Europe is committing suicide – or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether European people decide to go along with this is, naturally, another matter.
~ Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe
“Anyone who thinks for longer than ten-seconds about the nature of faith can see how obeying the laws of God is more important to the faithful than integrating with a sad shadow of a Western civilization that knows not for whom it stands. We know not why we exist. No longer allowed a national identity, Europeans are simply chattle. Though we are told that we are free, the truth is we have no freedom at all and no respite from the Orwellian demands of our masters that we ignore the obvious in favor of the fantastical.”
Unfortunately, it is only Muslims who are allowed to – and who make up the current, apparent, majority of those who care enough to – concern themselves with obeying the laws of God, rather than the dictates of a secular state (and culture) that appears to be on its last legs – “a sad shadow of a Western civilization that knows not for whom it stands.”
A Christian who dares to say “Because God wills it” – quod Deus vult eum – is branded a xenophobe, a religious bigot, a dangerous militant extremist… while the genuinely dangerous militant extremists and religious bigots – from what has since the 7th century proven itself to be the most dangerous, extreme, militant, and bigoted religious ideology on the planet – continue to get air time: on YouTube, Facebook, and TV and radio stations worldwide. Yet those who speak out against this favoritism for anti-Western forces are frequently banned for offending against some sort of nebulous and unspecified “community standards.”
“Orwellian” is right. I have maintained for years – decades! – that George Orwell was not wrong, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, only premature. I did not know how right events would prove me to be! Not that it’s something I desire. I would have given anything to be proven wrong, but it was not to be.
Today’s version of “MiniTrue” (Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth“) insists that “diversity is our strength” (cf. Orwell, 1984: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”), that “multiculturalism” consists, not in maintaining the integrity of a variety of cultures in their proper historical and geographic spheres, but forcing them together in a mixed-up mélange of “diverse” sameness… at least in Western countries.
In our present environment, that kind of “diversity” is a source of division and disruption; and that is probably intentional, on the part of those who wish to break down existing structures and institutions, and re-make society into their own kind of utopia – a plan which is more likely to result is dystopia and horrific conflict, if carried through (recall that the meaning of “utopia” is “no place”).
History has repeatedly shown us that the worst outcomes are brought about by trying to usher in some version of the Kingdom of God, whether religious or secular, by our own efforts – from the Cromwellian interregnum in England and the “Reign of Terror” in France to Stalin’s purges in the USSR and the Cultural Revolution in China, and many more examples could be cited – and mass importation of alien peoples into Western nations is following that too-familiar pattern.
That is not to say that immigrants can never become part of a society, or contribute to it in constructive and meaningful ways. They can, and they have. But that can happen only when they enter in small enough numbers, relative to the existing population, to be readily assimilated, and when they come in with the desire to become part of that society – not to transform it into what they ostensibly left behind.
In this as in so many other regards, Nature provides a model. Alien species can and do become naturalized in new regions… sometimes, if there is a niche where they can fit in without causing strain on the rest of the ecosystem.
But if alien species are introduced into a disturbed ecosystem – such as after a fire, or in an area where the integrity of the existing ecosystem has been broken by, say, logging or development – the introduced aliens frequently become invasive, and, in the absence of natural controls, end up overpopulating and choking out the native species. This is the case in human “ecosystems,” as well, and we are seeing precisely that in our present era.
But another example from Nature is when pathogens are introduced into an organism. In this case, a sufficient volume of pathogens can overwhelm the organism’s natural defenses and kill it, of course. But the introduction of pathogens does naturally evoke the production of antibodies by that organism, that fight against the pathogen.
This is what we may be seeing in the rise of what the mainstream media dismissively, disdainfully, or fearfully refers to as “far-right” organizations. Far-right some (but by no means all) of them may well be; but if so, it is only a natural counter-weight to the far-left leanings of society’s elites, in the news and other media, in academia, and in the mainstream political establishment.
Science teaches us that the nature of systems is equilibrium; that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The so-called “far right” is by no means yet equal to the existing far-left, now well along in their “long march through the institutions” – indeed, firmly entrenched therein – but it is indeed opposite. And it may well need to grow, in both size and strength, in order to bring some measure of balance to the outsize influence of the Left, and wrest the system back toward equilibrium.
Is it possible that the pendulum may then swing too far in that direction? Of course it is. That, too, is the nature of things. But the alternative is an even more complete trashing of society as it exists, the further destruction of key human institutions such as Church and Family, Blood and Soil (*). We would then enter a long Dark Age, the duration and end of which cannot even be contemplated with any certainty or confidence.
In such a Dark Age, the defenders of the West and of Christendom would be reduced to a subjected, remnant people, and although God would never abandon us, is that really the future we want, for ourselves and our descendants? It is not the future I want!
Read, and take warning.
* As Stephen Clay McGehee describes the latter two concepts, “a Blood and Soil movement… takes in two of the most basic concepts in all of history: Our People, and the land of our ancestors that provides the food that feeds our people. It means that while we wish all the best toward others, our immediate family comes first, followed by ever larger circles of extended family, and then on out from there. There is Our People, and there is Other People.” He elsewhere elaborates,
“‘Blood and Soil’ are the two key components of any traditional culture. Blood and soil are also the two primary requirements of a nation 1. Blood 2 refers to the people who make up that culture. It is the direct lineage; the DNA of the people who make up that group… Blood is a broader form of family. It is the racial identity of a group of people, and it provides a strong bond among that group. Soil 3 refers to a physical location that a People call home. It is also a cultural appreciation of our place in the world, and the understanding that the soil provides the food that we eat. Some, such as the Southern Agrarians, place a greater emphasis on the soil than do other groups, but it is a crucial component of any traditional culture.”
When we build, let it not be for our time but for all time. Real architecture stands the test of time, aesthetically and physically.
“Classical architecture is fundamentally respectful of Tradition; it’s fundamentally respectful of the order of Nature as revealing the mind of God… Certain proportions are harmonic; certain ways of bringing things together are ordered and perfected and radiant, and they ring true to the eye [just as certain musical structures and harmonies ring true to the ear]. So Classicism is basically [a way of creating] architecture that is about the noblest and highest achievements humanity can [attain]. What is the most poetic, most harmonious, most ordered way to do architecture? How can it restore order to the world? So, Classicism is not a style – primarily, although there are stylistic components to it. It is a way of imitating the mind of God in architecture.”
— Dennis R. McNamara, “Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy”
It is one thing – an essential thing – to bring attention to assaults against the West, and to oppose them by one’s words. It is another to remind ourselves, each other, and those who may not know much about the West why it’s worth defending!
Here is my first entry in “Glories of the West,” an occasional series of (primarily) videos which puts the lie to the oft-repeated contemporary bromide that “white people have no culture.” On the contrary, we do indeed – and a glorious and magnificent heritage of culture, at that! Architectural, musical, political, philosophical, artistic, and in many other realms as well.
Even the ruins of European structures – such as cathedrals, castles, and abbeys – are glorious, calling to mind what they must have been like in their prime. Part of our vocation, we who are defenders of the West, is to strive, to the best of our abilities and by the grace God gives us, to protect, preserve, and (where possible) restore our patrimony, for our own sakes but more importantly, for our descendants.
Researchers found that it is not just poverty or terror… that is driving mass migration, but because Africans want to imitate their friends and relatives who have already successfully illegally immigrated to Europe.
We have GOT to stop thinking of this as a “humanitarian issue,” and start understanding it as what it is: an invasion!
And then, begin responding accordingly.
If we do not, the West is doomed.
“I did not fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France. I do not touch the culture, the identity and the customs of others; let’s not touch mine.” – Brigitte Bardot
Brigitte Bardot – a noted actress and famous beauty who starred in 47 films (most of them in the 1950s and 60s) – was an outspoken critic of the French colonial presence in Algiers, which gained its independence from France after a vicious 8-year war (1954-1962). But, as she pointed out in an interview with the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles,
France is not what it once was. “I have been brought up in honor, patriotism, love and respect for my country, and when I see what it has become, I feel desperate,” she said.
The 83-year-old also said that it is “unacceptable” to see burqas become commonplace in France, and Islamists are “practically everywhere.”
This article also notes that
The former actress didn’t mince her words when it came to her thoughts on the European Union either. “We have to get out of it,” she said. Bardot added that she is a supporter of right-wing National Front politician Marine Le Pen, who has also spoken out against France’s membership in the EU.
With so many Left-wing actors and other entertainers espousing cultural Marxism on this side of the Atlantic (and probably in Europe, too), it’s actually rather refreshing to hear such an icon of the silver screen speaking out in favor of protecting the culture, history, and heritage of her home country!
“Don’t you see? Immigration can never be an effective or significant way to deal with the suffering people of the world!”
– “Immigration Gumballs” with Roy Beck from NumbersUSA
Immigration is not the answer. Immigration cannot be the answer!
It will never be sufficient to significantly (or even detectably) improve the lot of the world’s suffering populations – though it can be more than sufficient to irrevocably, and disastrously, alter the countries into which they immigrate, as Europe is discovering – and it tends to be a “brain drain,” removing the only ones with the energy, enterprise, and intelligence to (maybe) make a difference in their countries of origin.
It’s a bad deal, all around!