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

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…

Judicial Watch Files House Ethics Complaint Against Maxine Waters | Judicial Watch

In encouraging individuals to create “crowds” who will “push back” on President Trump’s Cabinet members at private business establishments and in seemingly trying to prevent these Cabinet officials from obtaining basic necessities without fear of assault and violence, Rep. Waters seems to be violation of House rules (Washington, DC).

Source: Judicial Watch Files House Ethics Complaint Against Maxine Waters For Inciting Violence and Assaults on Trump Cabinet – Judicial Watch

As my dear late mother would have said, “it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.”

In the aftermath of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, and earlier, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and her staff being heckled out of another restaurant where they were holding a working dinner (these incidents referenced in a separate post), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has upped the ante, calling on Leftists to harass and verbally assault Cabinet members still further:

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them! And you tell them that they are not welcome, anymore, anywhere.”

And even if this were acceptable – which it is not – how long until verbal assault tips over into actual assault? As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton points out in a formal letter filed with the House Office of Congressional Ethics,

“In encouraging individuals to create ‘crowds’ who will ‘push back’ on President Trump’s Cabinet members at private business establishments and in seemingly trying to prevent these Cabinet officials from obtaining basic necessities without fear of assault and violence, Rep. Waters seems to be violation of House rules, specifically:

‘A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House. [House Rule 23, clause 1.]’

“We hereby request that the Office of Congressional Ethics conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Rep. Maxine Waters violated House Rules in encouraging attacks on Cabinet officials.”

The Red Hen incident seems to have particularly upset a lot of people, probably because in this case it was not outside protesters, but the owner of the restaurant herself who asked Ms Sanders to leave. Actually, though, and perhaps surprisingly to some, that’s not what bothers me, per se.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it was mean-spirited and inappropriate! But I happen to believe that any business owner has, or should have, the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason – or no reason, for that matter. With the understanding, of course, that actions have consequences, and customers may choose to vote with their feet, and their wallets. But I am, and have always been, a firm believer in freedom of association, for businesses no less than for individuals.

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

What aggravates me is that the Democrats, and Leftists in general, are so damnably selective in how, when, and to whom they apply this principle! The owner of the Red Hen in Lexington, VA, refusing to serve Press Secretary Sanders is praiseworthy, according to them.  A dress designer ostentatiously announcing that she would refuse to design a dress for Melania Trump (which she had not been asked to do) is admirable.

These are examples, so the Leftist narrative goes, of people courageously taking a stand for their principles. But floral designers and bakers, among others, declining to create special items for LGBT weddings, because they believe that would make them participants in something which their religious faith and moral sensibilities do not allow – that is unconscionable!

Well, here’s a recommendation for Democrats, Socialists, and others on the (il)liberal Left: pick one, and stick with it. Either it’s okay for all, or it’s not okay for all. You don’t get to have it both ways; you don’t get to pick and choose who gets to refuse service based on whether or not you agree with their social and political viewpoint. As it stands, you’re making yourselves look (even more than usually) like petulant, idiotic children.

But as I’ve commented previously, logic and rationality do not seem to be the strong suits of the current Left; unintended irony and double-standards appear to be their stock-in-trade. Or as I commented at the start, it all depends upon whose ox is getting gored…

Liberals Are Pushing The Country To The Edge | Derek Hunter

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2018/174/50d8f2f4-de76-44a8-be20-4cf6bd48f21f.jpg

Democrats have nothing to sell the American people but being the alternative to what they declare evil.

Source: Liberals Are Pushing The Country To The Edge – Derek Hunter

That is, indeed, the question.

As Hunter points out in this sobering but insightful piece,

“The ability to agree to disagree is dead, murdered by leftists who demand absolute adherence to their political will or they declare you an enemy of the people and seek to destroy you. As long suspected, those “coexist” stickers on their Priuses were for show, they should read “obey” because obedience, in absolute terms, is the only acceptable way to “coexist” with the liberal mob…

“When you hear that the President of the United States is well on his way to becoming the next Hitler, you almost have an obligation to act. When you’re whipped into a frenzy fed by dishonest reporters spinning half-truths into concentration camps, it’s only a matter of time before another person snaps at members of the party enabling the next despotic monster. It’s not only inevitable, it’s the objective. That’s the only logical conclusion you can draw…

“Democrats have nothing to sell the American people but being the alternative to what they declare evil. For that declaration to carry any emotional weight the hateful flames of their fringe have to be stoked to engulf enough people to motivate them to vote in November. The question is, will November come before the spark they’re building toward that ignites something awful?”

That is indeed the question. And on the answer, may ride the fate of our Republic. I have rarely been so fearful for our future as a nation, and a people.

And of course, in November, it all begins again… Is it any wonder that, much though I love and am loyal to the Founders’ vision for this country, I also have a political Tory’s longing for Church, King, and Country – and all of them ordered in a Traditional direction? To say that we are badly off-course is to risk severe understatement!

Former House Speaker New Gingrich on Leftist nastiness…

… most recently, a restaurant (The Red Hen) in Lexington, Virginia, which refused service to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders; Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was hounded out of a restaurant by hecklers earlier in the week. On this occasion Nielsen was having a working meal with staff; but earlier she had to deal with protesters outsider her very home! And Sanders was simply trying to have a nice dinner with her family.

Can you imagine if similar officials in the Obama administration had been similarly treated? The elite-o-sphere would be ablaze with accusations of racism, bigotry, Nazism, and who-knows-what else!

At any rate, here’s Speaker Gingrich:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

I think he’s right; unfortunately, dying beasts can do a lot of damage with their death throes…

Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friendships | Intellectual Takeout

Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friendships

Rules are great and necessary, but the fact is, we’re disallowing boys to be boys.

Source: Boys are Growing Frustrated by Living in a Feminized Society… and That’s Showing Up in Their Friendships | Intellectual Takeout

“Let’s face it: Little boys are different from little girls and adults. And unless we allow them to have outlets for natural boy play and ideas, we should not be surprised when they seem frustrated and can’t succeed in modern society. Is it time to stop treating the traditional, rough-and-tumble boy like a dangerous creature who must be toned down to suit feminized society?”

My answer to this question can easily be guessed by my readers, I suspect!

This is an excellent short essay, perhaps all the more notable in that it is written by a woman, Annie Holmquist. By all means, please follow the link and read it! The voices (both male and female) pushing back against the über-feminization of Western society are growing in number and in volume, and that is all to the good. But there is still a long way to go.

The culutural Marxists who seek to destroy what is left of Western civilization and Western Christendom are powerful, well-entrenched in dominant positions among our academic / educational, political, and media elite, and have learned well how to apply psychological and social jujitsu against a West which, by its nature, is predisposed to compassion, justice, and a laudable (within bounds) tendency to root for the underdog. Convince Westerners that you are oppressed, and they will bend over backwards to do anything they can to “liberate” and assist you – even to their own detriment!

The problem is that the Left, and its favored classes – women, people of color, and anyone who is “different” from what used to be the “norm” of Western (and Christian) society – are no longer the underdogs; in fact, by many if not most measures, they are or are well on their way to being the top dogs (*), even as they continue to complain about being “oppressed.”

I don’t think any fair-minded observer can deny that the major groups which today’s Leftists portray as the bogeyman – whites, males, and Christians – made some serious missteps, and committed some serious abuses, in the past. But neither are we uniquely culpable among the world’s people; far from it! If our sins may at times seem more boldly emblazoned on the fabric of history, it is because there was a time, not so distant, historically, when we were both technologically and socio-politically dominant. Those days, however, are in the past, and falling farther astern with every turn of the screw.

Nor is it justice to continue to visit the sins of the fathers – whether real or imagined – upon the sons, literally as well as figuratively, ad infinitum. Not only is it morally vicious, it is unwise. I am sure there are those on the Left who view the angst being suffered by boys and young men, especially those of European ancestry, through the lens of retributive justice; and who would like to think – or at least, hope – that white males will either somehow disappear altogether, or else at least lapse into a sort of voluntary dhimmitude, in which they accept their new, inferior, status as somehow their due.

Something of the sort has happened in Germany, in the decades since the Second World War, due to feelings of shared national guilt (encouraged and exploited by the victorious Allies); but even there, rumblings of discontent are beginning to be heard. What goes around, comes around, and people can only be kept down for so long before they start to rebel – as Leftists, of all people, should have sense enough to realize from their own experience!

To cite Germany again, one would think we would have learned the lessons of the Versailles Treaty, the Wiemar Republic, and the rise of the Nazis: perhaps the classic example of retributive justice gone awry, coming about as it did largely in reaction to the humiliation imposed upon post-WW I Germany by France, and to the ascendancy of the cultural Marxists’ political forebears in the former. The modern Left, it seems, is taking a page out of France’s book, c. 1918 – hardly a wise model, in my opinion.

But I digress from the topic at hand, which is that boys need to be allowed to be boys. Human nature cannot be changed, on a fundamental level; those who try are doomed to disappointment. It can be educated; it can be refined; it can be channeled into productive, as opposed to unproductive, directions. But it remains human nature. And just as water boiling in a closed container will build steam-pressure until it finds the weakest point to achieve an outlet, if we do not allow boys natural-but-productive outlets for their boyhood – their maleness – they will find unproductive ones, and the situation for society will be worse than if they had simply been allowed to be boys.

Be cautious, O “liberals”! As ye sow, so shall ye reap. But the harvest may not be what you expected!

 


 

* As the article linked in my previous post indicated, the “gender gap” in higher education solidly favors women (41.5% male vs 58.5% female, across all degrees, or 141 degreed females per 100 males); people of color are out-breeding people of European ancestry by a substantial margin, both worldwide and in the Westincluding the U.S., where non-Hispanic whites are projected to become a minority of the population (47%) by 2050; and as to those who are “different,” be it in sexuality, gender, religion (or lack thereof), etc., one has only to be reminded of the dictum often attributed to Voltaire: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Whether Voltaire said it or not, there is considerable truth in the statement!