the memory hole in the West. It is as simple as that.

  168. @EliteCommInc.

    The Constitution does not forbid secession. Therefore, by the 9th and 10th amendments, secession is allowed.

    • Agree: schnellandine
  169. Malla says:
    @Che Guava

    As an upper-class twit, he does not need to.

    I don’t understand why Mr. Unz is posting the articles by this upper-class twit.

    You know what if there are any who benefited from Empire, it is a section of the upper classes and may be this twit belongs to that section. It is strange how the elites who actually benefited from that Empire are trying to make the middle classes and the working classes feel guilty for an empire from which their ancestors hardly got anything. British (& Western European) workers were going down mines and working long hours in factories. These societies were no oil rich Arab Sheikh societies where all of them sat on their asses and enjoyed wealth. Non White immigration harms the Working class Whites the most, it is their daughters who get preyed upon the most, their sons face foreign gangs. So Working class Brits after (foolishly) fighting Third Reich Germany, Japan and Italy were sacrificed in favour of foreign invaders!!. What was all those wars fought for anyways?
    It seems like Western European upper class cabal have allied with racist brown black invaders against their own working and middle classes, making them feel guilty for empires from which they got nothing but provided canon fodder while using Cultural maxist & post colonial ideology to justify it.

    • Replies: @ivan
  170. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Trying to understand removal of statues as an organic
    response to long simmering feelings is to be misdirected.

    Statues and Army post’s names have been around a long time.
    No one had their knickers twisted until the Charlottesville operation
    and the current operations.

    Why now?

    The agenda?

  171. @Paul

    he must have been a truly great man, Dr. King, a real king, if he bothers you much half a century after your ilk murdered him. R.I.P. great man.

  172. @Paul

    Does the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., need to be torn down? He plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation, and his treatment of women in private (as has been exposed by his associates) was appalling.

    Tearing down statues and monuments is the wrong approach; the Elite won’t as much sigh since it works in their favour to destroy the past. The correct approach is to install a permanent plaque with an alternative truth beside the existing plaque. That way, the public can become aware of the “real” history compared with the “winners” version. Learned information becomes knowledge.

  173. “The Constitution does not forbid secession. Therefore, by the 9th and 10th amendments, secession is allowed.”

    I will entertain your contend as is, instead of objecting the principle outright.
    Article VI

    If a person city, county, state, etc. of the US, chooses war as the mechanism to secede, then you have engaged treason and are a traitor. Making war on the US is a violation of the US Constitution.

    It is an act of treason

  174. @EliteCommInc.

    More redundancy. More citing wikipedia articles. You can’t even come up with any new material because you don’t have access to any. I can tell that you sit on a computer all day with literally nothing better to do. I actually have many other endeavors that I should be engaging in, rather than wasting my time here with you. However, I’ll be waiting when the lights go out for you to emerge from your basement. Then, The Black Plague! No more EliteCommie, no more SJW’s, no more Snowflakes, they will all be cannibalized by their Pets. That will be the poetic justice that is sure to befall you.

    I can guarantee you that the White Race will emerge from this failed experiment, stronger, wiser, and with all the examples necessary for them to avoid making the same mistakes again. This current uprising will ultimately be a blessing. I called 2020 the year of seeing clearly before it ever began and the blinders are surely being ripped off now.

    As I said before, this would be a much better World if your Mother had aborted you. I’m sure she thought about it a lot, with her not being sure who your Father is.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  175. Malla says:
    @Really No Shit

    A typical White chump. I know what I am talking about. Most of my college friends were Gujju Marwaris and Sindhis, baniya types. With a few exceptional individuals (my Gujju best friend was one of them), they are a population devoted to the making of money and concerned only about their own clans, rest of the world be damned. Indeed some Whitey goin to Africa to help some natives, as far as typical baniyas are concerned, is the height of stupidity and such stupid people should separated from their money ASAP. But this is quite common in the brown black world. Gypsies are the same. The kalderashi Gypsies believe only they matter and the rest of humanity is provided to them to be exploited.

    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  176. @Gleimhart Mantooso

    I think you are referring to Emma Goldman, but meant Emma Lazarus. Both were wretched Crones.

  177. ivan says:
    @Malla

    Well said Malla. Mark Twain was not the sort of guy who will cover up for anyone, he told like it was. I don’t understand why the fellows are so upset about the depredations of the EIC. It was in the nature of human beings to be prodigiously greedy and lustful.

    Before the Muslims settled down to be good rulers in India after a fashion they stole the labour of generations , committed genocides and plundered the womenfolk. The veil the Rajasthani or Sikh women wear has its origins in the fear their communities had of the women being taken away from them. For their time the British were no worse than any other. And it is not as though the peoples of the British Isles were all carried around in palanquins. The enclosure of the commons immersirated the peasanty who were then promptly transported as debt-slaves to America or dragooned to Australia for the most minor of crimes.

    • Agree: Malla
  178. ivan says:
    @Malla

    Its all just theater . It means nothing in the scheme of things. The principles they should have defended was truth , freedom and fairness. But they gave up on that when they bent over backwards to accommodate all the whims and fancies of motivated Jews. Why should not the blacks take advantage of the gaslighting that worked so well for the Jews. Where was Boris Johnson when Corbyn was subjected to relentless attack as an antisemite? Where is the Chief Rabbi now? And as for the totally underwhelming Trump he should remember that he started all this kneeling business when he picked on Colin Kapernaik , the footballer for supposedly disrespecting the American flag.

    It is the right of every American to respect or disrespect the flag. One is not supposed to as an American make an idol out of it. That is the nature of the American compact. Girls can go around with US flags as their undies but that is okay. The blowback has been such that even arthritic men and women have to take the ‘knee’ and the Confederate flag people have been banned from Nascar. The idiot Trump had no business stirring that hornet’s nest.

    • Agree: Malla
  179. Anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    It was Congress that uplifted the untouchables through reservations, not British.

    • Replies: @Malla
  180. @brabantian

    I always assumed that. Yonatan Koch is a very Jewish name. But I group him with the Jewish heroes, Ilan Pappe, Shlomo Sand, Israel Shahak, several of our friends on this site, the inventor of Esperanto, etc. etc. Despite Judaism depending on hatred fundamentally, being evil fundamentally, there are many great Jews who have freed themselves of that.

    I have admired Jonathan Cook enormously for several years, since reading his article on the stolen babies, exposing the anti-Semitic racism that’s part of Judaism.

    Still, you make an interesting point about it being Jewish to support the destruction of monuments, fitting the pattern of Jewish subversion of Gentile societies. I’ll have to ruminate on that. But I remain an admirer of Jonathan Cook.

  181. @Malla

    You are trying too hard to win the next green card lottery … buena suerte!

    • Replies: @Malla
  182. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Not true. It was the British who started the process to uplifting of the lower castes. Congress was forced to follow it. If the British would not have come, this would have never happened.

    http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/20647/1/Unit-12.pdf

    [MORE]

    British rule had brought to an end the tyranny and chaos of the regime of the last Brahmin Peshwa in Maharashtra. The colonial rulers had not only established law and order but also the principle of equality before law. The earlier regime of Brahmin Peshwas had imposed strict limitations on education, occupation arid living standards of the lower castes and women. The new rulers opened the opportunities in education and mobility in occupation for the members of all castes. Missionary schools and government colleges were ready to admit any student irrespective of caste origins. New ideas of equality and liberty could reach the moderately educated sections of the lower caste. Phule was probably the best product of this process. High caste reformers and leaders also had welcomed the colonial rule. It is not surprising that Phule who was concerned with the slavery of the lower castes also favoured British Rule He hoped that the new government which believes in equality between man and man would emancipate lower castes, from the domination of the Brahmins.
    The British rule opened up new employment opportunities in the administration. The political power at local level was also being given to the Indians. Phule who had worked as a member of the Poona Municipality could visualise how lower castes wouid be able to acquire power at local level during the period of British rule and also enter the colonial bureaucracy. He believed in Colonialism, Cast Order and the Tribal Societies the benevolent attitude of the British rulers towards the lower castes and therefore asked for a number of things from them. He was not sure how long the British rule would continue. Therefore, he wanted lower castes to exploit the
    opportunity and get rid of the tyranny of Brahmins. Brahmin rulers used to collect huge wealth out of taxes levied on poor lower castes population, but never used to spend even a paisa (penny/cent) for their welfare. On the contrary, the new regime was showing the signs of doing good things for the deprived people. Phule assured the colonial rulers that if the Shudras were made happy and contented, they need not worry about the loyalty of the subjects. He wanted the British government to abolish Brahmin Kulkarni’s position, and a post of village headman (Patil) filled on the basis of merit. In fact, Phule would have liked the British government to put an end to the balutedary system which was connected with caste specific occupations in the villages. He asked the government to make laws prohibiting customs and practices which gave subordinate status to women and untouchables. Phule wanted Brahmin bureaucracy to be replaced by non-Brahmin bureaucracy. But if the non-Brahmins were not available, the government should appoint, he thought, the British men to these posts. He believed that the British officers would take impartial view and were likely to side with lower castes.
    He knew that education had not yet percolated to the lower castes. The masses had not yet become politically conscious. The high caste elites were claiming that they were the true representatives of the people and therefore weie demanding political rights. This process, Phule thought, would reestablish the political supremacy of the high castes. Phule advised his followers from the lower castes not to participate the-movement for political rights. He argued that
    the Indian National Congress or other political associations were not national in the true sense of the term because they represented only high castes. Phule warned his followers against the selfish and cunning motives of the Brahmins in forming these associations and advised them to keep themselves away from such associations. In his Satya Shodhak Samaj, he had made it a rule not to discuss politics. In fact, we find that he had expressed more than once a complete and total loyalty towards the new government. He firmly believed that the almighty God had dethroned the tyrannical rulers and had established in their place a just, enlightened and peaceful British rule for the welfare of the masses.

  183. @schnellandine

    Yes you are correct. These commies would be feckless if the were not backed by an international communist led movement. Being that they are backed by large amounts of international currency and propaganda, it does make them a real force to be reckoned with, that is until they have served the purpose of their masters. When that becomes the case, they will become the first to be swept away. After all, a new communistic one world government will not tolerate any persons who may turn on them if they become disillusioned with their new form of slavery.
    Cheers and point taken.

    • Agree: Zumbuddi
  184. Malla says:
    @Really No Shit

    Yeah about winning that Green card Lottery….Will the future Bolshevik Orwellian Brazili shithole USA be a better place or a worse place than the coming Hindutva Orwellian shithole Bharat? It may still be a better place. But how much better? Not much.
    Nah, I do not see why I would want that greencard. Nah…..Not worth all that effort….Nah….

  185. @Cowtown Rebel

    I can guarantee you that the White Race will emerge from this failed experiment, stronger, wiser, and with all the examples necessary for them to avoid making the same mistakes again.

    I am not so sure. They have made these mistakes before. From their colonial days and from interference in those countries in more recent times, westerners have had ample experience observing and dealing with these other races, and still they opened the flood gates to the immigrants. Expecting what? All that remains is for Eastern Europe and Russia to watch what is happening in the West with these imports and decide if they will follow suit or resist this invasion aimed at the white race. Will they learn from others’ mistakes or repeat them? I really don’t know. We cannot judge the future by the present. There was a time when dark faces in western Europe (Americans always had them) were as rare as in Eastern Europe today, and the experience of locals with them wasn’t favourable, yet they did nothing to prevent the tsunami of the immigrants, and still they don’t. And the Brits voted for Brexit for what? Look at who’s in their government now.

  186. anonymous[263] • Disclaimer says:
    @niteranger

    You get your one-sided deceit from Islamophobic sources, and I will from Islamic ones, for a more nuanced view;

    http://muslimmirror.com/eng/islam-abolished-slavery-jurisprudence-kept-it-alive/

    Ok, it looks like “we” are all guilty of treating some others as lower, which is truly shameful. May the Almighty One have mercy on “our” souls.

    But, as far as Islam is concerned, it abolished slavery.

    It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, “Be servants to me rather than Allah,” but [instead, he would say], “Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied.” : Holy Quran 3:79

    If even a prophet has no right to have slaves, then how can a common man have them?

    If muslims chose to ignore certain commandments, then the Almighty One has warned us plenty of times in the Holy Quran, that He will “inform us what we used to do.” Meaning… we will all pay for our transgressions.

    And say, “Do [as you will], for Allah will see your deeds, and [so, will] His Messenger and the believers. And you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do.” : Holy Quran 9:105

  187. “More redundancy. More citing wikipedia articles. You can’t even come up with any new material because you don’t have access to any. I can tell that you sit on a computer all day with literally nothing better to do. I actually have many other endeavors that I should be engaging in, rather than wasting my time here with you. However, I’ll be waiting when the lights go out for you to emerge from your basement. Then, The Black Plague! No more . . ., no more SJW’s, no more Snowflakes, they will all be cannibalized by their Pets. That will be the poetic justice that is sure to befall you.

    I can guarantee you that the White Race will emerge from this failed experiment, stronger, wiser, and with all the examples necessary for them to avoid making the same mistakes again. This current uprising will ultimately be a blessing. I called 2020 the year of seeing clearly before it ever began and the blinders are surely being ripped off now.

    As I said before, this would be a much better World if your Mother had aborted you. I’m sure she thought about it a lot, with her not being sure who your Father is.”

    A.. I don’t think I use wikipedia references. Laughing. The issue is pretty simple. Either the the south betrayed the Constitutional they voluntarily signed on to or they did not. The idea that one needs to come up with more material/new material to defend a singular position or several when they material at hand has is sufficient and refuted is a very strange argument. I am not sure that using more than one source to support a position or several positions is in any manner n inappropriate In fact, for the purposes of establishing veracity for an argument, more than one source reflecting similar or the same data and position is proper argumentation.

    What I have refrained from doing is getting dragged into a series of issues that are clearly not relevant to the discussion of what constitutes treason and why the southern states were treasonous and traitors. The black issue is tangential to that. The war was not about blacks — though they are the nexus point for what created the tensions regarding union. The debate over union was between whites. One could discuss that without mentioning blacks or slavery.

    You and others have made that case. And I have addressed those issues.

    B. Your frustration may be that I simply refrain from allowing myself to be dragged into other issues anymore than what is written here.

    C.

    1. the nature of slavery
    2. cannibalism
    3. the nature of blacks
    4. how influential you are
    5. and some personal hopes you have for my demise
    6. other issues not pertinent to the matter on the table

    I addressed the issues minus your personal attacks against my character or desires that I’d been subjected to being murdered in the womb. You are entitle to your opinion.

    D. The end game here as I stated form the start, is that I have no real sentiment about removing confederate memorabilia from state public settings. That is a matter for the people of those of those states to determine. I make two observations — in considering those items of state memory, the voices of the nonwhite populations of those states. And to what extent said memorabilia were used to espouse white power dynamics (especially as a means of intimidating the nonwhites). I think it is a fair issue — and pertinent to the matter of what our historical icons are intended to convey. The black and native populations in the US are certainly entitled to their opinion as to why the US and the states of the US would be celebrating men and women who betrayed their country.

    E. Your view seems to be predicated on whites as sole arbiters, regardless of the founding philosophies and the documents that support the same. In my view, even the founders refrained from entirely endorsing that view, because they lived and operated in a society that was not entirely white. And I would be remiss not to remind that the issue of color was hotly debated among the colonists and never left the common exchange. And that includes the southern societies as well. One can look through the southern legal archives and uncover mountains of daily legal and court room dramas, issues regarding slaves and free blacks.

    But again those issues are not relevant to the south’s choice to engage in war against their fellow citizens. And in doing so be traitors to the Union, The Unite States of America.

    F. —

    G. I am totally confident that whites will engage in acts of vengeance and retaliate against every black they can around these issues — that is the country’s history.
    ————————————–

    As for your hope and wish that I had been murdered in the womb of mother, that is not relevant either.

  188. Malla says:
    @Commentator Mike

    All that remains is for Eastern Europe and Russia to watch what is happening in the West with these imports and decide if they will follow suit or resist this invasion aimed at the white race.

    Is the media in the hands of the Eastern European natives? If yes, run stories (Kersey style) of what invaders are doing to native Europeans in the West. Build up the mood to resist.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  189. EliteCommInc. is not representative of any political movement or philosophical disposition.

    I am not now nor have I ever been a communist, socialist, or associated with anything similar. To my recollection, I have only voted for one democrat in my lifetime. And that is as liberal as it gets, that one vote. On the conservative meter I regular score more right than Pres. Reagan. And just left of Attila the Hun.

    While every conservative ought to be deeply committed to justice, it has become apparent that many are not. As it is the a primary purpose for the union — reference the Pre-amble to our constitution

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

    Purpose of which;

    1. more perfect union
    2. establish justice
    3. insure domestic tranquility
    4. common defense
    5. promote the general welfare
    6. secure the blessings of liberty

    to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

    Interesting word “ordain”

  190. @Commentator Mike

    While I completely understand your pessimism, it has been said that the difference between a pessimist and an optimist is the pessimist is usually better informed, I must believe that when there are no electronic distractions, no globs of grub, and no running water, Whites will band together out of necessity. The Super Dome in Louisiana is the type of impetus that springs to mind. A small group huddled together for mutual protection in the midst of Savages, even making trips to the restrooms together. Only we won’t be hemmed in like they were. The survivalists will have an edge, as will organized gangs, paramilitary groups, and anyone who is willing to sacrifice sweat and suffer callouses and improvise well enough to carve out an existence. I am fairly adept at urban survival, but I am not as well versed in living off the land. I have found that I could readily adapt (after I finished crying) to extremely unfavorable circumstances in the past, I pray that I am still as resilient as I once was. Also, I must give credit to God for seeing me through some very trying times.

  191. @Commentator Mike

    I’m done getting sucked into EliteCommie’s vortex of endless repetition. The only reason I engaged with IT at all was to share facts with others. I never expected IT to change ITs mind, IT doesn’t have one. IT is a broken record whose only source of information is the internet. IT has never opened a book, except, maybe, The Cat In The Hat. I know from past experience that if everyone ignores IT except for ITs Fellow Travelers, IT will get bored and go away. IT doesn’t have a life outside of the Cyberarena.

  192. Nick J says:
    @niteranger

    How does the complete destruction of Western Civ help a globalist? Aren’t things like disposable income and a thriving economy beneficial to an international merchant?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  193. @Malla

    Is the media in the hands of the Eastern European natives?

    No. Even if it is officially, the usual suspects are behind it. Same with entertainment. With a few exceptions. Generally, in terms of social issues that concern us here, it’s in the state the West was 30-40 years ago. There has been some resistance lately to the promotion of homosexuality, same sex marriage, sex education (most recently: Romania scarps sex education, Poland’s President vows to ban same sex marriage, gay adoption and LGBT+ education in schools), and as you know Hungary has banished Soros, his university and his NGOs, and is resisting the immigrants with its border fence. But how long this can be sustained I don’t know. The assaults won’t stop, from all those (including the UN) forcing the globalist ideology and its multifarious subsets. There was some resistance in the West too in those years gone by but it all came to nothing. But too many consider this to be the price of “progress”, whatever that means.

    Of course those interested in Kersey style catalogues of immigrant crimes can follow them on “extremist” sites on the Internet, just like anyone anywhere, but a few may seep into the MSM, although when buried in all the other news, perhaps they don’t quite ring the alarm that they should.

    • Thanks: Malla
  194. anonymous[371] • Disclaimer says:
    @brabantian

    The massive enslavement of millons of Europeans and others by Muslims

    Lol! I don’t know about that. But, I sure know that hundreds of millions of euRapeans are enslaved by their twisted pagan-godlessness. Being willing slaves of demented pagan ideologies is also a kind of enslavement, you know.

    See, the proof of your claim is dubious at best, but the current reality of your kind’s enslavement to the dementia of mangod-deities, based purely on hearsay, should be clear for any logical minded person.

  195. anonymous[371] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Lol! TheUR is such an invaluable resource for history lessons… if only I actually gave a sh!t about any of that!

    Live for the present, I say. After all, that is what will decide one’s fate in the future.

    But then, what will the pagan-godless know about that.

  196. Barbadosed, Kid Nabbing?

    The progressive protestants in Britain used to kid nap (Kid nabbing back in the day) Irish youth (They met inside St Paul’s cathedral to do their planning) and sell them to the sugar cane hierarchy in Barbados and the brits also sold millions into slavery in America (indentured servants) and they stole the food of the Irish and sold it during the potato famine while scores of thousands died and were displaced but writing about such things has no cachet in today’s world so the leftist mewls about british racism as he promotes progressive presentism in defense of the mob

  197. @EliteCommInc.

    Yes, good point. Revolutionaries only allow one secession, theirs from the British Crown and even though George Washington was a British soldier, he is our hero – it is only right that the first POTUS was a legit treasonous traitor 🙂

    O, and those sent to the Continental Congress to revamp the articles of Confederation were treasonous traitors of the states that sent them their for they came back with a Constitution in the place of the articles they were sent to revamp.

    But their treason is ok, because..something

    The CSA just wanted to be left the hell alone. It did not declare war – you listen to too much Tucker Carlson

    The General on both sides were West Points grads and they all were taught that secession was legal

  198. @lysias

    Technically, Ireland was annexed, but point well taken.

  199. vot tak says:

    New Online Database of Police Brutality Videos Highlights ‘Casual Cruelness’ of Law Enforcement

    https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202006151079624905-new-online-database-of-police-brutality-videos-highlights-casual-cruelness-of-law-enforcement/

    “Lawyer T. Greg Doucette and mathematician Jason Miller have formed a publicly accessible database in Google Sheets of video recording instances of police brutality towards protesters and everyday persons. The list has hundreds upon hundreds of entries, many of which come from the nationwide clashes between police and protesters demanding justice for George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody last month in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as other victims of police violence.

    However, the list also contains examples of recorded police violence against individuals, such as that which captured the final moments of Floyd’s life as four Minneapolis police officers tackled him and one pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes as he said “I can’t breathe.”

    It’s not uncommon for these kinds of videos to go viral on social media, but… since Twitter is a private media company, they have “ultimate control of the information that’s shared on their platform,” so it was important that the records of police violence be stored elsewhere. Miller and Doucette had initially begun compiling the list as a Twitter thread, before it became unwieldy.

    The database also provides a way to compile and spread the videos further, since the periodic appearance of particularly effective videos can give a false impression of the rarity of such events.

    “This is a really amazing initiative that was initiated by a few individuals just creating a public online spreadsheet of police violence videos,” Gorky said. “This movement for justice was sparked by the video that was released, and this video footage really categorically showing the casual cruelness of the police department.”

    Some examples given by Gorky of the list’s contents include police tossing a tear gas canister at a CBS news crew, police arresting someone for jaywalking and police arresting children. However, Gorky cautioned this was “a tiny amount of the police terror that’s happened throughout the years.”

    “It’s not just about George Floyd; this is about 400 years of racial and racist oppression, racial violence,” Gorky said, noting the list reminded her of the book “100 Years of Lynchings,’” compiled in 1962 by American publisher Ralph Ginzburg of news clippings and stories of the murders of black people going back to the 1880s, “showing the shocking brutality that was continuing.”

    “This is not a new phenomenon,” Gorky noted, “it’s just that now we have video.”

  200. “The CSA just wanted to be left the hell alone. It did not declare war – you listen to too much Tucker Carlson
    The General on both sides were West Points grads and they all were taught that secession was legal”

    a. I have never read or heard Mr. Carlson discus this issue. And I have no idea what he thinks on the matter. Since the 1990’s the civil war has had more attention than previous. And the discussion regarding whether or not the states who made war on the US was an act of treason is not new.

    “The General on both sides were West Points grads and they all were taught that secession was legal”

    b. Laugh. I don’ know who these general are or war or what it is that they were taught or when. But I am fairly confident that the course material did not condone , support or make a case that the war initiated by the South was legal. Now clearly the political correct discussion regarding the conflict was spoken about regarding the battles and there might have counter factual on the rationales behind the war. But I am certain without looking, no one and no one at West Point was taught that the war by the South was legal.

    Laugh — I have never even heard of it as a suggestion, much less a part of the course material.

    1. Uhhh Nonsense

    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/Century_Magazine/78/1/Was_Secession_Taught_at_West_Point*.html

    2. What the generals thought — inconsequential in my view — but have at it.

    https://medium.com/@richardsingley/west-point-and-the-civil-war-8abe30451a9d

    3. If anything was taught. It was the obvious; if the Union disolves then the states are own their own volition. But there is no evidence that the students were that secession was legal — entirely unsupported. But I certainly understand why the suggestion would be made — clearly the was by the south against her fellows was treason.

    4. If they had made the choice to debate the matter in congress or pursue it in the courts — that would be one thing. They made a consciousness choice to attack their fellow citizens forcing the matter at the point of a gun. That was and remains treason.

    “The CSA just wanted to be left the hell alone. It did not declare war”

    5. Well, let’s be clear. There was no such thing as the CSA until 1861. It was created for the express purpose nullifying the Union by force. As such their intent and purpose was assertive aggressive and as evidenced by their action on Fort Sumter – treasonous. And no US citizen North or South was safe. There were four states that desired to remain loyal and they because enemies of those in rebellion. Furthermore there were counties and communities that did not wish to secede in the South and they too were entitled to protection by the Union as members of the United States.

    Nothing in the Southern States reflected a desire for peaceful consideration, despite the pause that Pres. Lincoln provided for that purpose. essentially put down your arms and all is forgiven. There simply is not room here for any other consideration once Fort Sumter was fired upon and other federal installations or citizens were attacked or under treat by any southern state, country, parish, city or person with the intent to dissolve the union –

    treason.

  201. “Lincoln’s war was unconstitutional and illegal
    http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/secess1.txt”

    This is an tack. The contend that Fort Sumter was on or state jurisdictional waters and was unwanted. Problem wit that contend is that it false.

    The land was ceded to the federal government to resolve all claims private and state in 1841. The Fort was built in 1829 in response to the War of 1812. It was a federal institution. It enjoyed relatively friendly relations with the Carolinians and they enjoyed the federal monies that came their was as result.

    “Fort Sumter

    The same process was followed in the acquisition of the various harbor installations in and around Charleston: Forts Moultrie and Sumter, Castle Pinckney, and Charleston Arsenal.
    In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the United States had expended roughly $200,000, one Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the “land” which included the under-construction fort.
    A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land – but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
    When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land – except that the “land” was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
    Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
    The result was a state law:

    Committee on Federal Relations
    In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

    “The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

    “Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

    “Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

    “Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

    {edited from below and moved here} Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!
    For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most major libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, “The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina,” pp. 463-472.

    “Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

    “T. W. Glover, C. H. R.”
    “In Senate, December 21st, 1836

    “Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

    Jacob Warly, C. S.’
    https://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

    This rebuts the reference you supply contending that the fort represented some manner of invasion — that is incorrect based on the record. And since that is the premise for all that follows, it is safe to say – the matters is moot.

  202. @Cowtown Rebel

    I just got the most detailed, factual and informative history lesson I’ve had in a long time… in the comment section on a throwaway article published on a largely delisted non-mainstream “bad” website.

    Meanwhile, in the “good” world, the illiterate graduates of semi-illiterate teachers are expressing their grasp of history by destroying public monuments, to widespread approval.

    If it comes down to choosing sides, I know which one I have more respect for.

  203. Thank You. I’m glad that you have benefited from what I have been able to learn and pass on. There is always something new for me to learn, and I am truly in awe of the amount of knowledge that some others possess. I do become irritated with those who only exist to contradict a sound narrative, using the most repetitive, borrowed arguments that are easily obtained online.

    Even if you watch Ken Burns, or read a book by a well known author like James McPherson or an article in a mainstream publication, you will find the same “facts;” quotations and episodes repeated ad nauseam. Any information that interferes with their agenda is either omitted or downplayed. For instance, you will often hear a quote from Sam Houston declaring to the people of Texas, “You may, after the sacrifice of thousands of precious lives and millions of dollars in treasure, gain your independence. But, I doubt it.” What is never mentioned is that at the end of that address, delivered from the balcony of the Tremont Hotel in Galveston in June of 1861, he concluded by saying, “My heart and sympathies are with the State and State’s Rights.” His son, Sam Houston Jr., enlisted in the 2nd Texas Infantry and was seriously wounded at Shiloh.

    Even so, when it comes to The War to Prevent Southern Independence, there were three other previous, three sitting, and, as I recall, at least ten following Governors of Texas that in one way or another contributed to the War effort in support of the Confederacy. Most of those were actually Confederate Veterans. But, rather than say at least 16 Governors of Texas supported the Southern Cause, or even acknowledge Houston’s reluctant blessing, the historians, the academics, the media, would have you believe that the only opinion that mattered was Houston’s, and only the portion of his opinion that they themselves have decided is acceptable.

  204. Ok just for kicks . . .

    Laughs . . . and well . . . one can only laugh.

    “The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us our first
    federal conscription law, first progressive income tax, first enormous standing army; it gave us a higher tariff, and greenbacks.
    James McPherson writes approvingly: “This astonishing blitz of laws . . . did more to reshape the relation of the government to
    the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal. This Civil War Legislation . . .
    created the ‘blueprint for modern America.”4 Albert Jay Nock was more critical of the war’s impact, especially on the
    Constitution: “Lincoln overruled the opinion of Chief Justice Taney that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, and in
    consequence the mode of the State was, until 1865, a monocratic military despotism. . . . The doctrine of ‘reserved powers’
    was knaved up ex post facto as a justification for his acts, but as far as the intent of the constitution is concerned, it was
    obviously pure invention. In fact, a very good case could be made out for the assertion that Lincoln’s acts resulted in a
    permanent radical change in the entire system of constitutional ‘interpretation’–that since his time ‘interpretations’ have not been
    interpretations of the constitution, but merely of public policy. . . . A strict constitutionalist might indeed say that the constitution
    died in 1861, and one would have to scratch one’s head pretty diligently to refute him.”5”

    From most recent reference provided . . .

    The Supreme Court never rules that the response by the Northern states as unconstitutional. Not once. That long list of complaints references “habeus corpus” that had ansolutely no bearing on th question of the Constitutional parameters of the the South’s violent revolution, but instead within the US including the southern states who were by their choice members of the union and who could only have dissolved it by legal means.

    The North responded appropriately.

  205. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    “If you attempt revolution and you win you’re a hero and a patriot. If you lose you’re a villain and a traitor. The lesson is, don’t lose.”

    Uhhhhhm no.

    The founders were traitors win or lose.

    The confederate states were traitors win or lose.

    Yeah. Which is kind of what I was trying to say. If you win you’ll be celebrated as a hero and have statues erected to honour you but of course that doesn’t change the fact of your original treason.

    Just as a gangster who gets away with racketeering and then passes himself off as a pillar of the community living in a nice house in a nice neighbourhood and sending his kids to Ivy League colleges is still a gangster.

  206. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Culpepper

    But just for comparison’s sake, could you give some examples of what you think of as “healthy” nationalism?

    Hungary?

    Healthy nationalism usually exists in countries that are too small and powerless to indulge in imperialism.

  207. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Liberals and Democrats won’t stop at Confederate statues or ones of Columbus.

    Sooner or later they’re going to go after the numerous presidents who were slave-owners, including Washington. It would be a smart move on their part. Just as going after Confederate statues was a smart move, putting their opponents in the very awkward situation of appearing to be defending slavery. It’s a clever way of manoeuvring their opponents into a no-win situation.

    And the people who erected those Confederate statues in the first place were certainly aware that they were engaging in propaganda.

  208. Mefobills says:
    @ANZ

    It does shed some light on current American black disfunction. American negroes are lucky to be here and white Americans are unlucky to have them.

    Very succinct.

    Separation at a minimum. It is not heart-less, but instead a kindness for people to be among their own kind. More kindness would be a strong hierarchy, like that of the old south.

    The problem is white women and beta liberal men. Enough time goes by, and they will be virtue signaling for blacks to release blacks from theblack presumed bondage. An externally imposed hierarchy will break down because white women will vote it down.

    In other words, paying the worst negro elements to leave is the only viable solution; that or our country breaks up into parts.

    Haiti and Dominican Republic don’t get along. The difference is Mulatto/Latino vs Haitian Negro. These slight differences to us, appear as large differences to them.

    • Replies: @ANZ
  209. roonaldo says:

    You see, Colston’s statue, in the city he helped build, didn’t just stand there, it literally could speak, saying “Back to the fields, Slave Monkey” when a Black or Mulatto strode past and broke into a rousing rendition of “We Are the Champions” when it sensed the presence of a White.

    For inspiration, the anarchists could use Lucien Polastron’s “Books on Fire, the Destruction of Libraries throughout History.” Soon enough, print and electronic records could be adequately purified.

    All Whites will pay into individual GoFuckMe/a> accounts to fund “Only Black Lives Matter” activities, and any HAM (Honky-Assed Motherfucker) who complains will be prefrontal lobotomized and fed thorazine. Now, these HAMs are bad enough in life, but even in death they torment our tender sensibilities by taking up space in cemeteries. Since collective guilt equals collective burial, all HAM remains are to be stripped of valuable dental work and dumped in landfills.

    All YAMs (Yellow-Assed Motherfuckers), RAMs (Red-Assed Motherfuckers), and BAMs (Brown-Assed Motherfuckers) will be dealt with in due course. Our Earthly Paradise awaits–hail Afrikawanda!

    “From fanatacism to barbarism is but one step.” Diderot

  210. dfordoom says: • Website
    @ANZ

    It’s time for the Saxons to find their wrath, ala Rudyard Kipling.

    Kipling wanted the English to learn to hate the Germans. It’s amusing that it seems like not a single one of the countless alt-righters who quote those lines realise that Kipling was encouraging hatred of fellow white people.

    Also alt-righters seem not to realise that the lines they constantly quote are not the lines Kipling wrote. In Kipling’s version it’s “When the English began to hate.” Kipling did not write “When the Saxons began to hate.”

    • Replies: @ANZ
  211. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Nick J

    How does the complete destruction of Western Civ help a globalist? Aren’t things like disposable income and a thriving economy beneficial to an international merchant?

    You’re correct of course. Globalists want money and power. They want the freedom to accumulate more money and power. Therefore they do not want organised opposition, which is why they use divide-and-conquer tactics such as encouraging identity politics. And if the far right is dumb enough to play the identity politics game that’s very much to the advantage of the globalists. It marginalises the far right (or marginalises it even further).

    But obviously if you want money and power you will have no desire whatsoever to destroy economies or destroy societies.

    Some of the antifa idiots and some unhinged feminists and academics and (especially) greenies would certainly like to destroy western civilisation, but when you’re talking about those groups you’re talking about mentally ill people. The actual wealthy and powerful globalists do not wish to destroy western civilisation, they merely want to make it a safer place in which globalists can accumulate money and power. They want to cement their position as the elite class.

  212. ““Which is kind of what I was trying to say. If you win you’ll be celebrated as a hero and have statues erected to honour you but of course that doesn’t change the fact of your original treason.”

    Whoa. and No.

    Short version;

    if you stop behaving like a bootlegger. You are no longer a bootlegger.

    The Southern states are arguably the most vehement advocates for the US since the end of the civil war. And I certainly lean in that direction.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  213. “Which is kind of what I was trying to say. If you win you’ll be celebrated as a hero and have statues erected to honour you but of course that doesn’t change the fact of your original treason.

    Long version

    Just as a gangster who gets away with racketeering and then passes himself off as a pillar of the community living in a nice house in a nice neighborhood and sending his kids to Ivy League colleges is still a gangster.”

    Well, no.

    Time and space on any issue is relevant. Te founders were traitors to Great Britain, but for all intensive purposes loyal to their country, the US.

    The Southern states may have betrayed their country. and no amount of hoola hooping can change that fact. But few others have been as stalwart as the southerner in taking up the cause of the US — rigt or wrong. They may have hated blacks. But their loyalty to their country after the ciil war — is hard to match.

    So this discussion is jt once a baker always baker. I cannot change the fact that one once was a baker. But that is not a lifelong assignment unless one rmains in that condition.

    ————————- Nope and absolutely not. Fact, the South betrayed their country. That will always be true. That incident was treason. Are souherhers treasonous based on that incident — not unless they continue said acts of treason.

    Your attempt to lay misconstrue my case into some broader critique about southerners is incorrect. This is about the civil war and those who made war against the Union. Those same men and women, despite how they treated blacks — all or most became loyal advocates for the US. It is sad how they helped to utterly destroy blacks and their own loyalty to the country and countrymen who despised them.

    However, I would be a jump-side of crazy, if I made the case you are attempting to lay out.

    I reject in full. as well as part. A criminal is only a criminal so long as they engage in criminal activity, should they stop engaging in criminal activity — they are no longer criminals.

    And excuse my use of the following

    There but by the grace god go I. No.

    And

    No. We are not saying the same thing at all.

    The act we are talking bout here is the act of war against their fellows. Not some life long weight or mill stone about their necks. And anyone suggesting that is my case would be wrong and wrong six ways to Sunday and Saturday for that matter.

    No.

    Let me be clear — the attempt to dismantle the union was treason — those who engaged were traitors. That by no means precludes another life and a different disposition. In fact, for those who allow for symbolic manipulation the rebel flag became a stand in for intense national loyalty.

    The Southern is the symbol of model for Go and country. The only rivals for that symbol are those that inhabit our rural history nearly anywhere.

    I appreciate your clarifying your intent. And I think we disagree and I cannot state how much we disagree in strong enough terms.

    ————————————

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  214. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    if you stop behaving like a bootlegger. You are no longer a bootlegger.

    You’re still living high on the hog from the profits of bootlegging.

  215. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    Time and space on any issue is relevant. Te founders were traitors to Great Britain, but for all intensive purposes loyal to their country, the US.

    But isn’t a nation the very foundation of which is treason always going to be in some sense illegitimate? It means that you have a nation based on naked power. If it was A-OK for the Founders to commit treason then surely logically it’s A-OK for someone else to come along and commit treason against that new nation. The principle has already been established that treason is fine and dandy as long as you win.

    Maybe the only way out for such a nation is to be honest enough to admit that it was founded in treason, and not erect statues to commemorate successful traitors.

    Just as a retired bootlegger living in luxury on the profits of bootlegging has established the principle that crime is OK as long as you get away with it.

    Of course erecting statues to commemorate unsuccessful traitors is just sad. It would be like erecting statues to commemorate bootleggers like Capone who didn’t get away with their crimes.

  216. ANZ says:
    @Mefobills

    More kindness would be a strong hierarchy, like that of the old south.

    The problem is white women and beta liberal men. Enough time goes by, and they will be virtue signaling for blacks to release blacks from theblack presumed bondage. An externally imposed hierarchy will break down because white women will vote it down.

    If our current political can’t even find the willpower to curtail both legal and illegal immigration, paying certain groups to self-deport is a loooong way off. Yes, there are too many soft/weak elements in the body politic represented by white women and their beta male counterparts. But when the time is ripe, it could be politically feasible.

    In a way, I welcome these riots and coming financially hardships because these are the conditions for restoring a patriarchy, like the old south you mention. This feminization of culture crap can’t stand up to tough times. Society will go running to daddy when they realize mommy can’t protect them from threats. The liberal feminine political nonsense has only
    been made possible by strong patriarchy.

    I’m fond of the saying, “tough times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make tough times.”

    So as we enter into a new phase of tough times, a proper patriarchy can rise again and right the ship. I’m a huge fan of historical examples to ground my ideas in reality, so I often look back to the best example of a country taking the power back from their Jew overlords. It took less than a generation for the NSDAP to rise up and free themselves. God willing we can do the same but escape their ultimate fate.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  217. ANZ says:
    @dfordoom

    Thanks for the clarification.

    As England was colonized by Anglo-Saxons, the cultural tendency to be slow to hate but then unleashing a power backlash still stands. This is regardless of the target. It’s the cultural tendency I’m highlighting.

  218. “But isn’t a nation the very foundation of which is treason always going to be in some sense illegitimate? It means that you have a nation based on naked power. If it was A-OK for the Founders to commit treason then surely logically it’s A-OK for someone else to come along and commit treason against that new nation. The principle has already been established that treason is fine and dandy as long as you win.”

    But Great Britain has released the colonies. In other-words, Great Britain, despite the treason, granted national identity to be an issue for the colonist to decide. The treason was never ok . . . by any legal or ethical standard. Even if one gets away with a crime does not make that criminal act or that violation any less a violation. In the case of Great Britain – US and the Southern and Northern Union. The parties reconciled. Now that reconciliation did come at a price for backs and reconstruction did not last enough or was never an effective solution. But repatriation came nonetheless.

    On the political question rebellion is always justified in the minds of the rebellious. Laugh. But in both cases the revolution and the civil war when examining the issues, in my view, based on the record — war was wholly irresponsible. Had Great Britain, not been so stretched militarily, they would have flattened the colonists regardless of the all important/vital French Aide.

    The colonials had one legitimate complaint — representation in Parliament.

    The South had hardly a smidgen to complain about – it was an emotional outburst of frustration and wholly wrong.

    ———————–

    The resurrection of memorobilia — we applaud the fathers because their gambit paid off and we have nation — we have reconciled with Great Britain – so celebrate the traitors to Great Britain because of what we gained. However, aside from Pres. Lincoln, the Britains don’t go around drinking a toast to Benjamin Franklin (at least it would be really strange). There are no monuments celebrating Richard Henry Lee. In Great Britain, the colonists are traitors. Time and space —

    In the US that the country celebrates traitors as part of the reconciliation. And they did so hastily and without consideration of 4 million others — a national disregard and sign of a systemic consideration about blacks. And that reconciliation included punishing black people for the carnage of the war — north south east and west — is hard to imagine. The US actually adopted practices, thinking rooted in the southern states as applicable to freed blacks. I cannot imagine anything more devastating to the psyche than open punishment and abuse for a dispute for which you are the victim but teat as though one is to blame. Codified into law, practice and belief — reconciliation on the backs of blacks.

    Exactly the establishment foundation for the country — so when someone says – the poor southerner treated so poorly, against the backdrop of slavery, treason, reconciliation and all that came with it — one wonders where are the statues of Mr. Nat Turner. (and given what was done to slave babies, children and pregnant women — bemoaning the death of children at Mr. Turners revolt is might trite.). If southern pride and independence is so valued — Nat Turner represents that tradition of southern pride. But Mr. Turner is not a heroic name in the south, neither is Mr. Frederick Douglas. Nor the first black professor who taught physics and engineering in 1884(?) or something similar the date and location escapes me. Te bottom line the country’s reconciliation punished the victims and restored the traitors.

    The issue now is that the victims have enough numbers have gained position enough to voice their views without the punishing consequences of the being “uppity” – well not as intensely as in the past. There are roughly 43 million backs in the US, if only 1/3 of the white population remains disposed to despise them as problems that is roughly 70 million people, nearly twice the number of voices and members of the society than the entire black population. With the added mild or moderate and clandestined support of another 60 million o so — that is a heck of an antagonistic mountain to overcome. That 4 million freed slaves could overturn the negative rhetoric of an entire nation 28 million —-

    So it made perfect practical sense for the blacks in the US to remain relatively silent on these questions when the more pressing matters of life abounded. In my view, that still be the case, because we have a long way o go in reconciling black white relations, I am unconvinced that memorobilia is a that important.

    But no the southern states are not engaged in reason, though they once did.

    The criminal who escapes prosecution and the US has an abundant record of those who engaged in crime as a way through the assimilation corridors to a better life. They go there by cheat and their children may reap the benefits as intended. But we honor people who who bring about positive change. Rarely for being criminals. But among families, there remains, in my opinion, and understanding that many a criminal are not intending to the same for their posterity. And I think we quietly honor that.

    Bad boy or girl makes good.

    Time and space – the nuance of the same. The argument here however is not really about that. It is whether they were wrong in the act or in violation of the doing
    they were based on the law.

  219. Gio Con says:

    These acts were far from being at the heart of democracy. When a small, unelected and unrepresentative group of people decide that they will unilaterally destroy public property without community consultation, you can call it vandalism, rebellion, hysteria, or whatever you want — just please do not torture the English language and call it democracy.

  220. It would be an error to consider my symbolic manipulation reference as a support for the “rebel flag”.

  221. 22pp22 says:

    You could read this anywhere in the MSM. Why have it clutter up Unz?

  222. @Really No Shit

    I don’t think I agree with you. China was not expansionist during this time. The British introduced Chinese tea to the British Empire, unfortunately this proved to be very popular and the British struggled to pay for it.
    The Chinese all through the ages have been self sufficient. They did not want any products from the British, except gold or silver. The British found the balance of trade unfavorable and used Opium to balance it.
    The rest, as they say, Is History.
    And Hong Kong was born due to the British opium trade.

  223. anon[325] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    @Miro23
    “The nearest you’ll probably get to the voice of ordinary people is the Daily Mail comments section – Britain’s most widely read daily with thousands of comments of every description.”

    Indeed. For those who don’t know, the Daily Mail ( and so presumably its bloggers ) is just about bang central ‘middle England’.

    BTW The Daily Mail is not the mostly widely read, that would be The Sun, but fair to say that it is nearest to ‘average Brit’.

  224. Miro23 says:
    @dfordoom

    Whether you’re erecting a statue to any political figure or tearing it down you’re committing a political act. It is propaganda. It is a way of telling your enemies that you now have the power and they have none.

    It makes no difference whether it’s a statue of Cromwell, Churchill, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Martin Luther King Jr or Lenin.

    Talking about George Washington. US society was unable to defend him (or the US flag) yesterday in Portland.

    Statue of George Washington Toppled and Draped in Burning US Flag in Portland

    If a society can’t stop this, then there’s no question that it’s reaching the end.

  225. Democratic progressives have now attacked a statue in Golden Gate park, San Francisco, that remembers Cervantes.

    One of you progtards explain why the eminent Spanish author of Don Quixote is now evil and must be cancelled. Let us all know when you’ll move on to burning books. Should be soon.

    Well?

  226. Erzberger says:
    @lysias

    “Myself, I regret that the South did not get its independence, because a United States without its South, while it would still have been a great power, would not have become a superpower.“

    Agreed. One reason why I object to the vandalizing of Robert Lee statues. He wrote: “ the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/08/acton-lee-conversation-liberty.html

    And here we are. Tens of millions slaughtered in the US and around the globe since the Civil War by the allegedly morally superior abolitionists, white and black

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.