France: A Decomposing Civilization

A medic tends to a victim of a terrorist attack in Paris, France, November 13, 2015. (Photo by Thierry Chesnot/Getty Images)

France’s authorities and elites are tearing up, piece by piece, the country’s historical, religious and cultural legacy so that nothing remains. A nation dispossessed of its identity will see its inner strength broken.

Source: France: A Decomposing Civilization | Gatestone Institute

Ah! Ma belle France, ma pauvre France! Terre de Charles Martel et Charlemagne. Ce qui vous est arrivé?

(Ah! My beautiful France, my poor France! Land of Charles Martel and Charlemagne. What has happened to you?)

As I have commented previously, more than once and in more than one forum, a nation, a culture, a society has this in common with a plant: cut off from its roots, it will wither and die.

What is happening to France is, or should be, a cautionary tale for what many among the so-called “elite” want to happen to the U.S. – and indeed, with the current attacks against historic statues, monuments, plaques, flags, and other iconography of our past, the assault is well under way.

Advertisements

How Political Correctness Is Driving the Breakdown of Society | Intellectual Takeout

It’s a great thing to encourage diversity, but in doing so we should ask ourselves if that diversity encourages or discourages a common culture amongst the nation. If it does the latter, then perhaps it’s time we ask whether a doctrine of political correctness is truly healthy for the country.

Source: How Political Correctness Is Driving the Breakdown of Society | Intellectual Takeout

Very gently phrased, but very accurate! I have argued for a long time and in a variety of fora, including this one, that there are a limited number of common norms that serve as support pillars for a culture, a society, and a nation. Among these are common ethnicity, common language, common religion, common ethical and moral standards, a common history, and respect for common institutions (both political and social), customs, and traditions.

Like a well-made building, a society – or a nation – can survive one or more of its support pillars getting a little shaky, but if too many of them begin to experience breakdown, the stability and integrity of the culture, like the building, is at risk. That, unfortunately, is the break-point I see us moving towards with increasing velocity, if current trends continue.

Twilight of Europe: Hundreds of European Languages Facing Extinction

European governments are calling for “diversity” at the expense of native European diversity. And this is literally a cultural genocide.

Source: Twilight of Europe: Hundreds of European Languages Facing Extinction

Another interesting essay from Carolyn Emerick.

I remember back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was in college and, later, grad (divinity) school, how incensed my mostly progressive classmates and I were at the threat being posed by globalization to the rich variety of languages and dialects found among the indigenous populations of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Central and South America. The villains in these stories were generally American, European, or generically Western corporations, governments, or both.

While this was and remains a real issue, Ms Emerick points out that the same thing is happening, but with much less fanfare, outrage, or even awareness, among the people, languages, and dialects of Europe. Once again, globalization is the culprit, but this time, it is not Europeans going out into the world that are causing the problems, but the rest of the world pouring into Europe.

For us in the U.S., the leveling and conforming effect of American culture – while not entirely bad, when utilized to build a reasonably cohesive, unified society – and the standardizing effect of modern media and marketing, have combined to blunt and minimize our awareness of the distinctiveness, particularity, and vibrancy of various European cultures, languages, dialects, and their associated customs and traditions.

The result has been to lend an element of “truthiness” to the false narrative that “white people have no culture,” and we must therefore import “diversity” from elsewhere in the world. And it is sadly true that, all too often, Walmart, cable TV (and increasingly the internet), and professional sports seem to be the limit of many Americans’ cultural experience.

The reality, however, is that Europe and Europeans are replete with cultural and linguistic diversity! But it is a diversity which is under threat. With respect to Britain, the major focus of The Anglophilic Anglican, Ms Emerick notes that

“The United Kingdom is home to many forms of Celtic language as well as dozens of dialects of English, many of which have close roots to the original speech of the first Anglo-Saxons. 

“But, instead of making an effort to preserve this important cultural heritage, the U.K. government is making concessions for illegal immigrants and using taxes of hard working British people to pay for foreigners who live off their taxes and refuse to work.

“These unemployed migrants then reproduce in vast numbers. But native Britons will consistently tell you that they cannot afford to have more children. What is going on here? Native Europeans are being taxed for their own demographic replacement.”

This is, to say the least, problematic! And that is putting it very gently. One must ask oneself, what is the rationale, what is the reasoning, what is the sense in this apparent drive to self-immolation on the part of many in Europe?

If it is to gain cheap workers – which I’m sure was at least part of the initial impetus – it has been demonstrated repeatedly that most of those coming in from Africa and Middle East have little desire to work; they are there to live off the European social safety net… which will shortly be strained to the breaking point, if it is not already.

And if it is to atone for Nazism, colonialism, or any other real or imagined evil of the 19th and 20th centuries, one must inquire, how much self-flagellation is enough? How much is too much?

With immigrants responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of crime – including rape and sexual grooming for prostitution – to the point of over-stretching the police forces of several European countries, and insisting on special considerations in every area from law to cuisine from their erstwhile hosts, how much of this orgy of cultural masochism – even cultural suicide – can Europe endure?

Because unlike the immigrants, Europeans have no other homeland. They cannot return to their home countries, for they are there already. Their backs are to the wall. If Europe does not remain hospitable to Europeans, they will be homeless indeed… and 40 or 50,000 years of European ethnic and cultural evolution and development will be ended.

Is it worth it, for the false promise of pseudo-“diversity” and a mockery of “multiculturalism,” in a continent which has, historically, embodied the terms? Europe has a plenitude of diversity – linguistically, culturally, ethnically. This is a fact which needs to be celebrated, not suppressed!

But as with all other areas of problem-solving, the first step is to admit that we have a problem, in the first place…

“Have Heart; For We are on the Cusp of Great Cultural Revolution”

Our culture has been under intense attack by a cabal of globalist elites. Western Cultural Revolution starts NOW.

Source: Have Heart; For We are on the Cusp of Great Cultural Revolution

“The times in which we are living are more polarizing than ever in recent memory. Thus, people are separated by extremes, reactivity, and heated emotion.  But, at the same time, a Great Awakening is under way, and it is important to highlight some important points, re-calibrate, and focus our directive moving forward.”

A provocative essay, yes, but interesting, and worthy of consideration. Much of what Ms Emerick says rings true. I have said for some time and in a variety of fora that the contemporary push for “diversity” and “multiculturalism” is actually anti-diversity and will lead, eventually, to a drab and oppressive monoculture.

True diversity, and true multiculturalism, is about protecting and preserving the particularity and distinctiveness of individual cultures – and those primarily in their historic and geographic context – not attempting to forcibly blend all cultures and ethnicities into one drab, muddy mess, like indiscriminately mixing the colours on an artist’s palette.

One goes to a buffet to enjoy the variety of foods presented: one does not generally dump them in a blender at the end, and sip the resulting slurry through a straw. The same holds true with cultures and ethnicities, which should be a vibrant tapestry, woven from bright colours and distinctive strands, not a coarsely-woven stretch of burlap with no discernible pattern.

And of course, as a person of European – primarily North-Western European – heritage myself, I am most concerned with what I see as a concerted and vigorous effort to dilute, disparage, and do away with the history, cultural distinctives, and even the ethnic particularities of the people of the West: Europeans, both at home in their European homeland, and abroad, in the great European diaspora which includes the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Fortunately, as Ms Emerick points out, more people across the world – and especially the Western world – are beginning to wake up to the importance of preserving one’s own people, and their history and cultural heritage. Of course, that only makes the forces of destruction and suppression more hysterical and violent in their attempts to force their ideology on the rest of us. Like ISIS chiseling away at or blowing up priceless and irreplaceable antiquities, they want to do as much damage as possible in the time they have left.

Their tactics range from the use of slurs like “far right” (which to them, describes anyone to the right of hard-Left), “Nazi” or “fascist,” “racist,” “xenophobic,” and many more, to vandalism and destruction or removal (sometimes by governmental bodies that should know better) of statues, monuments, plaques, and other iconography, renaming of streets, schools, etc., to outright physical attacks.

The most extreme of the latter thus far has been the mass shooting in Las Vegas by a left-wing activist, against people he apparently figured were “safely” conservative. But of course, the riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, and elsewhere also fall into this category. And attacks on monuments and other iconography have moved – as I have long expected and predicted – from Confederate icons to the likes of Francis Scott Key, “Teddy” Roosevelt, and even George Washington.

The only bright side to this is that the more aggressive and extreme these attacks become, the more people will wake up to the danger we are all collectively in by this attempt to re-write history and suppress anyone who stands against the dangerous ideology of radical globalism and demographic blending. To quote Ms Emerick again:

“​A cabal of globalist elites has a very dark future in store for us, and it is their agenda that has been guiding our media and education for several decades now. But, we are NOT willing to go like sheep to the slaughter. We are NOT willing see the cultures of our ancestors washed away. ALL of the people of this world have a right to protect and preserve their cultural heritage. …

“We in the West have an incredible legacy to be proud of.  While these cultural Marxists sneer at “old white men,” instead we must look to our glorious past and remind everyone of the greatness that our Folk have been capable of. While the globalists push destruction of our culture, we must face it by celebrating our culture with more gusto than ever before. When they misrepresent our history, we must tell our OWN story with pride.”

To which I can only say, Amen!

Multiculturalism Is Splintering the West

Multiculturalism is leading to the “partition,” the separation of European societies.

Source: Multiculturalism Is Splintering the West

Anyone who claims to be surprised by this is either lying, or has had their head in the sand for years. As I have commented more than once, in this and other fora, a proper multiculturalism is a recognition of the rights of diverse peoples to pursue their own destinies within their respective historical, cultural, and geographic spheres, both honouring and preserving the distinctiveness of cultures (while allowing for trade and legitimate cultural exchange). “Multiculturalism” defined as the enforced mingling of cultures cannot be anything but divisive and damaging, especially to the “host” (imposed-upon) cultures.

In the field of ecology, one often speaks of invasive aliens: plants and animals that move (or are brought) into an area to which they are not native, and in which they often choke out the indigenous flora and fauna, ultimately leading to a decrease of diversity in the ecosystem – even though their presence may have appeared, temporarily, to increase its diversity. Examples abound, and include multiflora rose, autumn olive, Japanese stiltgrass, water hyacinth, and the infamous kudzu in the plant kingdom, and starlings, European sparrows, nutria, mute swans, and Asian carp in the animal kingdom.

Why are we not able to comprehend that this principle applies equally to human ecosystems?

Why are ‘progressives’ so anti-freedom? | Psephizo

It is increasingly clear with each passing year that public life has been colonised by the zealots of a progressive creed of equality and diversity. It is a continuously evolving creed and you have to keep up…

Source: Why are ‘progressives’ so anti-freedom? | Psephizo

Even if one is a fan of multiculturalism and diversity – concerning which, in their current incarnation (as I have made clear elsewhere), I have grave reservations – it’s hard to keep up when the above-mentioned zealots keep moving the goalposts. This is an excellent article in a number of regards, but one line near the beginning really jumped out at me:

“Once-feted feminists are pilloried for not embracing transgender ideology.”

Hmmmmm. Let’s think about this for a moment, shall we? One of the core tenets of the transgender movement is that a) God or Nature can “make a mistake,” and incorrectly “assign” one’s “gender,” which one can then “reassign” through (in descending levels of invasiveneness and commitment) surgery, hormone injections, or simply declaration (including a self-designation of “gender fluid”), and b) one “is” whatever “gender” one “self-identifieds” as, and woe betide anyone who disagrees.

Well, where does that leave women – real, biological, genetic women, I’m talking about – whose foremothers fought for decades and centuries to attain equality and the ability to compete on a level playing field (both literally – as in the case of Title IX athletics – and figuratively), if a biological / genetic male “self-declares” that he is now a she, and claims the right to compete as one? Pardon me, but I can easily imagine Susan B. Anthony, and many another early feminist, suffragette, and activist for women’s rights, rolling over in their graves!

To be fair, colleges and even the Olympics are struggling with this issue, and trying to come up with a fair and reasonable work-around. But outside the pragmatic issue of fair competition between athletes, the philosophical and even moral (what does it mean to decide God or Nature has “made a mistake,” and what are the implications thereof) issues remain.

As do the practical ones: at what point do all sorts of programs and accommodations, originally intended to help make up for what were viewed (rightly in some cases and more questionably in others) to be inherent advantages on the part of males, lose their meaning if they are based on “self-identification,” not objective biological and genetic criteria?

There have even been a few people who have unilaterally decided they are of a different race: does “white privilege” (so-called; this is another issue concerning which I have grave reservations) go away if one self-identifies as African-American, Hispanic, etc.? It follows logically (or illogically) from self-identification as a corrective to incorrect gender assignment.

Now, I doubt that, if I were to suddenly “self-identify” as an African-American, I would be recognized as such, and entitled to any and all programs, subsidies, etc., that are in place to assist African-Americans, or be welcomed into the African-American community as a long-lost brother. Nor should I be!

Yet, as I say, that is the logical (or illogical) conclusion, stemming from self-identification as defining gender. And does this mean that “furries” (those who identify as particular types of animals) should be treated as if they really were wolves, foxes, cats, etc.? (In some cases, that would mean being shot, trapped, or chased with hounds and horses – be careful what you ask for!) Once again, the slippery slope kicks in… or, to borrow from an old Arabic proverb, once the camel’s nose is in the tent, it’s hard to keep the rest of the camel out! But where does it end?

There are reasons why traditional understandings, and traditional norms, existed, and it is not primarily to keep people down. It is to allow reason, logic, and actual – not imagined – equity to apply.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

— William Butler Yeats (1885-1939), “The Second Coming”

Truer now than it was in Yeats’ own time…

 

Google Engineer Writes Common-Sense Memo About Diversity. Google Fires Him

The majority of the histrionic reactions to the now-famous Google memo completely misrepresented not only what the memo says but its purpose.

Source: Google Engineer Writes Common-Sense Memo About Diversity. Google Fires Him

“In reality, the problem is that a senior software engineer, perhaps unwittingly, admitted to pondering three of the most scandalous thought-crimes of contemporary American society.

“The first was to propose that a meritocracy might be heathier for a company than bean-counting race, ethnicity, and sex. The second is pointing [out] that ideological diversity matters. The third, and most grievous of all the wrongthinks, is suggesting that men and women are, in general, physiologically and psychologically different from each other, and thus they tend to excel at different things…

“One of the problems with this kerfuffle was that the vast majority of the histrionic reactions on social media and elsewhere have misrepresented not only what the memo says but also its purpose. The memo was neither a screed nor anti-diversity. It was the kind of unvarnished, dispassionate, and meticulous case that I imagine many engineers offer. It’s difficult to believe anyone who read through it with an open mind could interpret the author’s notions as an attempt to consolidate the patriarchy or to make life less diverse in his field.

The other, bigger problem is that the reaction to it demonstrates that the author is completely right about the lack of ideological diversity and its consequences.

“Diversity,” in what passes for discourse today, is allowable only within certain strictly-defined parameters. “We must be diverse. Furthermore, we must be diverse in, and only in, certain specific ways.” The irony of this seems to be entirely lost on those on the socio-political Left…