King Arthur? Avalon? Who? What…?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0895/0864/products/42-21436247_1024x1024.jpeg?v=1450887342
Illustration of King Arthur Receiving Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake. N.C. Wyeth, c. 1910.

I had an instructive incident this afternoon, as I was teaching one of my behind-the-wheel students: since the struggle to save the West does not come with a salary, I teach driver’s education to put meat and bread on the table, and otherwise attempt to keep the wolves from the door.

Seeing a Toyota Avalon ahead of us at a stop light, I quipped to my student, “Well, there’s Avalon! I wonder where King Arthur is?” There was a brief silence, followed by a (slightly sheepish, to her credit) “I didn’t get that one!” from my student.

She didn’t get it. An Anglophone high school student, and one with a European last name and apparent ancestral heritage, to boot, didn’t get a reference – and not an obscure one – to the Arthurian legends, one of the most formative legendary and literary cycles in the history of the English-speaking peoples (and significant to French and German-speaking ones, as well). If there is any doubt that our educational system is in serious disarray, this one incident is proof positive, I would confidently assert.

I passed off the episode lightly, for my student’s sake – I’m teaching her to drive a car, not appreciate her own cultural heritage, and there were tasks to accomplish, and traffic and road conditions in need of attention – but it bothered me, and it continues to rankle.

But thinking about it tonight, I realized that from the perspective of the propagandists and ideologues that make up much of our educational establishment, this is an example, not of disarray, but of how well their plan is working. King Arthur should most emphatically not be taught, according to this outlook!

He is not only a member of one of the most despised of all classes (and one of the very few it is permissible – indeed, encouraged – to despise), a “DWEM” (Dead White European Male), but he actually fought against the invasion and subjugation diversity and cultural enrichment of his Romano-British land and people by the Anglo-Saxons. Really fought! With swords and spears and things. And in the process became an icon and an inspiration for defense against immigrant invasion opposition to multiculturalism for centuries thereafter.

How vile! He must have been one of those white supremacists. Oh, wait – the Anglo-Saxons were white, too! And so were the Vikings… and the Normans… and even the French and Spanish, who tried and failed to invade England. Best we just leave British / English history out of the schools entirely, unless we can find ways to convincingly pretend that they weren’t nearly as European as they very clearly and historically were, at least until the last decade or so.

We certainly don’t want to infect any of today’s students of European ancestry with any pride in their heritage, do we? Much less suggest to them, however indirectly, that it might be – perhaps even, ought to be – defended from invaders? Perish the thought!

We are seriously screwed up, and are getting screwed-er up-er, all the time!

 

Advertisements

Hungary’s illegal immigration plunges over 99% after building border fence | One America News

“Orbán’s nationalist approach seems to be working: Hungary’s economy is booming, its birth-rate is up, marriages are increasing, and abortions and divorces are on the decline. And for Hungary, that all started by simply building a border fence.”

Source: Hungary’s illegal immigration plunges over 99% after building border fence | One America News Network (via Youtube)

Words to the wise…

 

The West Is Stirring | John Waters | First Things

No European Union Parliament

The people of the West are stirring in their slumber.

Source: The West Is Stirring | John Waters | First Things

In response to a recent “Manifesto” by “30 Pro-Europe Intellectuals” (informally sub-titled in many media reports, “Europe is coming apart before our eyes”), John Waters writes,

“It soon becomes clear that what we have here is not ‘30 Pro-Europe Intellectuals’ but ‘30 Pro-European Union intellectuals,’ an entirely different kettle of drummer boys…

“These intellectuals sarcastically dismiss Europeans’ current craving to ‘reconnect with their national souls.’ ‘Abstractions such as ‘soul’ and ‘identity’ often exist only in the imagination of demagogues,’ they declare.”

Must be nice to be able to so blithely dismiss the highest aspirations of not only Europeans, but humans, over centuries and millennia as “abstractions” that “only exist in the imagination”! But indeed, these so-called, self -defined “intellectuals” do seem lacking in both soul and identity, so it’s no wonder they find these things irrelevant or dangerous. In Waters’ words,

“The failure of the E.U. project is causally related to Europe’s retreat from its rich Christian heritage. That retreat has left a vacuum that economics, liberalism, and materialism have failed to fill. A bogus liberalism has attacked and all but destroyed the three fundamental pillars of human society in Europe: family, Church, and nation. Yet all three are capable of resurgence at any moment. Early signs of such resurgence are what scared the E.U. intellectuals into print.”

The irony is that these “intellectuals” think they are avant-garde, cutting edge. In reality, it is they – not those they mock and decry – who are the dinosaurs, lurching toward extinction. Europe – the ordinary people of Europe, replete with both soul and identity – is on the verge of a major Awakening; indeed, it has already begun. As Waters points out,

“A revolution is happening across the free world. It is not a revolution of the ‘Right,’ ‘alt-right,’ or ‘far right,’ but a revolution from the concrete center, from the places where working people live and work to build, fix, paint, and clean the world as their antecedents did for thousands of years. It is fundamentally a reaction against lies, intimidation, official stupidity, and political correctness.

“It is already sweeping Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden, and the countries of the Eastern bloc. It is at the back of Brexit and Donald Trump. It may not be an ‘intellectual’ movement, but it is a movement rooted in a deep and ancient intelligence — the intelligence of the human heart — which has beat for several thousand years at the center of the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. 

“The people of the West are stirring in their slumber. Yes, Europe is coming apart at the seams, but not in the ways the E.U. intellectuals divine. What they call ‘the bonfire of our freedoms’ has already happened” – indeed, they and their ilk were the ones doing the burning – “and the people who make and fix things are building a new Europe in the ashes of the old.”

Viva Europa! May the new Awakening grow, burgeon, and flourish across that great continent and among its people, and beyond!

‘The gilets jaunes are unstoppable’ | sp!ked

Christophe Guilluy on the cultural divide driving the yellow vests.

Source: ‘The gilets jaunes are unstoppable’

“The gilets jaunes (yellow vest) movement has rattled the French establishment. For several months, crowds ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands have been taking to the streets every weekend across the whole of France. They have had enormous success, extracting major concessions from the government. They continue to march…

“The middle-class reaction to the yellow vests has been telling. Immediately, the protesters were denounced as xenophobes, anti-Semites and homophobes. The elites present themselves as anti-fascist and anti-racist but this is merely a way of defending their class interests. It is the only argument they can muster to defend their status, but it is not working anymore.

“Now the elites are afraid. For the first time, there is a movement which cannot be controlled through the normal political mechanisms…”

Again: Vive la France!

We Are Ruled By Mercenaries Who Feel No Long-Term Obligation To The People They Rule | Tucker Carlson

“The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It’s happiness. There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence. Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your children.”

Source: Tucker Carlson: We Are Ruled By Mercenaries Who Feel No Long-Term Obligation To The People They Rule | Video | RealClearPolitics

Paleo-conservative commentator Tucker Carlson hits the nail squarely on the head! To his inestimable credit, he steers between the Scylla of socialism, and the Charybdis of mercantile plutocracy to place conservatism in its proper context: protection of family, culture, and society.

“Donald Trump rode a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political revolution he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are destroying America? Those are open questions. But they’re less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How do we want our grandchildren to live?

“These are the only questions that matter. The answer used to be obvious: the overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones, or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They haven’t so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. Yet drug addiction and suicide are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot.”

Amen! There is a world of difference between mere economic standard of living – which has been slipping for decades, anyway – and quality of life. Far too many, on both sides of the political aisle, absolutely fail to realize or appreciate that fact! Economic solvency is essential to life and security. Until one is economically secure, one has difficulty focusing on the higher things, as I have reason to know from my own experience.

FDR, liberal progressive though he was, was absolutely correct when he asserted, in his so-called “economic bill of rights,” that “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men,” and called for, among other things,

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad

The right of every family to a decent home

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

These ought not, in my opinion, to be arguable. We may argue about how they may best be accomplished; but not, I believe, about the fundamental principles themselves.

Note that FDR starts, not with “entitlements,” but with “a useful and remunerative job,” and the rights to “earn enough,” to “raise and sell [one’s] products,” and “to trade.” Only then does he move on to what is sometimes called the “social safety net,” for those who, for reasons beyond their control, suffer from “old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.” That is putting things in their proper order!

Note also that (despite the expression “second” or “economic bill of rights”) these were “proposed not to amend the Constitution, but rather as a political challenge, encouraging Congress to draft legislation to achieve these aspirations.”

At any rate, economic security, grounded in fair and equitable employment, and a fair and equitable return on one’s investment – whether capital or labour – is essential for a reasonable quality of life. But prosperity, for its own sake, or as an absolute goal, is not only an illusion, it is an idol. Here’s Tucker Carlson again:

“The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It’s happiness. There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence. Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your children. They’re what our leaders should want for us, and would if they cared. But our leaders don’t care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They’re day traders. Substitute teachers. They’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can’t solve our problems. They don’t even bother to understand our problems.”

As a Christian and a traditionalist, I would add a proper relationship with God, and the pursuit of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, to the list of ingredients required to be fully happy! But Carlson, of course, is speaking to a wider audience, and I cannot disagree with anything he says, here.

The problem is that our supposed “elites” are generally made up of neoliberals and neoconservatives who are basically two sides to the same coin. I strongly recommend that you read and/or listen to all of Carlson’s rather epic monologue! But as he accurately points out,

“Both [libertarians – which include many who claim to be either “liberal” or “conservative,” politically and socially – and social conservatives] miss the obvious point: culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible. You can’t separate the two…

“[Doing so] is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our mindless cultural leaders act like it’s still 1961, and the biggest problem American families face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or Facebook executives.”

Yet (as Carlson points out) a culture which set up investment bankers or Facebook executives as the goal for which we ought to be striving is, itself, a big part of the problem! As I say, economic prosperity, pursued for its own sake, is not only an illusion, but idolatry. In contrast, Carlson asks us to consider:

“What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don’t accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you’re old. A country that listens to young people who don’t live in Brooklyn. A country where you can make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up no place special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that actually cares about families, the building block of everything.

Amen!

“What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it.”

Which means, of course, that we the people will have to elect them! And / or, pressure our existing leaders to behave more like the servants of the people they are supposed to be, and less the “mercenaries” of which Carlson speaks.

“For now, those leaders will have to be Republicans. There’s no option at this point. But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. [emphasis added] Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.”

Again, amen. Amen and amen!

Read the essay, or listen to / watch the monologue. It’s worth it!

And then, let’s do what we can to work toward that sort of country. We had it once, and therefore we can again.

Donald Trump’s Nationalist Moment | The American Conservative

Related image

Trump’s election to the presidency was widely considered part of a nationalist resurgence in the wider Western world. With the Brexit revolt against the European Union in the United Kingdom and the ascent of populist and nationalist parties – some of them far right and identitarian, others more moderate and compatible with classical liberalism – from Paris to Poland, voters are speaking up for borders and sovereignty against supranational organizations and outside forces.

Source: Donald Trump’s Nationalist Moment | The American Conservative

Donald Trump is a President who is proudly and unabashedly nationalist. In fact, he may be the first U.S. President to use the word, openly:

“Trump and many of his supporters use the words ‘patriot’ and ‘nationalist’ interchangeably. ‘I’ve never heard that theory about being a nationalist,’ the president said in the Oval Office in response to questions about the term’s putative racist baggage. ‘But I’m somebody who loves our country. I am a nationalist.'”

He has publicly defended and promoted nationalism as a positive good:


“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

— President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland in 2017


“… Trump had a similar message for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Vietnam. ‘Finally, let us never forget,’ the president said, ‘the world has many places, many dreams, and many roads, but in all of the world there’s no place like home.’ Trump has challenged world leaders to be nationalists for their own countries.

“’Inside everyone in this great chamber today, and everyone listening all around the globe, there is the heart of a patriot that feels the same powerful love for your nation, the same intense loyalty to your homeland,’ Trump said at the UN. ‘And so, for family, for country, for freedom, for history, and for the glory of God, protect your home, defend your home, and love your home today and for all time,’ he said in Vietnam.”

And this is why I support Donald Trump, regardless of the fact that I don’t always agree with him, either in word or action. For all his admitted faults and foibles, he is a man who loves his country and people, and encourages others to do so, too.

As such, he stands against utopian (remember, the word means “no place”) globalists, whose “new world order” makes claims of peace and freedom – but in fact, is an Orwellian nightmare, standing for the repression and destruction of much of goodness, truth, and beauty in the name of global corporate domination, enforced social engineering, or both.

For his stance against these destructive forces, I can forgive much.

“The president had the same message for international leaders as he did for the press. ‘America is governed by Americans,’ Trump declared last year. ‘We reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of patriotism.'”

Even some so-called conservatives find this a hard pill to swallow. But even among those who find it so, there are signs of a change of course – or at least, an understanding that our present course is not sustainable:

“Goldberg described a major shortcoming of the ‘fusionist’ synthesis of traditionalism and libertarianism on which modern American conservatism is largely built. ‘Left out of the fusionist project or the fusionist formula was the importance of national identity,’ he said. ‘That’s not to say that conservatives didn’t talk about it, that’s not to say it wasn’t part of the national debate. But this trade-off between liberty and order, freedom and virtue, this idea that it was either the individual or the state gave I would argue at least politically considerable short shrift to the importance of maintaining and forging a sense of national identity.'”

Precisely. Without a sense of national identity, there can be no national consensus; and without at least some level of national consensus, we find the situation we see today: a nation floundering without direction, divided and polarized.

We don’t have to agree on everything, of course, and of course, we never will! But what we do need is a sense that we are all in this together, that we have a shared sense of history and heritage, a shared respect for shared values and institutions. Without these things, we are at least badly handicapped, and at worst doomed.

The old American “melting pot” worked, for at least two reasons: first, those coming in had an earnest desire to become Americans, and were willing to put considerable effort into accomplishing that end. They not only willingly, but eagerly sought to learn the language – English – and to assimilate to the common culture, even as they also retained and enriched the mix with elements of their own.

And second, most of the “ingredients” in that melting pot were already reasonably compatible to begin with: until the immigration reforms of 1965, most of those coming into the United States were Europeans, and most of them were from northwestern Europe. Consequently, despite significant diversity among the various European nations and ethnicities, they nonetheless shared a lot in terms of values and culture.

Now, we have what at best is a “tossed salad,” and not all of the ingredients being tossed together seem to be very compatible with one another. Some of them don’t even want to be coated in the thin vinaigrette that is what’s left of American common culture! Given this incompatibility of ingredients in the dish, is it any wonder that indigestion is a common result…?

As the linked essay notes,

“The fraying of a shared common national identity is a threat to both the conservative project of restoring constitutionally limited government and the progressive crusade for a more robust national welfare state. Both goals rely on a level of solidarity, community, and mutual trust that is in short supply in contemporary America, as we have fragmented into red states and blue states along with a host of other identity-politics subgroups. “Such political cohesion is rare in arbitrarily assembled human populations,” writes Hazony.

It goes on to add,

“A nationalist politics that seeks to shore up that identity would not be illiberal in any meaningful sense of the word. It need not be racist or collectivist in economics. A political coalition that includes all Americans who are uncomfortable with the current pace of change and perceive themselves to be losing out from globalization has the potential to reach a larger constituency than Democratic liberalism does today or than the mainstream conservative movement has since Ronald Reagan handed over the keys to the Oval Office to George H.W. Bush.”

Furthermore,

“the new nationalism’s goals are modest: remind those in government that their primary fiduciary duty is to their current lawful residents, not the population of the whole planet, even in powerful and affluent countries like the United States; remain independent of the supranational entities that would transform mutually beneficial trade among self-governing peoples into rule by Davos-approved bureaucrats; police one’s own borders rather than the world.”

That hardly seems like too much to ask!

Now, I do not agree with everything in this essay. Somewhat oddly, considering its focus, the author – W. James Antle III, editor of The American Conservative – stoops to the seemingly mandatory Trump-bashing in the concluding paragraphs. And he is, I think, insufficiently sensitive to (or, perhaps, unwilling to admit) the very real differences that exist between various peoples and cultures. As I’ve commented above, whether melting pot or tossed salad, not every potential ingredient is compatible with every “dish.”

Nonetheless, there is a great deal of good in this article, and I hope it is widely read, and taken to heart. We – and by “we,” I mean not only the United States, but the West, and indeed the world – are badly in need of that “new nationalism” described above.

The Glories of the West: “A Nationalist Christmas: The Glories of Poland!”

Source: A Nationalist Christmas: The Glories of Poland!!! | Dr. Steve Turley

It is one of the great ironies of our present age – though given the way God has been seen to work in history, it should come as no surprise – that it is Eastern and Central Europe that seems to hold the greatest promise for saving the West. Here, thanks to Dr. Steve Turley’s YouTube channel, is a lovely video montage of Christmas in Poland. Enjoy, as our Polish brothers and sister show us how it’s done!

Niech Bóg błogosławi Polsce!

(God bless Poland!)