From PJMedia.com
A controversial case that has lit up the sade vacante media recently involves President-Elect Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, whom the Democrat Left denounces as a white nationalist, a far-right extremist, and domestic terror threat, thanks in part to a tattoo he bears of the inscription Deus Vult (God wills it), and of the Jerusalem cross, which Hegseth explains “was part of the coat of arms after AD 1203 and the 104 [sic] reign of the Jerusalem Kingdom.” In the Left’s meticulously curated narrative, this renders Hegseth not only unsuitable for office but a terrorist threat to the security of the nation. He is white and he is Christian and is therefore persona non grata, an enemy of the people, a colonial exploiter, a racist, an Islamophobe, a fascist, and a hater.
Advertisement
None of these epithets so freely and irresponsibly brandished is valid except in the disordered and feral mentality of the Left as it pursues its lengthy and virulent campaign against reason, decency, and discernible truth. Its most effective and obvious ordnance is its stranglehold upon the language, substituting arbitrary and pre-emptive connotations for long-accepted denotations.
Words assume a nimbus of false meanings. Words such as “Christian,” “Crusade,” “far right,” and “white” take on pejorative overtones, while terms such as “Islamic,” “diversity,” “equity,” and “black” are interpreted as carrying strong positive associations. Such words and phrases are no longer neutral signifiers; they trail boxcars of heavy freight lugging values that presumably cannot be debated. But the truth is that these terms do not imply what the Left has attributed to them via a vast network of propaganda outlets in the media, the universities, and the entertainment industry.
In an astute and comprehensive article for FrontPage Magazine treating the fracas surrounding Hegseth, Mark Tapson observes that the bugaboo terms “alt-right,” “far right” and “white supremacy,” weaponized by the Left to discredit its opponents and smear people like Hegseth, refer merely to a handful of cultural relics of absolutely no significance, a “fringe right” of ideological leftovers. Even so, one may ask why conservatives should even concede the point, as Tapson appears to do, by adopting or valorizing the Left’s perverse lexicon at the outset.
Advertisement
Why is the word “white,” nuanced adversely by the Left, accredited in use, albeit with hesitation, by those who should know better? Why apologize for the irrelevant — the fringe — by admitting that the accusation pointing to “white” bigots is exclusively true and the word itself wholly applicable? Are there not fringe elements, wackos, imbeciles, radical outliers, fanatics, and chauvinists in any group of human beings? Why only “white” psychos, villains, and oppressors? Do they constitute a unique category? Are people of other colors, races, sexes, genders, ethnic groups, and political affiliations somehow exempt from carrying the weight of human nature?
Moreover, is there not an argument advanced by tendentious advocates for “black supremacy,” as in Ta-Nehisi Coates’ self-indulgent “Between the World and Me” and Martin Bernal’s preposterous “Black Athena” — all the while reducing white Europeans to the status of parasitical non-entities? Why should white people allow themselves to be badgered into shame and guilt rather than feel genuine pride in their historical patrimony as the inventors of democratic governance, the explorers of the planet and the cosmos, the founders of the scientific revolution, the creators of great art, literature and music, the architects of an economy that has lifted more people out of poverty than any competing culture or civilization, and the producers of the amenities and comforts of life we blithely and inconsiderately take for granted?
Advertisement
The concepts of “white supremacy” and “white fragility” are moral non-sequiturs, a form of weaponized creole wielded by the ingrates of the barbarian Left to facilitate the sycophantic march of the real bigots and self-appointed supremacists into the heartland of the greatest civilization known to man. “White” is as good a word as any other and better than some. The Left and its diverse political and social avatars comprise the enemy within the gates, the drones, and leeches of a far too benignant host.
As Raymond Ibrahim writes, the Left fears the re-emergence of the Church Militant engaged in constant warfare against its enemies. The great fear is that “Christians may finally stand up again,” precisely what the Left will not tolerate and precisely why it has fallen in love with Islam. This is why the Left has “for decades idolized the effeminate and extolled the homosexual…[and] demonized true masculinity — without which civilization perishes — as “toxic.”
The Left understands that its most formidable cultural and political antagonists are men of the Right, whose moral and intellectual castration is the Left’s strategic path to victory. As such, teaching men not to be men has been one of the most successful ways to defeat male courage and vigor. The problem that “progressives” have with Hegseth is that he is a “real man,” a Christian, and a decorated warrior, and they simply can’t have it. This is the primary reason that his nomination is so bitterly contested by the corrupt and suborned.
Advertisement
As an Affiliate Member of the Order of the Knights Templar, whose central mission dating from the 12th century was (and is) to defend the values and heritage of Judeo-Christian civilization and which flourished as an integral part of the Jerusalem Kingdom, I am very much in sympathy with Ibrahim’s scathing analysis of the Left’s animus against the Christian faith and similarly hold Hegseth in high esteem, a man whom I regard as a contemporary Templar knight. On my study wall hangs a facsimile of the Templar cross pattée gules, with bars in bright red that widen at the ends, a variant of the more famous Jerusalem Cross which Hegseth bears on his flesh and which still serves as the insignia of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Custody of the Holy Land, and the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
The fact is that Leftists will attack Hegseth and those like him because they have a profound antipathy for a civilization that goes back to its founding documents in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, and the extraordinary muniment of Greek philosophy, mathematics, and literature, all working their way through the centuries of failures and triumphs toward the comparatively advanced and prosperous world the West enjoys today and which no other civilization has managed to approximate. This is a blunt fact that many among us, who lounge in its advantages, do not wish to credit or accept but labor to destroy.
Far better a valiant Secretary of Defense like Pete Hegseth than a woke milquetoast like Lloyd Austin. Far better to promote the values and heritage of Judeo-Christian civilization and in so doing stand firm against the encroachments of Communism, Islam, and the wasting disease of DEI into the bone marrow of the West. Far better the Templar oath, drawn from Psalm 115: Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da gloriam. “Not to us, Lord, not to us, but to Thy name give the glory.”
Advertisement
All articles possibly rephrased by AI or InfoArmed.com
Rephrased from Trump Knows by InfoArmed