George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Winston Churchill. These are prominent, highly-regarded icons of history. But now they are getting "cancelled" - more specifically, the statues built to honor these figures are under attack.
So what should we make of all this? Our initial take is that the public is not primed for what is happening; here in 2020, mainstream documentary television reruns pedestalize these icons.
And school-aged children are being introduced to the following:
Getting people to hate what they are currently being conditioned to honor will be no simple task; add in the fact that the Washingtons, Lincolns and Churchills of history have, for decades, been presented as heroes and you can begin to see just what the cancellationists are up against. The extent of the "problem" becomes clearer knowing that the promotion of icons like Washington, Lincoln and Churchill - at least historically - could get the nation's youth to admire and identify with a common heritage. United in a common understanding, those same youth were also in a position to see the country as an extension of their own soup and spirit, a common-mindset community, which had tremendous benefits in terms of national defense and security. In short: people were hard-wired to identify with and feel attached to much of what is now being threatened with cancellation, so the narrative being set up to excuse the cancellation might be upsetting for some on a personal and emotional level, too.
Mount Rushmore was built on land that belonged to the Lakota tribe and sculpted by a man who had strong bonds with the Ku Klux Klan. It features the faces of 2 U.S. presidents who were slaveholders.https://t.co/pHmJScnYbb— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 1, 2020
So what should we make of all this? Our initial take is that the public is not primed for what is happening; here in 2020, mainstream documentary television reruns pedestalize these icons.
And school-aged children are being introduced to the following:
Getting people to hate what they are currently being conditioned to honor will be no simple task; add in the fact that the Washingtons, Lincolns and Churchills of history have, for decades, been presented as heroes and you can begin to see just what the cancellationists are up against. The extent of the "problem" becomes clearer knowing that the promotion of icons like Washington, Lincoln and Churchill - at least historically - could get the nation's youth to admire and identify with a common heritage. United in a common understanding, those same youth were also in a position to see the country as an extension of their own soup and spirit, a common-mindset community, which had tremendous benefits in terms of national defense and security. In short: people were hard-wired to identify with and feel attached to much of what is now being threatened with cancellation, so the narrative being set up to excuse the cancellation might be upsetting for some on a personal and emotional level, too.
As for Abraham Lincoln, the Boomers and Gen-Xers probably learned that he was flawed, although certainly not for the reasons concerning why he is now being cancelled for (we will get to that later). But he was nevertheless pedestalized as the man who, through the U.S. Civil War, had preserved the Union, making the whole "one nation from sea to shining sea" thing possible. More recently, the focus had shifted to how Lincoln's war ensured the elimination of the scourge of slavery across that continent; and, for that, Lincoln was described as "honest Abe" and depicted as a virtuous man of humble beginnings who "built a log cabin by himself".
The final character in the unofficial boomer pantheon was Winston Churchill. While not from the U.S., Churchill was played up to be America's greatest ally, an underdog hero whose "brave little Britain" had joined the U.S. to stand up against 'Nazi' plans to supposedly conquer the world and end freedom everywhere. Missing from the narrative, of course, was that "brave little Britain" was but the mailing address of an all-powerful elite whose textile, mineral and oil industries stretched from Africa to India to the Middle East, creating a web of control within which, during the war, subjects were mere fodder to uphold the chains or left to starve. Churchill, a debt-riddled lavish spender, was bankrolled to direct the fight for this elite in the truest sense of the word. Boomers and their children were nevertheless steered to admire Churchill, especially his words. His quotes litter the internet. For example:
So what would be the result of tossing it all out overnight? Nobody can be certain, but it is important to note that the figures now being threatened with cancellation - Washington, Lincoln and Churchill - had all been retconned for the new generation by the 1990s so as to fit the new understanding of what our counties are to stand for. As such, characters like Washington, Lincoln and Churchill were presented as advocates for the racially-nihilistic, open borders, globalist spirit of the age, which was likewise cast as what the West was always supposed to be about. This is what Millenials grew up with, as old signs and symbols (Washington, Lincoln and Churchill) were used to sell the new ideology. Let us look at this phenomenon in greater detail, and examine how it may or may not affect the cancellation spree.
A. The power of the retcon
Using the power and familiarity of old symbols to introduce new ideas is a timeless strategy of cultural conquest (see: Conquer and recycle: the Christian assault on Europe's pagan imagery). But it was especially important because of what the characters in the Boomer pantheon already offered, which enabled them to fit into the new clothes they were portrayed to fit in. In George Washington, for example, there was someone who, much like Voltaire, had challenged the "divinely-ordained" hierarchy of the monarchy by praising the "dignity of men"; thus, with a few tweaks, Washington's message could be presented as an admission about the universality of all life characterized as human, especially when introduced alongside the fact that Washington had freed his slaves on his deathbed (at which time they were of no use - how convenient for him). You also had the Declaration of Independence, which he was a part of, explaining the reasons for the American war of independence and drawing from the same inspirational impulses noted above. As such, the Declaration of Independence included the argument that "all men are created equal" which, in more recent times, has become a euphemism for "all people of all races, religions and creeds and genders are created equal". Feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton were among the first to hint at such an interpretation:
Note how the meme utilized the colonial flag and colonial-era white women to complete the retcon. The women are thus shown to be patriotic, doing their part for the same cause that the men were fighting for by sewing the flag of American independence. Of course, with it now being accepted that the Founding Fathers advocated freedom for women, the suggestion is that it is Un-American for women not to have the right to do whatever they want no matter the consequences and, based on the idea that America is about freedom for women, and that millions of women should be imported into the country so that they may have this freedom. This is actually wrapped up in a red, white and blue veneer, perhaps to drive home the idea that, at the very least, this is somehow in connection with the meaning and interests of the country. But more recently that veneer has been lifted, and it is just the raw, vague interpretation of the Founders' message that remains pedestalized. Perhaps this is a sign that the figures and imagery, which may have been useful to get the public on board, are just as easy to shed as a snake's shed exoskeleton. Thus, the cancellation of the patriotic and iconographic imagery might not really be a big deal at all - especially if the patriotic and iconographic imagery is shown to not be nearly as closely aligned with the now-dominant ideologies they were both most recently used to introduce.
Then again, when it comes to figures like Abraham Lincoln, we are dealing with a figure whose war figured prominently in Western ideological acculturation. And Lincoln, already celebrated as the savior of the Union who had abolished slavery in the U.S. Civil War, has gone on to become one of the most important icons of the new era. Often, he is depicted as a race-nihilist all-star who fought the slaveholders of the Southern Confederacy specifically to free the slaves. Such an interpretation became a jump-off point for the suggestion that Lincoln, believing no man was inferior to another on the basis of race, was simply driven enough to fight for the "all men are created equal" principle of the Founding Fathers. He was likewise presented as a man of sacrifice - the one who got America "back on track" - away from the South's influence and back in line in its purpose in connection with 1776 - only to be shot. His murderer, John Wilkes Booth, is presented as the racist who did not believe in the "truths" that America was supposed to be about. Perhaps in the future, if they throw in a few lines suggesting that Lincoln may have been homosexual, Booth's act could even be presented as hate crime. As it is, however, we already have the goods to present a rejection of the things Lincoln supposedly stood for as a rejection of Americanism itself and, just as importantly, the mindset of a murderous terrorist who had been defeated.
 |
Amidst the "American and patriotic" left of the Millenial era, the above image briefly was used to spam Wikipedia pages |
In terms of something's potential to serve as new age propaganda, it is hard to top this. And we should understand that this does well to explain the Lincoln Project, a political action committee formed in 2019, which attempts to preserve the above narrative about Lincoln and thus preserve its power, funneling patriotic identity into a new age, globalist perspective.
We also have the evolution of the narrative involving Churchill and America's Second World War to consider. For Gen-Xers and Millenials, the whole bit was presented in a way that was not far from what the generation before them had heard.
 |
| In the Millenial era, the Churchill worship continued and Lincoln became more important. |
But for the Gen-Xers and Millenials, there was already a much stronger emphasis on the suffering of Jews in concentration camps during the war, particularly the allegation that they were gassed, which became the bridge to present the acceptance of diversity and infinite migrants as a duty, and to attack any sort of internment system at the border (while providing the rationale to engage in wars for 'humanitarian' reasons that just so conveniently expanded the globalist web of control and flooded Europe with migrants). Just as importantly, piggybacking off of everything that had grown from the presentation of Churchill's 'Nazi' foe, a cringe-inducing slandering buzzword arguably gained more power than ever, creating a powerful bludgeon that could be employed to discredit anyone or anything likened to the 'Nazis', including opponents of globalism and open borders. To top it off, the 'Nazis' could be presented as the "losers done away with by our ancestors", and thus so could anyone whose ideas were tarred and feathered in this manner.
For anyone with an affinity to globalism, this was quite a hand to be holding - or, to pile on the metaphors, quite a stacked deck to be blessed with. But the narrative that was used to build this propaganda mega-weapon has come under fire from within. This may come as a shock. But, with the push towards globalization and universality, and the result being increased non-white immigration, mixed-race progeny and feminist will-to-power sentiment, it was only a matter of time until somebody took aim at the likes of Washington, Lincoln and Churchill, if only because they are "dead white men" hogging the spotlight. Of course, that is by no means the only grievance aired. Others grievances have surfaced amidst the witch-hunt atmosphere that has been conjured up, not to mention the efforts of revisionist historians who labored to mythbust in the only direction suitable for this age (i.e. "Washington, Churchill and Lincoln are the real racists!).
B. The problem with the retcon
To begin, George Washington is a problematic figure for the new, global age because he was an inspiring leader in rebellion, who warned against government overstep and entangling alliances; if anything, that type of biography more closely mirrors the sentiment of white, anti-government preppers who are suspicious of AIPAC's power representing the American-Israeli lobby of U.S. politics. Washington is also problematic because, when it comes down to the facts, he was among the few in his time - less than 1% of the population - who owned hundreds of slaves. Moreover, despite Washington's intention to free his slaves upon his own death, his concern while alive was investing in a war that brought national posterity and private economic interest. This is certainly not the biography of a committed abolitionist, to say the least.
B. The problem with the retcon
To begin, George Washington is a problematic figure for the new, global age because he was an inspiring leader in rebellion, who warned against government overstep and entangling alliances; if anything, that type of biography more closely mirrors the sentiment of white, anti-government preppers who are suspicious of AIPAC's power representing the American-Israeli lobby of U.S. politics. Washington is also problematic because, when it comes down to the facts, he was among the few in his time - less than 1% of the population - who owned hundreds of slaves. Moreover, despite Washington's intention to free his slaves upon his own death, his concern while alive was investing in a war that brought national posterity and private economic interest. This is certainly not the biography of a committed abolitionist, to say the least.
Then there is Winston Churchill, who was an unapologetic racist to the core. He was enthusiastic about using gas on "inferior" tribal peoples to keep them pacified under the British colonial empire. Concerned that the empire's subjects would be sympathetic to the 'Nazis' and side with them in rebellion (like the Muslims to the south of the Soviet Union), Churchill-led Britain kept its subjects in the Middle East starved. Churchill-led Britain also diverted food from India, causing the Bengal Famine and up to 3 million lost their lives.
Abraham Lincoln is just as problematic as a figurehead for the global age; the truth is, he repeatedly spoke of the supremacy of white people and explicitly stated that his reason for going to war was not to save slaves, but to save the Republic. A fervent believer in Manifest Destiny, Lincoln wanted a powerful United States that stretched from one end of the continent to the other, from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean. While Lincoln did propose that the slaves in the South be set free, this happened during the war, and there was an immediate reward because half of the South's labor force, and potential fighting force, the slaves, in turn had an incentive to mutiny or at least not resist the federal troops that Lincoln had sent to destroy the Confederacy. Furthermore, as noted in the text Colonization after Emancipation, Lincoln's next proposal was to use that "freed" labor force as a colonial labor force in Central America. A federal office was established to oversee the project but, amidst the war, its funding was cut. In other words: Lincoln wanted the former slaves turned its labor force that would serve the imperialism of the American Empire (here are a few of the letters recently uncovered from Lincoln's communications with the British about the project).
How quickly the truth sets in regarding any of these characters - Washington, Lincoln or Churchill - will probably help to determine how much longer any of them continue to be celebrated by proponents of the new global age. But their replacements have already begun to join, and topple, that old "Washington, Lincoln, Churchill" pantheon. The era of replacement, not surprisingly, started with the non-accidental use of the red, white and blue, and preservation and repurposing of the old figures:
 |
| Scholastic Corporation has voiced its approval of the triumvirate of Washington, Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.: |
But the "dead white men" are increasingly pushed to the back:
We also see that Churchill's wisdom has for the time being left him in a position to become "inspirational quote guy", demonstrating the completeness of the retcon amidst everything global and multicultural:
The cancellation call is their death knell. The question is: to what degree would this rile up those who, until recently, would have supported any other cancellation? Bear in mind how closely these figures have been adopted and integrated as symbols of the modern era. Here, with Lincoln portrayed as the ultimate American hero, for example:
Or with the way the Founding Fathers, like Washington, are memorialized:
We also see that Churchill's wisdom has for the time being left him in a position to become "inspirational quote guy", demonstrating the completeness of the retcon amidst everything global and multicultural:
One factor to bear in mind is that the movement involving cancellation is perhaps moving along faster than the public has been primed for. The reasons for this are manifold, but tie into the speed of demographic change, anti-white radicalism's mainstreaming and the lack of a pushback, at least so far, to keep any of these movements in check. So, what does it mean when a movement has no brakes and labors to put away that which is neither viewed negatively nor forgotten? For comparison's sake, the shock might be akin to seeing your grandparents as wonderful, kindhearted people and then, one day, being told that, because they are German, they were terrible, and you are just as guilty as they are for terrible things they - for the most part - did not themselves do. The revelation might create shock, confusion and anger. And, for many young Germans, it did exactly that, radicalizing them in consequence. Thus, you also had those who were overcome by the shock of what they had heard and grew to hate and reject everything about their family, ancestry, neighbors, nation and state.
 |
| German left-wing: "Grandpa, shut up! German actors are not victims!" |
You also had those who were in turn inclined to sympathize with the German army and its cause, thereby rejecting the whole "Hitler the boogeyman" narrative because it seemed like a ridiculous, emotional fantasy of propaganda.
 |
| German right-wing reaction: "Grandpa was alright! Our grandfathers were not criminals" |
 |
| German right-wing reaction: "Grandfather, we thank you!" |
Either way, the sudden understanding that the world was not what one thought it was became a powerful motif, triggering a sort of fight-or-flight response - especially if the people have not been conditioned for such a thing. But does this really predict the way the public is likely to respond to the purge regarding the memory of Washingtons, Lincolns and Churchills of the past? Far from being actual flesh-and-blood family members, the Washingtons, Lincolns and Churchills of the world were at best a corpus to deliver a message - a message that, as we have seen, can gradually take precedence and become the animating impulse. It would seem, therefore, that the outcome of the cancellation initiative probably depends on whether the public can be weened off the idea that these traditional figures should be embraced, and how quickly and to what degree the new narrative triumphs and becomes all the public remembers.
But just what does this latest narrative, propelling the push for cancellation, consist of? While part of the new narrative suggests that these iconic figures are terrible and ought to be cancelled, there is another part of the narrative suggesting that certain people who are alive today - white people - should be held accountable for all of those things. At face value, none of this is an easy sell:
Furthermore, the transition to admonition and guilt is happening very quickly, as is the move to cancel the figures whose deeds and views white people are supposed to feel guilty about. That alone hints towards the unlikelihood of the new narrative being a successful replacement. Note that where the toppling of once-celebrated narratives icons has taken place in the West, it has generally been amidst a long-running progression towards that end. In fact, some of the cancellations we are now seeing are the outcome of such a trajectory. For example, the elimination of statues honoring Columbus in the U.S. comes after years of agitation in the mainstream media (1), education (1, 2) and culture (1), all tearing into his legacy and character.
Likewise, the monuments to commemorate the Confederacy - the South in the U.S. Civil War - are under attack, but note that they have been presented as items of controversy for decades. No progress towards cancellation was immediate and, in each case, that progress was held in check by a large-scaled resistance (see: The portrayal of the South, cancellation culture and the war over cultural iconography). Today, Millenials and the younger generations tend to view the Confederacy as a form of racist terrorism. But that was the result of a extensive battle fought over generations. Of course, one could argue that changing cultural imperatives and changing demographics (ever fewer white Southerners born, the obvious demographic most likely to be raised to be sympathetic to the Confederate narrative) were conducive to the progression towards cancellation. But it was only in the aftermath of the murder rampage of Dylan Roof, in Charleston, that the cancellationists truly seemed to have the upper hand.
Only then was there was a rapid jump in the number of people who viewed the Confederacy as an expression of racial hatred, bigotry and slavery, tying in precisely to how they had long tried to characterize it:
 |
| Late 2010s: in this segment, typical of mainstream media entertainment, "comedian" John Oliver rips on the Confederacy |
 |
| Eclectablog: just one of many mouthpieces of its kind in the Millenial era |
In any case, the multi-decade war over Confederate symbology and its comprehension provides a good example of the long process of cancellation that follows when a culturally-entrenched symbol of mass identification comes under attack. This could perhaps serve as a warning as to how explosive a mass cancellation event can be when the public has not been primed for it - especially because, for as popular as the Confederacy may have been amidst the effort to sour its memory, its legacy is nothing compared to the cult of national pride and patriotic fervor built around icons like Washington and Lincoln. These are figures that have been popular for as long as anyone can remember, continuing even all the way up to 2020. At times, they were even used to signal support for the current age. But, as we have examined, there are enough flaws for these characters to be exposed for what they are, and the mob is likely to go on a rampage. Emotions are running high, and people are afraid to stand in the mob's way. We are more likely to see virtue signalling and encouragement than resistance at risk of being seen as a betrayer of the cause. Under these conditions, we have entered somewhat of a free-for-all to cancel everything and anything with the slightest connection to ideology, even if something only signifies white culture or majority-white civilization. It is likely that symbols of "white religion" will go next. It will be interesting to see how each side responds. The political climate has changed so rapidly, that it is anybody's guess what will happen next. And perhaps that is the main issue. Only time will tell.
