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 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: 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.

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.

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.

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 ?

... 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 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.

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.

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.