Ed – This is Part two of a series by Richard Stone. Part One of White guilt, Cultural Marxism and public monuments can be found here
So what has all this got to do with White Guilt? Quite simply the whole idea that white people should feel some sort of collective guilt for current and past misdeeds, should be exposed as a Marxist construct along the lines of the self-incriminating question, ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ If guilt is expressed or projected, then a modern day appraisal of a historical circumstance is being made. The inference undermines the legitimacy of the accused’s cultural heritage, and with that comes an attack on their civilisation.
When reporting terrorist atrocities, TV newscasters will often imply ‘that we are all guilty’ when ‘objectively’ describing the terrible path that takes a teenage migrant from a football loving freeloader to a drugged up assassin. We are invited into the world of the poor, isolated young man. We learn from his relatives and neighbours that he was just like anyone else… just like us… We are invited to wonder what could make him kill the victims previously similarly described by the same hand-wringing TV journalists. There is equivalence between victim and perpetrator suggested here – which I would suggest is part of a coordinated and sophisticated attempt to make indigenous Westerners feel somehow responsible for the poor behaviour of visitors from other cultures, and somehow accepting of their apparent inability to play by the same rules.
This media manipulation is dangerous. Ask the Swedes and the Germans. Visitors can become invaders at worst or the tools of a Globalist elite at best. Any attempt to de-legitimise debate or criticism relating to the interaction between these newcomers and established populations should be regarded in a hostile light. If those people and organisations preventing a measured and rational debate regarding the discussion of these issues are our political, journalistic and broadcasting elite, then these people might be regarded as hostile, and the guilt that they infer upon the rest of us interpreted as either the misplaced guilt that they feel themselves, or an asymmetrical weapon of thought control. There appears to be a political consensus, particularly from the Left, that these issues are too inflammatory to be talked about in open forum. Not only because it offends the perpetrators and indeed their own delicate sensibilities, but because once such discussion becomes mainstream it will become overtly politically important, and their deception will have been exposed.
Now that this current spate of virtue signalling monument abuse has crossed the Atlantic and is threatening our own Lord Nelson, the pundits of the Right have been called into service and Sir Max Hastings eloquently refutes the attack in the Mail. ‘What silly nonsense – Nelson’s towering virtues dwarf his vices.’ Max Hastings for the Daily Mail. 24 August 2017. Sir Max is right, but his reasoning may be too elegantly nuanced for many busy readers, and in taking up an opposing position, he frames the ‘argument’ perfectly for the photogenic Left. An argument that has been lovingly put forward by one trendily metropolitan ex-barrister, ex-Guardian correspondent and ex- Sky News editor, Afua Hirsch. This is a propaganda war, and we should not be fooled into striking artificial attitudes by either side of the argument, nor let today’s politicians nor journalists stand between historians and common sense in directing our thoughts and opinions.
Max makes the point that Nelson’s monument was raised by public subscription at the time of his death – and it is a consideration that many of the Confederate monuments may, in their own way, be revisionist, in having been put up after the event ‘for all the wrong reasons.’ This latter point does not detract from the fact that General Lee is to be found in most serious military historian’s lists of the greatest generals of all time, along with Rommel and Napoleon. Leaving the record of a worthy adversary’s achievements in peace is a mark of respect, not necessarily of approval. It is one of the signatures of our great and enduring civilisation. The public’s verdicts on monuments shift with the sands of time and as such, much like polls, monuments and inscriptions have been appropriated and warped by would be social engineers as tools to influence public opinion – not reflect it.
White Guilt is a significant lever in toppling great leaders of the past, totems of the settled historical viewpoints that underpin our society and so irritate the Cultural Marxists. These attacks are really directed towards us, a general population who are forced to watch and debate as the puppet/pundits ‘think the unthinkable’ and waste our time with malicious conjecture. We should assiduously watch and debate while endeavouring to keep one foot firmly in the past. Whatever commentators such as Afua and her trendy friends at the Guardian would have us believe and say in reaction to their noisy victimhood.
There is a statue that stands on the upper concourse of St Pancras station – fully visible to people as they alight from Eurostar, much as the Statue of Liberty must have impressed the huddled masses as they entered New York. It reminds me of the sort of thing that can be seen in squares in Moscow. Modelled on the British sculptor’s relationship with his French wife ‘The Meeting Place’ or ‘The St Pancras Lovers’ – all 30 feet of it- ‘celebrates’ the relationship between us and our Gallic neighbours in a suitably heroic scale. I wonder sometimes whether we would be better off replacing it with the diminutive statue of John Betjeman, which shares the concourse, but at ground level and some way along from the brooding colossi.
Perhaps the Cultural Marxists might be able to find a place for these amorous colossi in one of their schools or museums, where we put away the curiosities of our times, for future generations to consider with interest and gentle amusement. I would base my argument for the removal of this ‘crap art’ on nothing more than good taste- and suggest that in the future we consider the artistic merit of such objects of contention and prioritise good art over student activism.