Battle Lines Are Clearly Drawn: Multicultural Utopia VS Populist Traditionalists | Oath Keepers

HuffPost Germany Writer Calls For Replacing Germans With Migrants to Stop Populism

In a very revealing article posted by Paul Joseph Watson, on InfoWars.com, Paul points out a HuffPost Germany writer, Veit Lindner, who asserts, that to stop the momentum of the “new right,” “it would actually be best to just replace” the German people with foreigners.

Source: Battle Lines Are Clearly Drawn – Multicultural Utopia VS Populist Traditionalists – Oath Keepers

Yes, I know that many people will simply ignore / dis-count this, due to its source. That would be a mistake. The article is real, and it is scary.

Referring to the “New Right” (those who are of a traditionalist / populist mindset, who wish to preserve and protect their people and their ethnic and cultural heritage) as a “stinking flatulence,” the author of the HuffPost piece (frighteningly entitled “Repeople us! Why the German people should be abolished”) asserts that

“it would actually be best to just replace them [ethnic Germans]. Attention, Germans! Fall in for comprehensive repeopling! [Umvolkung]

“Black, brown, yellow, white, Asians and Arabs, Africans, you people from America, India, people of all faiths – come and help us! Stream in and repeople us, but thoroughly! […]

A little more genetic and cultural seed-scattering here and a little more self-abolition through reproduction fatigue there – that, as Deniz Yücel once called it, would be the ‘most beautiful side of the perishing of a people.'”

As if there could ever be anything beautiful about the perishing of a people! Imagine the outcry – wholly justified – if someone on the right were to write such a thing, and publish it in a (relatively) mainstream publication, about any demographic group except white Europeans? But no, it is not only acceptable but praiseworthy to sacrifice Europeans for this utopian multicultural future.

This is a nihilistic, vicious, hateful, and intrinsically violent vision: calling for the disruption and destruction of a people, a culture, and a society that have developed organically over centuries and millennia, to forcibly impose a socially-engineered vision believed by a small number of zealots – violent extremists, rather – to be preferable to that highly developed culture: a culture which has brought aberrations like Marx and Hitler, true, but has also brought us Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, and Strauss; glorious art and architecture; remarkable scientific and technological advances; along with, yes, pretzels with German mustard, a wide range of tasty sausages, and other features of a remarkably rich and flavorful cuisine; excellent beer; folk dances, dirndls, and lederhosen, and the joys of Oktoberfest.

And now all of this must be swept away, to make room for a new, supposedly “multicultural” future. Why? No one has ever provided any sort of remotely logical reason! Because of Hitler? That was 80 years ago! Because of the “New Right”? Well, guess what: the New Right arose precisely because of and in reaction to this extreme multicultural program the Left is attempting to impose, not just on Germany, not just on Europe, but on the West as a whole. The New Right are the antibodies, fighting the disease of Leftist insanity.

But of course, anyone opposed to the Leftists’ utopian vision will be pilloried as a racist, a xenophobe, a white supremacist. However, it is not racist, xenophobic, or any sort of “supremacist” to oppose and resist the destruction of your people, your ethnic and cultural heritage. Rather, it is a moral duty, just as defending one’s own family would be: for one’s nation and people are one’s family, writ large.

If you are a “person of colour” and are calling for this “repeopling,” you are advocating ethno-cultural genocide; if you are of European heritage, then you are advocating ethno-cultural suicide. In either case, you are bat-shit crazy (pardon my language), you are diseased, you are a vile and evil person. I want nothing to do with you, and I will do my best to unmask and denounce you as the horror you are.

Let us remember that “utopia” means, literally, “no place.” It does not and cannot exist. What utopians call for is something that is unnatural, unreal, that cannot happen. It is an illusion, a false promise of peace and cooperation that in fact could only end in death and destruction. Doubt me? Well, we just “celebrated” (some of us mourned) Bastille Day, the 14th of July, the date marking the storming of the Bastille and thus the dawn of the French Revolution.

As I have commented elsewhere, those who are actually aware of the existence of Bastille Day, here in the U.S., tend to celebrate it (if they give it a second thought) as if the French Revolution was the American Revolution, Pt. 2. It was not. Despite the cries of “Liberté, egalité, fraternité!” (“Liberty, equality, fraternity!”), it started in blood, it was advanced by blood, and it ended in blood: a dark and sinister time in the world’s history. Today’s Leftists are treading the same bloody path – one which has been tread by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others.

The mindset revealed in this HuffPost Germany essay is a classic example of the old adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The only good thing that I see in all of this is that the extreme Leftists are finally showing their true colours. They are not tolerant, they are not peaceful, they are not compassionate, and they only want “diversity” on their own terms. I can only hope that the fence-sitters and moderates wake up to what is actually being proposed, and realize how bad it actually is, and how bad the people proposing it actually are!

Mark my words: if enough of us do not say, “No! You are wrong, you are crazy, this cannot and will not be allowed to happen,” we will find ourselves in a violent and bloody conflict that will make the French Revolution look like a walk in the park.

 


 

Nota Bene: What constitutes “genocide”? Well, here’s the UN’s definition, from its “Convention on Genocide,” which it considers (rightly) a crime against humanity:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If you don’t think at least (b), (c), and possibly (d) describe what’s going on in Europe at present already, and particularly what is being proposed in the HuffPost Germany essay referenced above, you are not paying close enough attention!

Advertisements

Nathan Bedford Forrest | Abbeville Institute

https://americangallery.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/general-nathan-bedford-forrest.jpg?w=505&h=610

Source: Nathan Bedford Forrest | Abbeville Institute

While Nathan Bedford Forrest, the “Wizard of the Saddle,” is fascinating in his own right [*], this essay is even more important for what it says about our own time. Following are a few of the more prescient words:

“So in a very literal sense the Civil War was the first World War. It not only created a powerful nation of organized resources and potential military might, but the greater world wars took their pattern from the American one, even to the trench system Lee set up at Petersburg. These wars were internecine, all of them; but it was not in this that we find the crucial resemblances. In view of a common Christian culture, wars within Europe would of necessity be internecine, but at least at one time there were Truces of God. What this country brought to Europe was unconditional surrender…

“The result of these wars has been the self-exhaustion of Europe, the loss of prestige before the world, and another possible shift in power from West to East. We seem to accept this with a fatalism strangely foreign to us [indeed it is, given the history of Europeans prior to this age]. The battle of Lepanto was fought and won by a Christian prince [to which I would add: as was the battle at the Gates of Vienna!]. Since that time Christendom, if we can still call it such, has been free of danger [until recently], but there is a strange resemblance between that time and this. The Christian princes were divided among themselves as in our world wars; they were threatened by their own invention, the firearm, which the Turk added to the first use of the disciplined regiment.

“We have only to remember Spengler’s warning as to the folly of teaching the techniques by which the West had overwhelmed the world and wonder [is not this also true today, given that the third-world population explosion which threatens to overwhelm the West was made possible due to Western advances in agriculture and medicine?]. Will the time come when we will pray for another Lepanto? There is no Christian prince today strong enough to take a stand. This country [the U.S.] is presumably strong enough at least to risk a defense, but to stand always on the defensive is to prepare for defeat…”

I am reminded of the words J.R.R. Tolkien placed in the mouth of Boromir, prince of Gondor, in The Lord of the Rings: “Gondor wanes, you say? Yet Gondor stands. And even the end of its strength is still very strong.” True enough; yet only with the aid of the Riders of Rohan was Gondor able to break the siege by the forces of Mordor – and even then, were it not for the destruction of the One Ring and consequent overthrow of the Dark Lord, Sauron, that victory would have been but a respite.

Where are our Riders of Rohan, our Winged Hussars? And how shall we unmake the “One Ring” of our own age?

 


 

* And no, to get this old shibboleth out of the way, Forrest was not the founder of the KKK, though he was elected – in absentia, and with neither his knowledge nor desire – its head. Rather, he used his considerable moral authority to disband that first incarnation of the Klan, when it had ceased to be a protective organization, and become one engaged in mere vigilante and often criminal activities.

There’s a Nationalist Baby Boom Going On in Europe!!! | YouTube

Source: There’s a Nationalist Baby Boom Going On in Europe!!! | Dr. Steve Turley

In which Steve Turley completely and convincingly debunks the absurd claim that migrants are needed to bolster Europe’s sagging population. Not so! What is needed is a “re-traditionalism,” the kind of nationalist-populist revival that is increasingly being seen in places like Hungary, Poland, and Russia.

This is not rocket science: when people believe in themselves and their people, when they have respect for their past and hope, energy, and ambition for the future, they will naturally want to have more children! When they are being led to believe (by the so-called “elites” of the media, politics, and academia) that they are worthless if not actually blameworthy, and destined to be replaced, why would they want to?

Ah, but when they honour their people, their ancestors, their cultural and genetic heritage, that’s another story! What you honour, you wish to pass on, as Turley comments:

“This is why scholars believe Europe is not lost! The nationalist movements throughout the continent are re-awakening the traditional family, which is effectively reversing its [Europe’s] population decline, and it’s reversing the population decline with good, conservative families that love their nation, their culture, and their tradition. That’s why they’re having children in the first place!”

Demographic deficits can be reversed, and – as Eastern European countries are demonstrating – they can be reversed effectively and relatively quickly if people are simply given hope for the future, and a reason to want to pass their heritage, genetic as well as cultural, on to their descendants.

And as Turley points out, it is the traditionalists, populists, and nationalists who have that fire, not the secular globalists: jaded, pessimistic, hedonistic, narcissistic, and frequently nihilistic and degenerate as they are.

May the fire grow and spread!

Why the lunatic fringe wants to ban Zulu | Daily Mail Online

 

There are, in the annals of cinema, few scenes more likely to have men of a certain age sobbing into their handkerchiefs than that wonderful moment in Zulu featuring Stanley Baker

… what will be left of Western culture? For if Zulu isn’t safe, if Laura Ingalls Wilder is not safe, if even the slightest hint of political incorrectness is enough to disqualify you, then nothing and nobody is safe.

Source: DOMINIC SANDBROOK: Why the lunatic fringe wants to ban Zulu | Daily Mail Online

“Even today, 54 years after its release, Zulu has lost none of its power. It is a film about men under fire, of course. But it is also a film about heroism, fear and sacrifice.

“Set during the Zulu War of 1879, it is a patriotic film, but not a jingoistic one. When the Zulus sing one last song to honour the courage of the British defenders, or when Lt Chard gazes wearily over the piles of African dead, there is rarely a dry eye in the house.

“But some people see things differently…”

Yes. This:

“I am not alone, I know, in feeling nothing but contempt for the disingenuousness, mean-spiritedness, sanctimony and intolerance of these people. I’m not alone, either, in feeling utterly infuriated by the cowardice of the authorities, who are incapable of realising that appeasement only encourages them to find a fresh target.

“What I find really depressing, though, is that this is becoming such a familiar story. The activists make a fuss. The rest of us scoff, sigh or shrug them off as maniacs.

“But the authorities, terrified of being branded racist, give ground. And so, almost without anybody noticing, we take one more step towards a culture defined by the suffocating narrow-mindedness of the lunatic fringe…

“Where will it end? Well, it will never end. And because these censors have no sense of humility, they cannot conceive that people in the future will doubtless find us guilty of prejudices invisible to us today.

“By then, though, what will be left of Western culture? For if Zulu isn’t safe, if Laura Ingalls Wilder is not safe, if even the slightest hint of political incorrectness is enough to disqualify you, then nothing and nobody is safe.

“The truth is that these people are the enemies, not just of tradition or even of tolerance, but of the imagination itself.

“They talk endlessly about celebrating difference. But what they want to do is to suppress difference, control the imagination and rewrite history. And that, of course, is why they must be fought.”

Or as C.S. Lewis so aptly put it, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”

Of course, today the “omnipotent moral busybodies” care nothing for the good of their victims; they are motivated largely by hatred, thinly veiled behind a veneer of put-on offense and pseudo-compassion. They are “omnipotent” only to the extent that they are not opposed. And they are “moral” not at all.

Laura Ingalls Wilder: the conversation continues

An old and cherished college friend sent me the linked article, below, with this notation: “Interesting article and perspective from ALA’s office of intellectual freedom of the (former) LIW award.”

ALA Laura Ingalls Wilder Award ALSC


Will some librarians consider it right to purge her works from library collections? We hope not.

Source: Laura Ingalls Wilder Award – when is it censorship? – Intellectual Freedom Blog


Following is my reply:

It is indeed an interesting article and perspective, and I’m glad the conversation is continuing. There is a lot in that article with which I agree. And of course, the ALSC has a perfect right to rename their award if they want to, regardless of my or anyone else’s opinion of the action!

But just as James LaRue points out – accurately – that books must be taken in their entirety, and in context, so too, I believe, must actions. And I cannot help but take this action in the context of a time in our social history in which nearly every icon of our past is under attack, one way or another.

This most recent spasm of historical iconoclasm began in the summer of 2015, when that despicable nutcase killed those poor people in Charleston, SC; and it began with attacks on Confederate flags, rapidly spreading to other iconography: street, park, and school names, and then monuments. But it didn’t end there. The Confederacy was just low-hanging fruit. I haven’t kept as precise and voluminous records as I should have, in retrospect, but some examples that come immediately to mind:

The statue of Teddy Roosevelt – our most progressive President at least until his cousin FDR, and possibly until JFK – was attacked, where it stands in front of the Museum of Natural History in NYC. The very gravesite of Andrew Jackson, certainly a controversial figure but also an American President and the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, has also been attacked, and his picture on the $20 bill is to be replaced. Thomas Jefferson’s statue has been defaced on the very campus of the university (University of Virginia) he founded; here in Maryland, the statue of Francis Scott Key has been defaced, and the National Anthem he gave us attacked (completely erroneously) as racist.

In 2016, students at Yale University’s English Department (!!!) launched a petition calling on the English department to abolish a core course requirement in “Major English Poets” to study canonical writers including Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton, saying that the reading list had too many white male authors. Ummmmm… to what demographic do they think that major English poets belong??? That was the most high-profile, but not the only, report of such doings I recall reading. I find myself wondering what Nancy and Del, or Bob and LeRoy, even Ira [former professors we shared – liberals all, but in the old-school sense], would think about all this…

There are similar attacks on culture, history, and heritage going on throughout the West. I could, with a little brain-searching and research, probably come up with dozens of additional examples; these are just those that came to me with a few minutes’ thought. But it is within the context of these sorts of shenanigans that I interpret the decision to strip Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from that award.

Yes, the essay you linked makes some good points, and, as I say, I agree with a number of them. But it is possible to come up with good, noble-sounding, perhaps even nobly-intended, justifications or rationalizations for each and every one of the incidents I described above, and many more than I did not mention. But taken as a whole, looking at the big picture, what I see is the history, heritage, and culture of the West – indeed, Western civilization itself – under attack. Sustained, persistent, intentional.

I would be fundamentally and vigorously opposed to the destruction of any culture! I am certainly opposed to the attempted destruction of my own. In the larger scheme of things, removing Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from an award is not going to make or break Western civilization. But making that decision, even for the best-intended reasons, is another stone removed from the wall. Keep taking enough out, and how long before the whole structure tumbles?

Her response was very gracious:

“I do see what you’re saying. And wish I knew the answers… if there are any. And I will always love and respect you my dear friend!”

I replied,

“It is very mutual, my dear friend! And we are living in a time concerning which people many centuries in the future may scratch their heads… or shake them, with sadness. I very much fear that if we continue as we seem to be going, we are on the cusp of a new Dark Age.”

Her response was sober, and sobering:

“I think we both hope you are wrong about that! But I have to wonder…”

Indeed we do. We do indeed…

Episcopal Church considers making God gender neutral | Fox News

Episcopal Church leaders called for revisions to masculine language in the Book of Common Prayer.

The Episcopal Church formed a committee Wednesday to “provide a pathway” toward revising the Book of Common Prayer to include gender-neutral language.

Source: Episcopal Church considers making God gender neutral | Fox News

“Church leaders called for immediate revisions to correct the ‘overwhelming use of masculine language’ throughout the book, arguing that the language is now a hindrance to spiritual inclusion, according to the Episcopal Church website.

“’As long as ‘men’ and ‘God’ are in the same category, our work toward equity will not just be incomplete. I honestly think it won’t matter in some ways,’ Wil Gafney, a professor of the Hebrew Bible and strong advocate for the edit, told the Washington Post.”

This is old news for me, in some ways; they were talking in the same terms at Vanderbilt Divinity School back in the mid-90s. I stopped attending chapel there when a lesbian trio sung a “Doxology” to “the Mother, and the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit.”

The problem is, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in “Priestesses in the Church,” when you remove that “masculine language” and replace it with either feminized language or, as is the fad these days, “gender-neutral” language, you change not only the language but the content of the faith.

“Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential.

Change the language with which we speak of God, and we end up with something quite different from Christianity – or at least, quite different from orthodox Christianity. Of course, for many of these neo-reformers, that’s the point…

In His ultimate essence, of course, God far-and-away transcends human gender. The problem is, by trying to make God “gender-neutral,” we also end up making Him neuter, and therefore impersonal (we are also, as Lewis points out above, challenging the inspired and therefore authoritative character of the Holy Scriptures – placing our contemporary social views and mores above the given-ness of revelation: in effect, creating God in our own image).

We can have a personal relationship – whether for good or ill – with a Father. We can’t have a personal relationship with an amorphous blob! I’m reminded of another Lewis quote, in which he commented,

“A girl I knew was brought up by ‘higher thinking’ parents to regard God as a perfect ‘substance’; in later life she realised that this had actually led her to think of Him as something like a vast tapioca pudding. (To make matters worse, she disliked tapioca).”

While that may elicit a wry smile, it also makes a very good point! It is a short step from non-gendered to “nothing in particular.”

There are other Biblical metaphors for God that can be used, of course, that don’t have specifically gender-oriented connotations – “Vine” and “Rock” are two that come immediately to mind – but there is a reason that the more traditional, masculine images of God are vastly more common: they tell us things about God, and about our relationship with Him, that the less-commonly-used ones do not.

Besides that, and perhaps even more importantly, our Lord Jesus Christ called God “Father,” and instructed us to do so as well (“When you pray, say ‘Our Father…'”). We can call God other things in addition to Father, of course, as I commented above; but we cannot fail to call Him “Father” and make any kind of claim that we are obeying our Lord’s teachings. And while God transcends human biology, of course, fathers are biologically male. It does violence to biology, language, and theology alike to pretend otherwise!

The Fatherhood of God – unavoidably masculine though it be – is an essential component of Christianity. Remove it, and you have a different faith.

Scrubbing Laura Ingalls Wilder Is A Dangerous Step Toward Ignorance | The Federalist

https://i0.wp.com/thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5972624028_d15dab3f37_o-998x668.jpg

Pretending things that make us uncomfortable never happened isn’t going to make America better, or make American children more informed.

Source: Scrubbing Laura Ingalls Wilder Is A Dangerous Step Toward Ignorance

I do not fully agree with this article, because I do not fully agree that we need to continually apologize for, or even “contextualize,” everything that occurred in our past that makes some present-day observers squeamish. But I certainly do agree with the title (“Scrubbing Laura Ingalls Wilder Is A Dangerous Step Toward Ignorance”)!

And I also agree with the comment of a dear Facebook friend (who is also a follower of this blog; she may choose to identify herself if she wishes), who wrote, in response to a Wall Street Journal article which, unfortunately, is behind a firewall,

“Those who refuse to acknowledge history are doomed to repeat it. This is ridiculous. I should have expected this, I suppose, when they began badmouthing Twain’s work. The Little House books teach a great deal about the time they were written, in an entertaining way so that people will actually remember. Modern mores are already taught now, and people should be trusted to be able to filter through, seeing the changes in time periods as far as attitudes go. Ignoring history doesn’t make it go away.”

To which I can only add, “give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile”… “don’t let the camel’s nose in the tent”… whatever image you use for it, the truth remains: if you start to permit people to alter, suppress, or remove history, there’s no telling where you’ll end up. Nowhere good, that’s for certain!

It started with Confederate flags, then moved to renaming schools, streets, and parks, then to removing monuments. It started with the Confederacy, but has expanded to include Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Francis Scott Key – even Washington and Jefferson. And in literary terms, English poets, Mark Twain and, now, Laura Ingalls Wilder.

These are people who do not understand, or even try to understand, removing, altering, or destroying that which is not understood; people placing the worst possible construction on works and people which and who are complex and multi-faceted. Simplistic responses from – pardon me for saying so, but it’s true – simple minds.

It is depressing and disillusioning. What has happened to this country? We used to be so much better than this!