Pastry bans nothing new
Hot on the heels of commercialization and trivialization, each holiday season we hear about attempts to ban public expressions of white traditions. Christmas is an annual battlefield, while Easter is not far behind. Organized Jewish hate groups are still http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3365 .
Such bans and restrictions are carried out in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance,” Orwellian concepts that have the opposite practical effect while attaining the real goal: alienating and sidelining white people and their sense of history and self. The people who enforce bans on politically incorrect mixings of yeast, eggs, sugar and flour think of themselves as “progressives.” To them, the “hideously white” days of old were “boring,” “vanilla,” and repressive compared to fascinating, http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=229 and snacks is at bottom identical to the repression practiced by other puritans in days past. While those who now push homosexual behavior as a norm, support widespread abortion, demand censorship of ideas, books and speech, and cheer for open borders would be shocked to see themselves in league with the thinking of repressive Puritans and others, their ideological impulse is identical. The goal was, and remains, social engineering.
Banning hot cross buns is nothing new. We think of them today as Easter specialties as the result of social engineering going back to the Elizabethan Age. At the time, Protestant England was waging a struggle against Catholic Europe, primarily Spain, whose King Philip II claimed the English Throne because of his marriage to Queen Elizabeth’s late half sister, “Bloody” Mary. Philip’s famous Armada had attempted, with spectacular lack of success, to invade in 1588, and a number of Catholic plots were afoot. Anxious to stamp out any vestiges of loyalty to the “Old Faith” Elizabeth, whose government was even then influenced by the Puritans, outlawed a number of Catholic expressions, among them hot cross buns. The bun ban proved to be unpopular and difficult to enforce, and so in 1592 Elizabeth promulgated a decree restricting the sale and consumption of hot cross buns to Christmas, the Easter season and funerals. This is why hot cross buns are associated with Easter across the English speaking world today. When you enjoy your breakfast this season, you are eating a living link to Renaissance era political correctness.
Christmas, a target in the culture wars of today, faced the same censorious impulses as far back as the 1600s. The Puritans overthrew King Charles I in the English Civil War, and instituted a regime that explicitly aimed to “Judaize” the English people. All vestiges of Catholicism, with its accrued pagan holdovers, were banned, and Christmas was one of the victims of the new political correctness. Parliament banned all Christmas celebrations as “heathen” and “Papist,” just as Christmas trees and carols are banned in public spaces today for being “too white” and “too Christian,” while Christmas holidays have become “Winter vacation.” In the 1640s the goal was to strip the Christian faith of its fun and return it to the dour version of what the Puritans thought was its Jewish root. In 1648, the nanny state’s attempts failed: across southern England a massive http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2749 broke out, and even the Navy mutinied in outrage at the Christmas ban. While the revolt was crushed, the Puritan Commonwealth (which was actually a military dictatorship far more repressive than anything the King had ever attempted) was dead and gone by 1660.
Many of the founding colonists of Massachusetts were Puritans, and brought their own vision of the “New Jerusalem” with them. Shortly before the collapse of the Commonwealth, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony banned Christmas. The 1659 law was repealed in 1681 under pressure from the new King, Charles II, whose father had been murdered by Puritans. Still, the prejudices persisted, and it was not until 1851 that Massachusetts made Christmas into a state holiday. Recent http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2676, but around the white world.
The new Puritans are even whipping Quakers again. Quakerism is a liberal, pacifist Christian faith that was considered subversive by those in power in ages past. In 1656 Quakers Mary Fisher and Ann Austin were jailed and finally banished by the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A year later, another Quaker named Robert Hodgson was whipped and jailed in New Amsterdam, the Dutch Colony that is now New York. His persecution gave us the first document in favor of religious freedom in what is now the United States. The Flushing Remonstrance petitioned the great Governor, Peter Stuyvesant, on behalf of freedom of conscience. Elsewhere in the region, particularly back in Massachusetts, Quakers were flogged, mutilated, executed and even murdered by the government. In the end, Pennsylvania was finally established by William Penn as a refuge for Quakers.
How ironic, then, to see that in 2008 a Quaker is once again under the ideological lash for offending a new version of political correctness. Scott Savage, a Quaker, was the head of Reference and Instructional Services at Bromfield Library at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus. Savage recommended that “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian be put on the college’s reading list. The book is a conservative expose of (modern) political correctness: the “gay agenda,” abortion, multiculturalism and negative “youth culture.” A modern university is hardly the place to advocate such a book, given the close mindedness of today’s academy, and Savage paid the price. Homosexual faculty weasels invoked, of all things, charges of “sexual harrassment” against the Quaker, saying that since the book did not support their “lifestyle” wholeheartedly, Savage was somehow “harrassing” them. Savage was subsequently forced out of his career for practicing an article of his faith. Quakers believe that they must “speak truth to power” when prompted by the “Inner Light” of God on their conscience. Today’s Puritans don’t disfigure or execute their foes; they’re not brave enough. Instead the banish dissidents from jobs and careers, branded with the scarlet letter H: Hater.
The main difference between those who banned hot cross buns in 1592 and those who do so today is that in 1592 the censors oversaw a magnificent civilization that gave the world Shakespeare and Spenser, Drake and the rest. Even the Puritans of New England, for all their faults, were rugged, hardy people, who carved a civilization out of the wilderness. By comparison, today’s nannies are nothings. Caretakers of a civilization in decline, they stand for nothing but a banal ugliness lurching towards oblivion.