Woke-ism in Germany: All-Out Assault on (Christian) Heritage

While right-wing™ alt-media calls for an iconoclasm of Left™ street names, monuments, municipalities are moving ahead removing Christianity

Call me a cynic, but something is deeply wrong with what passes for ‘the Left™’ these days, it is only very rarely that ‘the Right™’ is very different. Or what passes for these monikers these days, anyways.

In what follows, I shall use both terms to denote the artificial, if not outright fake, but in anyways pseudo versions of what once used to be a relatively clearly delineated ideological divide.

Idolatry of ‘Public-Private Partnerships’

Today, there is little of said differences still in existence; while both ‘the Left™’ and ‘the Right™’ still utilise the language of the past, both sides have become captured by Big Business and its interests (money) and idolise Big Government.

The main problem here is, of course, that it becomes increasingly tricky, if not impossible, to delineate Big Business from Big Government these days, and in out time and age of ‘Public-Private Partnerships’, this is very much the modus operandi of both sides of the aisle.

This is, of course, nothing new; what is quite distinct about this moment in Western history, however, is that both ‘the Left™’ and ‘the Right™’ are uniting—coalescing—around the abolishment of core principles, such as Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and, crucially, Religion.

As regards the latter, we note, in passing, that, of course, both ‘the Left™’ and ‘the Right™’ will howl at such a characterisation of them. You may believe in whatever you want to, feel free to do so, but religious tolerance has been replaced by intolerance, if not outright hostility, towards on particular faith, Christianity.

As so-called ‘Drag Queen Story Hours’ are held in parliaments all over the Western world—see the examples from Austria or Australia—imagine, for once, the uproar across legacy media and the howling protests that holding, say, a ‘Bible Hour’ or, God forbid (pun intended), a Christian service in the halls of government.

Instead, our present-day juste milieux go ravingly mad with passion if, say, teachers or students wear religious insignia in classrooms, and it doesn’t matter if said insignia are a cross, a star of David, or a veil. Neither does it matter, apparently, if the schools or universities are public or private.

This is, of course, insane; moreover, I shall argue citing a few telling examples from Germany below, it begs the question if the rights to peaceably assembly (congregate), freedom of worship, and, crucially, freedom of speech still exist.

In what follows, my hypothesis is twofold: yes, these terms and concepts still exist, but their meaning has been distorted to such a degree that they mean something else.

I don’t know for sure what that meaning is, but the re-definition of key concepts and terms is, I think, on the order of magnitude of the Enlightenment, a development the (renegade) historian Reinhart Koselleck has called the Sattelzeit (1750-1850/70), by which is meant the metaphorical ‘mountain pass’ separating the ‘premodern’ vs. ‘modern’ times.

In what follows, the translations and emphases are mine, as are the bottom lines; email me if you’d like to get literature on Koselleck, by the way.

---

‘Black Restaurateur Won’t Rename his Restaurant’

The first instance of madness comes to us via syndicated state broadcaster Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland. While a bit dated—31 Aug. 2020, it is a highly pertinent piece about a Nigerian-born restaurant-owner who refuses to rename his restaurant.

Why? Because it’s name is ‘Zum Mohrenkopf’—which literally means ‘Moor’s Head’—and its name doesn’t derive from anything you’d perhaps might think so in the heat of the moment. Here’s a pertinent snippet from the above-linked article in the Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland:

The black restaurateur Andrew Onuegbu is currently receiving interview requests from all over the world. The reason: the restaurant owner from Kiel opposes the renaming of establishments such as hotels, restaurants and pharmacies with [allegedly] racist names. He therefore does not want to rename his restaurant ‘Zum Mohrenkopf’ under any circumstances, he told the Kieler Nachrichten.

Onuegbu is pretty much alone in this. In Kiel, the Mohren Pharmacy in Holtenauer Straße is to be renamed the Raths pharmacy. In Berlin, it has been decided that Mohrenstraße will be called Anton-Wilhelm-Amo-Straße in future. And the Hotel Drei Mohren in Augsburg will be called Maximilians in future.

This is, of course, a sensible move in an increasingly multi-cultural Germany, isn’t it? Problem is, though, the term ‘Mohr’, German for ‘Moor’, or, more generically, ‘Black’ (person), has very different roots.

Instead of presuming that it’s simply further evidence of Germans’ enduring racism, what is meant by ‘Mohr’ is, primarily, the Christian Saint Mauritius—who happened to be, according to tradition, well, African.

Here’s a summary from Wikipedia’s entry on ‘Saint Maurice’:

According to the hagiographical material, Maurice was an Egyptian, born in AD 250 in Thebes, an ancient city in Upper Egypt that was the capital of the New Kingdom of Egypt (1575–1069 BC). He was brought up in the region of Thebes (Luxor)…

Maurice became a soldier in the Roman army. He rose through the ranks until he became the commander of the Theban legion…He was an acknowledged Christian at a time when early Christianity was considered to be a threat to the Roman Empire…

When [then-emperor] Maximian ordered them to murder local Christians, they refused. Ordering the unit to be punished, Maximian had every tenth soldier killed, a military punishment known as decimation. More orders followed, the men refused compliance as encouraged by Maurice, and a second decimation was ordered. In response to the Theban Christians' refusal to attack fellow Christians, Maximian ordered all the remaining members of the legion to be executed…

So far, so good. There is no way we may ever be able to confirm the veracity of this particular account of martyrdom; we do know for a fact, however, that irrespective of the authenticity of St. Maurice’s story, he was revered as a saint throughout Christendom, in particular in the Holy Roman Empire—which happened to be located in Central Europe.

Maurice became a patron saint of the German Holy Roman Emperors. In 926, Henry the Fowler (919–936), even ceded the present Swiss canton of Aargau to the abbey, in return for Maurice’s lance, sword and spurs…some of the emperors were anointed before the Altar of Saint Maurice at St. Peter’s Basilica. In 929, Henry the Fowler held a royal court gathering (Reichsversammlung) at Magdeburg. At the same time, the Mauritius Kloster in honour of Maurice was founded. In 961, Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, was building and enriching Magdeburg Cathedral…

As that entry holds, ‘over 650 religious foundations dedicated to Saint Maurice can be found in France and other European countries’, which indicates the popularity of St Maurice. It is in this tradition that numerous places—from pharmacies to hotels to, well, restaurants and breweries (‘Mohrenbräu’ of Vorarlberg, Austria)—take their name from.

Apologies for the rather long-ish detour, but none of this is explained in the above-linked/cited piece. What they do, however, is they let Mr. Onuegbu speak:

‘I was born a Moor and I’m proud of it.’ The 47-year-old was born in Biafra, Nigeria, and came to Germany in 1992. ‘People have to own up to their skin colour, we didn’t choose it and we have to stand by it.’ For him, the term Moor has no racist connotations—in fact, the opposite is the case. ‘In the Middle Ages, the Mohrenkopf was an award for good food’, says Onuegbu.

‘Princes used to eat there, and there were Moor’s head symbols on the front doors as a sign of quality that a Moor was cooking there.’ [I’m unsure about the food quality part, but it’s a good point and it doesn’t matter here]. Because of this historical background, the family father deliberately chose the name when he opened the restaurant in Sandkuhle in 2007. ‘Moors are known as good cooks and doctors.’

If you checked out the above-linked website of the restaurant—which still bears the name ‘Zum Mohrenkopf’, by the way—you’d learn that, of course, Mr. Onuegbu actually serves: ‘German food’.

In keeping with my argument, I shall delimit myself to noting that for whatever reason, it is Mr. Onuegbu who alludes to ‘the Middle Ages’ and an unspecified ‘historical background’ to explain himself. While the piece is silent on Mr. Onuegbu’s religion (if any), he is said to hail from Biafra, Nigeria, which is at least partially Christian and was the hotspot of a bloody civil war during the Cold War, which also witnessed many pogroms of Moslems vs. Christians.

So far, so conventional for what passes for ‘the Left™’ these days.

The Alt-Right Wants to Join the Iconoclasm

Unlike the conservatives (and liberals) of yesteryear, however, today’s crop of self-identifying factions and outlets on ‘the Right™’ do not oppose this kind of agit-prop. These days, they seek to join it, albeit with ‘right-wing™’ characteristics.

Exhibit A for this comes to us via alt-news outlet Nius.de whose Amir Makatov, a few days ago (28 April 2024), decried the renaming of ‘Mohren’-related streets and places—and, instead of calling out the utter absurdity of it, joined the howling wolves. The only ‘difference’ here is that ‘the Right™’ calls for the re-naming of streets and places bearing the names of ‘Communists’.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I personally detest socialism in all its iterations, but what Nius.de is actually doing is—not different from what the iconoclasts on ‘the Left™’ are clamouring for:

The city of Potsdam wants to rename the street ‘Zu den drei Mohren’, reports [state boradcaster] rbb. However, streets and squares named after communists and elements of the SED dictatorship will retain their names for the time being. The search for the driving force behind the left-wing cultural struggle in the Prussian showpiece city leads to an extreme left-wing micro-party.

So far, so informative, but don’t fall for the easy ‘look, there’s Commies beneath everything’ line (although it’s not technically untrue in this case).

It's a big controversy: street names that have fallen out of time are increasingly falling victim to renaming. The two points of view are relatively obvious—some want to remove all problematic names, others want to keep old names out of respect for the city’s history.

In Potsdam, it is now the street ‘Zu den drei Mohren’—the reason is the racism that resonates. The city has thus decided to eradicate ‘problematic’ names.

However, this decision does not seem consistent, as the city is retaining a number of communist street names.

Those places deemed ‘problematic’ due to their Communist legacy are the Platz der Einheit (Unity Square); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels streets, and the reasons cited by Nius.de include Marx’—and, by extension, 19th-century socialists’—anti-semitism (which is true), and it is, of course, connected to later mass murderers (Josef Stalin) and terrorists (Yasser Arafat).

Allusion is also made to many ‘often anti-slavic’ remarks by Marx, Engels, and their followers; this is, of course, documented to such a large degree that, if only to uphold the Luciferian qualities of Adolf Hitler and his meaning for German—and Western—history since 1945, this is also where Nius.de stops.

As an aside, I would—and have—argue(d) that a more truthful account of the 19th century would necessitate an all-Western—incl. Russian—re-writing of history, for German-speakers in particular have a long and sordid history of anti-slavic sentiments that, if considered appropriately, would do away with the Hitlerian focus of Western historiography after WW2. I’m not getting into this in more detail here, but for those interested, you may wish to read up on it here:

Commemorating 1848, German President Lies (by Omission), thus Reinforcing the Decadent Régime

Back to the better and more useful parts of the Nius.de piece:

When asked by NIUS whether there were any plans to rename the streets, the city replied that there were currently no applications for renaming. When asked about the double standards in the problematic evaluation of street names, the spokesperson referred to the city council. An enquiry to the latter resulted in a referral back to the press office.

‘Street names are decided by the city council as part of a political discourse and negotiation process’, says the press office.

This ‘political discourse’ seems to have a red bias…

This is, of course, true. To their credit, Nius.de then goes on to focus on a small, far-left faction. Citing a rbb piece, we learn that ‘the term Mohr has been publicly criticised for more than 70 years because of its racist and stereotypical content’.

We also learn that said criticism came from ‘Die Andere’, described by Nius.de as an ‘extreme left-wing political group founded by former Green Party member Lutz Boede’. The group originally agitated against conscription, compulsory service, and the military’, which I consider almost comical given The Greens’ current rabid Russophobia and their desire to send troops, once more, off to fight on the Eastern Front.

Nius.de also explains that, ‘until 2021, the association was classified as an “organisation influenced by left-wing extremism” in reports by individual federal states on the protection of the constitution’. Apparently, ‘Die Andere’ is no longer under surveillance due to its extremism.

On their website, ‘Die Andere’ holds the following core principles:

We realise that the most important changes are not implemented in parliaments or local councils, but in society and its property and production relations. This can neither be achieved through elections nor through boycotts. However, access to information and structures can be used for extra-parliamentary initiatives and a broader public can be created for political alternatives and visions.

What appears to be left unsaid is how ‘the most important changes’ will have to come about, if they ‘can neither be achieved through elections not through boycotts’.

You can clearly read the mantra ‘the only solution, is communist revolution’ in-between the lines.

What they also do, however, and this was reported by Nius.de, is that they are actively working to re-name streets, among others after Salvador Allende. Finally, there is Mr. Makatov’s conclusion, which clearly shows he senses how absurd this all is, yet he seemingly fails to understand that his position is closer to that of the Cultural Revolutionaries:

Everything old German and Prussian is fiercely rejected by extreme left-wing organisations such as the "Die Andere" group—such as the controversially discussed and newly reconstructed Garrison Church in the heart of the city. This is targeted by red interest groups because of its Prussian military past and its use by the National Socialists…

While street names that have fallen out of fashion are being erased due to racism and the city’s own Prussian identity is being scorned, relics of a bygone era of Marxist hostility to civilisation enjoy lobby-like support in local politics. Yet it is precisely this mixture of modernism and tradition that makes Brandenburg's capital city thrive.

Bottom Lines

I beg to differ here.

‘The Left™’ doesn’t care about a ‘mixture of modernism and tradition’, they need to destroy, in Mao’s phrasing, ‘the Four Olds’.

‘The Right™’, represented here by Nius.de, doesn’t care about the essence either; they wish to keep the post-WW2 ‘mixture of modernism and tradition’ while relegating everything before, including Europe’s centuries-old Christian history, to the proverbial dustbin of history.

We do see the convergence of ‘the Left™’ and ‘the Right™’, both sides of the same deeply entrenched globalist ruling elites, and this is clearly visible in the common, revolutionary iconoclasm favoured by both: the former wishes to do away with, essentially, Old Europe’s Christian legacy (the ‘Moor’, i.e., St Maurice) while the latter seek to annihilate Newer Europe’s Marxist-Leninist legacy (which isn’t to say these two legacies are the same).

But my core argument is—instead of coming out strongly in defence of, essentially, freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, ‘the Right™’ is doing us all a disfavour. ‘The Left™’ is already gone from this discussion and is moving (again) ever more strongly into the direction of authoritarianism.

Yet, to expect ‘the Right™’ to come to defend the ‘old’ constitutional order is a fallacy if there ever was one.