GAH!!! The stupid – it burrrrrns!

Source: Idiot Liberal Proves She Knows NOTHING About US History In Embarrassing Post

This is the level of arrogance and idiocy we’re dealing with, folks. In case you hadn’t already realized it, we have an uphill battle to fight. I’m reminded of the late Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork’s phrase: the “vertical invasion of the barbarians” – meaning that the worst “invasion” we have to face is not external, but from arrogant idiots and ignoramuses from without our own nation(s) and culture(s). Sadly, that invasion is not only underway, but well-advanced…

Conservative Violence: The Horror | Stately McDaniel Manor

The latest offering by Mike McDaniel of the Stately McDaniel Manor blog, a somewhat light-hearted essay – definitely a satirical one – which nonetheless, as satire generally does, makes some excellent points:

Source: Conservative Violence: The Horror | Stately McDaniel Manor

The latest offering by Mike McDaniel of the Stately McDaniel Manor blog, a somewhat light-hearted essay – definitely a satirical one – which nonetheless, as satire generally does, makes some excellent points.

It is an article of faith among the forces of the Left, and of course, the media must be included in this, that Donald Trump has unleashed right wing hell on Earth. White supremacists, haters of Jews, racists, misogynists, haters of the LGBTQWERTY community (whatever it might be or demand to be called at the moment), kickers of puppies, and people who help little old ladies across the street — into traffic — are not only the blood kin of Donald Trump and every American who voted for such a loathsome creature, but have been given presidential leave to rampage across America attacking the righteous. Republicans and conservatives — they’re all too often not the same thing as the Republican Obamacare repeal bill that isn’t a repeal bill has demonstrated — must also be included in any list of deplorables. Yet, as nunnyadayambiddness notes, this sort of crime and social breakdown tends to be concentrated in deep blue portions of the nation.

Unfortunately for the left, Mr. Trump is not cooperating. He has done nothing any reasonable person could mistake for prejudice toward anyone. True, he has honored his campaign promises, and very confused men can no longer go pee pee in women’s restrooms with impunity. This, to the left, is unmistakable evidence that Trump hates all LGBTQWERTY — or whichever pronoun or acronym they prefer today — people. To rational human beings, this engenders (pun) only a sigh of relief, particularly among men, who won’t have to worry about strange (another pun) men showing up in the restrooms frequented by their wives, mothers and daughters. In addition, Mr. Trump’s new immigration executive order creates an honor killing database for the first time in American — probably world — history. That is exclusively a women’s issue, but the Left cares not, because it is Muslims who do the killing, and they apparently can do no wrong to women. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

Read on, gentle readers, for more excellent commentary by Mr. McDaniel!

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.

QOTD from “Throne, Altar, Liberty,” with commentary

“We live in an age of idolatry, in which false gods have been substituted for the true God, and counterfeit goods for true goods. Our age has substituted human rights for natural law, equality for justice, and democracy for constitutional government, and we are the worse for each of these substitutions.”

Only one of several gems among this collection of “brief thoughts on assorted matters” from the author of “Throne, Altar, Liberty,” a self-described “Protestant Christian, patriotic Canadian, and a reactionary High Tory.”

red ensign

Here’s another:

“Political correctness has so rotted the minds of our politicians that Parliament is seriously considering condemning as an irrational fear and prejudice the concerns of those who consider it imprudent to admit large numbers of immigrants or asylum-seekers who adhere to the religion that converted the Arabic peoples at sword point during the life of its founder, conquered the rest of the Middle East within twenty-five years of his death, was invading Christian Europe from both sides by the end of its first century, and has behaved in the exact same way towards Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and anyone else who had the misfortune to live in proximity to it ever since.”

And one more:

Isn’t it interesting how those who decry the mixing of religion and politics whenever a conservative evangelical, fundamentalist or traditionalist Catholic or Orthodox leader calls for pornography to be restricted, abortion to be banned, and public morality to be restored to what it was sixty years ago or otherwise expresses a right-of-centre view of public policy seem to have no objections to those wolves in shepherds’ clothing who devote all of their pulpit time to preaching the gospel of environmentalism, denouncing the evils of various sorts of prejudice and discrimination, and calling for more immigration and diversity.

And, I would add, seem to have no objection to the importation and accommodation of members of a “religion” — Islam — which is in fact an all-embracing ideology: one which makes explicit its claim to absolute dominance in every sphere of human existence, including not only religion and morality but governance, jurisprudence, military affairs, and even economics.

There is no separation of Church (mosque) and State in Islam, no “render unto Caesar,” no “my Kingdom is not of this world.” Yet anyone who raises questions about this is “racist,” “xenophobic,” “Islamophobic.” Another dangerously ironic example of the inconsistency, hypocrisy, and irrationality of the current “liberal” Left.

But as the author of “Throne, Altar, Liberty” also points out,

“Liberals, socialists, and neoconservatives are all in favour of high levels of immigration and a lackadaisical approach to border security and the enforcement of immigration law. This is because each sees the immigrants as the means to some selfish end of their own. [Liberals — in the U.S., Democrats] see a voting base that will keep them in power perpetually, [socialists] see a pathway to power in potential voters they can lure away from the [liberals] by offering more government benefits, and the neoconservatives see a supply of cheap labour. All three condemn as ‘racist’ those who want lower levels of immigration, stricter enforcement of border security and immigration laws, and an immigration policy that is based upon our own country’s needs and interests and does not seek to radically transform our country.”

It’d almost be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

The tiff over “If” – Kipling under fire

rudyard_kipling_1
Rudyard Kipling, 1865 – 1936: Poet, Author, and Nobel laureate in Literature (1907)

“If,” by Rudyard Kipling – one of the best-known, and arguably best, poets in the English language, aside from Shakespeare – has been a favorite of mine since childhood. My mother, an English major and sometime teacher, had a great love of poetry which she shared with me, and furthermore this poem hung on the wall of the room in which I slept when we visited her parents, my grandparents, in my boyhood days. It has been an inspiration to me for the greater part of a half-century.

But now it appears that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is drawing fire for posting it on his Instagram and Twitter feeds, due to claims that its author was “racist” (and, somewhat self-righteously, that Brady did not credit it to Kipling… although he did put it in quotes, and undoubtedly assumed – rightly, as it turned out – that everyone would recognize it and know who the author was).

For the record, I am no fan of Brady or the Patriots, but that really ticks me off.

Kipling was a man of his time and place. When he wrote “If,” Great Britain was at the height of its colonial power, an Empire on which the sun never set. The concept of “the white man’s burden” may be outdated and vilified now, but at the time it was a commonplace, and rooted in the same sensibility as “noblesse oblige” – the idea that those who were viewed (whether rightly or wrongly) as being at a higher level, had an obligation to care for and assist those viewed as inferior. That is to say, it was kindly meant, even if it was also mixed up with ideas of Empire and dominance, and even if it made assumptions which a more contemporary view understands as false.

Furthermore, the poem “If” has absolutely nothing even remotely related to race, class, colonialism, or Empire about it! It is about self-mastery, perseverance, determination to succeed against all odds, and to pick oneself back up, after failure, and try again. The idea that this is somehow “racist” is patently absurd; it’s ridiculous on every possible level.

And the use of this term as a tool with which to bludgeon anyone you don’t like or agree with is also absurd. We need to get off this kick, and soon – both with respect to contemporary political opponents, and even more so, with regard to towering giants of literature, history, philosophy, etc. – before we fatally undermine the foundations of Western Civilization itself.

Here is the poem in question. Read it for yourself, and see if it seems “racist” to you!

“IF”

by Rudyard Kipling (1898)

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream — and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!

Winter Tradition Disappearing Because It’s Too Swedish

An Iconic Swedish tradition, the annual candlelit Lucia procession, is dying out across the country, several news outlets have reported.

Source: Winter Tradition Disappearing Because It’s Too Swedish

Tomorrow – December 13th – is St. Lucia day, the feast day of a little-known saint who may reflect even more ancient archetypes, in Sweden and other areas of Northern Europe. Santa Lucia processions, and the choosing of a local girl to represent the one whose name means “Holy Light,” are centuries-old customs in many areas. Now, however, it seems that even this venerable tradition is falling to a combination of disinterest and what I would characterize as runaway political correctness.

Some people may choose to discount this story because of its source. Others may accept its factual accuracy, but believe the disappearance of traditional St. Lucia celebrations are no big deal, or even desirable, in the eternal quest to be more “inclusive.”

I believe any of these viewpoints is unfortunate. Human cultures have this in common with trees: if severed from their roots, they quickly wither and die. And the right to protect, preserve, and pass on with integrity and mindfulness their distinct culture and heritage, customs and traditions, is not unique to certain groups, and not others.

Like many other European customs and traditions, St. Lucia is – or has been, until recently – a vibrant blend of Christian and “baptized” pre-Christian elements. I have, to my knowledge, only a small amount of Swedish heritage. But I would mourn deeply the passing of this enchanting and sacred spiritual and cultural tradition. I believe that Europeans, both in Europe and in the “European diaspora” across the globe, need to more fully and intentionally embrace their own cultural heritage. For too long we have taken it for granted. That luxury is no longer available to us!

On forced equality

Artificial equality - Edmund Burke.jpg

It is, in my opinion, precisely the forcing of everything and everyone into an artificial semblance, not only of equality-in-principle, but equality-in-practice, or more accurately identicality, which has been and remains the source of a lot of our present problems. Why? Because it is counter to observed reality, and tends toward authoritarianism, or worse.

All men are indeed created equal; that is, all human souls are of equal worth in the eyes of God, but not all are equal, by any means, in a material or pragmatic sense, in this world; still less are they identical. And this is true of the products of human endeavor, no less than of humans ourselves.

By pretending that everything and everyone is of equal worth, we have given up the ability – or at least the willingness – to practice discrimination in the classical sense: that is, discernment, the considering of people and things on their merits.

And the effort to hammer every peg, whether square or otherwise, into the same round hole, is the root of totalitarian oppression. Enforced equality ends in despotism.