How political correctness ate itself | UnHerd

https://anglophilicanglican.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/gettyimages-999573838-2000x1333.jpg?w=1021&h=681

The consensus on political correctness was that it was a way of expressing things that everyone – or at least all the right people – took for granted. For progressives it was the same thing as good manners, an argument that was often presented in just those words…

Source: How political correctness ate itself – UnHerd

Worth a read.

It is said that revolutions always devour their own children. That does seem to be true, but understandably, their children resist being devoured, and the resultant thrashing about can cause a lot of mayhem, and often a lot of injury to innocent (or at least, not unduly culpable) bystanders.

The sooner political correctness thrashes itself into oblivion, the better, as far as I’m concerned! Then we can get on with simply being decent to each other, unless of course we have a good reason not to be. And in that case, we can be at enmity honestly, without the need to disguise it with PC cant, or to pretend that we are not, in fact, at enmity after all…

Advertisements

“Barack Obama’s return just reminds us how he fueled the distrust that led to Donald Trump” | James Bovard in USA Today

Gty 1028556460 A Pol Usa Il

Who cares if Obama belatedly cheers for transparency and accountability? He should admit that he made the government more dangerous at home and abroad.

Source: Barack Obama is back and showing us how he helped elect Donald Trump | USA Today Opinion – James Bovard

James Bovard’s short but detailed and meticulously-sourced essay should be a must-read in every high school and college political science class – and since that’s not going to happen, it deserves to be shared, forwarded, and otherwise spread as widely as possible. Doing my bit, here!

Bovard is no cheerleader for the current President, no rider of the “Trump Train” – he comments that “Americans should be alarmed at Trump’s power grabs” (in one of his few failures to cite-and-source, he gives no indication of what those are), and reminds us that “Obama is correct that Americans should be on guard against any ‘absolutism’ from the Trump administration.”

But he also reminds us that “Obama declared Friday that Americans are ‘supposed to stand up to bullies, not follow them.’ But Trump won in 2016 in part because many Americans considered the federal government the biggest bully in the land.” And he cites example, after example, after example of how Obama either maintained or, in many cases, increased government power and intrusiveness, at the expense of transparency and freedom.

Here are a few of the examples that Bovard cites (sources linked in the op-ed itself, which I strongly encourage you to read):

  • the Transportation Security Administration became far more punitive and intrusive during Obama’s presidency
  • Obama expanded federal secrecy and prosecuted more journalists and whistleblowers than any previous administration
  • he campaigned in 2008 on a peace platform and then proceeded to bomb seven nations
  • he flip-flopped on illegal surveillance and unleashed the National Security Administration to target anyone “searching the web for suspicious stuff”
  • When Obama took office, the United States had the 20th-most-free press in the world; by 2016, it had fallen to 41st

And these are only some of the examples he cites – and, as I say, carefully sources. And after all this, Obama presumes to lecture us on Trump, or to present himself as some sort of moral leader? It’d be a joke, if it wasn’t so un-funny. The truth is, as Bovard accurately notes, “Nothing that Trump can do or say should be permitted to expunge Obama’s derelictions.”

I am in complete agreement! And as for Obama himself, he should do what nearly every former President has done, which is ride off into the sunset – or sit quietly on his porch, enjoying his substantial Presidential retirement income – and cease and desist his attempts to undermine a sitting President.

 


 

P.S. Needless to say, the Obamacrats in the public square were less enamored of Bovard’s conclusions. As he pointed out in a follow-up on his personal blog,

“I am chagrined that not everyone liked  yesterday’s USA Today oped, ‘Obama Fueled the Distrust that Led to Donald Trump.’ I expected the piece to spur thoughtful exchanges by folks with different perspectives.”

If so, I fear he was either hopelessly naive, or at least excessively optimistic. He continues,

“Alas, my hopes for a rebirth of civility have been mercilessly crushed. Here’s some responses generated via Twitter, email, and elsewhere online.”

https://i1.wp.com/jimbovard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/JPB-USA-Today-Obama-collage-of-angry-responses-september-2018555.jpg

As I commented, both on his blog and on his Facebook page, I suspect that most of the above “respondents” (if one can even dignify them with such a title) failed to read past the headline. And if they did, they clearly failed to comprehend what they were reading – or, just as likely, flatly refused to do so, lest their preconceived notions be disturbed by facts.

[Bovard’s] op-ed piece is spot-on, and (as I mentioned above) should be required reading in every high school and college-level political science class in the nation.

If Democrats dislike Trump, they should reflect on the fact that they have only themselves to blame, by tolerating Obama and nominating Clinton.

But frankly, I doubt that most of today’s Democrats are capable of that level of reflection. Sad to say!

On cruelty, culture, and the Left

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Found on “the interwebz”:

The “liberal” / Leftist approach to animal cruelty:

Against foxhunting? “Good lad!”

Against badger-baiting? “Good lad!”

Against bullfighting, dog-fighting, cock-fighting? “Good lad!”

Against the mass slaughter of animals by having their throats cut until they choke on their own blood (e.g., halal slaughter)? “You racist b@$tard!!!”

Please note that I am not necessarily or fundamentally opposed to halal or kosher (the two are functionally identical) slaughter, per se, if it is done properly. It is supposed to be done with a single clean sweep of the knife, and if so, can be quite humane; unfortunately, it often is not.

But that’s not why I’m posting this. I’m posting it to draw attention to the irony and double-standard which seems so sadly typical of today’s Leftists. Or perhaps it always has been, and it’s just on more open display these days. In any case:

Why would they be so quick to defend halal slaughter, when they are equally quick to vehemently and even viscerally oppose the other activities mentioned above? Because “it’s part of their (e.g., Muslim) culture!”

Well, guess what? Foxhunting (and for that matter, badger-baiting) is part of British culture (and foxhunting is also part of traditional American culture, as well, since 1650, when Robert Brooke arrived in the then-proprietary colony of Maryland with his family – and his foxhounds).

The others are parts of Western culture as well. Whether all of them are equally savory parts of said culture is open to debate; what is not – to my mind – open to debate is the fact that today’s Leftist (cultural Marxist) is perfectly willing to defend just about any cultural practice (there have even been defenses of female genital mutilation) except his own. And that is something that I find very sad, and indeed appalling.

On “Silent Sam,” Massachusetts, and complicity

Image result for silent sam

There is a meme making the rounds to the effect that Massachusetts – of all places! – was the first colony to legalize slavery, doing so in 1641.

Well, guess what? It’s true. I’ve confirmed it from multiple reputable sources online (here is a link to the most concise one I’ve found; some of the following dates come from this timeline).

In addition, in 1643, the New England Confederation, a “military alliance of the English colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven,” adopted a fugitive slave law, meaning that an escaped slave, if found, would be returned to his or her master. And in 1650, Connecticut legalized slavery. Note: Virginia didn’t pass its fugitive slave law until 1657, although it did pass a law allowing blacks to hold slaves (!) in 1654.

In 1652, Massachusetts required all black and Indian (Native American) servants to receive military training, just like white citizens; but ten years later, in 1662, rescinded that decree, no longer allowing them training in arms. New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire passed similar laws restricting the bearing of arms by blacks, in that same year.

Also, the slave trade in North America (although they were originally indentured servants; lifelong servitude was not a thing in the early days) began with the launching of the first slave-carrying ship, the “Desire,” in 1636. Care to guess where she was built and launched? Again, Massachusetts.

Now, I’m not beating up on Massachusetts. I love the Bay State, its topography and climate, its quaint villages, its glorious Fall foliage, its delicious seafood, and its many and (mostly) positive contributions to our collective history, from Lexington and Concord to its intimate connection with the sea (did I mention seafood?).

But part of that seafaring tradition included the slave trade, part of the “Triangle Trade” (a.k.a. “Triangular Trade”) that linked the American colonies to Europe (especially Britain) and Africa in a network of raw materials, finished goods, and slave labor.

All of the American colonies, later States, were complicit in that trade, either directly, or by benefiting from slave labor in the production of raw materials such as cotton, tobacco, and sugar, among other products. And the fact that New England had abolished slavery in its own territories did not prevent it from profiting mightily from that still going on elsewhere.

On the subject of indenture and slavery, in 1640, a runaway African indentured servant, John Punch, was sentenced to lifelong servitude for the crime of running away. Note: that was a sentence, in punishment for a crime. Arbitrary enslavement did not begin until the case of John Casor (1655), who was ruled by a court to be enslaved for life to Anthony Johnson: ironically, Johnson was an African-born former indentured servant who had completed his term and set himself up as a tobacco farmer, with indentured servants – and now, a slave, the first “official” one – of his own.

Incidentally, only about 10% of enslaved Africans (mostly captured and sold to Europeans, or white Americans, by rival African tribes) ended up in North America, where, as indicated above, they originally became indentured servants, but were later enslaved; the vast majority went to Central or South America (primarily Brazil) or the Caribbean Islands, where they all became slaves (see here for more detailed figures).

Why am I mentioning these things? Because there is a tendency to treat Southern folks, here in the U.S. – those who seceded and formed the Confederacy, from 1861-1865 – as if they were uniquely culpable in the slave trade, and slavery in general. The truth is rather different.

The history of slavery itself is ancient almost beyond reckoning, and worldwide in scope; but the history of slavery in America is also highly complex and multifaceted: including both sub-Saharan Africans selling other Africans into slavery to Europeans (later white Americans), and free blacks here owning slaves, as well as considerable involvement by Northern interests, including after slavery had officially been abolished in New England.

My point in all of this? It just underlines the absurdity of treating the South, and particularly the old Confederacy, as somehow uniquely culpable in the issue and institution of slavery, which it clearly was not; and using this fallacy as an excuse to tear down monuments and other historic iconography. The most recent example of this iconoclastic fervor is the toppling of the “Silent Sam” monument at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill – erected as a tribute to the more than 1,000 UNC students who fought, and particularly the 287 who died, in the War Between the States.

But Silent Sam is far from the only casualty in this war against history as expressed in monumental art: many other monuments have been attacked, damaged, defaced by graffiti, or broken down; and some have been removed, under color of law, by municipal authorities who ought to know better. The justification offered is that the South was fighting to protect slavery – a notion that is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, completely and tragically incorrect – an institution for which the Confederacy (so the argument goes) was uniquely culpable. The falsity of that notion is, I hope, amply demonstrated above.

If we are to eliminate every vestige of slavery in America, we will have no choice but to eliminate a lot of good, too. Great men can do terrible things, and flawed men can do great things. The complexity of humans is part of what makes us interesting. But we lose all of that – and impoverish both ourselves, and future generations – when we choose to obsessively mono-focus our attention on a single issue, such as slavery.

Should we ignore it, and pretend that it was of no consequence? No, of course not! It was and is (for it still exists, in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and human trafficking is a thing even here in the U.S.) a moral evil, and must be decried as such.

But judging people, events, and even whole regions solely on the basis of their connection with slavery narrows our focus, blinds our perception, and cripples our judgment. Not for nothing do serious academic historians consider “presentism” – the tendency to look at the past through the lens of current-day standards and sensibilities – to be dangerously misleading.

We would be better off, I think, if more people today heeded an aphorism my late mother often quoted:

“There is so much good in the worst of us,
And so much bad in the best of us,
That it ill-behooves any of us
To talk about the rest of us.”

Or as our Lord Jesus Christ once said, “Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Rowan Atkinson on freedom of speech and “the New Intolerance”

Boris Johnson and Rowan Atkinson

“‘I am not intolerant,’ say many people; say many softly spoken, highly-educated, liberal-minded people: ‘I am only intolerant of intolerance.’ And people tend to nod sagely and say ‘Oh, wise words, wise words,’ and yet if you think about this supposedly inarguable statement for longer than five seconds, you realize that all it is advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another.”

Source: Rowan Atkinson At Reform Section 5 Parliamentary Reception | LYBIO.NET Discover New Reading Content.

Former UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has come under fire for saying, among other things, that burkha-wearing Muslim women look like “letterboxes.” English actor Rowan Atkinson, CBE – perhaps best known here in the U.S. for his role as “Mr. Bean” – is among those defending him.

In this context, it is worth noting Mr. Atkinson’s earlier comments on freedom of speech, one of the best defenses of that right I have seen. The full transcript is at the link above, but here are what I consider key excerpts:

“[A] culture… has taken hold of the programmes of successive governments that, with the reasonable and well-intended ambition to contain obnoxious elements in society, has created a society of an extraordinarily authoritarian and controlling nature. That is what you might call The New Intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent.

“‘I am not intolerant’, say many people; say many softly spoken, highly-educated, liberal-minded people: ‘I am only intolerant of intolerance’. And people tend to nod sagely and say ‘Oh, Wise words, wise words’ and yet if you think about this supposedly inarguable statement for longer than five seconds, you realize that all it is advocating is the replacement of one kind of intolerance with another. Which to me doesn’t represent any kind of progress at all.

“Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people: they are addressed by the issues being aired, argued and dealt with, preferably outside the legal process. For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed.

“We need to build our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger. As President Obama said in an address to the United Nations a month or so ago: ‘…laudable efforts to restrict [hateful] speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech’ – and that is the essence of my thesis; more speech.

“If we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue and that must include the right to insult or to offend. As Lord Dear says, the freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.”

Precisely so. Liberals – authentic, classical Liberals, not the illiberal Leftists one sees on display so prominently today – used to “get” that. “If only inoffensive speech is free, no speech is free,” they often said, and rightly so. “The right to freedom of speech must extend to unpopular speech.” Or in the words often attributed (possibly incorrectly) to Voltaire, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Unfortunately, it seems that – while there may have been, and may continue to be – those who actually believed that, for too many on the Left, that now seems, in retrospect, to have been a tactic to open a space for their ideologies in the national dialogue, and now that they have achieved a certain dominance, they want to repress all speech with which they themselves do not agree.

Either we have freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the (U.S.) Constitution, or we do not; if we do, then it must certainly include the freedom to oppose the ideological orthodoxies of the Left! But like so many others, supposed “liberals” only actually like freedom when it suits them. Shutting down opinions they find uncongenial is not only permissible, in their worldview, but laudable.

That viewpoint may be described in may ways, but “liberal,” or tending toward freedom, are not among those way!

Russia, The Royal Martyrs, and Revolutionary Modernity | Throne, Altar, Liberty

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The murder of the Romanovs had been foreshadowed by the beheadings of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette on January 21st and October 16th respectively in 1793, and before that by the beheading of Charles I on January 30th, 1649.

Source: Throne, Altar, Liberty: Russia, The Royal Martyrs, and Revolutionary Modernity

I have said this myself, more than once and in more than one forum, but I have never said it better – and very likely, not this well:

“The murder of the Romanovs had been foreshadowed by the beheadings of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette on January 21st and October 16th respectively in 1793, and before that by the beheading of Charles I on January 30th, 1649. There are a number of parallels between these murders. The victims, in each case, included the legitimate Royal Sovereign of the country in which the revolution was being perpetrated. He was also, in each case, the Royal Protector of a Church which claimed descent from the early, undivided, Apostolic Church and which was under attack by the revolutionaries.

“Charles I was the Protector of the Church of England which was under attack by the Puritan Calvinists. Louis XVI was Protector of the Roman Catholic Church in France which was a target of the Revolutionaries who were disciples of the rationalist Rousseau. Nicholas II was Protector of the Russian Orthodox Church against the atheistic, Marxist, Bolsheviks. In England and France, the revolutionaries tried to give a façade of legality to the murders by holding show trials in which the kings were condemned by kangaroo courts. In Russia, the Bolsheviks didn’t bother with this, they simply declared the Tsar to be guilty of crimes against the Russian people and had him shot. In each case the royal murders failed to satisfy the bloodlust of the revolutionaries, but rather merely whetted their appetite for the mass murders that were to come.

“There is a sense in which all three crimes were committed by the same perpetrators. While the term ‘left’ did not develop its political connotations until the French Revolution, when it was applied to the enemies of the Crown, aristocracy, and Church because of where they stood in relation to the speaker in the French assembly, the Puritans were definitely historical antecedents of the French Revolutionaries, just as the Bolsheviks were their ideological descendants. The Puritans, like the Anabaptists of continental Europe, were the ‘left-wing’ of the Reformation, those who thought the Magisterial Reformers had not gone far enough. They were also the first classical liberals, or, as liberals were called at the time, Whigs.

“In their thinking, and especially the secularized version of it offered in the writings of John Locke, the foundation was laid for the much more radical thought of Rousseau, which inspired the French Revolutionaries, and in turn laid the foundation for Marx, the father of Communism. In this lineage can be seen one explanation for the fact that ‘left-wing extremism’ is a far less commonly heard expression than ‘right-wing extremism.’ The latter expression is, of course, never used in good faith. It is employed by the left, to smear those who hold views that the left has decided are to be considered to be outside the pale of acceptable discourse…

“The reason ‘left-wing extremism’ has not caught on is that it is redundant. The essence of the left, its very nature, is the relentless desire for the complete overthrow of all time-honoured institutions, traditions, and order. From royalty, nobility and the Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to the middle classes and private property and enterprise in the nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, to marriage, the family, the nation and even the biological realities of race and sex in the twentieth and twenty-first, the left has moved on from one target to another, seeking only to destroy in its hatred and rage, with its ultimate targets being the Good, the True, and the Beautiful and indeed, God Himself, for, as Dr. Johnson observed centuries ago, the first Whig was the devil.

“The left is extremism, and extremism is the left.”

Sadly but absolutely true. It’s been demonstrated over and over again.

An added bonus of this excellent essay by Gerry T. Neal – who describes himself as a “Protestant Christian, patriotic Canadian, and a reactionary High Tory with a libertarian streak, at the same time a monarchist, indeed a royal absolutist, and a minarchist” – is a detailed discussion of how Senator Joseph McCarthy, castigated as a “witch hunter” for his crusade against communists and their fellow-travelers in 1950s America, was actually far more right than wrong, noting:

“Russia has been much in the news lately as left-wing wackos have been trying to paint US President Donald Trump’s attempts to get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and allow the two countries to peacefully co-exist as some sort of treason. In my childhood, Russia was still in the grips of the murderous, totalitarian, ideological, regime bent on global conquest that had seized power in the fall of 1917. How well I remember that at that time, the same people who are crying ‘the Russians are coming’ today, labelled anyone who warned about the Communist Kremlin’s evil designs a ‘McCarthyite.'”

Or as I have commented elsewhere, including in this blog, how ironic that some of the same people – and certainly the same party – who spent years, even decades, appeasing, accommodating, and apologizing for the Soviet Union are now aghast at the idea that the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin actually has, and is pursuing, its own legitimate national interests. Perhaps not surprisingly, an attempt at global Communist hegemony was much more acceptable to the Left than contemporary Russian nationalism!

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

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!

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.