Their Worst Hour
I guess everybody has already read about this. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they are obliterating Churchill, and with him, some of the most glorious days of British history. The article begins:
Britain's World War II prime minister Winston Churchill has been cut from a list of key historical figures recommended for teaching in English secondary schools, a government agency says.
The radical overhaul of the school curriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds is designed to bring secondary education up to date and allow teachers more flexibility in the subjects they teach, the Government said.
But although Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Joseph Stalin and Martin Luther King have also been dropped from the detailed guidance accompanying the curriculum, Sir Winston's exclusion is likely to leave traditionalists aghast.
A spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said the new curriculum, to be taught from September 2008, does not prescribe to teachers what they must include.
Read the whole article from ABC.
Thanks to Lawrence Auster for the tip.
posted by tiberge @ 6:01 PM
8 comments
links to this post
8 Comments:
And now, Sir Winston ! A few days ago, when I learnt about the ban decided against "Tintin au Congo", I wrote a comment to the bafweb ; I said that soon they would ban Shakespeare because Shylock pleads too well for the Jews, or because Othello is supposed to be "colored" and so can't be a jealous murderer....
Do you think that "small" people will obtain the banning of Swift ?
This is the result of a decade of Anthony Blair's reign. These are his people behind the changes: the Cool Britannia, New Labour crowd. It is irritating to see Blair described as a moral figure, a defender of Western Civ. because he backed Bush's ill-fated expedition in Iraq. Daily the American neo-con organs, from Krauthammer to Prager, from Kristol to the WSJ Op-Ed, gush about Blair and his steadfast support for the "war on terror." They do not know, cannot know, that the invasion of Iraq is based on a profoundly naive and liberal view of human nature and history, a view whose positive expression at home is the complete repudiation of all things particular to Europe or the USA or the West. I love the irony of Churchill being removed by the same men the neo-cons came close to comparing to Churchill. The Claremont Institue, a neo-con outfit I know very well from my Chicago days, takes it upon itself to bestow the "Churchill Leadership Award" to...Rumsfeld. Brilliant! Britain, France and America deserve everything they get. Hook, line and sinker - everything.
So who are the children going to learn about?
So who are the children going to learn about?
@ kahaneloyalist
I don't know. Sir Elton John perhaps?
I suppose British children will be taught to dislike and mistrust the men of the past. They will be taught that England did evil deeds: it was certainly imperialistic, it destroyed the culture of India as surely as Americans destroyed the Indians here, and so on... That is the new way of teaching history - repentance and guilt.
In the school system where I taught French for 30 years, the history teachers, to survive in the classroom, had to dumb down the lessons to the level of the kids, meaning they had to pander to the demands of the dominant ethnic minority (the whites had disappeared by 1972 - it had at one time been a totally integrated school); they had to adopt an Afro-centered "approach"; and they had to face potential uproar if they made any reference to the good America had done or to anything that sounded complimentary of white culture. They really walked on eggshells in their classes. Such a situation takes a terrible toll on the teacher and the kids turn out very poorly educated, but very cocky.
I suspect it's similar in Britain today. A great tragedy - because Britain was a beacon and a stronghold of tradition.
@ sebastian
One of the great lessons for me, since I've been reading the bloggers on the Internet (which is almost five years now), has been the realization of the true nature of the so-called neo-cons. I voted twice for Bush, though the second time it was with much trepidation. I used to rush to read NRO and David Horowitz. I still read them and I still admire Horowitz' crusade in the American universities, but they are, as you say, naive and self-deluded. This is in some ways worse than being out and out left-wing or socialist, because we are so easily fooled by the seemingly conservative point of view they espouse and by their opposition to the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, etc... I must admit that for a long time I was fooled. But the threat from Islam has forced their hand, and now some neo-cons are talking more and more like traditionalists.
It took a while for me to realize they are stubborn idealists, with no love or concern for the specific culture of America or those of Europe. They "had a dream" - democracy for everybody, immigration, multiculturalism, global economy, and so on. A dream that has become, predictably, a nightmare.
A neo-conservative writer named Mark Steyn, whom you may know, was awarded the Churchill prize for writing (or journalism - sorry, I don't recall the exact name of the award), an event roundly decried by Lawrence Auster (you may know him too).
tiberge, you are not alone. A lot of bone headed naive American stooges have been fooled by the Neo-Con Zionist rubbish. You will also in time come to realise that your support for the Zionist entity is misguided - because you support the entity that fundamentally finds European tradition abhorent.
@ hephaestos
I did not say neo-con Zionist rubbish. I just said neo-con, without the Zionist suffix many append to the word. I'm well aware that many neo-cons are Jewish, as I'm aware that some high-profile Jews in France have little or no interest in helping France maintain her identity - Arno Klarsfeld, for example, who should live in Israel, not in France.
But if I remain, in your eyes, a bone-headed stooge with regard to Israel it's because I see the defects in Israel today - multiculturalism, socialism, "openness", etc... as signs of a deviation from their true goal, which is to preserve and protect Jewish people and their heritage both from ancient anti-Semitism and those very modern multi-culti and morally relative forces that may soon destroy them. In other words, Israel, like France and other ancient European cultures, like America as well, has fallen victim to the destructive New Age trends. I would be much happier with a traditional Israeli government, and I'm sure most Israelis would too.
Insofar as Jewish socialists, neo-cons, intellectuals and media gurus, take advantage of Western weaknesses to force multi-culturalism and egalitarianism down the throats of populations they are guilty of deviating from the traditions of their host countries, they are placing their host countries in jeopardy and they need to be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. Unfortunately, the criticism usually comes from bone-headed Jew-haters. This has the immediate effect of arousing support for the multi-culturalist who comes across to the populations as hating nobody and loving everybody equally, and who wins the argument hands down. The Right-wing Jew-hater then gets relegated to a leper colony, even if some of his argument is valid and necessary for the well-being of the country, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen's political platform, which had many good points. So a proper return to a healthy politic is stymied by the fear of looking like an anti-Semite.
I cannot allow myself to get shredded in this machinery. It's too stupid. The right way is for all the ancient European cultures to proudly and without reservation proclaim their right to exist, to flourish, to stop or limit immigration to a tolerable level, to protect a limited number of non-European communities in their midst without granting special privileges, without affirmative action. In return, these communities have to acknowledge that there are limits to their sphere of influence. If they hate the host country, they should leave. If they defend those who would destroy the traditions of the host country, they must be held accountable for their acts. There may be perennial antagonism between Jews and Gentiles, but this is nothing new. What is new is the loss of dominant cultures, resulting in a weakening of resolve and an easy takeover by the worst elements among the minorities.
One point of this discussion has been that Bush is enthralled by the Jewish neo-cons, but if it started out that way, it is possible that a shift took place and they became enthralled by him, in their blind hatred of war critics. Some of these "infallible authorities" may be slowly waking up to the realization that they were on the wrong side of history and that the failings in their President are such that success in any enterprise is impossible (except of course massive immigration of Mexicans, and visits to mosques in his stocking feet - these are his successes.)
It was up to Bush to inform himself of the true nature of Islam, to read the Koran critically, and to stop all Muslims from entering the US. That's the least he could have done.
It's unlikely, though, that any neo-con will ever admit to having been self-deluded or enthralled. They will just become embittered that their scheme failed.
(Apologies for verbosity.)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home