概述

前言

责任声明，本人作为儒家反动派，积极用四维八德武装自己的头脑，拥护夷夏大防，支持「德以柔中国，刑以威四夷」的祖训，是24k纯的爱好和平的人士。

白右和我们皇漢在对付马教和绿教方面有着共同目标。本书算是整个欧洲白右势力的政治宣言，里面很多东西值得我们思考和借鉴，当然还有防范。

简单来说，本书第一部分主要讲文化马克思主义者和穆斯林的关系，第二部分主要讲欧洲现状，第三部分主要讲欧洲的文化保守主义者应该如何反击以及作者个人的生活。

作者对犹太人的态度和对马克思主义者的态度迥然有异，耐人寻味。

民族主义是社会正常发展的必要产物，是区别不同人群的必要准则。个体的社会关系网络是从中心向外延申的，自然而然就有远近亲疏的差异。民族是人类能维持的能长久认同的最大共同体。

中华自古以来就有的「华夷之辨」则是民族主义的终极版本，是中华文明最宝贵的财富之一。

作者简介

Anders Behring Breivik

布雷维克对穆斯林的总体政策建议是隔离和遏制。关键是强调要强调伊斯兰教不能被改革，也不能与异教徒的生活方式调和。

布雷维克在原则上想避免种族仇杀，但整体情势的发展往往不是个体能够掌控的。

为了反击文化马克思主义者和穆斯林联盟，布雷维克大力杀伤了挪威的白左政客的后代，在于特岛创造了 77 杀的战绩，之后的挪威的政客引入穆斯林的行为相比瑞典明显收敛了许多。

布雷维克优先杀“东郭先生”而不是“狼”，避免加强“狼”的入侵。

其追随者布伦顿·塔兰特（Brenton Tarrant）在新西兰克赖斯特彻奇（ChristChurch） 枪杀 51 个穆斯林反而产生了相反的结果——增加了社会对穆斯林的同情。

作者虽然在法庭上公然行纳粹礼，但其并不热爱纳粹党而是极度仇视纳粹党（参见3.153 Interview with a Justiciar Knight Commander of the PCCTS, Knights Templar），此举只是为了恶心挪威的文化马克思主义者。

当然从某种程度上说，白右仇视希特勒和我们「痛恨」蒋介石差不多。

布雷维克中文维基百科词条

安德斯·贝林·布雷维克（挪威语：Anders Behring Breivik，1979年2月13日—）是一位挪威种族主义恐怖攻击罪犯，2011年7月22日发生的2011年挪威爆炸和枪击事件之行凶者。在此次恐怖袭击中，挪威奥斯陆市中心首相办公室附近的汽车炸弹被引爆，造成8人死亡，30人受伤。随后，在奥斯陆郊外乌托亚岛上，布雷维克持枪袭击了挪威工党青年营的参与者，造成69人死亡，66人受伤。由此，布雷维克实施了史上最严重的连环枪杀案。于2011年7月，有多个媒体来源指出，布雷维克极有可能会被发监至哈尔登监狱服刑。但是实际上，从被判决的次日（2012年8月25日）起，布雷维克就被关押在挪威的伊拉监狱。[10]

从2015年8月起，奥斯陆大学开始通过远端数位教学向他授课，布雷维克正式成为奥斯陆大学的学生，但是狱方保证不会让他有进入校园的机会，也不会让他接触任何学生或是教职员工。

生平

布雷维克出生于挪威奥斯陆，曾在商业学院学习商业管理，后居住在挪威东部开办农场，从事农产品生意。报章报导布雷维克仍然单身，兴趣是健身和打猎，也喜欢玩电玩，如魔兽世界、决胜时刻：现代战争2。

布雷维克好研究政治社会问题，思想倾向于基督教恐怖主义，也是当地枪会成员，名下有两把获得注册的武器，经常上网发表一些“极右派言论”。他还是瑞典新纳粹网上论坛的会员，网名Nordisk。1999年加入挪威右翼政党挪威进步党，屡次在网上发表强烈的国家主义言论，批评挪威的移民政策太过宽松，反对不同背景的人生活在一起。

布雷维克在袭击当天发布在互联网的《2083——欧洲的独立宣言》（2083 – A European Declaration of Independence）描述了自己的极右激进意识形态，该份宣言是用他的化名Andrew Berwick发布的。他的极端民族主义宣言表露了他仇外的世界观，并包括对文化保守主义、右翼民粹主义、反伊斯兰穆斯林文化、极右锡安主义以及塞尔维亚副军国主义不同程度的支持。而且支持暴力消灭伊斯兰教、文化马克思主义和多元文化政策，以保持基督教欧洲。

布雷维克承认了他所谓“残暴但必要”的行为，但否认触犯了法律。布雷维克声称与挪威和国际性极右政治运动取得联系，而且属于一个国际性反穆斯林网络的两个在挪威和在别国的更多基层组织。警察与专家怀疑这些声明，但没能完全地驳回它们。

2011年7月25日，布雷维克被控犯有“颠覆或破坏社会基本运转”和“致使群众严重恐惧”，实施刑法中规定的恐怖主义行为，被暂时拘押八周，其中前四周单独关押以配合司法调查。检察官在考虑控告他犯有一项2008年法律内的危害人类罪。

2011年挪威爆炸和枪击事件里他承认是自己所为。然而在无死刑与没有无期徒刑的挪威，他多只会面临高21年的监禁，并且关7年就可外出度周末不受监控，关14年便可获得假释的资格。而挪威法律规定若受刑人被认为对社会仍具有危险，刑满后仍可以被延长监禁，每5年延长刑期1次，而形成实质的终身监禁。

布里维克自入狱后（2012年8月25日起，关押在挪威的伊拉监狱）便住在一间由三间房间组成的小套房，共约10坪。他一早吃完早餐后便可以看报纸、有跑步机可以健身，甚至还可以使用电脑，但为了避免与外界沟通，书房的电脑并不能上网。

挪威法庭裁定，布雷维克犯案时头脑清醒，判处他最高的21年监禁。

后续争议

布雷维克入狱后，认为他在狱中的待遇违反了人权。列举出各种不满，由日常生活上的不适到比较严重的问题都有。如狱方供应的奶油不够涂满面包、只有PS2可以玩没有PS3或PS4、只有凉咖啡可喝，囚室中没有润肤霜，同时囚室欠缺装潢又没有景观令他沮丧。他还埋怨，他在押解时必须戴上的手铐太锐利，会“陷入他的手腕”。

布雷维克控告挪威政府虐待他，像是伙食不够好、独自囚禁过久，会见访客亲友律师必须隔着玻璃，而且PS2版本老化且不能联网，不能满足自己玩使命召唤的需求，结果布雷维克胜诉，但狱方没有满足其联网的需求，只是升级了版本

内容简介

全书共 1518 页（英文原文），主要分为三部分：

1.What you need to know, our falsified history and other forms of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist propaganda (Book 1)

History, Marxism and Islam – What your government, the academia and the media are hiding from you. Revisionism based on appeasement and anti-European thinking.

2.Europe Burning (Book 2)

In this book we review and analyse Europe’s current problems. We will also look at possible solutions.

3.A Declaration of pre-emptive War (book 3)

LEGAL DISCLAIMER (for certain chapters in Book 2 and Book: 3. A Declaration of pre-emptive War):

Book 3, “A Declaration of preemptive War” and certain chapters in book 2 in this compendium, titled “2083”, and all related research files describes a hypothetical response to a perceived threat (so called cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and the threat of Islamisation). As such, it is a fictional description regarding how it could be like if Islam would be dominant in Europe. The concept of the story/plot is based on what it would be like if certain Christian/conservative/nationalist resistance groups/individuals chose to oppose these so called perceived threats and enemies. It describes in shocking detail how they would most likely rationalise/think/justify/argue and behave towards these perceived threats/enemies. This books chapter 3 describes how a “fictional” resistance group is emerging and how it would operate from the so called “Phase 1 through Phase 3” in order to prevent these perceived threats and atrocities from futher manifesting and to prevent an alleged future Muslim takeover. It also describes specifically how this hypothetical fictional group, “PCCTS, Knights Templar”, would choose to respond towards the so called ”enablers” or the so called “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist” elites that are allegedly allowing millions of Muslims to enter Europe. The book contains detailed strategies (guerrilla tactics, instructions to execute, political campaigns etc.) which normally would be partly incriminatory to anyone who published or distributed the book (had it not been fiction). It also describes indirect and direct armed and non-armed strategies towards these so-called “traitors” - referred to as the cultural Marxists/ multiculturalists. The motivation for this “fiction-writer-approach” is to contribute to create a new type of innovative writing style. By defining, in a horrifically detailed way, a fictional scenario, the reader will be shocked due to the “hopefully” credible and extremely detailed elaborations. It should be noted that the author, as a scifienthusiast, wanted to bring and create a complete new writing style that has the potential to shock the reader with an incredibly credible fictional plot (written in first, second and third person narrative). The author or distributor does not condone or agree with any of the descriptions or methods used in this book and the related chapters. However, the book was created to try to explain to the European political elites how the continuation of given political doctrines could result in similar manifestations (radicalisation of certain groups/individuals), as history has already proven, if they continue with their current policies. As such, it is a reminder to the current establishment what might happen if they repeat the mistakes of the past. Ignoring the will of the people will only contribute to radicalise groups/individuals and therefore contribute to polarise the political fronts and increase the chances of future conflicts. A continued humanist approach to mass Muslim immigration, and the implementation of Sharia on a local, national and pan-European level could result in a long term catastrophe. Not only as a result of a political Islamic consolidation from phase 1-3 but also the danger that REAL “resistance organisations” equivalent to the fictional group called “PCCTS” arises as a result of the discontent. Simulating the creation and detailed information about the actions of organisations like this is presented in detail (included combat/guerrilla simulations, planning phase, attack strategies etc) to try to forward a realistic impression to the reader and current European governments regarding what COULD develop if the current Islamisation process is allowed to continue. The detailed so called “terror descriptions” is therefore in place to create a sense of perceived credibility, reality under a credible fictitious framework. The threats, the discriminatory content and information about guerrilla warfare and violence, threats regarding killing of so called “traitors” and instruction on how to employ WMDs (which is all available through Wikipedia and other online sources to anyone btw) is therefore all a part of this fictional story/plot to strengthen the credibility of the framework. The book should therefore never be considered anything else than fiction (not real). Please note that in order to do some of the research in this compendium the author had to visit/seek several controversial websites/sources in order to gain access to the information. This does not mean that the author or distributor have any sympathy or empathy for any specified or un-specified violent or non-violent groups. All ”threats” etc in these fictional books are ”in character” and its primary goal is to give an impression of what it would be like if we were under threat by an extremist organisation. However, certain aspects of the content describing a lead character (a fictional political activist who has decided to become a so called “Jusiciar Knight”) sounds very realistic due to the detailed descriptions. However, all incriminatory information in this work is written “in character” and must not be confused with an actual plan, or strategy to attempt to harm any individuals or infrastructure, any political groups or attempt to seize political or military control of Western European regimes. This book is therefore unique in many ways. It is speculated that this type of original approach has the potential to forward and present information in a new and original context. It is therefore no need for concern by any police/state/government prosecutors or intelligence agencies about the content of this book due to its fictional nature. This legal disclaimer was created to remove any doubt whatsoever that the author or anyone chosing to distribute the book “2083” has any hostile motives or intentions. If any legal authority have reservations against this new and innovative form of writing style, they may address or contact the author, any publisher or distributor and share their concerns which will be taken under consideration. Changes will be considered and implemented. As such, the content in its current form will not incriminate anyone, the author or any distributor.

The Conservative Revolution - the only Solution for free Europeans

简单来说，第一部分主要讲文化马克思主义者和穆斯林的关系，第二部分主要讲欧洲现状，第三部分主要讲欧洲的文化保守主义者应该作出的反击以及个人生活。

After several investigations, Breivik was judged sound and sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment.1 Interestingly, Breivik later stated in court that the Norwegian people ought to be thankful to him, as his aim was to save Norway and Europe. In other words, he wanted to wipe out the next generation of Labour Party leaders to stop further disintegration of Nordic and European culture due to the mass immigration of Muslims, the feminist movement, and the multicultural movement.

Breivik’s ideological thinking, or rather “shopping” from the Internet, is laid down in the document 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence. It is believed that Breivik sent this text, also know as Breivik’s Manifesto to 1,003 counter-jihadists and right-wing extremists through Europe on the Internet, shortly before he accomplished the attacks. The compendium (written in English) was also published in a 12-minute summarized version on YouTube, but was soon taken down.

正文摘录

About the compendium - 2083

The compendium, - “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence” - documents through more than 1000 pages that the fear of Islamisation is all but irrational.

It covers the following main topics:

1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe
2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began
3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)
4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades
5. Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts

The compendium/book presents advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organisational and rhetorical solutions and strategies for all patriotic-minded individuals/movements.

The book will be of great interest to you whether you are a moderate or a more dedicated cultural conservative/nationalist.

Included are also demographical studies, historical statistics, forecasts and insights on various subjects related to the ongoing and future struggle of Europe. It covers most topics related to historical events and aspects of past and current Islamic Imperialism, which is now removed or falsified by our academia by instruction of Western Europe’s cultural relativist elites (cultural relativism=cultural Marxism). It offers thorough analysis of Islam, which is unknown to a majority of Europeans. It documents how the political doctrines known as multiculturalism/cultural Marxism/cultural relativism was created and implemented. Multiculturalists/cultural Marxists usually operate under the disguise of humanism. A majority are anti-nationalists and want to deconstruct European identity, traditions, culture and even nation states.

As we all know, the root of Europe’s problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence(nationalism). Most people are still terrified of nationalistic political doctrines thinking that if we ever embrace these principles again, new “Hitler’s” will suddenly pop up and initiate global Armageddon… Needless to say; the growing numbers of nationalists in W.Europe are systematically being ridiculed, silenced and persecuted by the current cultural Marxist/multiculturalist political establishments. This has been a continuous ongoing process which started in 1945. This irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. This book presents the only solutions to our current problems.

You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism…

注释

正如（International Standard Bible Encyclopedia）描述：“很可能哈米吉多顿（Armageddon）并非指某个地区而是指用来代表最后一场世界大战的象征名词。”现在，哈米吉多顿已被引申称呼为“哈米吉多顿大战”，并引申出“伤亡惨重的战役”、“毁灭世界的大灾难”、“世界末日”等涵意。

Introduction to the compendium - “2083” -

The introductory chapter explains how “cultural” Marxism gradually infiltrated our postWW2 societies. It is essential to understand how it started in order to comprehend our current issues. The chapter was written for the US specifically but applies to Western Europe as well.

Introduction - What is “Political Correctness”?

One of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points. But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.

Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts. In the end, the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and the grave.

But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies. If they are university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are employees of private corporations, they may face loss of their jobs. What was their crime? Contradicting the new EUSSR ideology of “Political Correctness.”

But what exactly is “Political Correctness?” Marxists have used the term for at least 80 years, as a broad synonym for “the General Line of the Party.” It could be said that Political Correctness is the General Line of the Establishment in Western European countries today; certainly, no one who dares contradict it can be a member of that Establishment. But that still does not tell us what it really is.

We must seek to answer that question. The only way any ideology can be understood, is by looking at its historical origins, its method of analysis and several key components, including its place in higher education and its ties with the Feminist movement. If we expect to prevail and restore our countries to full freedom of thought and expression, we need to know our enemy. We need to understand what Political Correctness really is. As you will soon see, if we can expose the true origins and nature of Political Correctness, we will have taken a giant step toward its overthrow.

注释

Political Correctness 政治正确

EUSSR意为欧洲苏维埃社会主义国家联盟。

the General Line of the Party 党的总路线

How it all began - Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism

Most Europeans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. Public schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things like talking in class and running in the halls. Most men treated women like ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities through volunteer work. Children grew up in two–parent households, and the mother was there to meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the whole family could enjoy.

What happened?

If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in the 2000s, he would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would be in immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he shouldn’t go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic security system.

If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When the children came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go through a metal detector to get in the building, had been given some funny white powder by another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.

In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference to the “little lady,” and say he was happy to see the firm employing some coloured folks in important positions. Any of those acts would earn a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired. When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people stared, and mocked.

And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy, blank-fronted “Adults Only” kiosk had gotten on their set.

Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would be of a nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace, moving in less than a half a century from the greatest countries on earth to Third World nations, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.

Why did it happen?

Over the last fifty years, Western Europe has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear, and ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can.

The ideology that has taken over Western Europe goes most commonly by the name of “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It wants to change behaviour, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now?

Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism (Cultural Communism) – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in European and American universities after many of its leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and even to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in universities from 1945.

The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.

The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.

The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.

The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behaviour of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all minorities, what they see as the victims; Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and they view ethnic Christian European men as evil. (Cultural Marxism does not recognise the existence of non-Feminist women, and defines Muslims, Asians and Africans who reject Political Correctness as evil, just like native Christian or even atheist Europeans.).

The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own government), lay penalties on native European men and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the ”victim” groups they favour. Affirmative action is an example.

Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction “proves” that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of Muslims, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a ‘scientific” air to the ideology.

These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.

Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called Western European ”conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivy- covered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.

The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness and retake their society from the cultural Marxists?

It is not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness. It tolerates a certain amount of criticism, even gentle mocking. It does so through no genuine tolerance for other points of view, but in order to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear totalitarian until their victory is assured.

Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They must use words it forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender. They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our opposition to Sharia on a national and local level, the Islamisation of our countries, the facts that violent crime is disproportionately committed by Muslims and that most cases of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn their children over to public schools.

Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder.

Defiance spreads. When other Western Europeans see one person defy Political Correctness and survive – and you still can, for now – they are emboldened. They are tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The ripples from a single act of defiance, of one instance of walking up to the clay idol and breaking off its nose, can range far. There is nothing the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is their chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism at every turn.

While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western Europeans realise that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realisation spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance,” and “multiculturalism.”

Who dares, wins.

评论

第三个相似之处是，两种⻢克思主义都先验地宣称某些群体是善良的，⽽另⼀些群体是邪恶的，也就是说， 不考虑个⼈的实际⾏为。古典⻢克思主义将⼯⼈和农⺠定义为善良的，将资产阶级（中产阶级）和其他资本 所有者定义为邪恶的。⽂化⻢克思主义将所有少数群体定义为受害者；穆斯林、⼥权主义妇⼥、同性恋者和 其他⼀些少数群体被认为是善良的，⽽他们认为基督教欧洲男性是邪恶的。 （⽂化⻢克思主义不承认⾮⼥ 权主义⼥性的存在，并将拒绝政治正确的穆斯林、亚洲⼈和⾮洲⼈定义为邪恶，就像本⼟基督徒甚⾄⽆神论欧洲⼈⼀样。）。

这种说法显然是错误，在马克思主义者眼中，农民（富农、地主）尤为反动，不然也不会被饿死或被毒气弹毒死。

农民实际上比资产阶级要反动。

两种马克思主义的合流：

The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”

Western Europe is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.” Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behaviour on all Europeans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical inversion of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution.

Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead the revolutionary forces to victory.

The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist” uprising in Berlin, Germany led by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Kun in 1919. At the time, there was great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of impending doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919.

However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown. These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond.The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the workers.

One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved their quandary by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic substructures as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.

Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.

Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to Western European schools.

In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modelled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States. The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany.

The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticise the bases of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms, known collectively as Critical Theory, were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.

The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced Western European psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised on one basic idea, that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism, and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial and religious prejudice and German fascism. The Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might occur on the European continent. This campaign, in turn, provided a basis for Political Correctness.

Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory,” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution.

To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognised that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally “normal.”

As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Many believed that oppressed Muslims, non European minorities and others like Feminists and Homosexuals could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in Europe.

Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s counterculture movement, who attempted to elevate minority revolutionaries to positions of leadership in their movement.

The student revolutionaries were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolution. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution. In his book An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse proclaimed his goals of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos; cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.

Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilised restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilisation, published in 1955.

Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’ service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to Western European and American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960s. Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.

One of the most important contributors to Political Correctness was Betty Friedan.

Through her book The Feminine Mystique, Friedantied Feminism to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Brandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, “The Authoritarian Character Structure,” published in 1944, that reflected the personality theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich, who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory.

The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully appreciated unless Betty Friedan’s revolution in sex roles is viewed for what it really was – a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology is only one indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and with Herbert Marcuse’s transvaluation of values. But the idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do – can be connected directly to Friedrich Engels book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. First published in 1884, this book popularised the now-accepted feminist belief that deep- rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. In this work Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory and its near-relation, androgyny theory, both originated from these sources.

When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness – or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name – present their beliefs attractively. It’s all just a matter of being “sensitive” to other people, they say. They use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

The reality is different. Political Correctness is not at all about “being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order, and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.

This short essay has sought to show one critical linkage, that between classical Marxism and the ingredients of the “cultural revolution” that broke out in Western Europe in the 1960s. Of course, the action does not stop in the ‘60s; the workings of the Frankfurt School are yet very much with us, especially in the field of education. That topic, and other present-day effects of Frankfurt School thinking, will be further analysed.

“政治正确”的历史根源 （机器翻译为中文）

今天，西欧被⼀种外来的信仰、态度和价值观体系所主导，我们称之为“政治正确”。政治正确旨在将统⼀的思想和⾏为强加给所有欧洲⼈，因此本质上是极权主义的。它的根源在于⻢克思主义的⼀个版本，它寻求对传统⽂化的彻底颠覆，以创造⼀场社会⾰命。

社会⾰命有着悠久的历史，可以想象，可以追溯到柏拉图的《理想国》。但正是1789年的法国⼤⾰命激发了卡尔·⻢克思在19世纪发展他的理论。进⼊20世纪，1917年俄国布尔什维克⾰命的成功，在欧美⻢克思主义势⼒中掀起了⼀股乐观期待的浪潮，即⽆产阶级平等的新世界终于来临。俄罗斯作为世界上第⼀个共产主义国家，将领导⾰命⼒量取得胜利。

欧洲⻢克思主义⾰命⼒量抓住了这个机会。第⼀次世界⼤战结束后，德国柏林发⽣了罗莎·卢森堡领导的共产主义“斯巴达克”起义。在库尔特·艾斯纳领导下在巴伐利亚创建“苏维埃”；1919年⻉拉·库恩建⽴了匈⽛利共产主义共和国。当时，⼈们⾮常担⼼整个欧洲可能会落⼊布尔什维克主义的旗帜下。1919年托洛茨基红军⼊侵波兰，这种厄运即将来临的感觉更加⽣动。

然⽽，红军在1920年的维斯⽡河战役中被波兰军队击败。斯巴达克政府、巴伐利亚苏维埃政府和⻉拉昆政府都未能获得⼯⼈们的⼴泛⽀持，不久后都被推翻。这些事件给欧洲的⻢克思主义⾰命者带来了困境。根据⻢克思主义经济理论，受压迫的⼯⼈应该是社会⾰命的受益者，这场⾰命将使他们处于权⼒结构的顶端。然⽽，当这些⾰命机会出现时，⼯⼈们并没有做出反应。⻢克思主义⾰命者并没有将这些失败归咎于他们的理论。他们指责⼯⼈。

⼀群⻢克思主义知识分⼦通过⼀种关注社会⽂化“上层建筑”⽽不是像⻢克思那样关注经济底层结构的分析解决了他们的困境。意⼤利⻢克思主义者安东尼奥·葛兰西和匈⽛利⻢克思主义者格奥尔格·卢卡奇对这种新⽂化⻢克思主义贡献最⼤。

安东尼奥·葛兰西(AntonioGramsci)于1923-24年间在莫斯科和维也纳为共产国际⼯作。后来他被关进墨索⾥尼的⼀所监狱，在那⾥他写下了著名的《监狱笔记本》。在⻢克思主义者中，葛兰西以其⽂化霸权作为阶级统治⼿段的理论⽽闻名。在他看来，在任何政治⾰命成为可能之前，必须创造⼀个新的“共产主义⼈”。这导致知识分⼦在教育和⽂化领域的努⼒受到关注。葛兰西设想在社会机构中进⾏⻓征，包括政府、司法机构、军队、学校和媒体。他还得出结论，只要⼯⼈们有基督徒的灵魂，他们就不会响应⾰命的呼吁。

格奥尔格·卢卡奇是⼀位富有的匈⽛利银⾏家的⼉⼦。卢卡奇作为共产国际的代理⼈开始了他的政治⽣涯。他的著作《历史与阶级意识》使他被誉为⾃卡尔·⻢克思以来最重要的⻢克思主义理论家。卢卡奇认为，要出现新的⻢克思主义⽂化，就必须摧毁现有⽂化。他说：“我认为对社会的⾰命性破坏是解决时代⽂化⽭盾的唯⼀⽅法”，并且“如果不消灭旧价值观并创造新价值观，这种世界范围内的价值观颠覆就不可能发⽣”。是⾰命者的。”

1919年，卢卡奇成为匈⽛利布尔什维克⻉拉·库恩政权的⽂化副政委，他发起了所谓的“⽂化恐怖主义”。作为恐怖主义的⼀部分，他在匈⽛利学校推⾏了激进的性教育计划。匈⽛利⼉童接受的教育包括⾃由恋爱、性交、中产阶级家庭守则的过时性、⼀夫⼀妻制的过时性以及宗教的⽆关性，这些都剥夺了⼈的所有快乐。⼥性也被号召反抗当时的性习俗。卢卡奇的“⽂化恐怖主义”运动是政治正确后来给西欧学校带来的先驱。

1923年，卢卡奇等与德国共产党有联系的⻢克思主义知识分⼦在德国法兰克福创办了法兰克福⼤学社会研究所。该研究所后来被称为法兰克福学派，仿照莫斯科的⻢克思恩格斯研究所⽽建。1933年，纳粹在德国掌权，法兰克福学派成员逃离。⼤多数⼈来到了美国。

法兰克福学派的成员对他们认为德国国家社会主义崛起背后的信仰、态度和价值观进⾏了⼤量研究。法兰克福学派的研究将⻢克思主义分析与弗洛伊德精神分析相结合，批判西⽅⽂化的基础，包括基督教、资本主义、权威、家庭、⽗权制、等级制度、道德、传统、性克制、忠诚、爱国主义、⺠族主义、遗传、⺠族中⼼主义、习俗和保守主义。这些批评统称为批判理论，反映在法兰克福学派的著作中，如埃⾥希·弗洛姆的《逃离⾃由》和《基督的教条》、威廉·赖希的《法西斯主义⼤众⼼理学》和西奥多·阿多诺的《威权⼈格》。

1950年出版的《威权⼈格》对西欧⼼理学家和社会科学家产⽣了重⼤影响。这本书的前提是⼀个基本观点，即基督教、资本主义和⽗权专制家庭的存在造就了⼀种容易受到种族和宗教偏⻅以及德国法西斯主义影响的性格。《威权⼈格》成为反对任何形式的偏⻅或歧视的全国运动的⼿册，其理论是，如果不根除这些罪恶，欧洲⼤陆可能会发⽣另⼀场⼤屠杀。这场运动反过来⼜为政治正确性提供了基础。

批判理论纳⼊了旨在削弱现有⽂化特定元素的⼦理论，包括“⺟系理论”、“双性理论”、“⼈格理论”、“权威理论”、“家庭理论”、“性理论”、”“种族理论”、“法律理论”和“⽂学理论”。这些理论付诸实践，将被⽤来推翻现⾏社会秩序，引发社会⾰命。为了实现这⼀⽬标，法兰克福学派的批判理论家认识到传统信仰和现有的社会结构必须被摧毁然后被取代。⽗系社会结构将被⺟系社会结构所取代；男性和⼥性是不同的，并且应该扮演不同⻆⾊的信念将被双性同体所取代；异性恋是正常的信念将被同性恋同样“正常”的信念所取代。

作为⼀个旨在否认欧洲本⼟基督教异性恋男性内在价值的宏伟计划，法兰克福学派的批判理论家为托洛茨基派的种族和性别对抗打开了⼤⻔。许多⼈认为，受压迫的穆斯林、⾮欧洲少数群体以及⼥权主义者和同性恋者等其他⼈可能成为欧洲共产主义⾰命的先锋。

托洛茨基的思想被20世纪60年代反⽂化运动的许多学⽣领袖所采纳，他们试图将少数族裔⾰命者提升到运动中的领导地位。

学⽣⾰命者也深受法兰克福学派另⼀位成员赫伯特·⻢尔库塞思想的影响。⻢尔库塞⿎吹“伟⼤拒绝”，拒绝所有西⽅基本概念、性解放以及⼥权主义和⿊⼈⾰命的优点。他的主要论点是，⼤学⽣、贫⺠窟⿊⼈、异化者、反社会者和第三世界可以在共产主义⾰命中取代⽆产阶级。⻢尔库塞在他的《解放论》⼀书中宣布了他对价值观进⾏彻底重估的⽬标。禁忌的放松；⽂化颠覆；批判理论；语⾔上的反叛相当于有条不紊地颠倒了意义。⾄于种族冲突，⻢尔库塞写道，⽩⼈是有罪的，⿊⼈是最⾃然的反叛⼒量。

就政治正确的起源⽽⾔，⻢尔库塞可能是法兰克福学派最重要的成员，因为他是20世纪60年代反主流⽂化的关键纽带。他的⽬标很明确：“⼈们可以正确地谈论⽂化⾰命，因为抗议是针对整个⽂化体系，包括现有社会的道德……”他的⼿段是将性的强⼤⽽原始的⼒量从其⽂明的束缚中解放出来，⻢尔库塞在1955年出版的《爱欲与⽂明》⼀书中宣扬了这⼀信息。⻢尔库塞成为20世纪60年代⻘少年性叛逆的主要⼤师之⼀。他⾃⼰创造了这样⼀句话：“要爱，不要战争。”凭借这⼀⻆⾊，⻢克思主义通过法兰克福学派的影响链完成了：从1919年卢卡奇在布尔什维克匈⽛利政府担任⽂化副政委到1960年代西欧和美国学⽣焚烧国旗并接管⼤学⾏政⼤楼。如今，许多这样的⼤学都是政治正确的堡垒，以前的学⽣激进分⼦已经成为教员。

⻉蒂·弗⾥丹是政治正确最重要的贡献者之⼀。通过她的著作《⼥性的奥秘》，弗⾥德将⼥权主义与亚伯拉罕·⻢斯洛的⾃我实现理论联系起来。⻢斯洛是⼀位社会⼼理学家，早年研究⼥性主导地位和性⾏为。⻢斯洛是布兰迪斯⼤学赫伯特·⻢尔库塞的朋友，1936年结识了埃⾥希·弗洛姆。弗洛姆的法兰克福学派思想给他留下了深刻的印象。他于1944年发表了⼀篇⽂章《威权性格结构》，反映了批判理论的⼈格理论。⻢斯洛也对威廉·赖希（WilhelmReich）的⼯作印象深刻，他是法兰克福学派⼈格理论的另⼀位鼻祖。

除⾮⻉蒂·弗⾥丹的性别⻆⾊⾰命得到真正的认识——卡尔·⻢克思开始的社会⾰命进程的体现，否则政治正确的历史根源的意义就⽆法得到充分的认识。弗⾥丹对亚伯拉罕·⻢斯洛对法兰克福学派意识形态的反思的依赖只是⼀个指标。其他指标包括弗⾥丹的性别⻆⾊⾰命与格奥尔格·卢卡奇对旧价值观的消灭和新价值观的创造以及赫伯特·⻢尔库塞对价值观的重估的对应关系。但将⽗权制转变为⺟权制的想法——这就是性别⻆⾊倒置的⽬的——可以直接与弗⾥德⾥希·恩格斯的著作《家庭、私有财产和国家的起源》联系起来。这本书于1884年⾸次出版，普及了现在已被接受的⼥权主义信念，即对受压迫⼥性的根深蒂固的歧视是⽗权制的结果。认为⺟权制是⽗权制解决⽅案的信念源于⻢克思在《《德意志意识形态》，出版于1845年。在这部著作中，⻢克思提出了妻⼦和孩⼦是⽗权制男性的⾸要财产的观点。法兰克福学派的⺟系理论及其近亲雌雄同体理论均源于这些根源。

在向公众发表讲话时，政治正确（或称⽂化⻢克思主义）的倡导者以有吸引⼒的⽅式展⽰他们的信仰。他们说，这只是对其他⼈“敏感”的问题。他们使⽤“宽容”和“多样性”等词语，问道：“为什么我们不能和睦相处？”

现实是不同的。政治正确根本不是“友善”，除⾮有⼈认为古拉格是个好地⽅。政治正确就是⻢克思主义，它意味着：⾔论⾃由的丧失、思想控制、传统社会秩序的倒转，以及最终的极权国家。如果说有什么不同的话，那就是法兰克福学派创造的⽂化⻢克思主义⽐摧毁俄罗斯的旧的经济⻢克思主义更可怕。⾄少经济⻢克思主义者没有像法兰克福学派及其后裔那样宣扬性变态并试图建⽴⺟权制。

这篇短⽂试图展⽰古典⻢克思主义与20世纪60年代西欧爆发的“⽂化⾰命”要素之间的重要联系。当然，这种⾏动并没有停⽌在20世纪60年代。法兰克福学派的运作⾄今仍与我们息息相关，特别是在教育领域。该主题以及法兰克福学派思想对当今的其他影响将得到进⼀步分析。

评论

然⽽，红军在1920年的维斯⽡河战役中被波兰军队击败。斯巴达克政府、巴伐利亚苏维埃政府和⻉拉昆政府都未能获得⼯⼈们的⼴泛⽀持，不久后都被推翻。这些事件给欧洲的⻢克思主义⾰命者带来了困境。根据⻢克思主义经济理论，受压迫的⼯⼈应该是社会⾰命的受益者，这场⾰命将使他们处于权⼒结构的顶端。然⽽，当这些⾰命机会出现时，⼯⼈们并没有做出反应。⻢克思主义⾰命者并没有将这些失败归咎于他们的理论。他们指责⼯⼈。

布雷维克在这里提及的原因显然不全面。还有的原因便是：

1. 各国无产阶级并没有什么阶级情谊，相反，他们在战场上为各自的国家民族而战。
2. 按照马克思主义理论，社会主义革命应该首先发生在英国、美国、法国或德国这些发达的相对地方，而不是俄国这种相对的落后的地方。俄国的布尔什维克还打算定都巴黎、柏林，也是这种思想的体现。

1919 年，卢卡奇成为匈⽛利布尔什维克⻉拉·库恩政权的⽂化副政委，他发起了所谓的“⽂化恐怖主义”。作为恐怖主义的⼀部分，他在匈⽛利学校推⾏了激进的性教育计划。匈⽛利⼉童接受的教育包括⾃由恋爱、性交、中产阶级家庭守则的过时性、⼀夫⼀妻制的过时性以及宗教的⽆关性，这些都剥夺了⼈的所有快乐。⼥性也被号召反抗当时的性习俗。卢卡奇的“⽂化恐怖主义”运动是政治正确后来给西欧学校带来的先驱。

纵观世界各大区域的主流意思形态（儒释道、伊斯兰教、印度教、基督教、犹太教），只有马教鼓吹性解放（为了实现共产共妻的梦想）和女权主义。

Cultural Marxist profiles

Georg Lukacs（格奥尔格·卢卡奇）

• He began his political life as a Kremlin agent of the Communist International.
• His History and Class-Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx.
• In 1919 he became the Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun Regime in Hungary. He instigated what become known as “Cultural Terrorism.”
• Cultural Terrorism was a precursor of what was to happen in European and American schools.
• He launched an “explosive” sex education program. Special lectures were organised in Hungarian schools and literature was printed and distributed to instruct children about free love, the nature of sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, the outdatedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasure. Children were urged to reject and deride paternal authority and the authority of the Church, and to ignore precepts of morality. They were easily and spontaneously turned into delinquents with whom only the police could cope. This call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian children was matched by a call to rebellion addressed to Hungarian women.
• In rejecting the idea that Bolshevism spelled the destruction of civilisation and culture, Lukacs stated: “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”
• Lukacs’ state of mind was expressed in his own words:
• “All the social forces I had hated since my youth, and which I aimed in spirit to annihilate, now came together to unleash the First Global War.”
• “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the speech.”
• “The question is: Who will free us from the yoke of Western Civilisation?”
• “Any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be ‘Demonic’.”
• “The abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness solves the problem of ‘unleashing’ the diabolic forces lurking in all the violence which is needed to create revolution.”
• Lukacs’ state of mind was typical of those who represented the forces of Revolutionary Marxism.
• At a secret meeting in Germany in 1923, Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.
• This meeting led to the founding of the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923 – an organisation of Marxist and Communist-oriented psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals that came to be known as the Frankfurt School, which devoted itself to implementing Georg Lukacs’s program.

Antonio Gramsci（安东尼奥·葛兰西）

• He was an Italian Marxist on an intellectual par with Georg Lukacs who arrived by analysis at the same conclusions as Lukacs and the Frankfurt School regarding the critical importance of intellectuals in fomenting revolution in the West.
• He had travelled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that a Bolshevik-style uprising could not be brought about by Western workers due to the nature of their Christian souls.
• Antonio Gramsci became the leader of the Italian Communist Party, which earned him a place in one of Mussolini’s jails in the 1930s, where he wrote Prison Notebooks and other documents.
• These works became available in English to Brits and Americans.
• His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation in order to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution.
• This reflected his observations in the Soviet Union that its leaders could not create such a new Soviet man after the Bolshevik Revolution.
• This blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.
• The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci’s revolutionary strategy is reflected in Charles A. Reich’s The Greening of America: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions in the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is revolution of the New Generation.”

Wilhelm Reich（威廉·赖希）

• In his 1933 book entitled The Mass Psychology of Fascism, he explained that the Frankfurt School departed from the Marxist sociology that set “Bourgeois” against “Proletariat.” Instead, the battle would be between “reactionary” and “revolutionary” characters.
• He also wrote a book entitled The Sexual Revolution which was a precursor of what was to come in the 1960s.
• His “sex-economic” sociology was an effort to harmonise Freud’s psychology with Marx’s economic theory.
• Reich’s theory was expressed in his words: “The authoritarian family is the authoritarian state in miniature. Man’s authoritarian character structure is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear in the living substance of sexual impulses. Familial imperialism is ideologically reproduced in national imperialism… the authoritarian family…is a factory where reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are produced.”
• Wilhelm Reich’s theory, when coupled with Georg Lukacs’ sex education in Hungary, can be seen as the source for the American education cartel’s insistence on sex education from kindergarten onwards and its complete negation of the paternal family, external authority, and the traditional character structure.
• Reich’s theory encompassed other assertions that seem to have permeated American education:
• The organised religious mysticism of Christianity was an element of the authoritarian family that led to Fascism.
• The patriarchal power in and outside of man was to be dethroned.
• Revolutionary sexual politics would mean the complete collapse of authoritarian ideology.
• Birth control was revolutionary ideology.
• Man was fundamentally a sexual animal.
• Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism was in its ninth printing as of 1991 and is available in most college bookstores.

Erich Fromm（埃⾥希·弗洛姆）

• Like Wilhelm Reich, Fromm was a social psychologist of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.
• His book Escape from Freedom, published in 1941, is an ideological companion to Wilhelm Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
• Fromm asserted that early capitalism created a social order that resulted in Calvin’s Theory of Predestination, which reflected the principle of the basic inequality of men which was revived in Nazi ideology.
• He asserted the authoritarian character experiences only domination or submission and “differences, whether sex or race, to him are necessarily of superiority or inferiority.”
• He asserted that “Positive Freedom” implies the principle that there is no higher power than the unique individual self; that man is the center and purpose of life; that the growth and realisation of man’s individuality is an end that can be subordinated to purposes which are supposed to have a greater dignity.
• Fromm made the real meaning of this “Positive Freedom” clear in another of his many books – The Dogma of Christ - wherein he describes a revolutionary character such as himself as the man who has emancipated himself from the ties of blood and soil, from his mother and father, and from special loyalties to state, race, party or religion.
• Fromm makes his revolutionary intent very clear in The Dogma of Christ…”We might define revolution in a psychological sense, saying that a revolution is a political movement led by people with revolutionary characters, and attracting people with revolutionary characters.”

Herbert Marcuse（赫伯特·⻢尔库塞）

• Like Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm, Marcuse was an intellectual of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.
• He has often been described as a Marxist philosopher, but he was in fact a full-blooded social revolutionary who contemplated the disintegration of Western European and American society just as Karl Marx and Georg Lukacs contemplated the disintegration of German society: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society…there is one thing we can say with complete assurance: the traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution has ended. These ideas are old-fashioned…What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.”
• Marcuse published Eros and Civilisation in 1955, which became the founding document of the 1960s counterculture and brought the Frankfurt School into the colleges and universities of Western Europe and America.
• He asserted that the only way to escape the one-dimensionality of modern industrial society was to liberate the erotic side of man, the sensuous instinct, in rebellion against “technological rationality.”
• This erotic liberation was to take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the capitalist monster and its entire works, including technological reason and ritual-authoritarian language.
• He provided the needed intellectual justifications for adolescent sexual rebellion and the slogan “Make Love, Not War.”
• His theory included the belief that the Women’s Liberation Movement was to be the most important component of the opposition, and potentially the most radical.
• His revolutionary efforts would blossom into a full-scale war by revolutionary Marxism against the European white male in the schools and colleges.

Theodor Adorno（西奥多·阿多诺）

• He was another Marxist revolutionary and a member of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s.
• Along with others, Adorno authored The Authoritarian Personality, which was published in 1950.
• Adorno’s book was inspired by the same kind of theoretical assertions revealed in the works of Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse based on analytical studies of German society that were begun in 1923.
• The basic theme was the same. There was such a thing as an authoritarian character that was the opposite of the desired revolutionary character. This authoritarian character was a product of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression. In Germany, this combination induced prejudice, anti-Semitism and fascism according to Frankfurt School theory.
• It so happened that most Western Europeans and Americans were products of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family, and sexual repression in their youth. So Theodor Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt School had a golden opportunity to execute Georg Lukacs’ and Antonio Gramsci’s program for creating social revolution in Western Europe and America instead of Germany.
• They would posit the existence of authoritarian personalities among Western Europeans and Americans with tendencies toward prejudice, and then exploit this to force the “scientifically planned re-education” of Western Europeans and Americans with the excuse that it was being done in order to eradicate prejudice.
• This scientifically-planned re-education would become the master plan for the transformation of Europe’s and America’s system of fundamental values into their opposite revolutionary values in European education so that school children would become replicas of the Frankfurt School revolutionary characters and thus create the New Western Child.
• This can be confirmed by noting that The Authoritarian Personality is the key source of the affective domain of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives of 1964, which guided the education cartel thereafter.

Political Correctness in Higher Education

The techniques of political correctness are now well known: attacks on the curriculum in the name of “multiculturalism,” the imposition of restrictive and vaguely-worded “speech codes,” and mandatory “sensitivity training” courses for juniors that are little more than systematic efforts at ideological indoctrination. But the influence of political correctness has spread in other disturbing ways.

The Origins of Political Correctness in Higher Education

The turning point in the academy came in the 1960s, when militant students launched a guerrilla attack on the traditions of Western culture and the liberal arts. Seeing that they could not gain lasting power through demonstrations alone, many of these militants opted to remain “in the system,” going on to become professors themselves. This generation of “Cultural Marxist radicals” has now become the establishment in the vast majority of our institutions of higher learning. As university head masters, deans, and department chairmen, they have set about hiring other ideologues in their own image and have instigated the repressive policies we know as political correctness. These politicised academics will be extremely difficult to dislodge from their current positions of power.

⾼等教育政治正确性的起源

学院的转折点出现在20世纪60年代，激进的学⽣对西⽅⽂化和⽂科传统发起游击式攻击。鉴于仅通过⽰威活动⽆法获得持久的权⼒，这些激进分⼦中的许多⼈选择留在“体制内”，⾃⼰也成为了教授。这⼀代“⽂化⻢克思主义激进分⼦”现已成为我国绝⼤多数⾼等院校的根基。作为⼤学校⻓、院⻓和系主任，他们开始以⾃⼰的形象雇佣其他理论家，并煽动我们称之为政治正确的镇压政策。这些政治化的学者将很难摆脱他们⽬前的权⼒地位。

Ideology vs. Liberal Education

The Devastated Curriculum

Intolerance and the Assault on Freedom

The Movement for Academic Reform

Despite the institutional power of the campus radicals, forces are at work seeking to spur authentic academic reform. The academic reform movement relies on the principles of accountability, communication, and a commitment to authentic scholarship. One force of academic reform is a growing demand among parents for greater accountability from colleges and universities. At a time when studies show that students are paying more and learning less than ever before, parents in increasing numbers are becoming discriminating consumers.

……

In the long run, the most direct method of defeating the inquisitors of political correctness is simply to stand up to them. Individual acts of defiance often entail serious risks: students can face star-chamber proceedings that are humiliating and demoralising while faculty can lose their bids to receive tenure. But every act of resistance causes a ripple, encouraging others to stand up to ideological intimidation. With the support of a significant number of parents, donors, and alumni, these David’s may yet slay the Goliaths who tower over them.

The Fire of True-Learning

Political Correctness: Deconstruction and Literature

Radical Feminism and Political Correctness

Perhaps no aspect of Political Correctness is more prominent in Western European life today than feminist ideology. Is feminism, like the rest of Political Correctness, based on the cultural Marxism imported from Germany in the 1930s? While feminism’s history in Western Europe certainly extends longer than sixty years, its flowering in recent decades has been interwoven with the unfolding social revolution carried forward by cultural Marxists.

Where do we see radical feminism ascendant? It is on television, where nearly every major offering has a female “power figure” and the plots and characters emphasise inferiority of the male and superiority of the female. It is in the military, where expanding opportunity for women, even in combat positions, has been accompanied by double standards and then lowered standards, as well as by a decline in enlistment of young men, while “warriors” in the services are leaving in droves. It is in government-mandated employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use “sexual harassment” charges to keep men in line. It is in colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and “affirmative action” is applied in admissions and employment. It is in other employment, public and private, where in addition to affirmative action, “sensitivity training” is given unprecedented time and attention. It is in public schools, where “self awareness” and “self-esteem” are increasingly promoted while academic learning declines. And sadly, we see that several European countries allow and fund free distribution of contraceptive pills combined with liberal abortion policies.

While the radical feminist movement is embraced by present day Political Correctness ideology, derived from cultural Marxism, feminism as such does have earlier roots. Feminism was conceived and birthed in the 1830s, in the generation experiencing the first stage of the industrial revolution. Women, who for centuries had shared the challenges of surviving in an agrarian life, were becoming part of a middle-class gentry with more time and energy to spend writing newspaper articles and novels for their “sisters.” The initial stages of the feminisation of European culture had started.

These feminists, radical in their time, supported women’s rights, egalitarianism, anti- colonialism, pacifism and other causes which we now observe in popular culture. In contrast to today’s radical feminists, social feminists of the 1890s and early 20th century were of a less totalitarian character. They stood for women’s suffrage but also advocated the strengthening of the family.

Today, the feminisation of European culture, moving rapidly since the 1960s continues to intensify. Indeed, the present-day radical feminist assault through support for mass Muslim immigration has a political parallel to the their anti-colonial efforts. This current assault is in part a continuation of a century-old effort to destroy traditional European structures, the very foundation of European culture.

There is no doubt in the media that the “man of today” is expected to be a touchy-feely subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda. He is a staple of Hollywood, the television network sitcoms and movies, and the political pundits of talk shows. The feminisation is becoming so noticeable that newspapers and magazines are picking up on it. For example, the Washington Times and National Review magazine combined to tell us that “behind the breezy celebration of ‘guy stuff’ in today’s men’s magazine lurks a crisis of confidence. What does it mean to be masculine in the 90s?” It is revealed that today’s men’s magazines (Esquire, GQ, Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Men’s Journal, Details, Maxim, Men’s Perspective)”are all geared to a new feminised man….” Some examples? The old masculine attitude toward personal appearance is disappearing. If memory serves, our fathers’ acts of personal upkeep were mostly limited to shaving and putting on a tie. According to Lowry:

It’s hard to imagine [them] interested in articles on ‘A Flat Belly for the Beach’ (Verge), or the three new men’s fragrances for the fall season (GQ), or even ‘The New Fall Suit’ (Esquire). But somewhere along the line men became less concerned with being strong and silent, and more worried about making themselves pretty.

Indeed the feminisation of European culture is nearly completed. And the last bastion of male domination, the police force and the military, is under assault.

If this “feminisation” trend were driven only by radical feminists seeking to pull down a perceived male-dominated hierarchy, there would be more hope that the cycles of history would move Europe toward a stable accommodation between men and women. But the drive is deeper, and it will not be satisfied by any accommodation. The radical feminists have embraced and been embraced by the wider and deeper movement of cultural Marxism. For dedicated Marxists, the strategy is to attack at every point where an apparent disparity leaves a potential constituency of “oppressed” victim groups – Muslims, women etc. Cultural Marxists, men and women, are making the most of it, and the theory developed by the Frankfurt School provides the ideology.

The Frankfurt School theorised that the authoritarian personality is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Engels’s The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote in The Communist Manifesto about the radical notion of a “community of women.” He also, in 1845, wrote disparagingly in his The German Ideology of the idea that the family was the basic unit of society.

The concept of the “authoritarian personality” is not just to be interpreted as a model for the conduct of warfare against prejudice as such. It is a handbook for psychological warfare against the European male, to render him unwilling to defend traditional beliefs and values. In other words, the aim was to emasculate him. Undoubtedly the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University meant this, as it used the term “psychological techniques for changing personality.”

The “authoritarian personality,” studied in the 1940s and 1950s by Western Europeans and American followers of the Frankfurt School, prepared the way for such psychological warfare against the male gender role. The aim was promoted by Herbert Marcuse and others under the guise of “women’s liberation” and in the New Left movement in the 1960s. Evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality are intended to focus in particular on the emasculation of the European male has also been provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of “third force humanist psychology” and promoter of psychotherapeutic techniques in public school classrooms. He wrote that “the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.”

Cultural Marxist stalwarts apparently know exactly what they want to do and how they plan to do it. They have actually already succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.

How did this situation come about in European universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed that it slipped past traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so “quietly” that when they “looked up”, postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. “They were surrounded by such a tidal wave of multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses” which undermine the perpetuation of Western civilisation. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned – a quiet revolution propagating a European hate ideology with the goal of destroying Western civilisation and which was: anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition, and anti-morality.

“Cultural Marxism,” as preached by the Frankfurt School has thus spurred the widely popular and destructive concepts of “affirmative action,” “multiculturalism” and “diversity.” One can’t escape these terms today. These concepts have destroyed every defensive structure of European society which has laid the foundation for the Islamisation of Europe.

Conclusions

Critical Theory as applied mass psychology has led to the deconstruction of gender in the European culture. Following Critical Theory, the distinction between masculinity and femininity will disappear. The traditional roles of the mothers and fathers are to be dissolved so that patriarchy will be ended. Children are not to be raised according to their biological genders and gender roles according to their biological differences. This reflects the Frankfurt School rationale for the disintegration of the traditional family.

Thus, one of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the traditional family. The Frankfurt School scholars preached:

Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.

The transformation of European culture envisioned by the cultural Marxists goes further than pursuing gender equality. Embodied in their agenda is “matriarchal theory,” under which they purpose to transform European culture to be female-dominated. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of “natural society.”

Richard Bernstein has written in his book on multiculturalism, “the Marxist revolutionary process for the past several decades in Europe and America has centered on race and sex warfare rather than class warfare” as in earlier times. This reflects a scheme more total than economics to restructure the society. As the social revolutionaries readily proclaim, their purpose is to destroy the hegemony of white males. To accomplish this, all barriers to the introduction of more women and minorities throughout the “power structure” are to be brought down by all means available. Laws and lawsuits, intimidation, and demonising of white males as racists and sexists are pursued through the mass media and the universities. The psycho–dynamic of the revolutionary process aims for psychic disempowerment – decapitation – of those who oppose.

The US’s founders recognised three primal values in the Declaration of Independence, and they ranked them properly: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the order of these fundamental human rights is switched – with happiness before liberty or liberty before life – we come to moral chaos and social anarchy.

This very condition is what Judge Robert Bork describes as “modern liberalism.” He defines its characteristics as “‘radical egalitarianism’ (equality of outcomes rather than of opportunities) and ‘radical individualism’ (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification).”

Judge Bork also identifies radical feminism as “the most destructive and fanatical” element of this modern liberalism. He further describes radical feminism as “totalitarian in spirit.”

Most Western Europeans and Americans do not realise that they, through their institutions, are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the continuing destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new one. The revolutionaries are New Age Elite Boomers. They now control the public institutions in Western Europe and the United States. Their “quiet” revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearing completion. A key, or even a dominant element because purportedly it represents that largest political and social constituency among their potential followers, is feminism. The Marxist movement in its “quiet” cultural latter-day phase is seemingly sweeping all before it. With its sway over the media, fully in the grip of feminism, it is hard to discern the stirrings of a counter-culture. The current cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites, the New Totalitarians, are the most dangerous generation in Western history. Not only have they managed to destroy fundamental structures of European society. They are allowing millions of Muslims to colonise Europe. In just five decades Muslim populations have increased from a few thousand to more than 25 million.

【注：红卫兵】

Who will rise to challenge Political Correctness? The fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism. Even more, they must resourcefully oppose the wider grip of Political Correctness, the cultural Marxism for which radical feminism is only one avenue of attack.

结论

作为应⽤⼤众⼼理学的批判理论导致了欧洲⽂化中性别的解构。遵循批判理论，男性⽓质和⼥性⽓质之间的区别将消失。⺟亲和⽗亲的传统⻆⾊将被消除，⽗权制将被终结。孩⼦不应该根据其⽣物学性别和根据其⽣物学差异⽽扮演的性别⻆⾊来抚养。这体现了法兰克福学派解体传统家庭的理据。

因此，批判理论的基本原则之⼀就是必须打破传统家庭。法兰克福学派的学者宣扬：即使家庭中⽗⺟权威的部分崩溃也可能会增加下⼀代接受社会变⾰的准备度。

⽂化⻢克思主义者所设想的欧洲⽂化转型不仅仅是追求性别平等。他们的议程体现的是“⺟权理论”，根据该理论，他们的⽬标是将欧洲⽂化转变为⼥性主导的⽂化。这直接回溯到法兰克福学派成员威廉·赖希(WilhelmReich)，他认为精神分析术语中的⺟系理论。1933年，他在《法西斯主义的⼤众⼼理学》中写道，⺟权制是“⾃然社会”中唯⼀真正的家庭类型。

理查德·伯恩斯坦（RichardBernstein）在其关于多元⽂化主义的书中写道，“过去⼏⼗年来，欧洲和美国的⻢克思主义⾰命进程⼀直以种族和性战争为中⼼，⽽不是像以前那样以阶级战争为中⼼”。这反映了⼀个⽐经济学更全⾯的社会重组计划。正如社会⾰命者宣称的那样，他们的⽬的是摧毁⽩⼈男性的霸权。为了实现这⼀⽬标，应采取⼀切可⾏的⼿段消除在“权⼒结构”中引⼊更多⼥性和少数族裔的所有障碍。⼤众媒体和⼤学对⽩⼈男性进⾏法律和诉讼、恐吓和妖魔化，将其视为种族主义者和性别歧视者。⾰命过程的⼼理动⼒旨在对那些反对者进⾏精神剥夺——斩⾸。

美国的创始⼈在《独⽴宣⾔》中承认了三个基本价值观，并对其进⾏了适当的排序：⽣命、⾃由和追求幸福。

如果这些基本⼈权的顺序互换——幸福优先于⾃由或⾃由优先于⽣命——我们就会陷⼊道德混乱和社会⽆政府状态。

这种情况就是罗伯特·博克法官所说的“现代⾃由主义”。他将其特征定义为“‘激进的平等主义’（结果平等⽽不是机会平等）和‘激进个⼈主义’（⼤幅减少个⼈满⾜的限制）”。

博克法官还将激进⼥权主义视为现代⾃由主义“最具破坏性和狂热”的元素。他进⼀步将激进⼥权主义描述为“精神上的极权主义”。

⼤多数西欧⼈和美国⼈没有意识到，他们通过⾃⼰的机构，是由社会⾰命者领导的，他们的想法是不断破坏现有的社会秩序，以创建新的社会秩序。⾰命者是新时代精英婴⼉潮⼀代。他们现在控制着西欧和美国的公共机构。他们的“安静”⾰命从反⾰命开始他们⻘年时期的⽂化⼤⾰命，已接近尾声。⼀个关键的，甚⾄是⼀个主导因素，因为据称它代表了潜在追随者中最⼤的政治和社会选⺠，那就是⼥权主义。处于“安静”的⽂化后期阶段的⻢克思主义运动似乎正在席卷⼀切。由于其对媒体的影响⼒，完全受到⼥权主义的控制，很难辨别反⽂化的煽动。当前的⽂化⻢克思主义/多元⽂化主义精英，即新极权主义者，是西⽅历史上最危险的⼀代。他们不仅成功摧毁了欧洲社会的基本结构。他们允许数百万穆斯林殖⺠欧洲。在短短50年⾥，穆斯林⼈⼝从⼏千⼈增加到超过2500万。

谁将起来挑战政治正确？欧洲⽂明的命运取决于欧洲男⼈坚决抵制政治正确的⼥权主义。更重要的是，她们必须巧妙地反对更⼴泛的政治正确性和⽂化⻢克思主义，⽽激进⼥权主义只是其攻击途径之⼀。

Further Readings on the Frankfurt School

This is the sixth and final chapter in the Free Congress Foundation’s book on Political Correctness, or – to call it by its real name – cultural Marxism. It is a short bibliographical essay intended not as an exhaustive resource for scholars but as a guide for interested citisens who want to learn more about the ideology that is taking over Western Europe and America.

To understand Political Correctness or so called cultural Marxism and the threat it poses it is necessary to understand its history, particularly the history of the institution most responsible for creating it, the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School, or the Institute for Social Research as it was formally known, was established at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923. This fact alone is important, because it tells us that Political Correctness is not merely a leftover of the European student rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s.

Another fact from that long-ago year, 1923, is equally significant: the intended name for the Frankfurt School was the Institute for Marxism. The Institute’s father and funder, Felix Weil, wrote in 1971 that he “wanted the Institute to become known, and perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism as a scientific discipline…” Beginning a tradition Political Correctness still carries on, Weil and others decided that they could operate more effectively if they concealed their Marxism; hence, on reflection, they chose the neutral-sounding name, the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung). But “Weil’s heartfelt wish was still to create a foundation similar to the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow – equipped with a staff of professors and students, with libraries and archives – and one day to present it to a German Soviet Republic.” In 1933, this disguised “Institute for Marxism” left Germany and reestablished itself in New York City, where in time it shifted its focus to injecting its ideology into Western European and American society.

The most readable English-language history of the Frankfurt School is Martin Jay’s book, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research, 1932 - 1950 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1973 – new edition in 1996). This book is in print in paperback and can be ordered through any bookstore. The reader should be aware that Jay’s book is, in the words of another work on the Frankfurt School, a “semiofficial” history, which is to say that it is largely uncritical. Like virtually all other English-language authors on the Institute, Jay is on the political left. Nonetheless, the book provides a solid factual introduction to the Frankfurt School, and the reader should have little trouble discerning in it the roots and origins of today’s Political Correctness.

In his first chapter, “The Creation of the Institut für Sozialforschung and Its First Frankfurt Years,” Jay lays bare the Institute’s Marxist origins and nature, and equally its efforts to conceal both: “The original idea of calling it the Institut für Marxismus (Institute for Marxism) was abandoned as too provocative, and a more Aesopian alternative was sought (not for the last time in the Frankfurt School’s history).” Of the Institute’s first director, Carl Grünberg, Jay writes, “Grünberg concluded his opening address by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology. Just as liberalism, state socialism, and the historical school had institutional homes elsewhere, so Marxism would be the ruling principle at the Institut.” Jay’s first chapter also introduces the Institute’s critical shift that laid the basis for today’s Political Correctness, a.k.a. cultural Marxism: “if it can be said that in early years of its history the Institut concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic substructure, in the years after 1930 its prime interest lay in its cultural superstructure.” The second chapter, “The Genius of Critical Theory,” gets at the heart of the “Critical Studies” departments that now serve as the fonts of Political Correctness on college campuses. All of these are branches and descendants of the Critical Theory first developed in the 1930s by the Frankfurt School. The term “Critical Theory” is itself something of a play on words. One is tempted to ask, “OK, what is the theory?” The answer is, “The theory is to criticise.” Jay writes, “Critical Theory, as its name implies, was expressed through a series of critiques of other thinkers and philosophical traditions…Only by confronting it in its own terms, as a gadly of other systems, can it be fully understood.” The goal of Critical Theory was not truth, but praxis, or revolutionary action: bringing the current society and culture down through unremitting, destructive criticism. According to Jay, “The true object of Marxism, Horkheimer argued (Max Horkheimer succeeded Carl Grünberg as director of the Institute in July, 1930), was not the uncovering of immutable truths, but the fostering of social change.”

The central question facing the Institute in the early 1930s was how to apply Marxism to the culture. The title of Jay’s third chapter gives the answer: “The Integration of Psychoanalysis.” Here, Jay’s book falls down to some extent, in that it does not offer a clear understanding of how the Institute integrated Marx and Freud. The answer appears to be that Freud’s later critiques were made conditional on a capitalist, bourgeois order: a revolutionary, post-capitalist society could “liberate” man from his Freudian repression. Here again one sees key aspects of Political Correctness emerging, including a demand for sexual “liberation” and the attack on “patriarchal” Western culture.

If the precise nature of the blending of Marx and Freud is left open by Jay, his next chapter makes the blend’s application clear: “The Institute’s First Studies of Authority.” The Institute left Germany for New York in 1933 because the Nazis came to power in Germany. Not surprisingly, one of the Institute’s first tasks in New York was to oppose Nazism. It did so largely by concocting a psychological “test” for an “authoritarian personality.” Supposedly, people with this authoritarian personality were likely to support Nazism. Both the concept and the methodology were doubtful at best. But the Institute’s work laid down an important tool for the left, namely a notion that anyone on the right was psychologically unbalanced. And it marked a key turning for the Institute in the birth of Political Correctness in Western Europe and America, in that the empirical research the studies demanded was done on Western Europeans and Americans. Ultimately, the result was Institute member Theodor Adorno’s vastly influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950.

Jay’s fifth chapter, “The Institute’s Analysis of Nazism,” continues the theme of the “authoritarian personality.” But his sixth, “Aesthetic Theory and the Critique of Mass Culture,” provides an answer to the question of why most “serious” modern art and music is so awful. It is intended to be. Theodor Adorno was the Institute’s lead figure on high culture – he began life as a music critic and promoter of Schönberg – and his view was that in the face of the “repressiveness” of bourgeois society, art could only be “true” if it were alienating, reflecting the alienated society around it. Jay quotes Adorno: “A successful work is not one which resolves objective contradictions in a spurious harmony, but one which expresses the idea of harmony negatively by embodying the contradictions, pure and uncompromised, in its innermost structure.”

Adorno despised the new mass culture – film, radio, and jazz – in what seems to be a case of missed opportunity: today, the entertainment industry is the single most powerful promoter of Political Correctness. Another key Frankfurt School figure, Walter Benjamin, did see the potential: “he paradoxically held out hope for the progressive potential of politicised, collectivised art.” At some point, someone – the question of who lies beyond the boundaries of Jay’s book – put Benjamin’s perception together with the Frankfurt School’s general view, which Jay summarises as “the Institut came to feel that the culture industry enslaved men in far more subtle and effective ways than the crude methods of domination practiced in earlier eras.”

In the remainder of the book, Jay traces the (sort of) empirical work of the Institute in the 1940s, which was beset by the same problems as their earlier survey “research,” and follows the Institute in its return to Frankfurt, Germany after World War II. But by this point, the reader will already have the picture. He will have seen how Marxism was translated from economic into cultural terms; discerned the themes of sexual liberation, feminism, “victims” and so on that make up today’s Political Correctness; and found in Critical Theory the origins of the endless wailing about “racism, sexism and homophobia” that “PC” pours forth. One key piece of history is missing: “an analysis of Marcuse’s influential transmission of the Frankfurt School’s work to a new Western European and American audience in the 1960s,” as Jay puts it in his epilogue. Also, Jay curiously passes over with only the most minimal discussion the effective move of the Institute, in the persons of Horkheimer and Adorno, to Los Angeles during the war. Did the connections they built there play any role in injecting the Frankfurt School’s philosophy into Western European and American film and, after the war, television? Jay does not touch upon the subject.

But for the reader new to the Frankfurt School as the source of today’s Political Correctness, Jay’s The Dialectical Imagination offers a solid base. The book concludes with an extensive (though not annotated) bibliography of works by and about the Frankfurt School.

As to other accessible works about the Frankfurt School, the definitive modern work in German has recently been translated into English: The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance by Rolf Wiggershaus, (translated by Michael Robertson, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, first paperback edition 1995). This covers much of the same ground as Martin Jay’s book, although it also follows the Institute from its post-war return to Germany up to Adorno’s death in 1969. Wiggershaus is more detailed than Jay, and, although he too is on the left politically, he is more critical than Jay. In the book’s Afterword, Wiggershaus offers a brief look (and a hostile one) at some German conservative critiques of the Frankfurt School. A picture emerges that will seem familiar to Western Europeans and Americans entrapped in the coils of Political Correctness: Since the publication in 1970 of his book The Poverty of Critical Theory, Rohrmoser has promulgated, in constantly varying forms, the view that Marcuse, Adorno, and Horkheimer were the terrorists’ intellectual foster-parents, who were using Cultural Revolution to destroy the traditions of the Christian West. Academics such as Ernst Topitsch and Kurt Sontheimer, who saw themselves as educators and liberal democrats, followed in Rohrmoser’s footsteps. In 1972 Topitsch, a critical rationalist who was Professor of Philosophy in Graz, had stated that behind the slogans of “rational discussion” and “dialogue free of domination” there was being established at the universities “a distinct terrorism of political convictions such as never existed before, even under Nazi tyranny.”

Additional works on the Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School by T.B. Bottomore (Tavistock, London, 1984). Another history written by a sympathiser; you are better off with Jay or Wiggershaus.

• “The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’” by Michael Minnicino, in Fidelio, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter 1992 (KMW Publishing, Washington, DC) One of the few looks at the Frankfurt School by someone not a sympathiser, this long journal article explains the role of the Institute for Social Research in creating the ideology we now know as “Political Correctness.” Unfortunately, its value is reduced by some digressions that lack credibility.

• Angela Davis: An Autobiography by Angela Davis (Random House, New York 1974) Angela Davis, a leading American black radical and Communist Party member, was described by Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse as “my best student.” She also studied in Frankfurt under Adorno. This book shows the link between the Institute for Social Research and the New Left of the 1960s through the eyes of a key participant. • The Young Lukacs and the Origins of Western Marxism by Andrew Arato (Seabury Press, New York, 1979). The author is, as usual, a sympathiser, but this work shows the key role Lukacs played in the thinking of the Frankfurt School and, later, the New Left. • The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt Institute by Susan Buck-Morss (Free Press, New York, 1977). An important book on the relationship of the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory to the New Left. • Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas by David Held (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1980). Yet another history by a fan of the Frankfurt School, but valuable for its discussion of the impact of Nietzsche on key Frankfurt School figures. • Adorno: A Political Biography by Lorenz Jager (translated by Stewart Spencer, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2004) This recent study of Theodor Adorno, the Frankfurt School’s most important “creative spirit,” offers a highly readable introduction to the origins of Political Correctness, perhaps the best available to the layman. Lorenz Jager is an editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine, one of Germany’s most influential newspapers. He is no uncritical admirer of the Frankfurt School, and thus offers a balanced treatment of Adorno instead of the usual hagiography.

Beyond these secondary works lies the vast literature produced by members of the Frankfurt School itself. Some key works were written in English, and many of those written in German are available in translation. As is usually the case with Marxist works, the prose style and vocabulary are often so convoluted as to make them almost unreadable. Further, the refusal of the Frankfurt School to make its own future vision plain led many of its members to write in aphorisms, which adds yet another layer of impenetrableness.

One work, however, is of such importance that it must be recommended despite its difficulty: Eros and Civilisation by Herbert Marcuse (Beacon Press, Boston, first paperback edition in 1974 and still in print). Subtitled A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, this book holds center stage for two reasons. First, it completes the task of integrating Marx and Freud. While the Marxism is sotto voce, the whole framework of the book is in fact Marxist, and it is through the framework that Freud is considered. Second, Eros and Civilisation and its author were the key means of transmission by which the intellectual work of the Frankfurt School was injected into the student rebellion of the 1960s. This book became the bible of the young radicals who took over Western European and America’s college campuses from 1965 onward, and who are still there as faculty members.

In brief, Eros and Civilisation urges total rebellion against traditional Western culture – the “Great Refusal” – and promises a Candyland utopia of free sex and no work to those who join the revolution. About two-thirds of the way through the book, Marcuse offers this summary of its arguments:

Our definition of the specific historical character of the established reality principle led to a re-examination of what Freud considered to be universal validity. We questioned this validity in view of the historical possibility of the abolition of the repressive controls imposed by civilisation. The very achievements of this civilisation seemed to make the performance principle obsolete, to make the repressive utilisation of the instincts archaic. But the idea of a non-repressive civilisation on the basis of the achievements of the performance principle encountered the argument that instinctual liberation (and consequently total liberation) would explode civilisation itself, since the latter is sustained only through renunciation and work (labour) – in other words, through the repressive utilisation of instinctual energy. Freed from these constraints, man would exist without work and without order; he would fall back into nature, which would destroy culture. To meet this argument, we recalled certain archetypes of imagination which, in contrast to the culture-heroes of repressive productivity, symbolised creative receptivity. These archetypes envisioned the fulfilment of man and nature, not through domination and exploitation, but through release of inherent libidinal forces. We then set ourselves the task of “verifying” these symbols – that is to say, demonstrating their truth value as symbols of a reality beyond the performance principle. We thought that the representative content of the Orphic and Narcissistic images was the erotic reconciliation (union) of man and nature in the aesthetic attitude, where order is beauty and work is play.

Marcuse continues after this summary to lay out the erotic content of the “reality beyond the performance principle,” i.e., a new civilisation where work and productivity were unimportant. “The basic experience in this (aesthetic) dimension is sensuous rather than conceptual,” that is, feelings are more important than logic: “The discipline of aesthetics installs the order of sensuousness as against the order of reason.”

“In German, sensuousness and sensuality are still rendered by one and the same term: Sinnlichkeit. It connotes instinctual (especially sexual) gratification… No longer used as a full-time instrument of labour, the body would be re-sexualised… (which) would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and, consequently, in a resurgence of pre-genital polymorphous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy. The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed – an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organised, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

This in a book which Marcuse dedicated to Sophie Marcuse, his wife of fifty years! It is easy to see how this message – “If it feels good, do it” – published in 1955 resonated with the student rebels of the 1960s. Marcuse understood what most of the rest of his Frankfurt School colleagues did not: the way to destroy Western civilisation – the objective set forth by George Lukacs in 1919 – was not through abstruse theory, but through sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. Marcuse wrote other works for the new generation that spawned the New Left – One Dimensional Man (1964), Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965), An Essay on Liberation (1969), Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972). But Eros and Civilisation was and remains the key work, the one that put the match to the tinder. Other central works by members of the Frankfurt School include:

• The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno (Harper, New York, 1950). This book is the basis for everything that followed that portrayed conservatism as a psychological defect. It had enormous impact, not least on education theory.

• Dialectic of Enlightenment by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (trans. By John Cumming, Verso, London, 1979). A complex philosophical work written during World War II largely in response to Nazism (and extensively devoted to discussions of anti- Semitism), this work seeks to find a kernel of “liberating” reason in the ruins of the Enlightenment.

• Minima Moralia: Reflections from a Damaged Life by Theodor Adorno (trans. E.F.N. Jophcott, New Left Books, London, 1974). A book of aphorisms, almost entirely incomprehensible, but the effective conclusion of Adorno’s work.

• Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm (Farrar & Rinehart, New York, 1941, still in print in paperback) Fromm was the Institute’s “happy face,” and this book was often required reading at colleges in the 1960s. The thesis is that man’s nature causes him to throw his freedom away and embrace fascism unless he “masters society and subordinates the economic machine to the purposes of human happiness,” i.e., adopts socialism. At this point Fromm was in the process of breaking away from the Institute and his subsequent works cannot be considered as part of the Frankfurt School corpus.

• Eclipse of Reason (Oxford University Press, New York, 1947). Essentially a sequel to Dialectic of Enlightenment, the book is heavily the work of Adorno and other Frankfurt School personages, although only Horkheimer’s name appeared on it. Its contents are based on a series of lectures Horkheimer gave at Columbia University in 1944. The prose style is surprisingly readable, but the contents are odd; there is throughout a strong nostalgia, which was normally anathema to the Frankfurt School. The key chapter, “The Revolt of Nature,” reflects a strange Retro anarchism: “The victory of civilisation is too complete to be true. Therefore, adjustment in our times involves an element of resentment and suppressed fury.”

• Critical Theory: Selected Essays by Max Horkheimer (trans. Matthew O’Connell, Seabury Press, New York, 1972). The essay, “Traditional and Critical Theory” is especially important.

This small bibliography will be enough to get an interested reader started; the full literature on and by the Frankfurt School is immense, as the bibliographies in Jay’s and Wiggershaus’s books attest. What has been missing from it, at least in English, is a readable book, written for the layman, that explains the Frankfurt School and its works in terms of the creation of Political Correctness. This short volume is at least a start in filling that gap.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/pcessay.aspx

1. What you need to know, our falsified history and other forms of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist propaganda (Book 1)

1.1 Historical revisionism (negationism)

1.2 General characteristics of European Islamic Negationism

1.3 The Failure of Western Universities

In his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism, F.A. Hayek noted already decades ago that “Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is a construction of theorists” and intellectuals, “the secondhand dealers in ideas.” “The typical intellectual need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas. The class does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists.” It also “includes many professional men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors.”

“These intellectuals are the organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge and ideas, and it is their convictions and opinions which operate as the sieve through which all new conceptions must pass before they can reach the masses.”

“The most brilliant and successful teachers are today more likely than not to be socialists.” According to Hayek, this is not because Socialists are more intelligent, but because “a much higher proportion of socialists among the best minds devote themselves to those intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive influence on public opinion.” “Socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character.” “The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions.”

He warns that “It may be that as a free society as we have known it carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and that the free growth of ideas which is the essence of a free society will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends.” “Does this mean that freedom is valued only when it is lost, that the world must everywhere go through a dark phase of socialist totalitarianism before the forces of freedom can gather strength anew?” “If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new liberal program which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.”

西方大学的失败（机器翻译为中文）

哈耶克在他的⽂章《知识分⼦与社会主义》中⼏⼗年前就指出，“社会主义从来都不是、也没有任何地⽅⾸先是⼯⼈阶级运动。它是理论家”和知识分⼦、“思想的⼆⼿商⼈”的建构。“典型的知识分⼦不需要拥有任何特定事物的专⻔知识，甚⾄不需要特别聪明，就可以发挥传播思想中介的作⽤。这个班级不仅仅由记者、教师、部⻓、讲师、公关⼈员、⼴播评论员、⼩说家、漫画家和艺术家组成。”它还“包括许多专业⼈员和技术⼈员，例如科学家和医⽣”。“这些知识分⼦是现代社会为传播知识和思想⽽发展起来的机构，他们的信念和观点就像筛⼦⼀样，所有新观念必须通过筛⼦才能到达群众⼿中。”

“今天最杰出、最成功的教师更有可能成为社会主义者。”哈耶克认为，这并不是因为社会主义者更聪明，⽽是因为“在最优秀的思想家中，有更⾼⽐例的社会主义者致⼒于那些在现代社会对公众舆论产⽣决定性影响的智⼒追求。”“社会主义思想对年轻⼈的吸引⼒很⼤程度上归功于其富有远⻅的性格。”“知识分⼦就其整体性格⽽⾔，对技术细节或实际困难不感兴趣。吸引他的是⼴阔的视野。”

他警告说：“作为⼀个我们所知的⾃由社会，它本⾝可能就带有毁灭性的⼒量，⼀旦获得⾃由，它就会被视为理所当然，不再受到重视，⽽⾃由的增⻓也可能会导致其⾃⾝的毁灭。”作为⾃由社会本质的思想将导致其赖以⽣存的基础遭到破坏。”“这是否意味着只有失去⾃由才有价值，世界各地都必须经历社会主义极权主义的⿊暗阶段，⾃由的⼒量才能重新聚集⼒量？”“如果我们要避免这样的发展，我们就必须能够提供⼀个吸引⼈们想象⼒的新的⾃由主义计划。我们必须使⾃由社会的建设再次成为⼀次智⼒冒险、⼀次勇敢的⾏动。”

1.4 Review 1: Religion of Peace? Islam’s war against the world - Islam 101

The Five Pillars of Islam

The five pillars of Islam constitute the most basic tenets of the religion. They are:

1. Faith (iman) in the oneness of Allah and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (indicated by the declaration [the Shahadah] that, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”).
2. Keeping of the five scheduled daily prayers (salah).
3. Almsgiving (zakat).
4. Fasting (sawm).
5. Pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca for those who are able.

The five pillars in and of themselves do not tell us a lot about the faith or what a Muslim is supposed to believe or how he should act. The second through fifth pillars – prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage – are aspects shared by many religions. The finality of the prophethood of Muhammad, however, is unique to Islam. To understand Islam and what it means to be a Muslim, we must come to understand Muhammad as well as the revelations given through him by Allah, which make up the Quran.

The Quran – the Book of Allah

According to Islamic teaching, the Quran came down as a series of revelations from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad, who then dictated it to his followers. Muhammad’s companions memorised fragments of the Quran and wrote them down on whatever was at hand, which were later compiled into book form under the rule of the third Caliph, Uthman, some years after Muhammad’s death.

The Quran is about as long as the Christian New Testament. It comprises 114 suras (not to be confused with the Sira, which refers to the life of the Prophet) of varying lengths, which may be considered chapters. According to Islamic doctrine, it was around 610 AD in a cave near the city of Mecca (now in southwest Saudi Arabia) that Muhammad received the first revelation from Allah by way of the Archangel Gabriel. The revelation merely commanded Muhammad to “recite” or “read” (Sura 96); the words he was instructed to utter were not his own but Allah’s. Over the next twelve or so years in Mecca, other revelations came to Muhammad that constituted a message to the inhabitants of the city to forsake their pagan ways and turn in worship to the one Allah.

While in Mecca, though he condemned paganism (for the most part), Muhammad showed great respect for the monotheism of the Christian and Jewish inhabitants. Indeed, the Allah of the Quran claimed to be the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians, who now revealed himself to the Arab people through his chosen messenger, Muhammad. It is the Quranic revelations that came later in Muhammad’s career, after he and the first Muslims left Mecca for the city of Medina, that transformed Islam from a relatively benign form of monotheism into an expansionary, military-political ideology that persists to this day.

Orthodox Islam does not accept that a rendering of the Quran into another language is a “translation” in the way that, say, the King James Bible is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. A point often made by Islamic apologists to defang criticism is that only Arabic readers may understand the Quran. But Arabic is a language like any other and fully capable of translation. Indeed, most Muslims are not Arabic readers. In the below analysis, we use a translation of the Quran by two Muslim scholars, which may be found here. All parenthetical explanations in the text are those of the translators save for my interjections in braces, { }.

Dar al-Islam and dar al-harb: the House of Islam and the House of War （附录中文翻译）

The violent injunctions of the Quran and the violent precedents set by Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam’s message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history: submit or be conquered. The only times since Muhammad when dar al-Islam was not actively at war with dar alharb were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively.

But the lulls in the ongoing war that the House of Islam has declared against the House of War do not indicate a forsaking of jihad as a principle but reflect a change in strategic factors. It is acceptable for Muslim nations to declare hudna, or truce, at times when the infidel nations are too powerful for open warfare to make sense. Jihad is not a collective suicide pact even while “killing and being killed” (Sura 9:111) is encouraged on an individual level. For the past few hundred years, the Muslim world has been too politically fragmented and technologically inferior to pose a major threat to the West. But that is changing.

《可兰》的暴⼒禁令和穆罕默德开创的暴⼒先例为伊斯兰政治观和世界历史观定下了基调。伊斯兰学术将 世界分为两个势⼒范围：伊斯兰之家（dar al-Islam）和战争之家（dar al-harb）。伊斯兰教意味着服从，因 此伊斯兰教院包括那些服从伊斯兰教统治的国家，也就是说那些受伊斯兰教法统治的国家。世界其他地区尚 未接受伊斯兰教法，因此不处于屈服状态，⽽是处于叛乱或违背安拉意志的战争状态。伊斯兰有责任向达尔 哈布发动战争，直到所有国家服从安拉的意志并接受伊斯兰教法。伊斯兰教现在向⾮穆斯林世界传达的信息 与穆罕默德时代乃⾄整个历史都是⼀样的：要么屈服，要么被征服。⾃穆罕默德以来，只有当穆斯林世界太 弱或分裂⽽⽆法有效发动战争时，伊斯兰世界才没有积极与达尔阿尔哈布交战。

但伊斯兰院宣布反对战争院的持续战争的停顿并不表明放弃圣战原则，⽽是反映了战略因素的变化。当异教 徒国家太强⼤⽽公开战争毫⽆意义时，穆斯林国家宣布休战是可以接受的。即使在个⼈层⾯上⿎励“杀戮和 被杀”（《可兰》9:111），圣战也不是集体⾃杀协议。在过去的⼏百年⾥，穆斯林世界在政治上过于分 裂，在技术上也处于劣势，⽆法对西⽅构成重⼤威胁。但这种情况正在改变。

1.5 Al-Taqiyya – Religious/political deception

Due to the state of war between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, systematic lying to the infidel must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organisations throughout dar al-harb that “Islam is a religion of peace,” or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the unbalanced psyches of particular individual “fanatics,” must be considered as disinformation intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard. Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as “peaceful”, but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it.

A telling point is that, while Muslims who present their religion as peaceful abound throughout dar al-harb, they are nearly non-existent in dar al-Islam. A Muslim apostate once suggested to me a litmus test for Westerners who believe that Islam is a religion of “peace” and “tolerance”: try making that point on a street corner in Ramallah, or Riyadh, or Islamabad, or anywhere in the Muslim world. He assured me you wouldn’t live five minutes.

{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle – that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is “to remain faithful” but which in effect means “dissimulation.” It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of un- Islamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”

Historically, examples of al-taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one’s neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement – and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al- harb – impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch’s own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception.

“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse – “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.

“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most- respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”

In times when the greater strength of dar al-harb necessitates that the jihad take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim to the infidel world must be one of deception and omission. Revealing frankly the ultimate goal of dar al-Islam to conquer and plunder dar al-harb when the latter holds the military trump cards would be strategic idiocy. Fortunately for the jihadists, most infidels do not understand how one is to read the Quran, nor do they trouble themselves to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught, which makes it easy to give the impression through selective quotations and omissions that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Any infidel who wants to believe such fiction will happily persist in his mistake having been cited a handful of Meccan verses and told that Muhammad was a man of great piety and charity. Digging only slightly deeper is sufficient to dispel the falsehood.

ii. How al-Taqiyya is a central part of the Islamisation of Europe

The following article will demonstrate that the concept of “al-Taqiyya” is an integral part of Islam, and that it is NOT a Shi’ite concoction. I had to shorten the analysis considerably. You can however see sources for more material.

The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “Dissimulation.”

Rejecting al-Taqiyya is rejecting the Quran, as will be shown:

Reference 1:

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-Ma’athoor,” narrates Ibn Abbas’, the most renowned and trusted narrator of tradition in the sight of the Sunnis, opinion regarding al-Taqiyya in the Quranic verse: “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution (“tat-taqooh”), that ye may guard yourselves (“tooqatan”) from them….[3:28]” that Ibn Abbas said:

“al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been coerced into saying that which angers Allah, and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his true faith has not been shaken.), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will not harm him (at all); (because) al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (not the heart).”

NOTE 1: The two words “tat-taqooh” and “tooqatan,” as mentioned in the Arabic Quran, are both from the same root of “al-Taqiyya.”

NOTE 2: The “heart” as referred to above and in later occurrences refers to the center of faith in an individual’s existence. It is mentioned many times in the Quran.

Reference 2:

Ibn Abbas also commented on the above verse, as narrated in Sunan al-Bayhaqi and Mustadrak al-Hakim, by saying:

“al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith.” NOTE: The meaning is that the tongue is permitted to utter anything in a time of need, as long as the heart is not affected; and one is still comfortable with faith.

Reference 3:

Abu Bakr al-Razi in his book, “Ahkam al-Quran,” v2, p10, has explained the aforementioned verse “…except by way of precaution (“tat-taqooh”), that ye may guard yourselves (“tooqatan”) from them….[3:28]” by affirming that al-Taqiyya should be used when one is afraid for life and/or limb. In addition, he has narrated that Qutadah said with regards to the above verse:

“It is permissible to speak words of unbelief when al-Taqiyya is mandatory.”

Reference 4:

It has been narrated by Abd al-Razak, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, al-Bayhaqi in his book “al- Dala-il,” and it was corrected by al-Hakim in his book “al- Mustadrak” that:

“The non-believers arrested Ammar Ibn Yasir and (tortured him until) he uttered foul words about Muhammad, and praised their gods (idols); and when they released him, he went straight to the Prophet. The Prophet said: “Is there something on your mind?” Ammar Ibn Yasir said: “Bad (news)! They would not release me until I defamed you and praised their gods!” The Prophet said: “How do you find your heart to be?” Ammar answered: “Comfortable with faith.” So the Prophet said: “Then if they come back for you, then do the same thing all over again.” Allah at that moment revealed the verse: “….except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith…[16:106]”

NOTE: The full verse that was quoted partially as part of the tradition above, is: “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith – but such as open their breast to unbelief, – on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Chastisement [16:106].” (Emphasis Mine)

Reference 5:

It is narrated in Sunan al-Bayhaqi that Ibn Abbas explained the above verse “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief….[16:106]” by saying:

“The meaning that Allah is conveying is that he who utters unbelief after having believed, shall deserve the Wrath of Allah and a terrible punishment. However, those who have been coerced, and as such uttered with their tongues that which their hearts did not confirm to escape persecution, have nothing to fear; for Allah holds His servants responsible for that which their hearts have ratified.”

Reference 6:

Another explanation of the above verse is provided by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al- Tafsir al-Ma-athoor,” vol. 2, p178; he says:

“Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Munzir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated on the authority of Mujtahid (a man’s name) that this verse was revealed in relation to the following event: A group of people from Mecca accepted Islam and professed their belief; as a result, the companions in Medina wrote to them requesting that they emigrate to Medina; for if they don’t do so, they shall not be considered as those who are among the believers. In compliance, the group left Mecca, but were soon ambushed by the non-believers (Quraish) before reaching their destination; they were coerced into disbelief, and they professed it. As a result, the verse “…except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith [16:106]…” was revealed.”

Reference 7:

Ibn Sa’d in his book, “al-Tabaqat al-Kubra,” narrates on the authority of Ibn Sirin that:

The Prophet saw Ammar Ibn Yasir crying, so he wiped off his (RA) tears, and said: “The non-believers arrested you and immersed you in water until you said such and such (i.e., bad-mouthing the Prophet and praising the pagan gods to escape persecution); if they come back, then say it again.”

Reference 8:

It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet was approached by Hajaj Ibn Aalat and told: “O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?” The Prophet excused him and said: “Say whatever you have to say.”

Reference 9:

It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, “Ihya Uloom al-Din,” that:

Safeguarding of a Muslim’s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that lying is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is at stake.

Reference 10:

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Ashbah Wa al-Naza’ir,” affirms that:

“it is acceptable (for a Muslim) to eat the meat of a dead animal at a time of great hunger (starvation to the extent that the stomach is devoid of all food); and to loosen a bite of food (for fear of choking to death) by alcohol; and to utter words of unbelief; and if one is living in an environment where evil and corruption are the pervasive norm, and permissible things (Halal) are the exception and a rarity, then one can utilise whatever is available to fulfill his needs.”

NOTE: The reference to the consumption of a dead animal is meant to illustrate that even forbidden things become permissible in a time of need.

Reference 11:

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, “al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-Ma’athoor,” v2, p176, narrates that:

Abd Ibn Hameed, on the authority of al-Hassan, said: “al-Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgment.”

Reference 12:

Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102, that Abu al-Darda’ said:

“(Verily) we smile for some people, while our hearts curse (those same people).”

Reference 13:

Narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p81, that the Prophet said:

“O Aisha, the worst of people in the sight of Allah are those that are avoided by others due to their extreme impudence.”

NOTE: The meaning here is that one is permitted to use deception to get along with people. The above tradition was narrated when a person sought permission to see the Holy Prophet and prior to his asking permission the Prophet said that he was not a good man, but still I shall see him. The Prophet talked to the person with utmost respect, upon which Aisha inquired as to why the Prophet talked to the person with respect despite his character, upon which the above reply was rendered.

Reference 14:

Narrated in Sahih Muslim (English version), Chapter MLXXVII, v4, p1373,Tradition #6303:

Humaid b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of ‘Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle, as saying that she heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, when infiltrating the enemy and for bringing temporary reconciliation amongst persons.

The (Sunni) commentator of this volume of Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, provides the following commentary:

Telling of a lie is a grave sin but a Muslim is permitted to tell a lie in some several cases. Please refer to Sahih Muslim Volume IV, Chapter MLXXVII, Tradition no. 6303 p1373, English only - Abdul Hamid Siddiqui

Al-Taqiyya vs. Hypocrisy

Some people have fallen victim to confusing al-Taqiyya with hypocrisy, when in fact they (al-Taqiyya and Hypocrisy) are two opposite extremes. Al-Taqiyya is concealing faith and displaying non-belief; while Hypocrisy is the concealment of unbelief and the display of belief. They are total opposites in function, form, and meaning.

The Quran reveals the nature of hypocrisy with the following verse:

“When they meet those who believe, they say: We Believe;’ but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: We are really with you, we (were) only jesting [2:14].”

The Quran then reveals al-Taqiyya with the following verses:

“A Believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: “Will ye slay a man because he says,My Lord is Allah’?….[40:28]”

Also:

“Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith – but such as open their breast to unbelief, – on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Chastisement [16:106].” And also:

“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution (“tat- taqooh”), that ye may guard yourselves (“tooqatan”) from them….[3:28]”

Moreover:

And when Moses returned unto his people, angry and grieved, he said: Evil is that (course) which ye took after I had left you. Would ye hasten on the judgment of your Lord? And he cast down the tablets, and he seized his brother by the head, dragging him toward him. (Aaron) said: “Son of my mother! Lo! People did oppress me and they were about to kill me. Make not the enemies neither rejoice over my misfortune nor count thou me amongst the sinful people. [7:150]”

Now, we see that Allah himself has stated that one of His faithful servants CONCEALED his faith and pretended that he was a follower of the Pharaoh’s religion to escape persecution. We also see that Prophet Aaron (Haroon) observed Taqiyya when his life was in danger. We also observe that al-Taqiyya is CLEARLY permitted in a time of need. In fact, the Book of Allah instructs us that we should escape a situation which causes our destruction for nothing:

“and make not your own hands contribute to your destruction [2:195]”

Reason and Logic for performing al-Taqiyya（附录翻译）

Aside from the instructions of the Quran and Hadith on the permissibility and necessity of Taqiyya, such necessity can also be derived from a logical and rational standpoint. It is apparent to any discerning observer that Allah has bestowed upon His creation certain defence mechanisms and instincts to protect themselves from impending danger. What follows are some examples that serve to illustrate the above point.

It is clear that al-Taqiyya as a defence or attack mechanism is Allah’s mercy to His creation, such that He has not left them unprotected. As such, al-Taqiyya, build upon an instinctive defence/attack mechanism that Allah has endowed humans with. The ability to use one’s tongue to escape persecution when you are weak or vulnerable is indeed a supreme example of defence. Al-Taqiyya is a truism because it satisfies an instinctive need to survive and prosper.

除了《古兰经》和《圣训》关于塔基耶的允许性和必要性的指⽰外，这种必要性还可以从逻辑和理性的⻆度推导出来。对于任何有洞察⼒的观察者来说，显然安拉赋予了他的创造物某些防御机制和本能，以保护⾃⼰免受迫在眉睫的危险。下⾯举⼀些例⼦来说明上述观点。

很明显，al-Taqiyya作为⼀种防御或攻击机制是安拉对他的创造物的仁慈，因此他没有让他们不受保护。因此，al-Taqiyya建⽴在安拉赋予⼈类的本能防御/攻击机制之上。当你软弱或脆弱时，能够⽤⾆头来逃避迫害，这确实是防御的最⾼典范。Al-Taqiyya是不⾔⽽喻的，因为它满⾜了⽣存和繁荣的本能需要。

Comments

It has been demonstrated under the section of “Sunni Sources In Support of al-Taqiyya” that it is permissible to lie and deceive if you are at a disadvantage or vulnerable to any non-Muslim (F example as long as Muslims are still a minority in Europe), as al-Ghazzali asserted; and that it is legitimate to utter words of unbelief as al-Suyuti stated; and that it is acceptable to smile at a person while your heart curses him as al-Bukhari confirms; and that al- Taqiyya is an integral part of the Quran itself, as has been shown under the section of “al-Taqiyya vs. Hypocrisy;” and that it was practiced by one of the most notable companions of the Prophet, none other than Ammar Ibn Yasir; and we have seen that al-Suyuti narrates that al-Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgment (When Islam has conquered the entire world); and that a person can say anything he wants, even to badmouth the Prophet if he is in a dangerous and restrictive situation; and we have also seen that even the Prophet himself practiced al-Taqiyya in a manner of deception that served to advance “temporary” good relations among selected neighbouring people until they could be conquered. Furthermore, keep in mind that the Prophet Muhammad did not disclose his mission for the first three years of his prophet hood, which was, in fact, another practice of al- Taqiyya by the Prophet to save the young Islam from annihilation.

There is NO difference between the Sunnis and Shia vis-a-vis al-Taqiyya, except that the Shia practices al-Taqiyya for fear of persecution from Sunnis, while the Sunnis are actively using it in its relations with the Western world (Especially for the majority of Muslims (Sunnis) who have immigrated to Europe and the US).

It is enough to say “I am a Shi’i” to get your head chopped off, even today in countries like Saudi Arabia. As for the Sunnis, they were never subjected to what the Shia have been subjected to, primarily because they have always been the friends of the so-called Islamic governments throughout the ages.

My comment here is that Wahhabis themselves do indeed practice al-Taqiyya, but they have been psychologically programmed by their mentors in such a way that they don’t even recognise al-Taqiyya when they do actually practice it. Ahmad Didat said that the Christians have been programmed in such a way that they may read the Bible a million times, but will never spot an error! They are fixed on believing it because their scholars say so, and they read at a superficial level. I say that this also applies to those who oppose al-Taqiyya.

Dr. al-Tijani wrote a short event where he was sitting next to a Sunni scholar on a flight to London; they were both on their way to attend an Islamic Conference. At that time, there was still some tension due to the Salman Rushdi affair. The conversation between the two was naturally concerned with the unity of the Ummah. Consequently, the Sunni/Shia issue introduced itself as part of the conversation. The Sunni scholar said: “The Shia must drop certain beliefs and convictions that cause disunity and animosity among the Muslims.” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Like what?” The Sunni scholar answered: “Like the Taqiyya and Muta’ ideas.” Dr. al-Tijani immediately provided him with plenty of proofs in support of these notions, but the Sunni scholar was not convinced, and said that although these proofs are all authentic and correct, we must discard them for the sake of uniting the Ummah!!! When they both got to London, the immigration officer asked the Sunni scholar: “What is the purpose of your visit sir?” The Sunni scholar said: “For medical treatment.” Then Dr. al-Tijani was asked the same question, and he answered: “To visit some friends.” Dr. al-Tijani followed the Sunni scholar and said:

“Didn’t I tell you that al-Taqiyya is for all times and occasions!” The Sunni scholar said: “How so?” Dr. al-Tijani answered: “Because we both lied to the airport police: I by saying that I came to visit some friends, and you by saying that you are here for medical treatment; when, in fact, we are here to attend the Islamic Conference!” The Sunni scholar smiled, and said: “Well, doesn’t an Islamic Conference provide healing for the soul?!” Dr. al-Tijani was swift to say: “And doesn’t it provide an opportunity to visit friends?!”

So you see, the Sunnis practice al-Taqiyya whether they acknowledge the fact or not. It is an innate part of human nature to save oneself, and most often we do it without even noticing.

My comment again is: Who, in Allah’s Name, is this Scholar to state that although the proofs provided to him by Dr. al-Tijani are ALL authentic, they must be discarded for the sake of uniting the Ummah?! Do you truly believe that the Ummah will be united by abandoning Allah’s commandments? Does the above statement represent scholarly merit, or pure rhetoric, ignorance, and hypocrisy on the part of that scholar? Is a scholar who utters such words of ignorance worthy of being obeyed and listened to? Who is he to tell Allah, the Creator of the Universe, and His Messenger what is right and wrong? Does he know more than Allah about al-Taqiyya? Exalted be Allah from being insulted by those who lack ALL forms of intelligence to interpret His religion.

al-Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq [The Sixth Imam of Ahlul-Bayt] said:

“al-Taqiyya is my religion, and the religion of my ancestors.” He also said: “He who doesn’t practice al-Taqiyya, doesn’t practice his religion.”

Sources:

http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter6b/1.html

http://www.al-islam.org/ENCYCLOPEDIA/chapter6b/3.html

1.6 Naskh - Quranic abrogation

e. Dhimmitude（附录注释）

Islam’s persecution of non-Muslims is in no way limited to jihad, even though that is the basic relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. After the jihad concludes in a given area with the conquest of infidel territory, the dhimma, or treaty of protection, may be granted to the conquered “People of the Book” – historically, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The dhimma provides that the life and property of the infidel are exempted from jihad for as long as the Muslim rulers permit, which has generally meant for as long as the subject non-Muslims – the dhimmi – prove economically useful to the Islamic state. The Quran spells out the payment of the jizya (poll- or head-tax; Sura 9:29), which is the most conspicuous means by which the Muslim overlords exploit the dhimmi. But the jizya is not merely economic in its function; it exists also to humiliate the dhimmi and impress on him the superiority of Islam. Al-Maghili, a fifteenth century Muslim theologian, explains:

On the day of payment {of the jizya} they {the dhimmi} shall be assembled in a public place like the suq {place of commerce}. They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the Law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realise that we are doing them a favour in accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free. (Al-Maghili, quoted in Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 361.)

Islamic law codifies various other restrictions on the dhimmi, all of which derive from the Quran and the Sunnah. Several hundred years of Islamic thought on the right treatment of dhimmi peoples is summed up by Al-Damanhuri, a seventeenth century head of AlAzhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious center for learning in the Muslim world:

… just as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim … raise the cross in an Islamic assemblage … display banners on their own holidays; bear arms … or keep them in their homes. Should they do anything of the sort, they must be punished, and the arms seized. … The Companions [of the Prophet] agreed upon these points in order to demonstrate the abasement of the infidel and to protect the weak believer’s faith. For if he sees them humbled, he will not be inclined toward their belief, which is not true if he sees them in power, pride, or luxury garb, as all this urges him to esteem them and incline toward them, in view of his own distress and poverty. Yet esteem for the unbeliever is unbelief. (Al-Damanhuri, quoted in Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 382.)

The Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and much of Europe suffered under the oppressive strictures of the dhimma for centuries. The status of these dhimmi peoples is comparable in many ways to that of former slaves in the post-bellum American South. Forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair extant ones, economically crippled by the jizya, socially humiliated, legally discriminated against, and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness and vulnerability by the Muslim overlords, it should not be surprising that their numbers dwindled, in many places to the point of extinction. The generally misunderstood decline of Islamic civilisation over the past several centuries is easily explained by the demographic decline of the dhimmi populations, which had provided the principle engines of technical and administrative competence.

Should the dhimmi violate the conditions of the dhimma – perhaps through practicing his own religion indiscreetly or failing to show adequate deference to a Muslim – then the jihad resumes. At various times in Islamic history, dhimmi peoples rose above their subjected status, and this was often the occasion for violent reprisals by Muslim populations who believed them to have violated the terms of the dhimma. Medieval Andalusia (Moorish Spain) is often pointed out by Muslim apologists as a kind of multicultural wonderland, in which Jews and Christians were permitted by the Islamic government to rise through the ranks of learning and government administration. What we are not told, however, is that this relaxation of the disabilities resulted in widespread rioting on the part of the Muslim populace that killed hundreds of dhimmis, mainly Jews. By refusing to convert to Islam and straying from the traditional constraints of the dhimma (even at the behest of the Islamic government, which was in need of capable manpower), the dhimmi had implicitly chosen the only other option permitted by the Quran: death.

dhimma注释

来源： https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimma

The dhimma is the “pact of protection” entailing the social rights, responsibilities, and restrictions entailed by the status of being a “dhimmi”. According to orthodox Islamic law (Shari’ah), those who are qualified for dhimmi status within the Muslim society are the free (i.e. non-slave) Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. Adherents of other religions, as well as those without religion, are asked to convert to Islam; if they refuse, they are to be forced to convert (or face execution, en masse). Jews and Christians were required to pay the jizyah while pagans were required to either accept Islam or die. However, historically, adherents of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other religions, have lived as dhimmis within Muslim states.

Jizya注释

The amount of the Jizya, or tax upon infidels, differed according to the wealth of the individual Parsi, but it was never less than two tomans [a sum of money, 10,000 dinars]. A toman is now worth about three shillings and eight pence, but it used to be worth much more. Even now, when money has much depreciated, it represents a labourer’s wage for ten days. The money must be paid on the spot, when the farrash [literally, a carpet sweeper. Really a servant, chiefly, outdoor], who was acting as collector, met the man. The farrash was at liberty to do what he liked when collecting the jizya. The man was not even allowed to go home and fetch the money, but was beaten at once until it was given. About 1865 a farrash collecting this tax tied a man to a dog, and gave a blow to each in turn.

d. Could an Islamic “Reformation” pacify Islam? （附录中文翻译）

As should be plain to anyone who has examined the Islamic sources, to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah’s prophet. In other words, to pacify Islam would require its transformation into something that it is not. The Western Christian Reformation, that is often used as an example, was an attempt (successful or not) to recover the essence of Christianity, namely, the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Trying to get back to the example of Muhammad would have very different consequences. Indeed, one may say that Islam is today going through its “Reformation” with the increasing jihadist activity around the globe. Today, Muslims of the Salafi (“early generations”) school are doing exactly that in focusing on the life of Muhammad and his early successors. These reformers are known to their detractors by the derogative term Wahhabi. Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilisation. Islam’s violent nature must be accepted as given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.

任何研究过伊斯兰教渊源的⼈都应该清楚，要消除伊斯兰教中的暴⼒，就需要它放弃两件事：《古兰经》作为安拉的话语，⽽穆罕默德作为安拉的先知。换句话说，要安抚伊斯兰教，就需要将其转变为它所不是的东西。经常被⽤作例⼦的西⽅基督教宗教改⾰是⼀次尝试（成功与否）恢复基督教的本质，即基督和使徒的榜样和教义。试图回到穆罕默德的例⼦将会产⽣截然不同的结果。事实上，⼈们可能会说，随着全球圣战活动的增加，伊斯兰教今天正在经历“宗教改⾰”。今天，萨拉菲派（“早期⼀代”）学派的穆斯林正是在这样做，关注穆罕默德及其早期继承者的⽣活。这些改⾰者被他们的批评者称为贬义词“⽡哈⽐”。他们从穆罕默德和《古兰经》中汲取灵感，总是倾向于暴⼒。令⼈遗憾的事实是，今天的伊斯兰教与⼗四个世纪以来的情况⼀模⼀样：暴⼒、不宽容和扩张。认为我们在⼏年或⼏⼗年内将能够改变外国⽂明的基本世界观的想法是愚蠢的。伊斯兰教的暴⼒本质必须被接受；只有这样，我们才能采取适当的政策应对措施，提⾼我们的⽣存机会。

1.7 Review 2: Islam – What the West needs to know

1.8 European Slaves, Arab Masters

1.9 Hindu Kush, the largest Genocides in the history of man

1.10 Additional info - Hindu Kush

1.11 What the Crusades Were Really Like

1.12 The Crusades and today

Q: How are the Crusades different from Islam’s Jihad, or other wars of religion?

Madden: The fundamental purpose of Jihad is to expand the Dar al-Islam – the Abode of Islam – into the Dar al-Harb – the Abode of War. In other words, jihad is expansionistic, seeking to conquer non-Muslims and place them under Muslim rule.

Those who are then conquered are given a simple choice. For those who are not People of the Book – in other words, those who are not Christians or Jews – the choice is convert to Islam or die. For those who are People of the Book, the choice is submit to Muslim rule, accept dhimmitude and Islamic law or die. The expansion of Islam, therefore, was directly linked to the military successes of Jihad.

The Crusades were something very different. From its beginnings Christianity has always forbidden coerced conversion of any kind. Conversion by the sword, therefore, was not possible for Christianity. Unlike Jihad, the purpose of the Crusades was neither to expand the Christian world nor to expand Christianity through forced conversions.

评论

⼗字军东征和今天

问：⼗字军东征与伊斯兰教的圣战或其他宗教战争有何不同？⻨登：圣战的根本⽬的是将Daral-Islam——伊斯兰教的住所——扩展到Daral-Harb——战争的住所。换句话说，圣战是扩张主义的，旨在征服⾮穆斯林并将他们置于穆斯林的统治之下。那些被征服的⼈有⼀个简单的选择。对于那些不是圣书之⺠的⼈来说——换句话说，那些不是基督徒或犹太⼈的⼈——他们的选择是皈依伊斯兰教或死亡。对于那些有经之⼈来说，选择是服从穆斯林统治，接受迪⽶德和伊斯兰法律，或者死亡。因此，伊斯兰教的扩张与圣战的军事成功直接相关。⼗字军东征则⾮常不同。基督教从⼀开始就⼀直禁⽌任何形式的强迫皈依。因此，对于基督教来说，通过⼑剑皈依是不可能的。与圣战不同，⼗字军东征的⽬的既不是扩⼤基督教世界，也不是通过强迫皈依来扩⼤基督教。

基督教从⼀开始就⼀直禁⽌任何形式的强迫皈依。因此，对于基督教来说，通过⼑剑皈依是不可能的。

这显然是瞎说。当然这和我们没什么关系。

1.13 The factors that led to the Crusades

1.14 Modern Aftermath of the Crusades

1.15 History of the Islamic Ottoman Turkish Empire I (1299-1876)

1.16 Jus Primae Noctis - Institutionalised rape of Christians under the Ottoman Empire

1.17 Jihadi Genocides of Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey - The Armenian, Greek and Assyrian Genocides

1.18 Turkey: Back to the Future?

1.19 The fall of the Christian state of Lebanon

1.20 Battle of Poitiers (Battle of Tours) – First Islamic Wave – Year 732

1.21 Battle of Vienna – Second Islamic wave – Year 1683

1.22 European Crusader heroes, champions, legends

1.23 Western vs. Islamic Science and Religion

1.24 Historically - Bosnia is Serbian Land

1.25 Who are the “Bosniaks”?

1.26 Historical Islamic demographic warfare in Kosovo

1.27 Myths and Politics - Origin or the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society

1.28 Palestine for the Syrians?

1.29 Overview – Historical acts of high treason by European Governments

1.30 Further studies

2.Europe Burning (Book 2)

In this book we review and analyse Europe’s current problems. We will also look at possible solutions

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.”

Aldous Huxley

2.1 EU’s Eurabia Project (The Eurabia Code) - Documenting EU’s deliberate strategy to Islamise Europe

EU’s Eurabia Project – Documenting the EU’s deliberate strategy to gradually Islamise Europe. The Eurabia Code is a developed work of what Bat Ye’or’ started in her groundbreaking book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.

Eurabia: Arab League states, current and prospective European Union members and Israel.

By Fjordman

I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country’s standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or “stab in the back myth” - the idea that Germany didn’t lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews - helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.

However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.

In contrast, Eurabia - which asserts that the Islamisation of Europe didn’t happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders - is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn’t fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.

Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown’s massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown’s fictional account “documents” a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I’m not sure my work will become equally popular, but I’m pretty sure it’s closer to reality. The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting.

What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicised and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.”

“Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives’ demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel.”

Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.

The use of the term “Eurabia” was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualised by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.” By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided “…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.” Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.

Bat Ye’or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle’s inner circle and Arab politicians.

The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonisation of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation” simply did not exist.

During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbours Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.

However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Ye’or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.

This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.

The recommendations included:

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialised in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilisation and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.

These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas “dialogue.” All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Ye’or explained how “in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations - a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.”

Eurabia’s driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members - from all major European political parties - active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.

A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe - and especially France, the project’s prime mover - with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocentsounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organisation functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU’s “government,” and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilisations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.

Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU’s political and cultural organisations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilisation and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non- Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.

On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe’s foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.

Bat Ye’or thinks that “Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values.”

In the preface to her book, she states that “This book describes Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilisation, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post- Judeo-Christian civilisation that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers.”

The new European civilisation in the making can correctly be termed a ‘‘civilisation of dhimmitude.’’ The word dhimmitude comes from the Koranic word ‘‘dhimmi.’’ It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilisations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.

Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.

This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an antiAmerican and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian “correctness” imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

According to Ye’or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: “It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it.”

注释

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 《锡安⻓⽼议定书》

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis

Are Bat Ye’or’s claims correct, or even possible?

Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, “the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte-who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease.”

In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. “People of Egypt,” he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, “You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur’an.”

According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, “God is great and Muhammad is his prophet.” To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahada - the declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one’s conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.

The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realisation triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.

A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.

The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France’s belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy.

President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organisation.

Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle’s condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, France - as well as the rest of Western Europe - had been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser’s Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.

It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.

Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: “We have finally obtained this ‘Europe à la française’ that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French.”

From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.”

Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.

Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for years - at least from the 1920s - Jean Monnet had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.”

In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realisation of the first concrete foundation of a European federation.” However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.

A federation is, of course, a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.”

The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.”

Booker and North call the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.

The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France’s dilemma won’t help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?

MEDEA (the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation), supported by the European Commission, is one of the key components of the Euro-Arab dialogue. On its own webpage, it states that: “The Euro-Arab Dialogue as a forum shared by the European Community and the League of Arab States arose out of a French initiative and was launched at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 1973, shortly after the “October War” and the oil embargo. As the Europeans saw it, it was to be a forum to discuss economic affairs, whereas the Arab side saw it rather as one to discuss political affairs. MEDEA Institute wishes to be a resource and a reference point for people wanting to engage in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Via its meetings and talks the Institute seeks to create exchanges between political, economic, and diplomatic players, experts, journalists, academics and others.”

As Bat Ye’or points out, while most of the workings of Eurabia are hidden from the public view, sometimes we can catch glimpses of it if we know what to look for. If you search the archives of the MEDEA website and other sources and read the documents carefully, the information is there. Even more material exists on paper, both in French and in English. I argue, as does Bat Ye’or, that there are sufficient amounts of information available to validate the thesis of Eurabia.

One of the documents Bat Ye’or was kind enough to send me (which she mentions in the French version of her book about Eurabia but not in the English version) is the Common Strategy of the European Council - Vision of the EU for the Mediterranean Region, from June 19th 2000.

It includes many recommendations, such as:

“to elaborate partnership-building measures, notably by promoting regular consultations and exchanges of information with its Mediterranean partners, support the interconnection of infrastructure between Mediterranean partners, and between them and the EU, take all necessary measures to facilitate and encourage the involvement of civil society as well as the further development of human exchanges between the EU and the Mediterranean partners. NGOs will be encouraged to participate in cooperation at bilateral and regional levels. Particular attention will be paid to the media and universities [my emphasis].”

It also includes the goal of assisting the Arab partners with “the process of achieving free trade with the EU.” This may be less innocent than it sounds, as I will come back to later.

The Strategy also wants to “pursue, in order to fight intolerance, racism and xenophobia, the dialogue between cultures and civilisations.” Notice that this statement preceded both the start of the second Palestinian intifada as well as the terror attacks of September 11th 2001. It was thus part of an ongoing process, rather than a response to any particular international incident.

One point in the document is particularly interesting. The EU wanted to “promote the identification of correspondences between legal systems of different inspirations in order to resolve civil law problems relating to individuals: laws of succession and family law, including divorce.”

In plain English, it is difficult to see this bureaucratic obfuscation as anything other than an indicator that the EU countries will be lenient, adjusting their secular legislation to the sharia requirements of Muslim immigrants in family matters.

In another document from December 2003, which is available online, Javier Solana, the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission and Chris Patten, member of the European Commission, have signed a plan for “Strengthening the EU’s Partnership with the Arab World.”

This includes the creation of a free trade area, but also plans to “invigorate cultural/religious/civilisation and media dialogue using existing or planned instruments, including the planned Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilisations.

Arab immigrants make a substantial contribution to the development of Europe. The EU is firmly committed to fight all manifestations of racism and discrimination in all its forms. [What constitutes discrimination? Secular laws?] Full respect for the rights of immigrants in Europe is a consistent policy throughout Europe. Its implementation should be improved further and co-operation in the framework of existing agreements should be enhanced to take into account the concerns of Arab partners.”

Super-Eurocrat Romano Prodi wants more cooperation with Arab countries. He talks about a free trade zone with the Arab world, but this implies that Arab countries would enjoy access to the four freedoms of the EU’s inner market, which includes the free movement of people across national borders. This fact, the potentially massive implications of establishing an “inner market” with an Arab world with a booming population growth, is virtually NEVER debated or even mentioned in European media. Yet it could mean the end of Europe as we once knew it. Another statement [6] from the “Sixth Euro-Med Ministerial Conference: reinforcing and bringing the Partnership forward” in Brussels, 28 November 2003, makes the intention of this internal Euro-Mediterranean market:

“This initiative offers the EU’s neighbouring partners, in exchange for tangible political and economic reforms, gradual integration into the expanded European internal market and the possibility of ultimately reaching the EU’s four fundamental freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital and people [my emphasis]. Ministers are also expected to back the Commission’s proposal1 to set up a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.”

In June 2006, then newly elected Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi stated that [7] :

“It’s time to look south and relaunch a new policy of cooperation for the Mediterranean.” Prodi was outlining a joint Italian-Spanish initiative which sought to provide countries facing the Mediterranean with “different” political solutions from those offered in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The prime minister then explained that the Barcelona Process - whose best known aspect is the creation of a free trade zone by 2010 - was no longer sufficient and a new different approach was needed. “The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean expect that from us” he added.

Notice how Prodi, whom Bat Ye’or has identified as a particularly passionate Eurabian, referred to what the Arabs expected from European leaders. He failed to say whether or not there was great excitement among Europeans over the prospect of an even freer flow of migrants from Arab countries and Turkey, which is what will result from this “EuroMediterranean free trade zone.” During the Euro-Mediterranean mid-term Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Dublin in May 2004 [8], the participants declared that:

“Work is now in progress to develop an agreed view on relations with the area which extends from Mauritania to Iran - the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The [European] Union has proposed to include Mediterranean partners in the European Neighbourhood Policy.”

The EU can offer a more intensive political dialogue and greater access to EU programmes and policies, including their gradual participation in the four freedoms particularly the Single Market, as well as reinforced co-operation on justice and home affairs.”

Again, exactly what does “co-operation on justice and home affairs” with Egypt, Syria and Algeria mean? I don’t know, but I’m not sure whether I will like the answer.

The Barcelona declaration [9] from 1995 encouraged “contacts between parliamentarians” and invited the European Parliament, with other Parliaments, to launch “the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary dialogue.” In March 2004, this was converted into a specific institution called The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, EMPA (pdf) [10]. During the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Crete in May 2003, the Ministers included a provision which envisaged the consultative role the Parliamentary Assembly will play within the framework of the Barcelona process.

EU Commissioner Chris Patten has reiterated the European Commission’s readiness to co-operate fully with the Assembly, giving the Assembly the right to comment on any subject of interest to the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

The Assembly consists of 120 members from EU countries, both members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, and an equal number of representatives from the Parliaments of the Mediterranean partner countries. Like most Europeans, I hadn’t even heard about this institution before coming across it during an Internet search. However, it is apparently going to influence the future of my entire continent. This set-up leaves me with some questions. When we know that these “Mediterranean partner countries” include non-democratic Arab countries such as Syria, isn’t it disturbing that representatives from these countries should participate in a permanent institution with consultative powers over the internal affairs of the European Union? Especially when we know that our own, democratically elected national parliaments have already been reduced to the status of “consultation” with unelected federal EU lawmakers in Brussels?

The Algiers Declaration [11] for a Shared Vision of the Future was made after a Congress held in Algeria in February 2006. The document states that: “It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values” and that “It is crucial to positively emphasise all common cultural heritage, even if marginalised or forgotten.” A Common Action Plan draws up a large number of recommendations on how to achieve this new Euro-Mediterranean entity. Among these recommendations are:

• Adapt existing organisations and the contents of media to the objectives of the NorthSouth dialogue, and set up a Euro-Mediterranean journalism centre

• Set up a network jointly managed by the Mediterranean partners in order to develop “a harmonised education system” [A “harmonised education system” between the Arab world and Europe? What does that include? Do I want to know? Will they tell us before it is a fait accompli?]

• Facilitate the transfer of know-how between the EU countries and the Mediterranean partner nations and “encourage the circulation of individuals” • Prepare action and arguments in support of facilitating the mobility of individuals, especially of students, intellectuals, artists, businessmen “and all conveyors of dialogue”

• Set up Ministries responsible for Mediterranean affairs in countries of the North and of the South [Europe and the Arab world, in Eurocrat newspeak], in order to benefit from a better management of Mediterranean policy; • Train teachers and exchange students between the North and the South and set up a network of Euro-Mediterranean Youth clubs

• Establish a “civil watchdog” anti-defamation observatory (with an Internet tool and a legal help network), to cope with racist remarks and the propagation of hate towards people of different religion, nationality or ethnical background These agreements, completely rewriting European history books to make them more Islam-friendly, and gradually silencing “Islamophobia” as racism, are being implemented even now.

Walter Schwimmer, the Austrian diplomat and Secretary General of the Council of Europe from 1999 to 2004, told foreign ministers at the Islamic conference in Istanbul (June15th 2004) that the Islamic component is an integral part of Europe’s diversity. He reaffirmed the commitment of the Council of Europe to work against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.

The Council was also actively involved in the co-organisation of a Conference on the Image of Arab-Islamic culture in European history textbooks, which took place in Cairo in December 2004. The event was held within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue ‘‘Learning to Live together.’’ [12] The aim of the conference was to examine negative stereotyping in the image of Arab-Islamic culture presented in existing history textbooks, and to discuss ways to overcome this stereotyping.

In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering [13] stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56- nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.

In June 2005 in Rabat [14], Morocco, a conference was held on “Fostering Dialogue among Cultures and Civilisations.” The Conference was jointly organised by UNESCO, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (ISESCO), the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (ALECSO), the Danish Centre for Culture and Development (DCCD) and the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures (Alexandria, Egypt). Notice that this was months before the Danish Muhammad cartoons created havoc. It was not a reaction to this issue; rather it was a part of a sustained, ongoing process to promote the Arabic-Islamic culture in Europe.

Among the recommendations that were raised by Mr. Olaf Gerlach Hansen, Director General of the DCCD: “We are interested in new actions in the media, in culture and in education. These proposals include:

• Concrete initiatives to develop “intercultural competencies” in the training of new generations of journalists - Concrete initiatives for links and exchanges between journalists, editors, media-institutions, which encourage intercultural co-operation” - Concrete initiatives for curriculum development through new educational materials and revision of existing textbooks.

Although not stated directly, one may reasonably assume that among the “negative stereotypes” to be removed from the textbooks used to teach history to European schoolchildren are any and all references to the 1300 years of continuous Jihad warfare against Europe. These recommendations were accepted and incorporated into The Rabat Commitment [15].

According to Serge Trifkovic [16], “The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals a deep underlying moral and demographic weakness. The symptoms of the malaise are apparent in the unprecedented demographic collapse and in the loss of a sense of place and history that go hand-in-hand with the expansion of the European Union. The emerging transnational hyper-state is actively indoctrinating its subject-population into believing and accepting that the demographic shift in favor of Muslim aliens is actually a blessing.”

He points out specifically the EU Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on “the contribution of the Islamic civilisation to European culture.” A decade later, in its General policy recommendation n° 5: “Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims,” the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance emphasised “Islam’s positive contribution to the continuing development of European societies, of which it is an integral part.” It expressed strong regret “that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately [as] a threat.”

The ECRI called on the EU member states to adopt measures that would effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and introduce pro-Muslim “affirmative action.” European countries should:

• Modify curricula to prevent “distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history” and “portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and menace”;

• Encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias.

Trifkovic says “Cynically defeatist, self-absorbed and unaccountable to anyone but their own corrupt class, the Eurocrats are just as bad as jihad’s fellow-travelers; they are its active abettors and facilitators.”

Eurabians want to create a unity of the Mediterranean region. This desire is strikingly similar to the goals of some Islamic organisations.

The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the most important Islamic movement of the past century, was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, inspired by contemporary European Fascists in addition to Islamic texts. German historian Egon Flaig [17] quotes Banna as saying:

“We want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again who were lucky enough to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam’s embrace. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be.”

Patrick Poole describes [18] how discussion of a document called “The Project” so far has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson, has information regarding The Project finally been made public. It was found in a raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years.

Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” - identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. It represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West.

The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan.” Some of it recommendations include:

• Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions

• Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organisations

• Involving ideologically committed Muslims in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organisations

• Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam

• Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organisations that share similar goals

Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef al-Qaradhawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradhawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate.

As Patrick Poole says, “What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades.”

Youssef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam, has predicted that “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror [19] and victor,” was an important figure during the Muhammad cartoons riots, whipping up anger [20] against Denmark and the West.

According to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld [21]and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Clearly, the riots in Denmark and throughout the world were not spontaneous, but planned and organised well in advance by Islamist organisations that support the MB, and with funding mostly from Saudi Arabia.”

The current leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, recently issued a new strategy calling on all its member organisations to serve its global agenda of defeating the West. Akef has called the U.S. “a Satan.” “I expect America to collapse soon,” declaring, “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America.”

Ehrenfeld and Lappen state that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring organisations employ the Flexibility strategy:

“This strategy calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all “legal” means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, “Islamised” Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation’s workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert law enforcement agencies, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions.”

In the Middle East Quarterly, Lorenzo Vidino writes about “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Conquest of Europe.”

According to him, “Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathisers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and wellorganised network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organisations.”

One of the Muslim Brotherhood’s first pioneers in Germany was Sa’id Ramadan, the personal secretary of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia has granted an influx of money to the powerful Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, run by Sa’id’s son Hani Ramadan, brother of Tariq Ramadan. Hani Ramadan was made infamous by - among other things - a 2002 article in the French daily Le Monde defending the stoning of adulterers to death. Tariq Ramadan, a career “moderate Muslim,” later called for a “moratorium” on stoning.

According to Vidino, “The ultimate irony is that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan alBanna dreamed of spreading Islamism throughout Egypt and the Muslim world. He would have never dreamed that his vision might also become a reality in Europe.”

Former Muslim Dr Patrick Sookhdeo [23] warns that the Islamicisation going on in European cities is not happening by chance. It “is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders which was planned in 1980 when the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States.”

The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves into viable Muslim communities. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority, and to resist assimilation must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration.

Douglas Farah [24] writes about the largely successful efforts by Islamic groups in the West to buy large amounts of real estate, territory that effectively becomes “Muslim” land once it is in the hands of Islamist groups. Some groups are signing agreements to guarantee that they will only sell the land to other Muslims.

The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group’s financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

According to Farah, the governments of Europe and the United States continue to allow these groups to flourish and seek for the “moderate” elements that can be embraced as a counter-balance to the “radical” elements.

“We do not have a plan. They do. History shows that those that plan, anticipate and have a coherent strategy usually win. We are not winning.”

In March 2006 [25], the two-day plenary session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, held in Brussels approved a resolution which “condemned the offence” caused by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as well “as the violence which their publication provoked.” These MEPs and national MPs from the EU and Arab countries also urged governments to “ensure respect for religious beliefs and to encourage the values of tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism.”

During the parliamentary assembly, Egyptian parliament speaker Ahmed Sorour insisted that the cartoons published in Denmark and other recent events showed the existence of a “cultural deficit.” Jordanian MP Hashem al-Qaisi also condemned the cartoons, claiming that it is not sufficient to deplore the cartoons as these things might occur again in another country.

And European Parliament president Josep Borrell referred to the Mediterranean as “a concentrate of all the problems facing humanity.” He said that after one year presiding over the assembly he “still did not fully understand the complexities of the Mediterranean.”

Following the cartoons affair, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana [26] had travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.”

Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that “religious symbols can be protected.” He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League SecretaryGeneral Amr Moussa. Solana also met with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Following their discussion, Solana “expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt”, and vowed “to reach out… to make sure that people’s hearts and minds are not hurt again.”

Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech [27] stated that “the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.” The irony that he himself is now trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship apparently did not occur to him.

Meanwhile, the tentacles of the vast, inflated EU bureaucracy insinuate themselves into regulations on every conceivable subject. Some of the examples of the bureaucracy are ridiculous; some are funny. But there is a sinister side to the European bureaucracy:

• The promotion of an official, “EU federal ideology” advocating multiculturalism;

• The denunciation as “xenophobes” of all those who want to preserve their democracy at the nation state level; and • Calling those who would limit Third World immigration “racists.”

A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said that more must be done to combat racism and “Islamophobia.” One method of accomplishing this is the promotion of a lexicon 28[] which shuns purportedly offensive and culturally insensitive terms. This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. “Certainly ‘Islamic terrorism’ is something we will not use … we talk about ’terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’,” an EU official said.

Early in 2006, the EU’s human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles’s criticised a plan to revamp Christianity as a school subject [29] in elementary schools in Denmark. GilRobles said doing so went against European values. “Religion as a school subject should be a general course that attempts to give students insight into the three monotheistic religions [my emphasis],” he said. The “three monotheistic religions” means Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

As I see it, there are several possible ways of dealing with the issue of education about religion.

1. Teach the traditional religions within a particular country, which in Europe means Christianity and Judaism.
2. Teach all the major world religions.
3. Leave religion out of the curriculum.

What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice. Notice how EU authorities in this case directly interfered to force a once-independent nation state to include more teachings of Islam in its school curriculum in order to instill their children with a proper dose of Eurabian indoctrination. Notice also that they didn’t ask for more teaching of Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Islam is being pushed.

In another case, the European Commission rebuffed a call by the Polish president for an EU-wide debate on reinstating the death penalty [30]. “The death penalty is not compatible with European values,” a Commission spokesman said. Again, the issue here is not your opinion regarding the death penalty. The real issue is that the metasticising EU has already defined for you what constitutes “European values.” Thus, major issues are simply beyond public debate. This innocent-sounding phrase “European values” cloaks a federal, Eurabian ideology enforced across the entire European Union without regard to the popular will.

Perhaps the most shameful and embarrassing aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical and independent European media has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti- Semitism, European media have been willing to demonise the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.

In May 2006, a big conference [31] was held in Vienna involving media figures (journalists) from all over Europe, who met with partners from the Arab world as a part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

European officials responded publicly with “regret” to Israel’s ambassador to Austria Dan Ashbel’s decision to boycott the conference on racism in the media because of concern in Jerusalem that anti-Semitism was getting short shrift at the meeting. Speaking for the conference - entitled “Racism, Xenophobia and the Media: Towards Respect and Understanding of all Religions and Cultures” - an official claimed that anti-Semitism was not taken off the agenda. This official countered that the meeting was “primarily a dialogue between the media representatives of all the Euro-Med partners on the problems that beset their profession. These include xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia [my emphasis].”

Writer Bruce Bawer [32] thinks that many Europeans recognise that multiculturalism is leading their societies to disaster. But they’ve heard all their lives from officially approved authorities that any concern about multiculturalism and its consequences is tantamount to racism:

“There’s a widespread resignation [33] to the fact that multiculturalists control the media, academy, state agencies, and so on. They know very well that if you want to get ahead in European society, you don’t take on multicultural orthodoxy. The political establishment seems solidly planted, unmovable, unchangeable. There may be a widespread rage, in short, but it’s largely an impotent rage. Europeans today have been bred to be passive, to leave things to their leaders, whose wisdom they’ve been taught all their lives to take for granted. To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy.”

According to Bat Ye’or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being “just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany,” a ridiculous but effective statement.

Bat Ye’or agrees with Bawer’s analysis “concerning the totalitarian web cohesion of ’teachers, professors, the media, politicians, government agency workers, talking heads on TV, the representatives of state-funded “independent” organisations like SOS Racism’ to indoctrinate the politically correct. This perfectly expresses the political directives given by the European Commission to coordinate and control in all EU member-states the political, intellectual, religious, media, teaching and publishing apparatus since the 1970s so as to harmonise with its Mediterranean strategy based on multiculturalism.”

Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye’or, this has led to the development of a type of “resistance press” as if Europe were under the “occupation” of its own elected governments. This free press on the Internet and in blogs has brought some changes, including the rejection of the European Constitution in 2005. Despite overwhelming support for the Constitution by the governments in France and the Netherlands and a massive media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters rejected it. Blogs played a significant part [34] in achieving this.

Only a few months later, EU authorities lined up together with authoritarian regimes [35] such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party in favor of “more international control with” (read: censorship of) the Internet.

According to Richard North of the EU Referendum blog [36], “The most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. And it is that form at which the BBC [the British Broadcasting Corporation] excels. Perhaps the biggest sin of all is that of omission. By simply not informing us of key issues, they go by default, unchallenged until it is too late to do anything about them.”

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC’s compulsory TV licence [37]. “The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech - publicising views they don’t necessarily agree with.” He has blasted the BBC for their “bias and propaganda,” especially in stories related to the EU or the Middle East.

Conservative MP, Michael Gove and political commentator Mark Dooley also complain about lopsided coverage [38] : “Take, for example, the BBC’s coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an “icon” and a “hero,” but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as “polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man.” This despite the fact that under Yassin’s guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds.”

Polish writer Nina Witoszek [39], now living in Norway, warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck by a strange feeling of dejá vu in Western Europe:

“Before formulating a sentence, you put on a censorship autopilot which asks: Who am I insulting now? Am I too pro-Israeli, or maybe anti-Feminist, or - God forbid - anti-Islamic? Am I “progressive” enough? Soon we shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as “dialogue,” “pluralism,” “reconciliation” and “equality.” Norway has never been a totalitarian country, but many people now feel the taste of oppression and of being muzzled. I know many wise Norwegians - and even more wise foreigners - who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage.” She quotes follow writer from Poland Czeslaw Milosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology.

One essay by Milosz is titled “Ketman.” [40] “Ketman” or “kitman” is an Islamic term brought to Milosz’s attention by Arthur Gobineau’s book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.

According to Milosz, a very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Similar to Islam, those practicing dissimulation felt a sense of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. In Communist societies, dissimulation was just as much a technique of adaptation to an authoritarian regime as a conscious, theatrical form of art that became increasingly refined. It is frightening to hear people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that they see this same totalitarian impulse at work in Western Europe now. According to them, we in the West are at least as brainwashed by multiculturalism and Political Correctness [41] as they ever were with communism.

It is frightening because I believe they are right. Have we witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe only to see an Iron Veil descend on Western Europe? An Iron Veil of EU bureaucracy and Eurabian treachery, of Political Correctness, Multicultural media censorship and the everpresent threat of Muslim violence and terrorism that is gradually extinguishing free speech. The momentum of bureaucratic treachery is accelerating.

Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them. When large parts of Europe are being overrun by barbarians - actively aided and abetted by our own trusted leaders - and when people are banned from opposing this onslaught, is Western Europe still a meaningful part of the Free World? Have the countries of Eastern Europe gone from one “Evil Empire” to another? Are they - and we - back in the EUSSR?

Vaclav Klaus, the conservative President of the Czech Republic, has complained that: “Every time I try to remove some piece of Soviet-era regulation, I am told that whatever it is I am trying to scrap is a requirement of the European Commission. “In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal [42] in February 2006, Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

“The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.”

Timothy Garton Ash is considered a leading expert on Europe’s future. Bruce Bawer views Garton Ash as typical of Europe’s political élite. Ash mistrusts national patriotism but adores the EU. He writes about the need for a factitious European patriotism (“flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing”) to encourage “emotional identification with European institutions.” And just why does Europe need the EU? Garton Ash’s answer: “To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism.” Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage “the formation of an Arab Union.” He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.”

The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union’s 50th “birthday,” the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was lobbying for big-style birthday celebrations to “highlight the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens.” Diplomats said the idea had sparked feelings of disgust among new, formerly Communist member states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were reminded of “Stalinist times” when people were forced by the state to sing. Brussels decided on a more modest celebration, also intended to spend around €300,000 on the appointment of 50 citizen “ambassadors,” dubbed the “Faces of Europe,” who are supposed to “tell their story” throughout the year on what the EU means to them in their daily life, as well as a series of activities for school children and youngsters. Germany will go ahead with its own idea to let thousands of its bakeries bake 54 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 27 member states.

Commissioner Wallstrom [43] in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. The commissioners gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States.

Is the EU an instrument to end wars? In October 2006, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the French Action Police trade union, warned of a civil war [44] in France created by Muslim immigrants:

“We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their ‘comrades’ free when they are arrested.”

These Muslim immigrants were allowed in by the very same European elites who now want European citizens to celebrate their work through cakes and songs. While civil society is disintegrating in Western Europe due to Islamic pressures, EU authorities are working to increase Muslim immigration, while congratulating themselves for bringing peace to the continent. What peace? Where?

The Peace of Westphalia [45] in 1648 ended the Thirty Years’ War, the last major religious war in Europe, and helped lay the foundations for modern nation states. Before nation states, we thus had a pattern of borderless religious wars and civil wars. This is what we have returned to, full circle, only this time a borderless Jihad is triggering civil wars in Europe. While the EU may help prevent wars between nation states with old grudges, such as Germany and France, it may also actively cause other kinds of wars. It accomplishes this by increasing Multicultural tensions and a dangerous sense of estrangement between citizens and those who are supposed to be their leaders.

Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.

When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, “No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.”

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described in his book, Judgement in Moscow. In January 1989, during a meeting between Soviet leader Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing supposedly stated:

“Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that.”

This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed as scaremongering any talk of a political union that would subdue the nation states. Fifteen years later, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing became the chief drafter of the truly awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book, hundreds of pages long, and lacking any of the checks and balances so crucial to the American Constitution. Giscard has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 “was a mistake which will have to be corrected” and insisted that “In the end, the text will be adopted.”

Giscard has also said that “it was a mistake to use the referendum process” because “it is not possible for anyone to understand [46] the full text.” Does it instill confidence among the citizens of Europe that we are supposed to be under the authority of a “Constitution” that is too complex for most non-bureaucrats to understand? According to Spain’s justice minister [47] Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar “you don’t need to read the European constitution to know that it is good.”

Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian Prime Minister, said that “We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.”

Journalist Nidra Poller [48], however, is more skeptical. Commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, she noted a submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands: “The Euro-Mediterranean ‘Dialogue’ is a masterpiece of abject surrender.” The European Union functions as an intermediate stage of an ominous project that calls for a meltdown of traditional European culture, to be replaced by a new, Eurabian cocktail. And she asks: “When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of ‘Dialogue,’ what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word ‘Constitution’?”

The European Union gave the Palestinians $342.8 million in aid in 2005 [49] - or, more accurately, $612.15 million when assistance from the 25 EU governments is included. Even the United States has repeatedly donated millions of American tax dollars to the Palestinian Authority, though not at EU levels. In July 2005, as a response to the Islamic terrorist attacks on London a few days earlier, leaders of the G8, the group of influential industrialised nations, offered the PA some $9 billion [50], dubbed an “alternative to the hatred.”

The West’s largesse continued despite a demographic study in 2005 which revealed that the number showing the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza had been inflated [51] by 50% by the government.

Almost all of the new infrastructure [52] in the Palestinian territories from the beginning of the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s - schools, hospitals, airports - were arranged and paid for by Brussels. As Jihad was once again unleashed with the second Intifada in 2000, Israel stopped its transfer of payments to the Palestinians. So the EU stepped in with another 10 million Euros a month in direct budgetary assistance to the Palestinian Authority. EU Commissioner for External Affairs Chris Patten [53] stated in 2002 that “there is no case for stating that EU money has financed terrorism, has financed the purchase of weapons, or any similar activities.”

However, a report by the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies [54] later found that: “There is indisputable evidence that PA money has been used to fund terrorist activities.” This was confirmed by Fuad Shubaki, who used to serve as the finance chief in the Palestinian security forces. According to him, former Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat [55] ordered millions of dollars, taken from international aid funds, tax money transferred by Israel and from Arab countries, to be used to purchase weapons and ammunition, including the 50 tons of armaments on board the ship Karine A. The transaction was coordinated between the PA, Hizballah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

In May 2006, Mahmoud Abbas - President of the Palestinian Authority after Arafat’s death in November 2004 and a leading politician in Fatah - talked to the European Parliament about the peace process. At the same time, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, threatened to strike [56] at US and European economic and civilian interests in response to international sanctions on the PA. Financial support evokes no gratitude in the Palestinians. However, they will threaten you with violence if aid is not forthcoming. This is plainly extortion. This shakedown corresponds to the Muslims’ view of the Jizya, the tributary tax paid by non-Muslims in exchange for not being killed. Documents from the Euro-Arab Dialogue frequently mention about “financial assistance” from the EU to Arab countries. Bat Ye’or points out that some of this Jizya tax is extracted from Europeans without their awareness.

In November 2005, the EU’s official financial watchdog [57] refused to approve the EU’s accounts for the 11th year in a row because they were so full of fraud and errors. The European Court of Auditors refused to give a statement of assurance on the EU’s $160.3 billion budget for 2004. “The vast majority of the payment budget was again materially affected by errors of legality and regularity,” it said. It specifically refused to approve the budgets for the EU’s foreign policy and aid programs, many of which are geared towards Arab countries. Half the project budgets approved by the European Commission were inadequately monitored.

The European Commission is considered the EU’s “government,” and thus the government of nearly half a billion people. But it can release accounts with massive flaws for over a decade straight because it is largely unaccountable to anybody and was intended to be that way.

Muslims use deception to advance Jihad until it is almost too late for the infidels to stop them. The EU federalists and Eurabians have taken a page out of the Islamic playbook, and have been approaching their goals by stealth for decades, buried beneath a mass of detail and technocratic newspeak all but incomprehensible to non-bureaucrats.

In a frank moment, Jean-Claude Juncker [58], Luxembourg’s prime minister, once described the EU’s “system” in this way:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens,” he explained. “If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

In The Economist, columnist Charlemagne writes:

“What Mr Juncker and those who think like him are trying to do is, in essence, to drown opposition to European federation in a mass of technical detail, to bore people into submission. As a strategy, it has gone a long way. [My emphasis] The greatest single transfer of sovereignty from Europe’s nations to the European Union took place, in 1985, as part of the project to create a single European market. Even [British Conservative PM] Margaret Thatcher, not usually slow to spot a trick, later claimed that she had not fully appreciated the ramifications of what she was then signing up to.”

Writer Christopher Booker has called this the EU’s “culture of deceit” [59] :

“What in fact has been taking place has been a transfer of power (…) to Brussels on a scale amounting to the greatest constitutional revolution in our history. But much of this has remained buried from view because our politicians like to preserve the illusion that they are still in charge. The result is that remarkably few people now have any proper understanding of how the political system which rules our lives actually works.”

I have used the term “neo-Feudalism” to describe the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism” - what others call democracy. The motive force behind the EU aims to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy. This is a throwback to the pre-democratic age. Karl Zinsmeister notes [60] that:

“The EU apparatus is exceedingly closed and secretive. Relatively few of the confederation’s important decisions are currently made by democratically accountable officials. On front after front, bureaucratic mandarins are deciding how everyday Europeans will live. … Many Europeans, in a way Americans find impossible to understand, are willing to let their elites lead them by the nose. There is a kind of peasant mentality under which their “betters” are allowed to make the important national judgments for them.”

MP Gisela Stuart was a member of the Praesidium which drafted the proposed EU Constitution. She sums up her experiences thus:

“The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration, and who see national parliaments and governments as an obstacle … Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union.”

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all the British political groups in Brussels called for an end the “medieval” practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws, “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.”

According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion. Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”

The European Union has been compared to the Roman Empire, but such comparisons are not very apt. Rome was the military superpower of its time, while the EU is but a military midget. However, there is one intriguing commonality: Julius Caesar was murdered because he wanted to crown himself king. This was not a popular move among the powerful elite in the Senate, who reminded Caesar that Rome had become a Republic precisely because they had rebelled against the “tyrant” kings of old.

Caesar’s successor Octavian, better known today as Caesar Augustus, is considered both the first and one of the most important Roman Emperors. He downplayed his own position by preferring the title princeps, usually translated as “first citizen”. He also preserved the outward form of the Roman Republic, paid lip service to the old elite, and veiled the changes to make them seem less upsetting to the public. He may have been a monarch, but he never called himself one.

Some might see a parallel in the present-day EU. When up to three-quarters of our national laws originate in Brussels, what is then the point of holding national elections? Just as in Octavian’s Rome, the real power has been moved elsewhere, but the old order is draped over reality as a democratic fig leaf in order not to upset the common people. The EU operates largely by stealth; its edicts are implemented through traditional parliaments, which are increasingly reduced to decorative appendages.

The funny aspect of this is that those who are against the EU are labelled xenophobes, nationalists or simply anti-democratic forces. The EU is an organisation where unelected bureaucrats dismantle democracy, yet denounce their critics as anti-democratic forces.

In order to create this new entity, the old nation states must be deliberately crushed. Massive numbers of non-European immigrants are introduced, and the resulting situation is termed a “Multicultural society”. This demolition is followed by the demand that our entire society be changed accordingly.

Since Europeans feel less “European” than they experience themselves as French, Italian, Dutch, etc., national allegiances have to be broken down. At the same time, an external rival must be created. The closest model is Bismarck’s unification of Germany. The numerous German states rallied to Prussia’s side against the French in the FrancoPrussian War in 1870, thus paving the way for a new, powerful German federation.

The EU federalists strive to build a united European state through a shared animosity against the USA, while constructing a Eurabian entity of Europe and the Arab world via their common hostility towards Israel. One tactic is the deliberate use of the media to whip up anger against these countries and to demonise them.

However, Bismarck’s German states were united by a common language. Even if a “new us” could be constructed from dozens of nations - which is highly questionable - melding various ethnic groups into a cohesive nation takes centuries. Without a shared identity, without a European demos, how can the EU be anything but authoritarian? Perhaps the EU elites believe that a large mass of people lacking a distinct cultural identity would be easier to control?

The problem is that the nation state itself has been declared evil or obsolete, not collectivism, anti-individualism or totalitarianism. But there is a crucial distinction between nationalism and patriotism, which George Orwell saw clearly:

“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power.”

Totalitarian regimes can be national, such as Nazi Germany, but they can also be supranational, such as the Soviet Union, which sought to suppress all pre-existing national loyalties.

……

Adolf Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf described a propaganda technique known as “the Big Lie”. The EU has adopted this strategy, which consists of telling a lie so “colossal” that it would be impossible to believe anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” This has been combined with the technique, perfected by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany, of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.

Here are some Big Lies:

• Diversity is always good;
• Multiculturalism is inevitable, as is continued EU integration;
• Those opposing it are ignorant racists standing against the tide of history;
• Muslim immigration is “good for the economy” and is necessary for funding the welfare state in the future, despite the fact that it drains away enormous resources.

The creation of Eurabia ranks as one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilisation. Does that mean that all EU federalists or those who participate in the various instruments of the Euro-Arab Dialogue are evil? No, reality isn’t that simple. As Hugh Fitzgerald points out, “A whole class of people has gotten rich from Arab money and bribes; lawyers, public relations men, and diplomats, journalists, university teachers and assorted officials.”

However, while ignorance, corruption and the self-serving search for personal power explains some of the behaviour of the Eurabian elites, it cannot explain the behaviour of ALL those thousands of people who have been involved in these networks. Some of them must have convinced themselves that what they were doing was for a just cause, if for no other reason than because human vanity demands that we justify our actions by covering them with a veneer of goodness.

In the science fiction movie Serenity [61], the two great superpowers, the United States and China, have merged into the Alliance, which has moved humanity to a new star system. On the little-known planet Miranda, a gas called Pax was added to the air processors. It was intended to calm the population, weed out aggression. It worked. The people stopped fighting. They also stopped doing everything else, including breeding and physical self-preservation. A small minority of the population had the opposite reaction to this pacification. Their aggression increased beyond madness, and they killed most of the others. Tens of millions of people quietly let themselves be wiped out.

Movie director Joss Whedon is careful to point out that the Alliance isn’t some evil empire, but rather a force that is largely benevolent. They meant it for the best, to create a better world, a world without sin. However, according to Whedon, “Whenever you create Utopia, you find something ugly working underneath it.”

Former Europeans who fought against Jihad fought for a number of things: Their religion, their culture and their nation. EU federalists and Eurabians are deliberately suppressing all of these instincts in their quest to create a New Man and weed out aggression. However, because they have wrongly identified the nation state as the root cause of all evil, they are suppressing not just aggressive nationalism, but defensive patriotism. And since some of the Muslims have actually become even more aggressive in response to what they perceive as our nihilism, the Eurabians have suicidally disarmed their own people, literally and metaphorically, and put them up for slaughter.

Many Communists, at least in the beginning, really believed in their ideology. The result was mass slaughter; tens of millions of people were killed in the quest for a world without oppression or exploitation. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Regardless of how good your intentions may be, you cannot use millions of people as guinea pigs in massive social experiments without also causing massive harm.

Perhaps one of the reasons why this has been allowed to happen in Western Europe and the European Union is because we never fully understood or attempted to confront the reasons for the abysmal failure of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union following the Cold War. The concept of massive social experiments to create a New Man was allowed to survive. It mutated and then migrated West. Jean Monnet, who set in motion the process of European integration, reflected on how the European civil service constituted a ’laboratory’ in which a new kind of ‘European Man’ would be born. But the New European Man, just like the New Soviet Man before him, is all but certain to fail.

Can the European Union be reformed? I doubt it. The EU is bound together by a selfserving class of bureaucrats who want to expand their budgets and their power, despite the harm they do. These functionaries will use traditional methods of deception to counteract any calls for reforms so they can retain control. It is instructive to watch the reactions of the EU elites to the popular rejections in France and Holland of the EU Constitution in 2005. They put together a “wise” group [62] of European politicians, led by Giuliano Amato, Italian Interior Minister in “super-Eurabian” Romano Prodi’s government, to come up with possible solutions to this impasse. Suggestions discussed included dropping the name “constitution” in favor of “treaty.”

The same Amato, who is a former Italian Prime Minister and also the Vice-President of the EU Convention which drafted the Constitution, has earlier stated [63] that:

“In Europe one needs to act ‘as if’ - as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if states were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty … The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge [my emphasis].”

That a man who has openly bragged about how EU federalist goals are advanced by “disguise and subterfuge” leads the attempts to “renew” the EU Constitution tells ordinary Europeans everything we need to know about the EU. If the EU elites have deliberately deceived us for decades to achieve their goals, why should we suddenly trust them now? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. These people have fooled us enough.

“I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratised,” says Vladimir Bukovksy. “There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover.(…) Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.”

In their book about the EU, Richard North and Christopher Booker conclude: “The project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket (…) The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.” They believe the EU is doomed and will “leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.”

I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause “instability” in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with “instability” anyway, given the number of Muslims the EUrabians have let in. The choice is between a period of painful years in which most of Europe prevails, and death, where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western cultural entity.

Some would hope that we could keep the “positive” aspects of the EU and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” I beg to differ.

The EU is all bath water, no baby. There never was a baby, just a truckload of overpaid babysitters.

Multiculturalism separates people into “tribes” below the nation state level. This is precisely the situation we had in Europe in the Middle Ages. Likewise, the idea that we should “respect” other cultures by not criticising them means turning the clock back several centuries to the pre-Enlightenment era. Multiculturalism is merely a medieval ideology, and will generate medieval results.

Although the EU will fail in creating a pan-European identity, it has already partly succeeded in weakening the traditional nation states. Across Western Europe, Muslim immigrants tend to settle in major cities [64], with the native population retreating into the countryside. This destruction of the coherence of society is triggering a return to tribalism, as people no longer trust the nation state to protect them.

The process has been explained by Ernest Baert [65] : “Over many centuries, Western Europe has replaced the tribe or clan by the nation state.” The result was that “European citizens tend to have equal trust in all other citizens of the same nation state outside their immediate family and circle of friends.” This “high-trust society” was a necessary precondition not only for the success of a capitalist economy in Europe, but also for the rise of democracy.

A different worldview prevails in the Muslim world or in Africa. There, individuals have no choice but to fall back on their clan for protection. So what effect will the introduction of massive numbers of individuals from “low-trust societies” have on our own culture? Baert is pessimistic:

“There is little doubt that we live in the dying days of the multicultural fantasy. It will end in misery and may lead to the loss of Europe as a part of Western civilisation. Our children and grandchildren will look back to our days and wonder why so many so easily accepted what patently contradicted history and common sense.”

While ordinary Europeans live in fear of Muslim violence in their own cities and trust in their own leaders is plummeting, EU elites meet in cocktail parties and congratulate each other for bringing peace to Europe.

The European Union promised a Brave New World where wars and ethnic rivalries were a thing of the past. Will it deliver the Middle Ages? Maybe that’s what Utopias tend to do.

评论

本意是好的~ （可能仅仅是本意是好的）还用了电影《宁静号》中米兰达星球的例子说明这个道理~

自由社会不能统一人们的积极行为（积极自由），故不容易危害到所有人。

这段主要介绍了欧洲左派（主要是文化马克思主义者）和穆斯林结盟的历史。

2.2 The Eurabia Code – 2008 Updates

2.3 Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union

1. The EU Promotes Crime and Instability
2. The EU Weakens Europe’s Cultural Defences
3. The EU Promotes a Bloated Bureaucracy
4. Excessive Regulation and Centralisation is bad for Freedom and for Prosperity
5. The Lack of a Real Separation of Powers in the EU Invites Abuse of Power
6. The Lack of Transparency Leaves the EU Vulnerable to Hostile Infiltration
7. The EU Leads to Less Freedom of Speech
8. The EU Fails to Consult its Citizens and Insults Them When Doing So
9. The EU Undermines Political Legitimacy and Connections between Rulers and the Ruled
10. The EU Spreads a Culture of Lies and Corruption

2.4 Why the EU Needs to be Destroyed, and Soon

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. According to him, some of these documents “show very clearly” that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home” “Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that it has a Gulag.”

“The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals.” From 1985 onwards, “the Soviets came to an agreement with the leftwing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.”

……

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the “medieval” practice[8] of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws (and the majority of laws in all Western European countries), “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.” As one of the signers put it: “We still have this medieval way of making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases people’s sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking.” According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan[9], this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion.” “Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”

Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that it looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. “Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone.” “Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?” He doesn’t have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. “The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous.” “It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo,” which was the real centre of power in the USSR, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.

Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas[10], has noted some of these similarities between EU and Soviet institutions, too. “When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.” “It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.” “Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic cooperation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’”

机器翻译：

另⼀位前苏联公⺠，维利乌斯·布拉泽纳斯[10]也指出了欧盟和苏联机构之间的⼀些相似之处。 2000年，前苏联独裁者⽶哈伊尔·⼽尔巴乔夫访问英国时，准确地将欧盟描述为“新的欧洲苏维埃”。他显然对此表⽰赞同，因为他认为不断发展的欧盟正在实现他的愿景，即建⽴⼀个“从⼤西洋到乌拉尔”的“欧洲共同家园”，正如他在 1987 年出版的《改⾰》⼀书中所描述的那样。⼽尔巴乔夫先⽣是⼀位终⽣的共产党员。” “⾮常重要的是，像⽶哈伊尔·⼽尔巴乔夫这样的顶级⻢克思列宁主义者能够在“欧洲共同家园”问题上与 西⽅领导⼈产⽣如此密切的关系，然后，13年后，他赞许地指出，这个共同家园正在离欧洲越来越近。苏联模式。”布克和诺斯写道，⽐利时⾸相保罗-亨利·斯帕克在欧洲被称为“先⽣”。社会主义者”负责让他的 欧盟开国元勋们相信，“掩饰其项⽬政治⽬的的最有效⽅法是将其隐藏在⼀个假装背后，即它只关⼼基于消除贸易壁垒的经济合作：‘共同市场’。” .’”

2.5 Boycott the United Nations!

Recommendations for the West - 1[6]

The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus also contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds: Following medieval religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilisation. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivised states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognising by this constant infusion of aid.

I’m advocating isolating the Islamic world, not the West. Even if we cannot allow all nonMuslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims and start reaching out to non-Muslims.

For Europe, the most important thing to do right now is to dismantle the European Union in its present form, and regain national control over our borders and our legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed as an organisation, and so heavily infiltrated by Eurabian and proIslamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged, and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel.

Why the Future May Not Belong to Islam[7]

Seaborne believes that many people are underestimating the strength of Islam. Perhaps, but some observers, including Mark Steyn and Mr. Seaborne himself, may be overestimating it. They overlook the fact that Islam has many weaknesses, too. Don’t underestimate your enemy. Muslims should be credited for making clever use of our weaknesses, but this “we’re all doomed and have already lost” theme is overblown.

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world. I’m not saying that containment is all that we will ever need to do, but it is the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the darkest side of globalisation, will trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to avoid this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of such technology.

We should restrain their ability to hurt us physically. We can’t prevent it completely, but we should limit it as much as possible. Muslims try to wear us down through terrorism. They should be worn down through mockery and criticism. We should also make clear that for every Islamic terror attack we will increase these efforts, which Muslims fear more than our weapons. It’s the new balance of terror.

Dr Koenraad Elst, one of Belgium’s best orientalists, thinks “Islam is in decline, despite its impressive demographic and military surge” — which according to Dr Elst is merely a “last upheaval.” He acknowledges, however, that this decline can take some time (at least in terms of the individual human life span) and that it is possible that Islam will succeed in becoming the majority religion in Europe before collapsing.

Dalrymple is probably correct when he says that Islam is an “all or nothing” religion which cannot be secularised. The future may not belong to Islam, as Mark Steyn suggests. It is conceivable that Islam in some generations will cease to be a global force of any significance, but in the meantime it will be a constant source of danger to its neighbours, from Europe through India to Southeast Asia. The good news is that Islam may not be able to achieve the world dominance it desires. The bad news is that it may be able to achieve a world war. We can only cage it as much as possible and try to prevent this from happening.

Farewell to the United Nations?[8]

Historian David Littman is a representative to the United Nations (Geneva) of the Association for World Education. He has spent years tracking the rise of Islamic influence at the UN. According to him, “In recent years, representatives of some Muslim states have demanded, and often received, special treatment at the United Nations.” “As a result, non-diplomatic terms such as ‘blasphemy’ and ‘defamation of Islam’ have seeped into the United Nations system, leading to a situation in which non-Muslim governments accept certain rules of conduct in conformity with Islamic law (the Shari’a) and acquiesce to a self-imposed silence regarding topics touching on Islam.”

I do not have all the answers to how such a post-UN world will be like. The most important principle at this point is to isolate and contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have direct influence over our policies, which they partly do have through the UN. Is it unrealistic to talk about the collapse of the EU and the UN? I don’t know. The UN was created in the aftermath of WW2. It survived the Cold War, but now we are rapidly entering into a new world war. My bet is that we will see huge changes in world affairs in the near future, at least as large as those which laid the foundations for the UN to begin with. Whatever usefulness the UN may have had was lost decades ago. It is today of little use to us, but of significant use to our enemies. The time has come to say farewell to the United Nations.

Recommendations for the West - 2（隔离、遏制策略）

By Fjordman

The West at the beginning of the 21st century suffers from a lack of cultural confidence, and is in some ways engaged in an internal struggle over the very meaning of Western civilisation. This ideological “war within the West” has helped paved the way for the physical “war against the West” that is waged by Muslim Jihadists, who quite correctly view our creed of multiculturalism and our acceptance of Muslim immigration as signs of weakness and that the West has lost contact with its civilisational roots.

Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West. When Westerners such as Polish king Jan III Sobieski led their troops to victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, they fought for a number of reasons: Their country, their culture and their religion, among other things. People don’t just need to live, they need something to live for, and fight for. We are against Islam. What are we for?

I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our own culture and pass it on to future generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies, not to be held hostage by Leftist Utopians, unaccountable NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth. Multiculturalism is wrong because not all cultures are equal. However, it is also championed by groups with a hidden agenda.

Multiculturalism serves as a tool for ruling elites to fool people, to keep them from knowing that they have lost, or deliberately vacated, control over national borders. Leftists who dislike Western civilisation use multiculturalism to undermine it, a hate ideology disguised as tolerance. Multiculturalism equals the unilateral destruction of Western culture, the only unilateral action the West is allowed to take, according to some.

There are also some libertarian right-wingers and Big Business supporters who see man only as the sum of his economic functions, as cheap labour and consumers, homo economicus. They believe not only in free markets but in free migration, and tend to downplay the impact of culture. They are Islam’s useful idiots in the fight against the West.

Although Leftists tend to be more aggressive, perhaps the dividing line in the internal struggle in the West is less between Left and Right, and more between those who value national sovereignty and Western culture and those who do not. End the nonsense of “celebrating our differences.” We should be celebrating our sameness and what binds us together. We should clean up our history books and school curricula, which have been infected with anti-Western sentiments.

Upholding national borders has become more important in the age of globalisation, terrorism and mass-migration, not less. No nation regardless of political system can survive the loss of its territorial integrity, but democratic states especially so. Those who don’t want to uphold national borders are actually tearing down the very foundations of our democratic system, which is based on nation states. The fight for national sovereignty is thus the fight for democracy itself, since nobody has so far made any convincing model of a supranational democracy.

We now have a political class who spend much of their time travelling around the world. They no longer feel as attached to the people they are supposed to represent as they did in the past. This is perhaps inevitable, but it feeds a growing sense of detachment between ordinary people and their supposed leaders. We need to remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, the social contract is breached, and we should no longer be required to pay our taxes. National taxes, national borders could become a new rallying cry.

The West is declining as a percentage of world population, and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations. Westerners need to adjust our self-image to being less dominant in the 21st century. As such, we also need to ditch Messianic altruism: The West must first of all save itself. We have no obligation to “save” the Islamic world, and do not have the financial strength nor the demographic numbers to do so even if we wanted to. We are not all-powerful and are not in the position to help all of the Third World out of poverty, certainly not by allowing all of them to move here.

We should take a break from massive immigration, also non-Muslim immigration, for at least a generation, in order to absorb and assimilate the persons we already have in our countries. The West is becoming so overwhelmed by immigration that this may trigger civil wars in several Western nations in the near future. We already have massive Third World ghettos in our major cities. Future immigration needs to be more strictly controlled and ONLY non-Muslim.

This immigration break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures and countries that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries. But above all, the West, and indeed the non-Muslim world, should make our countries Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy of containment of Dar al-Islam. This is the most civilised thing we can do in order to save ourselves, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims.

**The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin. **

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus also contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

……

Moreover, I’m advocating isolating the Islamic world, not the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims and start reaching out to non-Muslims.

The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organisation where only democratic states could become members. Another possibility is an expansion of NATO. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they partly do through the UN.

What the West should do is to enter into strategic alliances with non-Western states that share some of our political ideals and goals. This includes non-Muslim nations such as Japan and India, perhaps also Thailand, the Philippines and others. We will, however, still need some understanding with Russia and China and some mechanism for consultations with both. Perhaps, instead of any new and formalised organisation, the most influential countries will simply form ad hoc alliances to deal with issues as they arise.

The situation in the Old West in Europe is right now more serious than in the New West, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

For Europe, the most important thing to do right now is to dismantle the European Union in its present form, and regain national control over our borders and our legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed as an organisation, and so heavily infiltrated by Eurabian and proIslamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged, and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel.

Europeans also need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but the welfare state economies cannot compete in a world of billions of capitalists in low-cost countries. Besides, the welfare state creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world, and it breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in the fight against Jihad. It may also indirectly contribute to the low birth rates in many European countries.

We should use the money instead to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.

Europeans should adopt legislation similar to the First Amendment in the American Constitution, securing the right to free speech. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry, far less our national borders. Europe needs free speech more than ever.

We need to strike a balance between defeatism and denial. Yes, the situation in Europe is now very serious, but it is not totally lost. Not yet. The Danish Cartoon Jihad has demonstrated that their Islamic arrogance encourages Muslims to become too aggressive, too early, and thus overplay their hand. Our main problem is ourselves. Europe’s elites have lost contact with the people, and the people have lost contact with reality. Western Europe is now a collection of several layers of different Utopias: multiculturalism, welfarism, radical feminism and transnationalism that will all soon come crashing down. The important question is how we’re going to deal with this.

Yes, we have been betrayed by our own leaders, but that’s still only part of the problem. People tend to get the governments they deserve. Maybe we get weak leaders because we are weak, or because they can exploit weaknesses in our mentality to get us where they want to; above all anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, our excessive desire for consensus and suppression of dissent, the anti-individualistic legacy from Socialism and the passivity bred by welfare state bureaucracy. Muslims are stuck with their problems and their corrupt leaders and blame everybody else for their own failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be.

It is highly likely that the coming generation will determine whether Europe will continue to exist as a Western cultural entity. However, just as Islam isn’t the cause of Europe’s weakness but rather a secondary infection, it is conceivable that the Islamic threat could have the unforeseen and ironic effect of saving Europe from herself. Europe will bleed but she won’t die.

2.6 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is a cultural Marxist controlled political entity

As of now the ECtHR in Strasbourg propagates multiculturalism and the deconstruction of European cultures and identities. It is therefore an anti-European political hate-entity that seeks to undermine the very people who created it. The ECtHR in Strasbourg must be reformed. Until it is, it should be considered as a hostile political entity propagating cultural Marxism.

2.7 Waiting for Churchill or Godot?

**The name of the devil: cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, globalism, feminism, emotionalism, suicidal humanism, egalitarianism - a recipe for disaster **

2.8 The Failure of Western Feminism

By Fjordman

I have written several essays before on the damaging effects of Western feminism. The massive wave of violence and especially rapes in Western cities now is a form of warfare against whites, and it’s about time it is recognised as such. As this post from Gallia Watch[1] puts it:

As in war, the winners seize the indigenous women all the while protecting their own. The whole rhetoric that aims to debase the European woman or France (‘I screw France like a whore’ says rap group Sniper) is a part of the feminisation of Europeans, of the idea that Europe is a land to be conquered, a habitat open to all forms of pillage. Are not the notorious ‘gang rapes’ another example of collective violence to European women, just as Russian soldiers did when they seized German women in a devastated Berlin in 1945. It all holds together. A tribe that does not protect its women is behaving as if they have already lost the war. Many of us don’t know this. But our enemies do.

As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves. They have been waging an ideological, psychological and economic war against European men for several generations now, believing that this would make you “free.” The actual result is that you have less freedom of movement and security than ever, as a direct result of the immigrant policies supported by you and your buddies.

In the big scheme of things, the truth is that European men have treated women with greater respect than the men of almost any other major civilisation on earth. And I don’t mean just in the modern age, I mean for many centuries. Yet we are the one group of men who are most demonised and attacked, whereas non-white men get treated with much greater respect. What white men see from this is that white Western women prefer men who treat them like crap, and disrespect men who treat them with respect. This isn’t exactly a smart way to behave if you want to be treated with dignity.

The truth is that any nation is always protected from external aggression by the men. The women can play a supporting role in this, but never more than that. For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years. So why are you surprised about the results? As you said, you can’t fool Mother Nature. Well, you have tried to fool her for a long time, and you are now paying the price for this.

Western women have been subjected to systematic Marxist indoctrination meant to turn you into a weapon of mass destruction against your own civilisation, a strategy that has been remarkably successful. Here is a quote from Robert Spencer’s book Religion of Peace?:

Attacks on Christian history and doctrine are an integral part of a larger effort to instill a sense of cultural shame in even non-Christian European and American youth — a shame that militates against their thinking the West is even worth defending. A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing… Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground…When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority… Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’

Let me add a quote from the book The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West, by Lee Harris:

“Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive, and ruthless. We teach our boys to be good students, to aim at getting good jobs with large, safe corporations, to plan prudently for their retirement. They want their boys to become holy warriors. We are proud if our sons get into a good college; they are proud if their sons die as martyrs. To rid your society of high-testosterone alpha males may bring peace and quiet; but if you have an enemy that is building up an army of alpha boys trained to hate you fanatically and who have vowed to destroy you, you will be committing suicide. It may take years or decades before you realise what you have done, but by that time it will be far too late to reverse your course. The end of testosterone in the West alone will not culminate in the end of history, but it may well culminate in the end of the West.”

2.9 How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme antimasculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilisation as whole.

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.

The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?

Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced “Third-Worldism” and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis.

……

Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. A modern society may lessen these restraints, but it will never remove them completely. For these practical reasons, it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men in politics or in the highest level in business.

Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of The War Against Boys, points out that[11] “after almost 40 years of feminist agitation and gender-neutral pronouns, it is still men who are far more likely than women to run for political office, start companies, file for patents, and blow things up. Men continue to tell most of the jokes and write the vast majority of editorials and letters to editors. And — fatal to the dreams of feminists who long for social androgyny — men have hardly budged from their unwillingness to do an equal share of housework or childcare. Moreover, women seem to like manly men.” She also notes that “One of the least visited memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle ‘women and children first.’ “The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by ‘the women of America’ in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: “To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. […] They gave their lives that women and children might be saved.”

Simone de Beauvoir famously said, “One is not born, but becomes a woman.” She meant that they should reject all the inducements of nature, society, and conventional morality. Beauvoir condemned marriage and family as a “tragedy” for women, and compared childbearing and nurturing to slavery.

Strangely enough, after decades of feminism, many Western women are now lamenting the fact that Western men hesitate to get married. Here is columnist Molly Watson[12] :

We’re also pretty clued up about why our generation is delaying having children — and it has nothing to do with being failed by employers or health planners. Nor, despite endless newspaper features on the subject, does it have much to do with business women putting careers before babies. In my experience, the root cause of the epidemic lies with a collective failure of nerve among men our age. […] I don’t know a woman of my age whose version of living happily ever after fundamentally hinges on becoming editor, or senior partner, or surgeon, or leading counsel. But faced with a generation of emotionally immature men who seem to view marriage as the last thing they’ll do before they die, we have little option but to wait.

What happened to the slogan “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”? I’d just like to remind Ms. Watson that it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. As one man put it: “I don’t think I’ll get married again. I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and give her a house.” At the same time, women during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon?

The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.

A study from the United States[13] identified the main barriers to men tying the knot. Heading the list was their ability to get sex without marriage more easily than in the past. The second was that they can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying. The report lends weight to remarks by Ross Cameron, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services, who chided Australian men, blaming Australia’s looming fertility crisis on men’s commitment phobia. “The principal reason young women say they don’t get around to having children is they can’t find a bloke they like who is willing to commit,” he said. “This commitment aversion in the Australian male is a real problem.”

Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about[14] a significant divergence in fertility between Canada and the U.S.: “The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility.” “Changing values in the U.S. and Canada may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less often.”

In Europe, Newsweek writes about[15] how packs of wolves are now making a comeback in regions of Central Europe: “A hundred years ago, a burgeoning, land-hungry population killed off the last of Germany’s wolves.” “Our postcard view of Europe, after all, is of a continent where every scrap of land has long been farmed, fenced off and settled. But the continent of the future may look rather different. “Big parts of Europe will renaturalise,” says Reiner Klingholz, head of the Berlin Institute for Population Development. Bears are back in Austria. In Swiss alpine valleys, farms have been receding and forests are growing back in. In parts of France and Germany, wildcats and ospreys have re-established their range.”

“In Italy, more than 60 percent of the country’s 2.6 million farmers are at least 65 years old. Once they die out, many of their farms will join the 6 million hectares (one third of Italian farmland) that has already been abandoned.” “With the EU alone needing about 1.6 million immigrants a year above its current level to keep the working-age population stable between now and 2050, a much more likely source of migrants would be Europe’s Muslim neighbours, whose young populations are set to almost double in that same time.”

It is numbers like these that have induced Phillip Longman to foresee “the Return of Patriarchy[16]” and proclaim that “conservatives will inherit the Earth:” “Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry.” “It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as “world citizens” are also those least likely to have children.” “The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies.” “Tomorrow’s children, therefore, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society.”

“In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage.” “People will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values.”

This last point is worth dwelling with. The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties.The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their exhusbands.

It should be mentioned that if this welfare state should for some reason cease to function[17], for instance due to economic and security pressures caused by Muslim immigration, Western women will suddenly discover that they are not quite as independent from men as they like to think. In this case, it is conceivable that we will se a return to the modern traditional “provide and protect” masculinity, as people, and women in particular, will need the support of the nuclear and extended family to manage.

Another issue is that although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender equality, I have heard visitors to these countries comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world.And I readily believe that. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And what’s more, it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country or culture to find it, which in our age of globalisation is easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable and significant. Scandinavians celebrate “gender equality,” and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.

To sum it up, it must be said that radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilisation, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims.

Although feminism may have strayed away into extremism, that does not mean that all of its ideas are wrong. The women’s movement will make lasting changes. Women have occupied positions considered unthinkable only a few decades ago. Some things are irreversible.

Women pretty much run men’s private lives. Marriage used to be a trade: Female nurturing and support for male financial and social security. In a modern world, women may not need men’s financial support quite as much as they did before, while men need women’s emotional support just as much as we have always done. The balance of power has changed in favor of women, although this situation may not last forever. This does not have to be bad. Women still want a partner. But it requires men to be more focused on doing their best.

A study by scientists at the University of Copenhagen concludes that divorce is closely linked to poor health, especially among men[18]. The research indicates that the death rate for single or divorced males aged 40-50 is twice as high as for other groups. The research has taken into account whether there are other factors that could lead to an early death — such as a mental illness and having grown up under poor social conditions. “Considering the high amount of children growing up in broken homes we do believe that the study is very relevant. “It proves that divorce can have a serious consequence,” and that we may need a prevention strategy. John Aasted Halse, psychologist and author of numerous books about divorce, agrees.

The apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a “weaker/stronger sex”. I will postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. This will have both positive and negative results. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, as well as in crime and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms “The Restless Sex” for men and “The Self-Contained Sex” for women are more appropriate and explain the differences better. Daniel Pipes keeps saying that the answer to radical Islam is moderate Islam. There may not be any such thing as a moderate Islam, but there just might be a moderate feminism, and a mature masculinity to match it. In the book Manliness, Harvey C.

Mansfield offers what he calls a modest defence of manliness. As he says, “Manliness, however, seems to be about fifty-fifty good and bad.” Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic who sacrificed their lives for “women and children first,” but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Many men will find it offensive to hear that Islamic violence and honour killings have anything to do with masculinity, but it does. Islam is a compressed version of all the darkest aspects of masculinity. We should reject it. Men, too, lose their freedom to think and say what they want in Islam, not just women.

However, even a moderate version of feminism could prove lethal to Islam. Islam survives on the extreme subjugation of women. Deprived of this, it will suffocate and die. It is true that the West still hasn’t found the formula for the perfect balance between men and women in the 21st century, but at least we are working on the issue. Islam is stuck in the 7th century. Some men lament the loss of a sense of masculinity in a modern world. Perhaps a meaningful one could be to make sure that our sisters and daughters grow up in a world where they have the right to education and a free life, and protect them against Islamic barbarism. It’s going to be needed.

注释

Patriarchy：父权制，人类文明的根基

2.10 Feminism Leads to the Oppression of Women

Fjordman

According to Heather MacDonald[1], the feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The university is about to name as its new president radical feminist Drew Gilpin Faust, following Lawrence Summers’s all-too-brief reign. Summers’s recklessly honest speculations about women in science strengthened the feminist hold on faculty hiring and promotions. The Task Force won a $50 million commitment to increase faculty “diversity efforts” at Harvard.

As University President, Lawrence Summers in 2005 gave a speech[2] where he dared to suggest that innate differences between men and women could explain why men hold more seats as top scientists than women. This is a plausible thesis. According to Dr Paul Irwing[3] at Manchester University, there are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, and 30 times as many with an IQ of 170-plus. There are other studies that indicate similar, disproportionate numbers of men among those with extremely high intelligence.

Besides, even though Summers may have been wrong, it is dangerous to embark on a road where important issues are not debated at all. One of the hallmarks of Western civilisation has been our thirst for asking questions about everything. Political Correctness is thus anti-Western both in its form and in its intent. It should be noted that in this case, feminists formed the vanguard of PC[4], the same ideology that has blinded our universities to the Islamic threat.

It makes it even worse when we know that other feminists in academia assert that the veil, or even the burka, represents “an alternative feminism.” Dr. Wairimu Njambi is an Assistant Professor of “Women’s Studies” at the Florida Atlantic University. Much of her scholarship is dedicated to advancing the notion that the cruel practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is actually a triumph for Feminism and that it is hateful to suggest otherwise. According to Njambi “anti-FGM discourse perpetuates a colonialist assumption by universalising a particular western image of a ‘normal’ body and sexuality.”

Harvard university recently received a $20 million donation[5] from Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, to finance Islamic studies. This will no doubt be used to influence the curriculum to make it friendlier and less “Islamophobic.” Senior Western institutions for higher education such as Harvard are thus simultaneously serving as outlets for Saudi Islamic propaganda and for left-wing radical feminists. This may on the surface look like quite a paradox, but in different ways both groups discredit traditional Western culture by highlighting its “history of oppression and injustice,” and they both stifle ideological dissent and suppress criticism of their holy doctrines. Perhaps feminists failed to listen to fellow Harvard Professor Charles Fried, who has warned[6] that “The greatest enemy of liberty has always been some vision of the good.”

Feminism has hurt us by encouraging public accept for intellectual hypocrisy, which later paved the way for Islamic infiltration. The official mantra is that men and women are not just equal but identical, but at the same time that women are also somehow superior. Both of these claims cannot, logically speaking, be true at the same time, yet both are being made simultaneously. This gross double standard closely mirrors that of multiculturalism, where all cultures are equal but Western culture is inferior and evil.

This is a technique labelled Repressive Tolerance by the cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse in 1965. Briefly speaking, those who are deemed to belong to “dominant” groups of society should have their freedom of speech suppressed by progressives and radicals, and simply be denied access to discussion forums, in order to rectify the “institutional oppression” in society. Marcuse’s ideas[7] had a huge impact in the 1960s and 70s. He also advocated free sex without any constraints as a method of freeing people from religious morality.

Prof. Bernard Lewis warned[8] in The Jerusalem Post that Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe “Europeans are losing their own self-confidence,” he said. “They have no respect for their own culture” and have “surrendered” on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of “self-abasement and political correctness.” Although Mr. Lewis did not say so, this is to a significant extent the result of decades of demonisation by left-wing academics, including radical feminists. The goal of radical feminism was never about equality between the sexes, it was about the destruction of the nuclear family and of the power structures of society in general.

As Ellen Willis, self-proclaimed democratic socialist and founder of Redstockings, a radical feminist group from 1969, stated[9] to left-wing The Nation in 1981: “Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues, it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. […] The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion […] to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values.” Feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir stated[10] that “no woman should be authorised to stay at home to raise her children […] because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Well, after two generations of Second Wave Feminism, Ms. Willis and Ms. Beauvoir have had their way: The West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes us vulnerable to a take-over by… Islam. And feminists still aren’t satisfied.

Toy researcher Anders Nelson at Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology has warned[11] that toys have become increasingly gender-segregated over the past fifteen years: “People often explain [their toy purchases] by saying that boys and girls want different things. But in order for children to be able to reflect on [the toys] they receive, adults have to open their eyes to [inherent gender] structures. To children, these [gender] roles are more unquestioned and instinctual.” Mr. Nelson encouraged parents to give more gender neutral Christmas presents. In other words, no Barbie dolls for girls and no cars for boys. This is the result of a culture destroyed by Political Correctness.

Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested[12] a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan. A male columnist in national newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.

When young politician Kjetil Vevle showed up for a meeting[13] planning the demonstrations at that year’s protests at the International Women’s Day on 8 March in the city of Bergen, Norway, he was told that men didn’t have voting rights at the meeting even though they were passionate feminists. The leaders didn’t think there was any cause for complaints, as the men had generously been awarded the right to voice their opinion, just not the right to make decisions.

Although countries such as Norway and Sweden like to portray themselves as havens of gender equality[14], I have heard visitors comment that the sexes are probably further apart here than anywhere else in the world. Radical feminism has bred suspicion and hostility, not cooperation. And it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country to find it, which is now easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable. Scandinavians celebrate “gender equality” and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.

Norway and Sweden are countries with extremely high divorce rates. Boys grow up in an atmosphere where masculinity is demonised, attend a school system where they are viewed as deficient girls and are told by the media that men are obsolete and will soon be rendered extinct anyway.

A feminist culture will eventually end up being squashed, because the men have either become too demoralised and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become so fed-up with incessant ridicule that they just don’t care anymore. If Western men are pigs and “just like the Taliban” no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures, which is exactly what is happening[15] in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women.

I wonder whether Virginia Wolf saw this coming. Maybe if she were alive today, she would hail the Islamic veil as an “alternative road to feminism” and write a book called A Burka of One’s Own. With some luck, it might even have earned her a Diversity Scholarship at Harvard.

2.11 What is the Cause of Low Birth Rates?

By Fjordman

What causes low birth rates? I have debated this issue at some length with blogger “Conservative Swede”. Among the reasons frequently cited are the welfare state, feminism and secularism. However, if you look closely at the statistics from various countries, the picture gets quite complex, and there doesn’t appear to be an automatic correlation between low birth rates and any one of these factors.

The United States has the highest birth rates in the West, but this is largely due to ethnic minorities. If you compare white Americans to white Europeans, the American birth rate is somewhat higher than those of the Scandinavian nanny states, but still lower than replacement level. Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden do have elaborate welfare states, high degrees of feminism and are not very religious, yet have some of the highest birth rates in the Western world (though still below replacement level.) They are certainly much higher than those in Catholic Poland, perhaps the most conservative religious country in Europe. And they are much higher than those of South Korea, which has more traditional sex roles and where Christianity is booming these days.

The gap between the Western world and the Islamic world[1] in birth rates is clearly caused by religious factors, but the differences between industrialised nations are far more difficult to explain. If the cause is not welfarism, feminism or secularism, then what is it?

Making mums: Can we feed the need to breed? Canada has a baby deficit. Will paying women to have more kids help?[2]

How strange, then, that just as the mummy industry is booming, we’re in the grips of a baby bust. Canada’s fertility rate has been in a free fall for decades. In recent years, though, it has hovered at an all-time low of roughly 1.5 children per woman (we need 2.1 if we’re going to replace ourselves). Social analysts pin it on some jumble of female education and fiscal autonomy, secularisation, birth control, Sex and the City, a heightened desire for personal freedom, and increasing uncertainty about bringing a child into a world plagued by terrorism, global warming and Lindsay Lohan. In a hyper-individualistic, ultracommodified culture like ours, motherhood, for better and worse, is less a fact of life than just another lifestyle choice.

All over the developed world, the same pattern is apparent. Russia, Britain, Ireland, Australia, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries are contending with fertility rates well below replacement levels. Forty per cent of female university graduates in Germany are childless. In Japan, where the birth rate has sunk to a record low of 1.26, family planning groups are blaming the Internet, charging that fertile men and women are spending too much time online, and not enough having sex.

Making Kids Worthless: Social Security’s Contribution to the Fertility Crisis[3]

Many people nowadays find it hard to see why anyone would have children for the sake of old-age security. Surely, they think, people have children just because they like it. Still, they often hear people say they would like to have more children, but they cannot afford it. Moreover, people in less developed countries seem to afford large families, even though their real incomes barely reach subsistence levels.

What can account for these seemingly conflicting observations? The fact that in the absence of social security, the extended family is an informal social insurance mechanism that renders childbearing economically beneficial. But in countries with large social security systems, people no longer have an old-age security motive for fertility, precisely because social security has made fertility economically unwise.

Of course, social security is not the only reason for declining fertility rates. For one thing, the welfare state undermines the family in many other ways too, such as compulsory public education that seeks to replace family loyalty with allegiance to the state. Moreover, the old-age security motive for fertility should become weaker when other ways of providing for old age become available…

One can also look at differences among the developed Western countries. Among these countries, there are practically no differences in infant mortality rates, female labour force participation rates, and other standard explanations of the fertility decline. Yet total fertility rates differ widely — and exactly in the way predicted by the size of social security systems. The United States has a fertility rate of 2.09, whereas the European Union has an average of 1.47.

Also within Europe, where social security benefits are dangerously generous, there are differences among countries. Some of the most generous schemes are found in Germany, France, and the Mediterranean countries — as are the lowest fertility rates in the region. On the surface, it is surprising to find this in countries that used to be family-oriented and fervently Catholic. However, economic incentives shape behaviour, and behaviour shapes culture…

The best solution is also the simplest: get the state out of the way.

Death by secularism: Some statistical evidence[4]

Infertility is killing off the secular world, a number of writers have observed, including Phillip Longman, whose 1994 book The Empty Cradle I reviewed last year. In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine. Secular western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow. Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise.

Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality, I have argue in the past. In the absence of religion human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.

……

Personally, I think the following incentive would prove to be successful:

The state invests in/buys/builds X amount of housing units (designed for a family with 3 children). All married couples who has three children will have a prerogative to one of these housing units immediately after the third child is born. They have the right to live in this housing unit until their youngest child is 18. If the couple breaks up the family forfeits their right to the housing unit and are forced to move out. This will both work as a great incentive for family unity and encourage people to have more than 2 children. It will also lessen the financial pressure on the mother to have a full time job while caring for 3 or more children. The housing units should be more attractive than the national standard (as the main point is to make them attractive enough) and could include free kindergardens located on the ground floor. If needed, more incentives can be added to the “housing unit incentive” for families with 3 or more children, until we reach an average birth rate of 2,1 or even up to 2,5 if desired. Obviously, a project of this magnitude would require visionary leaders which todays Western European countries lack.

The above solution isn’t perfect, but it’s a simple and effective method which would most likely increase that country’s birth rate considerably (and contribute to family unity). However, a method like this would prove to be too effective and would therefore undermine the current justification of multiculturalism (the core mantra: we need mote Muslims to replace our aging populations!).

2.12 The Fatherless Civilisation

The welfare state encourages an infantilisation of society where people return to childhood by being provided for by others. This creates not just a culture obsessed with youth but with adolescent irresponsibility. Many people live in a constant state of rebellion against not just their parents but their nation, their culture and their civilisation.

……

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men was to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. According to anthropologist Lionel Tiger, the ancient unit of a mother, a child and a father has morphed from monogamy into “bureaugamy,” a mother, a child and a bureaucrat. The state has become a substitute husband. In fact, it doesn’t replace just the husband, it replaces the entire nuclear and extended family, raises the children and cares for the elderly.

……

The question, which was indirectly raised by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s in his book Democracy in America, is this: If democracy of universal suffrage means that everybody’s opinion is as good as everybody else’s, will this sooner or later turn into a society where everybody’s choices are also as good as everybody else’s, which leads to cultural relativism? Tocqueville wrote at a time when only men had the vote. Will universal suffrage also lead to a situation where women vote themselves into possession of men’s finances while reducing their authority and creating powerful state regulation of everything?

I don’t know the answer to that. What I do know is that the current situation isn’t sustainable. The absence of fatherhood has created a society full of social pathologies, and the lack of male self-confidence has made us easy prey for our enemies. If the West is to survive, we need to reassert a healthy dose of male authority. In order to do so we need to roll back the welfare state. Perhaps we need to roll back some of the excesses of Western Feminism[13], too.

2.13 The Western European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist intellectual elite – who are they?

Cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists or capitalist globalists are all multiculturalists. “Multiculturalist” is a label for individuals who support multiculturalism (what was earlier referred to as “social engineering”); the European hate ideology which was created to destroy our European cultures, national cohesion and Christendom (in other words Western civilisation itself). Most people still use the more known stereotypical labels such as: ”socialists”, collectivists, feminists, humanists, egalitarians, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc. However, not all from the given groups are to be considered cultural Marxists. The common factor for the definition of cultural Marxists is their support to multiculturalism, a political ideology which have allowed Islamic demographic warfare to be initiated.

The group referred to as cultural Marxists/multiculturalists consist of politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as ”the MA 100” (political parties in Western Europe who support multiculturalism) and EU parliamentarians. They are elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in justifying of propagating multiculturalism.

They consist of individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): politicians, political advisors, leaders in various NGOs, journalists, teachers, university professors, various school/university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists. It also includes many individuals from professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. These intellectuals are the organs which modern society has developed for spreading knowledge and ideas, and it is their convictions and opinions which operate as the sieve through which all new conceptions must pass before they can reach the masses.

The most brilliant and successful teachers are today more likely than not to be cultural Marxists. This is not because they are more intelligent, but because a much higher proportion of cultural Marxists among the best minds devote themselves to those intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive influence on public opinion. Cultural Marxists thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character. The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions.

Cultural Marxism/multiculturalism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is a construction of theorists” and intellectuals, “the second-hand dealers in ideas.” The typical intellectual need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas.

The free society as we have known it carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and the free growth of ideas, which is the essence of a free society, will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends.

Two examples of the most dangerous European cultural Marxists:

1. José Manuel Durão Barroso - European Commission president
2. Tony Blair – possibly the future European Commission president

Mr Barroso’s background reveals his political outlook. During his college days he was one of the leaders of the underground Maoist MRPP (Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party, later PCTP/MRPP Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers/Revolutionary Movement of the Portuguese Proletariat).

Despite this, the Tories and the rest of their so-called “European Conservatives and Reformists” group voted for Mr Barroso, ignoring the fact that he is one of the greatest proponents of the Lisbon Treaty and the extension of the EU’s power to take over almost all national rights such as foreign affairs, immigration, border control and defence. To illustrate this further, let’s take a look at a few of the recent news highlights:

注释

Maoist：毛左

2.14 Labour wants mass immigration to engineer multicultural UK, says former Blair and Straw adviser.

2.15 The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us

2.16 Why the discipline of Sociology must be completely removed from Academia

2.17 The psychology of cultural Marxists

2.18 Democracy and the Media Bias

2.19 a. The EUSSR/USASSR Media hegemony

2.20 Pro Muslim media strategies

2.21 Questions and polls your government and news agencies have disallowed

2.22 Dealing with journalists - authorising your own character assassination by the multiculturalist PC press.

2.23 Understanding the fundaments behind multiculturalism; From Titans To Lemmings: The Suicide of Europe

A Grand Deception

The folly of multiculturalism and its mantra of equality is one of the biggest con-tricks ever played on a people. All of the main political parties promote Multiculturalism, the corrupt EUSSR is working to enforce equality and multiculturalism by law, all of the Western media with very few exceptions endorse Multiculturalism and of course, most of the worshipped, fame-craving celebrities in the West also support multiculturalism and this really should clue one in as to how absolutely ridiculous the pursuit of equality is.

Here we have an elite group of people who are waxing lyrical about Multiculturalism and equality yet they do not live or act as equals. From corrupt, thieving politicians who abuse the trust of the very people who voted for them by stealing tax payer’s money to line their own greedy pockets, to self-righteous, condescending idiots like Billy Bragg and Ross Kemp who continually brand BNP supporters as “racists and fascists” yet do not live in “enriched” Multicultural towns such as Glodwick, Leicester or Brixton. These hypocrites are the modern day “do as I say not as I do” ranting preachers of the LiberalMulticultural religion. They are living proof that some people not only are more equal than others but firmly BELIEVE they are more equal than others.

They talk the talk to get what they want, they sure as hell do not walk the walk and they have no intention of so doing. Equality is not for them and they have made that abundantly clear.

And the gullible and the naive masses lap up every drop of this putrid Multicultural vomit spoon-fed to them by an elite who hold their own people in utter contempt and who see the people as useful-idiots and cash-cows to be milked for all they’re worth. But delirious Liberal-Multiculturalists blinded by their own self-righteousness fall for the con and enslave themselves to the Liberal-Multicultural ideology and engage in a futile, childish and self-destructive pursuit of equality at the behest of their profiteering, deceitful masters. They’d have more success finding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Such is the questionable mental state of Liberal-Multiculturalists and their conviction in equality of races, cultures and sexes. They are completely blind to the fact that those who are promoting and preaching the virtues of multiculturalism and equality simply don’t live it. The privileged elite who have brought Multiculturalism to the West could afford to conduct an experiment on society and not suffer the consequences of their stupidity and hypocrisy. Many of them have made fortunes by promoting and enforcing this evil, unnatural ideology that is dismantling British communities and destroying Western societies.

It simply doesn’t occur to the devout Liberal disciples that it’s ever so easy to feel pity for other people and spout equality and multiculturalism when you live in a country mansion, eat the finest foods, drive a Bentley and luxuriate in the celebrity lifestyle.

It’s also easy for upper middle-class Liberals living in leafy suburbs and safe, decent neighbourhoods, who drive nice cars, wear the trendiest designer clothes and eulogise about the wonders of Multiculturalism at dinner parties because they’ve dined at Armenian and Japanese restaurants, regularly order home-delivered curries from the nearest Pakistani sweet shop and send fifty quid to “Africans In Need Yet Again” charities twice a year. For these mollycoddled strangers to reality, that is the meaning of multiculturalism and equality.

They are blissfully unaware of the benefits of diversity being endured by their lessfortunate kin living in enriched British cities where they have to compete with swarms of immigrants to obtain work at the lowest possible wage. Britons whose kids are bullied and pressed into gang culture where their teenage years will be spent in a fog of intoxication, either blind drunk on cheap alcohol or high-as-kites on heroin, weed or worse, crack cocaine.

Britons whose teenage daughters are being sexually abused and gang raped by various races who hate whites. These are the expendable indigenous Britons, an unequal underclass who are living the nightmare reality of Multiculturalism that was imposed upon them without their consent and who know precisely what the benefits of enrichment and diversity truly are.

Such Britons are the lab-rats of the Marxist-Multicultural social experiment. Many of them have not had the opportunity to benefit from a good education and they have been repeatedly betrayed by traitors whom they trusted with their precious vote to speak up for them and protect their communities.

For these Britons, the harsh reality of multiculturalism hits hard and they most definitely are not treated or regarded as equals. They suffer the consequences of the hypocrisy and the stupidity committed by hypocritical elites who can afford the luxury of avoiding the disastrous consequences arising from their pernicious social experiment.

These unequal Britons who endure the horrors of Multiculturalism every day also know all too well the real meaning of diversity: It is nothing less than the deliberate destruction of their way of life and the systematic breakdown of their communities by state-sponsored ethnic cleansing combined with a bloodthirsty genocide committed by hate-filled, antiwhite, racist immigrants.

These are the British people who suffer the consequences of multiculturalism so those who do not can appear virtuous and righteous with their “we’re all equal” mantra whilst acting as superiors who feather their own nests and lie and deceive at every turn to protect their own selfish interests.

All people are equal? Please. Don’t make me laugh. Or weep.

注释

Titans n.巨人

Lemmings n.（动物）旅鼠；跟帮起哄的人

2.24 Ignorance and Multiculturalism must be destroyed

Globalised capitalism – another reason for the Fall of Europe

2.25 Is Capitalism Always a Force for Freedom?

2.26 Big Business, a Driving Force behind Immigration

2.27 Migration has brought ‘zero’ economic benefit

2.28 What Does Muslim Immigration Cost Europe?

Modern Jihad

2.29 Current and recent Jihads in Asia and Africa

2.30 Overview of Jihadi terror attacks

2.31 Muslim Persecution of Christians

Qur’anic Justification for the persecution of Christians

Thus while there are, of course, many Muslims willing to live in peace and harmony with Christians, there are others who feel they are doctrinally justified by their faith to despise Christians as corrupters of Allah’s word and bearers of his curse.

This is a key source of much of the enduring enmity between Muslims and Christians. And that enmity is compounded by the Islamic doctrine of jihad: the idea that it is part of the responsibility of the Muslim community to wage war against unbelievers until they either convert to Islam, submit to Muslim rule (which involves accepting a number of humiliating regulations), or are killed. This triple choice, announced by Muhammad himself, is founded on the Qur’an, which states explicitly that it is to be extended to Jews and Christians: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [a special higher tax rate] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

2.32 Christians in the Middle East

2.33 Fighting for their survival - A Christian Exodus from the Arab World

2.34 Converts in the Muslim world

2.35 Text book Jihad in Egypt

2.36 The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe

2.37 Justification of Muslim crime against non-Muslims

2.38 The Real Roots of Muslim Hatred

2.39 The ongoing Civil War in Europe – Muslims want autonomous territory, not better integration

2.40 Muslim atrocities committed against Western Europeans 1960-2010 (2020)

2.41 Various forms of Jihad

2.42 The Islamisation process in European countries ?

2.43 Islamisation process of Western countries from 1% to 100%

2.44 List of Muslim demands for Sharia in Europe

2.45 Saudi Arabia – The serpents head

2.46 How many Muslims worldwide support militant Islam or Jihadi Salafism?

2.47 Europe’s Wahhabi Lobby

2.48 Leaving Islam – interview with an ex-Muslim

2.49 Moderate Muslims and the Islamisation of Europe

(1) Who is our enemy? Is it mainly (or only) the Islamists/jihadists who plan and carry out physical terror acts?

(2) Why don’t moderate Muslims forcefully oppose the Islamists? Aren’t they opposed to them? Do moderate Muslims cooperate with us – or with them?

It has been pointed out regarding issue (1) that terror is just a tool, a short- or long-term tactics of the Islamists, and one of many possible policy alternatives. It can be used, or it can be dropped if the Islamic decision-makers conclude that another strategy is better and that terrorism starts to be counterproductive. So terror and terrorism is not the enemy but just a tool among many. Naming what probably will be called World War IV in the future, for “The war on terror “ is just an attempt to be tactical in the short term: don’t irritate “normal” Muslims and be politically correct. However, it plays into the hands of the enemies of the Western Civilisation if one doesn’t talk straight about whom the enemy is. It also reflects a deep flaw in the understanding of the Islamic doctrine. Instead of committing such errors, it is necessary to clearly define which Muslims are the enemy.

The basic doctrine of Islam consists not only of the Quran but also of the sunnah of Muhammed (the Ahadith and the sira). The religion contains both peaceful and violent principles but the peaceful suras (from Mecca) are generally abrogated by the later – and violent – ones from Medina. The small number of peaceful maxims regarding nonMuslims (generally not valid because of abrogation) are now used over and over again in the West in order to deceive Europeans and Americans, while the real ruling principles are covered up. But even the “peaceful” part of the Quran created by Muhammed in Mecca is generally not peaceful. Quantitative research shows that e g about 2/3 of that part “deals with condemning unbelievers to hell for merely disagreeing with Muhammed” (1).

What is then a “moderate” Muslim? It is necessary to understand the difference between what a Muslim means with moderation and what an European or American thinks the term stands for. It is reasonable to argue that a moderate Muslim is one who wants to closely follow the quran and the examples and principles of the perfect model of a man for all future and for all the world, i.e. Muhammed. And any true Muslim naturally wants e g to implement sharia laws which are just consequences of the quran and the sunnah. Such a person cannot in any sense be described as an extreme Muslim.

So-called moderate Muslims in the West cannot pick and choose the parts of the doctrine that they like. That is forbidden by the religion and doing so would mean that they are not real Muslims in the traditional sense. There is also a prohibition against personal interpretations of Islam. There are established interpretations and principles regarding interpretation which were accepted many centuries ago and are respected throughout the Muslim world. It is not permitted to arrive at new conclusions which contradict the old ones and violate the rules of interpretation. “Ijtihad” – interpretations not based on case law or past precedent – have been forbidden since the 11th century and a moderate Muslim must respect that. Innovation regarding religious principles is a very serious crime in the Muslim world.

Sharia law is the practical application of the quran and the sunna, and a moderate Muslim must accept these laws. Even if an European Muslim initially doesn’t do that owing to a lack of knowledge of the quran and the sunnah (evidently very common owing to a low educational level; that the clerics try to conceal parts of the doctrine which may cause opposition also among Muslims during a period when Muslims are still a minority in Europe a s o) he or she will later accept also these theses. When shown that he has misunderstood and is wrong about the doctrine according to the real, traditional Islam, a Muslim will after a while accept that he has been misguided earlier and will then follow the lead of the faithful interpreters of true Islam.

Many Muslims in the West now temporarily accept to follow the laws of the land because they as a group constitute a smaller minority here. But when they grew stronger in a country, their doctrine will force them to work for implementing Muslim values and primarily, the sharia laws. It is evident that Muslims now lacking in knowledge about Islam or believing in local liberal interpretations with no special basis in the accepted doctrine, will be pushovers when influenced by representatives of real, traditional Islam. The liberal Muslims are just influenced by national/cultural reinterpretations of the doctrine which were made a long time ago in order to create a society more harmonious and easier to live in. But these interpretations are deviations and have no real theoretical basis. They can only survive as long as nobody challenges them energetically. Most moderate Muslims will certainly abandon them when shown his/her errors regarding understanding Islam. They will then do what is demanded of them as Muslims, and even if some will not like it, they will obey. The quran itself (sura 2:216) states that even if you don’t like certain things, they are/may be good for you. In that situation probably only a small minority will withdraw from Islam in opposition. Open apostasy will be looked upon as an option by a still smaller minority.

A moderate Muslim is not a reform-minded Muslim, who is willing to eliminate some, many or all those principles of Islam that violate e g human rights. The moderate Muslims already want – or will want after some religious re-education – pretty much the same things as the Islamists. The main goal is then partial or full implementation of sharia laws in Europe. Even if they now (for lack of knowledge) object to certain parts of the sharia, they still prefer important parts of it to man-made Western laws. And why shouldn’t they accept the sharia? Then they can keep their superiority over women, which is so important for the comfortable life of many Muslim males whose lifestyles just depend on the exploitation of women. And it means that they can become rich without any effort: the Western population can in the future be transformed into half-slaves (dhimmis) and their property (slowly) taken over by those in power – Muslims.

The content of the sharia is mainly political; just a small part regards religion as such (as a religion is defined in the West). The contents violate human rights and accepted political principles in the West: secularism, democracy etc (see 8.1.2 below). However, as discussed in Part 6, a moderate may not find it a religious duty to implement the doctrine by force n o w in Europe or the US as long as a correctly chosen Muslim leader for the Ummah doesn’t exist (and who hasn’t proclaimed jihad in Europe). In that respect he is different from an Islamist who works for an Islamist society by force now. But the medium- or long-term goals of the moderate Muslim and the Islamist are pretty much the same.

What a European means with the term “moderate Muslim” is very different from the Muslim concept of moderation. The European basically means a “Reform(ed)” Muslim. These brave persons still look at themselves as Muslims but they break a myriad of the principles of the real, traditional Islam accepted by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. In reality, the Reform Muslims create a new religion which has few similarities to traditional Islam. Why it then should be called Islam can be discussed but they proclaim themselves to be Muslims. Depending on their arguments, that claim can be logically rejected or accepted. They may be called “New” or “Reform” Muslims but they are surely not moderate Muslims according to the established faith. That term doesn’t stand for a Muslim with Western values regarding secularism, freedom, human rights, and democracy with rules protecting minorities. And the New or Reform Muslims are still very few.

So basically: what an American or European liberal or socialist means with the term “moderate Muslim” is in reality a Muslim who disregards many of the most important principles of his faith. These Westerners delude themselves regarding the contents of Islam because they are scared of the consequences of the fact that they cannot square the circle. An objective analysis can never reach the conclusion that Islam is peaceful, tolerant and consistent with human rights.

The evidence seems to show that there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called “peaceful” or “moderate” Muslims. It may be that jihadists are just more faithful and more serious with regard to realising islam. One religious obligation which every muslim must observe, is to realise and institute the laws of islam if he is in such political position that he has the power to do so. Some believers think that it is mandatory to work hard to realise that situation. Moderates think that if muslims are not in power, there is no special religious duty to work directly to reach it (unless a jihad has been legally proclaimed). But probably many or most moderates want the muslims to reach that kind of power so they can implement the sharia.

The traditional doctrine is the leading one in the muslim world. Local and more moderate interpretations are now retreating in many countries probably because communication and interaction is easy in the modern world, and therefore the real, traditional islam can recover the initiative again from local and earlier somewhat isolated variants of islam. The traditional faith can now control the contents of the doctrine in various countries better. Because all four schools of sunni islam agree on so many matters, this force is difficult to withstand intellectually if one is a muslim.

It has been said that islam has been hijacked by terrorists. Even if that may be the case in some instances where the terrorists really interpret the quoran in too extreme a way, it is no reason at all to conclude that the judgment is true in general. What seems to be true is instead that many - from the beginning normal, peaceful and sound - persons are hijacked by islam and transformed into fanatics and enemies of democracy, freedom and human rights. And some of these persons may for many reasons develop into terrorists. But that transformation doesn’t depend on the discovery of other tenets of islam but on psychological or sociopsychological reasons, and the individual circumstances of the person in question.

Because of the misery of their current life, an end to it and paradise may seem preferable. A person may feel a greater fear of hell than others; or for young sex-starved men, the free sex in paradise may seem more important than anything else. Or the person takes the teaching that this life is of little importance than the other more seriously and tries to reach the next faster – and dying in jihad is the sure free ticket to paradise. Or he is a strict, serious and logical person and makes reasonable conclusions on the basis of the quran, hadiths and sunnah.

In many cases, a moderate muslim evidently has the same goals as the terrorists but refuses to fight for them with a weapon in his hand and sacrifice himself in battle (until jihad has been legally proclaimed). But that is no reason to make a sharp differentiation between a moderate and an extreme muslim religion. The final goals may be very similar, or even the same. It is also always necessary to observe the possibility of taqiyya when listening to a so-called moderate. Extremists find advantages in being labelled as moderates.

Without a reformed doctrine proclaiming distinctly and unequivocally different theses which secure all human rights and eliminate the unacceptable parts of the quran, the opinions of the moderates are not specially useful as a religious basis. Opinions can be abandoned and may crumble fast if they come under serious pressure from hardliners. No policies in western countries can be based on a belief in the moderation of muslims without the existence of a clearly reformed islamic doctrine. The survival of a nation: its human rights, political system, culture and future cannot rest on such a weak hope.

Multiculturalism according to the common interpretation, multiculturalism in practice means that all cultures and religions are equal. For the reasons given above, that assertion is totally wrong. People are equal as human beings but the opinions, culture and values of people have not the same worth. Opinions and culture can generally be valued according to various criteria. Different cultures – being value systems - are therefore not equal. From a political and humanistic point–of-view, some of these systems are - just owing to their positions concerning human rights - worthless in a western democracy as value systems guiding the society regarding political issues.

2.50 Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims

2.51 Is Islam Compatible With Democracy?

Demography

2.52 Demography and the Islamisation of Europe

Statistics

2.53 Statistics and the Islamisation of Europe

Europe today

2.54 Europe’s Decline – Hurrah! We Capitulate!

2.55 Jihad Destroys the Swedish Model

2.56 Islamisation and Cowardice in Scandinavia

2.57 Our Offensive National Flag

2.58 Will Netherland Survive the 21st Century?

2.59 The Spanish and the Portuguese — Once and Future Dhimmis?

2.60 Collusion between British Government and Muslim Terrorists

2.61 Kosovo - Just another step in the Islamisation of Europe

2.62 The Norwegian Inquisition - Sunset in the Land of the Midnight Sun

2.63 The Anti-Racist Witch-Hunts

2.64 Discrimination and harassment against cultural conservatives

2.65 ANTIFA/Labour Jugend – State sponsored Marxist lynch mobs

2.66 The only English charity organisation is branded as racist while 215 Somali organizations are welcomed

2.67 How the diversity industry/ethnic industries/sub-cultures such as Hip-Hop in combination with unrestricted media rights contributes to destroy society

2.68 How the West Lost the Cold War （重要章节）

By Fjordman

“The world has always belonged to the stronger, and will belong to them for many years to come. Men only respect those who make themselves respected. Whoever becomes a lamb will find a wolf to eat him. “

Vilfredo Pareto

The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats, a small party critical of mass immigration, was recently attacked[1] at her home outside Stockholm. The young woman was found bound with duct tape[2] in the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of the youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the couple’s apartment and held the 19-year-old at knife point. Kinnunen tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. He blames the media[3] for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and thus for legitimising aggression against them, and claims that the Swedish democracy is a sham.

Antifascistisk Aktion[4], a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. Only a week after this group harassed a Swedish judge[5] and vandalised his house, members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government[6] and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked representatives of AFA[7]. Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organisation.

At their website[8], AFA claim to have beaten several homophobes during the event, at least one of whom ended up in a hospital. They are Socialists, and as Socialists they are convinced that progress can only be made through struggle, and it is implicit that they mean violent struggle: “If we want to fight against capitalism, the working class needs to be united, and in order to be so intolerance cannot be tolerated. However, if we want to fight against intolerance we have to defeat capitalism as an extension of that struggle. Hence anti-fascism, feminism and the struggle against homophobia go hand in hand with the class struggle!”

According to Politikerbloggen[9], AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely. Meanwhile, senior members of law enforcement are too busy waving plastic penises to care. It’s all for tolerance, and then there is this small group at the back, behind the police, the media and the cultural and political establishment, ready to assault, beat up and hospitalise anybody deemed to be insufficiently tolerant.

Several of the Centre Party’s[10] offices were vandalised before the elections in 2006 in protest against a proposal for new labour agreements. This was done by a coalition of left-wing extremists calling themselves the Invisible Party[11]. AFA participated, as they proudly proclaim[12] on their website. The centre-right coalition government which gained power that year consists of four parties including the Centre Party. A year later, representatives from this government walked alongside the same group which had attacked their offices a few months earlier.

Broderskapsrörelsen[13] (“The Brotherhood”), an organisation of Christian members of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, has decided[14] to establish a network for people of other faiths, which largely seems to mean Muslims. Its leader Peter Weiderud says that “I’m incredibly happy that a unanimous congress now leaves the door open for Muslims and others to work together with us in the Brotherhood; this is going to enrich us all and help the [Social Democratic] Party to better influence the Swedish society.” For Abdulkader Habib, active within the Muslim Brotherhood, the decision is a historic step which shows that the dividing lines in society do not go between religions, but within religions: “Faith and politics are intertwined for many Muslims, which is why the decision to create this network is a key to the crucial work for integration that we need to do.” “We shouldn’t disregard the importance of people’s [religious] faith,” says deputy leader Cecilia Dalman-Eek. “At the same time, this is both instructive and inspiring for us Christians within the Brotherhood. This is about an exciting growth of new mass movements and is a part of the new Sweden.”

The Social Democrat Ola Johansson, a member of the Brotherhood, has referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by Sayyid Qutb, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood member who has become the spiritual guide for Islamic Jihad terrorists worldwide, as a proof that Muslims support the welfare state and can thus make common cause with the Socialists. According to writer Nima Sanandaji[15], the Social Democrats have started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies such as the influential leader Mahmoud Aldebe. In 1999, Aldebe proposed that sharia, Islamic law, be introduced in Sweden. In 2003 he involved himself in a heated debate regarding an incident of honour killing where a Kurdish girl was murdered by her two uncles. Aldebe forcefully defended the perpetrators and viewed the debate regarding honour-related murders as an attack against the Islamic religion.

In 2006, the Muslim Association of Sweden demanded in a letter, signed by its leader Mahmoud Aldebe, separate family laws regulating marriage and divorce, public schools with imams teaching homogeneous classes of Muslims children their religion and the language of their original homeland, and a “mosque in every municipality to be built through interest-free loans made available by the local municipalities.” This to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect towards Muslims.” The demands were rejected by the Social Democrats then, but it now appears as if they have recognised that they need to cooperate with the fast-growing Muslim community if they want to regain power, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see calls for the use of sharia law in family matters by an otherwise officially feminist party. The Social Democrats narrowly lost the elections in 2006, and appear to have decided that the way to regain and maintain power is to import voters, a strategy adopted by many of their sister parties[16] in Western Europe. The Muslim Association of Sweden is generally viewed as ideologically inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The current leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin[17], thinks that “the Sweden Democrats are a right-wing party. It is a misogynistic and xenophobic party.” The “party is a threat to a Sweden that I believe many of us love — an open, unprejudiced and tolerant Sweden.”

Whatever else one thinks about that party, I’m not so sure the Muslim Brotherhood are less “misogynistic.” According to journalist Kurt Lundgren[18], Sahlin, expected to become the next Prime Minister, was a participant in the Pride Festival where she was graduated, after several questions, to the F***ing Medal Award. Has she given some thought to what effect this will have in a country with exploding rape statistics[19]?

According to the blogger Dick Erixon[20], the number of reported rapes in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York. NY has roughly the same number of inhabitants, but it is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. Swedish girls are called “infidel whores” on a regular basis and are increasingly scared to go outside, yet the nation’s arguably most powerful woman takes the F***ing Medal Award. How will that be perceived by Muslim immigrants?

Moreover, how will her views on sexual liberation be reconciled with her party’s cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of its senior international leaders[21] have indicated that gays should be killed? The Swedish Church has recently announced that it will allow gay couples to marry in church. Will Sahlin and the Social Democrats also make sure that gay couples should be allowed to marry in mosques controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will AFA attack them for homophobia if they refuse?

Marcos Cantera Carlomagno in 1995 published a PhD thesis at Lund University describing a series of letters sent by Per Albin Hansson[22], leader of the Social Democrats and Prime Minister between 1932 and 1946, who worked for the establishment of “Folkhemmet,” the People’s Home, as the Swedish welfare state model became known as.

Hansson was a dear pen pal with Italy’s Fascist leader Mussolini and praised the corporate, Fascist system where the entire economy and each individual were intimately tied to and subordinate to the state. Hansson was positively disposed to Fascism and saw his welfare state as a related concept. After mentioning his work in a local newspaper, Carlomagno was called by his supervisor who stated in anger that his scholarship would be cut off. Carlomagno’s work was totally ignored by the entire media and political establishment in Sweden when it appeared in the 1990s.

Why did this information meet with such repression? Because the power of the political and cultural establishment is not based on reasoned discussion but on shaming opponents and branding them as evil with words loaded with emotions and taboo. Terms such as “racist”, “Fascist”, and “Nazi” automatically shut down any rational discussion of a subject. The irony is that a similar strategy was employed with great success by…..the Nazis.

Adolf Hitler described how to use “spiritual terror” to intimidate and silence opponents, a technique he learned from watching the Socialists and the Social Democrats. He understood “the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace again, they sacrifice the hated individual… Conversely, they praise every weakling on the opposing side, sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence.”

In 2006, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported that following recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, priests in the Swedish Church[23] applied German race laws from 1937 onwards. According to Lund University’s Professor Anders Jarlert, who led the research, any Swede who wanted to marry an Aryan German was forced to sign an affirmation stating that none of the German’s grandparents were Jewish. History Professor Stig Ekman told DN that Sweden’s culture of silence and secrecy is one reason why this is appearing only now, generations later. In 1937, the Swedish government was controlled by the Social Democrats, yet despite this evidence that they applied Nazi race laws, party members still get away with denouncing critics of their immigration policies as neo-Nazis, racists or Fascists.

In the book The New Totalitarians, the British historian Roland Huntford in the early 1970s pointed out that Socialist professor Gunnar Myrdal and his wife Alva, both highly influential ideologists in developing the Swedish welfare state, had intimate connections with the German academic world during the Nazi age. Gunnar Myrdal served as both a member of parliament and later as a government minister for the Social Democrats during this period. According to Huntford: “The professor was then a Nazi sympathiser, publicly describing Nazism as the movement of youth and the movement of the future. In Myrdal’s defence, it must be pointed out that, whatever his other propensities, Hitler did have advanced ideas on social welfare, and that the social ideology of the German Nazis and the Swedish Social Democrats had much in common. Until the mid 1930s, Nazism had considerable attractions for those who favoured a benevolent and authoritarian state.”

Gunnar and Alva Myrdal promoted the idea of positive eugenics and forced sterilisation programs against those with “weak genes.” This started in Sweden even before Nazi Germany, and it continued longer.

The Nazis called themselves national Socialists, and they took the Socialist component of their ideology quite seriously[24]. They never nationalised all assets of production as the Communists did. They left nominal ownership in private hands, but production was in reality controlled by the state[25]. The Nazis were thus to the left, economically, compared to many of the labour parties in Western Europe today. As Adolf Hitler stated in 1927: “We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!”

The Muslim Brotherhood were also fans of the European Fascist and Nazi movements in the 1930s, as they are of welfare state[26] Socialism now. In Origins of Fascism, historian Walter Laqueur notes similarities between Islam and Nazism: “A German Catholic émigré writer Edgar Alexander (Edgar Alexander Emmerich) published an interesting work in 1937 in Switzerland entitled The Hitler Mythos (which was translated into English and reprinted after World War Two) in which he compared National Socialism with ‘Mohammedanism’ (…) He referred frequently to Hitler’s ‘Mohammedanism’ but made it clear that this referred only to external organisational forms (whatever this meant), to mass psychological effects and militant fanaticism. Alexander believed that Mohammed’s religion was based on sincere religious fanaticism (combined with political impulses) whereas Hitler’s (political) religion and its fanaticism had different sources.” In Laqueur’s view, Fascism was less monolithic than Communism, as there were significant differences in theory and practice from country to country. The French Marxist Orientalist Maxime Rodinson wrote a polemic against the influential philosopher and fellow left-winger Michel Foucault who welcomed the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to Rodinson, Khomeini and Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood constituted a form of “archaic fascism.” Ibn Warraq[27] has used an outline of the Fascist ideology made by Italian novelist Umberto Eco and found that most of its defining hallmarks are shared by Islam.

German sociologist Theodor Adorno was a member of the Frankfurt School and was influenced by Georg Lukács, one of Gramsci’s fellow cultural Marxists. The Authoritarian Personality, a book carrying Adorno’s name but in reality produced by the combined efforts of a number of people from the Frankfurt School, was extremely influential in the United States in the generation following WW2 and contributed to the Allied denazification program in Germany. Working at the University of Berkeley, California, during and after the war, Adorno and others such as the German-Jewish thinker Max Horkheimer through a large number of interviews tried to establish that what led to the rise of Nazi Germany was the predominance of a particular kind of authoritarian personality, which happened to be closely tied to conservative viewpoints. In their view, this was not just the case in Nazi Germany; there were large numbers of potential Fascists all over the Western world.

The authors developed the so-called F-scale (F for “Fascist”) to measure the psychological indicators of an authoritarian personality. They identified several key dimensions of a protofascist personality, which included favoring traditional morality, close family ties and strong support of religion. It also included aggression, stereotypes, a preoccupation with oppression, dominance and destruction and an obsession with sex. The solution to root out this authoritarian personality was above all to be found in the breakdown and transformation of the traditional family structure..

It is striking to notice that these writers were inspired by a Marxist worldview and consistently refused to see the heavy Socialist influences on the Nazi ideology. Adorno and others argued that “late capitalism” had developed tools to resist the rise of a Socialist society, above all the use of popular culture and education. They apparently concluded that what led to the rise of the Nazis were traditional and “conservative” viewpoints.

But the Nazis weren’t conservatives. They should more properly be understood as a revolutionary Socialist movement, albeit one with powerful racialist and anti-Semitic overtones. Judging from the death toll produced by Socialist regimes both prior to and after them, it is tempting to conclude that the destruction brought by the Nazis owed at least as much to the Socialist as to the nationalist element of their ideology. The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, published in 1951, a year after The Authoritarian Personality, was somewhat closer to understanding the commonalities between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

However, since the Nazis have by now been dubbed a “far-right” movement, anybody considered to be a “right-winger” or conservative is thus supposedly closer to them than Socialists are, which automatically makes them suspect. Much of the power of the political Left throughout the West is based on such guilt-by-association, which is why it would be a disaster for their power base if it were to be demonstrated that the Swedish Social Democrats, the darlings of the political Left internationally, were close to the Fascists and the Nazis. They now display great affection for Islam, another thing they have in common with the Nazis.

Many of the stories in the famous The Book of One Thousand and One Nights[28] (Arabian Nights), though frequently based on much older Persian and Indian tales, are said to have taken place during the rule of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad in the late 8th and early 9th century. Few seem to remember that the first prototype of the yellow badge for Jews employed by the Nazis were developed by him, based on the regulations for dhimmis in Islamic teachings. He ordered Jews to wear yellow belts, Christians blue belts. This practice was later imported to Europe via medieval Spain and Portugal under Islamic rule.

Muhammad Amin al-Husayni[29], the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arab nationalist leader, a leading force behind the establishment of the Arab League and a spiritual father of the PLO, was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany and personally met with Adolf Hitler. In a radio broadcast from Berlin he called upon Muslims to kill Jews wherever they could find them. Dieter Wisliceny was the deputy of Adolf Eichmann, the organiser of the Holocaust and reportedly the inventor of the phrase the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.” During the Nuremberg trials, Wisliceny stated that the Mufti “was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.”

Serge Trifkovic in his book The Sword of the Prophet documents how al-Husayni recruited Bosnian and Albanian Muslims for Waffen SS units in the Balkans[30]. Yugoslavia wanted to extradite al-Husayni for war crimes after WW2, but he fled to Egypt and continued his war against Jews. Orthodox Christian Serbs had to wear blue armbands, Jews yellow armbands. This clearly demonstrates that for Muslims this was a Jihad against disobedient dhimmis, and thus a continuation of the Turkish and Kurdish genocide against Armenians a few years earlier which was one of the inspirations for the Holocaust. More than a quarter of a million Serbs, Jews and Romani people (Gypsies) were killed by these Muslims troops. The leader of the Nazi SS troops Heinrich Himmler was impressed and stated to Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels that Islam was “a very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.”

He was far from the only person seeing a close correlation between Nazism and Islam. Karl Jung[31], in The Symbolic Life from 1939, stated that: “We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. (He is already on the way; he is like Mohammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god). That can be the historic future.” In The Second World War, Vol. I (The Gathering Storm), Winston Churchill wrote about Adolf Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf: “Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Medieval anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe could be brutal, but still normally of limited scope. To commit evil on a truly monumental scale, you need the support of ideology backed by bureaucrats, jurists and the machinery of a totalitarian state. Since Socialism generally leads in a totalitarian direction, which has also been facilitated by technological and industrial advances, a Socialist society will make large-scale massacres more likely.. The Hungarian author Imre Kertész[32], Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, writes in the magazine signandsight.com[33] that “the genuine novelties of the twentieth century were the totalitarian state and Auschwitz. The anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century, for instance, was as yet barely able, nor even would have wished, to imagine a Final Solution. Auschwitz, therefore, cannot be accounted for by the common- or-garden, archaic, not to say classical concepts of anti-Semitism. (…) Eichmann testified during his trial in Jerusalem that he was never an anti-Semite, and although those who were in the courtroom burst into laughter, it is not inconceivable that he was being truthful. In order to murder millions of Jews the totalitarian state had need, in the final analysis, not so much of anti-Semites as good organisers. We need to see clearly that no totalitarianism of party or state can exist without discrimination, and the totalitarian form of discrimination is necessarily mass murder.”

Kertész also warns, timely in these Multicultural days, that “a civilisation that does not clearly proclaim its values, or which leaves these proclaimed values high and dry, is stepping on the path to perdition and terminal debility. Then others will pronounce their values, and in the mouths of these others they will no longer be values but just so many pretexts for untrammelled power, untrammelled destruction.”

Following the Cold War, the West was stuck with a large fifth column[34] in our media and academia of people who were disappointed after the sudden collapse of the alternative to capitalism. They are slaves emancipated against their will, desperately in search of a new master. Their hatred for the Established Order never subsided when Marxism suffered a blow to its credibility. On the contrary, on some levels it increased. Although their attacks on the Christian, capitalist West are less ideologically coherent than in the past, this does not make them any less passionate.

They have decided to pursue the course of a gradual transformation of society through the education system and through destroying the family structure. The radicals have renewed hope of a violent upheaval. With the mass importation of Muslims, who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence, and with rising ethnic tensions within the West, maybe they can finally get the armed revolution they were longing for.

The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with repressive and violent Islamic organisations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and ideologies in human history, which between themselves have killed more than 150 million people in a few generations. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the world.

Now they forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, another organisation with close ideological ties to the Fascist and Nazi movements. At a time when native Swedes are raped, stabbed, killed and chased out[35] of their homes by Muslim gangs, the Social Democrats agree to continue allowing Muslims to colonise the country in exchange for their votes. In the old days this would be called treason. Now it’s called tolerance. It’s remarkable how similar the two concepts have become. Two Fascist-inspired movements cooperate on exploiting and abusing the native population of a country, force them fund and applaud their own colonisation and denounce them as bigots, racists and Fascists if they resist. The strategy is as brilliant as it is evil.

Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can stab their own people in the back, ally themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky[36] : The West didn’t win the Cold War, at least not as decisively as we should have done. The belief-system we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain some of its former strength[37]. We haven’t defeated Socialism until we stage a Nuremberg trial and demonstrate clearly that the suffering, repression and massacres caused by Socialist regimes from Vietnam via the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist doctrines.

注释（antifa、纳粹德国和穆罕默德·阿明·侯赛尼）

AFA：antifa，全称反法西斯（听着很熟悉），零元购的主力，也参与了美国国会山暴乱，是美国民主党等白左的“忧国骑士团”。

纳粹⾃称为国家社会主义者，他们⾮常认真地对待其意识形态中的社会主义成分。他们从未像共产党那样 将所有⽣产资产国有化。他们将名义上的所有权留在私⼈⼿中，但⽣产实际上由国家控制。因此，与当今 西欧的许多⼯党相⽐，纳粹在经济上偏左。正如阿道夫·希特勒 (Adolf Hitler) 在 1927 年所说：“我们是社 会主义者，敌⼈，现⾏资本主义经济制度的死敌，该制度对经济上的弱势群体进⾏剥削，⼯资不公正，根据财富和⾦钱⽽不是责任对个⼈进⾏不道德的评价和成就，我们⽆论如何都决⼼废除这个制度！”

穆罕默德·阿明·侯赛尼，耶路撒冷⼤穆夫提，阿拉伯⺠族主义领袖，阿拉伯联盟成⽴的主导⼒量，巴 解组织的精神之⽗，是纳粹德国的密切合作者，曾亲⾃会⻅阿道夫·希特勒。在柏林的⼴播中，他呼吁穆斯 林在任何能找到犹太⼈的地⽅杀害他们。迪特尔·威斯利切尼是阿道夫·艾希曼的副⼿，阿道夫·艾希曼是 ⼤屠杀的组织者，据说也是“犹太问题的最终解决⽅案”⼀词的发明者。在纽伦堡审判期间，维斯利切尼表 ⽰，穆夫提“是艾希曼最好的朋友之⼀，并不断煽动他加快灭绝措施。”我听他说，他在艾希曼的陪同下， 隐姓埋名地参观了奥斯威⾟的毒⽓室。”

2.69 The Closing of Civilisation in Europe

2.70 Give the Nobel Peace Prize to Ayaan Hirsi Ali

2.71 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded for Appeasement of Jihad… again

2.72 Green is the new Red - Stop Enviro-Communism!

You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, ecoMarxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.

The neo-communist agenda uses politicised science to propagate the global warming scam in order to implement their true agenda; global Marxism. Marxism’s ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth from successful nations to failed nations, instead of actually trying to fix these broken nations. Politicised science is being used by the cultural Marxist hegemony to manipulate the unsuspecting masses. They are using our trust and faith in science to spread lies and hysteria that will allow Marxists to implement socialist “solutions” to a problem that never actually existed.

Effective communication and consolidation

“In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

George Orwell

2.73 Consolidating the moderate cultural conservative forces of Europe （重要章节——该怎么办？）

Creating the foundation for a Second European Renaissance, pre-2083

The essence of consolidation for all European cultural conservative is:

1. Defining who we are and whom we are willing to include/exclude
2. Describing the problem/what we want ”fixed”
3. Conclusions/Solutions/The way ahead

It’s an extremely complex subject which eventually boils down to the following:

We (the moderate cultural conservatives of Europe) will need to create a consensus (a political ideology preferably) which must appeal to AT LEAST 20-35% of the Western European population (which makes up the bulk of the moderate right wing in Europe today). It’s worth noting that aprox. 70% of European patriotic conservatives are male while only 30% female.

The new political ideology has to be inclusive enough so that enough Europeans support it. At the same time it has to ”solve” the current weaknesses of the Western European countries.

The problem with today’s political climate and political correctness in general however is that it is considered inappropriate and offensive to discuss 1. and 2. Therefore it is considered even more so to even mention 3…

The cowardice that most people show (by their reluctance to discuss this) is appalling, even among conservatives. If the moderate conservatives DO NOT, then extreme conservatives will, and we eventually risk ending up with another nasty/racist form of fascism (thanks to the moderate cowards who for various reasons were reluctant to contribute).

I believe Europe should strive for:

A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are.

Someone once said: ” Believe in something or be defeated by anything” which describes Western Europe’s problem correctly at the moment.

Fjordmans book; ”Defeating Eurabia” concluded with the following points;

• Mass Muslim immigration will continue (or more precisely, the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists will continue to import voters).
• Muslim birth rates remain above 3 while non Muslim birth-rates remain below replacement rate.
• The Muslim “ghettofication” process in major cities continues (less than 50% of Muslims will be considered “successfully integrated” in the future.
• The majority of Muslims continue to abide by the ground rule of Sharia: a Muslim girl will never be allowed to marry a kuffār. Most people today forget that this rule is the most important rule within Sharia and theoretically places 90% of all Muslims in the same category as Islamists.
• The factors above results in a scenario where the “Muslims/Multiculturalist alliance” remain in power (despite that more and more non-Muslims move right in the political landscape). They therefore set a stop to all democratic attempts or “solutions” which can stop or reverse the Islamisation of that specific Western European country. It basically cripples the democracies and uses the democratic mechanics against the non-Muslims).
• 2030 - Muslims reach critical mass (20%), which basically means that the MI6 or other European intelligence agencies will not be able to stop all attacks.
• 2070-2080 - the Muslim population becomes a majority - 50%+.

When will the silent majority (middle class) react or get involved in the struggle?

You would think people would have some sort of reaction to the destruction of their own culture and civilisation.

However, people in general won’t react until they feel that they are allowed to do so. But that moment will come, perhaps sooner than we think (most likely when Muslims reach around 50% in either the Netherlands or France).

Today (phase 1) people refrain from reacting since they live in economic prosperity, and to stand up for their ideas would send them into suffering. However, in a few decades we will have an economic downfall that will make the current recession look like a picnic. And at that point standing up for their ideas will come at no extra cost, since the suffering is already prevalent.

What will trigger Phase 3 (civil war)?

There will not be any “fertile ground” as long as the European countries are prosperous with minimal unemployment. When that changes in the time frame 30-70 years, combined with the nation going towards Muslim majority this will all change. The never ending flood of Muslim demands is calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change.

It may be relatively peaceful until ”something” triggers a confrontation. This ”something” can be a combination of an economic depression resulting in massive unemployment, riots getting out of hand, an assassination or a terrorist attack by an Islamist group or Anti-Jihad group.

The confrontation has a cascade effect which results in a similar scenario as that of Lebanon. The rebellion will eventually develop into a civil war. Para-military organisations will be created on both sides (Muslims + cultural Marxists vs. the cultural conservatives/nationalists).

The conservatives of that specific Western European country are screaming for “a strong leader or group” who can ”approach and solve” this problem (70% of men, 30% of women will support this – a total of 25% of the people or 50% of all non-Muslims).

By studying all available data, we know that once the Muslims reach approximately 50% of the population there will be a conflict which is likely to result in enormous human suffering. At that point, morality will lose its meaning. The question of good and evil will be reduced to one simple choice for us; Survive or perish. The “strongman” is what we are headed for. He’s not what we want; he’s just the inevitable endgame.

Consolidating our forces in phase 1, 2 and 3

We must work hard in the coming decades to create and develop Anti-Jihad or other forms of Cultural conservative movements. Our objectives will be to recruit the youths of our society (15-30) whom will be the bulk of the physical defence of our cultural conservative ideology.

The cultural conservatives vs. the racial conservatives

Whoever manages to attract the youths of a society will have the best possibility to secure power and implement the changes of the given political ideology.

If racist organisations succeed where we have failed, then we know what will happen. Unfortunately for us, the intelligence agencies of Europe are currently doing everything they can to prevent the creation of any type of militia, that being CC’s or RC’s. The media on the other hand will go to great lengths to put us, the cultural conservatives (anti-Jihad movements etc.) in the same category as the racial conservatives. To them it’s black and white; According to them, everyone who is not considered “politically correct” must by default be racists or Nazis…

Organisational work in Phase 1 (2009-2030)

We must spend the next 20 years wisely and continue our work on creating a pan European conservative consolidation, a new conservative political ideology (a political ideal) which has the potential to appeal to a MINIMUM of 20-35% of Western Europeans, including the bulk of our youth. The creation of cultural conservative student organisations in Universities all over Europe must be a priority.

In order to do this we have to agree on a consensus for creating a modern, “un-tainted”, cultural conservative, patriotic youth movement which will prevent our youths from joining NS or WN movements. This movement should be somewhat like the equivalent of Russias Nashi movement (Putins youth movement - 120,000 members aged between 17 and 25). They are anti fascist/anti Nazi, but still patriotic conservatives.

Our goal in phase 1 is to take the current “anti-Jihad movements” to a second level, approach, cooperate with and/or merge with Christian movements and other cultural conservative movements (who agree on a set point of principles).

In order for us to do this we have to agree on a given set of principles and be accommodating when approaching other conservative movements.

Our aim should be to:

1. Create a pan European student/youth movement (at universities, high schools, social activities). F example call it: “Young Europeans”, “Christian European Renaissance Movement” or just “Renaissance Movement” (Attempting to unite Christians, antiEurabians, nationalists and other types of cultural conservatives.

2.74 Organisational strategy for phase 1; Better communication and cooperation among cultural conservative groups （重要章节，怎么办？）

Learning from cultural Marxists/multiculturalists

It’s clear they’ve done more than merely mess up our countries; they’ve also, quite intentionally, messed with our minds.

As it turns out, messing with our minds wasn’t just one part of the plan; it was the essential goal of the entire plan of conquest (Implementation of the EU’s Eurabia project/European multiculturalism/Islamisation of Europe). They used sociology, social psychology, linguistics, and a subtle understanding of human motivation to get into our heads and change the way we processed reality itself, in ways that made it impossible to question all the other things they were up to.

Ending cultural Marxist/multiculturalist dominance will require us to undo the vast memetic and ontological damage they’ve wrought on two entire generations of Europeans. We have no choice but to fight this fire with fire of our own. And the first thing we need to do is understand, very specifically, how they did it. Fortunately, this isn’t hard: the basics are all laid out in their original written plans.

We must win the people over culturally—by defining how man ought to act, how he ought to perceive the world around him, and what it means to live the good life. What is the meaning of life? How should we relate to each other? Our families and communities? Other nations? God? The planet? What is good, and how do we recognise it? What is evil, and how should we respond?

These are the basic ontological questions on which our ability to parse the rest of reality depends—the foundations of every human’s cognitive model of the world. Change these underlying assumptions, and the way we prioritise and evaluate everything else in the world necessarily changes, too. We must recognise this and focus on selling the cultural conservative worldview, via every possible channel. We must make this the central focus of our movement. Once we get them to accept our basic assumptions about reality (rationalism), we know, the rest of our agenda will follow naturally.

We must set ourselves up as a daring and controversial counterculture that offers an original and rebellious alternative to the prevailing set of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist assumptions.

Our status as a mass movement begins and ends with our ability to inspire the masses to share our worldview. Promoting that worldview is the only goal that matters; and every action we take should be aimed at moving us toward that outcome. When that epistemology is widely accepted, implementing our policies will proceed easily and naturally, with minimal opposition.

Unfortunately, we’re starting from a place of weakness. cultural Marxist/multiculturalist ideals are far more compelling (emotionalism, multiculturalism, humanism which has led us towards the ongoing Islamisation of Europe), however they are suicidal to any civilisation and cannot be accepted or tolerated. History teaches that all great civilisations who have fallen in the past have been self defeated. A civilisation is born on rationalism and defeated on emotionalism. Our goal is to prevent our civilisation from dying by basically ”resetting” the current values by replacing them with our ”old core, rational and cultural conservative values. Implementing our principles throughout Europe which will be known as the second cultural European renaissance can only be done after assuming power politically supported by the military. Before that is even possible Europe will burn once again, people will die, but Europe will be reborn as strong as it once was.

Everything Europeans do, the institutions and physical infrastructure we build, the investments and decisions we make, the goals we set and the ideals we cherish, emerges from and is evaluated according to our essential assumptions about how the world works. Getting people to understand and embrace the basic premises of the conservative (rationalist, cultural conservative worldview is the first and most critical step to creating a lasting progressive era in Europe. When that’s accomplished, we can set about reforming every one of society’s institutions so that it reflects those values starting with school curriculum’s and disallowing cultural Marxist propaganda in the mass media.

People may be desperate for change and some new ideas—but even so, we’d be wise not to underestimate how much time it’s going to take to remove all the constraints they’ve put on people’s thinking. We’d be even wiser to become very energetic about promoting ourselves as a new, fresh alternative counterculture that’s not afraid to confront a crusty and crumbling status quo.

Convince Europeans we’re trustworthy to lead

Our biggest problem will likely be that the public (after decades of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist brainwashing) simply don’t trust us to lead. So we must focus on fixing that perception, a process that may take several decades. We must persuade the countries of Europe that the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes where and are suicidal, corrupt, inept and completely unworthy of trust. If we want a permanent cultural conservative regime (despite our non-democratic methods), we have to reach out to inspire and earn the country’s deep trust in our ideas and our leadership. We need their loyalty for the long run.

Align strategy with tactics…

We have a growing army of wonderful, energetic, skilled activists out there doing the organising and moving the message. We also have a smaller and very much neglected cadre of strategic big-picture thinkers who are looking way out ahead, figuring out where we want to go and how best to get there. And not only do the two factions seldom talk— when they do talk, they often find they’re not even speaking the same language.

Activists dismiss strategists as thinking too big-picture, and not understanding the realities on the ground. Strategists see the activists running off in all kinds of directions, instead of aligning their energies and focusing them on well-chosen small battles that will pay off in much bigger victories down the road.

Its important to speak in large generalisations about principles, values, and large-scale visions of what the world should be. This is energising to strategic thinkers, who see the same big picture and who understand that you have to create that kind of overarching vision of the change you want to create before you can fill in the details. However, that same style drives wonkier folks crazy: they’re very uncomfortable with that lack of detail. They don’t want the big-picture stuff; they want to know exactly what is to be expected. It’s cheering to realise the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists have had ongoing issues with this exact same problem. But it also points up the sobering truth that we won’t experience a smooth transition when we take power unless we also learn how to bridge that gap so we can maximise the skills of both groups. We need to get the people who are capable of plotting long-range strategy linked up closely with the people who have the tactical skills to execute it—and both sides need to have the wisdom to know and respect that they’re bringing different but important things to the table.

Invest in creating elite tacticians

No successful movement goes anywhere without a tightly-knit, trusted, trained core of elite activist leaders who are all working for the same goal. It is more important to have a few impassioned members than a large number of largely indifferent members.” If the core is energetic, smart, and strong, all the rest will naturally fall into place around it. The cultural Marxists lacks a tradition of respecting their most experienced leaders. It’s a common liberal conceit to think that any one of us could do what they do.

Conservatives on the other hand have a tradition of respecting and falling in line with our most experienced leaders. Good followers without constant second guessing. There’s a time for big consensus-building all-in conversations; but there’s also a time to stop talking, fall in line, and do what needs to be done without backbiting or second-guessing the decision. This is our biggest strenght. We believe in something constant, our culture and national identity and many of us are willing to die for it.

The biggest weakness of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist mindset is that they lack a grand scheme; they act on short term intuition, emotions and short sight-ness. They think only 5-10 years ahead while we think 30-50 years ahead.

Cultural Marxists lose a lot of good leaders simply because they get tired of trying to keep all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, which takes their focus off of the more important task of getting the wheelbarrow where it’s going. It’s one of the most typical ways in which they burn out their own most talented folks.

Our biggest flaw is our unwillingness for inclusiveness. When people have had enough of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist culture, we need to embrace them and make them feel at home among us.

They need to come voluntary though. Building a movement is a sales job—but the sale is closed when they accept our terms, not when we bend to meet theirs.

Our worldview and principles are absolutely central to the entire long term goal, and should never be compromised for anyone. If someone don’t agree, fine. Take it or leave it. We will not fudge our own convictions in the hopes of drawing off a few more supporters from less significant sub-groups. We know that in time these little compromises form the cracks that undermine the entire movement.

Everyone needs to know that we are a purely defensive movement. We didn’t start this fight that is leading us to cultural suicide. They did, the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. We are simply doing what is necessary to protect European culture and to make sure we won’t end up under Sharia law.

The cultural Marxists have since the 1960’s used powers of the country to squelch our movement, using whatever pretext they are able to invent. Unfortunately, these persecutions have not created the expected sympathy.

The battle we face is the same one our ancestors fought; and we owe it to their memories to fight it hard and well.

Don’t underestimate the resistance

There is no excuse for ever being surprised by the ferocity or ingenuity of cultural Marxist/multiculturalist attacks.

But if we’re in this fight to win, we need to get serious about being prepared for to make sacrifices and attack them relentlessly where it hurts the most. After all, we have far less to fear from them than they do from us.

They are bound by the shackles of Emotionalism, their achilles which eventually will lead to their downfall. We, as rational thinkers, don’t suffer under the strong Emotionalist ethical lines which prevents them from taking the necessary measures.

When the time is right we will make a ruthless effective push that will make them run in fear. We, after all, have a conviction worth dying for; to secure freedom for people of Europe and prevent a third wave of Islamic invasion.

We will eventually be able to punish our unjust oppressors.

Our weakness: Passivity

An excessive amount of intellectualisation divorced from application in the real work is a kind of escape from reality, or the creation of a virtual reality. Thinking becomes tired, static, and inward-looking. People become more interested in creating mental utopias than having a real impact on society. There is a place in society for abstract, academic discussion. This is not that place.”

We spend so much time sharing our esoteric enthusiasms, complaining about stuff nobody else cares about, and reaffirming each others’ worldview that we fail to do the real work of the movement, which is getting out there and winning new hearts and minds to the cause. We become hypersensitive (and sometimes downright surly) in the face of earnest questions from outsiders who don’t understand the secret language of our groupthink. We build up walls that keep new members out, and harden into a cloistered elite that has no room for newcomers.

If the goal is to build a mass movement, those developments are absolutely fatal. And the only way to avoid it is to insist that our groups stay open to new members and ideas, and actively engaged with work that promotes our ideas in the hostile climate of current cultural Marxist/multiculturalist Europe.

2.75 Copying Marxist organisational strategies and networks – locally, nationally and internationally （重要章节，怎么办？）

The following study was conducted in Norway but many of the results and findings apply locally, nationally and internationally.

Comparison (political influence vs. number of members/supporters):

FrP (Progress Party – mod. cultural conservatives) – 23% – 25k members Rødt (Red – Marxists) – 1,3% in 09 election – 1,7k members They are violent and few but they are extremely effective and talented at what they do. A relatively small group (50-100) of hardcore Norwegian Marxists are doing a remarkable job at gaining and exercising political influence in various fronts. In order for conservatives to succeed, they must copy the Marxist strategies. We must actively use deceit and use our networks as force-multipliers so that we may manage to exercise a disproportionate amount of influence. Let’s try to look at their methods and organisational structure/pattern and draw some conclusions on how cultural conservatives can learn and improve on organisational strategies.

This group of Marxists have a large pool (approximately 10 000 in Norway) of non-violent activists which they rally and demonstrate with (not including their Muslim support groups). The Marxist political party “Rødt” (Red) is a micro party with only 1700 members. KrF – Christian Democrats in comparison have 38 000 members, Senterpartiet have 22 000, even the small cultural conservative party Demokratene (Democrats) have 5000 members. SV (Socialist Left Party) have 9000 members but only a fraction is as active on the demo front as Rødts members. Many of SVs members are “sofa-radicals”, especially among the older members.

The Marxist party Rødt is extremely efficient when it comes to organising events and arranging various demonstrations. Their leaders are aggressively creating “frontorganisations” everywhere. An alternative strategy they are known for is to infiltrate other established organisations and reform them from within: f. example Natur & Ungdom (Nature and Youth - a well known environmental activist organisation) and Målungdommen (cultural organisation dedicated to promoting Norwegian dialects). They were also founding organisations such as “Samebevegelsen” (A Sami minority organisation) in the 70s and several other minority organisations. They created Kvinnefronten (Feminist Front) and several important environmental organisations.

Nevertheless, RV/AKP/Rødt have lost control of a couple of the organisations they helped create such as Anti-Rasistisk Senter (Anti-Racist Center) and a couple of other minority organisations. However, they are still ideologically close to them and they usually end up demonstrating/rally together in order to create the biggest possible alliance.

An average Rødt (Red) activist is a member of 10-15 other organisations. This is how they manage to convert a single voice into something ten times as powerful (a form of force-multiplication). They use each of the organisations in the public debate to maximise media penetration. In comparison, where the second largest political party in Norway – FrP (a moderate cultural conservative political party) only have one single voice, hardcore Marxists have 20-30 voices in the public debate through various organisations spanning over several fields. I would say every single Rødt member is worth 50 times as much as each FrP member and more than 1000 times as much as an average Norwegian pensioner when it comes to influencing society. Not really how we would imagine a democracy?! The reason is because the average Rødt member is so active when it comes to aggressively seeking positions of influence in addition to attending and organising various demonstrations and events. These individuals are actively seeking influence in many aspects of society through various fronts and disguises. As such, the direction of the public debate and development is highly influenced by a relatively small Marxist faction of the population, namely those who organise and participate through various fronts, NGOs and interest groups which they again use to pressure politicians.

This is one of the primary reasons why today’s politicians, media and NGO leaders (who predominantly propagate cultural Marxist doctrines) are pushing an agenda that the majority of the people oppose on several key areas. I mean, common, who wants to see a de-Christianisation of Europe or a systematical destruction of European traditions, culture, identity and nation states? The politicians are continuously pressured from a multitude of fronts, idealistic organisations created or infiltrated by the cultural Marxist 68 generation in Norway and Western Europe in general. Many of these politicians chose the path of least resistance and allow themselves to be manipulated by the “dominant elite Marxist mob”. They do not care about public opinion or the will of the people. Their standard tactic is to bulldoze over the public opinion, the will of the people and any poorly organised resistance (the silent and poorly organised majority). They use labelling techniques and other fascist authoritarian means to achieve their goals: their goals being political domination and implementation of Marxist doctrines. Multiculturalism is to them a tool to effectively destroy every shred of European culture and identity in order to implement a borderless Marxist utopia. Their alliance with Islam is only a short term strategy until everything European has been destroyed. They will then destroy Islam (they hope) and include all the ex-Muslims in the utopian Marxist borderless super state.

So who is the typical member and from where do they recruit new members? How motivated are they and how far are they willing to go to achieve their goals?

The cultural Marxist extremists in Rødt and similar Marxist organisations recruit primarily young idealists from secondary schools, high schools and other youth arenas. They often recruit under false and deceptive idealistic banners we all have sympathy for (anti-racist, pro-minority, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-environment, pro-wildlife, helping Palestinian children and similar organisations). These cover organisations are again exploiting the system (or perhaps the system was designed for this…) by receiving public funding per member. This is another reason why the average hardcore Marxist is a member of 15-20 organisations at once.

As an illustration:

The cultural conservative political party FrP with 25 000 members receive approximately 150 NOK in public funding per member which totals 3,75 million NOK (450k Euro) per year in public subsidies. In addition FrP charges 200 NOK from each member per year. Now, the busy little bees of Rødt (1700 members) and allied cultural Marxist organisations control more than 15-20 NGOs. They cynically set the annual member fee to a minimum (5-50 NOK) and actively pursue their pool of 50 000 or so sympathisers for cross-membership (membership in several organisations).

The result is 15-20 NGOs under their control with extremely bloated member lists (cross members). By using this strategy they gain an un-proportionate amount of influence, something they know perfectly well how to take advantage of. In addition, they earn millions of Euro annually. Our journalists refuse to pursue this abuse of power as 99% of Norwegian journalists are multiculturalists and thus have certain sympathies for more hardcore political entities.

The Marxist activists are having a field day every single autumn when the new students arrive from small towns and rural areas to attend our various Marxist dominated universities. During the introductory week each autumn these Marxists political activists spend a lot of time recruiting new students. They usually arrange the coolest parties, have the coolest student social clubs, the most active student organisations and usually create the best marketing brochures and effects.

In the universities they recruit their members from the country’s future power elite and they gradually and systematically channel these new conscripts into their social networks for more ideological indoctrination.

Rødt has a front-organisation for everything, something for almost every imaginable taste: for solidarity with Africa or Palestine, for the environment, for feminism, for promotion of dialects, against rape, for human rights, against commercial, for asylum seekers, against capitalism, for culture (rock, hip-hop, art etc), for international solidarity, against Christianity, against pornography, etc. it goes on and on.

And the new naive students are channeled through these numerous smaller fronts where they are presented with more indoctrination from already established and more experienced Marxists. Some of these new recruits end up in the political party Rødt or in their newspaper Klassekampen (War of the Classes). The end result (after attending university) is a new generation of hardcore leftist political activists ready to continue to implement Marxist doctrines in society. The new generation Marxists recruited from the best of our youth right under our nose.

However, after a few years, a majority of these students realise how the world works and reject some of the earlier teachings. Many of them end up as highly influential individuals, moderate cultural Marxists (multiculturalists) and support more moderate leftist doctrines along the lines of the Labour Party. These individuals very often seek power positions within politics, government agencies, politically oriented NGOs, media companies and within the education sector.

It’s worth noting that areas the Marxist are unable to penetrate and dominate are faculties in the fields of economics and law which on the other hand is dominated by cultural conservatives. This also includes the police academies the military and several private sector fields.

Marxist organisations such as Rødt and their many Blitz, AFA, SOS fronts therefore function as initial recruitment centers or boot camps for the more established and moderate leftist movements which continue to dominate Western European regimes.

This is the reason why the Labour Party and other leading European political parties keep a protective hand over the extreme Marxist movements like Rødt, AFA, Blitz, UAF etc. The European cultural Marxist establishment’s relationship with extreme and even violent Marxist youth organisations is equivalent to the relationship the NSDAP had to Hitlerjugend and similar organisations in the previous century. Why would they contribute to destroy their own boot camps?

If we, the cultural conservatives want to democratically succeed in the future we simply have to copy these strategies. The problem here however is that cultural conservatives (and most anti-Marxists) generally lack an idealistic and voluntary mindset. I can personally attest to this. I didn’t originally intend to work for free as an ideological warrior. I, as a majority of my friends, was driven by the lust for personal acquisition and prestige like a majority of cultural conservatives. Screw everything and everyone right, it was me, myself and I. Why do you think the Marxist 68 generation managed to successfully implement multiculturalism and various other Marxist doctrines? Where the hell was the cultural conservative 68 generation? The answer is simple. They didn’t care about politics as they generally lacked an idealistic mindset and were instead busy working, providing for their families. Many worked as small business owners or with economics and law. Our parent generation (the 68 cultural conservative generation) had the same flaws we have today. We are egotistical and greedy zealots driven by our lust for personal acquisitions/prestige completely lacking a political idealistic drive.

There are still many of us who have always been or at least have become politically active and we might witness a trend shift. This is because an increasing number of people are waking up and seeing that much of what they learned at school or read in the MSM press is a lie. That our societies are spiraling down fast towards the abyss and we have to stop it. But tbh. I doubt we can ever fully match the idealistic spirit of the Marxist as it is not in our nature. Historically, we have usually waited until the last possible second before reasserting control. This is not something we can rely on as it is simply too risky. We can’t risk waiting until the Muslims are 50% of the population or we will end up as Lebanon, as a terrorised dhimmi minority in our own lands. The worst case scenario would be that we are completely and utterly annihilated by Marxist-Islamic forces. The Marxists will be wiped out by the Muslims as well, but at that point, we are already dead.

Conclusion:

Small groups of hardcore Marxists act as force-multipliers and control (through hard work and a myriad of organisations) an extremely disproportionate amount of the public debate and direction. The extreme Marxist youth organisations operate as boot camps for the moderate and established political leftist parties and organisations.

This proves that a micro minority has the potential to exert a massive amount of influence in a country if they play their cards correctly. As few as 50-100 politically active individuals CAN considerably influence a country of 4-5 million. The same principle applies for the international community as well. The global cultural Marxist mafia (the current world order) now effectively control all Western European countries (Greece, Italy and Denmark excluded), the US (Obama), Canada, the UN and a majority of the major NGOs. The cultural conservatives MUST copy the organisational efforts of the Marxists locally, nationally and internationally.

There are numerous international examples of micro groups influencing a country or area disproportionally as they operate as force-multipliers.

Examples are the Taliban (less than 5%) in Pakistan. A small group can cause civil war and inflict havoc in a country. The multiculturalists are saying that it is unproblematic that 5-15% of Western European Muslims support Al Qaeda ideologically. WRONG. 5- 15% can bring any country to its knees!

10% of the Ummah make out more than 140 million individuals. If only half of them (5%) declare Jihad the results will be irreversibly catastrophic. The Bolsheviks where only counted a few hundred in 1910, the National Socialists was a micro party before the crack in 1929 etc.

注释：

Ummah：伊斯兰教版本的苏联

2.76 Public opposition to Islamisation translated into success for political parties

2.77 Cultural conservative/nationalist rhetorical strategies （重要章节，策略）

To focus on a specific issue first. Using progressive and tactical rhetoric. Using appropriate rhetoric is essential in communicating a message successfully.

The word “race”, “white”, “ethnic” or “nationalist” for that matter should never be used in modern debates with adversaries or individuals who may have been subject to severe indoctrination. These words are so stained by history and post-war media coverage that you are basically just undermining yourself and the message you seek to communicate by actively using them. It’s wise to limit the use of all words that has stigma attached as well as or the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist mainstream media will attempt to label you as a bigot. If you use the word “race” you are basically contributing to committing character assassination of yourself or will contribute to self-defeat of the organisational goals you are representing. You need to understand the following; the modern European man/women has been indoctrinated or conditioned in a way that he is likely to run for the hill or active subliminous mental defensive blocks if you use rhetoric containing these words in your attempt to reach out to him or her. Ill try to explain this more throuroughly as this applies to me as well. In a world where the absolute arch sin is to be a Nazi, words who are associated with Nazis must be avoided at all costs, regardless of the justification for associating them with given ideology. I have researched this quite throuroughly as I have discussed immigration, European identity and culture with hundreds perhaps thousands of individuals over the years. My intention for discussing is often to reaffirm my beliefs by getting the individuals to agree with me (which is normal when you discuss politics with someone). In other words, I am initially assessing the individuals knowledge level before deciding which rhetorical strategi I am to use. If he is a humanist (naive), I will use a specific approach, a different one if he is a true cultural Marxist and yet another if he is a capitalist globalists. I have programmed in perhaps a hundred different rhetorical approaches wheter the individual is a national Bolshevik or a laizzes faire capitalist.

Included most of the facts and arguments I actively use in this compendium so everyone has the opportunity to become a master debater if he or she so chooses. The clue to win over new sympathisers or supporters it done efficiently by telling them how the world works but by asking the right questions or rather excellent arguments disguised as questions.

I use demographical data a lot, f example: Lebanese example (once a Christian country, now Muslim) and add:

What is your reasoning for believing that Western Europe will not end up as Lebanon from a demographical standpoint?

And if, let’s say, Western Europe is likely to end up as Lebanon, shouldn’t Europeans be allowed to prevent this from happening?

Or a couple of other examples:

You say that preserving Tibetan culture is a just cause, that the Chinese strategy of dempgraphical warfare using Han Chinese settlers is immoral. Why do you then oppose European patriots trying to preserve European culture?

You claim that you are an anti fascist. But why do you ridicule Europeans demonstrating outside Wahhabi Mosques when Wahhabism is clearly a fascist ideology. Doesn’t this make you a hypocrite?

Using fact based arguments disguised as questions are killers and works extremely well. I have coached several hundred individuals around the world in rhetorical strategies and have thus contributed to win over hundreds perhaps thousands of new supporters and sympathisers.

I have aprox. 2500 Facebook contacts at the moment. Whenever I put up a new story (usually involving the current suicide of Europe) I get many comments. My general rule is to delete all posts containing naughty words (listed above). The reason is that these words act as deterrents and paralyzes the debate. Patriotic “more politically correct” individuals who would normally comment will be afraid to comment after a any definition of “blurp posts” containing f example one or more words: “white” “race” “genocide” “civil war”.

In their mind they are terrified to somehow be associated with given individual as they fear being labelled as a racist. The thought paralyzes them and activates their self preservation mechanics which again tells them NOT to post. It’s sad but we cant really do anything but to adapt to the reality that so many patriots are indoctrinated to a point where they are completely brainwashed.

Whenever I ignore sensor of these words in debates, I end up with 5 or less commentators. On the other hand, if I sensor any comments containing these words I usually get more than 15 individual commentators (TRIPLE the amount).

The lesson we can learn from this and other examples are: the end goal is the only relevant thing. Containing your rhetoric within certain politically correct parameters is the only logical approach to go. Not doing is will often be counter productive or self defeating.

The example of self containment should be used in other rhetorical circumstances as well. We have the truth. Now HOW do we communicate the truth most efficiently? There are counter productive ways and optimal ways to communicate the truth based on which individual or target group you are communicating to.

If your target group is clearly a victim of systematic institutionalised indoctrination like most humanists are, telling the truth directly, “in simple words”, will just contribute to activate their mental defensive mechanisms which will scare them away. Instead, you must articulate yourself through very vague illustrations which almost indirectly will allow the individual to ask himself essential questions (also known as mental conditioning or anti-indoctrination rhetorical strategies). For examples, see essays published at sites with more moderate cultural conservative lines.

Evaluating one example:

Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology used to deconstruct European cultures, traditions, identities and national states.

This statement would be just too brutal and direct for many indoctrinated people and would possibly scare them away. There is always room for considering what is the most optimal thing to say and what is counter productive. I’ve seen several 10 page essays which boils down to the above conclusion, brilliantly written. In many cases, that 10 page essay could win a supporter while the small statement could scare them away. It all depends on the individual and of course what your goal is. For a large pan-European organisation with huge ambitions it would be smart to think long term and tread softly, while individuals who are debating 1 on 1 or with a smaller audience will usually use more “powerful and direct rhetoric” usually designed to ridicule or undermine rhetorical adversaries.

2.78 US and European nationalist rhetorical differences

European patriotism vs. US patriotism

American conservatives in general (anti-Marxists) should learn the following; Marxism has two primary components; socialistic economic policies and internationalism (multiculturalism/cultural Marxism). You are not a nationalist, not even a conservative by its very definition, if you support multiculturalist doctrines. The reason is that multiculturalism is anti-nationalistic by design. Multiculturalism is designed to deconstruct European traditions, culture, identity and even the nation state in order to create the one world Marxist utopia. Many Americans fail to comprehend this fact.

机器翻译如下：

总体⽽⾔，美国保守派（反⻢克思主义者）应该学习以下内容： ⻢克思主义有两个主要组成部分：社会主义经济政策和国际主义（多元⽂化主义/⽂化⻢克思主义）。如果你 ⽀持多元⽂化主义学说，你就不是⺠族主义者，甚⾄就其定义⽽⾔也不是保守派。原因是多元⽂化主义本质 上是反⺠族主义的。多元⽂化主义旨在解构欧洲传统、⽂化、⾝份甚⾄⺠族国家，以创造统⼀世界的⻢克思 主义乌托邦。许多美国⼈⽆法理解这⼀事实。

2.79 Educating the European patriots who lacks ideological confidence

2.80 3 point guide to convert your right wing blog/site to a newspaper/magazine with national distribution

Because our survival depends on it.

“He who saves his country, violates no law.”

Napoleon

2.81 The Strategy of Western Survivalists

By Fjordman

I have mentioned several times the possibility that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. The enemy has been regrouping and now largely controls our media and educational institutions less than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We did not have public trials against the supporters of Marxism just as we did against Nazism. That was a serious mistake, and it is of paramount importance that we do not repeat it. If or when the European Union collapses and multiculturalism is defeated across the Western world, we need to stage public trials against the creators of Eurabia and the lies continuously told by our media and academia. They need to be exposed as evil and politically crushed.

This leads us to ask the following questions: Less than a generation after the fall of the totalitarian Soviet Union and its puppet regimes in Eastern Europe, we are watching the rise of the European Union, which is rapidly moving in a totalitarian direction in Western Europe. Some of the former Communist countries in Europe are now freer than their Western cousins, although this will soon change as they are indoctrinated by the EU. Is there a connection between the fall of the USSR and the rise of the EUSSR, as former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy[1] has indicated? Have we entered the Cold War, part 2? I notice how many former Marxists now passionately support multiculturalism and mass immigration, and listened to one prominent Communist “intellectual” in my country attack free speech as a concept a few days ago. Could the European Union ever have been a good idea, or was it flawed from its very inception? That’s something to ponder.I’m willing to consider the possibility that something “went wrong” with the EU at some point, but right now I’m leaning towards the conclusion that the EU has always been a flawed institution. Most of us just didn’t see it for what it was.

Lastly, I will focus on Milton Friedman, who along with F. Hayek is one of the villains of Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually very good advice, and it’s in my view the strategy Western survivalists should now follow. When I first started blogging I was concerned with how we could “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed, and perhaps shouldn’t be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies, it also has too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, globalism, multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

The goal of Western survivalists — and that’s what we are — should not be to “fix the system,” but to be mentally and physically prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve.

What, exactly, is Western civilisation? What went wrong with it, and how can we survive and regenerate as a vulnerable minority in an increasingly hostile world?

Let the debate begin.

（抓住窗口期翻身）机器翻译

最后，我将重点关注⽶尔顿·弗⾥德曼（Milton Friedman），他和哈耶克（F. Hayek）都是克莱因书中 的反派之⼀。据她介绍，弗⾥德曼曾表⽰，“只有危机——⽆论是实际的还是感知的——才会产⽣真正的 变化。当危机发⽣时，所采取的⾏动取决于现有的想法。我认为，这就是我们的基本职能：制定现有政策 的替代⽅案，使它们保持活⼒并可⽤，直到政治上不可能的事情成为政治上不可避免的事情。”弗⾥德曼 认为，在危机期间，在社会重新陷⼊“现状的暴政”之前，我们只有短暂的机会之窗，我们需要利⽤这个 机会，否则就会失去它。

这实际上是⾮常好的建议，在我看来，这是西⽅⽣存主义者现在应该遵循的策略。当我第⼀次开始写博客 时，我担⼼我们如何“修复系统”。我逐渐得出结论：这个系统⽆法修复，也许也不应该修复。它不仅树敌 太多，内部⽭盾也太多。如果我们将“体系”定义为外来⽂化的⼤规模移⺠、全球主义、多元⽂化主义以及 以“宽容”的名义压制⾔论⾃由，那么这个体系就会崩溃。这是不可避免的。

西⽅⽣存主义者的⽬标——这就是我们的⽬标——不应该是“修复体系”，⽽应该为体系的崩溃做好精神和⾝ 体上的准备，并对问题所在制定⼀致的答案，并准备在出现问题时实施必要的补救措施。时间到了。我们需 要抓住机会之窗，为此，我们需要明确定义我们想要实现的⽬标。

2.82 Christianity, Pros and Cons

2.83 The Church – Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

2.84 Thou Shalt Hate Christianity and Judaism

By Fjordman

As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naive Christian compassion[1] related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organisations to ally themselves with Muslims, for “religious values” and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd.

2.85 A future Christian identity for Europe?

Further more, Christian politics is not confined to any nation state; it is ‘internationalist’, within the present context of the world. It recognises no border, or authority above that of its King. Therefore, where there is a single Christian being persecuted it is the concern of every Christian to come to his/her assistance by every justifiable means including, but not necessarily…war! Much like Liberal Modern states believe that it is their right to wage war on those that offend their concept of ‘human rights’. So it is the right and duty of Christians to wage war on those that blaspheme our God and persecute our brethren.

The silence of a politically impotent church in the west with regards to its brethren around the world is staggering – and quite telling of its spiritual state. The humiliations and abuses of the persecuted church are too many to list, and are a denigration of their Christian dignity. Only if the persecuted Christians lift themselves out of their state as persecuted will they be able to live in dignity. This calls them and us to their liberation and the usurpation of the status quo. The persecuted church should not depend upon western imported theologies that justify their persecution, but instead fashion a theology that begins with the articulation of their own experience as persecuted Christians. We should understand the Church’s identity not through dogmatic preaching, but through the historical reality of the persecuted church. Persecution of Christians and oppression of Christianity is contrary to the will of God. Thus, ‘the universal and global church on earth’ should enter into solidarity with persecuted Christians wherever they are found. The church should centre its life, not around sacraments, or dogmas, (though these should never be done away with), but on the experiences and the cause of the martyred, and the oppressed, and suffering Christian. Christians should come together and study and support one another in tackling persecution and oppression of Christians. Theology should be rooted in the experiences of the persecuted.

评论

实质来说，亚伯拉罕一神教确实没有区别，至少对我们卡菲勒（Kafir）都很残酷。

2.86 Conflict avoidance and how to avoid it

2.87 ”Western”, modern countries that never adopted multiculturalism - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan

Japan’s and South Korea’s post-World War II forty-year economic growth surge without immigration has always been an embarrassment to the immigration and multiculturalism enthusiasts. In 1990, the then-Designated Enthusiast Economist Julian Simon was reduced to admitting: “How Japan gets along I don’t know. But we may have to recognise that some countries are unique in their characteristics.”

Western Europe have had a long and close friendship with these countries post WW2. They have not initialised media campaigns portraying these countries as Nazis, boycotted them economically or threatened them with invasion if they don’t start implementing multiculturalism. It’s therefore quite contradictory to how Western Europe ridicule, harass and persecute any and all individuals and groups in their own countries who support monoculturalism.

2.88 Democracy not working

By Fjordman

Currently, the democratic system is in my view not working properly in any Western country. It is more or less dead in Western Europe, where most of the real power has been transferred to the unelected organs of the European Union, anyway. Virtually all Western countries have lost control over their borders. This is not a sustainable situation. You can call your political system a democracy, a dictatorship, a republic, a monarchy or whatever you want, but a country that does not control its territory will eventually die. It’s inevitable.

The situation is made worse by the fact that globalisation of transportation has put severe pressure on our nations in a manner which was unthinkable only a few decades ago. When the first Christian Gospels were written down at the end of the first century AD, the population of the Roman Empire was about 60 million people. This mirrors the annual global population growth in the early twenty-first century. In other words: The global population grows by another Roman Empire every single year. Our system wasn’t designed for such numbers. It needs fundamental change, or it will soon collapse into civil wars or dictatorships or both. We also have a situation where some left-wing parties in particular deliberately import Muslims and others because they vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties. A political system where it pays to import enemies obviously isn’t sustainable.

When I criticise democracy, this should not be taken as an indication that I believe in elitist rule. I criticise it because it clearly doesn’t automatically ensure freedom of speech and security for life and property, which is the hallmark of true liberty. Another problem is that it isn’t always the best system for long-term decisions because people tend to prefer short-term gains. I still believe, however, that there should be a powerful element of real public influence, to curtail the potential for absolute rulers and abuse of power. We have clearly veered too far in the direction of the latter with the EU, where the ruling elites have skillfully eliminated any constraints on their power.

The democratic system has significant flaws, but it worked to some extent as long as there was sense of being a demos, a people with a shared identity and common interests. What we are witnessing now is the gradual breakdown of this demos, starting from the top down. Powerful groups frequently have more in common with the elites in other countries than they have with the average citizen in their own. If you no longer believe in your nation as a real entity with a specific culture, it simply becomes a tool for obtaining power, a stepping stone for your global career. Without a pre-political loyalty, emotional ties or even a pragmatic interest in supporting nation states, the democratic system becomes a vehicle for distributing favors to your friends at home and abroad, for fleecing the voters while in power and hopefully ensuring a lucrative international career along the way. You will have few moral inhibitions against importing voters from abroad for maintaining power or because your business buddies who give you financial support desire it. This process is related to technological globalisation, but it has gone further in the self-loathing West than in any other civilisation.

Average citizens who still identify with their nation states thus keep electing people who betray their trust. Since the elites identify little with the nations they are supposed to serve, more power to them will only make matters worse, as it already has in Europe. Corrupt and incompetent individuals will always exist. If you get a corrupt leader every now and then you are dealing with a flawed individual. If you constantly, again and again, get corrupt leaders you are dealing with a flawed system. Our political system is now deeply flawed. The problem is that I cannot easily see how to fix it.

The most important thing to realise is that democracy is a tool, a means we use to achieve an end. Too many people now confuse it with the end itself. “Democracy” has come to mean something that is good, something everybody wants, a bit like sex or chocolate. But there is no rational reason to assume that democracy of universal suffrage is uniformly good and can be applied with equal success in all circumstances, a huge mistake Americans made in Iraq.

Any political system must first and foremost ensure the survival, the continued physical existence, of the community it serves. After that comes ensuring the prosperity and liberty of this community in the best possible way. However, when I look at the situation in Western countries today, I cannot see that democracy always ensures our liberty or prosperity, and in many cases it functions so poorly that it threatens our very survival. Perhaps in order to ensure our continued existence, we need to supplement democracy with other tools in our toolkit.

Source:

http://democracyreform.blogspot.com/2008/09/democracy-not-working-essay-by-fjordman.html

2.89 The Rape of Europe – emigration of indigenous Europeans?

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

“If faith collapses, civilisation goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilisation in Europe. Islamisation is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realise it or do not want to admit it. Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of antiSemitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit.

Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

2.90 Suggestions for the Future （重要章节）

By Fjordman

“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Karl Popper

How should we respond to the threats our civilisation is facing? First of all, ordinary citizens should arm themselves immediately since crime and violence is spreading fast throughout the Western world. Second, we need to reclaim pride in our heritage, which has been systematically taken away from us in recent generations, and restore a proper teaching of this in our education system. We should assume that the mass media and our leaders are not telling us the full truth about the scale and consequences of Muslim immigration.

We are told that the ongoing mass immigration from alien cultures is “good for the economy.” This is demonstrably false and resembles the “Big Lie” technique employed by the Nazis. Even if it were true, I would still reject this argument. I am not willing to give up our existence as a people and the heritage entrusted upon me by my ancestors in the hypothetical hope that doing so will earn me a few chocolate bars or electronic toys, of which we already have plenty. The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by both left-wingers and many right-wingers. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilisation to preserve.

One “anti-Jihadist” in Scandinavia once indicated that it was OK with a Muslim majority in Europe as long as these Muslims respect “human rights.” They won’t, of course, but that’s not the point. The “debate” we have is thus between those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration and those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration as long as those who replace us believe in “human rights,” where the former groups views the latter as “racists.” At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have the right to preserve our cultures and historical identities.

Globalism is the enemy within which needs to be defeated. Globalism does not refer to the impersonal forces of technological globalisation (although committed Globalists like to pretend that it does, because this makes their ideological program seem “inevitable”), but to a Utopian ideology stating that erasing all national cultures and states (especially Western ones) is a positive good which should be promoted and forced down people’s throats. Opposition to this undertaking should be banned as “discrimination,” “racism,” “extremism” and “nationalism” (the terms are used as synonyms).

I’ve engaged in long discussions as to whether or not our current weakness is caused by deeper-lying, structural flaws in our civilisation or whether it is promoted by certain powerful groups with a dangerous agenda. My answer is that it is both. The ideology of Globalism is indeed promoted by certain elite groups much more than by the average citizen, and these ideas are enforced from above. This is happening all over the Western world, but it is particularly dangerous in Western Europe because of the legislative powers of the European Union and its non-elected oligarchy.

Although Leftists tend to be more aggressive, perhaps the dividing line in the internal struggle in the West is less between Left and Right and more between those who value national sovereignty and European culture and those who do not. Upholding national borders has become more important in the age of globalisation, not less. We need to reclaim control over our borders and reject any organisation, either the EU, the UN, various human rights groups or others who prevent us from doing this. We must remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, the social contract is breached, and we should no longer be required to pay our taxes. National taxes, national borders could become a new rallying cry.

There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting “international law” through the United Nations and similar organisations, while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The Presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.

An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim immigration as a sign of weakness. Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West. When Europeans such as Polish king Jan III Sobieski led their troops to victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, they fought for a number of things: Their country, their culture and their religion. People don’t just need to live; they need something to live for, and fight for.

We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies, not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the West is the sick man of the world. We provide our sworn enemies with the technology and medicine to multiply, give them the transportation and legal rights to move to our countries (after showing them through TV and movies how much better life is in our part of the world). On top of this, we pay them to colonise our countries and harass our children, while our leaders ban opposition to this as intolerance, discrimination and racism. When did the West stop thinking? Where did we go wrong? Here is the answer an American friend of mine gave:

“Well, there’s Marxism of course, which was extremely damaging in all its forms. There were the two world wars which killed so many of our people and caused a lack of cultural confidence. Then there was the Pax Americana and the unprecedented safety and affluence it brought to the Western World. We have now had two generations of Westerners, almost three, who have never known real poverty, hunger, war, or ‘the knock on the door in the middle of the night.’ Without a need for survival skills, we had the time and the money to focus on ever-more insane political and cultural ideologies…I think I remember reading something about how the Indian Hindu empires became ripe for conquest by Islam — ‘They focused on becoming good, instead of remaining powerful.’ I can’t remember the source on that though. But that’s what we are now — obsessing about how to be good, not on being powerful. And our ‘goodness’ isn’t worth much if the rest of the world is focused on becoming powerful. Also, you have to remember, a lot of people are making money out of these insane ideologies. The ‘diversity’ industry in the U.S. is worth billions — people with little skills or ability are being given comfy well-paid jobs because of it.. And because of anti-discrimination laws, every organisation, whether for profit or not, must have a ‘diversity’ plan to point to if they ever get sued for ‘discrimination.’ It’s literally a recession- proof captive industry. Anyways we’re sick and the whole world knows it. They are coming here to feed off our sickness.”

The West is rapidly declining as a percentage of world population and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations. People of European origins need to adjust our self-image correspondingly and ditch the current ideology of deranged altruism. We are not all-powerful and are not in a position to help everybody in developing countries out of poverty, certainly not by allowing them to move here. We need to develop a new mental paradigm dedicated to our own survival.

We should take a break from mass immigration in general. Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim. This break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries.

In my view, the best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non- citizens currently in the West and change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

American columnist Diana West wants us to shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this a “War on Terror” as President George W. Bush did in 2001 was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog has suggested the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for traditional European culture.

People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Groups of dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam, emphasising the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman, religious deception.

As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures are a result of Islamic teachings.

Fitzgerald also suggests exploiting the many fissures within the Islamic world: Divide and conquer. Divide and demoralise. Islam has universalist claims but it talks about Arabs as the “best of peoples,” and has been a vehicle for Arab supremacy, to promote Arab conquest of wealthier non-Arab populations. In addition to divisions between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, we have the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis, and the economic division between the fabulously rich oil-and-natural-gas Arab states and the poor Muslim countries.

Both the sectarian and economic divisions within Islam are best exploited by infidels doing nothing. If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of jizya, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.

Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds, and follow primitive religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilisation. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivised states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognising by this constant infusion of aid.

We need to deprive Muslims as much as possible of Western jizya in other forms, which means ending foreign aid, but also institute a Manhattan Project for alternative sources of energy, in order to become independent of Arab oil.

As Mr. Fitzgerald asks : “What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?”

We must reject the “You turn into what you fight” argument. Those who fought the Nazis didn’t become Nazis during the Second World War. The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don’t stand up to them and keep them out of our countries, otherwise they will subdue us and Islamise us by force. The West isn’t feared because we are “oppressors,” we are despised because we are perceived as weak and decadent. Jihadist websites have said that China is not the enemy at the moment. China, too, is an infidel enemy, but Muslims respect the Chinese more than Western nations. We can live with having enemies. The important thing is making sure that our enemies respect us, as Machiavelli indicated in The Prince.

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, but for this to work we will sometimes have to take military action to crush Muslim pretensions to grandeur. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the “moral high ground” in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological defences with force on certain occasions.

Several objections could be raised against the containment option. Some claim that it is too harsh and thus won’t be implemented; others say that it is insufficient and won’t work in the long run. It’s true that in the current political climate, expulsion of sharia- sponsoring Muslims isn’t going to happen, but the current ruling paradigm won’t last. It is likely that we will get civil wars in several Western countries because of the ongoing mass immigration. This will finally demonstrate how serious the situation is and force other Western nations to act.

I have heard comments that it isn’t practically doable to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. When the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China in the thirteenth century, it will be impossible to contain anybody in an age of modern communication technology. No, it won’t be easy, but we should at least try.

Containment isn’t necessarily the only thing we need to do, just the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear technology will indeed trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to prevent this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of dangerous technology. Jihad is waged by military, political, financial, demographic and diplomatic means. The defence against Jihad has to be equally diverse.

In the post What Can We Do?, Gates of Vienna republished an essay by reader Westerner which was originally posted at American writer Lawrence Auster’s website. Westerner argues that the separationist policy proposed by Auster and others of rolling back, containing, and using military force to quarantine Muslims would not be sufficient to make the non-Islamic world safe, because Islamic regimes would still exist and continue to seek ways to harm us. He therefore proposes a policy aimed at crushing Islam. Nevertheless, my general policy recommendation is to advocate separation and containment. The crucial point is to stress that Islam cannot be reformed and cannot be reconciled with our way of life.

According to blogger Conservative Swede, “In fact it is easier to argue for a stop of ALL immigration, to the general public, than a specific stop of Muslim immigration (maybe not in America, but surely in Sweden and the rest of Europe). People simply know very little about Islam. They need to be educated first, and already that is a big effort. So this is the first step. Before this has been achieved, before the awareness about the true face of Islam is firmly represented among the general public, it becomes pointless to push for deportation of all Muslims at the arenas directed at the general public. The first and current step is about educating people about Islam.” He puts emphasis on the need for breaking the spirit of our Jihadist enemies and finding ways of symbolically defeat them. I have been criticised because my talk about containment and the need to limit even non-Muslim immigration smacks of the siege mentality of a friendless West. Advocating a policy of much stricter immigration control in general isn’t based on isolationism, it’s based on realism. We’re in the middle of the largest migration waves in human history. The simple fact is that far more people want to live in the West than we can possibly let in. Technology has made it easier for people to settle in other countries, and easier for them to stay in touch with their original homeland as if they never left. We have to deal with this fact by slowing the immigration rates to assimilation levels; otherwise our societies will eventually break down.

I’m advocating isolation of the Islamic world, not of the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims instead cooperate with other non-Muslims.

The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organisation where only democratic states could become members. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they do through the UN. Europeans need to totally dismantle the European Union and regain national control over our borders and legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro-Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have, but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defence starts in Jerusalem.

Europeans should adopt legislation similar to the First and Second Amendments in the American Bill of Rights, securing the right to free speech and gun ownership. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry, far less our national borders.

We need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but it cannot compete in a world of billions of capitalists in low-cost countries. It creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world and breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in our struggle for survival. We should use the money to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries.. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.

I recently read the book The Shock Doctrine by the prominent left-wing intellectual Naomi Klein. That is, I made an attempt to read it. I gave up after a few chapters. Klein talks about how clean slate ideologies are dangerous, and mentions in passing some crimes committed by the Soviet regime and the criticism which followed its collapse. Then she says:

The process has sparked heated debate around the world about how many of these atrocities stemmed from the ideology invoked, as opposed to its distortion by adherents like Stalin, Ceausescu, Mao and Pol Pot. ‘It was flesh-and-blood Communism that imposed wholesale repression, culminating in a state-sponsored reign of terror,’ writes Stéphane Courtois, co-author of the contentious Black Book of Communism. ‘Is the ideology itself blameless?’ Of course it is not. It doesn’t follow that all forms of Communism are inherently genocidal, as some have gleefully claimed, but it was certainly an interpretation of Communist theory that was doctrinaire, authoritarian, and contemptuous of pluralism that led to Stalin’s purges and to Mao’s re-education camps. Authoritarian Communism is, and should be, forever tainted by those real-world laboratories. But what of the contemporary crusade to liberate world markets?

Klein claims that not all forms of market systems have to be inherently violent. They can leave room for free health care, too. She condemns “authoritarian interpretations” of Communism, but not necessarily Communism as such. Exactly where we can find examples of non-authoritarian Communism she doesn’t say. That’s as far as self-criticism has progressed in the political Left a generation after we “defeated” Socialism.

The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix the system,” but to be mentally and physically prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilisation, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world?

I have suggested that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. The enemy has been regrouping and now largely controls our media and educational institutions less than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We did not have public trials against the supporters of Marxism just as we did against Nazism. This was a serious mistake which we should not repeat again. If or when the European Union collapses and multiculturalism is defeated, we need to stage public trials against the creators of Eurabia and denounce the lies continuously told by our media and academia. Their ideology needs to be exposed as evil.

The political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their own people. They are collaborators and should be treated accordingly. The problem is that they currently feel quite comfortable and secure. They fear the reactions of Muslims, but despise their own people. They view us as sheep, existing only to provide them with champagne and nice cars and to be guinea pigs in their grandiose social experiments. Change will only come when they fear us, and the consequences of their own betrayal, more than they fear Muslims.

People of European origins can gain a future by reclaiming our past, and end the hostility to our civilisation and heritage which is too often taught in our education system today. We need to reject those who demonise us simply because we desire self-determination. In order to achieve this, we need to regain control over our national borders and legislation, and we need to reclaim control over the media. Those who control the media, control society.

It is easy to blame others, but we have to accept responsibility for our situation. Yes, we have indeed been betrayed by our leaders, but that’s still only part of the problem. People tend to get the governments they deserve. Maybe we get weak leaders because we are weak, or because they can exploit weaknesses in our mentality to get us where they want to; above all anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, our excessive desire for consensus and suppression of dissent, the anti-individualistic legacy from Socialism and the passivity bred by welfare state bureaucracy. Muslims are stuck with their problems and corrupt leaders and blame everybody else for their own failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture.. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be. In his book The River War published in 1899, Winston Churchill wrote about the cursed effects of Mohammedanism (which is what Islam really is):

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

This description remains right today. Nevertheless, bad as it is, Islam isn’t the cause of our current weakness; it is a secondary infection. In addition to plain decadence, there is a widespread feeling in much of Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle. There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. Maybe Europe’s faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalised Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.

I have heard claims that European civilisation will not survive the twenty-first century. A century is a very long time, we should remember that. Would anybody (except a Churchill) in the early twentieth century, when Europe was strong and powerful, have predicted that Europe would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but they can also change for the better. Our ancestors, better men and women than we are, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilisation itself, but quite possibly the world in general from unchallenged Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are no less than they were then, possibly even greater.

Some people claim that Europe isn’t worth fighting for, and that many people here deserve what’s coming. Some of them probably do, yes. The problem is that the people who deserve most to be punished for the current mess are the ones who are least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have hardly heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.

Edmund Burke believed that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognise that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don’t just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future. If we don’t want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but we can get there again.

Meanwhile, let us work to ensure the survival of European civilisation, which is now very much in question.

Source:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/suggestions-for-future.html#c8772512582428522002

1. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060824-084015-5082r.htm
2. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011106.php
3. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/05/011325print.html
4. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022076.php
5. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-can-we-do.html
6. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006250.html
7. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1224
8. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/08/welfare-state-is-dead-long-live.html
9. http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/
10. http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

2.91 What Do We Fight For?

Buddhism spread from India to the rest of Asia, and brought with it these influences from Western art. This is highly significant if we remember that the invention of block printing during the Tang dynasty in China was intimately linked to Buddhist monasteries and Buddhist art. Alexander the Great may also have brought with him inked seals to India during his invasion, and Indian merchants later introduced them to the Chinese. Stamped figures of the Buddha marked the transition from seal impression to woodcut in China.

The oldest surviving printed texts from East Asia are Buddhist scriptures. Printing was thus used to promulgate a specific religion, just like Gutenberg’s printing press in Europe was later used to print Bibles. The Islamic Middle East, however, for centuries rejected both the Eastern and the Western printing traditions due to religious intolerance and hostility towards pictorial arts. And they suffered all the more for it.

评论

洋墨水就是不一样~笑

2.92 Who Are We, Who Are Our Enemies - The Cost of Historical Amnesia

Western Europe today is a strange and very dangerous mix of arrogance and selfloathing. Muslims are creating havoc and attacking their non-Muslim neighbours from Thailand to India. It is extremely arrogant to believe that the result will be any different in the Netherlands, Britain or Italy, or for that matter in the United States or Canada, than it has been everywhere else. It won’t. If we had the humility to listen to the advice of the Hindus of India or even our Christian cousins in south-eastern Europe, we wouldn’t be in as much trouble as we are now.

On the other hand, if we didn’t have such a culture of self-loathing, where our own cultural traditions are ridiculed in favor of a meaningless Multicultural cocktail, we probably wouldn’t have allowed massive Muslim immigration, either. There doesn’t have to be a contradiction between being proud of your own cultural heritage and knowing that there may still be lessons you can learn from others. A wise man can do both.

Westerners of or our age do neither. Sun Tzu[25], a contemporary of the great Chinese thinker Confucius, wrote The Art of War, the influential book on military strategy, 2500 years ago. It is a book that deserves to be read in full, but perhaps the most famous quotation from it is this one:

“So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

The West has forgotten who our enemies are, but worse, we have also forgotten who we are. We are going to pay a heavy price for this historical amnesia.

2.93 A European Declaration of Independence

Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence from 1776:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. […] It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Europeans are currently subject to worse insults from our governments than the Americans were at that time, being persecuted in our own cities and subject to a government-supported program of gradual cultural eradication. We need a European Declaration of Independence, calling for our emancipation from the bureaucratic feudalism of Brussels and the totalitarian ideology of multiculturalism. Allow me to write the first draft:

A European Declaration of Independence

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, (fill in the blanks) demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don’t as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.

We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for “Euro-Mediterranean cooperation” between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye’or’s work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilisation - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.

We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide.

We demand that the ideology of multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture’s eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations.

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been reestablished in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of “racism.” Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history.

We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of “racism and xenophobia” by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonisation by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamisation and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonisation and desire selfdetermination then Europeans have that right, too. And we intend to exercise it.

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn’t dismantled, multiculturalism isn’t rejected and Muslim immigration isn’t stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

2.94 Conservatives discussing future solutions for Europe

2.95 Islamisation of Europe – possible outcomes

2.96 From the death of Multiculturalism

2.97 Europe heading for Civil War

2.98 Are all European men weak minded cowards or are they just brainwashed? （仇恨希特勒）

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

George Shaw

……

The essence is that the US but especially W. Europe lost the cold war due to the fact that we didn’t persecute the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the economical aspects but the cultural as well – internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme egalitarianism, anti-elitism, antinationalism) we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media (see the beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist Leninists) were allowed to indoctrinate the 68 generation, those who run things today. The political correctness of today is cultural Marxism as we learned in the first chapters of this compendium. Smaller European nations are now mimicking France, Germany and the UK who unfortunately, due to the outcome of WW2, are completely culturally dominated by the US. The reason for this lack of “self esteem” is the absence of nationalism/nationalist monocultural political doctrines and we all know what killed nationalism in Europe.

Hitler’s insane, genocidal and imperialistic doctrines have resulted in the post-war situation where nationalist doctrines altogether were branded as evil. In other words, that man contributed to completely annihilate the legitimacy and future justification of nationalistic doctrines for several decades to come. Today, even using the word “nationalist” will involve certain stigma thanks to 5 decades of anti-nationalist brainwashing campaigns. These pro-multiculturalist campaigns are nothing more than psychological brainwashing campaigns demonising anything nationalistic initiated by individuals, groups or political parties. As we all know, nationalism represents many of the cultural defences a civilisation has. When you deconstruct these defences the natural result will be that you are allowing your country to become vulnerable to cultural influence or even cultural and demographical conquest as we see today.

Nationalism is now gradually but slowly on the rise again in Europe primarily due to Islamisation but is still systematically demonised by the current EUSSR + US cultural hegemony.

So there you have it. Europe is heading towards cultural and demographical suicide due to the absence of nationalistic doctrines. Nationalism is the anti-thesis of multiculturalism/internationalism. In order for nationalism to succeed, multiculturalism must be deconstructed and vice versa. The cultural Marxists/humanists/globalists will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent nationalists from succeeding as we have witnessed now for several decades.

Campaigns of psychological warfare (anti-nationalism) have been integrated into the school curriculums and all intellectual public frameworks. Europeans have been psychologically conditioned into a state of denial and self contempt. A majority of Europeans are therefore in a permanent state of psychological trauma, some nationalities more than others.

The most severely affected are of course the Germans and the Nordic countries; Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark. The justification for demonising their forefathers is a mixture of portraying the evil crusaders, the evil colonisers/enslavers and of course Nazi Germany’s policies of nordicism. The clear message from our cultural elites is that we are by definition evil and unworthy of life. And that we will do the world a big favor by contributing to our own extermination through third world colonisation. The self loathing runs deep through most aspects of society. To quote one of the most influential professors in Norway, Thomas Hylland Eriksen[1] :

“Our (the Marxist elites of Europe) most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again”.

Later quote

“This will contribute to understanding and liberation”

The problem in our societies isn’t primarily that individuals like Eriksen exists (and believe me, every country has their share of these highly influential anti-nationalist intellectuals) but rather that they are allowed unrestricted access to broadcasting networks, state channels, the main stream media in general to spread their hate-speech. They are allowed this access because 80% of politicians and 98% of journalists (category A and B traitors) are aiding and abetting them in the ongoing genocide. This while people like myself, who are trying to warn people of this extremist hate speech, are systematically ignored and demonised as, guess what; racist, fascist extremists… It is nothing less than insane and it borders to an advanced level of psychopathic absurdity. A majority of Europeans are still susceptible to this brainwashing although this is gradually changing.

2.99 The Self-Defeat of the United States （小丑奥巴马）

By Fjordman

At the Center for Security Policy, Caroline Glick writes about “Surviving in a PostAmerican World”:

Like it or not, the United States of America is no longer the world’s policeman. This was the message of Barack Obama’s presidential journey to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Iraq this past week.

Somewhere between apologising for American history — both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US’s nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America’s missile defence programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, “Don’t worry, be happy,” as he leaves them to Moscow’s tender mercies; humiliating Iraq’s leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world’s aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.

Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington.

I remember when the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, author of Understanding Muhammad, compared the personality cult surrounding Barack Obama to that of Fascist leaders. This might seem exaggerated, but there is definitely a personality cult surrounding Obama which is unprecedented and deeply unhealthy. His Marxist economic policies and his bow for the Saudi King are disturbing. I never liked Bush very much, but Obama’s appeasement of the Islamic world trumps anything seen since the days of Dhimmi Carter, and worse is to come.

Less than eight years after the Jihadist attacks on the USA, a President raised as a Muslim with the middle name “Hussein” hails Islam’s great contributions to American and Western culture. The USA currently looks more like a defeated nation than the world’s sole remaining superpower. It’s the only nation in history where the majority of the population has elected a member of an organisation known for hating the majority population of that country.

My conclusion from 2008 still stands: Americans will soon have their hands full with problems of their own and will be in no position to assist anybody even if they wanted to. Europeans can and should maintain good relations and cooperate with ordinary North American citizens, who live under the same Multicultural regime as we do, but we cannot and should not rely on aid from the American elites. They are as hostile as the EU elites.

2.100 Continued discussion on US-European relations

“But we cannot and should not rely on aid from the American elites”

It’s never been at matter of choice for Europe to rely on aid from America. Since the world order installed in the wake of WWII it’s been a matter of staying put and obeying to the world order. Any kind of European vitality has been suppressed under this American hegemony (see Serbia-Milosevic and Austria-Haider). You have already heard all the arguments about this from across the Atlantic: European nationalism is the root of all evil, European vitality will only lead to endless wars etc. And the American reverse of Obama is not much of a comfort. The more American nationalism grows, the more antiEuropean and anti-Russian it becomes. Ralph Peters is a good example.

The Europe right-wing Americans see today and disdain is wholly a creation of America herself. The leaders of Europe are nothing but marionettes of the current America-led world order. But this insight has also more and more emerged among the right-wing Americans, now that the true face of (political) America manifestly come to its closure with Obama. But aren’t there all these Americans who do not at all support Obama? Yes, and they are like Ralph Peters.

The reason that we find a strong conservatism in America and not in Europe is that American conservatives are not at all conservative but liberals to the core; French Revolution egalitarians and PC addicts with fear of “racism”, etc. European conservatism is of a essentially different kind, and totally unacceptable under the current world order. In the American mythology, which is the foundation for our current civilisational paradigm, the old pre-WWI Europe is the worst of the evils, much worse than Communism of fascism. After all Wilson and Roosevelt understood and respected Lenin and Stalin. It was the old (and vital!) Europe that was Satan itself in their eyes.

……

America, the most powerful European country

America and Europe should not be seen as two separate and opposing entities, but two things in symbiosis. America is indeed a Christian European nation (in exile), and continuing the legacy of the European history of the Enlightenment. America is indeed the Empire of the Enlightenment; the Leftist Empire. And anyone being in doubt about such a statement should consider how America was the first European country to introduce a 100% income tax, and to elect someone raised as a Muslim to become president, etc. A Leftist empire will always be in denial about being an empire at all, as America evidently is.

And there we come to the second way in which Europeans are culpable. Europe found it very convenient to accept America as the new leader and its new role as the irresponsible teenager. Surely there is the trauma of the two world wars as a background for this. But there is even more the ideology from the Enlightenment. The Europeans accepted willingly to surrender to the American military, which has protected Europe ever since, is calling the shots and the setup of an “eternal” (organised) peace in Europe with no more wars.

But these were entirely different Europeans than the ones that had been running the show up until WWI. This old ruling class had been wiped out in a collaboration between America and the ideological movements of European socialists/liberals.

For example, recently a German friend was complaining to me about how GM wouldn’t let Opel be bought by the Germans and made independent, at the behest of the US government. I remember thinking, “Well, stick up for yourselves!”

You are speaking of traitorous European marionette leaders under the current world order. And of the most wing-clipped nation of them all: Germany. They will never stick up for themselves, i.e. for their people (under the current cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regime).

What if Angela Merkel or her predecessors actually tried to get the US out of Germany? What’s stopping her now, in light of limp-wristed Obama recently being elected?

I always come back to Gaventa’s power theory and his three levels (dimensions) of power, where at the third level the oppressee is not even conscious about being oppressed, and has no concept of her own self-interest. Angela Merkel, as the other European leaders, is fully caught in this Matrix. Germany even more so, since the antiGerman hatred by the “world community” won’t accept even a teeny weeny sign of vitality from the Germans.

So as in any power relation, it all comes down to obeying the superior military might. That is, as long as there is this high military presence of American troops in Germany, Germany is afraid to do what is needed. America, being a Leftist Empire, is of course in denial about at all being an empire, and the oppressive nature of its actions, and how it’s all built on raw military power. So not only does Germany chose to obey the command of America, it has to pretend that it is a friendly relationship.

… we cannot and should not rely on aid from the American elites. They are as hostile as the EU elites.

And both of these traitorous groups deserve the same fate. Instead, it is more likely that the bulk of America’s and Europe’s citizenry will necessarily suffer Islam’s continued predations until the tipping point is reached.

The tipping point will come when living with Muslims becomes more trouble than living without Muslims. You can bet the farm that this point will be reached. Islam assures this outcome and there is very little that Muslim nations can do to avert it. They have neither the strategic resources nor sufficiently developed military doctrine to prevail over an aroused and angry West.

The only variables that remain are exactly how many Westerners will have to die before the tipping point is reached and the number of Muslims that will die as a result of that tipping point being reached. Any delays only serve to up the butcher’s bill on both sides. Slow jihad is not invasive enough to overcome the West before it crosses the threshold of military reprisal for continuing Islamic atrocities. Islam’s inherently radical nature prohibits the creation of any stasis or uneventful interregnum whereby slow jihad can prevail.

Non-practising Muslims are incapable of preventing further terrorist atrocities and such heinous crimes will assuredly expand in scope so as to inevitably bring down the West’s wrath upon Islam. Of that you can be sure.

2.101 Preserve or replace the European monarchies? （重要章节）

European constitutional monarchies:

• Belgium
• Denmark
• Luxembourg
• The Netherlands
• Norway
• Spain
• Sweden
• United Kingdom

How do the majority of cultural conservatives view the current state of the European royal families and their future? What is the attitude towards the institution of Monarchy in general? Does it have a future, perhaps even an extended role under a cultural conservative government?

The constitution of most European countries declares that the various governments of Europe and the commander in chief of the military forces are vested in the specific king or queen.

More democratic than republic

The king or queen of a country is more democratic than a president ever could be because he or she represents all citizens. An elected president would owe his selection to a political faction, and this would publicly divide him from many of his countrymen and would make his claim to represent “the people” less convincing. Frequent selections of presidents would interrupt the continuity essential for an effective head of a country. An elected president will always be partisan, whereas a monarch will not be. The king/queen and her heirs have been trained from birth for one vocation – that of discharging the duties of sovereign of the country. Therefore, they are the only citizens fit to assume this important position.

Most of the world’s democracies are constitutional monarchies, whereas the majority of undemocratic nations in the world are republics. Of course there are exceptions. Such nations as France, and the USA are democratic republics, but by far, the majority of republics are undemocratic. The residual powers of the King/Queen make the monarchy more democratic. The king/queen for example, has the power to dismiss a prime minister who is doing something illegal or is tampering with the democratic machinery in the country. Upon the dismissal, the king/queen can call a quick election to promote democracy.

Monarchical Government

Constitutional monarchy alone is capable of integrating the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government. The crown’s authority lends a universal legitimacy to the many particular decisions made by and at different levels of government.

Constitutional monarchy allows the celebration of public social events, such as the marking of collective anniversaries and the bestowal of honours, theoretically at least to be free of the taint of partisan politics. In a world of rapid social change, where there is a price to be paid for uncertainty, be that price only economic, constitutional monarchy provides continuity, especially at time of political transition. As well, the monarchy gives each country a distinctive political system at a time of strong international trade, social and cultural influences.

Monarchy for the 21st Century

Most of the stable and prosperous democracies in the world today are constitutional monarchies. On the other hand, most of the unstable countries in the contemporary world are republics, many of which have overthrown their monarchies. There is a sense of easy communication between monarchy and people, which politicians by nature are unable to develop. Citizens participate fully in their king or queens life; they are involved in their activities during home-comings and through the media. The colour and ceremony which surround the monarchy attract the interest of the citizens, especially young people, in our process of government. Through their office and person, the king/queen reflects a civilised cultural character that embodies nationalism.

When Monarchies themselves start to propagate multiculturalism and Islamisation

A majority of European cultural conservatives are royalists (I would say perhaps 70% or more). However, in recent decades many are increasingly annoyed by certain factors. Recent developments confirm that some of our royal families (some more than others) are not acting in the interest of their country and people but instead choose a line of appeasement and acceptance towards new multicultural and politically correct doctrines without as much as criticising this new political line. The European Christian monarchs are in fact Christian heads of state and have a responsibility to at least criticise the continuous de-Christianisation of their respective countries. Yet, they do not. The European Christian monarchs are in fact the leaders (at least symbolically) of European civilisation and should be on the forefront to criticise the evil European hate-ideology known as multiculturalism which sole purpose is to destroy European traditions, cultures, identities, Christendom, and nation-states. They openly rejected another hate-ideology (National Socialism) so why do they support multiculturalism so vividly? Is it just bad judgment or is it treason?

Will the European monarchies survive the civil war?

To turn the problematic around: if multiculturalism is allowed to play its course everything European will slowly erode, the monarchy included. A country with a majority of Muslims will never accept a Christian monarch and will most likely support a republic or at least demand that the king/queen convert or become an atheist. As for the survival of the European monarchies throughout phase 1 through 3 it really depends on which family you are referring to. There are a few families that are quite cultural conservative (the Danish and Spanish house is worth noting) while other families seem to support a cultural Marxist political direction. The British and Norwegian royal house in particular seem to support and cheer a cultural Marxist line (multiculturalism). They seem to have no objection against the ongoing destruction of European traditions, cultures, identities, Christendom, and nation-states. They have chosen to be very accommodating towards the cultural Marxist elites. As an illustration; the British Royal family has built an Islamic prayer room in the Royal castle after pressure from the Labour Party and other multiculturalist parties.

As we all know the monarchy has a very important function in European societies. It should uphold and be an embodiment of the traditions and values of the country. In Britain the House of Lords remained after the constitutional monarchy was formed to ensure the preservation of such traditions and values from generation to generation through the family lines of their members. When Tony Blair got rid of the system of hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords, supposedly in the name of democracy, he did it to undermine these traditions and values, and replaced the hereditary peers with sycophants and several Muslims. Baroness Warsi, for example, is a Muslim of Pakistani parentage.

Sadly, the Queen has stood by and watched all this happen without breathing a word in opposition. One must therefore consider that this is for either one of two reasons:

1. She is afraid that she will be the next to go.
2. She is aiding and abetting the destruction of British values and traditions.

Either way, she no longer does the job she is supposed to do and therefore should be replaced. There would, in fact, already be a historical precedence for such a replacement in the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. Queen Margarethe of Denmark on the other hand has had the courage to speak out against the Islamisation of Europe.

The cultural conservative strategy ahead

As mentioned, a large majority of cultural conservatives are royalists. We want to preserve a monarchy that upholds its sacred oath as protector and be an embodiment of the traditions and values of the country. The Royal families that willingly and even gladly support the European hate-ideology known as multiculturalism will be replaced as soon as we, the cultural conservatives, seize power. There might even be a scenario where a monarch (supportive of cultural Marxism) decides to flee the country and chooses to reject our cultural conservative rule. In this case, he or she will be replaced with the next appropriate candidate in line of succession that is willing to continue to support European values and traditions.

Britain has a relatively large line of succession so it will not prove to be that challenging to find suitable candidates (cultural conservative). However, it might prove a lot more difficult in countries like Norway where there are limited candidates. Christian Frederik Carl Georg Valdemar Aksel was a Danish prince that was elected to be the King of Norway in the period 1905-1957 under the name Haakon VII. He was a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg abbreviated the Glücksburg dynasty. An alternative would be to select a cultural conservative candidate from either the Glücksburg or Bernadotte line. Other relevant alternatives are the Oldenburg line. Personally, I would prefer to genetically identify a suitable candidate from the Fairhair (Hårfagre) line. The suitable family would in this case be “coached” by a neighbouring and willing royal family for at least three years before a coronation could take place. We must assume that a one, perhaps two of our European royal families will betray their oath and reject our rule in the future after a coup. We must be prepared to implement a concise strategy which preserves European monarchies.

2.102 Not a war between capitalism and socialism but a cultural war between nationalism and internationalism （仿照日韩保留有限福利制度）

European public welfare has a minor role regarding the ongoing suicide of Europe. This is primarily a cultural fight between nationalism (Monoculturalism) and internationalism (multiculturalism) and not an economical war between capitalism and socialism.

Being right-wing and anti-Marxist does not mean you oppose the idea of a welfare state. The Tory Party in Great Britain introduced the first pensions and the first state medical care for the poor although it is commonly thought that the socialists did it. Bismarck also contributed significantly to create a welfare state and no one would call him a left winger. The brutal truth of the matter is the following; a welfare state will work perfectly well intertwined with capitalistic doctrines as long as the country is monocultural/the social cohesion level is at an acceptable level. A welfare state would never work in the US due to the lack of social cohesion, because they have large minority groups who are allowed parallel cultures, norms and ethics.

Blindly opposing welfare is an American neo-Con doctrine and has nothing to do with nationalism. There are certain aspects of modern civilisation and common decency which require degrees of state welfare. It is the way it is legislated and managed which is crucial. Multiculturalism will always result in the destruction of any welfare system because the majority will eventually disallow excessive taxation in order to subsidise thousands or millions of poor people with parallel and quite frankly inferior cultures and ethics.

Many right wing Americans live under the illusion that they won the cold war simply because capitalism prevailed. Americans often forget to differentiate socialism/welfare with Marxist internationalism but these set of doctrines are two entirely different concepts. The ongoing European civil war is not a fight between capitalism and socialism/welfare. It is a cultural war between nationalism and internationalism. The European welfare systems have little to do with the current cultural and demographical suicide of Europe. The main issue here is the struggle between internationalism (Marxism/multiculturalism/globalism) and nationalism (cultural conservatism).

Marxism/internationalism/globalism/multiculturalism is an ideology designed to deconstruct European traditions, cultures, identities and even nation states while nationalism is the anti-thesis. In order for the internationalists to succeed they have combined this political deconstruction with mass-Muslim immigration. Of course, motives vary. Globalist capitalists (like the Republican Party) are supporting mass Muslim immigration for the cheap labour while the Democratic Party (cultural Marxists) are supporting it for the votes.

A common misconception is that nationalism results in backwardness and halts progress, science and any form of development. The Marxists or capitalist globalists will say that you cannot stop or avoid globalism/multiculturalism which is of course nothing more than propaganda. Japan and South Korea proves very well that this statement is wrong. Both nations are monocultural and at the same time very developed and are considered two of the most successful countries.

But the US and other multicultural countries will without a doubt have a great advantage due to the fact that they are allowing highly educated immigrants? They will also gain a significant productivity level due to the fact that they allow modern day slavery (productive immigrants working under minimum wage)?

First of all, very few countries actually have a strict entry policies and will allow any and all depending on the fact that the candidate has higher education or not. Australia and the US are, on the other hand, quite strict and usually limit much of the immigration to these candidates.

However, the US does not have a welfare system so these immigrants will cost the society minimal if they lose their job. Secondly, the majority of immigrants accepted by most European countries are conservative Muslims with little or no education. This forms a destructive mix considering that they get full access to the welfare system.

Secondly, monocultural and highly developed countries such as Japan and South Korea prove that a well organised school system (see school systems for the future) will allow each country to develop enough professionals from their country without having to import from third world countries. The current trend of poaching highly educated foreign nationals is nothing more than a negative spiral which delays essential school reforms. Instead of accepting a dysfunctional school system by importing foreign nationals we intend to reform the system quite drastically. This will also involve copying Japanese and South Korean (old European) doctrines. These policies are actually our own as it is a blue print of the English system which was in effect in the 1950s.

On a personal level, considering the fact that others might see me as an anti-socialist elitist, considering the fact that I would like to see the massive European public sectors reduced drastically from current 40-70% down to 25%. However, this is not up to me but rather up to the future nationalist leadership of Europe. Furthermore, my loyalty to my nation and people surpasses any of my secondary or tertiary anti-socialist objectives. After all, we are fighting a war against internationalism, not against the European welfare state.

2.103 Democracy needs a Reformation (重点章节优化现行选举制度)

By Ohmyrus

Why should a welfare bum have the same one vote that a taxpayer has? Why should a drug pusher have the same one vote as a Mother Theresa? Why should a school dropout have the same one vote as a college professor?

The one man, one vote system gives everybody an equal say in how a country is to be run. But obviously, each citizen contributes unequally to the society. Some, like drug pushers, damage society. Others, like welfare bums, take resources from society paid for by more diligent members. Given the unequal contributions, why should everyone be given an equal right (one vote) to choose its leaders?

That is the question that I have always asked myself.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not want to destroy democracy. I think that despite all its faults, it is still the best form of government yet devised by man.

As Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. Yet, there are problems with it which if not addressed may result in the collapse of democracy. I wish to prolong its life by identifying its problems and proposing possible solutions before the problems cause a system failure.

This attitude may seem strange for, after the collapse of Communism, it appears that democracy has finally triumphed. (3) It appeared to many including writers like Francis Fukuyama that we have reached the end of History, meaning that we have reached the final stage in the evolution of human society with democracy as the best way to organise society.

In 1900, only a handful of countries were democracies, compared to 119 or 62 per cent of the world today. US President George Bush wants to promote democracy in the remaining places, confident of its appeal and justness. I am alone in the wilderness trying to sound a warning that we should not be complacent. We have been brought up to believe that each person has the right to one vote. Thus the thought that some citizens should receive more votes than others is repugnant to most of us. Leaving aside the moral issue, let us instead analyze the economic and social consequences that flow from this.

Before we begin, let me point out that politicians act like entrepreneurs or businessmen. The only difference is that instead of earning money, they earn votes. The businessman sells a product or service in exchange for dollars. The politician sells himself for votes instead of money. Both will do a market survey of the population and craft strategies designed to appeal to the buyers or voters. To emphasise the similarity of businessmen and politicians, I will from now on refer to politicians as “votreprenuers” or use the two words interchangeably. As a result of the behaviour of votreprenuers, democracy has the following flaws:

1) Democracy produces welfare states

The first thing a votreprenuer will notice in his market survey is that income distribution does not follow a normal distribution. It is skewed to one side. There are, simply put, more poor people than rich people. What this means is that politicians can prosper at the ballot box by proposing redistributive policies. The result is the welfare state and high taxes.

Benjamin Franklin puts it very beautifully and succintly. He said: ‘Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.’ (5)

The welfare state reduces the incentive to work and inhibits entrepreneurial risk-taking. On top of that, labour friendly laws in Europe make it difficult to fire workers, who already have very short working hours compared to Americans and Asians. In some parts of Europe, the debilitating results can be clearly seen. Unemployment in France and Germany is around 10 per cent. Of course, a votreprenuer would not tell the truth to his voters by saying, “Vote for me and you can be lazy because we will get the hardworking taxpayers to support you.”

Instead, he would couch his sales speech in a manner that dulls their conscience and makes them feel entitled to use their vote to transfer money from somebody’s wallet to their own. This creates a climate of entitlement and dependency which is debilitating. These entitlements help the middle class more than the poor because that is where most of the votes are. In the present system, the centre of gravity of the electorate is Mr Average and this produces mediocre government.

On top of this, dependency on a faceless government has social consequences. It has eroded the ancient relationship between parents and children. For countless generations, parents have depended on their children to provide for them in their old age.

Now they depend on the government. Since children are no longer pension funds as in the past and taxes being so high, people decide to have fewer of them. If you look at the birth rates of Europe and Japan, you will find that they are below replacement levels. Yet the young are still expected to provide for the old! This time the provision is indirect - through the government in the form of higher taxes and welfare payments to the old. As the population in modern democracies ages, and with lower birth rates, it means that a shrinking working population has to support the old.

Would it not be better to cut out the middleman? It would certainly shrink the government bureaucracy if each retired person depended on his children in his old age as in the past. It would give them greater incentive to have more children and to raise them well which would also be beneficial to marriages. It was reported in the Economist in 1988 that less than 1% of American poor consist of people who are married, finished high school and held a job for at least a year. (6) All it takes to stay above the poverty line a a little bit of effort to get an education, be faithful to your spouse and keep a job. In other words, all you need are the old fashioned virtues of diligence, discipline and fidelity to one’s spouse.

Nowadays, men find it easy to abandon their wives and children because they know they won’t starve. The state will take care of them. This could have contributed to unstable marriages.

At the same time, the votreprenuers also notice that people hate paying taxes. They want benefits from government but don’t like contributing money. So to cater for this market, they will promise tax cuts. The results are budget deficits and soaring public debt.

If you look at the statistics, most of the OECD governments have huge budget deficits. (1) As a whole, the OECD is running a combined budget deficit amounting to a tad shy of 4 per cent of GDP. Much of it comes from the US which has a budget deficit of about 5 per cent of GDP.

Japan is even worse at more than 6 per cent of GDP. Some economists have been warning of economic collapse if something is not done. Sometimes, politicians would inflate the money supply to pay for their deficit spending, resulting in inflation. Other times, they would resort to government borrowing which results in higher interest rates. Should there be an economic crash resulting in massive unemployment or high inflation, confidence in democracy will plummet. Then people will be ready to put power in the hands of a dictator. That was one reason why Hitler got into power.

2) Democracy produces short-term thinking

The second thing votreprenuers notice is that they face elections once every four or five years. This means that they cannot afford to take a long term view of things. Politicians know that their time in office is limited. To stay in office, they come up with policies that are popular in the short run even though they know are disastrous in the long run. I am sure you have heard of the saying, “No pain, no gain.”

Democracies are incapable of delivering short term pain for long term gain. They tend to do the opposite, ie, deliver short term gain at the expense of long term pain. The growing government debt in the US and other democracies is a good example of this. To satisfy this present generation of voters, politicians are making future generations pay the bill. The unborn of course cannot vote. The result of one man one vote is higher taxes, interest rates, inflation rates and government spending.

Part of the problem is that there is a misalignment between the personal interests of the politicians with that of the country as a whole. The votrepreneurers want to get elected by hook or by crook. Sometimes, the policies he promotes are damaging in the long term even though popular in the short term. Of course, eventually, the chickens will come home to roost some day, but he won’t be in office by then!

If you ask me, I think the monarchies of the 19th century Europe were better macroeconomic managers than the democratically elected politicians of the 20th century. Statistics show that interest rates, taxes and inflation were on the whole lower. So was government debt as a share of the GDP. (2)

The reason is simple. The monarchs and nobles were confident of being in power for the rest of their lives and they wanted their sons to inherit the thrones of prosperous countries. So they tended to think more for the long term. It should also be added that most of the European monarchs of that era did not have absolute power and had to cater to popular opinion. If they provoke them too much, they will lose their heads - literally like Louis XVI.

This balance between royal prerogatives and popular pressure gave rise on the whole to better macroeconomic management. The former gave a long term perspective to decision making and the latter checked the power of the monarchs, preventing Saddam Hussein type leaders from emerging.

3) Democracy has a tendency to divide people

For votreprenuers to win power, they must at least pretend to fight for the market segments of voters that they deem are sufficient to secure victory on election day. Some will fight for one ethnic group or the other. Others fight for different income groups. Some try to court the lower income vote by promising unemployment benefits while others fight for the higher income groups by promising tax cuts.

Still others court the elderly voters. Then there are the social issues. Some are conservative and religious while others are secular and liberal. Thus we see rich pitted against the poor, liberals against the conservatives and racial groups against each other. There is no incentive for a votrepreneurs to take an overall view for the good of the country as a whole. He is constrained by his need for re-election to satisfy his voting base that sent him to office. The people will develop a ‘me first’ mentality without thinking about the good of the country as a whole.

Antagonism between economic classes and different ethnic groups can be exploited and turned into votes for the votrepreneurs. Instead of cooling the passions of the people, they are more likely to fan them so as to pose as their champions.

Often these lead to riots. In France this year, there were two riots - one economic in nature and the other racial though there was some overlap. In the first riot, people were protesting a new French law making it easier for employers to fire young workers on probation.

The second riot was racial and religious in nature. Ethnic North Africa minorities who are Muslim rioted for many days. Race, language and religion divide people into groups. The presence of each element increases tension. Tensions are at their greatest if all three elements are different between two groups and lowest if only one is present between two different groups.

But whether the tension level is high or low, it needs to be managed.

But instead of managing tensions, votreprenuers heighten them to win votes. Hitler won votes and power by unfairly blaming the Jews for Germany’s problems. When dictator Tito was in power, Yugoslavia was in one piece with ethnic tensions well managed. But when democracy came to Yugoslavia, politicians posed as champions for their own ethnic groups by fanning grievances and demonising others. The result was a civil war. Summing up, democracy suffers from three weaknesses - its penchant for redistributive policies, short-term thinking and ethnic discord. These weaknesses are already present in varying degrees in most mature democracies of the western world. At present, none are in danger of collapse. But as time goes by, the danger will grow.

In the case of America, there is a huge budget deficit that threatens to destabilise not only its economy but also the world economy, given America’s share of the world GDP. Its growing minorities, both legal and illegal, have the potential to create discord if ethnic tensions are not properly managed.

But it is the Socialist countries like France – with their combination of redistributive policies and ethnic tensions created by short-term thinking politicians – that are in greatest danger of a collapse of democracy. France has a Muslim population amounting to 10 per cent of its total population. The Muslims are of a different race, speak a different language and have a different religion than the other Frenchmen.

This makes the problem more serious than, say, the ethnic tensions between blacks and white in America where the only difference is one of race. Also, France has an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, with many of the unemployed being Muslims. The recent riots may be the first shots of a civil war. The day may not be far off for a French version of Adolf Hitler as ethnic tensions increase.

I foresee that European Muslims will within in the next 20 years demand autonomous regions in cities where sharia law rules. This will provoke the “classical” Europeans who feel their way of life being threatened and there will be a backlash. The people will fall prey to racists groups who of course will promise to defend their way of life. While it took a long time for Europeans to learn to settle their differences peacefully through the ballot box, this important lesson is slowly being unlearned. The lesson learned from the Danish cartoon affair is that violence pays.

Most western governments caved in by issuing apologies or condemning the cartoons instead of defending free speech. Soon groups that oppose immigration will turn to violence too. If European democracies cannot manage their ethnic tensions, democracy will break down, ushering in dictatorial rule.

How then should democracy be reformed? We must build a system that balances popular demands with long term thinking. There must also be a system that matches the right to vote with the amount of contribution the voter makes to society. If this sounds elitist, then I am in good company.

The early founding fathers of America were elitist too, especially men like Alexander Hamilton. They restricted voting to those with property, who were then the educated part of the population and who probably paid most of the taxes. Being men of property, they had a stake in the country’s long term future and could be relied on to take a longer term view. Even as late as 1824, only 5 per cent of adult Americans could vote in the Presidential elections. (4)

Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating restricting voting to rich people. But I do advocate striking a proper balance between competing needs. I have thought out some reforms which I believe will improve the situation.

Firstly, I propose that the Senate or Upper House be comprised of people that are elected for life and their personal interests be more closely aligned with that of the nation. Once made a Senator, he is no longer subjected to popular pressures that produce short term thinking. The Senator can only be removed if he commits a crime or is incapacitated. The House of Representatives will continue as before and its members be subjected to periodic elections.

The elected Senators should be paid in accordance to his ‘market rate’. This effectively means he should be paid the income he has to forgo as a result of going into politics. Salaries will be adjusted for economic growth. Bonuses will be given if certain economic benchmarks (eg unemployment, inflation, GDP growth) are attained. These benchmarks can be reviewed once every 10 years, say.

To further ensure long term thinking, his salary will continued to be paid into his estate for 10 years after his demise.

By making the Senate a life-time job, we ensure a balance between short term demands of the electorate and long term needs. We ensure a balance between the voters of today with the voters yet to be born. Our huge budget deficits and government debt is putting a burden on future generations who have no vote at present. It is unfair to saddle them with so much debt. Present voters are effectively taxing their children and grandchildren so that they can enjoy a profligate lifestyle.

The second proposal I have is that we make the vote transferable to other citizens. Each voter can buy or sell votes through an electronic marketplace for votes. The logic is like this. Votreprenuers are already buying votes with taxpayers’ money by promising all sorts of government programs that will benefit this or that constituency. Why not allow the voters to do it directly without going through the middleman? Why can’t voters buy votes when politicians are already doing that, in effect?

There will still be redistribution of income from the haves to the have-nots but without going through an often inefficient government bureaucracy. There will be tax savings from cutting out the middleman. This is what I think will happen in practice: The higher- income groups will end up with more votes since they have money to spend. But so will groups passionate about certain causes.

They will use the votes to curb government spending and lower taxes to benefit themselves. They will also balance the budget because they know it is unsustainable and eventually ruinous to their stock and bond portfolios.

But the have-nots will be compensated with cash. After some trial and error, a balance will be reached in which the losses from government entitlement programs will be approximately equal to the sales proceeds of their votes. Without welfare spending, welfare bums will have more incentive to look for jobs and improve their skills - even after selling their votes.

It is time to subject the electoral process to some sort of market discipline which my proposal will allow. The end result is that the balance of power tilts more towards the above average. These members of society who for usually good reasons are better educated, more successful and generate more GDP per head.

They also are people who are more talented, more diligent, more focused on the long term. Successful people also tend to have more stable marriages. Under the present system, people who are more disciplined, contribute more to the country and work harder are taxed more to help those more indolent, more irresponsbile and contribute less.

Under the present system, votreprenuers have electoral incentives to market their services to another group of people - the old. Under the present system, retirees are supported by the state. In the US you have Social Security. This means that you no longer need your children to support you in your old age. The state will support you. In other words, you are relying on other people’s children to support you.

But everybody has the same idea of relying on other people’s children. Those who take the effort and money to raise good productive citizens are doing it for the benefit of others. They will be paying into Social Security and supporting some faceless strangers. The end result is that couples have fewer children and you end up with fewer working people to support retirees. This is happening not just in the US but also in other democracies.

It violates the millennium old practice of relying on our own offspring for our old age. It also violates a very good principle - you should be rewarded based on your own efforts. Relying on your own children for your old age may also have a beneficial effect on marriages as people have a financial incentive to maintain a harmonious household to raise their kids - since their own kids are their Social Security. People will think three times before they cheat on their spouses as this will endanger their marriages.

Under the present system, people who are very passionate with their issues and people who are apathetic on the issues have one vote each. Under my proposed changes, those who believe passionately in their issues be it the environment or abortion can pay for more votes.

People who are passionate on the issues tend to be better informed since they have done sufficient research and would vote more wisely than those who are apathetic on the whole electoral process. Even in an US Presidential election, usually less than 70% of eligible voters bother to vote. Those not interested might as well sell their vote to those who are interested. This proposal, I believe will shift the centre of gravity of the electorate to Mr Above Average, which should produce more intelligent government.

The third proposal is that the President’s term of office be increased to a single term of eight years. This would free him from the need to seek re-election and permits him to think long term. Without worrying about re-election, it is in his self interest to ponder what history will say of him and this will result in better decision making.

To sum up, we should not become complacent about democracy’s future. There are long festering and growing economic and ethnic problems which short term thinking votreprenuers cannot solve. With the rise of India and China (with their hardworking cheap labour), it is quite clear that the welfare state in Europe and to a lesser extent in America cannot be sustained.

The rising tide of Muslim immigrants in Europe who refuse to assimilate and adopt the culture of the host countries adds to the problems. A combination of economic hardships and ethnic tensions set the stage for the collapse of democracy and the emergence of another Strong Man, another Hitler perhaps. I am sure nobody wants to see that happen. We should fix the problems while there is still time. But I am not optimistic. To solve these problems requires long term solutions and invariably short term pain which democracies cannot deliver.

Sources:

1. http://www.budget.gov.au/2004-05/overview/html/overview_main-03.htm
2. See the book, “Democracy: The God that failed.”
3. There is currently a challenge from radical Islamism, whose proponents want to organise human society based on Islam. This can cause horrendous bloodshed and must be taken seriously, but at the moment its supporters are confined to a minority of the Muslim population, albeit a large minority.
4. See the book, “The Future of Freedom”.
5. http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1900
6. See page 221 of the book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”.

机器翻译为中文

作者：奥⽶鲁斯 为什么福利流浪汉应该和纳税⼈拥有同样的⼀票？为什么毒贩应该和特蕾莎修⼥拥有同样的⼀票？为什么辍 学的⼈应该和⼤学教授拥有同样的⼀票？ ⼀⼈⼀票制度让每个⼈对⼀个国家的治理⽅式都有平等的发⾔权。但显然，每个公⺠对社会的贡献是不平等 的。有些⼈，如毒贩，危害社会。其他⼈，⽐如福利流浪者，则从社会中获取资源，⽽这些资源是由更勤奋 的成员⽀付的。鉴于贡献不平等，为什么每个⼈都应该被赋予平等的权利（⼀票）来选择其领导⼈？ 这是我⼀直问⾃⼰的问题。 别误会我的意思，我不想破坏⺠主。我认为，尽管有种种缺点，它仍然是迄今为⽌⼈类设计的最好的 政府形式。 正如丘吉尔曾经说过的，⺠主是除其他所有形式之外最糟糕的政府形式。然⽽，它也存在⼀些问题，如果 不加以解决，可能会导致⺠主的崩溃。我希望通过识别其问题并在问题导致系统故障之前提出可能的解决 ⽅案来延⻓其寿命。 这种态度可能看起来很奇怪，因为在共产主义崩溃之后，⺠主似乎终于取得了胜利。 (3) 在包括弗朗西斯· 福⼭这样的作家在内的许多⼈看来，我们已经到达了历史的终结，这意味着我们已经到达了⼈类社会进化的 最后阶段，⺠主是组织社会的最佳⽅式。 1900 年，只有少数国家是⺠主国家，⽽今天世界上有 119 个国家或 62% 的国家是⺠主国家。美国总统乔 治·布什希望在其余地区促进⺠主，对其吸引⼒和公正性充满信⼼。我独⾃⼀⼈在荒野中试图发出警告， 提醒我们不要⾃满。我们从⼩就相信每个⼈都有⼀票的权利。因此，我们⼤多数⼈都反感某些公⺠应该⽐ 其他公⺠获得更多选票的想法。 抛开道德问题，让我们分析⼀下由此产⽣的经济和社会后果。 在开始之前，让我指出政客的⾏为就像企业家或商⼈。唯⼀的区别是，他们不是挣钱，⽽是挣选票。商⼈出 售产品或服务以换取美元。政客出卖⾃⼰是为了选票⽽不是⾦钱。两者都将对⼈⼝进⾏市场调查，并制定旨 在吸引买家或选⺠的策略。为了强调商⼈和政治家的相似性，从现在起我将把政治家称 为“votreprenuers”，或者互换使⽤这两个词。由于选⺠的⾏为，⺠主存在以下缺陷： 1）⺠主产⽣福利国家 选⺠在市场调查中⾸先注意到的是收⼊分配不遵循正态分布。它向⼀侧倾斜。简⽽⾔之，穷⼈多于富⼈。这 意味着政客可以通过提出再分配政策在投票箱中获利。结果就是福利国家和⾼税收。 本杰明·富兰克林说得⾮常漂亮和简洁。他说：“⺠主就是两只狼和⼀只羔⽺投票决定午餐吃什 么。” (5) 福利国家降低了⼯作动⼒并抑制了企业家的冒险精神。最重要的是，欧洲的劳⼯友好法使得解雇⼯⼈变得 困难，他们 与美国⼈和亚洲⼈相⽐，⼯作时间已经很短了。在欧洲的⼀些地区，其令⼈衰弱的结果是显⽽易⻅的。法国 和德国的失业率约为10%。当然，⼀个选⺠不会对他的选⺠说实话，说：“投票给我，你就可以偷懒，因为 我们会让勤劳的纳税⼈来⽀持你。” 相反，他的推销演讲会⿇痹他们的良⼼，让他们觉得有权利⽤⾃⼰的选票将钱从某⼈的钱包转移到⾃⼰的钱 包⾥。这造成了⼀种令⼈衰弱的权利和依赖⽓氛。这些权利对中产阶级的帮助⽐对穷⼈的帮助更⼤，因为⼤ 多数选票都集中在穷⼈⾝上。在现⾏制度中，选⺠的重⼼是“平均先⽣”，这产⽣了平庸的政府。 除此之外，对不知名政府的依赖还会产⽣社会后果。它侵蚀了⽗⺟与孩⼦之间古⽼的关系。世世代代以来， ⽗⺟都依靠⼦⼥来供养他们的晚年。 现在他们依赖政府。由于孩⼦不再像过去那样成为养⽼基⾦，⽽且税收如此之⾼，⼈们决定减少孩⼦的数 量。如果你看看欧洲和⽇本的出⽣率，你会发现它们低于更替⽔平。然⽽，年轻⼈仍然需要赡养⽼年⼈！这 次的规定是间接的——通过政府以提⾼税收和向⽼年⼈⽀付福利的形式。随着现代⺠主国家的⼈⼝⽼龄化和 出⽣率下降，这意味着不断减少的⼯作⼈⼝必须养活⽼年⼈。 省掉中间商不是更好吗？如果每个退休⼈员都像过去那样晚年依靠⼦⼥，政府机构肯定会缩⼩。这将给他们 更⼤的动⼒去⽣更多的孩⼦并好好抚养他们，这也有利于婚姻。 1988年《经济学⼈》报道称，美国穷⼈中已 婚、⾼中毕业并⼯作⾄少⼀年的⼈不到1%。 (6) 保持在贫困线以上只需付出⼀点努⼒即可接受教育、忠于配 偶并保住⼯作。换句话说，你所需要的只是勤奋、⾃律和对配偶忠诚等⽼式美德。 如今，男⼈发现抛弃妻⼦和孩⼦很容易，因为他们知道⾃⼰不会挨饿。国家会照顾他们的。这可能会导致婚 姻不稳定。 与此同时，选⺠们也注意到⼈们讨厌纳税。他们希望从政府那⾥得到好处，但不喜欢捐钱。因此，为了 迎合这个市场，他们将承诺减税。结果是预算⾚字和公共债务飙升。 如果你看⼀下统计数据，⼤多数经合组织国家政府都有巨额预算⾚字。 (1) 总体⽽⾔，经合组织的预算⾚字 合计略低于 GDP 的 4%。其中⼤部分来⾃美国，该国的预算⾚字约占GDP的5%。 ⽇本的情况更糟，占GDP的6%以上。⼀些经济学家警告说，如果不采取措施，经济将崩溃。有时，政客会 增加货币供应量来⽀付⾚字⽀出，从⽽导致通货膨胀。其他时候，他们会诉诸政府借款，这会导致更⾼的利 率。如果经济崩溃导致⼤规模失业或⾼通胀，⼈们对⺠主的信⼼就会直线下降。然后⼈们就会准备好将权⼒ 交给独裁者。这就是希特勒上台的原因之⼀。 2）⺠主产⽣短期思维 选⺠注意到的第⼆件事是，他们每四五年⾯临⼀次选举。这意味着他们⽆法以⻓远的眼光看待事物。政客们 知道他们的任期是有限的。为了保住职位，他们提出了短期内受欢迎的政策，尽管他们知道从⻓远来看这些 政策是灾难性的。我相信你听说过这样⼀句话：“没有付出，就没有收获”。 ⺠主国家⽆法通过短期痛苦来换取⻓期利益。他们倾向于做相反的事情，即以⻓期痛苦为代价来获得短期收 益。美国和其他⺠主国家不断增⻓的政府债务就是⼀个很好的例⼦。为了满⾜当代选⺠的需求，政客们正在 让⼦孙后代买单。未出⽣的孩⼦当然不能投票。⼀⼈⼀票的结果是更⾼的税收、利率、通货膨胀率和政府⽀ 出。 部分问题在于政客的个⼈利益与整个国家的利益不⼀致。选⺠企业家想不择⼿段地当选。有时，他推⾏的政 策尽管在短期内很受欢迎，但从⻓远来看却是有害的。当然，总有⼀天，鸡会⾃⻝其果，但那时他还没有上 任！ 如果你问我，我认为 19 世纪欧洲的君主国⽐ 20 世纪⺠选政治家是更好的宏观经济管理者。统计数据显⽰， 利率、税收和通货膨胀率总体较低。政府债务占国内⽣产总值的⽐例也是如此。 (2) 原因很简单。君主和贵族们对⾃⼰的余⽣充满信⼼，他们希望⾃⼰的⼉⼦能够继承繁荣国家的王位。因此， 他们倾向于更多地考虑⻓远。还应该补充的是，那个时代的欧洲君主⼤多没有绝对的权⼒，不得不迎合⺠ 意。如果过度激怒他们，他们就会失去理智——就像路易⼗六⼀样。 王室特权与⺠众压⼒之间的这种平衡总体上促进了更好的宏观经济管理。前者为决策提供了⻓远的视⻆，后 者则制约了君主的权⼒，防⽌萨达姆·侯赛因式的领导⼈出现。 3）⺠主有分裂⼈⺠的倾向 对于选⺠来说，要赢得权⼒，他们⾄少必须假装为他们认为⾜以确保的选⺠市场领域 ⽽战 选举⽇的胜利。有些⼈会为⼀个⺠族或另⼀个⺠族⽽战。其他⼈则为不同收⼊群体⽽战。⼀些⼈试图通过承 诺失业救济来赢得低收⼊群体的⽀持，⽽另⼀些⼈则通过承诺减税来争取⾼收⼊群体的⽀持。 还有⼀些⼈讨好⽼年选⺠。然后是社会问题。有些是保守的和宗教的，⽽另⼀些是世俗的和⾃由的。因此， 我们看到富⼈与穷⼈之间、⾃由派与保守派之间以及种族群体之间的对⽴。选⺠企业家没有动⼒去为整个国 家的利益着想。他受到连任的需要的限制，以满⾜他上任的投票基础。⼈们会形成“我⾄上”的⼼态，⽽不 考虑整个国家的利益。 经济阶层和不同⺠族之间的对抗可以被利⽤， 变成了选⺠的选票。他们不但没有冷却⼈⺠的热情，反⽽更有可能煽动⼈⺠，以冒充⼈⺠的拥护者。 这些往往会导致骚乱。今年法国发⽣了两起骚乱——⼀场是经济性质的，另⼀场是种族骚乱，尽管有⼀些重 叠。在第⼀次骚乱中，⼈们抗议法国的⼀项新法律，该法律使雇主更容易解雇处于试⽤期的年轻⼯⼈。 第⼆次骚乱本质上是种族和宗教骚乱。北⾮穆斯林少数⺠族骚乱已持续多⽇。种族、语⾔和宗教将⼈们分为 不同的群体。每个元素的存在都会增加张⼒。如果两个群体之间的所有三个要素都不同，则紧张局势最严 重；如果两个不同群体之间仅存在⼀个，则紧张局势最低。 但⽆论紧张程度是⾼还是低，都需要进⾏管理。 但选⺠企业家并没有控制紧张局势，⽽是通过加剧紧张局势来赢得选票。希特勒通过不公平地将德国问题归 咎于犹太⼈来赢得选票和权⼒。当独裁者铁托掌权时，南斯拉夫团结⼀⼼，种族紧张局势得到妥善处理。但 当⺠主来到南斯拉夫时，政客们通过煽动不满和妖魔化他⼈来冒充⾃⼰⺠族的捍卫者。结果是⼀场内战。 总⽽⾔之，⺠主制度存在三个弱点——对再分配政策的偏好、短期思维和种族不和。这些弱点在西⽅世界⼤多 数成熟的⺠主国家中已经不同程度地存在。⽬前，没有⼀个有倒塌的危险。但随着时间的推移，危险会越来 越⼤。 就美国⽽⾔，鉴于美国在世界GDP中所占的份额，巨⼤的预算⾚字不仅有可能破坏其经济的稳定，⽽且还可 能破坏世界经济的稳定。如果种族紧张局势得不到妥善管理，其⽇益增⻓的合法和⾮法少数群体有可能造成 不和。 但像法国这样的社会主义国家，其再分配政策和短视政客造成的种族紧张局势，才是⺠主崩溃的最⼤危险。 法国的穆斯林⼈⼝占总⼈⼝的10%。与其他法国⼈相⽐，穆斯林属于不同的种族，说不同的语⾔，有不同的 宗教信仰。 这使得这个问题⽐美国⿊⼈和⽩⼈之间的种族紧张关系更加严重，因为美国唯⼀的区别就是种族。此外，法 国的失业率⾼达10%，其中许多失业者是穆斯林。最近的骚乱可能是内战的第⼀枪。随着种族紧张局势加 剧，法国版阿道夫·希特勒的这⼀天可能已经不远了。 我预⻅欧洲穆斯林将在未来 20 年内要求在伊斯兰教法管辖的城市建⽴⾃治区。这将激怒那些感觉⾃⼰的⽣活 ⽅式受到威胁的“古典”欧洲⼈，并会出现强烈抵制。⼈们将成为种族主义团体的牺牲品，他们当然会承诺 捍卫他们的⽣活⽅式。尽管欧洲⼈花了很⻓时间才学会通过投票箱和平解决分歧，但这⼀重要教训正在慢慢 被遗忘。从丹⻨卡通事件中吸取的教训是，暴⼒是有代价的。 ⼤多数西⽅政府屈服于道歉或谴责漫画，⽽不是捍卫⾔论⾃由。很快，反对移⺠的团体也将诉诸暴⼒。如 果欧洲⺠主国家⽆法解决种族紧张局势，⺠主就会崩溃，从⽽迎来独裁统治。 那么⺠主应当如何改⾰呢？我们必须建⽴⼀个平衡⺠意的体系 要求有⻓远的思考。还必须有⼀个制度将投票权与选⺠对社会的贡献程度相匹配。如果这听起来很精英主 义，那么我的同伴就很好。 美国早期的开国元勋也是精英主义者，尤其是像亚历⼭⼤·汉密尔顿这样的⼈。他们将投票权限制在那些拥 有财产的⼈⾝上，这些⼈当时是⼈⼝中受过教育的部分，并且可能缴纳了⼤部分税款。作为有产者，他们与 国家的⻓远未来息息相关，可以信赖他们会采取更⻓远的眼光。即使到了 1824 年，也只有 5% 的成年美国⼈ 可以在总统选举中投票。 (4) 别误会我的意思。我并不主张将投票权限制在富⼈⾝上。但我确实主张在相互竞争的需求之间取得适当的 平衡。我已经考虑了⼀些改⾰，我相信这会改善这种情况。 ⾸先，我建议参议院或上议院由终⾝选举产⽣的⼈组成，他们的个⼈利益与国家利益更加紧密⼀致。⼀旦成 为参议员，他就不再受到产⽣短期思维的⺠众压⼒。参议员只有在犯罪或丧失⾏为能⼒的情况下才能被免 职。众议院将像以前⼀样继续存在，其成员定期选举。 当选参议员应按照其“市场费率”领取报酬。这实际上意味着他应该得到因从政⽽必须放弃的收⼊。⼯资将 根据经济增⻓进⾏调整。如果达到某些经济基准（例如失业率、通货膨胀、GDP 增⻓），将给予奖⾦。例 如，这些基准可以每 10 年审查⼀次。 为了进⼀步确保⻓远考虑，他的薪⽔将在他去世后10年内继续存⼊他的遗产。 通过让参议院成为终⾝职位，我们确保选⺠的短期需求和⻓期需求之间的平衡。我们确保今天的选⺠与尚未 出⽣的选⺠之间的平衡。我们巨额的预算⾚字和政府债务给⽬前没有投票权的⼦孙后代带来了负担。让他们 背负如此多的债务是不公平的。现在的选⺠实际上是在向他们的⼦孙征税，以便他们能够享受挥霍的⽣活⽅ 式。 我的第⼆个建议是，我们将投票权转让给其他公⺠。每个选⺠都可以通过电⼦选票市场购买或出售选票。逻 辑是这样的。选⺠企业家已经在⽤纳税⼈的钱购买选票，承诺实施各种有利于这个或那个选区的政府计划。 为什么不让选⺠直接做⽽不通过中间⼈呢？事实上，当政客们已经在这样做时，为什么选⺠不能购买选票 呢？ 收⼊仍然会从富⼈向穷⼈进⾏重新分配，但不会经过效率低下的政府官僚机构。省去中间商可以节省税收。 我认为这在实践中会发⽣：收⼊较⾼的群体最终将获得更多的选票，因为他们有钱花。但热衷于某些事业的 团体也会如此。 他们将利⽤选票来限制政府⽀出和降低税收来为⾃⼰谋取利益。他们还将平衡预算，因为他们知道这是不可 持续的，并且最终会破坏他们的股票和债券投资组合。 但穷⼈将得到现⾦补偿。经过⼀番尝试和错误后，将会达到⼀种平衡，政府福利计划的损失将⼤约等于他 们选票的出售收益。如果没有福利⽀出， 即使在出售选票之后，福利流浪汉也会更有动⼒去寻找⼯作并提⾼技能。 现在是时候让选举过程服从我的提议所允许的某种市场纪律了。最终结果是⼒量平衡更加倾向于⾼于平 均⽔平。这些社会成员通常有充分的理由受过更好的教育、更成功并且创造了更多的⼈均国内⽣产总 值。 他们也是更有才华、更勤奋、更注重⻓远的⼈。成功⼈⼠也往往拥有更稳定的婚姻。在现⾏制度下，对 那些更⾃律、对国家贡献更多、⼯作更努⼒的⼈征收更多的税，以帮助那些更懒惰、更不负责任、贡献 更少的⼈。 在现⾏制度下，选⺠有选举动机向另⼀群⼈——⽼年⼈——推销他们的服务。在现⾏制度下，退休⼈员得 到国家的⽀持。在美国你有社会保障。这意味着您不再需要孩⼦来赡养您的晚年。国家会⽀持你的。换句 话说，你依靠别⼈的孩⼦来养活你。 但每个⼈都有⼀个共同的想法，那就是依赖别⼈的孩⼦。那些花费精⼒和⾦钱培养优秀⽣产公⺠的⼈是为 了他⼈的利益⽽这样做的。他们将缴纳社会保障⾦并⽀持⼀些不露⾯的陌⽣⼈。最终的结果是，夫妇⽣育 的孩⼦数量减少，供养退休⼈员的劳动⼈⼝也减少。这种情况不仅发⽣在美国，也发⽣在其他⺠主国家。 这违背了千年来靠⼦孙养⽼的习俗。这也违反了⼀个很好的原则——你应该根据⾃⼰的努⼒得到回报。依 靠⾃⼰的孩⼦度过晚年也可能对婚姻产⽣有益的影响，因为⼈们有经济动机维持⼀个和谐的家庭来抚养孩 ⼦——因为⾃⼰的孩⼦就是他们的社会保障。⼈们在欺骗配偶之前会三思⽽后⾏，因为这会危及他们的婚 姻。 在现⾏制度下，对⾃⼰的问题充满热情的⼈和对问题冷漠的⼈各有⼀票。根据我提出的改变，那些对环境或 堕胎等问题充满热情的⼈可以⽀付更多选票。 对这些问题充满热情的⼈往往会更了解情况，因为他们做了充分的研究，并且⽐那些对整个选举过程冷漠的 ⼈会更明智地投票。即使在美国总统选举中，通常只有不到 70% 的合格选⺠愿意投票。那些不感兴趣的⼈不 妨将⾃⼰的选票卖给那些感兴趣的⼈。我相信这项提议将把选⺠的重⼼转移到⾼于平均⽔平的先⽣⾝上，这 应该会产⽣更明智的政府。 第三项提议是将总统任期延⻓⾄⼋年。这将使他⽆需寻求连任，并允许他进⾏⻓远思考。不⽤担⼼连任， 思考历史会如何评价他符合他的⾃⾝利益，这将导致更好的决策。 总⽽⾔之，我们不应该对⺠主的未来感到⾃满。⻓期恶化且⽇益严重的经济和种族问题是短视思维的企业家 ⽆法解决的。随着印度和中国（及其勤劳的廉价劳动⼒）的崛起，很明显，欧洲以及较⼩程度上美国的福利 国家⽆法持续。 欧洲拒绝同化和采⽤东道国⽂化的穆斯林移⺠浪潮不断增加，加剧了问题的严重性。经济困难和种族紧张局 势相结合，为⺠主的崩溃和另⼀个强⼈（也许是另⼀个希特勒）的出现奠定了基础。我确信没有⼈愿意看到 这种情况发⽣。我们应该趁还有时间解决问题。但我并不乐观。解决这些问题需要⻓期的解决⽅案和⺠主国 家⽆法带来的短期痛苦。

2.104 Future deportations of Muslims from Europe

2.105 Change of investment/education mentality in the coming decades

Future food supply is essential

Most people underestimate the impact of high population vs. food supply. Being dependant on too much food import is extremely risky and can prove to be catastrophic for certain densely populated countries in a future scenario. Britain will have approximately 70-80 million citizens in phase 2/3 of the civil war. If logistics fail for various reasons millions might starve to death. Food hunger and starvation will likely result in totally anarchy in certain areas of the country.

Cultural conservatives should take precautionary steps and consider and reassess the long term goals of your investment and educational strategy. Being a potato farmer might be unattractive now but is likely to be extremely useful in the future. When the financial system breaks down (and they will) you will always be able to barter if you have access to primary commodities.

Deevaluation of educational strategies

A multitude of educations will have little value under given circumstances. Still, I don’t think it will happen within 20 years. Marseilles or Brussels would be the first “epicentre” for a civil war in a couple of decades most likely. If the multiculturalist governments implement enough countermeasures they can keep stability going for up to five decades. Communist Russia had severe problems already in the 50s but managed to keep it going until 1991 (41 years). The last 20 years before the collapse the population were victim of strict indoctrination and censorship.

There are certain parallels to the current trend of “media blackouts” concerning Muslim riots in European metropolitans and punitive measures taken against anyone criticising the current system model (cultural conservatives). EU will become a lot more totalitarian the next decades before it eventually crashes.

In any case, I give the Western European system model 30-70 years maximum before at least some of them implode.

Shifting our investment mentality from stocks/currency/bonds/real estate etc. to commodity would also be a pragmatical approach in the decades to come.

It’s really hard to predict as we do not yet know the shape or form of the coming phase 2 and 3 war. Full blown civil war may last for up to 10-20 years. Alternatively, it could also be a swift coup, ending the war in days with limited impact on infrastructure and flow of resources.

The worst investment will without a doubt be be anything relating to property and any investment in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims will be deported in the future resulting in a crash and complete meltdown in the real estate market. Prices will be reduces by as much as 90% as there will be hundreds of thousands of vacant housing units in many European cities. My advice to all cultural conservatives now (2010) is therefore to steer away from real estate, stock market investments and investments in Muslim countries altogether and rather invest in commodity. The US is already bankerupt, they just don’t know it yet. They will bring the EU economy down with them.

Stock/option tips for the future:

As a general rule, stay away from stocks. But if nevertheless are planning to invest then focus on the following areas:

Anything military/security related (guns, body armour, war supplies, security etc) Transport sector – truck companies, railway, shipping (bulk, tank etc). Transport rates will go through the roof as they do in all wars. However, many transport units always face the risk of expropriation from national governments/militaries.

Coca Cola and similar companies have traditionally been “crisis proof”.

Farming/food production related companies.

Worst case scenario:

Alternative investments for the future (items that have little value today but will increase in value)

• Guns – everything from assault rifles, ammo, grenades and mines.
• Body armour
• Fortified rural compounds with large rations of food/water
• Survival gear – including survival books, kits, fishing gear, basic farming equipment
• Farms with focus on high calorie products
• Automobiles with limited high tech electronics (standard diesel engines)

Educations for the future

• Agriculture
• Any education with practical implementation - carpentry, car mechanic, medicine, gun smith etc.
• Military/police/security educations

2.106 The ideological journey – from indoctrinated multiculturalist zealot to Conservative Revolutionary

2.107 Further studies

3.A Declaration of pre-emptive War (book 3)

LEGAL DISCLAIMER (for certain chapters in Book 2 and Book: 3. A Declaration of pre-emptive War):
The Conservative Revolution - the only Solution for free Europeans

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

3.1 A phase of dialogue has come to an end (1955-1999) （欧洲独立宣言早期版本）

“If you throw a frog into hot water it will jump out at once. But if you slowly warm it up in a pot of cold water, it doesn’t jump out and boils to death. We can see the decay right in front of our own eyes. We are slowly being boiled to death…”

There have been hundreds of attempts to forward and distribute demands (on behalf of the indigenous peoples of Europe) to Western European governments, political parties and media organisations since 1955. As with all attempts for dialogue, every single one of them has been rejected, ignored or ridiculed. One of these pleas was written by Fjordman in March 2007:

A European Declaration of Independence

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Malta and Ireland demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don’t as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes. We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for “Euro-Mediterranean cooperation” between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye’or’s work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilisation - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.

We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide.

We demand that the ideology of multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture’s eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations.

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been re-established in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of “racism.” Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history.

We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of “racism and xenophobia” by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonisation (see demographic warfare) by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamisation and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonisation and desire self-determination then Europeans have that right, as well. And we intend to exercise it.

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn’t dismantled, multiculturalism isn’t rejected and Muslim immigration isn’t stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

The above declaration was forwarded to many political parties of the so called “Multiculturalist Alliance” (MA100 political parties) and many “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist media organisations in 2007. As expected, no one ever bothered to comment on the demands as it was categorised as “right wing nonsense” and categorically ignored.

3.2 Charges against all cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe (category A and B traitors) （如何对待“敌人”）

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” John Stuart Mill

Individual criminal responsibility:

A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in the following articles shall be held individually responsible for the crime.

The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment.

The fact that any of the acts referred to in the following articles was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.

The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal responsibility, but may or may not be considered in mitigation of punishment in the future (depending on the accused persons current and future acts of repent).

The accused

Charges brought against cultural Marxist/multiculturalist/suicidal humanist/capitalist globalist politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as ”the MA 100” and EU parliamentarians. The accused are also elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in committing the following acts.

The accused are also individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): journalists, editors, teachers, lecturers, university professors, various school/university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists etc. The accused includes many individuals from other professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. In addition, individuals (investors etc) who have directly or indirectly funded related activities. It’s important to note that the stereotypical ”socialists”, collectivists, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc are to be considered on an individual basis only. Not everyone who is associated with one of these groups or movements is to be considered a cultural Marxist/multiculturalist.

The accused are individuals who have deliberately used their influence in a way which makes them indirectly or directly guilty of the listed charges. Many of these individuals will attempt to claim ”ignorance” of the crimes they are accused of.

The charges

1a. Aiding and abetting to cultural genocide against the indigenous peoples of Europe.

Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons[1].

According to the ”United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”[2] the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe (all category A, B and C traitors) are committing cultural genocide against the Indigenous Peoples of Europe.

“United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007.

According to each part of this declaration; Europe is the victim of cultural genocide on par with that of Tibet.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide
2. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

1b. Aiding and abetting a foreign invasion/colonisation of Europe by allowing systematical Islamic demographic warfare (by the Global Islamic Ummah) The cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe are committing high treason by allowing and justifying past and current deliberate Islamic invasion/colonisation of Europe by Muslim states and the rest of the Global Islamic Ummah through the use of demographic warfare (by allowing mass Muslim immigration and allowing and tolerating average Muslim birth-rates of 3-4). These actions committed are coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamisation and the elimination of our freedoms. Europe is thus subject to a foreign invasion and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason.

2a. Contributing to deliberately disallow Europe’s indigenous peoples from exercising the right to resist the Islamic invasion/colonisation through demographic warfare.

2b. Contributing to institutionalised persecution, discrimination, harassment, illegal monitoring, incarceration, torture and/or mental/physical abuse of any and all individuals who attempt to resist or oppose the Islamic invasion/colonisation of Europe through demographic warfare and/or cultural genocide.

Crimes committed against cultural conservatives or other political “enemies/threats”.

• Contributing to expelling (firing)/demoting/hindrance of promotion of more than 40 000 cultural conservatives in various professions due to their political conservative stance.
• Contributing to incarceration of more than 150 000 cultural conservatives or others, who doesn’t support the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist stance, for “resistance” and/or “defence” related acts. Acts related to self-defence or with the purpose of directly or indirectly protecting ethnic Christian European interests (everything from the loss of life to securing national borders). This also includes attacks and/or the execution of cultural Marxists/multiculturalists or pre-emptive strikes for the purpose of preventing/limiting the use of demographic warfare. This also includes acts committed with the purpose of preventing/limiting (through illegal acquirement of funds or through violence) cultural genocide. Among the persecuted/incarcerated are primarily Western European citizens. Serbian and Croat war heroes are however also included.

2c. Aiding and abetting to cause the extinction of the indigenous Europeans’ by creating and/or maintaining the Marxist social structures which has lead to an average fertility rate of less than 1,5 among the indigenous Europeans.

These policies of extinction is nothing less than the deliberate plan to cause the indirect demographical genocide on a mass scale by implementing and maintaining Marxist social structures. This huge deficit is then used as the primary argument to allow mass Muslim immigration. The utter unwillingness to change these social structures (reverse from matriarchal oriented structures to patriarchal structures) leading to this gradual extinction is considered no less than high treason. These Marxist social structures causes an annual Western European birth deficit of at least 2 million. The political doctrines which create the fundament for these Marxist social structures are included in another chapter. A few examples include collaboration by allowing the marketing and propagating the excessive distribution of contraceptive pills to European women, by allowing 500 000 annual abortions, by stripping aways mens rights and prerogative (as patriarch/head of the family) in relation to custody care, by criminalising physical disciplinary methods etc.

3a. Contributing to deliberately and systematically preventing Europe’s indigenous peoples from exercising the right to self-determination.

3b. Contributing to undermine and destroy the Western European democracies by deliberately and systematically importing Muslim voters, encouraging to Islamic block voting and encouraging to Islamic demographic warfare for the purpose of increasing and/or growing voter base.

4.Contributing to deliberately exposing and thus endangering Europe’s indigenous

peoples to individuals and groups who exercise a fascist, violent, discriminating and genocidal political ideology known as Islam. These individuals and groups are all members of the Global Islamic Ummah, who has historically or still are exercising violent, hateful, threatening, discriminating and genocidal behaviour and acts towards and against Europe’s indigenous peoples.

The behaviour and systematic acts of terror includes: demographic warfare, murder, rape, robberies, theft, harassment, slavery, sexual exploitation, financial exploitation and other various forms of physical and mental abuse.

5.Participation of indirect atrocities against Europeans.

3.3 The European Resistance Movement/Indigenous Rights Movement – PCCTS, Knights Templar offer a full pardon to the Western European multiculturalist regimes, the MA 100 alliance (political parties) and all category A and B individual traitors if they capitulate to our military forces by January 1st, 2020 （招降）

We, the National Resistance Movements of Western Europe, are hereby giving you the chance to exonerate yourselves if the following demands are met. The following demands are forwarded to all Western European regimes controlled by the MA 100 alliance (top 100 cultural Marxist/multiculturalist political parties), affiliated NGOs and individual category A and B traitors:

To all category A and B traitors in the following countries:

United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Malta and Ireland

Description of the terms of capitulation

You are to immediately order the national police and military forces in the respective countries to stop persecuting any and all armed National Resistance Movements/Indigenous Rights Movements and allow us to create a tribunal consisting of 20 cultural conservative/nationalist intellectuals/political leaders per country. These individuals must oppose Islamisation, multiculturalism and have a long and credible track record in patriotic oriented political activism. All selected individuals must be staunch supporters of nationalistic ideological principles.

You are to immediately allow this tribunal to mobilise a patriotic military force (known as patriotic transitional guards) by allowing the tribunal, the representatives of the National Resistance Movements unrestricted access to the state broadcasting channel.

As soon as a military force/armed militia consisting of 1000 per 1 million citizens has been established, the tribunal will declare a temporary suspension of the constitution. This will be followed by a declaration of martial law which will last until a new government has been established and order has been restored. The force of “patriotic transitional guards”, lead by the tribunal, is then to gain full control of the national military and police forces. Efforts will then be made to immediately secure control of the border and all significant state institutions. The tribunal will exercise the right to veto all new bills and dictate all issues temporarily relating to international agreements, security related issues, border control and all cultural issues until the genocidal policies currently in effect have been removed and appropriate measures have been implemented.

We can say the following to those who are screaming; “fascist coup!”:

The current multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe are not at all democratic, this country is not democratic. They haven’t been democratic since the 1950s. There is no basis for democracy when all state institutions including schools/universities deliberately use advanced brainwashing techniques (as has been described thoroughly) to condition the people from resisting their own persecution and annihilation through the manifestations of cultural Marxism/multiculturalist doctrines. Furthermore, there is no basis for democracy when 99% of all journalists support and propagate multiculturalism and thus collaborate with the political elites in their quest to indoctrinate the people.

There is no basis for democracy when all patriots and nationalists are ignored, ridiculed or persecuted. Factors such as these and many more have resulted in the Marxist tyranny we live under today. The political and cultural elites are deliberately selling their own people into Islamic slavery by allowing Islamic demographical warfare and by their reluctance to ensure a national indigenous fertility rate of 2,1.

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the author of the US Declaration of Independence, stated;

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

He also wrote:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. […] It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Refreshing the tree is now long overdue as our countries are in a rapid state of disintegration. It is VITAL and essential for the survival of European civilisation and each respective Western European country that we refresh the tree of liberty. The intention of the National Resistance Movement is to do exactly that; to refresh the tree of liberty, and obviously not to cut it down. Refreshing the tree of liberty involves a coup supported by a significant portion of European patriots. It is impossible to guarantee a democratically sanctioned coup as we have to keep in mind that Europeans have been brainwashed now for two generations. Many will oppose us for our stance and call us fascist. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge and understand that we are not. We are not fascists as we do not want a one party state. Only a coup (refreshing the tree of liberty) can ensure the long term survival of the democratic model. All coups involve the temporary suspension of the constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself knew that. However, the goal of the coup is, as stated, not to chop down the tree of liberty but to refresh it.

The cultural conservative tribunal, in light of their newly gained powers will implement the following reforms:

1. Security measures

a. Place patriotic minded individuals in charge of all branches and sub groups of the military, customs, the police force and the intelligence agency where this is necessary.

b. Further develop and maintain a force of “patriotic transitional guards” consisting of 3000 per million citizens minimum. This loyalist military force will be administrated as an independent military branch and will be added in addition to existing security forces. They will oversee and contribute to the future deportation of all Muslims.

c. Deportation policies: All Muslims are to be immediately deported to their country of origin. Each family (family head) will receive 25 000 Euro providing they accept the deportation terms. Anyone who violently resists deportation will be executed.

2. Compensation for past war crimes and persecution a. Financial compensation will be distributed to all nationalists/patriots and a public acknowledgement will be made of the several decade long unlawful political persecutions of nationalist oriented political activists since 1950 until today. Financial compensation and public acknowledgement must be granted to patriotic/nationalist minded contributors from all 8 political fronts who have been indirectly and directly persecuted in Western Europe since 1950.

b. A full pardon and financial compensation will be distributed to all patriotic minded individuals who have been or still are incarcerated in Western European jails.

A full pardon and financial compensation must also be granted to all the 100 000 or so incarcerated individuals in Western European jails who has been partly or fully condemned more harshly for their ideological beliefs, or who has been indirectly incriminated due to primary or secondary effects of multiculturalist political doctrines.

c. Reparations of 500 billion Euros will be paid to the Serbian people for war crimes committed by NATO, under US and European cultural Marxist orders, during the Balkan wars. The US and all European NATO countries are to pay reparations to the Serbian people (250 billion Euros for each block). Alternatively, European NATO countries may pay a smaller sum (50 billion Euros in reparations) providing that they commit financially and militarily to carry the majority of the cost relating to a future liberation of Kosovo and the rest of the Balkans from Muslim rule. See another section for specific details regarding how this operation is to be carried out.

3. Immunity from prosecution and punishment for traitors

All cultural Marxist/multiculturalist category A and B traitors will be granted immunity from prosecution and punishment provided they capitulate before Jan. 1st, 2020 and give their full and unwavering support to the transitional patriotic tribunal. A minimum requirement will be that they at least refrain from criticising the patriotic reforms.

Any cultural Marxist breakaway/dissenting faction who refuses to acknowledge our legitimacy before or during the transitional phase or any faction who directly or indirectly support violent opposition will be severely punished. All category A and B traitors who continue to oppose us will be executed.

4. An immediate removal of all multiculturalist political policies

All multiculturalist political doctrines (laws included) designed to deconstruct European culture, traditions, identities and nation states will be removed. Political reforms will be initiated aimed at public institutions, schools, universities with the goal of removing all multiculturalist policies and completely rewrite falsified multiculturalist school curriculums.

Multiculturalism and the primary destructive components of Marxism will be banned by law as an anti-European hate ideology.

Islam will be banned as a genocidal, anti-kafr hate ideology (this can obviously only be done after the national security situation is fully under control.

5. Implementation of nationalistic doctrines on all levels of society

This will include the following:

a. A re-emphasis on political support for the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. See other chapter for full description.

b. Choosing and implementing a new birth policy – the conservative model or the feminist model. Depending on which model is chosen; implement all relating policies and change the required laws in relation to the societal social structures. Without a fundamental change in our social structures we will be unable to meet the minimum requirement for a sustainable fertility rate: 2,1. See other chapter for full description.

c. Implement the political policies and laws which lay the foundation for the desired social structures. Our societies will go from being matriarchies to once again becoming patriarchies. See other chapter for full description.

d. Implementation of the new foreign policy (aid policies, diplomatic relations, general foreign affairs). The Balkans will be liberated from Islamic occupation. However, no measures will be taken against Turkey until the US implodes or bursts out into civil war due to multiculturalism. See other chapter for full description.

e. Appoint nationalist oriented individuals as heads in all public offices. Ensure that our media companies, publishing firms, schools and universities are no longer exploited as an arena where Marxist oriented individuals are allowed to influence and indoctrinate individuals. A special emphasis must be directed at the faculties of sociology, journalism and political science. See other chapter for full description.

f. Create liberal zones as a method to avoid conflict between cultural conservatives and individuals who seeks unrestricted freedoms. Liberal zones may be granted semiautonomy. See other chapter for more details.

6. Media reforms and future restrictions

a. Campaigns will be initiated consisting of affirmative action of nationalistic minded individuals (anti-multiculturalists) to all broadcasting/news/media companies with a given distribution network. A minimum of 50% of all journalists should be nationalist oriented individuals (anti-multiculturalist). The news/media coverage of national and international political issues especially concerning security, defence, culture, social structures and immigration/deportation should reflect the new political climate. Efforts must also be made to counter any foreign psychological warfare campaigns and to prevent any foreign state from severely undermining the political transitional tribunal during this period.

b. Multiculturalist media programs which are directly or indirectly undermining national cohesion or the political doctrines related to newly adopted birth policies will be prevented or may be restricted to liberal zones of that country. There will be certain censoring of anti-national/Marxist programs until liberal zones has been created. Destructive lifestyles must not be glorified as it undermines the new policy which includes the revitalisation of cultural confidence and a strengthening of national cohesion. Sex and the city lifestyles must not be glorified as it undermines the nations goal to increase the average birth rate from 1,5 to 2,1-2,3. However, this depends on which birth policy will be selected (the feminist birth policy will allow the continuation of displaying and glorification of certain negative lifestyles.

7. New civilisational goal: 20% of the annual national budget must be reserved for the furtherance of the nation. This will ensure a future of prosperity and a high living standard. These funds will be reserved for research and development in relation to science and technology. Under no circumstances should these resources be transferred to cover other deficits.

8. After the transitional period has ended

We will reform our democratical model from a “mass-democracy model” to a model more resembling the Russian system of administered democracy. The patriotic tribunal will remain as a guardian council after the transitional period has ended. Their primary tasks and roles will consist of the following:

• The national military command, the patriotic guard and the police forces will all be under the direct and full control of the of the guardian council and not the government. However, the government will have the right to decide just about any other matter with only a few exceptions.
• The guardian council will prevent hardcore Marxists/cultural Marxists from once again infiltrating the various sectors of society.
• The guardian council will ensure that the suicidal humanists and capitalist globalists do not misuse their influence in a way that significantly undermines the country or the people.
• The guardian council will ensure that the nation maintains a fertility rate of at least 2,1. If the government fails to reach this target, the guardian council may implement any and all measures necessary in order to reach sustainability.
• The guardian council will ensure that monocultural and cultural conservative doctrines are enacted.
• The guardian council may veto any resolution but should under optimal circumstances never have to exercise this right.

General demands from the people which are covered in the above policies

1. The right to maintain our traditional majorities in our own lands, control our own sovereignty and our own self-determination. We do not wish harm or ill-feeling toward any other peoples on earth, but we assert the right to maintain our own majorities in our own lands without being accused of “racism.” We reject current trends, institutionalised through multiculturalism, which preach that we have no right to oppose, control or lessen unlimited immigration from non-indigenous cultures.
2. The right to teach our children our cultures, languages, historical interpretations, religious celebrations and traditions unimpeded. We reject educational trends, , institutionalised through multiculturalism, which encourage our children to forget or despise their culture, traditions, religious practices and history in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.
3. The right to maintain, cherish and practice our own indigenous religious holidays and celebrations. We reject out of hand current trends, institutionalised through multiculturalism, which preach that traditional indigenous European religious or cultural celebrations such as Christmas are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” and therefore must be “downgraded,” “renamed” or otherwise de-emphasised or eliminated in order to avoid offending non-indigenous European residents or citizens. We reject current policies which establish that our indigenous cultures are somehow deficient and therefore are not complete until they are “enriched” by other, non-indigenous cultures.
4. The right to maintain, cherish and display our own indigenous religious, national, ethnic and cultural symbols. We reject out of hand current trends or policies, institutionalised through multiculturalism, which preach that our national flags or ethnic symbols of centuries standing are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.
5. The right to maintain, cherish, protect and display our own indigenous cultural expressions such as music, artwork and sculptures. We reject out of hand current trends or policies, institutionalised through multiculturalism, which preach that indigenous European cultural expressions such as statues of boars, folkloric tales about pigs or dogs, paintings with Christian or Classical pagan themes, war memorials with a Christian theme, etc., should be removed from public view, banned, destroyed, modified or otherwise threatened in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.
6. The right to maintain, cherish and protect indigenous burial sites, structures, buildings, churches, museums and other public works and structures from destruction, modification or other changes. We reject out of hand current trends or policies, institutionalised through multiculturalism, which establish that indigenous public works and structures must be changed or modified to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens, or to “make way” for structures or public works that benefit nonEuropean residents or citizens (i.e. digging up indigenous graves that are centuries old in order to “make room” for non-indigenous cemeteries, removing external Christian symbols and statues from churches, etc.)

Mr. Franco Frattini of the EU Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for nearly half a billion people, has stated that Europeans should accept further tens of millions of immigrants within a generation. The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the EU should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. This is part of an organised attempt to surrender Europe to Islamisation that has been going on for decades. Since the European Union involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims and other non-indigenous peoples at a time when native Europeans fear for the survival of their civilisation and feel like aliens in their own cities. Meanwhile, Ernst Uhrlau, the president of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, warned about the rising assertiveness of violent Jihadist organisations in North Africa.

Based on this evidence, the European Union, all MA100 political parties (Multiculturalist Alliance 100, European political parties in support of multiculturalism), and other political entities influencing European decision-making, can hardly be seen as anything other than criminal organisations dedicated to the demographic dispossession and cultural marginalisation of the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. Consequently, the EU should be immediately dissolved. Native Europeans should demand that we have an interim period with public de-Eurabification, where the lies propagated by pro-Islamic Multiculturalists should be removed from our history books, and a proper respect for European cultural traditions should be restored. Those individuals and officials on senior levels who have participated in the creation and/or implementation of European multiculturalism/“the Eurabia project” should stand trial for crimes against their civilisation.

3.4 Why armed resistance against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe is the only rational approach

Quick summary

1. We are subject to cultural Marxist/multiculturalist institutionalised ideological coercion and brainwashing through government institutions. Private institutions are forced to conform to the same cultural Marxist/multiculturalist principles.
2. More or less every media organisation is propagating cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist principles. “Free press” in Western Europe does not exist. The mainstream media has been hijacked by cultural Marxists/multiculturalists and are not acting in the interest of Europeans and Europe. There is no freedom of speech in Europe. If you don’t cheer and embrace your own annihilation you are a racist bigot, an enemy of the establishment and must be suppressed, ridiculed, undermined and persecuted. This policy of oppression and persecution has been ongoing since the creation of multiculturalism in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Political, cultural and media elites are colluding against the interests of free indigenous Europeans.
3. The cultural Marxists/multiculturalists systematically import millions of voters which increases their political position from year to year. It is simply not possible to compete democratically with regimes who import millions of voters.
4. Right wing political parties fight an up-hill battle and every single bill and suggestion is ultimately rejected. This leaves the cultural conservatives (anti-multiculturalist) parties in Western Europe with zero influence. As such, the right wing parties indirectly contribute to pacify the cultural conservatives of Europe by giving them false hope. Instead of telling their sympathisers to give them their vote they should admit to everyone and announce publicly that the democratical struggle has been lost and that all cultural conservatives should initiate armed resistance against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist establishment.

3.5 A new era has come - the time for dialogue is now over

3.6 Explanation of the European Civil War - Phase 1, 2 and 3

3.7 There are four potential outcomes of Phase 2 and 3

3.8 Differentiating between and dealing with category A, B and C traitors: hardcore Marxists, cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists/career cynicists and capitalist globalists （如何对待不同的“敌人”）

One of the foundational problems in Europe today is that the multiculturalists and the suicidal humanists lie to everyone to preserve comfortable illusions. Political correctness is a mandatory lie in European societies.

The multiculturalists have traditionally cheered the most violent totalitarian movements in other parts of the world as “freedom fighters” (Islamic and communist organisations) while native Europeans in Denmark, Germany, the UK or France who peacefully fight against becoming a persecuted minority in their own country always are labeled as racists, fascists, Nazis and generally the worst scum of the earth. Why are so called Palestinians who fight for their own country “nice” while Europeans doing the same labeled as “evil”? The answer is simple: Because native Norwegians, Brits, French, Germans are white Christians and therefore evil by default according to multiculturalist doctrines.

It is expected that native Europeans shall humbly watch and applaud their own annihilation and extinction. The fact that we are persecuted and harassed in our own countries does not violate our human rights because we are white Christians and therefore evil by default.

It is a pretty terrifying prospect that the prevailing ideology that dominates Western Europe long term will result in the extermination of people like me and you. Nevertheless, it is the only plausible theoretical explanation of the current development. As such, multiculturalism is an inversed form of Nazism where white European Christians ends up at the bottom of the food chain instead of on top. Exactly how the Jews according to National Socialist doctrines automatically were blamed for everything that went wrong in society. Multiculturalisms doctrine teaches that “white racism” is the cause of all problems in our societies. The indigenous peoples of Europe are increasingly exposed to more violence, ridicule and persecution in cities all over Western Europe. This does not result in any sympathy whatsoever. The multiculturalists become increasingly hateful in their rhetorical attacks against us the more we are humiliated by Muslims, groups they mass import to our countries. This tells us everything we need to know about their real intentions.

As we all know a large portion of the multiculturalists lie about their motives when justifying mass Muslim immigration. The most common lie is the “humanist justification”. If they were honest they would say the following:

We believe the typical European Christian man and woman, Christendom and European nationalism is the cancer of the world so we have decided to exterminate it. We will do this through multiculturalism. The next decades we will deconstruct European identity, European traditions, European culture, European Christendom and European nation states. This is a long term project that will involve new waves of the colonisation of Europe by the Islamic world etc.

Obviously, everyone with half a brain understands that this type of honesty would only result in violent uprisings. We, Europeans, would simply never accept it. This is why deceit is necessary and this is why all multiculturalists are using humanist principles as a deceptive mask to justify the overwhelming reforms we are witnessing today. Humanism is systematically exploited as a smoke screen by the multiculturalists and Muslim lobbyists that has resulted in liberal family reunification and political asylum arrangements. These are political mechanics which facilitates Islamic demographical warfare.

Differentiating between Marxists, humanists, career cynicists and capitalist globalists

How shall we differentiate between hardcore Marxists, cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists/career cynicists and the capitalist globalists? The common factor here is that they all believe they are doing the right thing, so they all have good intentions, at least according to themselves. But this can also be said about Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. They were all idealists in their own twisted way. Regardless of their twisted intentions they are all mass murderers and must be treated as such.

The only thing that separates Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot with today’s cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists, career cynicists and capitalist globalists (multiculturalists) is that the tyrants of today are all directly responsible for the extermination of THEIR OWN people and intend to sell the rest into Islamic slavery. Never in the history of man has an ideology revolved around the concept of exterminating its own people. As such, multiculturalism is truly unique in human history.

The intentions of our enemies in relation to future executions and a possible new Nurnberg process (prosecution of category A, B and C traitors).

Mapping the enemy (definitions):

Traditional Marxists, cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists, career cynicists and capitalist globalists – all support and propagate multiculturalism.

Proving each individuals real intention is a complicated process as most of today’s cultural Marxists disguise their true agenda by using humanistic principles and rhetoric (at least publicly) as a basis for justifying their actions. However, we know that a good portion of them (more than 30% of our opposition) use this smoke screen of humanist deception to hide their hatred for everything European.

What complicates this process further is the fact that the ongoing European civil war is not a class war but a cultural war. Motives are overlapping and old definitions are outdated. The old fundamental definitions were nationalists vs. communists, or socialists vs. capitalists. Many of today’s multiculturalists are capitalists and some of today’s cultural conservatives support a very solidaric economical system. More or less every humanist/social democrat etc. is a multiculturalist as they support liberal political mechanics such as family reunification and asylum arrangements which again facilitates Islamic demographical warfare. Some of these individuals are true humanists and just extremely naive, yet others are just hiding behind humanist rhetoric and really want to destroy European culture, traditions, identity, Christendom and national sovereignty.

An estimate showing the opponents of cultural conservative doctrines (antinationalists):

• Hardcore Marxists: 10% (hateful intentions)
• Cultural Marxists: 20% (semi hateful intentions)
• Suicidal Humanists/career cynicists: 65% (suicidally naive/egotistical)
• Capitalist globalists: 5% (greed)

100% of the above support and propagate multiculturalism.

Quotes such as the ones made by Andrew Neather adds to the documentation which proves that a relatively large multiculturalist network on all levels of European politics: political activists, journalists, politicians, NGO leaders - locally, nationally and on EU level have a deliberate plan to destroy European cohesion, identity, our culture by implementing multiculturalist doctrines and allowing mass Muslim immigration. This is most efficiently done by allowing millions of Muslims to colonise Europe. And they have done it for years, concealing it using humanist justification.

Andrew Neather, worked for Mr Straw and as a speech writer for Mr Blair. He confirmed that a Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.

Jack Straw and Tony Blair ‘dishonestly’ concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public.

The driving force and intention was also to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration and “destroy the conservatives once and for all”.

Conclusion

The common factor between all variations of multiculturalists is that they all believe they are doing the right thing, so they all have good intentions, at least according to themselves. But this can also be said about Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. They were all idealists in their own twisted way. Regardless of their twisted intentions they are all mass murderers and must be treated as such.

No mercy will be shown for category A, B and C traitors. The punishment for high treason is the same whether you are a hardcore Marxist, cultural Marxist, suicidal humanist, career cynicist or a capitalist globalist.

3.9 Demands/requests/pleas to our National Military Commands

Introduction - The European National Military commands and the Islamisation of Europe

The European national military commands have a responsibility to serve and protect their people. They should immediately disallow the cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist government from continuing to implement the EU’s Eurabia project (European multiculturalism/Islamisation of Europe). They have a duty to stop the ongoing Islamic demographic warfare (mass Muslim immigration combined with high birth rates) waged against Europe by the Global Islamic Ummah.

The European national military commands should immediately and without hesitation declare martial law, suspend the constitution, secure the national borders, arrest, try and execute all category A and B traitors and implement cultural conservative rules and regulations specified in this document.

By refusing to take responsibility, the European national military commands are forcing their own people to take action and act in the form of creating militias or covert military orders.

The following Demands/requests/pleas are directed to all Senior and Junior officers. We are aware of the fact that many officers are loyal to their government first and foremost and are thus serving the interests of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites instead of serving the interests of their people. However, we know that a majority of Senior and Junior officers are very discontent with the current development and are looking (although not actively) for a window of opportunity which will allow them to begin serving the interests of their people. The following demands/requests/pleas are directed at them. Officers who are willing to sell out their own people and their country in order to serve their current cultural Marxist/multiculturalist governments will be considered traitors and will face a severe punishment in Phase 2 and 3.

Demands/requests/pleas to our National Military Commands

To the:

The British Armed Forces, The Military of France, The Bundeswehr, The Military of the Netherlands, The Military of Belgium, The Military of Luxembourg, The Swedish Army, The Royal Danish Army, The Royal Norwegian Army, The Finnish Army, The Spanish Armed Forces, The Portuguese Armed Forces, The Italian Army, The Hellenic Army, The Military of Switzerland, The Austrian Armed Forces, The Military of Iceland, The Armed Forces of Malta, The Irish Defence Forces

We, the free, indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Malta and Ireland hereby demand that our National Military Command immediately and without hesitation initiate preparations to seize political control of the country through a coup d’état, declaring martial law, suspending the constitution, securing the national borders, key institutions, arrest, try and execute all category A and B traitors and implementing cultural conservative rules and regulations (through military tribunals).

The Western European governments and the rest of the Multiculturalist Alliance are guilty of high treason for various crimes against the indigenous peoples of Europe (see charges 1-8). The Multiculturalist Alliance must be stopped immediately and without hesitation before further crimes are committed against the indigenous peoples of Europe.

We demand that you immediately contribute to stop the implementation of the European hate ideology known as multiculturalism. The ideology of multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and the new state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations.

We demand that you contribute to legally re-classify Islam as a totalitarian, racist and violent political ideology and that the Quran and Hadith are banned altogether.

We strongly urge you to acknowledge the fact that an Islamic demographic warfare (through mass Muslim immigration combined with an average Muslim birth-rate of 3-4) is being waged against the Western European countries by the Global Islamic Ummah. We demand that you immediately act upon this deliberate invasion/colonisation and support the implementation of necessary counter-measures in the form of:

1. Implementation of the assimilation policy included in this document or
2. Deport all Muslim individuals from European soil (who fail to follow the assimilation policy or whom are not given the opportunity).

When you do decide to act; a State of emergency should last until the national military and their cultural conservative political advisers have successfully deported all Muslims and implemented all necessary reforms. Suggested strategies regarding the implementation of reforms and deportations are and will continue to be elaborated in detail.

Declaring Martial law, suspending the constitution and securing control of the state administration has to be done as soon as possible. The longer you wait the harder it will be to avoid massive casualties on both sides. To illustrate the problem; The cultural Marxists/multiculturalists have for the last decades constructed an Islamic demographical minefield across Western Europe; If we touch it and try to solve the problem now, through mass deportations, it will blow up and thousands of people will die. However, if we continue to ignore and delay it, it will also eventually blow up. But then, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people will die. The choice is easy. Act as soon as humanly possible!

The only pragmatical approach is to begin making preparations and to act as soon as possible!

Until the day you decide to act; we, the free peoples of Western Europe will have no choice but to take matters into our own hands and act accordingly. The PCCTS, Knights Templar is a manifestation of this initial struggle, phase 1 of the Western European civil war.

3.10 Assimilation policy/demands/offer for Muslim individuals living in Europe (this offer will expire on Jan 1st, 2020)

The following assimilation policy is to be accepted by all Muslims who currently live on European soil and want to continue to live in Europe. The deadline is Jan. 1st, 2020.

Failure to accept and comply with given policies will result in immediate deportation for you and your closest family (individual evaluation is required). The deportations will be effectuated as soon as the current regime(s) have been neutralised and once a cultural conservative government has been formed. Failure to comply within the deadline (2020) will result in losing the possibility of future re-evaluation.

1. Convert to Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant).

Every individual is to accept baptism, the ritual act by which one is admitted to membership of the Christian Church, as a member of the particular Church in which the baptism is administered.

Attempt of al-taqiyya (Islamic deceit) for shorter or longer periods in order to try to wait for a regime change will not be tolerated. The convert will celebrate Christian holidays and adopt mainstream Christian customs and has to attend Church at least once a year during the full duration of the assimilation period (50) before he or any member of his family is allowed to follow a purely secular lifestyle. Secular Muslims are considered fully Muslim as long as they have not converted. The reason is because even secular Muslims celebrate Islamic holidays and perform certain Islamic religious or political rituals.

2. Name change

During the required baptism the individual is to be given a Christian/European traditional name (first, middle and last name). No Arab/Asian/Islamic name is allowed (including The 99 Names of Allah).

3. Not allowed to practice your ”mother tongue” or Arabic

It is strictly prohibited to practice the individuals ”mother tongue” - Farsi, Urdu, Arabic, Somali etc. in any way – both in writing or vocally (this applies in all areas of society - home and elsewhere). Obviously this does not apply to Muslims living in Europe who are practising a European language (Bosniaks etc.).

4. All mosques and Islamic centers will be demolished or converted

All mosques which were built for the purpose of being a mosque will be demolished. All other buildings which were previously converted will be re-converted to their former use.

5. All Islamic and/or Arab-style or equivalent buildings/artwork will be demolished or modified

All traces of Islamic culture in Europe will be eradicated, even locations considered historical.

6. Attempts to celebrate Islamic holidays, exercise or portray Sharia/Islamic codes/markers is strictly prohibited

An attempt of celebrating Ramadan, Eid or any Islamic holiday is strictly prohibited. This includes all cultural related rituals, dress codes, Islamic religious or cultural circumcisions, Islamic preparation of food, the use of any Muslim flag or identification (crescent moon), religious or cultural markings.

7. Measures taken against attempts of demographic warfare

All “ex-Muslim couples” (where both parents were/are Muslims) will not be allowed to exceed a birth rate of 2. Any breach of this policy will be considered a breach of the assimilation policies.

8. Correspondence with other Muslims abroad is strictly prohibited

All forms of correspondence (electronically, telephonic etc.) with Muslims living abroad is strictly forbidden. This includes contact with Muslim family in the country you originated from.

9. All travel to Muslim countries/territories or to any country where Muslims make out more than 20% of the population is strictly prohibited

Length of assimilation period

The assimilation period, with monitoring procedures, will last for a minimum of 2 generations (no shorter than 50 years) before the individual is considered to be successfully assimilated.

Various measures will be used for monitoring individuals who has accepted the assimilation policies to ensure that they are not trying to perform al-taqiyya.

Purpose of assimilation policies

Implementation of the assimilation policies will allow all ex-Muslims to be fully assimilated. This will also allow you to show and prove your allegiance and loyalty to “your new kinsmen”, to Europe and to Christianity. In return, you will be accepted as a European.

Failure to comply with the assimilation policies (offer expires Jan 1st, 2020) Failure to accept and comply with given policies will result in immediate deportation for you and your closest family (individual evaluation is required). The deportations will be effectuated as soon as the current regime (s) has been neutralised. Failure to comply within the deadline (2020) will result in losing the possibility of future re-evaluation.

Why will individuals lose the possibility of being re-evaluated after the deadline[1]?

Any individual in question must be a credible candidate. Obviously, he won’t be considered as a credible candidate if he or she is under duress (which will be the case in phase 2 and 3, 2030-2090). This is the reason why the offer expires in 2020. A Muslim who accepts the following assimilation policy under duress will most likely perform altaqiyya (religious deceit allowed by the Quran and Hadith) for as long as he has to. As such, any convertion performed after the deadline will be considered al-taqiyya[1].

Essential case study

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos (Essential case study)

3.11 The history of Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici (Knights Templar)

3.12 Re-founding of Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici – PCCTS, the Knights Templar

3.13 Founding principles of the Order/Tribunal

3.14 PCCTS, the Knights Templar ranks – Phase 1

3.15 What is a “Justiciar Knight” and how do I attain the rank?

3.16 PCCTS - Purpose and objectives of re-founding

3.17 Justiciar Knights tasks and requirements

“If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve.” Lao Tzu

3.18 ”Open source” warfare - clandestine cell systems - the most efficient way of warfare in Phase 1

3.19 Cell structure - Cell Commander

3.20 PCCTS, Knights Templar - Organisational overview

3.21 7 Deadly mistakes to be avoided

1. Use single or duo cell system. Several larger hierarchical networks/groups have been uncovered and brought down in both Europe and the US due to crucial mistakes that could easily have been avoided. Typical mistakes can be affiliations with individuals on government watch-lists, if you add the people from your group on Facebook etc. If you even as much as give indications that you are up to something to people you know, you are incriminating them (and thus, indirectly putting pressure on them to turn you in). A few years ago a large military nationalist network was brought down in the US (consisting of around 100 people). There were clear evidence that the individuals were linked (evidence from informants, phone logs etc) and they all received harsh sentences. The most rational approach would have been to create 50-100 cells and cutting contact with each other completely (12-24 months prior to the assaults). Instead this group worked as one big cell which made them very vulnerable. One key informant could bring down the whole network. Obviously, you are immune to informants/treason if you work alone.
2. The second mistake is inexperience. Assuming the enemy is stupid, underestimates the enemy’s intelligence, thinks everything is easy and, as a result, leaves evidence that can lead to his apprehension. Because of his inexperience, he may also overestimate the resourcefulness of the enemy, believing them to be smarter than they really are. Allowing himself to be fooled by this presumption, he becomes intimidated and remains insecure and indecisive, paralyzed and lacking in audacity.
3. The third mistake is to select an overwhelmingly protected individual as a target for assassination. 12 failed attempts on an extremely well protected individual could have alternatively been 12 successful attacks on lesser targets executing more than 50 primary targets. Targets should be influential media personalities – multiculturalist politicians, journalists/editors, cultural Marxist professors, Marxist writers/artists, NGO leaders, globalist investors. Obviously, focus on individuals who does not have armed body guards.
4. The fourth mistake is to boast about the actions you have undertaken or is about to undertake and to broadcast them to the four winds. It is good to have a strong sense of purpose but if you are afflicted by an excessive need to feed your ego, you are likely to trust sensitive information to individuals who will sell you out. If you are desperate for attention and for “love/appreciation/compliments” you are likely to take un-necessary risks that will end in your incarceration. Do not involve your ego by boasting about your success, operation or entering into a “competition” with other patriots. As a Justiciar Knight, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing sensitive information to outsiders (whether they may sympathize with your core principles or not). I estimate that approximately 50% of all armed resistance fighters are are arrested and incarcerated before they even get the chance to execute their mission due to their incompetence in relation to their total lack of discretion.
5. The fifth mistake is to overestimate your partners strength/conviction and to undertake actions for which you, as yet, lack sufficient equipment or competence.
6. The sixth mistake is rash action. You lose patience, suffer an attack of nerves, do not wait for anything, and impetuously throw yourself into action, resulting in a failed operation.
7. The seventh mistake is to fail to plan things THOROUGHLY, and to act spontaneously.

3.22 Using terror as a method for waking up the masses – many of our people will hate us for it

“During a time of change, the patriot is a scarce man. He is hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him. For then it costs nothing to be a patriot. “

Mark Twain

You might remember the character from the first Matrix movie; somehow this character had been awoken from his “pod” where he was connected to a fantasy world, a software program. He didn’t like the reality he now faced as this involved suffering and a fight against the machines at terrible odds. He didn’t want to fight and he didn’t want to suffer. All he wanted was to be reconnected to his pod where he could live his old fantasy life again – disconnected from reality. The character went as far as cooperating with the machines and betrayed his own people, for the promise of being reconnected to his pod. He was simply unwilling to face reality and would even kill his own people to avoid confronting it.

In a way, this is the mainstream European in a nutshell. Scores of the people we want to save from the ongoing European genocide do not want our help (or at least, believe they do not want our help). In fact, many of them would do everything in their power to avoid being confronted with reality. This explains very often why well meaning individuals who are trying to warn the people around them of an impending danger are condemned, ridiculed and even persecuted. It has become our, the brave few, thankless task to wake up the people from the “pods” and recruit them for the resistance movements of Europe. Unfortunately for us, human nature can very often be disadvantageous to us. Many people have adapted to this genocidal system and some have even indirectly accepted their fate. They accept that the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes are in the process of wiping out European identity, our cultures, traditions and even our nation states. Many are brainwashed to a degree where they will defend this extermination program with their very life.

In order to wake up the masses, the only rational approach will be to make sure the current system implodes. This will cause a lot of short term pain; cut in welfare payouts, increased unemployment even starvation in extreme cases. The bulk of our people will refuse to join resistance movements because they feel they have too much to lose. They have invested several years and a lot of resources in long educations and most people have mortgages/loans which they have no choice but to attend to. Many receive exceptional government incentives to stay “loyal” to the system. All of these responsibilities and incentives cause a symbiosis between the victims (people) and the exterminator (regime) to a degree where we have a collective mass-scale “Stockholm syndrome” (sympathies and loyalty to captor). Our objective is to break these bonds and this can only be achieved through contributing to creating a scenario where the antiEuropean hate ideology we wish to destroy perishes/implodes or dies from a thousand cuts. For every successful operation a new cut is applied and will contribute to this ideology’s demise. Wiping out Marxism in Europe will take us 30-70 years but we will succeed eventually. Every effort counts, have no doubt about that.

As the system weakens gradually, the unemployment rate will rise and people will suffer short term. However, this is the only way we can create a situation where people will actually stand up for their opinions. We must break their symbiosis to their captor and many of the people we are trying to liberate will hate us for it. Nevertheless, it is the only way to destroy cultural Marxism in Western Europe and secure freedom to all Europeans.

3.23 The cruel nature of our operations

“We do not want to do this, but we are left no choice.”

The 3-phase-process of destroying and replacing the current cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe will not be easy or painless. Keep in mind that these regimes we are fighting have and are still committing genocide against the indigenous peoples of Europe by exposing them to more than 25 million Muslims. They have indirectly killed more than 15 000 Europeans, raped more than 500 000 European women, robbed and terrorised more than 4,5 million Europeans, fired more than 37 000 cultural conservatives from their jobs and incarcerated more than 150 000 brothers and sisters for opposing their policies.

As a Justiciar Knight you are operating as a jury, judge and executioner on behalf of all free Europeans. Never forget that it is not only your right to act against the tyranny of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe, it is your duty to do so.

There are situations in which cruelty is necessary, and refusing to apply necessary cruelty is a betrayal of the people whom you wish to protect.

The preferred method is to attack in a violent and deceptive form (shock attack), usually with limited forces (1-2 individuals).

Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike. Explain what you have done (in an announcement distributed prior to operation) and make certain that everyone understands that we, the free peoples of Europe, are going to strike again and again. Do not apologise, make excuses or express regret for you are acting in self-defence or in a preemptive manner. In many ways, morality has lost its meaning in our struggle. The question of good and evil is reduced to one simple choice. For every free patriotic European, only one choice remains: Survive or perish. Some innocent will die in our operations as they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Get used the idea. The needs of the many will always surpass the needs of the few.

3.24 Principle of Proportionality

3.25 Funding your operation

3.26 Avoiding suspicion from relatives, neighbours and friends

Present a ”credible project/alibi” to your friends, co-workers and family. Announce to your closest friends, co-workers and family that you are pursuing a ”project” that can at least partly justify your ”new pattern of activities” (isolation/travel) while in the planning phase.

Avoid exposing your political conviction

Appear politically correct or at least moderate, dress normally. Try to limit your rhetorical activities. Avoid excessive forum posting. Excessive forum activity might get you ”flagged” by your national government.

How to use social taboos to prevent individuals close to you from digging too much or ask too many questions - AND how to easily manipulate them into assisting you in protecting your cover from everyone else without them having the slightest clue what is going on.

Using social taboos is an extremely effective method from preventing people who know you well from digging too much or ask too many questions about your activities that weekend or that year. It is also an extremely effective method for manipulating them into protecting your cover.

3.27 Avoid ending up on watch lists

There are certain steps you can take in order to make it very hard for the National Intelligence Agency to monitor you.

Obviously, the best approach is to avoid ending up on their watch list all together. They may have you on a watch list already and might even monitor some of your activities (internet/cell phone traffic). This will likely be the case if you have been involved in right wing activities in the past and are considered a threat against the establishment.

Avoid using channels they can monitor for activities involving planning of the operation. Use alias’s when corresponding while doing research. Use software which masks your IP address and other technology while researching via the internet (f example the Tor network, anonymize.net or Ipredator). Be extra careful when researching for bomb schematics (fertiliser bombs) as many terms will trigger electronic alerts. You can consider using other people’s networks remotely via laptop by parking outside their apartment/house. You can also buy an anonymous laptop and browse free from your local Mc Donalds etc. Use software to remove spy ware, cookies etc.

Before you start planning an operation use the following guidelines:

No email correspondence, phone activity that might incriminate you or reveal any information of relevance.

The most essential aim is to avoid ending up on any watch list.

3.28 Anti-monitoring routines

3.29 How to stay motivated for longer periods – perform a daily mental check

3.30 Diversify risk by dividing the operation into 4 phases

3.31 Equipment – weapons/ammo/armour etc.

3.32 Armour Phase – KT guide to ballistic armour

3.33 Related tactical equipment and miscellaneous

3.34 Weapons phase

3.35 Physical training, packing gear and running simulations before the operation

3.36 Safe storage of equipment in remote caches (elimination of evidence)

3.37 Using foreign “black markets” when acquiring equipment

3.38 Services offered by European criminal syndicates/networks

3.39 Sending announcements before an operation

3.40 Applying deceptive means in urban guerrilla warfare

3.41 Western European primary targets (Phase 1)

3.42 Western European primary targets - Priority list

3.43 MA100 - political parties supporting Multiculturalism

3.44 Traitor – classification system - Category A, B and C traitors （叛徒分类）

注：本节中叛徒分类标准及如何处理不同类型的叛徒的内容很有参考意义。

“The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which.”

Mark Twain

This classification system is used to identify various individual cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist traitors. The intention of the system is to easier identify priority targets and will also serve as the foundation for the future “Nuremberg trials” once the European cultural conservatives reassert political and military control of any given country. Any category A, B or C traitor is an individual who has deliberately used his or her influence in a way which makes him or her indirectly or directly guilty of the charges specified in this document: 1-8. Many of these individuals will attempt to claim ”ignorance” of the crimes they are accused of.

Category A traitor

• Political leaders (NGO leaders included)
• Media leaders (chief editors)
• Cultural leaders
• Industry leaders

Category A traitors are usually any current Heads of State, ministers/senators, directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. who are guilty of charges 1-8. Category A traitors consist of the most influential and highest profile traitors.

10 per 1 million citizens.

Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds

Category B traitor

Category B traitors are cultural Marxist/multiculturalist politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as ”the MA 100” (parties who support multiculturalism) and EU parliamentarians. They can be elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in committing the following acts. Category B traitors can also be individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): journalists, editors, teachers, lecturers, university professors, various school/university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists/celebrities etc. They can also be individuals from other professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. In addition, individuals (investors etc) who have directly or indirectly funded related activities. It’s important to note that the stereotypical ”socialists”, collectivists, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc are to be considered on an individual basis only. Not everyone who are associated with one of these groups or movements is to be considered as a cultural Marxist/multiculturalist. Former category A traitors; Heads of State, Ministers/Senators etc., directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. can be re-classified as category B traitors for practical targeting reasons (they have lost influence and will not yield the same target value/effect as current category A traitors).

Certain ANTIFA leaders or organisers related to ANTIFA movements (and other dedicated members) are considered category B traitors. Non-essential members are considered category C traitors. Many professionals such as f. example journalists, influential sociologists or university professors etc. are considered and categorized as category B traitors as we consider them political activists and not merely professionals. They will of course claim ignorance and state that they are a-political. This strategy might work for them until the day where they are visited by a Justiciar Knight - their judge, jury and executioner.

1000 per 1 million citizens.

Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds. Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.

Category C traitor

Category C traitors are less influential and lower priority targets (often individuals who have facilitated category A and B traitors) but who are still guilty of charges 1-8.

10 000 per 1 million citizens.

Punishment: fines, incarceration, expropriation (considered as acceptable indirect casualties in larger operations where WMDs are involved).

Category D individuals

Category D individuals have little or no political influence but are facilitating category B and C traitors and/or MA100 political parties/media companies through various means. They are not guilty of charges 1-8 but work with or for individuals who are. The classification is of relevance when calculating/estimating indirect casualties concerning larger operations where WMDs are involved, as any category D individuals is not considered an innocent “civilian” but rather as a secondary servant/facilitator.

20 000-30 000 per 1 million citizens

3.45 Added or diminished emphasis on flagged targets

3.46 Killing women on the field of battle – directly or indirectly

3.47 Avoiding apprehension/arrest and death

3.48 Quick summary – overview of the planning and operational phases for your mission

Evaluating attack strategies: 1. Shock attacks, 2. Sabotage operations, 3. Manipulative proxy attacks

3.49 Conventional shock attacks (non-WMD)

3.50 Creation of a secondary strategy (plan b) in case of exposure

3.51 Defence and Attack Methods - Field Strategies

3.53 Obtaining and using WMD’s against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites

Sabotage operations

3.54 Sabotage operations - the most efficient ways to cripple the current Western European multiculturalist regimes

3.56 Evaluating the possibilities for acquiring and employing nuclear weapons in phase 1

3.57 Using European nuclear power plants as a weapon of mass destruction

3.58 Nuclear power plant assault strategy: “Operation Regime Ender”

3.59 Radiological Dispersal Devices, RDDs; creating, deploying and detonating radiological bombs in Western European capitals

Communication and Logistics

3.60 European resistance fighters and the importance of an appealing image and ideology - efficient marketing techniques

3.61 After a successful operation - countering the misinformation campaign from the multiculturalist government – martyrdom or prison （目标日韩台）

When an operative of any of the European Resistance Movements manages to deal a newsworthy blow to the regime (a blow big enough to penetrate censorship), the natural response from the multiculturalist regime will be to protect its ideology from any and all ideological damage. This is usually done by labeling the enemy as a madman or discrediting him as a victim in some twisted way (character assassination). They will usually claim the individual was not a cultural conservative resistance fighter but rather a pathetic victim who was bullied or discriminated against by someone at some point in his past. We see that the multiculturalists use this very efficient psy. war method again and again when they face a lethal terrorist attack of any sort.

No, no, he was not a Jihadist. He was just a misunderstood individual, a psychologically unstable victim abused/misguided by someone etc.

According to them, there is only a small core of evil Muslim fanatics in the world sitting in caves somewhere and are recruiting through the internet (through wireless satellite broadband) “vulnerable angry individuals”, victimised by society in the past, as suicide bombers. They will also claim that any European resistance fighter is just as pathetic, that all are “poor white trash psychotics, with a medieval mentality, who are making a fuss because we failed in the materialistic hierarchy”. According to their logic there are just a handful of us trying to recruit vulnerable individuals, when in fact the truth is anything but what they are trying to project.

Now, normally you would think the MSM or the government is just incredible naive for claiming this. But in fact, this deliberate strategy is everything but naive. It’s a highly sophisticated psychological warfare countermeasure designed to limit any and all ideological damage which might have been caused by the attack. Because you see, if the multiculturalist regime can prove without a reasonable doubt that the attacking force (usually a single individual cell) is a random irrelevant madman and not in fact a threatening political adversary they will successfully achieve a position where they do not have to explain to the public why said individual would want to cause ideological damage to them. It is a deliberate strategy to avoid revealing the truth, and the attackers political motives. Admitting that the attacker has some valid points would contribute to undermine the system they have chosen to protect. This strategy of ridiculing their political enemies also prevents other nationalists from pursuing the same course.

So, in any situation where an attacking force is defeated (and we will all, most likely, be defeated in phase 1) they will cling to this strategy of discredit and ridicule. Alternatively they will use censorship to silence the story to death as is the common weapon of choice in France. A countermeasure would be for the resistance fighter to actually survive the operation and attest to his political agenda. That his objective was in fact part of a larger, long term strategy to cause ideological damage to the EUSSR/USASSR multiculturalist regime as part of a 100 year plan to completely seize power through military means and replace the system. The problem, however, with allowing capture is that the regime will use all means to break the subject. They are not allowed to torture so they will have the Muslims do it for them (by placing the resistance fighter together with Muslims). They may say; we can’t torture you so we will let the Mujahedeen in our prison systems rape/torture you until you reject your beliefs. If you do not reject them after that we will let them kill you. It would be an overwhelming success for them if they managed to make a resistance fighter reject his political beliefs.

Countering the misinformation campaign

Likely counter attacks (propaganda/ideological counter attacks) should be expected. The classical approach is to first character assassinate every individual involved in the operation branding them as freaks: racists, fascists, Nazis, paedophiles, nut-cases etc., secondary to claim that we are representing a monster-ideology. They will claim that we represent an ideology that would stigmatise and de-legitimise us in the eyes of the people. The multiculturalists will claim that we are right wing extremists who seek to form a totalitarian/un-democratic racist/fascist/Nazi society/structure based on hate. Obviously this is as far from the truth as imaginable. Therefore, we must be prepared to explain to the people at any given time and in a few words what kind of society they can expect when we successfully gain power.

What kind of society/political platform are we seeking to build/restore. What does a cultural conservative/nationalist/monocultural society constitute?

The closest similarity you will find and a good comparison is especially the Japanese and South Korean societies and to a certain degree the Taiwanese model. These three models contain a majority of all the political principles we seek to restore. They represent many of the European classical conservative principles of the 1950’s (culturally) with modern twists; in other words a monocultural, scientifically advanced, economically progressive society with an exceptional level of welfare but which will not accept multiculturalism or Cultural Marxist principles. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are today the most peaceful societies due to their monocultural model. Crime is more or less non-existent and you can travel freely everywhere without the constant fear of getting raped, ravaged, robbed or killed. They have embraced many positive aspects of globalism but have rejected many of the negative aspects. The fundaments of the patriarchal structures and family values are very strong in these three countries as the wave of feminism lacked several catalyst components (which made it a lot less potent) due to the rejection of multiculturalist/cultural Marxist thought during the 60s and 70s. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are today our role models for the conservative movement. They are peaceful and anti-imperialistic just like we have aspirations to be.

When listening to Marxist propaganda, the typical claims are all based on lies. It is a falsehood to claim that the cultural conservatives in Europe are imperialistic and violent by nature. We do NOT want to copy the failed aggressive totalitarian fascist dictatorships like Nazi Germany, far from it. We hate everything Nazi Germany stood for, in fact we view the current EUSSR/Multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe as totalitarian Nazi regimes. We condemn imperialistic thought and we condemn genocide and violence in general. Our current struggle is based on a pre-emptive struggle (self defence). We have no territorial claims that will violate any sovereign European or other civilised country, the exception being our Middle Eastern foreign policy plan. This involves a Crusade, or to use a more modern phrase; an anti-Jihad campaign, preventing the continuation of the genocides against the Maronite, Assyrian, Coptic and other Middle Eastern Christian peoples and restoring parts of Anatolia under Greek and Armenian rule once again. Launching crusades to counter ongoing Jihads (there are 20+ Jihad fronts around the world) is acceptable, but under no circumstances shall we attack or annex territory belonging to our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, or our Buddhist or Hindu allies. Hindus and Buddhists are considered brothers in our common fight against Jihadi imperialism, atrocities and genocides.

Any cultural conservative Christian country/state declaring war against another Christian state (such as the former Serbian-Croatian war) will be regarded as the enemy of the future cultural conservative political alliance (European Federation) and will be punished severely.

3.62 Grand Master Overseer – the Overseer Organisation

3.63 Why bother with honouring fallen Martyrs and living Heroes of our struggle? （纪念烈士）

It is essential and extremely important to honour living heroes of our struggle and to ensure that fallen martyrs are commemorated. How can we expect to re-found the ancient European traditions of Martyrdom if no one is honouring our living and fallen heroes? The Muslim world is a good example. Honouring and commemorating Jihadists have been institutionalised for centuries and even involves economic compensation to the family of each Martyr. Iraq, Iran and several countries have willingly contributed with millions of dollars to ”Martyr Commemoration funds”. Every single Jihadi martyr who dies in the struggle against Christendom or the Jews (and historically, many other wars) have received financial support (given to the Martyrs family) and other commendations. We must do the same.

评论

殉道者只针对儒生，不能用于一神教徒，一神教有个屁的道！

3.64 Knights Templar orders, commendations, uniform, title, tombstone and relevant information

3.65 Military awards and commendations – decorations of the Knights Templar (armed and civilian efforts)

3.66 Knights Templar offer 19 different commendations

3.67 Knights Templar uniform

3.68 Knights Templar honourary tombstone

3.69 Background information – symbolism of insignia

3.70 Court/trial statements for Justiciar Knight and other patriotic resistance fighters after an operation

3.71 Finding the right defence attorney/legal counsel for your trial

3.72 The PCCTS, Knights Templar Oath – Ordination Rite

3.73 Future compensation arrangements for European members of the resistance movement

3.74 Right of Revolution

3.75 Non-violent resistance - civil disobedience/economical sabotage

3.76 National Intelligence Agencies

3.77 A request to the Police Forces (system protectors) of Western Europe

3.78 “Young Europeans Movement - YE” movement - rumours of an emerging mass consolidation of anti-Marxist/anti-multiculturalist forces

3.79 Various info

European political solutions for the future

3.80 Reforming the European Church – from a diversified and un-appealing “Labour Church” to a united, strong and appealing “Traditional Church”

3.81 The future of European Christendom

3.82 Patriarchy will be re-implemented （重要章节——父权制的回归）

The following essay by Phillip Longman further documents what Western European right wing intellectuals have stated for more than two decades. The patriarchy will return. The only remaining question for Western Europe is; Will the future Europe be dominated by a Muslim or Christian patriarchy? Will the European conservatives manage to seize power by military force or through a coup d’état before the cultural Marxists and other suicidal liberals manages to sell the peoples of Europe into Muslim slavery? We have only 20-70 years before we are demographically overwhelmed by the hordes of Islam. Demography is king and unless we manage to deport all Muslims from European soil within the next 20-70 years, Europe will be lost.

We sincerely hope that the multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe will capitulate to conservative forces, in a relatively peaceful manner, before the capitals of Europe once again lies in complete ruin. Unfortunately, our hope is overshadowed by an instinct telling us that they will be unwilling to surrender, as we are unwilling to surrender.

Europe will burn once more and rivers from the blood of patriots, tyrants and traitors will flow through the streets. However, a new European cultural renaissance will be born from the ashes. Islam and Marxism will not prevail.

The Return of the Patriarchy

By Phillip Longman

“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birth-rates required that Roman men fulfil their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. “Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”

With the number of human beings having increased more than six-fold in the past 200 years, the modern mind simply assumes that men and women, no matter how estranged, will always breed enough children to grow the population – at least until plague or starvation sets in. It is an assumption that not only conforms to our long experience of a world growing ever more crowded, but which also enjoys the endorsement of such influential thinkers as Thomas Malthus and his many modern acolytes.

Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next – from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East.

Fearful of a future in which the elderly outnumber the young, many governments are doing whatever they can to encourage people to have children. Singapore has sponsored “speed dating” events, in hopes of bringing busy professionals together to marry and procreate. France offers generous tax incentives for those willing to start a family. In Sweden, the state finances day care to ease the tension between work and family life. Yet, though such explicitly pronatal policies may encourage people to have children at a younger age, there is little evidence they cause people to have more children than they otherwise would. As governments going as far back as imperial Rome have discovered, when cultural and economic conditions discourage parenthood, not even a dictator can force people to go forth and multiply.

Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy.

Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents’ investments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.

Through a process of cultural evolution, societies that adopted this particular social system – which involves far more than simple male domination – maximized their population and therefore their power, whereas those that didn’t were either overrun or absorbed. This cycle in human history may be obnoxious to the enlightened, but it is set to make a comeback.

The Conservative Baby Boom

The historical relation between patriarchy, population, and power has deep implications for our own time. As the United States is discovering today in Iraq, population is still power. Smart bombs, laser-guided missiles, and unmanned drones may vastly extend the violent reach of a hegemonic power. But ultimately, it is often the number of boots on the ground that changes history. Even with a fertility rate near replacement level, the United States lacks the amount of people necessary to sustain an imperial role in the world, just as Britain lost its ability to do so after its birthrates collapsed in the early 20th century. For countries such as China, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain, in which one-child families are now the norm, the quality of human capital may be high, but it has literally become too rare to put at risk.

Falling fertility is also responsible for many financial and economic problems that dominate today’s headlines. The long-term financing of social security schemes, private pension plans, and healthcare systems has little to do with people living longer. Gains in life expectancy at older ages have actually been quite modest, and the rate of improvement in the United States has diminished for each of the last three decades. Instead, the falling ratio of workers to retirees is overwhelmingly caused by workers who were never born. As governments raise taxes on a dwindling working-age population to cover the growing burdens of supporting the elderly, young couples may conclude they are even less able to afford children than their parents were, thereby setting off a new cycle of population aging and decline.

Declining birthrates also change national temperament. In the United States, for example, the percentage of women born in the late 1930s who remained childless was near 10 percent. By comparison, nearly 20 percent of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having had children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents.

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Nor do single-child families contribute much to future population. The 17.4 percent of baby boomer women who had only one child account for a mere 7.8 percent of children born in the next generation. By contrast, nearly a quarter of the children of baby boomers descend from the mere 11 percent of baby boomer women who had four or more children. These circumstances are leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation.

This dynamic helps explain, for example, the gradual drift of American culture away from secular individualism and toward religious fundamentalism. Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry. It may also help to explain the increasing popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as “world citizens” are also those least likely to have children.

Does this mean that today’s enlightened but slow-breeding societies face extinction? Probably not, but only because they face a dramatic, demographically driven transformation of their cultures. As has happened many times before in history, it is a transformation that occurs as secular and libertarian elements in society fail to reproduce, and as people adhering to more traditional, patriarchal values inherit society by default.

At least as long ago as ancient Greek and Roman times, many sophisticated members of society concluded that investing in children brought no advantage. Rather, children came to be seen as a costly impediment to self-fulfilment and worldly achievement. But, though these attitudes led to the extinction of many individual families, they did not lead to the extinction of society as a whole. Instead, through a process of cultural evolution, a set of values and norms that can roughly be described as patriarchy re-emerged.

Demography is king

In the primordial past, to be sure, most societies did not coerce reproduction, because they had to avoid breeding faster than the wild game on which they fed. Indeed, in almost all the hunter-gatherer societies that survived long enough to be studied by anthropologists, such as the Eskimos and Tasmanian Bushmen, one finds customs that in one way or another discouraged population growth. In various combinations, these have included late marriage, genital mutilation, abortion, and infanticide. Some early hunter- gatherer societies may have also limited population growth by giving women high-status positions. Allowing at least some number of females to take on roles such as priestess, sorcerer, oracle, artist, and even warrior would have provided meaningful alternatives to motherhood and thereby reduced overall fertility to within sustainable limits.

During the eons before agriculture emerged, there was little or no military reason to promote high fertility. War and conquests could bring little advantage to society. There were no granaries to raid, no livestock to steal, no use for slaves except rape. But with the coming of the Neolithic agricultural revolution, starting about 11,000 years ago, everything changed. The domestication of plants and animals led to vastly increased food supplies. Surplus food allowed cities to emerge, and freed more people to work on projects such as building pyramids and developing a written language to record history. But the most fateful change rendered by the agricultural revolution was the way it turned population into power. Because of the relative abundance of food, more and more societies discovered that the greatest demographic threat to their survival was no longer overpopulation, but underpopulation.

At that point, instead of dying of starvation, societies with high fertility grew in strength and number and began menacing those with lower fertility. In more and more places in the world, fast-breeding tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any remaining, slow-breeding hunters and gatherers. It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle; it mattered more that there were lots of them.

That was the lesson King Pyrrhus learned in the third century B.C., when he marched his Greek armies into the Italian peninsula and tried to take on the Romans. Pyrrhus initially prevailed at a great battle at Asculum. But it was, as they say, “a Pyrrhic victory,” and Pyrrhus could only conclude that “another such victory over the Romans and we are undone.” The Romans, who by then were procreating far more rapidly than were the Greeks, kept pouring in reinforcements – “as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city,” the Greek historian Plutarch tells us. Hopelessly outnumbered, Pyrrhus went on to lose the war, and Greece, after falling into a long era of population decline, eventually became a looted colony of Rome.

Like today’s modern, well-fed nations, both ancient Greece and Rome eventually found that their elites had lost interest in the often dreary chores of family life. “In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and a general decay of population,” lamented the Greek historian Polybius around 140 B.C., just as Greece was giving in to Roman domination. “This evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life.” But, as with civilizations around the globe, patriarchy, for as long as it could be sustained, was the key to maintaining population and, therefore, power.

Father Knows Best?

Patriarchal societies come in many varieties and evolve through different stages. What they have in common are customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation. Of these, among the most important is the stigmatization of “illegitimate” children. One measure of the degree to which patriarchy has diminished in advanced societies is the growing acceptance of outof-wedlock births, which have now become the norm in Scandinavian countries, for example.

Under patriarchy, “bastards” and single mothers cannot be tolerated because they undermine male investment in the next generation. Illegitimate children do not take their fathers’ name, and so their fathers, even if known, tend not to take any responsibility for them. By contrast, “legitimate” children become a source of either honour or shame to their fathers and the family line. The notion that legitimate children belong to their fathers’ family, and not to their mothers’, which has no basis in biology, gives many men powerful emotional reasons to want children, and to want their children to succeed in passing on their legacy. Patriarchy also leads men to keep having children until they produce at least one son.

Another key to patriarchy’s evolutionary advantage is the way it penalizes women who do not marry and have children. Just decades ago in the English-speaking world, such women were referred to, even by their own mothers, as spinsters or old maids, to be pitied for their barrenness or condemned for their selfishness. Patriarchy made the incentive of taking a husband and becoming a full-time mother very high because it offered women few desirable alternatives.

To be sure, a society organized on such principles may well degenerate over time into misogyny, and eventually sterility, as occurred in both ancient Greece and Rome. In more recent times, the patriarchal family has also proved vulnerable to the rise of capitalism, which profits from the diversion of female labour from the house to the workplace. But as long as the patriarchal system avoids succumbing to these threats, it will produce a greater quantity of children, and arguably children of higher quality, than do societies organized by other principles, which is all that evolution cares about.

This claim is contentious. Today, after all, we associate patriarchy with the hideous abuse of women and children, with poverty and failed states. Taliban rebels or Muslim fanatics in Nigeria stoning an adulteress to death come to mind. Yet these are examples of insecure societies that have degenerated into male tyrannies, and they do not represent the form of patriarchy that has achieved evolutionary advantage in human history. Under a true patriarchal system, such as in early Rome or 17th-century Protestant Europe, fathers have strong reason to take an active interest in the children their wives bear. That is because, when men come to see themselves, and are seen by others, as upholders of a patriarchal line, how those children turn out directly affects their own rank and honour.

Under patriarchy, maternal investment in children also increases. As feminist economist Nancy Folbre has observed, “Patriarchal control over women tends to increase their specialization in reproductive labour, with important consequences for both the quantity and the quality of their investments in the next generation.” Those consequences arguably include: more children receiving more attention from their mothers, who, having few other ways of finding meaning in their lives, become more skilled at keeping their children safe and healthy. Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options – be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children – has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.

Patriarchy and Its Discontents

Patriarchy may enjoy evolutionary advantages, but nothing has ensured the survival of any particular patriarchal society. One reason is that men can grow weary of patriarchy’s demands. Roman aristocrats, for example, eventually became so reluctant to accept the burdens of heading a family that Caesar Augustus felt compelled to enact steep “bachelor taxes” and otherwise punish those who remained unwed and childless. Patriarchy may have its privileges, but they may pale in comparison to the joys of bachelorhood in a luxurious society – nights spent enjoyably at banquets with friends discussing sports, war stories, or philosophy, or with alluring mistresses, flute girls, or clever courtesans. Women, of course, also have reason to grow weary of patriarchy, particularly when men themselves are no longer upholding their patriarchal duties. Historian Suzanne Cross notes that during the decades of Rome’s civil wars, Roman women of all classes had to learn how to do without men for prolonged periods, and accordingly developed a new sense of individuality and independence. Few women in the upper classes would agree to a marriage to an abusive husband. Adultery and divorce became rampant.

Often, all that sustains the patriarchal family is the idea that its members are upholding the honour of a long and noble line. Yet, once a society grows cosmopolitan, fast-paced, and filled with new ideas, new peoples, and new luxuries, this sense of honour and connection to one’s ancestors begins to fade, and with it, any sense of the necessity of reproduction. “When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard ‘having children’ as a question of pro’s and con’s,” Oswald Spengler, the German historian and philosopher, once observed, “the great turning point has come.”

The Return of Patriarchy

Yet that turning point does not necessarily mean the death of a civilization, only its transformation. Eventually, for example, the sterile, secular, noble families of imperial Rome died off, and with them, their ancestors’ idea of Rome. But what was once the Roman Empire remained populated. Only the composition of the population changed. Nearly by default, it became composed of new, highly patriarchal family units, hostile to the secular world and enjoined by faith either to go forth and multiply or join a monastery. With these changes came a feudal Europe, but not the end of Europe, nor the end of Western Civilization.

We may witness a similar transformation during this century. In Europe today, for example, how many children different people have, and under what circumstances, correlates strongly with their beliefs on a wide range of political and cultural attitudes. For instance, do you distrust the army? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ronny Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids-or ever to get married and have kids-than those who say they have no objection to the military. Or again, do you find soft drugs, homosexuality, and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? For whatever reason, people answering affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone, or in childless, cohabitating unions, than those who answer negatively.

The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies. Consider the demographics of France, for example. Among French women born in the early 1960s, less than a third have three or more children. But this distinct minority of French women (most of them presumably practicing Catholics and Muslims) produced more than 50 percent of all children born to their generation, in large measure because so many of their contemporaries had one child or none at all.

Many childless, middle-aged people may regret the life choices that are leading to the extinction of their family lines, and yet they have no sons or daughters with whom to share their newfound wisdom. The plurality of citizens who have only one child may be able to invest lavishly in that child’s education, but a single child will only replace one parent, not both. Meanwhile, the descendants of parents who have three or more children will be hugely overrepresented in subsequent generations, and so will the values and ideas that led their parents to have large families.

One could argue that history, and particularly Western history, is full of revolts of children against parents. Couldn’t tomorrow’s Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of ‘68?

The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of modern societies married and had children. Some had more than others, but the disparity in family size between the religious and the secular was not so large, and childlessness was rare. Today, by contrast, childlessness is common, and even couples who have children typically have just one. Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as always happens. But when they look around for fellow secularists and counterculturalists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their wouldbe fellow travellers were quite literally never born.

Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not. In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage, and therefore spur even higher fertility. As governments hand back functions they once appropriated from the family, notably support in old age, people will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values akin to the Bible’s injunction to honour thy mother and father.

Societies that are today the most secular and the most generous with their underfunded welfare states will be the most prone to religious revivals and a rebirth of the patriarchal family. The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father.

评论

在⽗权制下，“私⽣⼦”和单亲⺟亲是不能容忍的，因为它们破坏了男性对下⼀代的投资。⾮婚⽣⼦⼥不随⽗姓，因此，即使他们的⽗亲知道，也不会为他们承担任何责任。相⽐之下，“合法”的孩⼦要么成为荣誉 的源泉，要么成为耻辱的源泉。

戎狄志态，不与华同。

中国古代实行一夫一妻多妾制。私生子只要能被宗族接受，则按照宗法关系，拥有合法继承权。

这也是中华文明人丁兴旺的一大举措。

3.83 Re-creating the traditional patriarchal social structures （日常崇拜日韩台）

When we, the cultural conservatives, seize political and military control of Western European countries within 20-70 years we will re-establish the patriarchal structures by partly deconstructing certain matriarchal fundaments. Doing so will ensure the survival of the nuclear family among many other factors. This should not be done by excessive regulation through banning women from attaining positions of influence (with the exception of areas relating to immigration, security and certain other segments). The Marxist ideologists of the Frankfurt school understood that the power of the patriarchy lies within the nuclear family. To illustrate this, look at Japanese and South Korean policies. They do not have any laws directly banning women from attaining positions of influence (becoming prime minister or president of a corporation). Yet they are traditional, patriarchal and very successful societies. Obviously, the Marxists did not succeed in Japan and South Korea as they did in Western Europe and the US. The Marxists knew that in order to deconstruct the patriarchy they had to undermine and delegitimise the structure of the nuclear family. To a Marxist, the nuclear family is nothing more than a miniature model of an oppressive state. By implementing measures which will secure and strengthen the relevancy of the of the nuclear family we will ensure considerable and far reaching results and it will be unnecessary to directly ban popular feminist doctrines. As soon as women once again will be conditioned through just institutions and are raised in a strong and unified nuclear family lead by a confident patriarch she will know her place in society and further regulations will be unnecessary. Directly banning a multitude of popular feminist laws is not a wise approach as it would be labeled as despotic and would undermine us in the long run. Instead, we must change A FEW strategic laws which will act as indirect force multipliers. The single most important regulation we have to change is the law that guarantees that the father will always get the custody of the child. It is the most essential law which will act like a positive domino effect. Law number two must be the regulation that criminalises physical disciplinarian methods. This will ensure order within the family and within our schools. Obviously, physical punishment will not be glorified and must only be used under extreme circumstances. However, the essential thing is that it will no longer be considered a criminal offence. The third law will be the abolishment of a regulation related to marriage. The law which facilitates the so called “no fault marriages”. There might be other essential and strategic laws we will have to change but we should limit it to a minimum.

翻译

当我们⽂化保守派在20-70年内夺取西欧国家的政治和军事控制权时，我们将通过部分解构某些⺟系基础来重 建⽗系结构。这样做将确保核⼼家庭的⽣存以及许多其他因素。这不应该通过禁⽌妇⼥担任有影响⼒的职位 （与移⺠、安全和某些其他领域有关的领域除外）的过度监管来实现。法兰克福学派的⻢克思主义思想家明 ⽩，⽗权制的⼒量在于核⼼家庭。为了说明这⼀点，我们可以看看⽇本和韩国的政策。他们没有任何法律直 接禁⽌⼥性担任有影响⼒的职位（成为总理或公司总裁）。然⽽，它们是传统的、⽗权制的、⾮常成功的社 会。显然，⻢克思主义者在⽇本和韩国并没有像在西欧和美国那样取得成功。⻢克思主义者知道，为了解构 ⽗权制，他们必须破坏核⼼家庭的结构并使其失去合法性。对于⻢克思主义者来说，核⼼家庭只不过是压迫 国家的缩影模型。通过采取措施确保和加强核⼼家庭的相关性，我们将确保取得可观且深远的成果，并且没 有必要直接禁⽌流⾏的⼥权主义学说。⼀旦妇⼥再次受到公正机构的制约，并在⼀个由⾃信的家⻓领导的强 ⼤⽽统⼀的核⼼家庭中⻓⼤，她就会知道⾃⼰在社会中的地位，⽽⽆需进⼀步的监管。直接禁⽌⼤量流⾏的 ⼥权主义法律并不是明智的做法，因为这会被贴上专制的标签，从⻓远来看会损害我们的利益。相反，我们 必须改变⼀些战略法则，这些法则将起到间接的⼒量倍增器的作⽤。我们必须改变的最重要的⼀项规定是保 证⽗亲会 始终获得孩⼦的监护权。这是最基本的法则，会像积极的多⽶诺⻣牌效应⼀样发挥作⽤。第⼆条法律必须是 将体罚⽅法定为犯罪的规定。这将确保家庭和学校内的秩序。显然，体罚不会被美化，只能在极端情况下使 ⽤。然⽽，最重要的是，它将不再被视为刑事犯罪。第三部法律将废除与婚姻有关的规定。该法律促进所谓 的“⽆过错婚姻”。我们可能必须改变其他基本和战略性的法律，但我们应该将其限制在最低限度。

Fathers should be favored (prerogative rights) when child custody cases are decided in courts (ROUGH DRAFT)

The new laws will assume a powerful role in defining status, rights and appropriate behaviour. A fundamental revision of the married woman’s place in the legal order lay at the center of the laws branches, domestic relations. Post-cultural Marxist (feminist) changes in family life which was changed from a patriarchal manner to a matriarchal model in the 1970s will be reversed in order to combat an excessive feminisation of family structure and males in particular. The goal is to re-introduce the father as the authority figure and family head and will therefore strengthen the nuclear family. It is estimated that these changes will result in a decline of the divorce rate/broken families by approximately 50%. Furthermore, the father can without fear of being punished by the law, reassert an authority role in the family. Physical disciplinary methods will once again be a factor in the upbringing of children.

Post-cultural Marxist changes in family life, ones which cultural Marxist/feminist historians label as “modern” have proven to have a devastating impact on the nuclear family. These changes have contributed to the institutionalising of and implementing deliberate “broken family policies”. Influenced by the society’s growing glorification of single parent upbringing and female domestic supremacy, judges granted women supreme legal powers in family affairs. In the 70s bourgeois women mounted a campaign to attach superior legal rights to motherhood and thereby exterminated traditional domestic governance.

Changing these laws will reverse the destructive effects due the last four decades of feminisation. Divorce rates will be reduced by approximately 50% which will also contribute to reverse excessive self-centeredness (and lifestyles related to such behaviour). Men’s domestic rights will be considerably strengthened.

Fathers will regain the domestic courage to teach their children discipline, moral codes and traditional codex’s without the fear of persecution or discrimination from the mother or the cultural Marxist regime.

A more moderate suggestion would include giving the fathers equal rights to the children relating to custody decisions.

Grandparents should play a central role in their grandchildren’s life (ROUGH DRAFT)

Grandparents should have a central part in their grandchildren’s life, and this newly reintroduces “civilisation change” should be reflected in government policies and how the medias glorifies it.

Lifestyles that propagate that sons and daughters move out and establish an independent life completely separated from their parents should no longer be glorified by the media. Instead, lifestyles glorifying the nuclear family should be propagated.

Re-introduction of the generational home, large homes with enough room for the children to raise the grandchildren in an environment where the grandparents play an essential part.

This social structure has several benefits:

Many single people live in small flats or in segments of apartments. Many are lonely and some commit suicide. Others refrain from establishing a family of their own because they know it involves significant burdens. This however, would not be the case if we followed the traditional family model (social structure) where generational home and the nuclear family are glorified by the media. The grandparents should play an essential part in their children’s life. This will have positive social and economical effects for the society (costs for kinder garden and nursery homes will be substantially reduced and there will be significantly less suicides as a result of loneliness).

Physical disciplinary methods (ROUGH DRAFT)

More discipline at home, and school. This includes allowing physical disciplinary methods in extreme cases where this is needed (It is always needed as a last option). Because it is essential that children show the proper respect for the adult and know that the adult has the required “sanction methods/tools” in their arsenal without the fear of being persecuted by the state. A society (school institutions especially) cannot function properly without the right to allow physical disciplinary methods in extreme cases.

Family & Society - The Traditional Family is Disappearing (ROUGH DRAFT)

Area of Study: Social Theory, Social Structure and Change

The traditional British family structure is in decay and is facing extinction. Liberal permissiveness has wrecked havoc with our society and the results are there for all to see.

The recently published Social Trends report states that single parent households have nearly tripled from 4% in 1971 to 11% in 2008. The percentage of traditional nuclear family households had fallen by 52% to 36% over the same period and women are more likely to give birth by the time they are 25 than get married.

Consequences

• Since the early 1970s there has been a decline in marriage, and a marked rise in the numbers of lone parent families.
• The ongoing rise in family breakdown affecting young children has been driven by the dissolution of cohabiting partnerships. The majority of these are less stable than marriage (European data shows that by a child’s fifth birthday less than 1 in 12 (8%) married parents have split up compared to almost 1 in 2 (43%) cohabiting parents).
• The intergenerational transmission of family breakdown and its associated disadvantages is seen in the way children who have been neglected or un-nurtured are highly likely to go on to create dysfunctional families subject to further breakdown. Similarly there is an overrepresentation in teen pregnancy statistics of girls from fatherless and broken homes.
• Crime is strongly correlated with family breakdown - 70% of young offenders are from lone parent families and one third of prisoners were in local authority care (yet only 0.6% of the nation’s children are in care at any one time).
• Costs of family breakdown to the exchequer are estimated to be well over £20bn per annum in Britain alone.

By Edna McNicholas (Note: Edna McNicholas wrote this essay using a cultural Marxist/PC narrative)

Family forms are shaped by the attitudes toward gender roles in a given society which, in turn, are influenced by the demographic, social, economic, and political realities of the time. The traditional family, idealised during the Victorian era and reestablished in the 1950s, is identified as a unit consisting of a married couple with two or more children where the breadwinning father goes out to work while the mother stays home to keep house and care for the children and her husband. This profile of the family, which reflected and was supported by the prevailing attitudes and realities of a particular period which no longer exists, continues to be lauded, endorsed, and longed for by right wing politicians and religious groups.(1) However, due to the major socio-cultural changes of the past three decades, a variety of family forms has emerged and now the traditional family accounts for “only 5 percent of American households.”

The Way We Were

After the second world war, government propaganda was combined with effective advertising, and supported by Freudian psychology, to restore the traditional family as the societal norm where women were assigned the identity of wives and mothers, with increased emphasis on gender difference, and men assumed the role of breadwinners and strong, male heads of families. In this traditional family, specific male and female gender roles are instilled in the children from the outset. Males learn to be assertive, aggressive, and dominant while females learn to be docile, gentle, and passive. They learn that men are expected to be tough, courageous, and rational while women are expected to be tender, timid, and emotional. They learn that men are the power holders while women are expected to be submissive, that men make the decisions while women are expected to comply. In other words, the traditional game which is called gender-role socialisation is really a very clever way of ensuring that women learn that their place in the scheme of life is to be dependent on and subservient to men where they are denied direct access to economic opportunity and control of their own sexuality. However, such gender-role socialisation also takes its toll on men’s physical and mental health because it necessitates repression of their feelings and denial of their needs. It seems that traditional gender-role socialisation “limits the options and opportunities open to males as well as females” and can prevent both from achieving their full human potential.

Black American families were not confined by such gender-role socialisation because the segregation laws that operated to keep black men out of the labour force thrust black women into the role of breadwinners for their families and thus contributed to more equitable gender roles in black households. Black parents instill both instrumental and expressive behaviours in their sons and daughters from an early age because they learned from their own experience that “black men and black women had to develop together strength, perseverance, and resiliency in order to survive.”

Changing Times

In the 1960s, family life began to change when the student movement led the revolt against sexual repression, social injustice, the Vietnam war, and racial discrimination. This was the decade when the baby-boomers came of age and changed societal norms irrevocably. This was the decade when the civil rights movement challenged the discriminatory laws and practices of white supremacy, and equality of opportunity became the right of black Americans. This was the decade when the second wave of feminism emerged and gave birth to the women’s movement, a movement that has had the most lasting and profound effect on both public and private life in America. In short, this was the decade when children, women, and men challenged the patriarchal, authoritarian structures of family, society, and government and demanded equal rights for all, regardless of gender, colour, or race. In my discussion, I will focus on changes in gender roles in relation to economic opportunity and sexuality, and how these changes contribute to the autonomy versus intimacy struggles in human relationships.

Changes in Gender Roles

Economic Opportunity

In the traditional family, men were socialised to develop instrumental behaviours and women were socialised to develop expressive behaviours. This insured that, while men had direct access to economic opportunity and independence, women were always dependent on their husbands for social and economic rewards. As access to economic opportunity is a source of power and prestige in all societies, it follows that women lacked this power and prestige because of their confinement to the domestic sphere. In order for women to achieve equality of status with men, it was imperative that they participate in paid employment in the public sphere and that they have some degree of economic independence.

With this emphasis on changing their role, unprecedented numbers of women have not only joined the labour force since 1960 but have also become highly educated and have won the right to compete with men in all areas of professional, business, and public life. However, even though women have achieved equality of status through education, occupation, and income, a corresponding change in men’s roles has been slow to develop. While men have supported the changing role of women, at least in areas in which it benefits them, many have allowed their wives to continue to take full responsibility for the domestic sphere in addition to their sharing in the breadwinning role and have failed to see that “to be effective, change must move in two directions: men must share in domestic and childrearing tasks even as women share in the world of outside work.”

Sexuality

Prior to the 1960s, abstinence from premarital sex was considered the official standard for men and women. However, the double standard, which holds that sexual intercourse before marriage is permissible for males but not for females, was widely practiced. In the 1960s, young people rejected the double standard and set more egalitarian standards: permissiveness with affection, and permissiveness without affection. Permissiveness with affection allows premarital sex between males and females when love is present; permissiveness without affection sanctions premarital sex for fun between a man and a woman in a casual relationship. As men engaged in such behaviour down through the decades, the greatest changes in premarital sexual norms have been changes in female behaviours.

Changes in sexual behaviours are influenced by the social realities of the time and in the 1960s the United States was not only becoming a postindustrial society but was also engaged in a major war with Vietnam. Society was in a state of turmoil and young people especially were questioning its values and its morals. The upsurge in premarital sexual permissiveness during this period is viewed as the “desire for autonomy, for control over one’s own sexual destiny.” Women wanted the right to control their own lives and what better time to stake their claim on their autonomy than at the beginning of a new era.

While the goal of feminism is the achievement of equality of standards in attitudes and behaviours for both men and women, feminists did not necessarily envisage an increase in sexual permissiveness. However, the findings from sociological research carried out during the 1970s among female and male teenagers indicate that they were much more sexually active at the end of the decade than they were at the beginning. Studies undertaken among college students point to a similar pattern, especially among women. Not only has the sexual behaviours of teenagers and young adults changed during this period, their attitudes toward the morality of this behaviour has also changed considerably. Between 1969 and 1985, the number of young adults who do not believe that premarital sex is wrong increased by almost 35 percent.

An increase in premarital pregnancies is the most likely outcome of an increase in premarital sexual activity, unless couples are using reliable forms of contraception. The responsibility for the use of contraception usually falls to the woman because she is the one who is most likely to have to deal with the costs and rewards related to both contraception and pregnancy. The decision to use contraception is influenced by a woman’s attitude toward her own sexuality, gender roles, and her sense of autonomy as well as her relationship and communication with her partner. Women holding egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles who choose to become sexually active with their partners for their own pleasure and expressive needs, also choose to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies by using reliable forms of contraception. Young adolescent women, molded in the traditional gender-role pattern, may become sexually active at an early age in order to boost their self-esteem and are unlikely to take contraceptive precautions.

With increasing emphasis on egalitarian gender-role conditioning, many men are moving away from the stereotypical sexual aggressor attitudes of the traditional male when women were considered the subordinate, sexual conquests, and are looking for the expressive qualities of mutual love and caring in their sexual relationships. Similarly, women look for equality in their sexual relationships where they are active participants rather than passive objects. “The popularity of the permissiveness-with-affection standard may indicate some convergence in the perspectives of considerable numbers of women and men who want something more than casual sex.”

Marriage

Traditionally, a man and a woman became involved in a steady dating relationship as a preparation for marriage. Men looked for partners whose physical appearance would enhance their image, and women looked for partners whose achievements, financially and socially, would provide security and social status. These choices reflected the selfidentity of both parties: women saw themselves in terms of their physical attributes with their future role revolving around the needs and desires of their husbands; men saw themselves in terms of their accomplishments and career prospects, with an additional future role as breadwinner and head of his family.

In the past three decades, all of this has changed as feminist- minded women emphasise their own instrumental as well as expressive qualities, and look for more expressive and intellectual qualities in the men they choose for long-term relationships. Men who are open to more egalitarian gender roles focus less on physical qualities and more on the expressive and intellectual qualities of women. Women’s sense of autonomy is also evident in their tendency “to initiate dates and to share date expenses.” (20) Feministminded women no longer wait to be chosen, they choose for themselves the men they want to be with in exclusive relationships.

Marriage is not necessarily the goal of long-term relationships in today’s world. “Individuals are expected to be deeply committed to the current serious relationship in an exclusive dating partnership, a living-together arrangement, or a socially recognised marriage.” When couples decide to marry, they do so in the belief that it will provide the rewards and satisfactions they seek in terms of both instrumental and expressive exchanges.

Autonomy versus Intimacy

In traditional relationships, men had autonomy and authority while women had neither. Women were expected to be submissive and subservient, without the right to their own opinions, feelings or needs. In modern relationships based on equality of gender roles, female and male autonomy are of equal importance, and intimacy, the mutual sharing of the being of each partner, is of vital importance to the continual development and deepening of mutual trust and love. According to Scarf, each partner not only brings herself or himself to the relationship but also the influences of known and unknown family backgrounds which have a profound bearing on the struggle between autonomy and intimacy in the relationship.

Each person in a relationship needs space to be person in his/her own right, to pursue independent goals which meet his/her independent needs. Each one also has intimacy needs, the need to set aside time for the sharing of oneself in love and closeness with the other. However, despite the modern emphasis on equality of gender roles, both men and women are still influenced by the traditional gender-role conditioning which demanded that women be the love- and caregivers to their highly-sexed, emotionless husbands and that men be the strong, male providers for their fragile, emotional wives. Women feel guilty about having autonomous needs and feel they should be always available to provide the love and the closeness in the relationship, while men feel they should be strong and independent and cannot admit to their need for love and closeness. For both men and women, the struggle is also in the questions: how much they can give of each other to each other in intimacy without losing their autonomy, without being absorbed into the identity of the other; and, how can they “be intimate without exposing yourself to the terrible possibility of rejection and abandonment?”

Today, the struggle between autonomy and intimacy is part and parcel of the deepening and development of mature, loving relationships.

Also, see the full report; Breakthrough Britain:

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/family%20breakdown.pdf

Solutions: The Japanese model, the South Korean model

评论

日韩台也早就被冲烂了，其中日本统治阶层最反动，情况也最好。

3.84 Knights Templar and ethnocentrism

Marxist demonisation techniques and psychological warfare

Sadly, you will be indirectly or directly labeled as a racist or even as a Nazi monster by the Marxist establishment (government institutions and the MSM - multiculturalist media) if you attempt to openly argue for the immediate halt to the ongoing demographical genocide of the Nordic peoples. However, you can use other words than “race” to more effectively dodge such characteristics. By using words as tribe or ethnic group you may be able to more effectively communicate your message.

It should be noted that NSDAP did not win the initial election by propagating their true agenda. The “political game” is not any different today. You can never win an election by being honest. The Internationalist Marxist aren’t honest and never have been (they want to destroy/deconstruct everything European) and, unfortunately, neither can we (we want to save/preserve everything European). The appropriate way is therefore to be careful when arguing and at least keep the ideals alive within ourselves and in an unofficial ideological environment until the day it is possible to implement ALL of our policies. Sticking to anti-Islamisation rhetorical strategies is one convenient way of doing this. We don’t have a lot of time, only 70 years max until the Muslims reach 60%, so we must act as soon as possible and continue the ongoing European conservative consolidation process until the time we, collectively as European revolutionary movements, are strong enough to successfully effectuate the first European coup d’état with enough backing from our own police/military forces and a nuclear power (from Russia f example) to prevent a subsequent US/NATO intervention.

End note: the PCCTS, Knights Templar are not in any way Nazi sympathizers. Preserving your tribe, cultural and demographical, is a basic human right and has nothing to do with “white supremacy”. After all, we do not seek to enslave or in any way harm or exploit Africans, Asians or their respective countries. We are a conservative organisation propagating cultural isolationism, similar to South Korea and Japan unlike the NSDAP which was a left wing organisation, they hated Christendom, capitalism and propagated a strict definition of socialism. So do not make the mistake of allowing the Marxists/multiculturalists to label you as a Nazi. As a Justiciar Knight of Knights Templar Europe, we are anti-Nazi and approximately 40% of our policies do not coincide with NSDAPs policies.

Race-mixing and interracial relations; necessary to create the global utopia lead by the Marxist-Islamic UN or the ultimate crime?

The PCCTS, Knights Templar, obviously, does not have any pre-defined specific policies or principles concerning race-mixing. The following are my own views concerning the theme.

I have for a long time dreaded the thought of writing an essay about this subject.

Primarily because it is considered politically incorrect by even many of the most dedicated conservatives and it is considered an efficient way to commit character suicide for individuals who have ambitions to appeal to the bulk of the masses in this early stage of the European civil war. On the other hand, if you’re Arab, Pashtun, Kurd, Pakistani, Japanese, South Korean or belong to any other non-European tribe then it’s a completely different matter. Then it’s all about showing cultural tolerance and respecting their customs. But if you’re a European and say the same thing, God forbid, then you’re a monster. This double standard effectively shows us the anti-European nature of multiculturalism. A large amount of the current multiculturalist elites in the EU/US, the category A and B traitors specifically, are focused on the destruction of European culture, Christendom, European identity and there is not a more efficient way of destroying the core of everything European than facilitating the gradual deconstruction of the European ethnic groups. The norm and practice for adopting non-European babies has more or less been institutionalised, bio-laws have been restricted, mass non-European immigration has been encouraged along with allowing and even subsidising the non-European explosive birth rates.

The sum of these deliberate genocidal practices when mixed with Marxist procreation policies (feminism) is equal to the demographical annihilation of European ethnic groups if they are allowed to continue.

A majority of conservative revolutionaries have been familiar with these methods of deliberate cultural annihilation for decades now. I know for a fact that it can be very frustrating to fight for reversal of the above doctrines because you feel like an ant trying to defeat a 7-headed monster.

Any public figure that openly opposes race-mixing or interracial relations and instead propagate the preservation of his tribe is aggressively persecuted, ridiculed and/or ignored by the European multiculturalist regimes, manifested by NGOs and the cultural Marxist mainstream media. So basically; if you as a public figure, utter any opposition or reservation to race-mixing, your career will likely be instantly destroyed. The multiculturalist glorification of race-mixing and interracial relations does, however, not correspond to or reflect reality, the wishes and the views of the large majority of Europeans.

I would claim that approximately 80-90% of Europeans (95% of men and 65% of women) have chosen or will choose to find a partner within their ethnic group while more than 95% of Asians and 95% of Africans will chose the same path. These people reject the notion of finding a partner (with the intention to procreate) outside their own tribe. These are facts that obviously do not correspond to the cultural Marxist desire to create a “one-world, one people”, united under the Marxist-Islamic UN.

The cultural establishment, spear-headed by the entertainment industry and the MSM are doing everything they can to glorify and propagate race-mixing by creating movies, series and other coverage which illustrate “happy interracial couples” in the hopes that they will succeed to indoctrinate as many as possible. Very few people are buying into this though as they see the dire consequences of this irreversible action.

Would you actively contribute to further the demographical annihilation of your ethnic group?

80-90% of all Europeans would oppose (or at least be disappointed) if their sons and daughters married and/or procreated with a non-European. This principle and tradition of procreating within the tribe is universal and applies to the great majority of the world’s races and ethnic groups whether they are Japanese, Pashtun, Arab, South Korean, European American, Russian, French, and Swedish etc.

It is a well known fact that an overwhelming number of ethnic groups consider racial/ethnic purity to be the very center of their cultural identity. Those familiar with Taiwanese, South Korean and Japanese culture can attest to that. Racial/ethnic purity IS and always has been extremely important to the Japanese and South Koreans (in addition to Europeans and Arabs), in fact so much that attitudes concerning these matters are completely dominating without these principles being actually written down.

This is also the case in more or less every single non-cultural Marxist country. Noncultural Marxist countries are commonly known for their societal patriarchal structures compared to cultural Marxist countries where the matriarchal structures are dominating (Europe, ex-USSR, US and to a certain degree Latin America).

Arab countries are very concerned with racial/ethnic purity as their Arab origin is directly connected to their blood-relation to Muhammad. It is considered the greatest of all honours to have a genetical relation to their prophet. This is so evident that non-Arab Muslims are considered second class Muslims. Pakistanis, Indonesians, Kurds, Berbers, Persians and Africans have been severely discriminated for centuries in the Islamic world as a result of them not being Arab. The Arab League, an important political force in the greater Middle East works more or less exclusively for ethnic Arab interests. They may help non-Arabs but will always support Arab interests before other ethnic groups. These policies of Arabisation are very similar to the Nazi policies before and during WW2 and involve more than 30 countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Race-mixing propagandists: Heidi Klum, Elin Nordgren, Madonna, Brangelina,Lady Gaga etc - An irreversible action, the eternal loss of your extended ethnic family

The witty comment stating; “if you go black, there is no turning back” actually underlines the severity of the decision involved in race-mixing. It is quite a paradox as specific European entertainment stars (including but not limited to Heidi Klum, Elin Nordgren, Madonna, Brad Pit & Angelina Jolie, Lady Gaga chooses to propagate and glorify racemixing either through direct or indirect (adoption) choices. The only reason that many of these individuals became famous in the first place was specifically due to their Nordic/European physical characteristics, rare characteristics that have been acquired through an evolutionary process which has taken more than 1 million years. These characteristics, both physical and psychological are then wiped out forever, due to their miscalculated decision. Obviously, the offspring of these entertainment stars will never receive the same opportunities as they, themselves, once did. It is obvious that Nordic entertainment super-stars like Scarlett Johansson (60-70% Nordic purity), Gwyneth Paltrow (70-80%)Pamela Anderson (90-95%), Paris Hilton (70-80%), Taylor Swift (80- 90%) would have never been where they are today hadn’t it been for their distinct Nordic physical characteristics. They would have never, in a million years, managed to reach their current status of fame had they belonged to another ethnic group. Same can be said about several other superstars with Nordic physical features such as individuals from Marilyn Monroe to Megan Fox. So why not embrace their Nordic gift by contributing to preserve Nordic culture instead of throwing it away and robbing their children of the same opportunities they once received? It should be noted that the US was composed of 50% with blue eyes in 1950 but this number has been reduced significantly and was in 2008 only 16%. By 2020 it is estimated to be less than 8%.

Recessive vs. dominant genes

Blue eyes and blond hair (and possibly many psychological traits) almost never survives a race-mixing process due to the fact that Nordic genotypes are recessive unlike f example African, Arab or Oriental genotypes which are considerably more genetically dominant. In order to dominantly dilute an African individual it would require 5 individuals of Nordic descent. Thanks to their parent’s carelessness, their offspring will be cut off forever from their “extended ethnic family”. They will become, tribe-less individuals and many are likely to either swear allegiance to extreme cultural Marxism/multiculturalist ideological views (90%) or choose the extreme right (>10%). They often hate their parents for what has been done to them, as they are neither European, African nor Asian.

The Nordic ideal – our tribe counts 200 million individuals as of 2010

There are many non-Nordic that try to mimic Nordic beauty by dying their hair blond and wearing contacts. So why not offer our children the actual genetical gift instead, through repro-genetics, rather than spending thousands of Euro and thousands of hours on make-up trying to mimic the Nordic ideal?

As the Nordic ideal obviously is still prevalent in this multiculturalist world it may not be too late to prevent the extinction of the Nordic tribes. We are still a strong tribe, representing the most numerous in Europe, counting more than 200 million individuals worldwide.

Solutions to prevent the extinction of the Nordic tribes and for implementation of conservative principles

The key to our survival is to liberalise the strict bio-technology laws and to commercialise and glorify repro-genetics while there is still a sustainable selection of Nordics of 99% purity left (this window of opportunity will be forever lost within 150 years). Not only will we have the option to secure our survival but we will be able to purify our tribe and add several IQ points to our off-spring in the same process. This solution is non-violent and is likely to prevent future war as all ethnic groups would have the possibility to secure their own genetical survival. Repro-genetics offer everything Europe could ever dream of with very few drawbacks. Loyal and productive non-Europeans would be able to stay as we wouldn’t live in fear of being demographically conquered or being exploited financially.

In order for this to be a reality, it is only required that ONE single conservative/nationalist nation leader embrace the idea in the future, as soon as we have managed to seize political and military control of the specific country. Because as soon as the fruits from that specific country is revealed to the world, other conservative leaders will have no choice but to copy the concept. The alternative is that they would significantly fall behind economically/technologically due to the fact that their average IQ/social cohesion would be too low in comparison. In addition, they would continue to suffer under the current myriad of inheritable diseases and conditions which would continue to take a significant financial toll on the respective regimes. The first anti-Marxist country in Europe to fully embrace repro-genetics will become the new economical and technological global super power! And as the European alpha-males instinctual drive to preserve their genes would be rendered an obsolete concept, it would contribute to a potentially eternal peaceful Europe providing that other conservative principles (including the policies to prevent over-population in the world) would be implemented as well.

Obviously, these policies of “civilizational-shaping” nature cannot be implemented by a mass-democracy of the current European caliber as the current political model lacks consensus and thus authority and implementation force and efficiency. A future model, however, similar to the fascio-democratic model of Russia and China has the potency to implement the required cultural and security reforms. An alternative model where females have reduced influence on security and cultural issues through a guardian council has been presented in another chapter.

Race-mixing leads to suicidal children with severe mental problems

The offspring of race-mixers will feel like outcasts and it is very common that these individuals suffer from severe psychological problems throughout their life. Their parents obviously do not care as it would appear that their children’s psychological health and general well being is irrelevant to them. The suicide rate among these individuals is extremely high, which reflects the suffering they are put through by not having an extended ethnic family. A majority of Europeans sees ethnic, blood-bonds as the most essential cultural factor and considers their ethnic tribe to be their extended family. This issue is extremely politically incorrect to discuss, due to the current cultural Marxist regimes but it is not a secret that ethnicity remains and will remain as the most important uniting cultural factor, more so than socio-economic factors, to a majority of Europeans.

Race-mixed families risk catastrophic consequences as the European civil war progresses towards phase 2 and 3

After WW2, women who had previously had a relationship and/or children with the German occupiers would often suffer from severe punishment. The resistance movements shaved the head of these women and the communities terrorised them for 10 to 20 years after the war. These women and their offspring suffered horribly for a long time as a result of their decision to mix with individuals from the occupying force. They were called traitor whores and treated with utter contempt. Many starved to death at the end of the war while others were even raped and lynched during and after the war.

What will happen to the “traitor whores” after the great European civil war?

The current status of Europe is quite similar to that of WW2. Instead of having to face an external enemy, the enemies are the Marxists, suicidal humanists and capitalist globalists of our societies. We are being colonized by Asia and Africa facilitated by the multiculturalist elites. In Europe, 85%+ of the colonizers are Muslims from various parts of the world. So who exactly are the “traitor whores” of this war, and what will happen to them after we seize political and military power within the next 20-70 years?

There are two answers to this question; what we would prefer under current moral conditions and what actually will happen. It is hard for conservative intellectuals to predict the brutality of the future as we currently live in seemingly peaceful nations with seemingly few plagues and horrors. However, when the true agenda of the multiculturalists is revealed to a greater number than the current 10-15% of people, many will be furious and demand vengeance. If the current cultural Marxist regimes refuse to capitulate and continue their atrocities the demand for blood vengeance will grow.

The manifestation of the reckoning will depend on many factors:

1. Will the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists capitulate in time?
2. How many more conservatives will be persecuted, ridiculed and pushed towards suicide before they capitulate?
3. How many more revolutionary conservatives will have to martyr themselves before they capitulate?
4. How will they treat us in prison, if we survive our operations, as prisoners of war?
5. What types of methods will they employ in order to persecute and destroy our cells, networks and militias?
6. How many million more Muslims and other non-European immigrants will they allow to enter our gates before they capitulate?
7. Which of the minority groups (and/or how many percent of the given group) will be considered loyal enough to be allowed to stay in Europe after the civil war?
8. The principles and strictness of the specific conservative group that seizes political and military control in the various Western European countries will depend on how early the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists capitulate and whether they give up before they inflict heavy military casualties on us.
9. It is likely that in countries where the democratic conservative parties have been allowed to take power peacefully, the reaction towards cultural Marxists/multiculturalists and minority groups considered to be disloyal will be mild, while in other European countries, where conservatives have been harshly persecuted like in f example Germany, Sweden, Norway, France and the UK it will result in a bloodbath, where hundreds of thousands of cultural Marxists/multiculturalists and disloyal minority groups will be massacred. Muslims that haven’t converted to Christendom will automatically be labeled disloyal and deported. The fate of other minorities such as Buddhists, Hindus, Christian non-Europeans and half casts and also females/males that have procreated with the “disloyal” is harder to predict but will be directly related to the above factors. It is really hard at this point to present a more accurate prediction than this. After all, there are so many different conservative denominations, some which are more ethnocentric and/or anti-Marxist than others.

The reasoning behind conservative’s opposition to race-mixing and adoption of non-Europeans

The cultural Marxists/multiculturalist alliance will have you believe that all conservatives are ignorant, inbred bigots who are driven by hate towards any and all minorities. However, this propaganda is as far from the truth as possible.

The reasoning behind our concern and opposition is the fact that mass immigration, racemixing and adoption of non-Europeans harm the unity of our tribe – it harms the degree of social cohesion any given country has. Firstly, a country that has competing cultures will shred itself to pieces from the inside over the long term or it will end up as a permanently dysfunctional country like Brazil and similar countries. Corruption and a high degree of crime is a natural result of lacking social cohesion. In countries where social cohesion is high, the opposite symptoms occurs. When you add Islam to the mix the worst case scenario is changed from a dysfunctional country to total defeat; sharia law and demographical conquest.

A stable and prosperous country that can offer its citizens solid welfare is dependent on five primary factors

1. Islam cannot be present
2. An ethnic homogenous people
3. An educated people with a high average IQ (reprogenetics will increase the average IQ further)
4. Cultural conservative policies/nationalistic policies/at least partially financial protectionist
5. Free market (+ free market towards other cultural conservative countries)

With the current development, we see a systematical breakdown of each point which will over time result in the transformation of a dysfunctional, failed state. That is, unless we can prevent it in time.

As such; conservatives’ reservations and opposition against mass immigration, racemixing and adoption of non-Europeans is purely pragmatical and not hateful in any way or form.

When we decide to deport a proportion of a disloyal minority group, it is not because we hate them, but because not doing so would have catastrophic consequences for the degree of social cohesion in our country. Allowing your tribe to demographically sink down towards extinction and allowing your country to become a failed state is a thousand times a graver crime than offending the feelings of the people you deport.

How many non-Europeans can a European country absorb per generation without it considerably affecting social cohesion and the overall well being of the tribe?

That depends which European tribe you are referring to. F example; not all Alpine or Mediterranean tribes care that much about their ethnic purity (against Alpine or Nordic genetical dilution) as they feel they don’t have physical or mental characteristics worth protecting or that they look favourably on Nordic and Alpine genetical dilution. So naturally, a Nordic tribe would be much more motivated to protect its uniqueness because Nordic genetical characteristics are manifested physically in a much greater degree. No Nordic country should ever try to absorb more than 2% of non-European immigrants per generation providing that they can mend the non-Nordic dilution by compensating with reprogenetics clinics which can reverse national/tribal dilution. That way the Nordic genotype is preserved and we won’t have to worry about the consequences or invest that many resources on reprogenetics. The wishes of any and all European tribes should be respected in this regard. F example Norway (4 million in 1950, 4,9 million in 2010) has accepted 900 000 immigrants since 1950, 90% which are nonNordic. In 1950, we were more or less a pure Nordic country but we now have an additional 850 000 non-Nordics present with 30 000- 50 000 non-Nordics pouring in annually. 300 000-400 000 of the newly arrived are Muslims. At the same time, the biotechnology laws are strict, and we currently suffer under a genocidal cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regime under the NATO umbrella. It will take from 20-70 years for Norwegian cultural conservatives to seize political and military power and I doubt it will happen until after one of the large European countries are liberated; the UK, France and Germany. This is essentially why I’m writing this compendium in English and the reason why I have dedicated most of my time to assist my English brothers in their patriotic struggle. The key to Western Europe’s survival lies in the hands of German but especially French or UK conservatives. After all, the smaller Western European countries are just mimicking these countries every move. My own country is thus now, nothing more than a banana republic, a satellite state lead by London, Paris and Berlin – which in turn is culturally dictated by Washington.

The great Satan, his cult and the Jews（仇视希特勒）

Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. Why? No person has ever committed a more horrible crime against his tribe than Hitler. Because of him, the Germanic tribes are dying and MAY be completely wiped out unless we manage to win within 20-70 years. Thanks to his insane campaign and the subsequent genocide of the 6 million Jews, multiculturalism, the anti-European hate ideology was created. Multiculturalism would have never been implemented in Europe if it hadn’t been for NSDAPs reckless and unforgivable actions. Eastern Europe would have remained free, the US and Russia would never have risen up as super-powers. The balance of power would have remained in Europe. And it would be a beautiful Europe with beautiful cultural conservative policies – very similar to the ones you now find in Japan and South Korea. Hitler almost destroyed everything with his reckless and unforgivable actions and he will forever be known as a traitor to the Nordic-Germanic tribes.

So, I am really speechless when I see the cult calling themselves national socialists today. If you truly love our tribe, the Nordic tribes or any other European tribe, you must learn and acknowledge that Hitler is a traitor to the Germanic and all European tribes, NOT a hero. Hitler had the military capabilities necessary to liberate Jerusalem and the nearby provinces from Islamic occupation. He could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands. The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.

But what did the great Satan do? He invaded Poland, France Russia and several other countries in his crazed effort for world domination. It was completely reckless and unforgivable as the consequences of such acts aren’t very hard to predict. And when the tides turned for the Nazis and the Russian campaign failed, they decided to massacre the Jews and thus further condemning the Germanic tribes and the conservative/nationalist ideology to hell… They knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for their tribes if they lost, yet they went ahead and completed the job. After WW2, the greatest anti-nationalist and anti-European propaganda campaign the world has ever seen was launched. And people like myself, and other cultural conservative leaders of today, are still suffering under this propaganda campaign because of that one man.

Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, he just targeted them all… So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP. Whenever I discuss the Middle East issue with a national socialist he presents the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine argument. He always seem unaware of the fact that his propaganda is hurting Israeli nationalists (who want to deport the Muslims from Israel) and that he is in fact helping the Israeli cultural Marxists/multiculturalists with his argumentation. In all five discussions they have moderated or fully changed their views after the discussion as they realize what they have done. But I was unable to discuss this issue further after I was banned and kicked out by Stormfront and another national socialist forum.

In any case; educate yourself and learn the difference. Today’s conservatives and wantto-be Nazis are ignorant when they obsess so much over the Jews. There is no Jewish problem in Western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in Western Europe, whereas 800 000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem. But please learn the difference between a nation-wrecking multiculturalist Jew and a conservative Jew. Don’t make the same mistake that NSDAP did. Never target a Jew because he is a Jew, but rather because he is a category A or B traitor. And don’t forget that the bulk of the category A and B traitors are Christian Europeans. 90% of the category A and B traitors in my own country, Norway, are Nordic, Christian category A and B traitors.

评论

所以，今天看到邪教⾃称国家社会主义者，我真是⽆语了。如果你真正热爱我们的部落，北欧部落或任何其他欧洲部落，你必须了解并承认希特勒是⽇⽿曼和所有欧洲部落的叛徒，⽽不是英雄。希特勒拥有将耶路撒冷和附近省份从伊斯兰占领下解放出来所需的军事能⼒。他本可以轻松地与英国和法国达成协议，解放古⽼的犹太基督教⼟地，⽬的是让犹太⼈归还他们祖先的⼟地。英国和法国甚⾄可能会为这样的运动做出贡献，以⽀持欧洲和解。将犹太⼈驱逐出德国不会受欢迎，但最终，犹太⼈会视希特勒为英雄，因为他将圣地归还给了他们。

但⼤撒但做了什么呢？他⼊侵波兰、法国、俄罗斯和其他⼏个国家，疯狂地试图统治世界。这是完全鲁莽且不可原谅的，因为这种⾏为的后果并不难预测。当纳粹的潮流转向，俄罗斯的战役失败时，他们决定屠杀犹太⼈，从⽽进⼀步谴责⽇⽿曼部落和保守/⺠族主义意识形态的地狱……他们⾮常清楚这会给他们的部落带来什么后果即使他们失败了，但他们仍然继续前进并完成了任务。⼆战后，世界上最⼤规模的反⺠族主义和反欧洲宣传运动发起了。像我这样的⼈，以及当今其他⽂化保守派领导⼈，仍然因为这个⼈⽽在这场宣传运动中受苦。

⼤多数德国和欧洲犹太⼈都不忠诚吗？是的，⾄少是所谓的⾃由派犹太⼈，类似于今天的⾃由派犹太⼈，反 对⺠族主义/犹太复国主义并⽀持多元⽂化主义。今天⽀持多元⽂化主义的犹太⼈对以⾊列和犹太复国主义 （以⾊列⺠族主义）的威胁与对我们的威胁⼀样⼤。因此，让我们与以⾊列、与我们的犹太复国主义兄弟⼀ 起对抗所有反犹太复国主义者、所有⽂化⻢克思主义者/多元⽂化主义者。保守的犹太⼈忠于欧洲，应该得到 奖励。相反，他只是针对他们所有⼈……那么，现在欧洲和美国的犹太⼈是否不忠诚？多元⽂化主义（⺠族 破坏）犹太⼈是，⽽保守派犹太⼈则不是。⼤约。 75% 的欧洲/美国犹太⼈⽀持多元⽂化主义，⽽⼤约 75% 的犹太⼈⽀持多元⽂化主义。 50% 的以⾊列犹太⼈也这样做。这⾮常清楚地表明，我们必须像兄弟⼀样拥抱 剩下的忠诚的犹太⼈，⽽不是重蹈纳粹党的覆辙。每当我与⼀位国家社会主义者讨论中东问题时，他都会提 出反以⾊列和⽀持巴勒斯坦的论点。他似乎总是没有意识到他的宣传正在伤害以⾊列⺠族主义者（他们想要 将穆斯林驱逐出以⾊列），⽽他实际上正在通过他的论点帮助以⾊列⽂化⻢克思主义者/多元⽂化主义者。在 所有五次讨论中，当他们意识到⾃⼰所做的事情时，他们在讨论后都缓和了或完全改变了他们的观点。但在 我被 Stormfront 和另⼀个国家社会主义论坛禁⽌并踢出后，我⽆法进⼀步讨论这个问题。

换个角度看，斯大林或者是苏联才是二战后以色列建立的关键，反对马克思主义（包括文化马克思主义）居然不从这方面入手？

从这里也可以发现布雷维克无法洞见历史真相。希特勒原本确实想把犹太人赶回老家（英属巴勒斯坦），但由于无法和英国佬达成妥协，只能在阿拉伯人合作实现“犹太问题的终极解决”。

纳粹德国早期二号人物赫斯因为想秘密和英国外交部和谈倒逼丘吉尔放弃对德开战，但一下飞机就被囚禁了半个多世纪，最后还死于非命。

而丘吉尔就是个自大狂、战争贩子，不肯联德灭苏，反而在苏联满嘴“祸水东引”时把英国彻底拖入战火。

当然，这和我们的关系就是德国没有消灭苏联导致我们文明差点被彻底摧毁。

3.85 The political significance of sex in a cultural conservative future

3.86 Sexual ethics/sexual morality in Western Europe has been destroyed by cultural Marxism and liberalism

Sexual ethics (also referred to as sexual morality) refers to those aspects of ethics that deal with issues arising from all aspects of sexuality and human sexual behaviour. Broadly speaking, sexual ethics relates to community and personal standards relating to the conduct of interpersonal relationships, and deals with issues of consent, sexual relations before marriage and/or while married, including issues of marital fidelity and premarital and non-marital sex, issues related to sexuality, questions about how gender and power are expressed through sexual behaviour, questions about how individuals relate to society, and questions about how individual behaviour impacts public health concerns.

Ethical dilemmas which involve sex can often appear in situations where there is a significant power difference or where there is a pre-existing professional relationship between the participants, or where consent is partial or uncertain.

Solutions

The European civilisation will not survive if we continue to allow the breakdown of sexual moral as this will cause all social structures to completely deteriorate.

Furthermore, we should not judge females harder than males as the same sexual moral should apply for them as well. So instead of justifying and propagating “traditional male moral” to both genders, we should instead implement new sexual ethics for all (primarily through the strict regulation of media after we seize political and military power within 20-70 years).

Artists such as Madonna, Lady Gaga and Christina Aguilera and series such as Sex and the City must be considered political activists/political movements and the lifestyles they propagate considered political propaganda. Alternatively, artists/series/movies propagating/glorifying promiscuousity must be restricted to liberal zones.

3.87 Sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe as a result of cultural Marxism costing as much as 350 billion Euro annually

3.88 Various topics relating to social structures

3.89 Anti-feminist policies - Reviving the patriarchal model by deconstructing the Western European matriarchal systems

I’ll be the first to admit that there are many sensible feminist policies. The goal should obviously not be to reverse ALL feminist policies just for the sake of it. Ignore these sensible feminist policies, and instead focus on the destructive policies.

Fact: 60-70% of all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists are women. This partly explains why the gradual feminist revolution is directly linked to the implementation of multiculturalist doctrines. These feminist cultural Marxists do not only want more benefits and rights for themselves. They want it all, and have more or less been awarded with everything they could ever dream of achieving. They now have complete matriarchal supremacy domestically and exercise substantial influence in politics. The current matriarchy in Western European countries is partly the cause of the symptoms that have become increasingly prevalent. To counter the symptoms it is required to fix the underlying flaws of our systems. One of the primary flaws is the matriarchal supremacy we see in several arenas.

The primary trait and value that a majority of women propagate is “compassion”. While compassion is not always a negative thing it can severely cripple fields/committees who rely on a minimum degree of cynicism such as the following fields:

• Discipline at school (penal policies) • Discipline in the community (penal policies for criminals, rehab policies for drug addicts) • Immigration policies • Defence policies • Business polices (international trade) • Church • Education sector (feminisation of boys) • Domestic polices (the father must always be the head of the family and the laws of the country must reflect this especially relating to custody rights, in relation to divorce etc.

Marriage – why “no-fault” divorce is one of our most dangerous social experiments

No-fault divorce laws were introduced in Western Europe and other industrialised countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into other regions of the world today.

The spouse who divorces or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the costs or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. In all other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to compensate their partner, but under a system of ’no fault’ divorce, this essential element of contract law is abrogated.”

In fact, the legal implications go farther, since the courts actively assist the violator. The law generally supports the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the wrongdoer.” “No-fault” did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the novel concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one had, in fact, not violated. According to therapeutic precepts, the fault for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally seeks a divorce. Many husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to learn that they were equally ‘at fault’ in the dissolution of their marriages.

While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard rationalisation is that to control divorce we must first change the culture. But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits and even encourages it.

Furthermore, it is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it. Gays to do not want marriage in the traditional mold (1950 version marriage), only the watered-down version that exists today.

Custody rights

To truly reverse the decline of the family, the momentum must be carried forward to confront the current destructive matriarchal policies that have institutionalised “broken family” policies. Our current system produces broken families and prevents traditional norms based on discipline. The most direct threat to the family is “divorce on demand”. Sooner or later, if Western Europe is to endure, it must be brought under control. The father/patriarch must be given considerably more influence as this is the only way to ensure the survival of the nuclear family as it will enhance family integrity. The matriarchal supremacy within the modern households must seize to exist.

As of now, the mother will always be awarded child custody rights unless she is mentally ill or a drug/alcohol addict. The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default. This will ensure that that divorce rate will be significantly reduced (by up to 50-70%) and will contribute to uphold the nuclear family.

More on the topic:

http://fathersforlife.org/articles/Baskerville/no-blame_game.htm

Abortion

Abortion should only be allowed in case of rape, if the mother’s life is in danger, or if the baby has mental or physical disabilities. The liberal zones may be exempt by this rule.

On demand contraceptive pills

Contraceptive pills and equivalent methods will be severely restricted in conservative territories. The liberal zones may be exempt by this rule.

Sexual education

Sexual education in schools should be limited to that of 1950/60 Western Europe. The liberal zones may be exempt by this rule.

Gender based affirmative action in the public and private sector must seize

Qualifications must be the only requirement and nothing else.

In extreme Marxist dictatorships such as Norway, they have implemented affirmative action policies which require all publicly listed corporations to have at least a 40% share of females in their company boards. Companies that do not comply get fined.

3.90 Preventing the European population decline – securing sustainability – future national reproduction policies （提高生育率）

Solutions

Positive incentives: Giving women more incentives to have children in the form of various welfare incentives, tax deductions, various incentives aimed at the nuclear family and similar incentives as has been introduced in Australia and Japan. However, this alone will not increase the fertility rate more than 0,2-0,3 points.

Here are two suggestions that will ensure a sustainable fertility rate:

Suggestion 1: Conservative model - Back to the 50s – because we know it works

This alternative will involve increasing our national fertility rates from current 1,5 to 2,1 or even higher. Achieving this will involve several political reforms and will involve a degradation of women’s rights to a certain degree:

1. Limit the distribution of birth-control pills (contraceptive pills): Discourage the use of and prevent liberal distribution of contraceptive pills or equivalent prevention methods. The goal should be to make it considerably more difficult to obtain. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points but would degrade women’s rights.
2. Reform sex education: Reform the current sex education in our school institutions. This may involve limiting it or at least delaying sex education to a later age and discourage casual sex. Sex should only be encouraged within the boundaries of marriage. This alone should increase the fertility rate by 0,1 points.
3. Making abortion illegal: A re-introduction of the ban on abortion should result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,1-0,2 points but would strip women of basic rights.
4. Women and education: Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.

Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor’s degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education – bachelor, master and PhD.

A family/wife caring for 3 children will not normally have the capacity to pursue the same career opportunities as their husbands, nor should they be expected to. Instead, women should be encouraged to have part time jobs (or 2/3) although of course not prevented from following the same career paths as males if they chose to.

4. Conservative media policies: Discourage women in general to strive for “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles. The mass media are currently actively glorifying/encouraging “sex and the city/Madonna” lifestyles which involves the glorification of casual sex, multiple sex partners and generally an extremely liberal individualistic lifestyle hostile to the traditional nuclear family values. As such, the nonrestrictions of the mass media is the main cause for our unsustainable fertility rate of 1.5.

The indirect media/government glorification campaigns through individual artists, various series, movies and media coverage in general should reflect this new shift (no more glorification of “sex and the city lifestyles” or equivalent portrayals. No longer should women be pressured to have equal success regarding their career as males.

Womens “new role” should be actively illustrated and glorified through series, movies and commercials. This will involve significant restrictions in media freedoms and rights. These restrictions and reforms will result in an increased fertility rate of approximately 0,2-0,3 points.

The end result for implementing the above reforms would be an increase in the fertility rate up from 1,5 to approximately 2,1-2,4 which would be sustainable.

However, this will also involve significant restrictions in women’s rights and media rights.

Suggestion 2: Feminist/liberalist model - Creating surrogacy facilities in low cost countries and state funded boarding homes domestically

The following suggestion can only be applied in a highly pragmatical and rational society that isn’t bound by the paralyzing grasp of today’s cultural Marxist non-ethics.

An alternative which would prevent the need to restrict women’s rights and media rights would be to allow the state to play an essential role in national reproduction. This would mean allowing European Federation women to continue their current path toward liberating themselves from the pressure of carrying offspring.

This would involve the creation of a network of surrogacy facilities in low cost countries and basically “outsource breeding”. A gestational surrogate carrier refers to a woman who carries a pregnancy created by the egg and sperm of two other individuals by using IVF[1].

IVF or in vitro fertilisation is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the womb, in vitrio. IVF is traditionally a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman’s ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient’s uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy. The first “test tube baby”, Louise Brown, was born in 1978. IVF can also be used when parents want to have multiple births. The first pregnancy achieved with the use of donor eggs was reported in 1984. By using in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques, eggs are obtained from the ovaries of the donor, fertilised by sperm from the other donor, and the resulting embryo’s are placed into the surrogate’s uterus. If pregnancy is achieved, the resulting child will be genetically related to the two donors but not to the surrogate.

Who will care for these children? Career obsessed women who does not prioritise reproduction is not likely to have the will to care for these surrogacy babies either so there would not be enough foster parents.

……

Donor Recruitment

This option is usually arranged through established egg/sperm donation programs. Existing European programs must be drastically increased to facilitate large-scale programs. Women in IVF programs may forward their excess eggs to other surrogates. One donor should however not donate more than 100 eggs/sperm doses to avoid potential future inbreeding effects. This number may be adjusted based on distribution area. All donors will be compensated financially for their expenses, time, risk, and inconvenience associated with the process.

Selecting and screening egg/sperm donors

All egg and sperm donors must be screened according to high pre-defined standards including genetic diseases. Optimally, the donors should score high in interpersonal, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, intrapersonal and visual-spatial intelligence tests[2] and be of the indigenous group (French genotype in France, Italian in Italy, Nordic in Scandinavia etc.).

Surrogacy（代孕）

A surrogate is a woman who carries a pregnancy for another woman. The first surrogate pregnancy occurred in the United States in 1985. Gestational carrier refers to a woman who carries a pregnancy created by the egg and sperm of two other individuals. This process involves IVF. In this case, the gestational carrier is not genetically related to the child.

Setting up surrogate facilities in low cost countries

Anonymous surrogates can be arranged through existing surrogate programs such as f example the Organisation of Parents Through Surrogacy (OPTS). However, considering the potentially large scale of this project, dedicated surrogate facilities should be created in select low cost countries. Surrogates will be anonymous and are compensated for their services according to market rates.

Screening Surrogates

Surrogacy guidelines are not as well established as they are for donor sperm and donor eggs. The ideal surrogate is relatively young, has previously carried a pregnancy without complications, and does not have any habits, such as smoking, alcohol, or illicit drug use, risky sexual behaviour, or medical disorders such as diabetes or Rh sensitisation, that could jeopardise the health of the fetus. A complete medical history and physical exam should be performed as well as screening for infectious diseases. An evaluation of the surrogate’s uterus may also be recommended, and psychological evaluation is strongly recommended.

Surrogacy programs vary in the amount of information given about the surrogate. Some programs offer the couple the opportunity to select and interact with the surrogate, while other programs maintain the confidentiality of the surrogate.

As with donor egg programs, the procedure for a gestational carrier involves IVF. As noted in the section on donor eggs, the gestational carrier may be given hormones to prepare her uterus for embryo transfer. The embryos from the infertile couple will then be transferred to the carrier’s uterus. For traditional surrogacy, the surrogate is inseminated with the male partner’s sperm via ICI or IUI near the time of ovulation. IVF is not necessary for traditional surrogacy. The success rates for gestational or traditional surrogacy can vary depending on male and female fertility factors.

Guardian parent recruitment, screening, education and incentives

Screening of guardian parents must be done thoroughly. This is not a 1-3 year job but instead involves at least 25 year term of commitment. A guardian parent cannot simply leave his 6 children after 5 years as this would be a catastrophe to the children. Instead he must be willing to invest at least 25 years of his life into this choice. The children needs stability and solid social frames.

Balance of wage depending on hours invested per phase

The kindergarden phase will obviously involve more invested hours than the high school but especially the college/university phase. The incentive wage model must be created so it always motivates the guardian parent to do the best possible job in every phase. The success of his children must be a deciding factor for the guardian parents wage and the acquisition of pension points. Furthermore, successful guardian parents may be awarded in other ways as well (perhaps on the area that influences the social hierarchy). Regardless, the job of the guardian parent will be one of the most important ones in society and the incentives and appreciation should reflect that.

Happyness/psychological measurement

A resulting drop out of school or a 1 year scholastic delay for various reasons will result in a significant penalty to annual score.

A resulting suicide will result in a significant penalty to annual score.

The recipe for success is to find the balance between happiness/mental comfort and discipline/hard work.

The national goal must be to beat the currently leading oriental children (Chinese, South Korean, Japanese, and Taiwanese) in every scholastic measurement and thus achieve a system of excellence that is superior to all known systems.

Source:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Further development of artificial wombs/NICUs

The development of advanced incubator machines/artificial wombs could become an alternative (or even a substitute) to using surrogates in low cost countries. This can be done by investing in and developing highly advanced neonatal intensive-care units (NICU)[1] or by continuing the development of artificial uterus’s[2] (ectogenesis[3]).

3.91 Future democracy model and monoculturalism

It is proven without doubt that the current mass-democracy model which has been used in Western Europe the last 50 years has paved the way for our current problems. “Massdemocracy” has allowed cultural Marxism to hijack society’s political structures initially through schools, universities and the media. When the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes in Western Europe are defeated in phase 3 (2070-2090) a new type of political structure must be created which is immune to future Marxist attempts of infiltration. This structure should be protected by a conservative Guardian Council.

Certain political principles should be made permanent and un-alterable in the future. Areas of politics which will be ”managed”:

At least one parliament seat should be reserved for a ”Cultural and Scientific Overseer” which will have the right to veto any new bills presented by parliament which violates the nations primary doctrines (preferably only used in extremely rare cases and only when the primary values are threatened).

We must avoid a one-party-state system as this is not desirable in the long run. As long as we have implemented permanent mechanics in relation to cultural areas (culture, procreation, defence-security, immigration) we can afford to continue to guarantee balanced political representation on a majority of other areas.

Cultural aspects – monoculture, Christendom’s position, Scientific goals (20% of budged will be reserved for Science and development). Protectorate policies – a future Europe will be protectors for the Middle Eastern Christian states and Israel, and are obligated to help all Christian groups around the world in their defence against future Jihads. Assistance should be offered and sent to our Buddhist and Hindu brothers if they request our help against Jihadi attacks or campaigns.

Cultural Marxism/European multiculturalism/extreme egalitarianism will be labelled as racist, genocidal, anti-European hate ideologies and will therefore be banned permanently.

The justification and driving force for the re-introduction of monoculturalism will be based on practical issues and circumstances related to social cohesion and not on hate. This reintroduction of monoculturalism will resemble that of today’s Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

See other chapters for in depth descriptions.

3.92 The rapid extinction of the Nordic genotypes

3.93 Reprogenetics and the future

3.94 Future economical model/public sector model/welfare program/economic zones/servant class

3.95 Future Western European educational systems

3.96 Alternative energy, scientific/technological evolution, overconsumption/ pollution/overpopulation,

3.97 Future aid policy – Africa - The foreign cultural Marxist aid establishment and the harm it inflicts on Africa

3.98 Future crime prevention, EF anthem, Independence Day, imperialism

3.99 The destructive forces of the diversity/ethnic industries, comments and solutions

3.100 Solutions for South Africa, Israel and the US

3.105 A new conservatism/nationalism - Vienna School of Thought

3.106 Creating patriotic youth movements in phase 1

3.107 Consolidating moderate (non-military) European cultural conservative organisations – phase 1 and 2

3.108 Europe, Anti-immigration parties/orgs – Nationalist parties/orgs

3.109 European protectorates

3.110 Pan-European Movements

3.111 National Anarchists (Anarcho-nationalists, certain ACAB-, oi-, RAC-, 14/88 nationalists)

3.112 Estimating Western European battle-ready cultural conservatives 2009

3.113 Assistance from our European-American/Canadian/Australian brothers in the European civil war

3.114 Participation from conservative individuals among the minority groups – Hindus, Buddhists and Christians

3.115 Defeating multiculturalism within the next 7 decades will involve the synchronised and combined efforts (unofficial) of 8 political fronts

3.116 An official request/plead to all European patriots - Required administrative high priority tasks/objectives

3.117 Using Facebook and other social networking sites as a platform to consolidate and grow the European resistance movement

3.118 Online “recruiters” for patriotic armed resistance movements/8th front – a primary administrative tasks

3.119 Teach your children the truth and do not allow them to be indoctrinated by cultural Marxist/multiculturalist propaganda

3.120 Christian/nationalist consolidation and considerations in Muslim-dominated Western European prisons

3.121 From clandestine cells to more advanced military movements

3.122 Objectives in Phase 2

3.123 Creating a PCCTS/Knights Templar political wing

3.124 A politically incorrect guide to the lynching of multiculturalist traitors (phase 2 and 3)

3.125 Investments and wealth protection in Europe during phase 2 and 3 – civil war, how to protect your wealth

3.126 Building a cultural conservative paramilitary/militia organisation

3.127 A full or partial pardon may be granted to many category A, B and C traitors in phase 2

3.128 Preparation for Phase 3 (2070-2083) Coup d’état

3.129 Recommendations for cultural conservative senior and junior military officers (phase 1, 2 and 3)

3.130 The political landscape in W. Europe, 2070-2080, before the initiation of Phase 3

3.131 European Civil War, Phase 3, 2070-2083

3.132 Predicted actions from other cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes

3.133 The cultural/economical American Empire - dealing with a tyrant - why the Democratic and the Republican Party cannot be trusted

“From 1945 to the end of the [20th] century, the USA attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the USA caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair”.

William Blum, USA writer from the book, “Rogue State”

The US is the last Empire on earth. It doesn’t control its vassal states through direct territorial domination but rather through cultural and economical domination. It will generally allow their vassals (especially their Western European crown vassals) self determination as long as they don’t implement policies (cultural/economical) that hurts the US in any way. The US indirectly controls Europe, especially Western Europe, a legacy which it has maintained since WW2 and through the cold war until today. And of course, we have the many banana republic’s of Latin America, most of which are now included in the US cultural/economical Empire. The same goes for many African and Middle Eastern states. The US, often assisted by its other vassal states (through NATO) has ensured to place corrupt puppet leaders in charge of the majority of Muslim countries.

The difference between the Middle Eastern and Latin American vassal states on the one hand and its European vassals is that we are consider crown vassals with extra rights in the US cultural/economical Empire.

Methods used by the US to ensure order in the vassal states:

• Threats/diplomacy
• Psychological warfare (through its affiliated media corporations)
• Various other forms of intervention including cultural, economical and military means
• Economical hitmen, as soon as there is a regime shift in one of the vassal states (where a hostile leader emerges) the US will first send an economical hitman to demand loyalty from the new ruler. The hitman will present an offer; he will say f example; in one pocket I have 1 billion dollars which is a gift to you (or a suitable sum depending on several factors). In the other pocket I have a gun, which we will use to kill you should you refuse our first offer. The choice is yours. They will list multiple former regimes they have toppled/state leaders they have murdered etc. to attempt to scare the new regime from turning down the offer. Since 1945, the USA has been responsible either directly or indirectly of helping remove dozens of governments, many democratically elected, around the world. Sometimes the events are kept secret for years and only slowly come out. Other times, the events are the cause of demonstrations, anger and resentment at the time they occur.

Whenever, an event like this occurs there are two reasons to be considered:

Reason 1: The reason given by the USA, its media and its friends around the world. Reasons like Communism, Terrorism, Fascism, Human Rights, Freedom, Liberation, Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc.

Reason 2: The actual reason. This is usually hidden from the general public and has to be looked for in quotes by under-reported officials or subsequent events on the ground. Often, the victims of the intervention/change of government know the real reasons better than the populations of the Western countries. Real reasons are many but usually include Business Interests, Access to Resources, Markets, Military Bases, Strategic Value, or Political Support.

3.134 Deportation policy (preventive measures)

3.135 Economical/social impacts of mass deportations

3.136 Recommendations for future cultural conservative/nationalist regimes when forming and developing government

3.137 Cultural conservative/nationalist reforms during and after phase 3

3.138 After the civil war – how to win the peace, creating a sustainable balance between conservatism and liberalism

3.139 Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom – reforming our suicidal Church

3.140 Creating a “European Federation”, economic, cultural and military alliance

3.141 The negotiations between the European Federation and the USASSR/EUSSR block and Muslim countries in the phase 3 transition period (prior to deportations) and the outlook for the European Federation companies’ current investments in the Muslim world

3.142 Future foreign policy – deportation and territorial claims

3.143 Creating a New Europe and a new Middle East (see map)

3.144 European Federation military campaigns against Muslim Bosnia Herzegovina, Muslim Kosovo, Muslim Albania, Turkey, Syria (Lebanon), Jordan and Egypt

3.145 Logistical, military and diplomatic issues in regards to deporting Muslims from Europe

3.146 Evacuating Christians in the Middle East in regards to the new Christian nations

3.147 Quick list suggestions – Future domestic and foreign policy

3.148 Pope Urban II and Pope Innocent III granted indulgence to all future Crusaders (martyrs of the Church)

3.149 The Bible and self-defence

3.150 A Book for the Knights Templar: In Praise of the New Knighthood (Liber ad milites Templi: De laude novae militae)

3.151 There are no atheists in foxholes – preparing for martyrdom

3.152 Justiciar Knights, Martyrdom vs. Suicide

Further studies

3.153 Interview with a Justiciar Knight Commander of the PCCTS, Knights Templar

3.154 Knights Templar Log

3.155 Successful militant organisations - Case studies

3.156 Failed European militant organisations - Case studies

3.157 PCCTS, Knights Templar stance towards other liberation organisations （团结所有能团结的力量）

Marxist and regionalist liberation organisations

PCCTS, Knights Templar have a hostile stance towards any and all Marxist organisations (the only possible exception being the rare case of national-Bolshevik organisation).

PCCTS have a neutral stance towards any organisation where the primary or secondary goal is to overthrow a Marxist/multiculturalist controlled regime.

The PCCTS, Knights Templar can never support a regionalist liberation movements in any way as it conflicts with our primary principles.

ETA - Euskadi Ta Askatasuna: ETA propagates a Marxist-Leninist view and is therefore considered a hostile entity by default. However, no measures will be taken against them until we, our Nationalist Spanish and French Justiciar Knight Commanders have reasserted political and military control of Spain and France.

Anti-Islamist/Jihadi

Islamist/Jihadi organisations – PCCTS have a hostile stance towards any and all Islamist organisations. This also includes Muslim nationalist organisations such as those found in Turkey. We may however choose to cooperate temporary (in phase 2 or 3) with nationalist Muslim organisations or rival Muslim organisations as long as the cooperation benefits our cause.

Neutral or friendly stance towards all nationalist organisations

PCCTS have a neutral or friendly stance towards any liberation organisation seeking to overthrow their current Marxist/multiculturalist regime. This includes any Christian, Hindu and Buddhist nationalist group. As such, PCCTS have a friendly stance towards a majority of Indian nationalist organisations. The PCCTS may change the stance from neutral to friendly with any European or non-European nationalist organisation.

3.158 The state of the Indian/Hindu resistance - Indian nationalists

3.159 Failed coup in Turkey (2007) – Case study of the Ergenekon Network

3.160 Fourth generation warfare

3.161 The Study of Revolutions

Glossary of Terms

附录《评新西兰大屠杀：鸡督徒和穆死林的狗咬狗》

来源网址： https://huoxiaobin.com/?p=1344

（上）

MARCH 16, 2019 ~ 河东野老

2019年3月15日的中午，看到了新西兰基督城刚刚发生的清真寺大屠杀，马上睡意全无，兴奋起来，然后整个下午和晚上连课也不好好上了，一直都在网上看最新的报道和消息。事件的具体内容我就不多说了，就是几个白人极端主义者对西方文明世界的低生育率和穆斯林的子宫入侵感到恐慌，便实行了这次对穆斯林移民的大屠杀，还发表了长达70多页的Great Replacement来宣言其政治主张，这份宣言里不仅仅仰慕川普的白人至上主义，还提到其政治理念和目前的中国政府是一致的，中国就这样被莫名其妙地卷入了这次屠杀事件中，前两天埃塞俄比亚波音737-MAX失事时中国第一时间停飞所有波音737-MAX攒下来的credit可能因为这次躺枪又要丢光了。

这次事件可以说是全球震惊，中国貌似没什么反应，但是欧洲国家马上开始绷紧了神经，不仅仅伦敦市长找了几个宗教界的人士出面阐明立场，法国和德国貌似还进入了紧急状态。一个远在世界尽头的小城市发生的屠杀让多半个地球兴奋起来，主要还是因为从比较短的历史维度来看，这次事件是非常特别的。最近几十年，世界上针对平民的屠杀事件并不鲜见，中东、印巴，隔几天就是一次几十、上百人死亡的爆炸事件，甚至欧洲和美国这种事情也不少见，大家都司空见惯了，这些事件的一个最大的特点就是，大多数的屠杀后面都有极端穆斯林的影子，因为极端穆斯林在全球作恶，导致现在穆斯林的名声都很臭，也刺激了全球很多国家右翼政治思潮的恢复，美国更是直接选出了一个右翼总统川普，他毫不忌讳地说穆斯林都是潜在的恐怖分子，并且严格限制穆斯林的移民。在欧洲，英国的脱欧也和大量从欧洲过来的穆斯林移民有关，君不见现在连伦敦市长都是穆斯林来当了。至于老欧洲国家法国、德国和荷比卢，早就穆斯林泛滥成灾，没法挽救了。但是，在这种背景下，我们总能看到穆斯林在这些国家闹事、杀人，强迫当地人接受伊斯兰教法，当地人一直都有怨言，但是很少采取穆斯林那样极端的方式。但是那些西方老百姓也不是吃素的，穆斯林和左棍政客的倒行逆施导致西方也慢慢地滋生了仇视新移民、尤其是穆斯林的民间情绪，这次新西兰的屠杀就是这些年来西方基督教世界中底层的白人对由左棍们掌控的政府和嚣张跋扈的穆斯林移民的不满的第一次集中和极端的宣泄，所以还是非常有里程碑意义的。这仅仅是第一次宣泄，肯定不是最后一次，以后这种事情会慢慢多起来，即不再只是穆斯林杀当地人了，当地人也开始杀穆斯林了，以后的世界会变得越来越“精彩”。

我为什么不说穆斯林杀白人，或者白人杀穆斯林呢，因为不管穆斯林还是欧洲的当地人，其实都是白人，而且在血统上还算是近亲，都是几万年前从高加索一代发源的雅利安人的后代。只不过这两拨白人因为宗教信仰，进化成了两个文明，一个是基督教文明，一个是伊斯兰文明。从长期的历史维度来看，这两个文明天生就是世仇，基督教诞生地比较早，伊斯兰教诞生晚了几百年，但是从伊斯兰教诞生开始，两教就开始厮杀，一直斗了上千年，直到一战之后西方世界肢解了伊斯兰教最大的一个Flag奥斯曼帝国，千年的厮杀才算以基督教文明的大胜划了一个休止符，但是这并不意味着二者的厮杀就结束了，自从二战以后，由于西方基督教世界普遍盛行自由主义，导致左棍政府长期执政，推行多样化、保护少数族裔和伪女权、大批引进移民等倒行逆施的政策，穆斯林斗因祸得福，得以通过和平的方式进入基督教世界，并且利用其子宫优势，不断攻城略地，千年来穆斯林世界用武力做不到的事情，竟然被20世纪之后的穆斯林通过和平的方式实现了，不得不说这真是一个史诗级的历史讽刺，历代穆斯林哈里发和苏丹在坟墓里也要笑醒。

所以我才在题目中说，这次事件是基督徒和穆斯林的狗咬狗，首先不并不同情这些被屠杀的穆斯林，因为我也仇视穆斯林（当然是出于另外的原因），但是我也并不同情那几个屠杀者，因为他们是代表基督教世界的极端主义者，我站在华夏人的立场上，乐见基督教世界和穆斯林世界极端主义者之间的互砍，两种互相削弱，对华夏只有好处，没有坏处。从某种角度来说，两者之间的互相屠杀，算的上是雅利安人之间的内斗，就是狗咬狗，但是终究互相咬的双方都是狗，不是人，其实说他们是狗，都抬举他们了，即便把基督徒和穆斯林说成是恶魔，都一点都不过分。

为什么这么说呢，这就要从雅利安人的宗教说起了。世界的文明，基本起源于两拨人，一拨是雅利安人，一拨是华夏人。雅利安人地缘优势比较好，起源于亚欧大陆腹地的高加索地区，所以能够向四处蔓延和迁徙，而且雅利安人是一个宗教人种，目前世界大宗教，都是雅利安人创立的，历史记载中最早的成系统和规模的宗教就是波斯帝国的拜火教，而有一支进入印度的雅利安人创立的婆罗门教和拜火教其实是同源的，拜火教的经典《阿维斯陀》（Avesta）和婆罗门教的经典《吠陀》（Veda）其实就是源于一部经典。后来的佛教又脱胎于婆罗门教，传到了东亚，也就是说很多中国人、日本人信仰的东西，也都是雅利安的思想。这是雅利安宗教的东支，教义本身比较注重内省和容忍，没有什么暴力的基因，在传播的过程中还算平和，尤其当中国人把佛教本土化之后，基本就和暴力绝缘了。

但是雅利安宗教的西支就不是这样了，西支的主要成员就是所谓的亚伯拉罕三大宗教，即我们今天所熟知的基督教、伊斯兰教和犹太教。这三大宗教都是近亲，都承认自己是亚伯拉罕（即伊斯兰教里的易卜拉欣）的后裔，经典也是互相抄袭，基督教抄的犹太教，伊斯兰教抄的基督教，三者除了都是一神教之外，还有一个共同的特点就是仇视异教徒，以向外传播本教、屠杀异教徒为最神圣的使命。因为教义本身就非常极端，所以三大亚伯拉罕宗教，除了犹太教比较挫之外，基督教和伊斯兰教伊两教从诞生之日起就带有旺盛的生命力，从最初发源的中东沙漠那一小块地方蔓延了如今全球的每一个角落。

它们能有如此的生命力，一个原因是重信仰，轻血缘，就是只要你信了我们教，不管你是哪个族的人，都算是自己的兄弟，这样就有助于打破部落和族群的限制，迅速传播本教。尤其是一些本来就没有信仰的原始部落，很容易就会被发展成信徒，比如突厥人就选择了伊斯兰教，斯拉夫人就选择了基督教。这种传播理念和华夏的理念也是类似的，华夏人自古也是重文化认同，轻血缘认同，儒家名言就是：“夷狄入中国，则中国之”，意思就是说只要你认同华夏的文化，就当你是华夏人看，后来中国文明在东亚大陆的传播，也都遵循这一理念，中原王朝每占领一个地方，就在本地推行儒家教化，逐渐把当地人同化成了汉人。而犹太教为什么传播范围狭窄，就是因为犹太教是个基于血统和民族的宗教，它不接受非犹太人信犹太教，所以导致千年以来一直都是个犹太人的宗教。

但是为什么同样是几千年，华夏文明只是局限于东亚大陆，而亚伯拉罕文明则能传播到除了东亚之外的全球各地呢，原因就在于华夏文明缺少了亚伯拉罕文明的另一个绝招：杀。华夏是世俗文明，基督教和伊斯兰教是宗教文明，两者的最大不同之处就在于，后者更加狂热，在狂热推动之下就是暴力。英国自由主义哲学家霍布豪斯说过一句名言：“人们做的最好的事和最坏的事，都是以某种信仰的名义干的”（见《形而上学的国家论》），基督教和伊斯兰教的扩张完美地诠释了这句话。两家发源于同一个地方，自然一开始就干架，干架之余，就开始扩张，基督教在西，东边是伊斯兰教，过不去，就往西发展，伊斯兰教在东，就往东发展，一开始伊斯兰教占上风，把西班牙都占了，最北打到了维也纳，而再往东，一直扩张到了东南亚和中国的新疆。伊斯兰教的扩张以强迫当地人信教为主要的动力，除了屠杀，还实行臭名昭著的人头税，即凡是不信仰伊斯兰教者，都征收高昂的人头税，这样慢慢地几代之后被征服地的人便全都是穆斯林了。基督教的扩张相对伊斯兰教是有过之无不及，，最早的时候，基督徒就毁灭了辉煌的古希腊罗马文明，在中世纪到近代，基督教远比伊斯兰教更野蛮和暴力，虽然一开始被伊斯兰教逼在欧洲苦寒之地，但是后来走了狗屎运发现了美洲，便开始在美洲大肆扩张，欧洲人对美洲比瘟疫都恐怖，90%的印第安人都被基督徒杀光，可以说基督教对美洲（以及后来的大洋洲，即刚发生屠杀的澳大利亚和新西兰）土著的种族灭绝，在有书面记载的人类历史上，都是无出其二的。

明白了这些历史背景，再看看昨天发生的屠杀，就不会觉得有什么意外了，如果连死40人都大惊小怪的话，那当初被基督教和伊斯兰教杀光的至少上亿的土著找谁说理去呢？而且极为讽刺的是，那几个屠杀者宣扬仇视移民，但是他们不知道有没有意识到，他们本身也是移民，当初欧洲基督徒占领新西兰，双手都沾满了当地土著的鲜血。所以说，这个事件本身就是基督教和伊斯兰教千年大乱斗的一个当代的延续而已，我们这些外人只要看笑话就行了。

这个乱斗在过去的半个世纪稍微平息了一些，一个原因是伊斯兰世界在和现代开挂了的基督教文明的斗争中全面落败，已经丧失了武力对抗基督教文明的可能性。另一个原因就是因为西方共产主义和苏联的兴起，西方世界的首要大敌变成了俄国人，穆斯林的威胁慢慢被忽略了。为了对抗苏联的共产主义，西方世界炮制出了偏左的自由主义，其实就是把共产主义的一些理念套到资本主义的框架里面，这样就能防止西方世界共产主义得势。但是，到了后来自由主义越走越偏，苏联都解体了，都没有停下其变异的步伐。由于二战以后承平日久，社会阶层开始固化，基督教世界生育率普遍下降，但是因为模仿苏联的福利政策需要源源不断的税收来源，所以西方国家开始大量引进移民补充劳动力和税收，和他们人种相近的穆斯林成为了最大的引进对象。可能是西方世界在武力大胜伊斯兰世界之后，觉得穆斯林不再构成威胁了，所以引进穆斯林的时候毫无顾忌，并且非常自信基督教文明会同化新来的穆斯林，但是引进了几十年后才发现，这些左B政客们想地太天真了，这些新引进的穆斯林非但没有被西方文明同化，反而固守其伊斯兰传统，甚至强迫当地实行伊斯兰教法。并且通过其超高的生育率，使穆斯林人口呈指数级增长。这时候，西方的民主制就开始发挥其反作用了，随着穆斯林人口的增多，政客们不敢得罪这些票源，只能进一步满足穆斯林的要求，甚至直接把一些穆斯林政客（比如伦敦市的市长，还有最近美国民主党推出的两个穆斯林女议员Ilhan Omar员和Rashida Tlaib）推到了前台，这又进一步促进了穆斯林在欧美的扩张。西方的引以为傲的民主制度这个时候已经完全失灵了（所以屠杀者在其宣言里面赞美中国的制度，就是因为其对西方的制度已经失望了），反倒成为了穆斯林进行和平扩张的有力武器，让那些基督徒有苦难言。可以说，西方国家这几十年来是作茧自缚，自己炮制了所谓的多样化、少数群体权利等概念，帮助穆斯林实现了千年来他们祖先梦寐以求都实现不了的梦想，西方国家的左B政客真的是崽卖爷田，一点都不心疼。上世界有个日本人福山曾经下过一个极端幼稚的论断“历史的终结”，意思就是西方的现代文明已经发展到了人类文明至善至美的程度，历史应该到此为止了。我一直觉得这个福山应该是日本人放到西方的文化间谍，和鼓吹中国奔溃的章家敦有异曲同工之妙，就是通过肉麻地赞美西方文明，麻痹西方的政客，让其沉浸在幻觉中不能自拔，等到穆斯林已经像癌细胞一样扩散进西方世界的时候，已经为时已晚。现在西方世界掌权的基本还是那些左棍政客们，美国即便特朗普当上了总统，还是因为民主党操控的众议院擎肘而寸步难行，连个边境墙到建不起来。但是底层的老百姓是忍无可忍了，这次新西兰的事件只能说是多年民怨的第一次爆发，以后肯定会越来越多。

说了这么多，应该明白为什么我要说这次屠杀事件就是狗咬狗了，因为基督徒和穆斯林就是两条恶狗，而且还是一母同胞的两条狗，这两条狗一直都相互咬，都咬了一千多年了，最近几十年消停了一阵子，现在又开始互相咬了。两者都是十恶不赦的恶魔，双手都沾满了千百万土著人的鲜血，两个没有谁是弱者，不管谁被屠，都不值得同情，也千万不能同情。穆斯林诚然是世界文明的公敌，人人得而诛之，但是基督徒难道就是好人吗，虽然基督徒的一支创造了现代文明，但是这并不能勾销其在原始扩张时期对各地土著进行种族灭绝的原罪。

（下）

MARCH 17, 2019 ~ 河东野老

后半部分讲讲基督徒和穆斯林的狗咬狗和中国有什么关系。开始前我先吐槽一下中国近代知识分子中的一些自恨党和牧羊犬。自恨党的代表就是鲁迅，以抹黑和批判汉人“劣根性”为毕生使命，但是鲁迅所说的那些汉人的缺点，并不是汉人独有，比如内斗，世界上哪个民族不内斗？要说内斗，汉人远远不如西方的白人，如前半部分说的那些亚伯拉罕后裔。汉人至少把中国统一了，但是现在的欧洲、中东小国林立，难道是没有人想统一吗，非也，而是内斗太厉害，根本没法统一。我以前也是受官方教育的误导，觉得鲁迅是一个有良心的知识分子，现在我觉得鲁迅这种人非蠢即坏，就是他，还有钱玄同等人，提出要废除汉字，将中文罗马化，说汉字一天不废，中国一天不强大。今天看来，这些人都是妥妥的汉奸、牧羊犬，所以我强烈支持把鲁迅文字从课本中全部删除。近代中国的知识分子因为中国在和西方的武力对抗中全面落败，导致其脊梁骨也折了，思想发生了严重扭曲，少数几个三观还比较清醒的人比如钱穆、冯友兰也不被人待见，但是我相信这些人的思想以后一定会被发扬光大的。

言归正传，中国虽然和那两拨亚伯拉罕后代没有亲属关系，但是从唐朝开始，中国也饱受穆斯林扩张之苦。阿拉伯帝国兴起之后的一两百年，东西两个方向的扩张都势如破竹，往西占领了北非和西班牙，几乎灭亡了“基督教之钉”拜占庭帝国（后来还是被穆斯林化的突厥帝国奥斯曼灭了），往东则成功灭亡波斯帝国，占领中亚，那个时候的唐朝恰逢安史之乱，从西域退出，穆斯林趁机渗透到了西域，虽然吐蕃和穆斯林干了一阵子，但是不久吐蕃也奔溃了，从而导致西域穆斯林化不可逆转，西域原先盛行的佛教被屠灭殆尽，到了明清，信仰喇嘛教的蒙古人一度占据西域的主导权，但是由于康雍乾三朝对准噶尔用兵百年，不仅仅灭亡了准噶尔，乾隆还让兆惠杀光了准噶尔部蒙古人，导致穆斯林人口重新占据优势，到清末穆斯林已经扩张到了陕西和甘肃，并且很多汉人成了穆斯林，即所谓的回族。

华夏自古有句真理叫做“国有难，回必乱”，穆斯林在中国历史上从来没有扮演过任何正面角色，反而多是乘火打劫、背信弃义，这是由其宗教教义决定的，穆斯林不管到哪里，从来不考虑融入当地的文化，而是想着有朝一日能够在当地建立穆斯林国，扩张伊斯兰教。黄巢之乱时，广州的穆斯林就蠢蠢欲动，谋求独立建国，只不过被黄巢及时屠光，才没能得逞。后来南宋末年，世受宋朝皇恩的泉州穆斯林世家蒲家背信弃义，投降蒙古人，杀光了泉州城的宋朝宗室，间接导致南宋的败亡。咸丰和同治年间，由于爆发太平天国战乱，陕甘和新疆的穆斯林趁机纷纷起事，新疆发生了阿古柏之乱，陕甘则发生了导致近一千万汉人被种族屠杀的陕甘回乱，陕甘回乱的回族头目白彦虎甚至打算焚烧黄帝陵。与此同时，云南的穆斯林也发生叛乱，还勾结英国，妄图建立独立的伊斯兰国。虽然这些回乱最后都被镇压，但是被穆斯林有计划屠杀的一千万汉人却在地底成了冤鬼，后来因为所谓的“政治正确”，这一段历史已经被政客强行从历史书上抹去，大多数国人都不知道这段汉人比抗日战争都残酷的痛史。所以我为什么称穆斯林是和基督徒一样的恶魔，原因就在这里，因为活生生的历史证明，这些亚伯拉罕宗教的信徒是不可能和他们眼中的“异教徒”和平共处的，他们不可能认同其他的文明，因为他们的教义本身就是暴力主导的，只要一个人变成了穆斯林，那么他天然就成了一个潜在的屠夫，这个世界上是没有所谓的“温和的穆斯林”的，只有死掉的穆斯林才是好的穆斯林。而且穆斯林的繁殖能力很强，在清末回乱时，穆斯林也被汉人军队屠杀了很多，以至陕西和云南的穆斯林人口极少，但是到了如今，由于错误的民族政策和穆斯林的高生育率，他们的人口又开始飞速增长，然后穆斯林就开始闹事，比如新疆前几年的七五事件，云南的沙甸事件，宁夏甚至开始推行阿拉伯语。这几年陈全国在新疆办学习营，虽然能够短期平息穆斯林的暴力，但是长期来看并没有什么卵用，反倒是浪费了大量的政府财力，现在新疆的财政已经接近奔溃了。

同理，新西兰的那几个白人极端主义者杀40个穆斯林也没用，因为人家马上给你再生出400个、4000个、甚至40000个小穆斯林出来。可以说，穆斯林比蟑螂都难以杀尽，而且极端狂热，只要人口达到一定比例（比如5%），就必定开始闹事，要独立，强迫其他人接受伊斯兰教法。治理穆斯林问题，需要真正有针对性的官方政策和严格的执行力。比如可以在官方推行伊斯兰教宗教改革，我要是陈全国，不会花钱办那些训练营，而会寻求内部突破，扶植内部不同的教派，一个是可以促使伊斯兰教分裂，相互内耗，一个是可以促进伊斯兰教义非极端化。另一方面可以以其人之道，还制其人之身，对穆斯林征收人头税，只要信伊斯兰教，就要交税，人都是经济动物，当初穆斯林可以通过这个方法让许多地方的人穆斯林化，那么同样的方法也能够促进非穆斯林化。第三个方法就是对穆斯林进行计划生育，毕竟汉人被计划生育了几十年了，这些穆斯林也该被一视同仁，同样计划生育一下了。最后一个方法那就是最后没有办法的办法了，就是屠杀，但是只能等穆斯林起来叛乱的时候才能用，但是不可否认这个办法其实是最有效的办法。其实清末经过左宗棠湘军的屠杀，中国的穆斯林本来已经奄奄一息了，如果不是49年之后错误的民族政策，现在中国不会有这么严重的穆斯林问题。

只要三观稍微正常点的人，都应该对穆斯林问题产生警惕，提前准备计划，该计划生育就计划生育，该杀就杀，可惜中国政府这几年对穆斯林事件的处理让人大跌眼镜，这和长期实行的错误政策“两少一宽”脱不了干系，目前中国经济形势危险，如果哪天出现政治危机，社会动乱，再来一次同治回乱可以说是必然的，只是想想那会可能又要被穆斯林屠杀的千百万汉人，真的感觉非常痛心。

相比穆斯林，华夏和基督教文明虽然接触比较晚，但是基督徒们杀起华人来也不比穆斯林客气。乾隆年间，荷兰人在雅加达屠杀了近万华人，史称红溪惨案；屠杀华人最热心的还算是俄国人，清末八国联军侵华期间，俄国在外东北制造了导致近万华人被杀的江东六十四屯惨案。满族统治者昏聩无能，对汉人被屠杀漠不关心，后来的政府也都对这些事情选择性遗忘。但是那些无辜葬送在基督徒屠刀下的华人在地下能够安息吗？所以，华夏应该乐见基督徒和穆斯林之间的乱斗，因为长远来看，这两个宗教文明都是华夏文明的敌人，在可以预见的将来，如何应对和处理国内蠢蠢欲动的穆斯林群体，利用基督教文明和伊斯兰文明之间的矛盾，实现清除国内穆斯林，削弱国外基督教文明和伊斯兰文明的力量，真的是很考验中国政府领导人政治智慧的。

中国现在和西方国家有一个共同的问题，就是政府长期被错误的左倾思想主导，西方是自由主义，中国则是苏联的斯大林主义，两者大同小异，都是打压主体民族，扶植边缘民族，导致穆斯林群体壮大。这里面有一个巨大而且致命的逻辑漏洞，就是这种自由主义思想必须依赖于一个假设：主体民族是强大的一方，边缘民族是弱势的一方，所以主体民族有义务让着弱势的一方，甚至牺牲主体民族的利益，让渡给弱势民族（最典型的莫过于中国的计划生育，靠强制减少汉族人口，给不计划生育的少数民族腾出生存空间）。但是恰恰这个假设是不成立的，甚至是个谬误。实际上，主体民族不一定是强者，而边缘民族也不一定是弱者，否则明末就不会发生区区10万满族人征服整个中国，屠杀掉数以亿计的汉人的历史性大倒退和大悲剧，也不会在同治年间陕西、甘肃两省占人口比例20%左右的穆斯林两三年之内就几乎屠光两省的汉人（1200万左右）。原因就在于像穆斯林这样的边缘民族从一开始就有异心，再加上极具凝聚力和号召力的极端宗教教义，具有极强的战斗力和杀伤力，反而像汉族这样的主体民族，承平日久，没有危机意识，再加上政府的有意打压，族内犬儒主义盛行，虽然人口众多，但是没有民族意识，缺乏凝聚力，如一盘散沙，面对强悍的穆斯林，只可能像一群绵羊一样被后者屠戮。像穆斯林这样的人群，中外的历史和现实都证明，其人口一点超过10%，必定伺机伺机动乱，屠杀主体民族，强迫主体民族变成穆斯林。

到目前为止，大多数政客还没有意识到问题的严重性，虽然已经有人意识到了，但是还是占少数，大多数政客还沉浸在“多样化”的幻觉中不能自拔，以后就要看中国和西方到底哪一方有更有效的纠错机制了。

文化马克思主义（中文维基）

文化马克思主义是一种极右翼反犹主义阴谋论，该阴谋论误传称，法兰克福学派应为当代进步主义运动、身份政治和政治正确负责；宣称存在一场持续的、正在颠覆西方社会的文化战争，战斗方式是破坏古典保守主义的基督教价值观，并以1960年代以来的自由主义思潮取而代之，最终动摇西方文化的根基。

这一阴谋论与纳粹的政治宣传用语“文化布尔什维克主义”有诸多相似之处，但一般认为该阴谋论仅能追溯到20世纪90年代的美国（摘要），在21世纪10年代进入主流舆论圈并得以在全球范围内传播。现如今，文化马克思主义阴谋论得到了右翼政治家、原教旨主义宗教领袖、主流出版界及电视界政治评论家及白人至上主义恐怖分子的推广，并被称作“另类右翼世界观的根基”。学术界对该阴谋论做出分析并认为该阴谋论没有事实基础，也没有任何实际上的学术倾向可以为其作证。

背景

法兰克福学派

德国学生在1968年的抗议活动中占据一间教室的情景，当时学生的抗议运动受到了法兰克福学派特别是赫伯特·马尔库塞的影响。黑板上的标语为“学习是鸦片”及“只有法西斯今天才学习” 在阴谋论的用法之外，“文化马克思主义”一词偶尔也被学者用来指代有关精英群体如何利用文化生产来维持其统治地位的学术研究领域。但一般没有人会自称“文化马克思主义者”，有时这个词也被作为法兰克福学派发明的“批判理论”一词的同义词。“批判理论”一词最初就是用作马克思主义的委婉词[15][16]。更一般地说，俄罗斯以外，将马克思主义思想重点从经济学转到文化上的西方马克思主义被称作“文化马克思主义”。

1922－1923年间，包括费利克斯·威尔、卡尔·科尔施和卢卡奇·格奥尔格在内的一批西方马克思主义者在法兰克福成立了社会研究中心。他们主要研究的主题是为何1918年的11月革命会以失败告终，在经济方面他们使用了马克思的经济学理论，但在社会和文化方面他们使用了其他的思路，比如西格蒙德·弗洛伊德的一些理论。1929年前后，麦克斯·霍克海默正式开创了法兰克福学派，除了社会研究中心的一批学者外，外界的一些学者也加入了法兰克福学派。之后几年里，霍克海默意识到了纳粹主义的危险，并于1935年将研究所迁到了纽约的哥伦比亚大学。此后，法兰克福学派着力于研究极权主义，以免像纳粹这样的极权国家卷土重来。麦克斯·霍克海默和狄奥多·阿多诺合著的《启蒙辩证法》及赫伯特·马尔库塞的《爱欲与文明》中皆从马克思主义劳动理论和弗洛伊德精神分析角度分析了文化工业。他们担忧大众媒体会向民众灌输虚假意识，阿多诺就这一点提出了威权人格一词，用来解释为什么自由民主制度下的人民依然容易卷入法西斯运动中。

二战后，阿多诺和霍克海默回到了德国，法兰克福学派的核心转移到了以于尔根·哈贝马斯等人为首的第二代学者身上。马尔库塞则留在了美国，成为了与新左翼有关的争议性人物。马尔库塞有关压抑性容忍的论述，以及他对安吉拉·戴维斯和鲁迪·杜契克等学生的指导使得他在非裔美国人民权运动和德国六八学运中起到了举足轻重的作用。而与马尔库塞相反，大多数法兰克福学派人士尽量避免参与新左翼的活动，例如哈贝马斯就建议学者们采用“冬眠政策”。随着20世纪70年代新左翼的衰落，法兰克福学派曾采用的批判性教学逐渐主导了美国高等教育界，这套理论也招致了20年后有关政治正确的一系列争论。

阴谋论

欧陆反动主义者在1960年代保守派对抗自由派和马克思主义者的文化战争失败后从主流保守主义分裂而出，形成了批判当代社会并尝试扭转文化价值的松散的知识分子群体，新右派。在21世纪初的美国，也出现了对传统保守主义和自由主义的类似不满情绪：另类右派不满于他们无法通过暴力改变自由主义霸权，并吸收了欧洲新右派的思想，开始关注如何以非暴力方式影响美国社会，使自由主义现状失去合法性，他们批评与西方文化衰落或是受流行文化影响的事务，并声称这是资本主义和他们称之为“文化马克思主义”勾结的结果。

阴谋论者声称一小批马克思主义精英分子和法兰克福学派学者正在颠覆西方社会。尽管他们引述的一部分理论确实被西方马克思主义者使用，但是他们仍被认为严重夸大其词。

米歇尔·明尼希诺与拉罗奇运动

米歇尔·明尼希诺1992年出版的《新黑暗时代﹕法兰克福学派和“政治正确”》一书标志着当代文化马克思主义阴谋论的兴起。明尼希诺认为，由于放弃了犹太教-基督教和文艺复兴时期的理念，20世纪下半叶的美国已进入“新黑暗时代”。他在书中宣称基督教和文艺复兴时期的理念已经被“丑陋暴政”的现代艺术所取代，并将此归咎于一个所谓在美国灌输文化悲观主义的阴谋，由卢卡奇·格奥尔格、法兰克福学派和媒体精英人物分三阶段进行。

明尼希诺认为，法兰克福学派有两条毁灭西方文化的途径。其一，是狄奥多·阿多诺和瓦尔特·本雅明的文化批判理论，通过艺术和文化传播马克思的异化论，并用社会主义取代基督教：具体而言，是通过舆论调查及宣传洗脑控制大众；其二，是赫伯特·马尔库塞和埃里希·弗罗姆颠覆父权的女权、性解放、多形变态运动。明尼希诺还认为法兰克福学派应该为1960年代反文化运动及“迷幻药物革命”负责，因为他们通过分发迷幻药物以提倡性变态和淫乱。

明尼希诺的理论大多来自于他早年参与的拉罗奇运动。该运动得名自林登·拉罗奇，他自1974年开始不断地发表关于法兰克福学派的阴谋论，并指称赫伯特·马尔库塞和安吉拉·戴维斯效力于反情报计划。文化马克思主义阴谋论的部分元素来自1970年代至1980年代间该运动的杂志《执行策略评论》。

2011年挪威爆炸和枪击事件发生后，明尼希诺公开否定了他自己的诸多论述，写道：“我仍然愿意认为我的一些研究是有效且有用的。但是，我非常清楚地看到，整个运动——尤其是运动得到的结论——由于自我审查和希望以某种方式支持拉罗奇先生的疯狂世界观而无可救药地变形了”。

保罗·韦里奇和威廉·林德

1998年，保罗·韦里奇在西维塔斯研究所举办的保守派领导会议上直接将文化马克思主义与政治正确等同。保罗·韦里奇在会上表示：“我们已经输掉了文化战争”，“我们要遵循的合适策略是，研究如何将我们自己与那些被‘政治正确’的意识形态，及我们传统文化的其他敌人所俘获的机构分开”。

韦里奇指示威廉·林德为自由国会研究与教育基金会撰写文化马克思主义的历史，并在文中将文化马克思主义定义为“西方马克思主义的一种……也称作‘多元文化主义’，或者更不正式的称为政治正确”。在林德的演讲“政治正确的起源”中，林德表示：“如果我们用分析的眼光看待它，如果我们历史的眼光看待它，我们很快就能发现它到底是什么。政治正确就是文化马克思主义。它将马克思主义从经济术语转化为文化术语。这种东西并不起源于1960年代的嬉皮士或者和平运动，而是起源于第一次世界大战。如果我们将政治正确的基本原则与古典马克思主义进行比较，会发现两者间存在明显的相似之处”。

林德分析称，卢卡奇和葛兰西致力于颠覆西方文化，因为西方文化是马克思主义中无产阶级革命的阻碍。根据林德的说法，麦克斯·霍克海默领导下的法兰克福学派主要使用四种策略消灭社会抑制（并摧毁西方文化）：首先，霍克海默的批判理论破坏传统家庭和政府机构的权威，将社会分割为弱势群体和压迫者两个对立群体；其次，阿多诺提出的威权人格和法西斯量表被用来指责普通右翼美国人的观点与法西斯主义类似；再次，多形变态这一概念本身通过提倡自由恋爱主义和同性恋来破坏西方文化，林德还补充说赫伯特·马尔库塞认为“一个由黑人、学生、女性主义妇女和同性恋者组成的联盟”将是1960年代文化革命的先锋队；最后，马尔库塞提出的压抑性容忍被林德解读为让右派失语只允许左派发声。林德还表示文化马克思主义是第四代战争。

帕特·布坎南使得旧保守主义者更加地关注韦里奇和林德对阴谋论的解释。热罗姆·雅明称布坎南是这一阴谋论的“思想动力”，安德斯·贝林·布雷维克是阴谋论的“暴力动力”。二者都基于威廉·林德的理论及他的著作《政治正确：一种意识形态的简史》。

政治暴力

布雷维克在2011年挪威爆炸和枪击事件使用的伪造警察身份牌，他自称制造该事件的动机之一为反对文化马克思主义。

2011年7月22日，挪威极右翼恐怖分子安德斯·贝林·布雷维克在2011年挪威爆炸和枪击事件中杀死了77人。事件发生前约90分钟，布雷维克向1003人发送了包含他1500页政治宣言《2083：欧洲独立宣言》和一份《政治正确：一种意识形态的简史》拷贝的电子邮件。他在政治宣言中主要讨论了文化马克思主义，并声称“西欧性传染病流行是文化马克思主义的结果”、“文化马克思主义将穆斯林、女性主义女性、同性恋以及少数群体视为‘美德’，将欧洲的基督教男性视为‘邪恶’”、“斯特拉斯堡的欧洲人权法院被文化马克思主义者控制”。

考虑文化马克思主义阴谋论在现实中造成的一系列政治暴力，法学教授塞缪尔·莫恩写道，“‘文化马克思主义’是一种粗暴的诽谤，指的是不存在的东西，但这并不意味着其在现实中毫无影响力——已经有很多人被作为不满和愤怒的替罪羊死去。因此，‘文化马克思主义’不仅是合法不满情绪的可悲抒发，也是一种越来越不正常的致命诱惑”。

在另类右翼圈子中的传播

在《漫游者》2008年12月的〈法兰克福学派：腐化的阴谋〉一文中，蒂莫西·马修斯称法兰克福学派是“撒但的杰作”，并称其试图发动“文化战争”，这篇文章具体称法兰克福学派试图：

1. 创造种族主义犯罪这一概念
2. 不断自我转变以制造混乱
3. 向儿童传授性及同性恋相关的知识
4. 破坏学校和教师的权威
5. 通过外来移民破坏美国的国族认同
6. 提倡过度饮酒
7. 使教会空洞化
8. 制造对犯罪受害者有偏见的、不可靠的法律体系
9. 造成人们依赖国家和国家福利
10. 控制并愚弄媒体
11. 鼓动家庭破裂

尽管这份列表中所称的行为与任何学术运动之间都缺少具体的联系，但阴谋论者仍利用马修斯的指控，在右派和极右派新闻媒体以及Stormfront等另类右派的互联网论坛上宣传文化马克思主义阴谋论。

参见

• 西方马克思主义
• 犹太布尔什维主义
• 血祭诽谤
• 文化布尔什维克主义
• 医生案件
• 《十九世纪的基础》
• 《锡安长老会纪要》
• 犹太-美生阴谋论
• 刀刺在背传说

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory（英文维基）

“Cultural Marxism” refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed “Christian values” of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.

Origins

European reactionaries, following their defeat in the culture wars of the 1960s against liberals and Marxists, split from the mainstream conservatism of the “Old Right”, forming a loose intellectual grouping (the “New Right”) that criticised the contemporaneous society and attempted to transform cultural norms and values. In the 21st century, The European New Right influenced the US alt-right to focus on nonviolent ways to delegitimize the liberal status quo. This included criticising the perceived decline of Western culture and the influence of pop culture, which they claimed was the result of a collusion between capitalism and what they called “Cultural Marxism”.

Michael Minnicino and the LaRouche Movement

Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’ has been described as a starting point for the contemporary conspiracy theory in the United States. Minnicino’s interest in the subject derived from his involvement in the LaRouche movement.Lyndon LaRouche had begun developing conspiracy theories regarding the Frankfurt School in 1974, when he alleged that Herbert Marcuse and Angela Davis were acting as part of COINTELPRO. Other features of the conspiracy theory had developed across the 1970s and 80s in the movement’s magazine, EIR, according to the researcher Andrew Woods.

Minnicino’s essay argued that late twentieth-century America had become a “New Dark Age” as a result of the abandonment of Judeo-Christian and Renaissance ideals, which he claimed had been replaced in modern art with a “tyranny of ugliness”. He attributed this to an alleged plot to instill cultural pessimism in America, carried out in three stages by Georg Lukács, the Frankfurt School, and elite media figures and political campaigners.

Minnicino asserted there were two aspects of the Frankfurt School plan to destroy Western culture. Firstly, a cultural critique, by Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin, to use art and culture to promote alienation and replace Christianity with socialism. This included the development of opinion polling and advertising techniques to brainwash the populace and control political campaigning. Secondly, the plan supposedly included attacks on the traditional family structure by Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm to promote women’s rights, sexual liberation, and polymorphous perversity to subvert patriarchal authority. Minnicino claimed the Frankfurt School was responsible for elements of the counterculture of the 1960s and a “psychedelic revolution”, distributing hallucinogenic drugs to encourage sexual perversion and promiscuity.

After the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway by Anders Breivik, a follower of the conspiracy theory, Minnicino repudiated his own essay. Minnicino wrote, “I still like to think that some of my research was validly conducted and useful. However, I see very clearly that the whole enterprise—and especially the conclusions—was hopelessly deformed by self-censorship and the desire to in some way support Mr. LaRouche’s crack-brained world-view.”

Paul Weyrich and William Lind

Paul Weyrich and William Lind were prominent figures of cultural conservatism in the United States; Weyrich had co-founded right-wing groups including the Free Congress Foundation, which he led.Weyrich equated political correctness with Cultural Marxism in a speech to the Conservative Leadership Conference of the Civitas Institute in 1998.He argued that “we have lost the culture war” and that “a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture.”

For the Free Congress Foundation, Weyrich commissioned Lind, a paleoconservative activist, to write a history of Cultural Marxism, defined as “a brand of Western Marxism … commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness.” In the 2000 speech The Origins of Political Correctness, Lind wrote, “If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the Hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism, the parallels are very obvious.”

Lind employed the conspiracy theory to argue that leftist and liberal ideologies were alien to the United States.[6] He argued that Lukács and Antonio Gramsci had aimed to subvert Western culture because it was an obstacle to the Marxist goal of proletarian revolution. He alleged that the Frankfurt School under Max Horkheimer had hoped to destroy Western civilization and establish totalitarianism (even though some members had fled Nazi totalitarianism), using four main strategies. First, Lind said, Horkheimer’s critical theory would undermine the authority of family and government while segregating society into opposing groups of victims and oppressors. Second, he said, concepts of the authoritarian personality and the F-scale measuring susceptibility to fascism, developed by Adorno, would be used to accuse Americans with right-wing views of having fascist principles. Third, he said, polymorphous perversity would undermine family structure by promoting free love and homosexuality. Fourth, he characterized Herbert Marcuse as saying that left victim-groups should be allowed to speak while groups on the right were silenced. Lind said that Marcuse considered a coalition of “Blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals” as a feasible vanguard of cultural revolution in the 1960s. Lind also wrote that Cultural Marxism was an example of fourth-generation warfare.

Pat Buchanan brought more attention among paleoconservatives to Weyrich and Lind’s iteration of the conspiracy theory. Jérôme Jamin refers to Buchanan as the “intellectual momentum” of the conspiracy theory, and to Anders Breivik as the “violent impetus”. Both of them relied on Lind, who edited a multi-authored work called “Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology” that Jamin calls the core text that “has been unanimously cited as ’the’ reference since 2004.”

Lind and the Free Congress Foundation produced the video Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School in 1999. It was further distributed by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist group, which added its own introduction. The film includes decontextualized clips of historian Martin Jay, who was not aware of the nature of the production at the time. Jay has since become a recognized expert on the conspiracy theory. Concerning right-wing exploitation of his statements, Jay wrote, “Those beans I allegedly spilled had been on the plate for a very long time,” going on to confirm that the Frankfurt school were Marxists concerned with culture, and that Marcuse promulgated the idea of repressive tolerance. However, the conspiracy theory presents an “improverished cartoon version” of these ideas.

Jay wrote that Lind’s documentary was effective Cultural Marxism propaganda because it “spawned a number of condensed, textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical, right-wing [web] sites.” Jay further writes:

These, in turn, led to a plethora of new videos, now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: All the ‘ills’ of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation, racial equality, multiculturalism and gay rights to the decay of traditional education, and even environmentalism, are ultimately attributable to the insidious intellectual influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930s.

Lind’s documentary also featured Lazlo Pasztor, a former member of the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party who collaborated with the Nazis, and later served five years in prison for crimes against humanity.

Others

David Solway sees a “master plan” in Marxist revolutionaries and Cultural Marxists advocating for or predicting the dissolution of marriage. The charge is that they have a “‘master plan’ for the overthrow of Western civilization from within, personified by those members of the Frankfurt School […]”.

Popularization

Rachel Busbridge, Benjamin Moffitt and Joshua Thorburn describe the conspiracy theory as being promoted by the far-right, but that it “has gained ground over the past quarter century” and conclude that “[t]hrough the lens of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy, however, it is possible to discern a relationship of empowerment between mainstream and fringe, whereby certain talking points and tropes are able to be transmitted, taken up and adapted by ‘mainstream’ figures, thus giving credence and visibility to ideologies that would have previously been constrained to the margins.”

Andrew Breitbart, founder of Breitbart News, authored a 2011 book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World that represents one of the conspiracy theory’s moves towards the mainstream. Breitbart’s interpretation of the conspiracy is similar in most respects to that of Lind. Breitbart attributes the spread of the ideas of the Frankfurt School from universities to a wider audience to “trickledown intellectualism”, and claims that Saul Alinsky introduced cultural Marxism to the masses in his 1971 handbook Rules for Radicals. Woods argues that Breitbart focuses on Alinsky in order to associate cultural Marxism with the modern Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton. Breitbart claims that George Soros funds the alleged cultural Marxism project. Martin Jay wrote that Breitbart’s book displayed “appalling ignorance” of the actual work of the Frankfurt School.

Breitbart News has published the idea that Theodor Adorno’s atonal music was an attempt at inducing mental illness on a mass scale. Former Breitbart contributors Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, have promoted the conspiracy theory, especially the claim that Cultural Marxist activity is happening in universities.

In the late 2010s, Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson popularized the term, for example, by blaming “Cultural Marxism” for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech, thus moving the term into mainstream discourse. Critics state that Peterson misuses postmodernism as a stand-in term for the conspiracy without understanding its antisemitic implications, specifying that “Peterson isn’t an ideological anti-Semite; there’s every reason to believe that when he re-broadcasts fascist propaganda, he doesn’t even hear the dog-whistles he’s emitting”.

Spencer Sunshine and journalist Ari Paul have criticized traditional media such as The New York Times, New York Magazine and The Washington Post for their coverage of the conspiracy theory, arguing that they have either not clarified the nature of the conspiracy theory or “allow[ed] it to live on their pages.” An example is an article in The New York Times by David Brooks, who Paul and Sunshine argue “rebrands cultural Marxism as mere political correctness, giving the Nazi-inspired phrase legitimacy for the American right. It is dropped in or quoted in other stories—some of them lighthearted, like the fashion cues of the alt-right—without describing how fringe this notion is. It’s akin to letting conspiracy theories about chem trails or vaccines get unearned space in mainstream press.” Another is Andrew Sullivan, who went on “to denounce ‘cultural Marxists’ for inspiring social justice movements on campuses.” Paul and Sunshine argue that failure to highlight the nature of the conspiracy theory “has bitter consequences. ‘It is legitimizing the use of that framework, and therefore it’s coded antisemitism.’”

Supporters of the conspiracy theory include including paleoconservative political philosopher Paul Gottfried. Gottfried was at one time a student of Herbert Marcuse (with whom he disagreed) and edited the academic journal Telos. Under Gottfried’s tenure, Telos became far-right in its outlook, writing favorably about Carl Schmitt and Alain de Benoist. Gottfried influenced Richard Spencer and has been called the “godfather” of the alt-right. He defended William Lind against accusations that “Cultural Marxism” has anti-semitic undertones. Gottfried identifies as reactionary and questions the value of political equality. Gottfried defines cultural Marxism as “a particular movement for change that combines some elements of Marxist socialism with a call for sexual and cultural revolution”. However, he says that the term “cultural Marxism” is not ideal since the connection with Marxism is tenuous. Gottfried writes that the influence of the Frankfurt School lives on in modern left-wing politics mainly in the form of a tendency to conflate the right wing with fascism.

Kalergi Plan（凯勒奇计划）

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, supposed creator of the plan, pictured c. 1930

The Kalergi Plan, sometimes called the Coudenhove-Kalergi Conspiracy, is a debunked far-right, antisemitic, white genocide conspiracy theory. The theory claims that Austrian-Japanese politician Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, creator of the Paneuropean Union, concocted a plot to mix and replace white Europeans with other races via immigration. The conspiracy theory is most often associated with European groups and parties, but it has also spread to North American politics.

The Jews wish to destroy the white race by flooding Europe and the US with “blacks and Asians”. This has been done by creating and implementing “multiculturalism”.（犹太人希望通过让“黑人和亚洲人”涌入欧洲和美国来消灭白人。这是通过创建和实施“多元文化主义”来实现的。）

【注释：本书中也提到了这点：当然现实也是如此进行的。】

Origins

The conspiracy theory stems from a section of Kalergi’s 1925 book Praktischer Idealismus (“Practical Idealism”), in which he predicted that a mixed race of the future would arise: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.“Modern far-right individuals seek to draw relationships between contemporary European policy-making and this quote.

Austrian neo-Nazi writer Gerd Honsik wrote about the subject in his book Kalergi Plan (2005).

The conspiracy theory

The independent Italian newspaper Linkiesta investigated the conspiracy theory and described it as a hoax which is comparable to the fabricated antisemitic document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Kalergi plan as a distinctly European way of pushing the white genocide conspiracy theory on the continent, with white nationalists quoting Coudenhove-Kalergi’s writings out of context in order to assert that the European Union’s immigration policies were insidious plots that were hatched decades ago in order to destroy white people.Hope Not Hate, an anti-racism advocacy group, has described it as a racist conspiracy theory which alleges that Coudenhove-Kalergi intended to influence Europe’s policies on immigration in order to create a “populace devoid of identity” which would then supposedly be ruled by a Jewish elite.

Recent history

In 2019, the right-wing nonprofit organization Turning Point USA posted a photograph on Twitter in which a person was holding a beach ball that featured text promoting this conspiracy theory. The tweet was deleted soon after.

See also

• Great Replacement
• The Camp of the Saints
• Miscegenation hoax