The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

“The image of Germany as a sinister, predatory, warlike nation only took root in the twentieth century. Nineteenth century Germany, by contrast, was seen as a place of peace and enlightenment.”

Source: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation  – Smash Cultural Marxism

Although this article suffers, in my estimation, from its none-too-subtle anti-Jewish bias, what the author has to say about the demonization of Germany is squarely on the mark.

I have shared elsewhere on this blog (“Who’s to blame for World War One?”) how the idea that Germany is solely or even primarily to blame for the First World War is entirely counter-factual, the result of Allied propaganda created to mask their own complicity and to justify a horrific and completely unnecessary war; and is is widely recognized by sober and objective historians that the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party was a direct and perhaps inevitable result of the draconian punitive measures leveled against Germany by those same Allies, when victorious.

Prior to World War One, “Germany was admired by the world as a center of learning, for its high culture and for its achievements in every field; but also for its culture of honesty, hard work, orderliness and thrift, which existed even at the lowest level of society. British scholars and journalists had been very favorably disposed toward all things German, including their history, culture, and institutions throughout the nineteenth century,” and “British author Thomas Arnold (June 13, 1795 – June 12, 1842) saw Germany not as a nation with a unique predisposition toward authoritarianism and regimentation, but rather as a ‘cradle of law, virtue, and freedom,’ and considered it a ‘distinction of the first rank’ that the English belonged to the Germanic family of peoples.”

Continue reading “The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation”

French Girl: Milo Is Right, Europe Is Falling – YouTube

I am not exactly a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, for a number of reasons – not least because he’s not exactly, shall we say, the most wholesome of examples in his personal habits. But my father had a saying: “even a stopped clock is right twice a day,” and he is square on with respect to the threat posed to the West – both Europe, most immediately and critically, and also America and the rest of the European diaspora – by mass immigration of Muslims, mostly from the Middle East and Africa.

As has been pointed out in this blog previously, the majority of Muslims are not actively and violently attempting to destroy Western civilization. However, the majority of those who are actively and violently attempting to destroy Western civilization are Muslim. And their justifications for doing so are explicitly Islamic in nature, regardless of the attempts by some on the Left to obscure this fact. That makes Islam an existential threat to the West, even if many of its individual exponents are not. This is a distinction which seems lost on far too many, these days.

This young woman, who came to the U.S. with her family in 2007 to escape what was already becoming a difficult situation – even before the borders of Europe were basically thrown open a couple of years ago, under the auspices of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her vice-grip on the European Union – and who has been visiting her former country annually since then, further confirms what many of us have had good reason to fear: that the situation is bad, and it’s only getting worse. Anyone who does not realize this either has their head completely in the sand, or is being willfully obtuse.

Europe: “The Era of Liberal Babble”

Uninhibited by the obvious fear [expressed by] their citizens, the EU nevertheless carries on its immigration policies. Ironically, Western political elites consider this clearly widespread sentiment against Muslim immigration “racist” and “Islamophobic” and consequently disregard it…

Source: Europe: “The Era of Liberal Babble”

“Europe, so many years after the Cold War, is ideologically divided into a new East and a West. This time, the schism is over multiculturalism. What Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has termed “liberal babble” continues to govern Western Europe’s response to the challenges that migration and Islamic terrorism have brought, especially to personal security.”

Despite repeated terror attacks by Islamic militants, despite ongoing and widespread criminal attacks – including sexual attacks against women – by the mostly-Islamic Middle Eastern and African immigrants (so-called “refugees”) that have been let into Europe in such great numbers, and worse yet despite the obvious distress of their own citizens at these attacks, the political elite of Western Europe continues to mash down hard on the self-destruct button.

“We are experiencing now the end of an era: a conceptual-ideological era,” this article quotes Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as telling supporters in 2015. “Putting pretension aside, we can simply call this the era of liberal babble. This era is now at an end.” Let us hope that he is right! But sadly, it seems to be going out kicking and screaming – and continuing to babble.

As someone with considerable German ancestry, on both sides of my family, I am particularly appalled to see the mess Chancellor Angela Merkel is making of the once-proud German nation. Kaiser Wilhelm I and his Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck – among many others – must be rolling in their graves! But the situation is no better in Sweden, France, and many other places on the Continent, and even in Britain, where a Muslim mayor tries to rule London as if it were not part of England, and Islamic enclaves in Birmingham and elsewhere function as de facto colonies and outposts of the Dar al-Islam.

It is difficult to understand what motivates this self-inflicted immolation. Part of it may be, at least in the case of Germany, their continued – and by now decidedly misplaced and neurotic – guilt over the Nazi era. Part of it may be a well-meant, but again misplaced and excessive, desire to exercise compassion. And of course a big piece is economically driven, rooted in Western Europe’s inability or unwillingness to constructively address the problem of their own declining birthrate. This is the 900-lb gorilla in the room that really does need to be dealt with; attempting to “solve” the problem by de-Europeanizing Europe itself is no solution at all!

Part of it, however, as regards Western Europe’s unwillingness to allow their citizens the means to defend themselves, may be reluctance to be seen as taking a page from the American playbook. Unfortunately, I fear that even now, 240 years on, many in Europe still see the U.S. as wild and violent children, with themselves as the wise and benevolent elders, practicing sober responsibility. If true, this is a rather ludicrous viewpoint, given events of the last century, and the current situation is Europe: their version of sober responsibility may yet destroy them! Will destroy them, if allowed to continue for too long.

But whatever the cause or combination of causes for the present debacle, something needs to change dramatically, and soon, before everything that has made Europe great for centuries – millennia – is submerged under a rising tide of barbarism. There is no time to waste!

What is cultural Marxism?

As a blog devoted to the defense and promotion of the traditional, the classical, and the enduring – or to put it another way, “the good, the true, and the beautiful” – The Anglophilic Anglican is obviously on the polar-opposite end of the spectrum from that pervasive and pernicious metapolitical phenomenon often known as “cultural Marxism.” But what is cultural Marxism, anyway?

The precise definition can vary with the individual or entity doing the defining, but it is fair to say that cultural Marxism includes at least these elements:

  1. Globalist and internationalist in scope and ethos, cultural Marxism opposes national or regional loyalty, pride, and patriotism, supporting instead transnational structures like the UN and EU.
  2. Cultural Marxism typically supports “open borders” and “liberal” (e.g., lax or nonexistence) immigration policies, employing euphemisms (such as “undocumented” instead of the factual illegal, and “refugees” rather than the more accurate “migrants”) to mask or justify its intentions.
  3. Deeply anti-traditional, cultural Marxism sees (rightly!) traditional cultural, spiritual / religious, and even political norms and values as antithetical, indeed hostile, to its goal of transforming society in its own image.
  4. Highly secular, even atheistic, cultural Marxism is opposed to traditional religious and moral values, particularly those rooted in the Christian faith, although it is willing to use quasi-religious rhetoric and the idea of interfaith “coexistence” to advance its agenda.
  5. Aggressively “multi-cultural,” cultural Marxism claims to champion “diversity,” but appears to fail to realize that making every place demographically identical is not in fact diversity, but homogeneity. Or perhaps it does realize this, and that’s part of the agenda…
  6. While claiming “individual rights” as the justification for much of its raison d’être, cultural Marxism paradoxically adopts strong-arm, authoritarian tactics – from shaming campaigns (accusing opponents of “racism,” “sexism,” “xenophobia,” etc.) to violent protests / riots – for squashing dissent and imposing its view of the world, in the process trampling the individual rights of those who do not agree with its ideology.
  7. Despite its antipathy to traditional moral standards, cultural Marxism is quite willing to use traditional terminology and concepts, such as “compassion” and “fairness,” to justify its attempts to overthrow traditional social and political structures and moral values.
  8. Cultural Marxism is methodical and gradual in its methods, and takes the long view of history, knowing that every moral or social innovation accepted makes it that much more difficult to justify opposition to the next step; it counts on its opponents becoming fatigued, and giving up the fight.

“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.” – Max Horkheimer, leader of the “Frankfurt School”

Not coincidentally, the importation and juxtaposition in close proximity of people with widely (even wildly) varied cultural, political, social, and religious backgrounds (*), coupled with the deconstruction of traditional mediating institutions such as traditional families and churches, and traditional social, moral, and political norms and understandings, provides fertile ground for the imposition of radically innovative ideas and ideologies – such as cultural Marxism itself. This is a truth which is not lost on cultural Marxists.

(* On this subject, I wish I could find the account I read, several years ago, about a cruise company which proudly advertised the multicultural nature of its crews. The dark secret that “selling point” hid, as recounted by the author of the article, is that having a crew made up of people of  a wide range of ethnicities, cultures, national origins, languages, etc., meant that it was almost impossible for them to come together and organize for collective bargaining. As a result, the company was able to exploit them more-or-less with impunity! This is a lesson which should be recalled, when considering the ostensible “benefits” of aggressive multiculturalism and immigration.)

Nota Bene: Franklin Einspruch, at The Federalist, makes a good case that what are most commonly known, these days, as cultural Marxists are actually what he refers to as “pomofascists,” short for “postmodern fascists.” As Einspruch notes,

“The main impulse at work here is not Marxism, but megalomania. The pomofascist sees himself as the embodiment of good and worthy causes. The less everyone else supports those causes, the less human they are, and therefore deserving fewer rights and less entitlement to their own views. Lying to them or about them is of no consequence. Beyond a not-so-far-off point of disagreement, it is acceptable to attack them, rhetorically or bodily. In this context, Marxism is merely an exculpatory device.”

While I don’t disagree with the point, I think we can’t totally discredit or ignore the Leftist / Marxist attitudes and ideology espoused by most of these people, either (see Horkheimer quote, above). Also, I think he’s fighting an uphill battle if he seriously wants to change the designation: “cultural Marxism” has acquired a certain currency, despite repeated (and somewhat hysterical) attempts by its proponents to discredit both the term and those who use it.

But then, I have always argued that the political spectrum is less a straight line than a horseshoe: go far enough to either the Left or the Right, and you end in totalitarianism.

On the misuse of compassion

refugees-migrants-invaders

As a Christian, I am a strong proponent of the virtue of compassion, when properly understood and applied. But here’s what a lot of folks today don’t seem to get: compassion is not an entitlement; it must be earned.

To put it bluntly, if you expect people to feel compassion toward you, they have to have a reason to believe that you deserve it. This is where a lot of the Muslim migrants pouring into Europe and, increasingly, the U.S. fall short.

In the case of families with young children, or obviously oppressed religious minorities like Christians and Yazidis, it’s a no-brainer. Of course they deserve compassion! They are being oppressed and even murdered by the Muslim majority in their historic homelands (and for the few who do make it to Europe, in the refugee camps there).

But here’s the thing: a significant majority – even an overwhelming majority, especially in Europe – of Muslim so-called “refugees” are young, able-bodied men of military age. This means, to those capable of viewing the situation objectively, one of two things:

1) They are cowards, who are fleeing their home countries (and in many cases leaving families behind) rather than sticking around and doing what they can to improve the situation there; or

2) They are not refugees are all, but rather are coming into Western countries under false pretenses, with the goal of reshaping Western cultures and societies to comply with Islamic ideological teachings.

In neither case are they worthy of compassion. In neither case are they likely to be adding anything of value to countries taking them in (as left-wing politicos and pundits like to put it, “enriching the culture”), rather the contrary: their actions and attitudes are all too often proving destructive of Western culture and values.

Compassion is an important and cherished virtue, but we cheapen it when we apply it to the undeserving. And in this case, our misplaced compassion may very well be working to our own detriment.

People of the West need to wake up and smell the Erk Soos*!

(* Erk Soos = a licorice-based drink popular in Muslim areas of the Middle East)

Commentary: Dovetailing agendas – reflections on sexuality, immigration, families, and economics

The recent massacre, by a (perhaps repressed-homosexual) Islamic terrorist of 49 people in an Orlando nightclub catering to the LGBT population of the area has served as, in the words of one commentator, a “Rorschach test” for some of the issues dividing Americans today, including homosexuality, immigration (although American-born, he was the son of Afghan immigrants), and Jihadism (Islamic extremism, militant Islam, etc.).

As is always the case with tragic events, this has brought out some of the best, and some of the worst, in the people of this country. It has also sparked, or helped to coalesce, a number of thoughts for me, personally.

Let me start by saying that I have quite a number of LGBT friends, many of whom I love dearly, regardless of what they might do in the bedroom. And furthermore, as Christians, we are called a) to remember that we all are sinners, and b) to love one another as we love ourselves, and as Christ loved us. So I have zero tolerance when it comes to bashing people, verbally or (especially) otherwise, for their sexual proclivities.

That said, from a political perspective, it occurs to me that supporting and promoting homosexuality is useful to those who want to “transform society”: not only for its own sake, by making what used to be seen as deviant behavior appear normal, but also because it serves as a form of social birth control, helping to bring down the population, and providing still more openings for the importation of third-world “migrants” to achieve the liberal ideal of a fully “blended” society. (We have also been taught for years that reducing population is an ecological necessity, but that’s a subject for another post.) In fact, the non-procreative nature of homosexual behavior is probably one of the reasons why it has been frowned upon by most societies throughout the world, and throughout history.

And of course the “sexual revolution” as a whole — which decoupled (no pun intended) sex from procreation, and turned it into a solely elective, recreational activity — had, and continues to to have, the same effect. A sentiment I hear expressed time and again on the net, and sometimes in person, is that “sex is just sex”: something to do with your spare time, a recreational activity, not a sacred duty and trust, intended for the strengthening of the bond between two intimate partners – namely, the husband and wife in a marriage relationship – and the procreation of children within that marriage.

While it’s not generally thought of as a “liberal” contribution, the loss of a living wage has also had a deleterious effect on families and child-bearing. It used to be that a single wage-earner could reasonably be expected to support his (usually) or her family, but that is no longer the case. With both parents working, there is less incentive to have children, and less opportunity for any children one does have to be formed in and by traditional family and societal values. As I say, this isn’t a strictly “liberal” policy, but it’s surely an effect of “neoliberal” economics!

Meanwhile, the “ideal” of the “career woman” has been praised to the heavens, while “stay at home moms” get sneered at. To cap that, we are informed that “well-behaved women rarely make history.” Well, that may (or may not) be true, but they certainly do make for stable, loving, and committed relationships, families, and homes, which in turn are the foundation of a stable society — and that is perhaps rather more important, in the overall scheme of things!

Anybody besides me starting to see a pattern, here…?

And of course, on a different but still related subject, the fewer guns that are in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens who still believe in the Constitution and American values, customs, and traditions, the less meaningful will be any resistance to these policies. If governmental and non-governmental forces seem aggressive in their social-transformation policies now, imagine what they would be like if they were not at least somewhat restrained by the knowledge that there are up to 77 million armed American citizens!

I am becoming increasingly aware of, and appalled by, the way so many of these allegedly “liberal” ideas and policies dovetail together. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for what to do about it. But I will say that recognizing and facing up to the problem is an important first step!