New ‘American icons’

I’ve just read the list of “American Icons” whose statues will supposedly be erected in the proposed ‘Garden of American Heroes.’

It’s just as I imagined or expected: Political Correctness, Republican version. I knew instinctively that figures such as MLK would surely be there before anyone else. I would bet that he was the first chosen ‘icon’, for political reasons where some are concerned, and for sentimental reasons with those who really believe the aforesaid individual was a “Saint.” Many GOPers fall into the latter category.

Did anyone, anyone on the ‘right’ read the document dumps from the USG a while back? I remember on Steve Sailer’s blog, when those documents were discussed, someone naively asked “I wonder what the Left will think about these documents?” Answer: they will say nothing and think nothing: they close their eyes and their minds and “deny, deny, deny”, as Bill Clinton urged Democrats to do in general.

And it appears that the ‘right’ is practiced at denying, too, as MLK passes into the pantheon of American Heroes.

General Lee, of course, will not be an American icon; it appears most Southrons don’t meet the criteria. To think that a great Christian gentleman like General Lee or General Thomas Jackson were passed up for lesser men. The South should never have rejoined the Union.

Interestingly Trump’s version of American history and its handpicked ‘icons’ matches the ‘rainbow, diverse and inclusive’ vision put forth by ‘Q’. The Q patriots have a distorted picture of the War Between the States; they seem to have learned their history from the $PLC and Hollywood. They are supposedly researchers and ‘diggers’ who ferret out information but they need to ferret out some factual history. Instead they learn it from each other.

And yes, I know Trump is the best we are going to get, which makes me sad. Once we had lots of great men who were inspired leaders.
And some will think a little compromise with Political Correctness, a little more compromise with the race-hucksters is a small price to pay if we can all just ‘try to get along’ but that is precisely how we got to where we are now. This continuing compromising and accommodating will just turn the clock back a tiny bit if we try it. But we are still on the same path, going the same direction, and we will end up just as boxed-in as we are now. Even more so, as demographics inexorably change.

I honestly wish I felt more optimistic as we just celebrated (!) our independence but there it is.

Is there an unbiased source anywhere?

As the world continues to get crazier, the latest thing I am reading is that there is some kind of building controversy going on about the Rotherham crimes: several people commenting have said that the authorities in the UK are denying that ‘Asians’ are the prime perpetrators of the crimes.

For years now it’s been frustrating to watch many Americans in particular get angry that the term ‘Asian’ is applied to Pakistanis in Britain. I have never understood why this angers a lot of people. And now the prosecutor in the Rotherham cases denies that ‘Asians’ or Pakistanis have been the perpetrators in Rotherham or in a number of other Midlands towns and elsewhere. Nazir Afzal here says that White men have been responsible for a lot of the cases and he denies there is a religious connection to the crimes. Islam has nothing to do with it. So he says, even though some who are knowledgeable about Islam would say otherwise.

It seems to me that he will not admit that he is biased in favor of those he identifies with, but no person ‘of color’ ever gets accused of bias or prejudice; only us.

Meantime, a number of silly Americans are getting upset because they think the term ‘Asian’ should be reserved only for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, apparently.

But look at a globe or an Atlas. On which continent are Pakistan and India and Bangladesh? Africa? South America? Europe? Am I getting warm?

Years ago I was interviewed by an apparent Subcontinental. The issue of race came up and he pronounced himself to be ‘Asian.’ Then he specified he was ‘an Indo-Dravidian’. Was he wrong to say he was Asian? Are Dravidians also excluded from the club called ‘Asian’? According to most Americans, I guess the answer is yes. Only Northeast Asians are real Asians, it seems. And I can only guess that Americans, being partial to that group, are very protective of their image and want to reserve the name ‘Asian’ only for them.

Asia is a huge continent, including much of what was once the USSR. It includes a multitude of peoples, people with whom most of us are not personally familiar.

But Pakistanis originate in Asia. We all learned that in elementary geography classes, did we not? Also, most of the people we think of as Middle Eastern are also from the larger Asian continent. Israel is in Asia.

Another issue that frequently crops up is the assertion that Moslems are not a race. Well, that’s strictly speaking, true. H o w e v e r, those who are in our countries, though theoretically they could be from anywyhere, are in fact of Middle Eastern or South Asian ancestry most often. This means Asia.

In the UK it seems they are most often South Asian. So the term ‘Asian’ is not incorrect. And I know it’s pointless for me to write this, as the same things will be said again and again regardless.

The fact that most of our derelict schools stopped bothering to teach geography has not helped.

The ‘Asian-Not-Asian’ quarrel is sort of a side issue, but I just don’t understand why it is such an important thing for some people.

And it seems that on many of the blogs where this issue is being discussed, attacking Christianity is the priority for most of the people. Do these people represent the dominant group, since they seem to be everywhere? Or are they astroturf, shills?

Why are so many ‘intellectuals’ on the right obsessed with blaming Christianity and Christians for these situations? Why must they conflate the Christian faith with what they call the ‘alien desert religion?’ The tiresome fact that they do so only shows that they know nothing of Christianity nor of the meaning of certain Biblical passages — which they misquote and misunderstand.

Hence my question at the top of this piece: where are the people out there who don’t have a huge bias against Christianity, or against the British? It’s getting very depressing reading this stuff on so many blogs. But maybe that’s the whole purpose and point of it: to demoralize. And that itself says that the people behind this barrage of bias are not on our side.