NOTE: I originally posted this a few months ago but, with the talk of Martin Luther King, I felt it was worth posting again.

The history that we teach students today is deliberately depersonalized and, when personalities must be mentioned, it is mostly in the interests of knocking them down a peg or two. George Washington owned slaves, Thomas Jefferson had sex with them, Abraham Lincoln was a racist who wanted to send them back to Africa, etc. It is more than just an effort to avoid the “great man” theory of history. Rather, it is a conscious attempt to demythologize our greatest leaders, to rob them of their rightful place in history, and to shake the faith of young Americans in their country and themselves. Almost no figure is immune to these smears. Almost.

Now, let’s set something straight. This isn’t a racist article, far from it. As those of you who have seen the pictures of me floating about the internet know, I am ‘non-white’ (or, rather, half-white, a product of miscegenation). But I think it’s time to take on the Holy Trinity of secular heroes of the left: ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

While figures like Robert E. Lee and Winston Churchill get gradually written out of history, in favor of broader, less personal history which, typically, will focus on the ‘plight of women and minorities’ at the minor cost of omitting tiny details like the Battle of Gettysburg from the study of the Civil War, these new heroes are raised up and mythologized to take their place. It isn’t that the left hates the ‘great man’ theory, they simply prefer other men.

Some might identify ‘non-violence’ as the primary connection between these men. This is far from the truth. As history shows all of them were, either through action or inaction, willing to condone violence to achieve their aims and that all of them, to some degree, aligned themselves with evil powers to achieve their ends. The primary connecting factor here is moral turpitude passed off as virtue.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi, the celebrated ‘pacifist’ and leader of the movement for Indian independence, was a sex pervert who declared that the proper response to the Holocaust would have been for European Jews to commit mass suicide as a form of protest (how violence to the self aligns with the principles of non-violence and what exactly the response to this of the rest of the world, given that they would also theoretically be constrained by the same principles, was not explained.

Let me go back for a moment. I did, after all, just refer to the revered Gandhi as a “sex pervert.” In his seventies, Gandhi slept in the nude with teenaged and pre-pubescent girls, supposedly as a way of testing his “ability to resist temptation”. He also would administer enemas to them and have enemas administered to him on a daily basis. He was utterly obsessed with bodily functions, even to the point of drinking his own urine, which he believed had healthful effects.

Eventually, Gandhi’s inept leadership of the independence movement would lead to post-independence massacres in India in which an upwards of four million were hacked to death by crazed mobs. Some legacy. Some hero.

We often hear the J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI denounced for investigating Martin Luther King during the 1960’s. Before such denunciations are made, we ought to ask a question: just what did they find?

Martin Luther King, that supposed paragon of Christian virtue, had numerous affairs with married women. This has been admitted to by, among others, Ralph Abernathy, King’s principle deputy at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

The SCLC and King also had numerous connections with the Communist Party. Several of his chief aides, such as Stanley D. Levison and Jack O'Dell were former members of the party. Levinson, despite formally leaving the CPUSA, continued to donate money to it.

Towards the end of his life, King crossed the line from being a mere civil rights leader to become one of the principle spokesmen of the treasonous forces which, ultimately, stabbed the morally decent Americans who supported the Republic’s worthy cause in Vietnam and set in motion events which would mean the genocide of millions and a denial of freedom in Indochina foe what has now been more than a quarter of a century.

In a speech in 1967 he called the United States the, “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” and spoke glowingly of how, “shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before.” His agitation took on an increasingly communistic tone, with him calling for a, “radical revolution of values.” And, quite certainly, the revolution of values he had in mind wasn’t of the sort that Ronald Reagan had. Especially not when he was saying that the, “edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring”, essentially calling for the overthrow of capitalism.

Finally, there is Nelson Mandela, the living icon of the international left. A few years ago, Canadian MP Rob Anders caused an uproar when he objected to a motion in Parliament to pass, by unanimous consent, a bill giving Mandela honorary Canadian citizenship. Anders later said he objected because Mandela was a “communist and a terrorist.” He later apologized for his comments. He ought not to have.

Mandela was, in fact, both things. He wrote a manuscript entitled How to be a Good Communist and his party, the African National Congress, has close links with the South African Communist Party. ANC members, to this day, address eachother as ‘comrade’. This, naturally, is never mentioned in adulatory accounts of his life.

Similarly, although Mandela is well-known for being a ‘political prisoner’, it is, in fact, true that he, “participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence.” This led Amnesty International to declare, in 1985, that Mandela was not, in fact, a political prisoner.

So why, then, is their all of this admiration for these men? For men who slept with little girls, cheated on their wives, plotted the murder of others, refused to resist Nazis, sympathized with communists, and actually were communists? The answer is two-fold. First, they fought against the West. The modern establishment, as we all know, hates Western civilization and everything it stands for. That is why they insanely try to tell us that trash written by Third-Worlders, such as the fabricated “Autobiography” of Rigoberta Menchu is the equal of the works of Shakespeare. Second, they understand a fundamental need for heroes and, to this end, they had to find someone to put in place of all of the dead white guys who people used to admire. They couldn’t bear the thought of replacing these dead white guys with some more ‘stupid white men’ (as gasbag forger Michael Moore might call them) so they canonized some ‘stupid non-white men’ instead.

It’s time that we teach children to admire people who fought our enemies, rather than people who sympathized with them. Martin Luther King may well have done worthy work in the field of Civil Rights, but that does not disguise or excuse his treason over the issue of Vietnam. It is possible that Gandhi did a good thing in working for Indian Independence, but that does not excuse the bloodshed he brought about or his refusal to confront real evil.

Let’s have real heroes again. Men with names like Lincoln, Churchill, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jackson, Hamilton, MacArthur, Roosevelt, Patton, Grant, Sherman, and Lee. Let us celebrate the guardians and defenders of our great civilization once more.