Can We Coexist With The Left?

The American writer Lawrence Auster had a debate with his readers regarding the possibility of splitting the USA along ideological lines. According to reader Tim W, modern Left liberalism is a universal totalitarian ideology, not a “live and let live” concept. The goal of its adherents is a world government from which no one can escape. Leftists “need conservatives but conservatives don’t need leftists. To be blunt, they can’t let us go. We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors. But they can’t get rid of us because we do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, provide the stability and morality that allow their depravity to thrive with less damaging results. Furthermore, the white conservative population is the buffer protecting white liberals from the minorities.”

A number of commentators questioned the viability of such a political division. Muslims believe not only that Islam is the best religion, but that it is the only true religion and that all people must be brought into its fold. Likewise, Leftists sincerely believe that Leftism is the only valid ideology, and that the whole world must be brought under its heel. Just like the very existence of self-governed communities outside of Islamic rule is considered an intolerable act of aggression by devout Muslims, so the existence of self-governed non-Leftist communities anywhere, at least if they happen to be white, is unacceptable to Leftist True Believers. They don’t just want to rule themselves; they want to rule everybody else as well.

Good arguments were presented in favor of secession, but opponents point out that attempted partition would likely trigger coercion and force when the ruling oligarchs fear losing control. If the Left sees everything it has promoted for generations about to be overturned it might resort to violence. Above all, opponents questioned whether the whole idea of “just wanting to be left alone” is defeatist and leaves the opponents with the initiative. Perhaps the battle cannot be won until we go on the offensive and take the ideological war to the enemy.

As reality is now, whites are considered potential extremists merely for existing, whereas the most revolting non-white organizations imaginable go free. For example, groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has the stated goal of destroying Western civilization, are labeled “moderates,” whereas whites who want an immigration policy that prevents such people from settling in their countries are demonized as “racist extremists” by the media.

As Lawrence Auster says, white Leftists show “absolute moral disgust and horror against white non-liberals for their (almost always falsely imagined) discriminatory attitudes toward nonwhites. The only two moral actors in this script are the white liberals, who are good, and the white non-liberals, who are evil. The nonwhites are not moral actors in the script. They are the passive, sacred objects around whom the moral drama between good whites and evil whites is played out.”

In April 2010, the former left-wing US President Bill Clinton warned commentators to tone down their anti-government rhetoric for fear of inflaming hate groups, as polls suggested that public trust in the US government was at its lowest point for half a century. Clinton tried to conflate the anti-tax Tea Party movement with the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist bombing, and implicitly voiced support for limiting certain forms of speech that might challenge the left-wing ruling regime. In an interview with The New York Times newspaper, Mr. Clinton was worried about the fact that “Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before.” He warned against those who were too negative regarding the policies of Leftist politicians.

In 2009, the same Bill Clinton said that Americans should be mindful of their nation’s changing demographics, which led to the 2008 election of Obama as president. He told an Arab-American audience that by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage and stated that “this is a very positive thing.” This was merely eight years after Arab Muslim terrorists staged the deadliest attack against the US mainland in peacetime, killing thousands of US citizens. Yet a dramatic increase in the number of Arab Muslims in his country does not worry Mr. Clinton at all. The only “terrorism” he is concerned about might be protests from people of European origins who oppose their own dispossession.

Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN, spoke in March 2010 before the Young Democratic Socialists conference. There she predicted a USA headed toward violence that will “dwarf the internments during World War II.” Curiously, this statement was hardly reported in the mass media. She said that immigration is a big battle. “And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret: (whispering) We’re getting ready to be a majority, minority country. Shhhh. We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. Don’t tell anybody.”

Lewis encouraged people, based solely on the color of their skin, to “get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get into this battle,” the battle here just defined as the dispossession of whites. She’s the head of an organization that’s been a good friend of the current President Barack Hussein Obama. ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of voter registration fraud. As President, Obama has repeatedly insulted staunch friends and allies of his country while openly siding with its Islamic enemies.

In April 2010 US President Obama, with unusual frankness regarding his anti-white coalition, appealed to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again” for continued “change,” essentially the manifestation of an intifada on European Americans. Notice that his message was essentially the same as that of the radical Bertha Lewis of ACORN, only slightly less openly militant. A few days later, the same Mr. Obama with astounding hypocrisy in an address urged both sides in the political debate to tone down their rhetoric. This because using phrases like “Socialists” in his view “closes the door to the possibility of compromise” and “can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”

The problem is that extremist left-wing elements have received tacit approval for carrying out violence and intimidation for years. This trend is escalating because of thugs such as the Antifa groups in Western Europe. These Leftist vandals get away with what they do because they know they have the quiet backing of the media and the political elites. Also in 2010, the University of Ottawa in Canada cancelled a speech by the U.S. conservative writer Ann Coulter because organizers feared left-wing protesters would turn violent. The American Renaissance conference that same year met with extreme harassment, including death threats. Yet as AR leader Jared Taylor lamented, the story received virtually no coverage from the mainstream Western media, nor from Democratic Presidents Obama or Clinton. The question here is not whether you agree with the people at American Renaissance, the question is why a legal, white political organization cannot meet peacefully when Communists or organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can do so.

In her book A God Who Hates, the Syrian-born ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan comments on the Islamic “culture of shouting and raiding.” She states that “My experience has been that two Muslims cannot talk together without their conversation turning into shouts within minutes, especially when they disagree with each other, and no good can come of that. When you talk to a Muslim, rationally, in a low calm voice, he has trouble understanding your point of view. He thinks you have lost the argument. A Muslim conversing with anyone else – Muslim or non-Muslim – cannot remember a single word the other person has said, any more than my mother could remember a single word of what the preacher in our local mosque said.”

Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good.” Facts don’t matter. Lying about opponents and their intentions is so widespread “that it is considered to be normal.”

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated, which constitutes one of the largest and most expensive anti-scientific frauds in history, most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right. Muslims, too, are allowed to lie to further the spread of their ideology. This strategy is called taqiyya.

Just like Muslims, both national Socialists and international Socialists totally lack respect for Socratic Dialogue, the reasoned search for truth which has been a hallmark of Western culture at its best. This is why such a large percentage of Western converts to Islam are either neo-Nazis or Marxists: These groups already think a great deal like Muslims. Their creed is the Absolute Truth, which should rule the world and must be imposed on others by brute force if necessary. They consequently have no need for reasoned debate. Others should submit to their rule or be violently squashed. End of story. People of European origins who stick to their cultural heritage constitute the embodiment of evil for Leftists, just like the infidels do for Muslims. Since white Westerners invented capitalism, some radical Socialists apparently believe that a “Final Solution” to the Capitalist Problem involves the annihilation of whites.

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” should not be used lightly, but the writer Paul Weston is unfortunately correct here: What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that Andrew Neather from the ruling Labour Party admitted this openly, in writing.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing” back in 1999, thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately displacing the native white population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because very similar anti-white policies are currently followed in all Western nations without exception?

Let me add that I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West. I have some in my immediate family, and they don’t think like this at all. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the right thing. The hardcore ones who deliberately want to kill the West might be a minority, but at the end of the day this distinction matters little.

In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.


No such thing as the Right (or Left)

T.Bertonneau: " Now that the contemporary Left has fused with Islam and begun giving open expression to its anti-Semitism"

I think leftism has fused with anti-Whitism. It is being promoted by Jewish activists more than by Muslims.

T.B: " I actually believe that there is no such thing as “the right.” (...) What the Left calls “the right” is, as I put it in my previous post, merely the “vast heterogeneous category” of ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people ”

I think this is true. If someone ignores the leftist nonsense and keeps thinking that 2+2=4, that makes him a normal person, not a right-wing theorist. But this is also true of most left-wing voters. Most of them are normal, not politicized people. The real bad guys are the anti-white (formerly leftist) activists. They are only a small minority, but they control the media, and everyone else gets defined by them, relative to them.

As you move from the left to the right, the resistance to the leftist nonsense gets stronger, and you find fewer brainwashed lemmings. But even on the left, most people usually disagree with the current immigration policy. I think most people who vote for Labour (UK), for the Democrats (USA), or for the Socialists (France), are politically closer to ordinary right-wing voters than to the anti-white far-left. In fact, the far-left doesn't belong to the left. We know that the left is supposed to be kind, compassionate, and equalitarian, while the right is supposed to be pragmatic. But the "far-left" that controls the media isn't compassionate. They don't care about equality and diversity. Their real motivation is racial and anti-white. Unlike the "left-wing" media, most left-wing voters are not anti-white. The main reason they refrain from speaking up against immigration is because they are afraid to be called racist. Also, they may be afraid to harm the non-whites.

It isn't only the left who is the victim of intimidation and manipulation by a minority. Even in what should be conservative parties and institutions, those who rise to the top tend to be people willing to compromise on conservative principles and go along with the media's anti-white narrative. Most right-wing voters are strongly opposed to immigration, but they are afraid to vote for the British National Party or the French National Front, and they end up voting for politicians who support the mass immigration policy. They are not very different from left-wing voters.

Fjordman: "I don’t think all Leftists have a well-thought-out plan to destroy the West."

Besides, many far-left activists are manipulated and don't know what they are doing in the first place. Many of them like leftist posturing for the sake of it.

Anyway, you don't have to be leftist to vote for the left. For example, civil servants and non-whites tend to vote for the left because they want more money for themselves. Some white unskilled workers still vote for the left because they are under the illusion that it is in their financial interest to do so. Their aim isn't to destroy anything.

One Further Point...

One further point I want to make regarding the "do nothing" Congress in the early 2000's:

I don't blame Congress entirely for its spending and waste.  It's up to the American people to keep them in check, and we have been too apathetic for too long, which is why they have gotten away with too much over the decades.   We have sat and watched Wheel of Fortune and football, rather than pay attention to what is happening in DC and in our own states.  This is why we have the current train wreck of an administration:  ignorance and apathy of the electorate. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, when the people become indifferent to the affairs of government, we (politicians) all become as wolves.

Times are a'changin', as the song goes.  The America Tea Party is wide awake and millions of Americans are mobilized and actively involved with local and national politics now.  The Tea Party is infiltrating the Republican Party (the Donks are beyond redemption) and changing its face by instilling new blood and a return to the constitutional principles of its founders.  We need massive reform, and it is now possible because so many ordinary Americans are willing to run for office and bring the needed change to save our Republic. No more career politicians. It's grass roots Americans who are coming in to save the day.

In response to Mpresley:

In response to Mpresley: Yes, the search for scapegoats never ends – “ad infinitum” is scapegoat logic, as exemplified in the fratricidal history of Chinese Communism or the Lenin-Stalin variety of the same. Karl Marx, for his part, spent the last twenty years of his life in “purifying” his Communist International – bequeathing, in the process, a hair-splitting vocabulary of “deviationism” that is still in use on the Left. All histories of the Soviet Union comment on the identical “scholastic” ferocity. Intimations of the same process are already on view in American politics in the “disappointment” of the hard-Left over Obama’s failure to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and to close the POW camp at Guantanamo Bay. “Fjordman’s” essay is important (as is Lawrence Auster’s posting, which inspired it) for explicating the dilemma that the Left has foisted on everyone, including itself. I believe that it was Auster who wrote that “Obama Care” would entail the irreparable division of the American nation; I would add that the repeal of “Obama Care,” for which conservatives hope, and which would be justified, would also entail the irreparable division of the American nation, as necessary as it is. The entirety of all of this “bad news” is attributable to the Left, which is fundamentally destructive (“transgressive” and “deconstructive,” as Leftists like to say) to the point of irremediable nihilism. Division and exacerbation belong to the program of the Left. Having let the Left go so far, everyone else must now live out the rancor of that division, including the violent protests of the “entitled” when the off-term elections restore a non-Leftist majority in Congress. (Greece is the oracle of our future.)

May I contribute a paradox to the debate? A self-described rightist and reactionary, I actually believe that there is no such thing as “the right.” Rather “the right” is a delusion – a projection, as Jung used to say – of the Left. What the Left calls “the right” is, as I put it in my previous post, merely the “vast heterogeneous category” of ordinary, non-politicized, non-ideological people who want to live their inoffensive lives unmolested by righteous saints. Manichaean divisions belong to the socio-pathology of fanatics – and the non-Left is the same thing as the non-fanatic, the pluralist, and those who participate in the continuous one-on-one negotiations of the market.

Can we co-exist with the left?

No, we cannot.

Our only existence will be as a feeble remnant, a hated minority in our own (former) countries. This is the what they have planned and are doing an amazing job of executing with nary a peep from the brainwashed victims. I now know how the very, very few angry Jews felt telling their relatives not to get on the trains. Europe is on the train. America is loading the boxcars.

We need a new ideology to fight the left. The traditional right has failed. The American "conservative" movement has failed. The libertarian alternative, if it was even of any use and not a trojan horse attack, has failed.

What Planet?

I don't know what planet Casimir is on, but the American conservative movement has NOT failed. As a matter of fact, it is ascending. Polls indicate that more Americans label themselves "conservative" (and pro life for that matter) than ever before.

Ever hear of the Tea Party? This movement has greatly impacted special elections and will bring a tsunami to the Donk pols this mid term election in November.

Speak for yourself, Casimir. You obviously know nothing about the huge changes that are coming in America. We conservatives ARE taking back our country and a new American Revolution is at hand.

We'll see. It is nice to

We'll see. It is nice to see some of the old bulls put out to pasture. But I don't see the leaders that would be needed to change things. Sarah Palin? Dick Armey? Newt? Glenn Beck?

The Republicans controlled the Presidency and/or Congress off and on since 1994. Not much to show for all that.

At this point small adjustments are not going to make much difference in my opinion. I don't see one politician being honest about the immigraiton problem or the budget disaster. "Lowering taxes" again is probably counter productive.

When I see someone propose the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid outright and the gradual end of Social Security I will believe that there is some point to it all.



You've set it up for failure by your unrealistic expectations. Of course you don't see "leaders" because you know nothing of what is going on over here with the Tea Party, which is leaderless and more like a Hydra, leaving it a difficult target for the Left. Sarah Palin is probably the most popular politician who speaks for the movement, but we have many grass roots leaders who are throwing their hats into the ring and running for Congress. They all stand for limited government, lower taxes and reigning in spending.

The problem with your position is that you fail to comprehend the nature of our Republic. It's set up so that power should be decentralized and in the hands of the people, not just one central leader, which is what you are looking and so characteristic of the European artistocratic mentality.

Your statement about the Republicans "controlling" the WH and Congress "on and off" since 1994 is meaningless, dated and inaccurate. That GOP-led Congress did pass a welfare reform bill led by Gingrich, but it's the Congress in 2000-2006 that did nothing but sit on its laurels, which is why the Donks won in 2006.

It's ridiculous to say that there is no "point" unless someone proposes an end to Medicare and Medicaid (which are not strictly entitlements since they are partly funded by the recipient's taxes during his work years) when there are so many other, more egregious entitlements that should be cut off. Most conservatives do not object to some form of assistance to the elderly and handicapped - those who truly need help from a civilized society - but to cut them off? Your cavalier proposal indicates a callous disregard for those who deserve help as well as a complete ignorance of the unintended consequences it would create. I guess you never heard that President Bush did indeed propose a reform to Social Security back in 2005, in an attempt to allow the individual to privately invest, but it was shot down by the Donks and by an apathetic electorate. By your lights, then, President Bush would be such a "leader" you're looking for.

You also demonstrate an ignorance of basic economics. "Lowering taxes" would be "counter productive"? How so? Do you even think about the consequences of what you propose before you write them?

Really, you should first inform yourself of what is going on before you write about American politics. From what little you have already posted, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

We'll see what your

We'll see what your leaderless Tea Party can accomplish. I suspect very little. What percent of the existing Congress do you think you can replace with your grass roots efforts? 10 Congressmen and 1 Senator maybe? Face the facts mostly the Tea Party will merely help replace party hacks from the Blue Team with party hacks from the Red Team.

I may fail to recognize the design of the Republic, you fail to recognize the reality of the Democracy! For all your talk of distributed power your masters at the Fed won't even tell you who they are giving money to in hundred-billion dollar increments. Some limits you have there.

My statement that the Republicans controlled the WH and Congress on and off since 1994 is not "meaningless, dated and inaccurate" as you claim.

Gingrich won the House in 1994 and it was controlled until 2006.

Bush won the white house in 2000, and had a GOP House and GOP Senate for about 1/2 of his time in office.

These are facts, and your name calling can't change them. They are acccurate facts, and they are relevant facts in so far as they demonstrate my main point which is that the GOP are not serious about walking the talk.

I will grant that they are somewhat dated. If the GOP were to win it all again in 2012 it would not be the same identical set of people as were put into the minority role by the American voters in 1996. But there would be a *huge* amount of familiar old faces. McCain, Snowe, Lindsey, Orin Hatch, Mitch McConnell in the Senate and a similar cast of characters in the House.

As for my suggestion that cutting off entitlements is required if we are to take GOP/Tea Party/Conservative claims of fiscal responsibility seriously, you say that it's ridiculous. No, it is not. What is ridiculous and appalling is your lack of knowledge of the budget situation of the USA.

This ain't rocket science, junior. Take a look at this simple picture of the budget of the USA:

You will note that Medicare is 19% of the budget, SSI is 20%, "Other Mandatory" is 17% (Federal pension obligations), interest on the Debt is 5%. Add those up and it's 61% of the budget.

The US spending in 2009 was $3.52 Trillion. The US Deficit was $1.41 trillion, or almost exactly 40% of the budget.

Thus, to eliminate the deficit (which will still leave the USA burdened with approx. $14 trillion in debt) using your "non-ridiculous" suggestion you would have to cut ALL non-discretionary spending. That means ZERO spending for the military. Zero spending on all other federal projects and departments: Agriculture, Energy, NASA, Transportation, Interior Department.

Whose plan is ridiculous, again?

Nope. You are just proving that the Tea Party is full of people who can't and aren't serious about our fiscal situation.

The ONLY way towards a balanced budget will involve drastically reducing the entitlement programs that make up the majority of Govt. spending.

To talk about tax cuts while running a deficit that is approaching Greek levels is absurd. Yet you snidely ask me if I think before *I* post?

I love your response! It proves my points. The Tea Party movement isn't serious and is full of people who don't really get it. The reason that you NEED a leader is because your leaderless movement is full of individuals; who can't add and makes all sorts of absurd assertions that are contrary to basic facts. I also love that you quickly resort to that old standard of demagogic liberals (yes, I'm calling you a liberal) the needy old person that will be harmed by evil conservative fiscal policies, like ending bankrupt entitlements.

You would probably agree with the Tea Party sign seen at a recent demonstration: "Government keep your hands off my Medicare".

I see your intentions are in the right place, but with your current level of knowledge you are merely another confused patrio-tard. If I thought your movement could actually drive our politics I'd be worried. But you can't, so I'm merely amused.

We need a new ideology...

We need a new ideology to fight the left...

Casmir: I understand what you mean (I think), but wonder about your choice of words. Since the days of Marx (see Engels' widely quoted letter to journalist Franz Mehring), ideology has the connotation of something inherently false, or at best something contingent, something subject to change, and something dependent upon one's subjective views. What is needed, instead, is action based upon truth. Unfortunately, for us moderns, truth is the last thing we know anything about, and is in fact denied as something that can be attributable to the social sciences, or human action in general.

I agree that what is understood as the "political right" (that is, right leaning politicians) has advanced nothing helpful. Capitalist apologists and Libertarians (Mises, Rothbard, et al) along with the radical Rand cultists can be counted on only in the realm of economics, but their followers who sometimes deny the inherent spiritual within man are guilty of an anti-humanism, and their drive towards a lack of realism in other, non-economic matters, limits both their theoretical and practical usefulness as guides for political action. For instance, Mises, in his worthwhile study, Human Action, was hesitant to get involved in the argument of racial differences (what he termed a "doctrine of polylogism"--here he was ostensibly writing about logical forms, but one wonders whether such a strict interpretation of racial "thinking" becomes anything but a tautology; that is, to think logically means we have to agree on the principles of logic, and logic is an apriorism that cannot be denied by anyone regardless of race), but at the same time he could not deny that modern civilization was "developed by the white peoples," and the Austrian economist argued that Western civilization's continued existence is now threatened by "people who cannot think economically." It must be remembered that, for Mises, economics was itself an apriorism, and distinct from empirical economic history (see the Introduction: Economic Theory and the Practice of Human Action up through VII, where he begins his explanation of the apriori laws of economics). It may be (and probably was) the case that Mises was reacting to the then recent events in WW2 Germany, as HA was published in 1949, but whatever the case we must not be afraid to confront the truth, wherever it leads.

Neo-populism: new "non-ideology" to fight the Left

Casimir, check out the non-ideology of neo-populism at It is a strategy of throwing off leftist domination by demanding that bureaucrats and elected officials obey the rule of law and the popular will through lawsuits, confrontation, and public criticism. It is a rejection of rule by experts in every sphere.

Power Struggles

Rembrandt: Your guess is as good as mine but my mine is that the West crossed the point of no return with Roe vs Wade. You could say it turned God's favor away or you could say it steepened the slope of civilizational decline and both would be true.

Its often hard to see the obvious but it seems obvious to me that Western Civilization died a while back and it will not be revived. That is not to say that we shouldn't still work to push the bolder up the hill. Maybe the heroic boulder pushers or the memories of them will become part of the basis of a new and better civilization.

Liberals want to destroy western civilization

It’s important to understand the basis of this phenomenon, that is the will of leftists and (so-called) liberals to destroy western civilization in all its main features : ethnicity, nation, culture, economy and religion.

- Immigration is promoted because white people has built modern civilization, as they are the smartest and more creative human beings. Racism is evil if it protects White people identity, but good when it promotes non-Whites (guess why M. Obama was elected ?).
- Islam is also promoted, because 1) it’s one of the most absolute enemies of western world and its religion, 2) it brings Arab and Muslim people to Europe, which destroy ethnic identity of European nations, and 3), and in my opinion the most important, because Islam rule means the end of any progress, as shows the complete stagnation of Islamic countries since XIth century.
- Culture and Art are too the target of liberal thinking : since the beginning of XXth century a new sort of art has replaced the traditional art, a non-figurative and anti-humanistic art, intended to destroy the common sense of beauty (compare Picasso and Van Eyck !).
- In economy the industrial basis of western nation has almost disappeared and know-how and technology given up to Asian countries (which they would have never created by themselves).
- Religion too has been specially attacked, specially Catholic Church which has built the western world and because it’s a transcendent and metaphysical religion.

That does not means that most liberals and leftists consciously realy want to destroy Western civilization; they just want to improve it or bring some “good” changes. Unfortunately, these “changes” always tend to the purpose we have seen. Not only they are stupid, as most people are (even in upper classes of society), but they also are manipulated by medias and political class, which are completely liberal and leftist (including political parties pretending to be conservative - only far-right are really outside the system)

All of this sounds mad and totally irrational, and it is, but communism was irrational, and that didn’t prevent him to rule Asia et West Europe.
I’ll go far beyond mere political analysis, and ask this question : is not a supra-human force affecting history, wanting to destroy the greatest achievement of humanity, the Western civilization, and reduce it to the chaos ?

The interesting thing is....

... once the West is vanquished in this scenario, will Islam and the Marxists turn on each other?  Or will there be a power sharing arrangement?  I can see the possibility for a successful synthesis of Marx and Muhammad. On the other hand, I see an obvious power struggle that would develop

Let's hope this scenario doesn't play out to allow us to find out.  Mankind would never recover.  I feel the West will awaken, once the situation becomes too blindingly obvious for even the most cowardly or blase among us to ignore.

The idea that liberalism –

The idea that liberalism – the Left – is a religious phenomenon, as are all ideologies, is well known. The assertion, which I take to be true, has a corollary that commentary on the Left rarely mentions: not only is liberalism a religion, but also it is a primitive and sacrificial religion, the primary and essential gesture of which is scapegoating. The Left cannot exist without scapegoats and victims and the Left’s scapegoats and victims are its imagined enemies in the vast heterogeneous category of people who prefer opinions and arrangements of life at odds with or merely different from those mandated by the Left. That the Left has cleverly appropriated and largely monopolized a vocabulary of victim-advocacy makes its constant search for and immolation of victims difficult for many people to see, but the masquerade shows signs of losing its effectiveness. Now that the contemporary Left has fused with Islam and begun giving open expression to its anti-Semitism, its affinity with the earlier varieties of ideological totalitarianism becomes more obvious than it was before and concomitantly more difficult to disguise. The Left needs everyone else for the same reason that Stalin needed “saboteurs,” “wreckers,” and “counter-revolutionary conspirators” and for the same reason that Hitler needed the Jews. Modern collectivism is not “modern” in any proper sense at all; it is a throwback to the ancient sacred, which organizes itself on the same principle (merely larger in scale and ambition) as a lynching party or an auto da fé of alleged witches. The vaunted “solidarity” invoked by leftists is nothing else than the unanimity of all victim-hungry mobs. Note that the contemporary formula for selecting a victim is to accuse someone of being a victimizer – that is, a “racist,” a “sexist,” a “homophobe,” an “Islamophobe,” or a “right-wing radical.” A person so designated becomes – for the multiculturalists, the diversity advocates, and the whole pious ranting company of secular saints – outside the law and thus also fair game.

By the way, the Left’s economics (if that were the word) is perfectly in accord with its religious primitivism. Socialism is plunder, not productivity.

The Left needs everyone else...

The Left needs everyone else for the same reason that Stalin needed “saboteurs,” “wreckers,” and “counter-revolutionary conspirators” and for the same reason that Hitler needed the Jews.

But, in the absence of real or even imagined enemies, and after they have already "cleaned house," they soon turn upon each other, as their psychology cannot offer up anything but criminal nihilism. If one is inclined, and to build upon Mr. Bertonneau's insight, please consider the history of Lui Shaoqi, Lin Biao, and, after them, Jaing Qing All, at one time, good comrades, I'm sure.

Self Disgust

mpresley: I would argue that the average white man on the street, goes along with multiculturalism because he is either intimidated (usually at the work place) or it has not yet hurt him and he is too busy with other things. As for white liberals, I don't think they are disgusted at their existence. They do not see themselves as white. Some regard themselves as non-racial (a good and very civilized thing provided you uphold civilization itself) while some even regard themselves as blacks (e.g. Bill Clinton). They are disgusted at our existence, not theirs. This is the ideological angle.

The other angle is that many of them are doing quite nicely as things stand and can only see things getting nicer for themselves as things progress. In this regard, I would venture to say that a few of the most adroit of them may indeed prosper but most will find that this path to success runs along a steep cliff. Toynbee made the observation that conquered peoples will integrate into and even admire and support the superior conquering civilization but will carry a subconsious and overriding hatred for it that will endure for generations. When the tipping point comes, many white liberals who helped the cause will find themselves the object of this racial hatred in spite of everything.


We have recent examples ready at hand to give evidence to your statements concerning racial hatred. But this kind of subdued hatred belongs to the general spectrum of human behavior and also occurs between otherwise categorized human groups. Iran (communists backstabbed by their Islamist allies) and Russia (Bolshevist factions eradicating each other, Jews endangered by the ideology that prominent members of their community promoted) are well-known examples.

Leftist-Liberals who today think that they are doing quite well for themselves will learn the bitter lessons anew, which history has tried to teach their ilk many times before.

Two comments

After it was revealed that much of the data regarding alleged man-made global warming was deliberately fabricated...most of its Leftist backers continued as if nothing had happened. The fact that they had promoted outright lies and slimed their opponents based on these lies mattered little. They believe they had the right to do so, as long as their intentions were right.

This, of course, begs the question as to what exactly were their intentions? I'm sure some actually thought, and still think that the world is over-heating due to Western (sic) industrialization and were, in their own naive way, sincere about it. This group does not, of course, include the fruadsters. How could it? To think so would make their actions completely unintelligible, unless they are simply a part of the general class of asocial criminals, seeking only destruction and mayhem for personal benefit. Whatever the case, I believe that the politicians, along with their allies, understood from the beginning that it was never about temperature change.

What is happening with the native population throughout Western Europe is a state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing.

This is most troubling, but what is even more bizarre is that the majority white population appears to tacitly agree with the conclusions. I've never understood how such otherwise obviously intelligent and seemingly successful people can be so utterly disgusted at their own very existence. It is a form of psychosis that must be understood, and changed, if the West is going to survive.