A remembrance: Goliad

Yesterday was the anniversary, as Texans will know, of an event in 1836 known as the Goliad Massacre. On March 27, which happened to be Palm Sunday that year, 357 men, Texans, were prisoners of the Mexicans. You can find a detailed account at the link, but making a long story short the men, under Colonel Fannin, had surrendered and had been promised humane treatment as prisoners by their Mexican captors. The agreement was not kept, and the captive Texans were dealt with treacherously. The Mexicans slaughtered 330 of the 357 Texans.

From one of the survivors, Dillard Cooper, his account of events that morning:

“Our detachment was marched out in double file, each prisoner being guarded by two soldiers, until within about half a mile southwest of the fort, we arrived at a brush fence, built by the Mexicans. We were then placed in single file, and were half way between the guard and the fence, eight feet each way. We were then halted, when the commanding officer came up to the head of the line, and asked if there were any of us who understood Spanish. By this time, there began to dawn upon the minds of us, the truth, that we were to be butchered, and that, I suppose, was the reason that none answered. He then ordered us to turn our backs to the guards. When the order was given not one moved, and then the officer, stepping up to the man at, the head of the column, took him by the shoulders and turned him around.

By this time, despair had seized upon our poor boys, and several of them cried out for mercy. I remember one, a young man, who had been noted for his piety, but who had afterwards become somewhat demoralized by bad company, falling on his knees, crying aloud to God for mercy, and forgiveness. Others, attempted to plead with their inhuman captors, but their pleadings were in vain, for on their faces no gleam of piety was seen for the defenseless men who stood before them. On my right hand, stood Wilson Simpson, and on my left, Robert Fenner. In the midst of the panic of terror which seized our men, and while some of them were rending the air with their cries of agonized despair, Fenner called out to them, saying: “Don’t take on so, boys; if we have to die, let’s die like brave men.”

[The above narrative is no longer online; it was originally from a Texas A&M website. Maybe it is too politically incorrect.] – VA

Every Texas schoolchild used to be taught about this event and of course the well-known defense of the Alamo. There was a sense of pride — healthy pride, righteous pride, in our forefathers and their obvious bravery. Are there such men nowadays? I won’t say there aren’t; there must surely be a few, but given our demoralized condition we just don’t see or hear from those who would be the counterparts of the men at the Alamo or at Goliad, who, though they ‘lost’ showed real courage and dignity.

And from the Texan perspective, the terrible bloodshed at Goliad perhaps led to the subsequent victory at the Battle of San Jacinto, where the Texans won decisively, with “Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!” being the battle cries that day. And ultimately Texas won its independence.

Fast forward to 2020. If our forefathers of that era saw what has become of the Texas they defended, fought and died for — would they do it all again?

The world has changed; we are a demoralized people; interest in the past, and in the history and culture of our folk is waning. Political correctness wants us to feel guilt, if we feel anything at all about our collective history as a people. I’ve asked rhetorically many times: are we our fathers’ children? Are we made of the same ‘stuff’ as those men who ‘died like men’ at Goliad and the Alamo?

Or does it even matter? “Everyone” online, I mean the consensus on the ”right” is that ‘America is dead’ , and what’s more, there is a DNR order; ‘she’ is not to be kept alive. We, some of us the heirs of the old Texas Republic have moved on and we live in this Brave New World/1984 scenario.

But somehow I think it’s vital for a people to maintain a connection with their roots, their heritage, their way of life, and most of all to be connected with our folk. And part of that is to have a history that binds us, a history reminding us of our origins and our forefathers and their deeds. Is it too late for that? Sadly, it may be. But we can surely take time to honor our forefathers in some way by remembering their sacrifices and their courage. Cynicism can only lead to a withering away of all the positive and healthy emotions, without which a folk can’t thrive.

Living with uncertainty

It seems that many people, living through this strange time of pandemic illness — accompanied by a lot of confusion over conflicting narratives and stories — feel uneasy. I’ve used the word ‘surreal’ to describe the situation, and others besides myself have used that word to describe the feeling many of us are experiencing.

I don’t know how the strange situation is affecting those who read this blog; I can only guess or wonder. But it seems most of the bloggers and internet pundits have opted for the ”we’re doomed” approach. Some of the blogs I read regularly are becoming unbearable. It’s becoming too much to read the stark pronouncements from some bloggers who are determined to infect us with their deep pessimism. Or is it pessimism? Some people seem very excited at the prospect of the long-expected economic collapse and the possibility of mass deaths.

The bloggers who seem the most level-headed and trustworthy are those like Al Fin and a few others who have not got caught up in the apocalyptic scenario. Al Fin also is good at marshalling facts to support his opinions or prognostications. Some of the others have little to back up their assertions except emotion and hype. And yet it seems as if the latter group are the ones who are dominating the coverage and getting the most attention.

Certainly I take the virus seriously, but it seems to me as if the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-19 was deadly as we are told, but yet the people did not resort to shutting down society in order to try to avoid the disease. Their approach of isolation and common sense care seemed to work well enough with the least disruption to people’s lives and psyches. This confinement of everyone will probably prove to take a toll on morale and emotional well-being — not to mention the economic devastation that’s being done now.

I also read that the H1N1 or ‘Swine Flu’ epidemic of the last decade actually claimed more victims, though it was not hyped as much by the sensationalizing media. And yet we survived it. But then most of the ”mainstream media” (read: luegenpresse) deny this — because President Trump said something similar, so they must try to discredit him.

So what is different about this plague, that it calls for much more draconian measures to keep it under control? The difference is that the media is spreading panic and unease, and most bloggers and ‘experts’ are betting on the gloom-and-doom, encouraging the law-of-the-jungle, everybody-for-himself attitude.

It seems unlikely that people will acquire needed perspective anytime soon.

Faith is what I am counting on to carry me through; Christians know these things are to happen, but we don’t know the timing or the way in which it will all play out. This came as no surprise to those of us who are Christians. I can only guess at what it all looks like from a nonbeliever’s perspective; I suspect that the popularity of the gloom-and-doom school of punditry is an indicator of how far we have gone away from the Christian faith, the faith of our fathers.

As to what Christians believe will happen, we are not taught that we will all die in one massive plague. That is not what is written, and so far the Christian belief system has a better idea of what is to come than those who are just wildly guessing, or even wishing, for one big apocalyptic event to wipe out the human race. More people seem to imagine — or wish — for some kind of climate disaster to finish off the human race.

God is forgotten today in favor of pundits and ‘journalists’ guessing wildly about what will happen tomorrow. For most people this is a godless universe and we are a blundering bunch of simian descendants who are destroying our once-pristine planet. Reality is not as crude or ugly as that.

Things are not happening randomly; there is a plan and an order to the universe. For some reason I am reminded of a quote that was repeated by none other than George W. Bush back in 2000 or so. Incidentally I was sorely displeased with both Bush presidents, just for the record. But the phrase Bush quoted was

“Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?”

The phrase appeared in correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Page back in July, 1776. But neither of those men wrote or originated the phrase; if memory serves it was written by English playwright and essayist Joseph Addison, who was a Christian.

Men of that age, living in Christendom, rather than our 21st century Tower of Babel, had some comfort of believing that there was a God on high who was sovereign, rather than believing in a chaotic, unpredictable universe which we only pretend to understand.

Rather than succumb to the despair and fear of living in that kind of universe, people must have hope; people can only take so much of the uncertainty and fear of not knowing whether their lives will end suddenly or whether they will somehow accidentally be spared. It is hard to go on in a betwixt-and-between kind of existence, between hope and despair.

It seems despair and cynicism, plus selfishness, are winning out. This is not what we are destined for. We have to salvage some hope and positivity if we are to go on. And the people who spread the despair and fear are doing great harm to our spirits and our psyches. We are not just bodies; we are spirit, soul, and body, in one. We are not automatons, though we are often treated as such.

Thank heavens for writers like Cambria Will Not Yield, and anyone who speaks truth in this Age of the Lie. Another worthy blogger is Gerry Neal at Throne Altar Liberty, who wrote a good piece about our current situation.

Panic buying, food shortages

Al Fin at his blog discusses why shelves are empty in many grocery stores. I’ve honestly wondered about this: are we really short of needed food supplies and other items? Things are becoming scarce in many places and that itself seems to inspire more fear and compulsive buying. I think Al Fin’s post sheds some light on what is happening.

He does mention the role of the media in creating the mindset that causes the public to panic:

Unfortunately, too much of western news media is constantly focused on creating anxiety, uncertainty, and fear. There are underlying political reasons why the managing interests of media outlets attempt to manipulate the emotions of those who consume their product. The brighter persons in the population learn to tune the media out as much as possible. The alternative is to live in a state of chronic anxiety.


The Moonbattery blog ran this piece the other day, and somehow the line of thought seems strangely familiar:

Are the left and the former alt-“right” conferring on these talking points? Who originated them, the left or the right? It seems to me that a lot of people on the right are cheering this kind of ”badass” thinking to strike a pose — or to follow some popular figure who trades on that kind of image.

Still here

Sorry I have been absent for a while. Health issues (no, not the Corona virus, thank God) and then a major computer crash, and a lot of time getting things back in order.

Then, very oddly I thought, I couldn’t access the blog; my access to just about everything on the Internet was thwarted and I could not log in anywhere. I started wondering if the ‘Social Credit system’ which was devised in China recently had been put in place and I was one of the ‘bad citizens’ to lose Internet privileges.

Eventually, well obviously I was able to get into my blogs and for now I can post. It is a very weird feeling to be prevented from accessing a lot of web sites and blogs that I habitually visit. I wonder if anyone else out there has had this happen, or was I just the lucky one?

As far as life in this surreal epidemic atmosphere, where I live, we are having food shortages in the local grocery stores and the shelves are picked clean in places like pharmacies and other retailers. It seems there is hoarding going on. That is a little worrying, but in general I am not panicking but warily and skeptically watching what is going on.

Incidentally, for a good take on the Coronavirus panic, read Pastor Bret’s post from the Iron Ink blog. Hist thoughts are similar to mine but with some additional food for thought.

If youth are the future

What can we expect from this kind of thinking?:

[The above was posted on ‘social media’ frequented by young (13 and up) participants.]

There was more to the post, and as of the time I looked at it last, the post had garnered thousands of responses including many re-blogs. The majority of the responses I read were favorable to the idea.

And yet I read online from a lot of people that the younger generations will fix everything; they’re very right-wing (the so-called zoomers that some see as the Hope of the Future.

Has everyone already forgotten the flurry of stories a while back about how ‘cannibalism’ might be the wave of the future? Those stories seemed to disappear but now the young (the same ones who are feminist, climate-change obsessives, antifa, etc.) think it’s a good idea. After all, as the OP says, ”It’s from Rousseau ”, as if Rousseau were somebody worth emulating. I suppose in those institutions we call ‘schools’ and universities, they are taught that Rousseau is a kind of demigod. But Rousseau, with his ‘noble savagery’ and his amorality (numerous illegitimate children, deposited in orphanages as soon as they were born) — actually I can see how the young would like Rousseau, given their own morality. Maybe Rousseau was actually morally superior as he left his unwanted offspring in a place where they were cared for in some way, and they were allowed to live.

But honestly, does it not trouble anyone out there that these young people think eating the rich a good or praiseworthy idea?? Sometimes I feel alone in my shock or concern about these kinds of things.

And do the unthinking young people not realize that to much of the world, they too are part of that evil rich class, those they propose to put into a cooking-pot? To much of the world, we, all of us Westerners, are ‘the rich’.

And have none of these young ever learned that eating fellow humans is, and has been, against the moral code of Western Civilization? Have they never absorbed even an iota of Christian morality? Well, I suppose the schools, the government with their no-tolerance policy for Christianity, and the media — plus godless parents, have all acted to seal these young people off from all that’s good and from the eternal verities.

Someone will tell me it isn’t that bad, but if there really are other young people who are as virtuous as the perennial optimists say, where are their voices? And a relative few that might exist are not enough to nullify the presence of the thousands that agreed with Rousseau and the ‘eat the rich’ idea.

The state of politics

Sadly, this is the state of politics even in Texas.

N.B: the comment above is not mine but from the person who re-blogged it.

What further can be said about the above example of what is very common behavior from those on the left, or those who style themselves ”liberal”. What is ”liberal’‘ about wishing death on ‘everyone’ who votes the ”wrong way” in the skewed judgment of these people?

It is a good thing that the Museum’s Board of Directors are having a meeting to discuss this person’s ”future” with the museum. There should not be a future at the museum, in my opinion, for someone so venomous, so lacking in control, so unable to confine her merciless idea of politics to her personal life. Like so many of her generation (not a boomer) she has no sense of boundaries, or of being professional and responsible in her working life. Her behavior shows extreme immaturity. But as most of her peers or superiors likely share her political biases (unless they are older and wiser) she will probably get a slap on the wrist and a half-hearted lecture before going back to work as before.

Texas isn’t what it used to be and it seems the same almost everywhere. If Texas, once a solid, common-sense place, is like this, what hope for the rest of the country.

A sad and vexing state of affairs in this country.

Then and now

In trying to get some perspective on this Covid threat, I’ve been looking at what happened with the so-called Spanish Flu from 1918. It seems that epidemic is the one most often likened to the current event, with all its confusion on rates of infection and numbers of casualties.

As it appears, there isn’t even much certainty about how many people in total died from the 1918 flu. I’ve seen a wide range of estimates, from 50 million to 100 million. That’s a lot of variation, a lot of uncertainty and guesstimating, it seems. I don’t think that in those times a precise number could be calculated, given that there were so many isolated corners of the world, in that (blessed) day before globalism and the ”small world” of today. In 1918 people could still isolate themselves, unlike today in which cheap, easy, frequent, and often needless world travel is rife, and widespread disease is an often unacknowledged result.

The BBC has an interesting article about how the 1918 flu was far from universal in its reach; there were actually towns, schools, or islands with populations who escaped the illness altogether.

How did they do it? The obvious way. They practiced what they called ‘Protective Sequestration’, which is just a more pleasant way of saying ”quarantine”. Compare today’s careless habits, with reports of ‘quarantine breakers’, infected or possibly infected people who refuse to isolate themselves, choosing to go out and share their germs with all and sundry — with few consequences, it seems. Back in 1918 people were more responsible and less selfish. Today it seems it’s all about ‘me’ — or me, myself, and I, and to those with this mindset, nobody has any right to ask an ill and contagious person to stay at home and refrain from infecting others. And too many people in authority seem willing to impose penalties on those breaking quarantine and acting like Typhoid Mary.

The Spanish flu did not spread uniformly; some communities, not many, escaped the epidemic, but some places were depopulated, as in some Alaskan villages of mostly Alaskan Natives. That group seemed especially susceptible to severe infection in the flu epidemic, apparently due to lack of antibodies from previous epidemics of similar flus.

The BBC article, though interesting and informative in its facts, still stays true to its political ideology, as the article tells us that isolation saved lives, and that widespread travel carries diseasse (of course it does; do we need to be told?) — but then the BBC article reminds us that we live in the small world, the global village they tell us about, and that we can’t just up and close borders or close off our towns or villages. It would disrupt too much. So, implicitly they are saying we must leave ourselves open to whatever diseases and epidemics for the sake of Openness and One-Worldism. I find this attitude too fatalistic to be acceptable, but yet it is a common attitude.

One thing I find puzzling: the older generations of both sides of my family always had stories about the Big Events of the past, whether first-hand of second-hand from parents or grandparents. In the days before TV and movies and even before radio, storytelling was the big pastime of an evening, and people usually had true-life stories to tell, and they had long (and accurate) memories.

Neither side of my family had any stories about the 1918 flu, and nobody, even in my large extended family was said to have died of the flu. There were no dramatic stories, as in movies or TV series about WWI, of anyone dropping dead on a crowded street from the flu. As far as I know nobody on either side contracted the 1918 flu. Maybe it helped that, on my paternal side, most people were robust and hardy, and lived mostly in rural areas, far from the overcrowded cities which usually harbor the diseases.

Meanwhile in the area where I live, there have been some cases a couple of counties away (lots of immigrants there, many recently back from their regular visits to their homeland) and many people are starting to hoard, emptying grocery store shelves of necessary items. That doesn’t bode well, if people start hoarding and scarcities are created. I think there is some profiteering going on, and some people may suffer because of the inability to get what they need. It probably wasn’t like this in my grandparents’ time.

Is this epidemic being over-hyped? I think there are too few hard facts known for certain. It’s not possible to say. But it’s not something we should take lightly.

I may be thinking wishfully, because of my own vulnerability to this threat; But we can hope and pray that this will not be the mega-disaster some seem to believe.

Oddly it seems as though some people want this to be The Big One. Why? I can’t explain that mentality; it’s foreign to me. I hope that we all come through this safely and none the worse for it. And it would help if it seemed that somebody in authority made the correct choices as to how to deal with it.

‘Psychology of revolution’ doesn’t change

Over a century ago, the French thinker Gustave Le Bon wrote a book called The Psychology of Revolution. It’s stunning how little the mentality of the world’s ‘revolutionary’ ideologues has changed since 1913. But then they never learn anything from the real world.

In my recent post on the other blog, I wrote a rather hurried question about the viability of ”democracy” in today’s world, and I had been thinking about all these issues which Le Bon addresses in his book. There are reasons why the French revolutionary ideals still linger on, despite their having been discredited by reality time and time again. And let’s be honest, the three ‘pillars’ of the French revolution have succeeded in infecting much of our own political discourse and thought, especially that political Idol of the American people, ”equality”. That, and the magic word, ”democracy.”

Of the ‘three pillars’, Liberty used to be the most often mentioned, and it too is a favored shibboleth of Americans, although its presence in our society these days is dwindling. Back during the early days of the Iraq war, at least among those of us who opposed that war, the idea of ‘democracy’ being the goal for Iraq and for the world, actually — many sane people pointed out that the people in far-flung countries may not have the same conception of ‘liberty’ or ‘democracy’ than we, here in the U.S.A. If it comes to that, even our different generations have different notions of what those idealistic words mean. For a lot of people, ‘liberty’ means ‘license’. Libertarians have their own ideas of what it means, and their definition does not always jibe with that of the Founding generation, much less the ‘Framers’ of our system.

It’s obvious to people with the ability to discern that Thomas Jefferson and the designers of our system stating ”all men are created equal’ meant ‘equal before the Law‘, not that all are born with equal capacities, character, and physical abilities. But the manipulative members of the ”leadership” class insist on presenting it that way as a lure for the simple-minded. Le Bon, in his book, points out this flexible and tricky interpretation of those key words and ideas as an obvious problem. He points to the idiosyncratic definitions:

Le Bon says ‘to the young modern “intellectual” [I like the scare quotes around the word intellectual there] it means only ‘a general release from everything irksome: tradition, law, superiority, &c. To the modern Jacobin liberty consists especially in the right to persecute his adversaries.

Is that statement ever true today. The left do consider that they have not only a right but a duty to persecute those who disagree with them, even only tacitly.

Liberty is sometimes still invoked in political orators’ speeches but according to Le Bon (and I agree) they generally don’t mention ‘fraternity’ anymore.

“It is the conflict of the different classes and not their alliance that they teach today. Never did a more profound hatred divide the various strata of society and the political parties which lead them.’

Yes, and again, we follow in the same pathway, the same pattern. There is profound hatred in this country not only of the 21st century Jacobins vs. the rest of us, but of various other groups whose members clash: the North vs. the South, the urban vs. the rural, men vs. women and vice-versa, and then there is that small matter of ”ethnic group vs. ethnic group’, to use the literal translation of the Bible’s words.

So liberty is in ever shorter supply, as our First and Second Amendment rights are under attack, not to mention our Fourth Amendment rights having been destroyed. The ‘revolutionary mentality’ mob don’t even promise greater liberty or freedom, nor does anybody else.

Liberty is not looking so healthy and Fraternity is all but gone, as it’s all against all. And with ‘equality’ being the last survivor of that trio of ‘principles’, there’s more demand than ever for equality — the thing which is not naturally present in this world. Of this insistent demand, Le Bon says:

This craving is so powerful that it is spreading in all directions, though in contradiction with all biological laws. It is a new phase of the interrupted struggle of the sentiments against reason, in which reason so rarely triumphs.’

Le Bon describes how an idea like democracy or equality has different meanings to different men, and that when an idea like this is transmitted from one cultural context (a people, for example) to another it undergoes transformations. The same thing affects religious beliefs, according to Le Bon, when they pass from one people to another.

“Unhappily the democracy of the “intellectuals” would simply lead to the substitution of the Divine right of kings by the Divine right of a petty oligarchy, which is too often narrow and tyrannical. Liberty cannot be created by replacing a tyranny.”

Le Bon writes of the natural differences which are inevitably in conflict with the popular ideas of ‘equality’.

‘The democratic ideas which have so often shaken the world from the heroic ages of Greece to modern times are always clashing with natural inequalities. Some observers have held, with Helvetius, thato the inequality between men is created by education.

As a matter of fact, Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigour, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.

No theory can alter these discrepancies, so that democratic doctrines will remain confined to words until the laws of heredity consent to unify the capacities of men.”

Le Bon then suggests that the usual result of trying to bring about intellectual equality is ‘the creation of an intellectual aristocracy’ — to the dismay of the would-be levellers, because their desire is not to raise anyone up, but to ”beat down the superior elements of society to the level of the inferior elements.” Which is what we have seen happening, not inadvertently, but by design in Western countries.

Is the CBC guilty of hate speech?

The Students for Western Civilization are charging the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with hate speech. Watch the video at the Council of European Canadians blog.

The second comment on the video provides a relevant quote from some Communist official, advising party members to label ‘obstructionists’ with names like fascist, etc., with the expectation that the public would soon accept these detrimental labels as being accurate. It seems as though they have followed that plan closely and the public accept that the people being so labeled are in fact being classified as bad people, as enemies of all that is good.

I think it’s good for this to be contested, and not to let the left and their media lackeys go on destroying people’s character and reputation by means of their condemnatory labels.