recent, Religion, Review, Top Stories

Identity, Islam, and the Twilight of Liberal Values—A Review

A review of Identity, Islam, and the Twilight of Liberal Values by Terri Murray, Cambridge Scholars, 212 pages (Dec. 2018)

After the collapse of the totalitarian Communist regimes in 1989-91, Francis Fukuyama famously wrote in The End of History and the Last Man that “we may have reached the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government.” Terri Murray begins Identity, Islam and the Twilight of Liberal Values by arguing that Fukuyama’s optimism was premature, because the rise of religious fundamentalism—especially radical Islam—has become a powerful bulwark against the spread of liberal democracy. Rather than exposing and opposing the damage done by Islamism in the West, soi disant liberals, leftists, and progressives have acted as its supporters and cheerleaders. Murray instead labels them as “pseudo-liberals” and the “regressive Left” as a result of their abandonment of bedrock liberal principles, and progressive and secular values.

Murray aims to diagnose the ways in which European and American social liberalism has been eroded in the post-9/11 era, asserting that these are not because of its internal flaws but because Westerners have been reluctant to defend its strengths and to apply its principles internally. She maintains that a “paternalistic orthodoxy” has arisen that demands positive respect for, or deference to, those who oppose liberalism, secularism, and democracy. Universal human rights and principled politics have given way to moral relativism and total subjectivism—developments that Murray argues were by no means inevitable. This trend is encapsulated in the buzzword that has become so fashionably prevalent in recent times—“diversity.” Murray contends that the rhetoric of diversity has been used to peddle policies that have curtailed any genuine liberal dissent from the establishment’s orthodoxies and politically correct posturing. This, in turn, has resulted in a decrease in intellectual diversity.

Murray’s core liberal values rest on the teachings of John Stuart Mill. At its heart is the primacy of the individual which is essential to social progress and human flourishing. In his classic work On Liberty, Mill provides the following reasoning:

Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.

Islamists in the West have successfully hijacked the moral prestige of liberal terminology for the purposes of disseminating ultra-social conservative beliefs and practices. Murray quotes the Pakistani-American writer Tashbih Sayyed, who pithily summarises the effects of this strategy as follows:

By casting its fascist agenda in terms of human rights and civil libertarian terms, political Islam has successfully been able to use the American liberal and progressive groups to project itself as an American phenomenon and win intellectual elites, liberals, and the media with left leanings on its side.

Murray correctly observes that violent acts of Islamic terrorism have had the effect of misleading people into thinking that anything short of terrorism is “moderate.” She points out that the ideology of an organisation may be extremist and deeply illiberal even if the group does not resort to violence to promote its views. Hence, Islam, with its myriad illiberal doctrines, has been embraced beneath the umbrella of a diverse society to such a degree that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proclaimed that “Islam is part of Germany.” This preoccupation with diversity has brought the efflorescence of identity politics and the sphere of “competitive victimhood.” Murray asserts that Western apologists for the Islamists’ victimhood narrative subscribe to the false belief that a vigorous critique of Western foreign policy must necessarily exclude castigation of its violently regressive Salafi-Islamist counterpart—in reality, Western Islamophiles diligently refrain from critiquing and criticising any aspect of Islam.

The upshot has been that self-determination, equality, and human rights are now seen as mere preferences and evidence of Western bias. The Left’s acolytes of Islamism have adopted a masochistic and selective species of moral relativism that allows them to excuse any culture or tradition but their own from scrutiny of its human rights abuses while obsessively picking over every flaw and imperfection in open societies. In their embrace of the Islamist version of anti-colonialism, they have thrown the Enlightenment baby out with the colonialist bathwater. Murray provides an important insight from Sara Khan (presently the UK government’s commissioner for countering extremism) that Marxists wrongly assumed that their alliance with Islamic groups would gradually steer Muslims away from Islam towards socialism. In fact, Islamists have helped steer the Left away from secularism and towards Islamism.

In this way, Islamists have been perversely successful at using terrorism to further their victim narrative—those who recoil from these atrocities are accused of further stigmatising an already marginalised and vulnerable minority by using such attacks to “brand Muslims as terrorists.” But it is Islamism’s apologists who are responsible for the conflation of Islamism and Muslims which they attribute to their opponents, thereby reinforcing their demand for yet more protection and immunity from legitimate scrutiny. Citizens of liberal democracies find themselves attacked twice over—even as they grieve for their dead in the wake of a terrorist outrage, they are berated for the intolerance that brought it about.

This clever manoeuvre is accepted almost without question in Western universities. In a powerful chapter on the failings of American and British universities, Murray argues that a form of tribalism has arisen that is antithetical to the raison d’etre of education in general, and of universities in particular. Universities are supposed to be forums for the robust exchange of new and unfamiliar ideas between people who may be culturally, ethnically, or generationally different. From campuses to courtrooms, however, an ongoing piecemeal dismantling of political liberalism’s core principles and institutions is underway, partly thanks to student-led movements that are the product of an aggressive multiculturalism.

The cultural and moral relativists believe that their views and attendant policies are designed to protect vulnerable minorities from harm, and so criticism or mockery of Islamic doctrines have become taboo and illustrative of Western prejudice and “hate speech.” Murray argues that liberals have traditionally adopted a very narrow understanding of harm to encompass only those activities that physically injure or constrain others or damage their “permanent interests as progressive beings.” However, their new censorious mindset has led to the mushrooming of “safe space” and “no platforming” culture on campuses, an approach diametrically opposed to the “harm principle” as set out by Mill:

The only purpose for which power can rightly be exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

So, while radical activists on campuses and beyond rigorously attempt to constrain free speech of their political opponents, they are extraordinarily tolerant and uncritical of minorities, no matter how reactionary or retrogressive their beliefs may be. In The Open Society and its Enemies, Karl Popper cautioned against this attitude by asserting that “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.”

This is precisely what concerns Murray and undergirds her concern that, surreptitiously but surely, the principles of free expression and tolerance of dissent are being eroded by an onslaught of intolerant ideas and actions by Islamists in cahoots with an increasingly regressive and radical Left. The latter, she points out, use deceptive rhetoric, new semantics, and logical fallacies that transform kernels of truth into overarching lies.

In her final chapter, Murray summarises the core liberal values she believes are now desperately in need of a principled defence. These are secularism and anti-clericalism; free speech and universalism; freedom and individual liberty over community and cultural values; primacy of the individual; primacy of reason over superstition, custom, and tradition; personal liberty; and equality before the law. All those who agree with these, and who are troubled by the ascendency of illiberal thinking and politics across the societal spectrum, should read and learn from this timely and cogently argued book.


Rumy Hasan is a senior lecturer at the University of Sussex and author of Religion and Development in the Global South (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017).

Photo by Paul Buffington on Unsplash

Filed under: recent, Religion, Review, Top Stories


Rumy Hasan is the author of Multiculturalism: Some Inconvenient Truths (2010) and Religion and Development in the Global South (forthcoming 2017); and a member of the EU’s Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) with a special interest in the prevention of Islamic radicalisation.


  1. Morgan Foster says

    We are seeing left-wing feminists gradually drop the scales from their eyes regarding transexual women. One hopes these same feminists will experience something similar with Islamism before too much longer.

    • Anonymous says

      I’m also very optimistic that Islamism will unmask itself rather sooner than later. There is only so much you can do in the shadows.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO “Anonymous”
        Don’t hold your breath for islam to “unmask itself”:
        1) they often tell you EXACTLY WHAT their goals are and,
        when they don’t,
        2) they are commanded by their “holy” scripture to lie (taqiyya) and omit truth (kitman) to gain the upper hand.

        The only realistic optimism is that – in this example – feminists realize the risk to themselves…before it is too late.

        But: Leftists being Leftists…it’s a suicide cult.

        • ali says

          taqiyya is a shia sect teaching and majority of islamists are overwhelming sunnis salafist.

          • dirk says

            Are you sure, ali, that taqiyya is a shia tric only, and not a unanimously followed islam strategy? I am surprised, really!

      • Jim Bray says

        Islam and the Western Feminist movement are very different things that are used together for political advantage, even though there is no direct relationship. The Feminist Movement has been evolving for a long time, and since the 1920’s has had two battles: Suffrage and ERA. One win and one loss. Now, we are in the midst of a third.

        This time, it’s a crowded field where everyone is invited, as long as you are a self-identified member of a persecuted group. The numbers are bigger and hopes are higher. Feminists are a part of the American landscape and are not a danger, in themselves, although their political Left allies could cause very real damage to humanity, if they succeed.

        Islam, is another matter. That is an existential threat, because the culture and belief system is not compatible with Renaissance thought. Many groups may be able to assimilate, but with Islam and the West, never the twain shall meet.

    • The Ulcer says

      Feminism is just one ideology that has been poisoned by toxic mob-thought. The over-arching principle of the progressive left is explicit: white people bad, everyone else good. This simple calculus drives activist policy-making while reducing critical thought to mere reflex.

      • bob says

        Third wave feminism has little in common with the first two waves that were born out of the principles of universal liberalism. Third wave feminism is just another wacky form of identitarian politics.

  2. Tim says

    I can’t imagine inviting a million people who have basically the same type of ideology as the Westboro Baptist Church.

    The same people who fought against the bigotry of Fundamentalist Christians are welcoming the same ideas (and worse) into their diversity bubble delusion.

    • E. Olson says

      Tim – I believe your comparison is a bit lacking in terms of scale:

      Westboro Church peak membership was about 70, and despite some very nasty rhetoric, I don’t believe any member has ever been accused of killing anyone in the name of the church/religion.

      Islam global membership is about 1.8 billion. If only 20% are “radical” that means 360 million people who insist on Sharia law, believe violent Jihad against infidels is their duty, and believe women are second class citizens and homosexuality should be outlawed under penalty of death. Death toll since 9/11 from Muslim terrorist attacks is put at over 200,000 (see link).

      • Ray Andrews says

        @E. Olson

        Thanks. Hate speech and Hate massacres are not quite the same thing.

        • Tim says

          Bring in a million with the same ideology and you will see violence. Promise.

      • Caleb McInerary says

        Um. I think that was Tim’s point.

    • Kauf Buch says

      Sorry not sorry, Timmeh, your example is idiotic.


      Take your 2nd-Grade-level Moral Relativism and stick it where the transgendered sun don’t shine.

  3. Anonymous says

    “By casting its fascist agenda in terms of human rights and civil libertarian terms, political Islam has successfully been able to use the American liberal and progressive groups to project itself as an American phenomenon and win intellectual elites, liberals, and the media with left leanings on its side.”

    This is precisely what happened in Iran in the 1970s – when the Iranian leftists helped to put the Muslim fundamentalists in power. They had the very odd notion that somehow they were going to form a “democratic ruling coalition” with their “Muslim partners”.

    Naturally, Team Ayatollah imprisoned and/or executed the leftists as soon as they had consolidated power.

    One might think that the Left would have used this as a valuable learning experience.

    Nope ! The Left still has a huge boner for Iran – now more than ever !

    • augustine says

      Interesting that the Leftists themselves knew they were not strong enough to pull off the revolution by themselves. Beware of strange bedfellows.

  4. bumble bee says

    Just another reason not to vote in any more “liberals”. Why such a striking statement? Simply because the lunatic fringe is still in control and being catered to even while claiming/campaigning what appears to be sane classic liberalism. The only way we have to reclaim the left, is when the left realizes they have lost their base, through defeats in elections. They are slow learners as is witnessed with the current group of contenders who try to one up each other with more drastic and radical views/policies. If people want this to end, they must be treated like an addiction by no longer enabling them, and total abandonment until they hit rock bottom.

  5. Chip says

    Has anyone bothered to state what supposed “damage” is being inflicted on America by Islamists?

    I see the damage wrought by radical Christian fundamentalists sure, but radical Islamsts?

    Just not seeing any.

    • Fuzzy Headed Mang says

      I dunno…. maybe 9-11 for starters?

      • Ray Andrews says

        @Fuzzy Headed Mang

        That massacre of a gay club in Florida comes to mind.

    • Morgan Foster says


      By all means, let’s wait until radical Islamists reach the same electoral numbers as radical Christian fundamentalists before we start worrying about it.

      • Hypatia says

        Exactly. Islamists are clever and know that violence presents an image problem. Gradualism, dawa and democracy are the preferred means. Athough unfamiliar to Americans, dawa as practiced by radical Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance their goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytizing but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to instill Islamist views in existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with the rule of sharia law. Democracy is used as the preferred means, as well as the positive radical flank effect, since both tactics lend them legitimacy. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a case study in this approach. This report outlines the strategy and why it is so difficult to tackle:

    • Andrew Elsey says

      I can generally tell someone is uneducated and mentally impaired, in 2019, by their reflexive assertion that Christianity is the root of all evil in society. If we could toss you all out into China, we’d be much better off.

    • Logan says

      When you say “radical Christian fundamentalists,” are you specifically talking about Westboro Baptist Church or? And what is the “damage wrought?”

      • E. Olson says

        Logan – What damage wrought you ask? What about the time that Westboro members hijacked some airliners and crashed them into several buildings in New York and Washington DC. And I’m pretty sure it was a Westboro member who shot up Ft. Hood while yelling “Allahu Akbar”. Then there were those Westboro member brothers who set off a bomb during the Boston Marathon, and the Westboro member who shot up the Gay nightclub in Florida. And they sure get around, because I am pretty certain that it was Westboro members who drove trucks into crowds of pedestrians in Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK, and some others who shot up the Charlie Hedbo offices in France.

        Wait – I’m sorry but I’ve just been informed that my information is incorrect and that some other religious group was responsible for the above. Never mind.

      • Chip says

        It isn’t Muslims who are stripping women of their rights. It isn’t Muslims who are locking children in cages.

        Even taking all terrorist attacks combined, an American is far more likely to be killed by a right wing Christian than a Muslim.

        • Denny Sinnoh says

          Not the smartest Chip in the cookie …

        • El Uro says

          @Chip, as well as I understood you, peoples, who were killed in Sri Lanka, they were not human beings

        • Kauf Buch says

          Chippy spouts good little brain-dead #NPC comments s/he read somewhere on Vox or such.
          Sad that such non-thinking parroting is not just tolerated, but elevated and celebrated in our toxic educational systems.

        • D.B. Cooper says


          It isn’t Muslims who are stripping women of their rights.

          Believe it or not, I was actually having a good laugh at the dozen or so (at the time of this post) reactionaries who responded with derision and invective at your original comment as I was largely certain that you were taking the piss and these poor lads were simply unaware of it. My certainty was born from what I considered at the time to be an eminently reasonable assumption; namely, any comment this preposterous no refutation is necessary. Irony it seems is not without a sense of humor.

          I didn’t realize my error until I came across your next comment (in the same thread), which was equally as absurd. To your credit, at least you’re consistent.

        • northernobserver says

          I love this kids in cage trope. Tell me Chip if I show up with my six year old sister and eight year old brother, will you house and feed us at your place? I didn’t think so.

          As for all terrorist attacks combined, per ca-pita Muslims kill Americans at 8 times the rate of any other political, religious or other demographic group. The Vox article that showed 60 incidents for the Islamist and 120 incidents for the “right” didn’t control for population.
          That is one hell of a violent belief system.

          Are your doubts growing? Do you see what’s going on?
          At a minimum leftists like yourself need to insist on Islamic acculturation to North American social liberal norms so that we can live together in peace. But I don’t see any of that going on. If anything I see an islamisation of the Universities and Media. Wrong way folks; not gonna end well. To quote Game of Thrones, Islam is Coming.

        • islamaphooey says

          “It isn’t Muslims who are stripping women of their rights”. I guess you ain’t up on current events. Actually, events that have gone on for centuries. Willful blindness is a bad condition Chip.

        • Harbinger says

          ….you are correct Chip, that Islamists are not stripping women of their rights, they just don’t let them have many in the first place.

    • David of Kirkland says

      I’m no fan of Islamists, but it seems a bit of a stretch to assume they are the cause of illiberal western world today. Authoritarianism is all too human, with the vast majority of individuals preferring others tell them what to do and how to live. It starts with parents, then teachers and religions, and of course is completed by central planners.

    • @Chip, the fact that you don’t see any damage from radical Islam in America is frightening and seems to show to me either that a) you have so encapsulated yourself from your narrative you are literally unaware of anything that might puncture it and/or b) you hold Muslims to a far lower standard than non-Muslims out of paternalism, condescension, or ignorance.

      I don’t know if you are open to a conversation but I’ll try: First, we have suffered actual terrorist attacks in the name of Islam. Not ‘just’ 911. Other attacks have included (from wikipedia and infoplease, which are technically non partisan):

      Two gunmen attacked the Curtis Culwell Center during a ‘Draw Muhammad’ cartoon art exhibit in Garland, Texas. 2 dead (perpetrators) 1 injured
      2016 New York and New Jersey bombings – three bombs exploded and several unexploded ones were found in the New York metropolitan area. The bombings left 31 people wounded, but no fatalities or life-threatening injuries were reported. Subsequently the perpetrator has been charged with attempting to radicalized fellow jail inmates to espouse violent islamic jihadism beliefs

      3.2016 Ohio State University attack, 11 people were hospitalized for injuries after a car ramming attack and mass stabbing occurred at Ohio State University. The perpetrator, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, was a Muslim Somali refugee and legal permanent resident of the United State.

      Boston Marathon attack
      San Bernadino, Calif.: Fourteen people are killed and more than 20 wounded when two people open fire at a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center, a service facility for people with disabilities and special needs in San Bernardino, California. The suspects, husband and wife Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, are killed in a shootout with police after the rampage. Officials say they believe the attack is terrorism related.The FBI also concludes that while the couple was not working with ISIS directly, their actions were inspired by the Islamic State.
      : A mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub in the early hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016, leaves 50 people dead, including the gunman, and more than 50 injured. The shooter is identified as Omar Mateen, 29, who entered the nightclub armed with an assault rifle and a pistol. According to authorities, Mr. Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS via a 911 call from inside the nightclub. This massacre is the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil.
      : On Tuesday, October 31, 2017, a man drove his rented Home Depot truck near the World Trade Center in New York. The driver, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, plowed his vehicle into pedestrians along the West Side Highway bike path, killing eight and wounding another eleven. Sources say a note in the truck claimed this attack was for ISIS.

      This is not a complete list.

      The other, deeper issue are what the radical Muslims preach and say. As a Jew, call me crazy, but I feel extremely unsafe around people who call me a termite, or who openly say they want my blood flowing, or who teach their kids to shoot me dead on sight, or who applaud Hitler, and so on. This is not something they hide. Gays are likewise threatened. And their attitudes toward women are far more restrictive than most evangelical Christians even.

      I am by no means saying that Islam poses the only risk. Of course not. Nor am I remotely saying that Islam in and of itself is dangerous, as there are many adherents who are righteous people. But to see danger from extreme Christians and to be blind to Islam’s dangers is astonishing.

      You write, “It isn’t Muslims who are locking children in cages.” I assume by this you mean illegal migrants? You do know Obama did the same thing, right? Did you care when he did it? But regardless, this is a policy issue, not a religious fundamentalist issue. I could write more about this but this post is already too long.

      Finally, you state, “an American is far more likely to be killed by a right wing Christian than a Muslim.” No. That’s not even true (I suppose you make the numbers work by leaving out 9/11.) But although white nationalists are indeed a threat, and vile, they are not following any church teachings at all, or any leader featured on national news or in congress. They don’t kill people by saying, “In the name of Jesus” or “Jesus is great.” They don’t go to a church that teaches to slaughter the innocent. They are not trained by a complex Christian organization that provides them with weapons and instructions for murder. You seem to believe that if a person is white, that means he is Christian, and that therefore if the white person commits an act of terror that somehow means it is a Christian act driven by their church teachings This is a series of logical fallacies.

      • Anonymous says


        It’s sad that we actually have to educate people like him about stuff that should be obvious to anyone of average intelligence.

        BTW, you could mention that freedom of speech and the press has been severely eroded – due to self-censorship. Nobody wants to wind up like Rushdie’s editors, Charlie Hebdo, Jyllands Posten, Theo Van Gogh or Molly Norris.

      • Harbinger says

        ….@d…it’s an interesting question, where the intolerance of the followers of Allah comes from. Clearly you see the overall danger, and you have have usefully documented the recent manifestations. But I would have to disagree with you that Islam is not “in and of itself dangerous”. The problem is to be found in the sacred texts, not any nuance of humanity amongst people who are Muslims.

    • Shlamazel says

      Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Linda Sansour, Louis Farrakahan, CAIR, the “Islamophobic” label. Just off the top of my head.

      From Wikipedia:
      1993 World Trade Center bombing
      1995 Bojinka plot
      1997 Brooklyn bombing plot
      2000 millennium attack plots

      Aftermath of the September 11 attacks
      2001 September 11 attacks
      2001 shoe bomb attempt
      2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting
      2002 José Padilla (Abdullah al-Muhajir) Plot
      2002 Buffalo Six
      2004 financial buildings plot
      2005 Los Angeles bomb plot
      2006 Hudson River bomb plot
      2006 Sears Tower plot
      2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting
      2006 Toledo terror plot
      2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
      2006 UNC SUV attack
      2007 Fort Dix attack plot
      2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot
      2009 Failed underwear bomb on Northwest Airlines Flight 253
      2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting
      2009 Bronx terrorism plot
      2009 Dallas Car Bomb Plot by Hosam Maher Husein Smadi[33]
      2009 New York City Subway and United Kingdom plot
      2009 Fort Hood shooting
      2009 Colleen LaRose arrested (not made public until March 2010)
      2010 Transatlantic aircraft bomb plot
      2010 King Salmon, Alaska local meteorologist and wife assassination plots
      2010 Alleged Washington Metro bomb plot
      2011 Alleged Saudi Arabian student bomb plots
      2011 Manhattan terrorism plot
      2011 Lone Wolf New York City, Bayonne, NJ pipe bombs plot.
      2012 Car bomb plot in Florida.[34]
      2013 Boston Marathon bombing
      2013 Wichita Airport bombing plot
      2014 beheading by Alton Nolen
      2014 Seattle, Washington and West Orange, New Jersey killing spree by Ali Muhammad Brown
      2015 Boston beheading plot
      2015 Curtis Culwell Center attack
      2015 Chattanooga shootings
      2015 San Bernardino attack
      2016 Orlando nightclub shooting
      2016 New York and New Jersey bombings
      2016 St. Cloud, Minnesota mall stabbing
      2016 Ohio State University attack
      2017 New York City attack

    • Kauf Buch says

      You’ll look great in a burka, child.
      I mean…REALLY: Christian fundamentalists?!?
      You’ve clearly not read (or at least understood) the BIBLE…much less the QURAN or any of the other islamic “holy” books, which make it UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR what their evil objectives are what barbaric methods are ordered or allowed to achieve those goals.
      Grow up before you ever post on this topic again, here or elsewhere.

    • rnt says

      I suggest you dress as an ultra-Orthodox Jew and wander around NYC.

    • Christopher Mourtos says

      um what sort of measurable “damage” is being inflicted by Christian fundamentalists?

      • scribblerg says

        You won’t get an answer to that question…

  6. Fuzzy Headed Mang says

    “Citizens of liberal democracies find themselves attacked twice over—even as they grieve for their dead in the wake of a terrorist outrage, they are berated for the intolerance that brought it about.” Great example. As Rushdie said, it’s like blaming a woman for being raped because she wore a mini skirt.

    • David of Kirkland says

      Except that woman likely didn’t previously cause mayhem by changing leadership via coups, support armed rebels and even armed both the Taliban and Saddam (now arming Saudi Arabia as it kills Yemenis), do arms for hostages, impose severe economic oppression and declare all men the axis of evil. Perhaps such a woman should be attacked?

      • Fuzzy Headed Mang says

        Question appears to be a tad rhetorical. The civilians targeted by terrorists did none of the above. Not sure how men being declared the axis of evil (by who exactly?) and the U. S. supporting the Taliban against Russia thirty years ago are related to why Isis and other terrorist groups attack.

      • Charlie says

        The development of political Islam starts in the 1920s with the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood which rejects Western Culture. Qutb, A Maududi, the loss in the Yom Kippur War , Saudi agreement to support the export of Wahabism to obtain support of religious authorities in 1979, all increase the rejection of Western Culture and this is before the USSR invasion of Afghanistan . In the mid 1980s, Abdul Huq, a Pushtun fighting the USSR warned that political Islam would be a problem for his country and The West.

        There are photos of Muslim women wearing miniskirts in Cairo and Kabul in the 1960s.
        Islam is terrified of women choosing whom to marry . Qutb was horrified to see men and women dancing together in the 1940s in the USA.

        • Jim Bray says

          “The development of political Islam starts in the 1920s”. Really? Let’s ask the Hindu if that aligns with their experience with the Mullahs. I on the other hand, have read extensively on the Crusades and the reasons behind them, but again you might think that anything before the 20th century is ancient history and not indicative of Islam today.

  7. Respek Wahmen says

    Islam is our future and maybe our only hope against feminism. Both post modernism and Islam privilege faith over reason, but Islam is less evolutionary novel and should therefore be preferred.
    Salaam alaikum.

    • JD says

      An alliance with Islam against feminism is like putting out a fire with a hand grenade. The problem most of us have with 3rd wave feminism is its incessant whining, victim mentality assigning blame to everyone else, lack of self-criticism, and obliviousness to facts and data. The same can be said for Islamic societies with the added bonus of reliably slaughtering dozens of people for no good reason at all. We’ll take 3rd wave feminism over Islam any day of the week and tackle that problem without your help. But thanks for the offer.

      • rnt says

        Third wave feminists will be replaced with third world females. That is the future.

        • northernobserver says

          @rnt It is so weird that one sees what is right in front of their eyes. The West is already dead. It’s a zombie. It’s a severed head that still has eye movements when spoken to. The only thing that can save the West are 9 children families of Western peoples. How you get them is irrelevant, you either get fertile or disappear. I always tell the radical feminists I debate, where are your four children? Where are the children of the Revolution? Where is the Future my sisters? If you don’t make it, then it will never arrive and the World that is made will dictate to your tomorrows.

    • Shlamazel says

      Respek Wahmen aka Respect Women. Are you being sarcastic?
      Islamists are using 3rd wave feminists as an effective cover for Islamism. Somehow a liberated woman in America can identify with some inter-sectional ideology and believe her sister in a hijab is on the same team. I’m not sure they even know the difference between race and religion. The enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. You can’t fix stupid.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Respek
      Does that “hope” also run the 1-800-DIAL-A-GOAT-OR-6-YEAR-OLD-GIRL hotline on weekends?
      Take your “hope” and fondle it in your own degenerate country…not ours.

      • Respek Wahmen says

        wa-Alaikumussalam wa-Rahmatullah, my brother, kauf. I look forward to welcoming you into our family. Dirka Dirka. Mohammed jihad.

        Remember, kauf, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies. I will be hoping this letter finds you, and find you well.

        Your friend,

  8. AJ says

    I think this article correctly identifies a problem but is mostly wrong in targetting Islam.

    There is a general swing against liberal principles and a willingness to allow opposing views to be presented. It seems associated with identity politics overriding principles such as presumption of innocence, freedom of expressions, evidence and scientific method.

    The ideology causing most problems by far seems to be feminism.

    • Greg says

      Christian Conservatives and Islamists desire the same ends. It is politically naive to think they are not cooperating behind the scenes. Christian’s have the perfect vector for their fundamentalist ideology in Islam. Islam is popular with liberals, this is why the religious right (whether Christian fundamentalist or Islamist) will win. They impersonate their enemies, just like St. Paul did to defeat the Jewish reformation movement headed by Jesus within first century Judaism that threatened Roman imperial rule.

      • augustine says

        So, Christianity and Islam against secularism then? Interesting.

      • David of Kirkland says

        The evidence Christianists are working with Islamists please…

      • Stephanie says

        That’s a conspiracy theory if ever I’ve heard one.

  9. E. Olson says

    Good review, and sounds like this book would make an excellent addition to course reading lists in political science, religion, history, or any liberal arts at any Western University. Unfortunately, any faculty member assigning it would no doubt be promptly put on leave of absence until the university could find a way to legally fire them for cultural insensitivity and violating the “safety” of the diverse university community.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @E. Olson

      The mere possession of this book on campus might get a student hauled before the Star Chamber.

  10. Andrew Elsey says

    What is fascinating to me about modern liberals is that they have no underlying principles or values.

    They are like a union of a dozen armies effectually uniting for the sole purpose of destroying white, Christian culture. Their ideology is solely a set of rules designed to provide a temporary ceasefire in their war. I find these people profoundly stupid at a visceral level… to think that LGBT-etc people think they should align themselves with Islam, as if that is a natural partnership in any sense.

    The ugly truth is that envy and grievance is the sole glue that binds together the Democratic coalition. If they are successful in their conquest, we can be safely certain that what remains will be much, much worse. Thankfully the very worst will likely not be in our lifetime.

    • E. Olson says

      Andrew – I hate to point out a contradiction in your comment, but there is a glaring one:

      You state that modern liberals have no underlying principles or values, but then you contradict yourself by accurately stating that envy and grievance are what binds them together. Principles and values are what binds groups together, and “envy” and “grievance” certainly fit, although most Lefties would prefer to use the words “fairness” and “equity” as more positive sounding synonyms.

      • Andrew Elsey says

        You can certainly debate the semantics of my wording, but I would not subjectively consider envy or grievance anything that you would call a fundamental principle or value. If anything, they are emotions, which, properly harnessed, can guide a society, as a principle can, but often, instead, to malignancy

        • Baro says

          A fundamental trait of liberals is the inability to distinguish between a thought and an emotion.

    • Dick Gezinya says

      @Andrew Elsey Don’t you think it’s a bit reductive to say that all Democrats want to destroy white Christian culture? Surely it would be reductive to say that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist redneck who patrols the southern border with their patriot militia group. There are extremists in both parties. But I would venture to say that the extremists are the minority or both parties. And while you may disagree with liberals, that doesn’t mean they don’t have principles. I think you’ve been watching too much Fox News and Brietbart. Take it easy. You sound as if you’re about to go on a rampage.

      • Andrew Elsey says

        Dick, I don’t think very many Democrats at all would consciously identify that as their motivation. Rather, we can see it manifest and converge more clearly at a macroscopic level. On an individual basis, Democrats may only champion a subset of “anti-white, anti-colonialist, blah blah” ideas (or something tangentially related). Further, an arguable majority of people of both parties do vote based on their race. You can go ahead and look at any exit poll to discern that.

        That all being said, judging from your churlish final comment, I think you might want to stick to reddit or video game chat rooms until you mature a bit further.

      • Stephanie says

        Dick, I don’t think you will find very many self-described racists in the Republican party, but it is very easy to find Democrats, both foot soldiers and thought leaders, who explicitly state that destroying the white patriarchy is the goal. It is a coherent, conscious goal with well thought out policies set to accomplish that, including open borders, migration as a human right, preferential treatment in education and industry for non-whites and non-(cis)-males, ect.

        Both sides may have crazies, but it is a fallacy to assume that the crazies are equal in numbers and degrees of influence on both sides.

  11. Morgan Foster says

    @Andrew Elsey

    “What is fascinating to me about modern liberals is that they have no underlying principles or values.
    They are like a union of a dozen armies effectually uniting for the sole purpose of destroying white, Christian culture.”

    Well, that would be their underlying principle: An intersection of principle for white bourgeois leftists and those who will destroy white bourgeois leftists the first chance they get.

    • Andrew Elsey says

      Well, unfortunately their space is not compact, so their intersection of principles is the empty set. (</ bad math humor>).

      I’ve put a bit of thought in, and I’d argue the bourgeois leftists, I think, aren’t a uniform group even of themselves. For example, the entitled college students are patently indoctrinated and sold a false future. Conversely, in big Finance, big Business, and big Hollywood Box Office, globalism is their lingua franca due to economics, which may have shaped a lot of their social conformity from the top down. You even have a large numbers of boomers who haven’t ventured much farther than the 60s and still view the 50s as some kind epoch of evil, who are likely propping up Biden as we speak.

  12. derek says

    Things not mentioned in the review, i wonder if they are mentioned in the book.

    1 Journalists, who end up being moral arbiters in the things, face real consequences when writing about Islam. There have been enough examples of bloodshed along with a two pronged pr approach; exquisitely mannered spokespeople presenting Islam as exotic and interesting, backed by constant and real threats of violence. What we read is the Stockholm syndrome driven result. Nothing in the media that we can read about Islam is trustworthy.

    2 The sexual revolution has come to fruition and many young women are finding it profoundly damaging and dehumanizing. The exoticism of Islam as presented by women shows a structure where women have a place and are covered. Women’s modest dress has always been seen as a protection against the male desire. Even the depiction of polygamous households where a wealthy man has many women who have this secret and safe community seems exotic. Lost people congregate in the strangest places.

    And third. I grew up in mid Quiet Revolution Quebec where the Catholic Church was removed from a place of power and influence in the society. It is hard to imagine how different things were previous to this change, but many facets of Islamic societies we see today are quite close. And i would suggest that the basic characteristics are appealing to the left. A doctrinaire education system whose purpose isn’t to educate but to control and sift out the few that stood out who would be given schooling in the maintenance of the system. A unipolar political economy where all routes upward are through the ideological structures. A social control structure where threat and benefit are used.

    The collapse of political Catholicism in the West was an object lesson to those who run Islam. They don’t do the things that led to this collapse. And they actively and even violently do the things necessary to prevent it.

    And they have ample collaborators in the Western left so have the same goals.

  13. Biologist says

    “The ugly truth is that envy and grievance is the sole glue that binds together the Democratic coalition”

    Read Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origins of Freedom – by Paul Rubin. Envy is an evolved instinct which is rationalized by the cerebral cortex as a root moral intuition – inequality in the enjoyment of anything good, or in the suffering of anything bad is Unjust/Unfair. The people who embrace that notion, who feel it to be self-evident, are the Left.

    • Andrew Elsey says

      Interesting. Perhaps may give it a shot. I’ve certainly read a number of interesting perspectives on envy. To Nietzsche, it was the impetus of Christianity. A basis for uniting the weak to subjugate the strong and able. It has sadly demonstrated a slow erosive quality of democracy that has likely been long forgotten; I don’t think ours will last much beyond lowering the voting age and granting mass amnesty and voting rights to illegals.

  14. Aristodemus says

    Islamism doesn’t wear a mask. Intersectional leftists wear blindfolds.

  15. Muhammad, Islam’s founder and ideal person, was a homicidal religious fanatic. Islam will continue to produce homicidal religious fanatics. What else do you need to know about Islam?

  16. Ray Andrews says

    I dare say that history will point to the compact between the Correct and Islam as the most incomprehensible alliance that was ever formed. The Hitler/Stalin pact was a uniting of brothers by comparison. As mentioned above, it is transparent that the only unity is in that both groups are intent on destroying Western/Christian civilization, but it is breathtaking that the Correct do not realize that they will be the very first targets of the Mullahs once the latter gain control. The former imagine a sodomite wrapped in his rainbow flag, a feminist in her little black dress (which doesn’t mean ‘yes’), a liberal academic, and Mr. Al-Baghdadi all holding hands and celebrating the downfall of Patriarchy and Privilege. That’s not what Mr. Al-Baghdadi has in mind, however.

    • E. Olson says

      Ray – you seem a bit pessimistic about the peacefulness and tolerance of Muslims (aka the religion of peace). After all, look at how well they have treated the Christian and Jewish minorities in the Middle East, and look at how well the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds live in peace and harmony. In fact the overwhelming peace and prosperity of the area has led to a major tourism boom as thousands of Syrians, Iranians, and citizens from other Muslim countries travel to other parts of the world for study and leisure. Many of these Muslim tourists upon seeing the backwardness of intolerance of the Western nations they visit have decided to stay in order to bring the same kind of peace, prosperity, and truly Liberal atmosphere that they have enjoyed in their homelands. Praise be to Allah.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @E. Olson

        One can understand their missionary zeal. We are so far in the opposite direction (or we were at one time) from the RofP that … well, it is wondrous that they even know where to start with us. Frankly I doubt that many of us will ever qualify even for dhimmitude.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO E Olson
        What you wrote…that’s meant as SATIRE, right?!

        • E. Olson says

          Kauf – so very sad that you can’t be sure, no matter how crazy I try to write it.

    • D.B. Cooper says

      @Ray Andrews

      it is transparent that the only unity is in that both groups are intent on destroying Western/Christian civilization, but it is breathtaking that the Correct do not realize that they will be the very first targets of the Mullahs once the latter gain control.

      I tend to agree with @E. Olson. You do seem unduly pessimistic about the peacefulness and tolerance of Muslims. I should also mention that our concordance of opinions ends with the same sentence from which it began.

      Putting aside your gross cynicism – which, I might add, will almost certainly, yet erroneously, see you awarded the honorary title of Islamophobe – one should bear in mind that if it is the case that the contemporary discourse on tolerance and free expression has been appropriated for the rapprochement of an unholy alliance (Islamists & radical Left); then surely any account of such a sorry state would begin by asking, How did we get here?

      What’s more, consider carefully that if the centrality of their initiative is as you claim it to be – namely, a political junta predicated on an aligning incentive for the cannibalization of Western/Christian civilization – then probably we cannot, certainly we shall not, stay the course, continuing to capitulate to the lunacies vitiating Western society.

      But before I go all von Clausewitz on you with my best war is the continuation of politics by other means rendition, I think for the purposes of proving my point it would behoove us to return to the question I initially raised: How did we (Western society) get here?

      The best thing about this question is that it’s not only the ‘right’ question to ask, but the author has already answered it for us. So, how did we get here?

      And I quote:

      “She maintains that a ‘paternalistic orthodoxy’ has arisen that demands positive respect for, or deference to, those who oppose liberalism, secularism, and democracy. Universal human rights and principled politics have given way to moral relativism and total subjectivism…”

      “The Left’s acolytes of Islamism have adopted a masochistic and selective species of moral relativism that allows them to excuse any culture or tradition but their own from scrutiny of its human rights abuses while obsessively picking over every flaw and imperfection in open societies.

      “tolerance of dissent are being eroded by an onslaught of intolerant ideas and actions by Islamists in cahoots with an increasingly regressive and radical Left. The latter, she points out, use deceptive rhetoric, new semantics, and logical fallacies that transform kernels of truth into overarching lies.

      It appears, at least according to the author, that how we got here was by trading universal human rights and principled politics for moral relativism and total subjectivism. I mention this only because of a conversation I recently had with a gentleman… and a scholar (same person, in fact) concerning these very issues. If memory serves, I believe I made mention to similar dangers of taking a moral relativistic approach, but it was to no avail, despite being a compelling, reasoned, and erudite argument, as I recall.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @D.B. Cooper

        “similar dangers of taking a moral relativistic approach”

        Not to pry, but what was that conversation about, and how did it unfold? It could add to our previous regarding abortion, but I don’t think you’re referring to that since your arguments there were to much avail. Indeed they were in a small way merely a reminder of things I quite agree with, namely that moral relativism is dangerous. Alas, moral absolutism is also dangerous and as to that, being alive is dangerous.

        Democracy is horribly dangerous and proven to be unstable both in practice and in theory. Indeed, we may be privileged to be observing the collapse of one right now. What to do? It seems to me this is very old ground and from Themistocles up thru Hume and all those fellas, de Tocqueville, up thru Mill and summiting with the towering intellect of Donald John Trump … the problems are well understood and it’s just that we keep forgetting.

        I picture a democracy — just presuming for the moment that democracy is a good thing and we want to keep it — as a sort of amoeba: It takes stuff in, it excretes stuff out. If it takes in the wrong things, it dies. It has a cell membrane and there are forces both within and without trying to expand the cell, and ditto trying to shrink/destroy it. It is natural for the cell to try to expand, but if it expands too far it will rupture and die. An amoeba knows where it’s cell wall is at all times.

        A democratic society is one where enough people agree on enough things that the centripetal forces holding it together are greater than the centrifugal forces tearing it apart. Thus the unavoidable dilemma: overly restricting people’s freedom creates a centrifugal force, yet without laws no society at all is possible (I hate to break it to the libertarian fundamentalists).

        What is to be compelled, and who decides? In a democracy surely it is axiomatic that the people decide, and thus they cannot be compelled to adhere to any law or morality to which they do not accent. Thus legal/moral absolutism is the opposite of democracy. QED. And so, the ancient Athenians held slaves and oppressed women and buggered each other’s sons and practiced infanticide … and there was nothing anyone could do about it save try to persuade them to stop — which they didn’t. (Lincoln/slavery again.) And the Americans agonize over abortion and capital punishment and euthanasia and whether or not black criminals should be immune to the use of lethal force by the cops. No one can compel them on any of this, they hafta come to some agreement. Otherwise they will fall into a dictatorship, either of the Trumpists or of the Warriors both of whom claim absolute moral certainty. What happens when divergent certainties collide? Moral compromise might be distasteful, but IMHO it beats civil war or social collapse.

        However, when a society has strong racial/religious/cultural/ethnic/linguistic/historical unity is relatively easier for them to agree on things that unite them and thus to assent to things like the American Constitution. (Note, the British were so unified that they didn’t even feel the need to write their constitution down.) And that is why the hippies are wrong: we need more than love, and ‘unity in diversity’ is a slogan comparable to ‘war is peace’. It follows that mass migration of peoples who do not share the above unifying characteristics is a very bad idea, unless your goal is social rupture.

  17. Farris says

    The regressive Left will embrace anything that is anti-Western, regardless of the hypocrisy involved. It rejects no allies no matter how vile. The question is will the West defend its values or timidly go quiet into that good night?

    “The United States Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
    Justices Robert H. Jackson & Arthur Goldberg.

    • Morgan Foster says


      It’s no accident that the editors put a photo of the Palace of Westminster at the top of the page.

      Britain has chosen to go timidly.

    • Ray Andrews says


      “The United States Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

      Fabulous, I’ve not seen that quote before, can you give some context?

      • Morgan Foster says


        Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), Justice Jackson dissenting.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Morgan Foster

          Thanks Morgan, I’ll look that up. SCOTUS has over the years produced some of the seminal jurisprudence that anchors Western democracy. Holmes on FofS comes to mind. If I had my life over again, I’d become a constitutional lawyer, not a coal miner.

          • Morgan Foster says

            @Ray Andrews

            You’re welcome, Ray.

            “SCOTUS has over the years produced some of the seminal jurisprudence that anchors Western democracy.”

            Yes, but … They’ve also done some real damage.

            Pray the Democratic Party never makes good on its threat to pack it with SJWs.

      • Farris says

        See also:
        Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)

        • Ray Andrews says


          Tx. Americans have always understood what’s at stake in these cases.

  18. Jean Levant says

    “In their embrace of the Islamist version of anti-colonialism, they have thrown the Enlightenment baby out with the colonialist bathwater”
    And the baby Jesus too, for even longer.

  19. Saw file says

    The naiveté of the diversity(isms)/feminism in ‘partnering’ with islamism has long amazed me. Rather than learning what the ideology and goals of the islamists really are, “they” have instead chosen to believe what the islamists tell them that they are. It’s confounding that so many educated (supposedly) people could so fundamentally misunderstand the base end goals of a very powerful and cohesive entity that they have aligned themselves with.
    The only real shared objective is gaining power in fundamentally important areas of Western society, and islamism is simply using them as a handy and expendable tool in pursuit of that objective.
    I just can’t understand how “they” cannot understand that islamists loathe and abhor who they are, and everything that they believe in and stand for.

    • augustine says

      At he bottom of every diehard Leftist’s philosophy is a nihilistic contempt for the human race it seems. Inequality and violence (real and imagined) are too much for them and crashing the experiment altogether is the only way to “win”.

      A hippie era acquaintance who is well off and well educated told me recently they think of the human race as a “disease”. In all seriousness. This kind of person will stand in for the disenfranchised by proxy and use complaints of injustice to batter anyone who thinks differently.

      • Jeremy H says

        @augustine That “nihilistic contempt” is a desperate attempt to feel “superior” to everyone else. In what rarefied halls of moral purity must one dwell to be able to look down on the rest of humanity as a mere disease… I’m surprised you weren’t blinded by their nimbus.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Jeremy H

          It’s not a new idea that a culture can become so senile that it longs for its own euthanasia. So the nihilism that @augustine mentions is quite possible. The Warriors might hate all of humanity including themselves — the latter quite justifiably.

      • Dan Flehmen says

        From the standpoint of just about every other species on earth, humanity is a disease that is rapidly destroying much of Creation (I am an atheist but have never found a better word to describe the biosphere). Long before technology, we drove many species to extinction (think mammoths, sabretooths, and hundreds of others) and the current rate of ecosystem destruction will convert the planet into a giant factory farm of people and the food for them. It doesn’t have to be that way, of course, because as individuals we are plenty smart enough to see the consequences of our actions, but collectively our inability to control our numbers or mitigate our avarice is destroying the biosphere.

        Life will survive, of course, but the planet may be unrecognizable until tens of millions of years of evolution have produced a new flora and fauna in place of the one which has evolved over billions of years.

  20. Ray Andrews says

    @Saw file

    “they” have instead chosen to believe what the islamists tell them that they are”

    It would be/is bad enough if/when that is true, but the Islamists are often entirely honest about their intentions. They know we are so stupid that we don’t even need to be fooled, we’ll take them anyway. The jihadi can openly state that he intends to take over your country (and kill all the infidels) and the Correct will embrace him anyway. They feel that the power of their all-embracing love will win them over to a Social Justice view of the world. All they need is love, da-da, da da da da daaaa, all they need is love.

    “as a handy and expendable tool in pursuit of that objective”

    It seems to me that both sides are using the other, and each side thinks it will prevail in the end. My money is on the Islamists. The warriors of Social Justice fight by whining about their oppression, the warriors of Allah fight with slightly more effective weapons. Al-Baghdadi vs. Meghan Murphy, weapons of choice … place your bets ladies and gentlemen.

  21. Geary Johansen says

    I’ve just started reading Mick Hume’s book, Trigger Warning, and, although I’ve only just begun, it seems to contain many parallel concerns.

    One of the most worrying factors about the ISIS iteration, at the time it arose, was that it had suddenly acquired western marketing techniques, media and propaganda.

    This would imply that either ISIS had acquired a network of western-trained moslems prior to the launch of their offensive, or, more terrifyingly, that terrorist funding had found a means to make their money invisible, by investing capital in the education of intelligent, young radicals. Hitler really did release the proverbial genie from the bottle, with Goebbels.

    With the recent calumny directed against Sir Roger Scruton, it is now beyond doubt that the tail has begun to wag the dog, in relation to Islam and the Left, respectively. The far left has become a collection of useful idiots, so dripping with sentimentality, virtue signalling and indoctrinated with the oppression narrative, that they cannot even acknowledge, beyond the tiny percentage of moslem individuals born in the west who go on to commit acts of terror, that many aspects of Islam are incompatible with their own values, let alone those of the west.

    It is perhaps ironic then, given that the roots of islamic terrorism began with an Algerian socialist, existentialist and keen proponent of Satre- hoping to utilise Islam to achieve the revolution, and then discard it- that the reverse is now true.

  22. Joe says

    It would be an interesting, maybe impossible, exercise to eliminate all nomenclature from a discussion (no “islam” or “fundamental” this or that) and adhere to discussing concepts only — no instantiations. Name slamming usually ends anything fruitful.

  23. It’s an interesting partnership. Each side is using the other, although the radical Islamists (NOT talking about all Muslims) are well aware they are, and the Far Left/”progressives” believe themselves to be morally pure, and thus incapable of using anyone. (One way they use Islamists is as a moral prop, much as they use Black people to signify their own moral superiority; the Black people are rejected as ‘porch monkeys’ and ‘uncle Toms’ the second they don’t do their bidding.) Neither side believes themselves to be used, although if I had to put money on it. I’d say the Far left are indeed the useful idiots Stalin spoke of.

    I think there are several factors in play here.

    Both the Far Left and Islamists loathe Western civilization and the free market and free speech. So the enemy of my enemy…. They both want Western civilization – aka ‘white people’ – to be destroyed. They both hate Christianity and Judaism.
    Both are collectivist as opposed to individualists, ruled by a handful of very rigid dogmas and kept in line by shame, fear, threats of violence, and real violence. Stray from any dogma and you are automatically the Other and non-human and deserving of any punishment. Collectivists are particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories, as are these groups.
    Both believe themselves to be morally superior because of their dogma, and therefore believe – because of their goodness – that it is righteous and good to destroy anyone not in their collective by any means necessary.
    Both tend toward victimhood hierarchies. Muslims – with 1.5 billion adherents in cultures centuries old – literally talk with a straight face about their ‘marginalization’ . The far left loves a good victim particularly if they help to pull down the West.
    Both believe in the truth of internal narratives as opposed to objective truth. Both believe it’s fine to lie in service of these internal narratives.
    Finally, and most strangely, both are virulently and classically anti semitic; it is impossible for me, often, to find the difference between Islamist Jew haters and “progressive’ Jew haters; they say almost literally the same things. Both have invented a fictional Israel that justifies their hate. The obsession with Jews is very strange to me.but perhaps it is the age old usefulness of having a unifying scapegoat

    Very strange bedfellows indeed. Considering radical Muslims are more conservative and repressive than the most repressive Christians, enslave black Africans (even today), murder gays, are fine with murdering apostates, murder Jews, have a very patriarchal religion, and treat women as second class citizens at best and as chattel at worst, it is astonishing to me that the Left aligns with them. They do this purely by denying reality. I think it works because a) they don’t care about reality;’ they care about their inner narrative which they believe is moral, and thus real; and b) because they want to think of themselves as all powerful and patriarchal even as they condemn power and patriarchy, and so enjoy treating radical Muslims as inferior beings incapable of the same moral actions of white Westerners. In this way for instance, it’s “racist” (Muslims are not a race, but see my first point about reality) it’s ‘racist’ for a white Christian to deny baking a cake for a gay wedding, but perfectly fine for a Muslim to do so. I think this is because deep down they believe the West superior; they just want to seize control of the West’s ‘superior’ wickedness and then remake in the socialist/equity paradise they dream of, and assume, since they are largely well off and have always been in power (or are very young and don’t know better), assume that they will stay in control when the West is destroyed. It’s all delusion.

  24. codadmin says

    “She maintains that a “paternalistic orthodoxy” has arisen that demands positive respect for, or deference to, those who oppose liberalism, secularism, and democracy.”

    This is only true for non-white opponents of liberalism, secularism and democracy.

    Until the race hate of the fascist left is named and shamed, then the current war the West finds itself in can never be won.

  25. Serenity says

    All radical movements – Progressive Liberalism, Communism, Nazism, Islamism, etc. – are driven by psychopathic power-hounds who use sacred values as a trump card, the indisputable narrative to stir strong negative emotions towards their group’s outsiders.

    As long as a sacred value can be attached to group identity, the actual idea behind the sacred value does not matter. The concept of self-sacrifice comes into play to prepare the fighters for jihad.

    Hitler: ”The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.”

    Hitler did regret that by the 20th century Christianity lost its psychopathic spin:
    ”The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine…
    It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity…
    Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.”

    Sustainable democracy provides law enforcement and balance of power – belt and braces – to stop psychopathy from spreading, from taking over. Distraction of democratic institutions is the goal which unites radical movements.

    Goebbels: “One of the most ridiculous aspects of democracy will always remain… the fact that it has offered to its mortal enemies the means by which to destroy it.”

  26. mitchellporter says

    It is off-topic for this post (and so I do not seek to have this ‘wish’ addressed here and now), but having seen the Quillette commentariat talk about Islam in the west, it would be very interesting to see them talk about Jews and Judaism. Obviously Jews have made innumerable contributions to culture and civilization, from relativity to “Seinfeld”, but isn’t there also a nexus of relations between secular Jews, American liberalism, and progressivism? And I feel like the ‘elite’ campaign against whiteness must in part be a result of the increase in Jewish power, which was historically most recently attacked on racial rather than religious grounds. There is now an antisemitic populism that directly blames Jews as a group for mass immigration, Internet censorship, multiculturalism, etc, and it would be clarifying to arrive at the facts. (Unless there is already a “Jewish Quillette” that examines these matters?)

    Back on topic, if one is going to analyze relations between the West, the western left (because of course there is a left outside the west too), and Islam, I believe one should also mention: the use of mass immigration as a tool by western center-left to get votes (another topic where I would love to get to the facts), the power of Arab oil money in western politics (how does it rate compared to Chinese money, how do they both rate compared to western money), and of course, western warfare and subversion in the Muslim world, which long predates the war on terror, but which has become ubiquitous in the attempt to stamp out jihadi groups wherever they exist. These relationships are riddled with tensions and contradictions beyond those between western leftism and political Islam.

    • Ray Andrews says


      What an intelligent and insightful post.

    • Morgan Foster says


      Not off-topic, really. When one is discussing the “enemy at the gates” it is entirely appropriate to discuss those who are opening the gates for them.

      Radical feminists who are not Jews, surely. Bourgeois WASP-SJWs, surely.

      But it doesn’t take a national poll (dubious as they are) to be aware of anecdotal evidence in abundance that there are quite a number of American Jews with advanced university and professional degrees who are politically way left of center, active in the Democratic Party, and determined to allow as much Islamic immigration into the US as they can manage.

      Not surprisingly, they represent themselves to be globalist, anti-Zionist (and finesse the question of exactly how anti-Israel they are) and consider themselves to be secular. Secular, that is, in the sense that although they were born to parents who are Jews, they themselves are non-believers, even atheists, never go to temple, and never pray.

      I’ve met a lot of them. I’m sure you have, too. They won’t often sit down with someone who voted for Donald Trump and speak candidly about why they want to be politically cozy with people who would have set the world- and historical standard for Jew-hate and Jew-murder but for Adolf Hitler. In fact, they don’t have to. “Intersectional interest” seems to be enough of a reason for them.

      Nevertheless, you have to wonder why a secular, socialist, atheist Jew would think he is safe, somehow, from being chased down and murdered by an Islamist simply because he is secular. Or that his secular, non-believing children would not be taken off a public conveyance and killed for being Jews as readily as he would be.

      For an Islamist, there is no escape for a Jew. No excuse. No pass. For a Jew, no safety in the long run.

      You would think an American Jew with an IQ of 150 and an advanced degree in something would realize this.

      Many do, but so many don’t. And it is a puzzle.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @Morgan Foster

        ” And it is a puzzle.”

        I long for a conspiracy. I’d be so much happier if this was calculated evil rather than the worst case of mass suicidal insanity the word has ever seen. To be racist, when we see pampered white kids convert to the church of Justice and demand to throw the doors open for all the worlds Victims, I can accept that it’s just stupidity. Yes, they are too stupid to know they are inviting in their executioners. But when I see Jews at the same alter of Correctness, well … Jews have been selected for two millennia to know when it’s time to get out of town — they aught to see what’s coming at them, and resist it or at least not assist. Very few Jews actively assisted Hitler while he was ascendant. They say that 3/4 of Sweden’s Jews have left — they see what’s coming. Jews have never had the luxury of wishful thinking.

        So I’m pushed back to conspiracy. Follow the money. Who benefits from social fragmentation? Well, social cohesion might permit ordinary folks to combine against the one social group who have accumulated all the wealth over the last few decades. Yup, it seems to me it’s the mega-rich who benefit from social chaos and many of them are Jews, so perhaps they hope to divide and conquer rather than divide and be conquered. I also note that it’s the rich, including big corporations, who fund the temples of Justice that used to be our universities. It’s a theory, anyway.

        • James Lee says


          Globalist neoliberals going back over 100 years have viewed the nation-state with contempt.

          Here is the economic historian Karl Polanyi writing in 1943 in The Great Transformation:

          “Western Europe was passing through a new Enlightenment and high amongst its bugbears ranked the tribalistic concept of the nation, whose alleged sovereignty was to liberals an outcrop of parochial thinking.”

          Polanyi quoted Arnold Toynbee who deemed the nation state a “parochial prejudice”. Ludwig von Mises referred to national sovereignty as a “ridiculous illusion”.

          Such sentiments amongst the globalist elites have changed little in 100 years.

          As you suggest, we are witnessing good old divide and conquer. Of course there are additional benefits for the Davos elites—lower labor costs, cheaper nannies, gardeners, construction workers and servants, and the moral superiority they feel over their deplorable fellow citizens.

          While they watch China implement the Social Credit Score system. Western oligarchs are gradually tightening their own noose of financial blacklisting, deplatforming, and depersoning.

          It’s being rolled out in stages. First wave (Alex Jones), second wave (Paul Joseph Watson, Milo, Tommy Robinson, Gavin McInnis, an attempt on Carl Benjamin which they had to temporarily pull back from due to unanticipated backlash. YouTube just demonetized his entire channel after doing the same to Count Dankula, so the pullback didn’t last long). We already know at least one dissident who is targeted for the third wave purge, thanks to a FaceBook whistle blower who showed us that Candace Owens is on their hit list.

          Where does it stop?

          • Ray Andrews says

            @James Lee

            Thanks for the quotes. Yes, nothing new under the sun. Ideas stew for decades and then they flower. But as you say, Davos wins both ways, they get cheaper labor, less focused opposition and best of all, they get to feel righteous about it. There was a really good essay a while back, either here or Areo, about a guy explaining the yellow vests — points out how the inner city elites only contact with ordinary people is as their servants and why hire a Frenchman when you can hire an immigrant from Mali at 1/3 the price and feel that you’re displaying your multicultural ‘tolerance’ at the same time? Besides, you’ve labored virtuously for gender neutral bathrooms at your country club, so you must be one heck of a progressive.

    • Andrew Elsey says

      I don’t find this comment to be in good faith, namely because there is no such “antisemitic populism that blames Jews as a group for mass immigration, Internet censorship…”. That’s just a flat out lie. In fact, you may have plagiarized the title of a WaP or NYT article. Conspiracy theorists of the magnitude that you’re claiming are so beyond the pale and in such a small minority that there’s a fair chance they’ve been in the news, assuming they’ve left 4chan and braved the daylight. Even the AFD is recruiting Jews at this point. I think this is fairly obvious to people who pay attention closely. What you along with liberals who propagandize in your manner are actually doing is proxying George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and other exceptionally wealthy and influential Leftist Jews for the entire Jewish race. Anyone who criticizes the aforementioned are automatically branded a Nazi.

      Jews certainly fit into this puzzle, but you have not identified a good starting point to discuss them. I also think the “liberal Jew nexus” you’re alleging is going to increasingly skew right as they become increasingly aware that the once-frightening right is increasingly the lesser of two evils, despite propagandic claims such as yours.

      • mitchellporter says

        @Andrew Elsey

        I certainly didn’t intend to brand conservative populism in general, as antisemitic; to do that, is indeed to employ a mainstream-media gambit. But I need some way to refer to the people who really do say “blame the Jews” rather than “blame the liberals” or “blame the Democrats”. Perhaps such a view is not quite popular enough to deserve the populist label, but singling out Jews or Jewish liberals as the root cause (or even just as a significant contributing factor) behind progressive multiculturalism and its problems, is something I see regularly in comment sections, Youtube political chats, and so on.

        • Andrew Elsey says

          Again, I’m not sure what you’re basing that on. Can you link to any evidence proving that any nontrivial ADULT (I’m sure there are legions of teenagers posting manifold Jewish memes to get a rise out of people, and that isn’t going away anytime soon) population solemnly espouses that position? I would be floored if you actually could, because it’s an illusion.

          I would also question this comment: “singling out Jews or Jewish liberals as the root cause (or even just as a significant contributing factor)”. Again, by your grammar, you indicate that we can reasonably proxy “Jewish liberals” with the Jewish race. It’s also very disingenuous how you conflate several dozen specific, public-facing liberal Jewish activist billionaires, who are regularly pilloried, with the aggregate title of “Jewish liberals” as being the subject of such attacks. Many of these people are atheists who are openly anti-Israel, some to a frightening degree. I would be less surprised if Israel arrested George Soros than Hungary. Viewpoints like yours, to me, are bordering on absurdism. They’re formed by a barrage of internet articles titled: “Antisemitic Trump Nazi Army Commits Internet Violence Against Jewish Innocent Philanthropist Rock-Star Tom Steyer”. It’s mind-blowing. Lastly, I would also contest your usage of the word significant- using Zuckerberg as an example alone; he is indisputably one of the most powerful people on the planet, and I’m not sure how you would see mass censorship of the right on the largest social platform on the planet is not a significant action.

          I won’t get into it, it’s abundantly clear the Jews are the smartest race on the planet, which is why I do think they will skew right in the coming decades as they begin to pick up on the sophistry pushed by the MSM that you seem to be buying into and endorsing.

          • hail to none says

            @Andrew: well put. It is very weird and troubling to hear about these Jewish conspiracy theories, as Jews are incredibly diverse in their political views.

    • northernobserver says

      Liberal Judaism and Liberal Christianity suffer from the same disease, an over identification with Liberalism, politically and socially. This has led to Synagogues and Churches (I call them rainbow Churches) campaigning hard for diversity and mass immigration. It’s a theological error, not a conspiracy, but being theological in origin it is held passionately and beyond reason.
      I can only surmise that Jews get targeted more frequently because there is a historical anti Semitic cultural pathway to follow that was laid out by the Medieval Church and the Roman Empire before them. Secondly, Jews stick out more, being one order of magnitude more intelligent than your average American Christian Liberal – say a 110 or 120 IQ instead of 100 – they have more financial, social and most significantly political pull – they stand out and become a lightening rod for conspiracy theories and demonization. It does not help the situation that Silicon Valley has reacted to the Synagogue shootings by promising to scrub their platforms of “far right” discussion and memes. When ideological persecution becomes real it doesn’t defuse the situation, it only escalates it. I suppose when you have the power to do something it becomes very hard to see the rationale for NOT doing something; but it is a move in the wrong direction.

      • Andrew Elsey says


        I agree completely on the first bit, although I’m not sure you can blame that on the “organized Christianity” or the Church itself. We have an atheist pope, as we speak, and certainly there are a fair number of churches engaging in what you say, but I have the impression that is more geographic than anything else. You won’t find many progressive churches in Alabama.

        Also, while it certainly plays a role, I have grappled with laying all credit for this behavior on the scripture itself. Could it be wealth and success, as well? Romans cast aside their religion of superiority and virility for the slave religion (over a few centuries). And, to what extent have these values influenced selection mechanisms, to the effect that they may now be a driving factor?

        I also agree quite a lot with the IQ bit as well, and that rarely gets addressed (pardon my etiquette; we’re only allowed to discuss race and class, not race and intelligence, excepting if the argument happens to paint ethnic Europeans in a negative light). Even though there is plenty of in-group bias for Jews (as with most groups) and I’m sure sporadic personal malice against historical injustice, intelligence leading to wealth seems to be the largest explanatory variable.

        As for the censorship you’re describing, I think you may be giving them to be much credit. These are not rational actors; they’re a few myths away from being religious institutions.

  27. Ray Andrews says


    “One of the most ridiculous aspects of democracy will always remain… the fact that it has offered to its mortal enemies the means by which to destroy it.”

    Dr. G said that? Truer words were never spoken. But then again, Hitler quite forthrightly declared his policy in MK for anyone to read if they wanted to. Nice guys finish last. The thing is that we finished first in WWI and WWII — does that disprove the aphorism? Or did we just get very lucky? Or are we actually stronger, once we shake off the rose colored glasses?

  28. Ron Bridges says

    Good grief ! $70 for a hardbound copy of this book? No Kindle version at a more reasonable price? How are ideas like this supposed to be circulated if that’s the only purchase option?
    Very good review. I was planning to order the book, but not for $70.

    • xyz and such says

      I came to make the same comment. Ridiculous. Why not make these ideas accessible to most people… ?? unbelievable.

  29. Hypatia says

    Chip is very intelligent, which is why his response is all the more worrying. Chip is somewhat of an expert in fact. Those who have analyzed how ideologies work have noted, perhaps surprisingly, that it has been the MOST educated and intelligent segments of society that have been most susceptible to propaganda. There is a tendency among the educated to trust the wisdom that comes from establishment academia, media and elite institutions. However, partly because of their confidence in their existing wisdom, experts and people in this sphere can cease to think critically about their own assumptions. Propagandists do not seek to inject a culture with NEW ideas. Rather a good propagandist seizes on existing values and beliefs that are already widely held to be ‘common sense’. Propagandists use parcels of truth, but they instrumentalize them within a system that weaves over-arching lies. This is why propaganda works not just on ignorant masses but on the best educated and those who think themselves immune to manipulation. Furthermore, it is true that Christian fundamentalists and theocrats are danerous in the U.S., but this fact is not inconsistent with the danger posed by Islamist organizations, which is very similar in its objectives. Chip needs to read analysis from orgs like Clarion Project and Investigative Project on Terror – these should be his allies, but like so many soi disant “liberals” Chip instead makes common cause with Islamists instead of with Muslim secularists and Muslim liberals, or ex-Muslims.

  30. ladyofshalott says


    American Christianity is certainly on the whole extremely regressive, and I don’t like sharing a country with them either, but they’re still not as bad as the Islamists. This should be obvious to everyone, but apparently not.


    a queer trans socialist

  31. dirk says

    Compared to Buddhism, Hinduism,Shintoism and the minor religions, Islam has, I think, the best papers to act as ideology for the once colonized and now marginalizing nations, minorities and ethnicities and, therefore, substitute the communism of once: strong authority, intolerance, little tendency to compromise, legality (in their eyes) to play the victim role, the martyr, the fierce soldier for the good, universal case. At least, much more than those other ones.

  32. neoteny says

    Citizens of liberal democracies find themselves attacked twice over—even as they grieve for their dead in the wake of a terrorist outrage, they are berated for the intolerance that brought it about.

    Why is it that the First Gulf War is always left out of the story? The War on Terror might have started after 9/11 according to the Americans, but for the average Muslim, the USA attacked Iraq back in 1990. Of course the Kuwaitis & Saudi-Arabians wanted the USA there, but apart from them, that war was a huge loss of face for the Arab Muslim masses.

    I’m not claiming that the USA was responsible for 9/11 through the First Gulf War, but I find it disconcerting that the First Gulf War is almost written out of history, at least when the history of radical Islam is being discussed.

    Am I committing some kind of faux pas by bringing up this subject? Is there a consensus that the First Gulf War was so righteous that it is impermissible to attribute to it any contribution to anti-American sentiments?

  33. Morgan Foster says


    “…Why is it that the First Gulf War is always left out of the story? The War on Terror might have started after 9/11 according to the Americans, but for the average Muslim, the USA attacked Iraq back in 1990.”

    For the “average Muslim” it was perfectly acceptable for Iraq to attack Kuwait first. A local spat between Muslims. None of America’s business. Yes. Absolutely see your point.

    • neoteny says

      A local spat between Muslims. None of America’s business.

      It was a local spat between Arabs. If Saudi-Arabia was so keen on restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty, they could have fought Iraq themselves: I’m sure that the USA would have been glad to sell them the necessary military hardware.

      Obviously you don’t see the point: you just assume that Kuwait had to be liberated and only the USA could do the job. Worse, you think that everyone else is ought to work with the same assumptions.

      • Morgan Foster says


        The free flow of oil from the oil-producing nations to Europe and Asia is very much the business of the United States. It is also very much the business of everyone in the world who is touched by the global economy.

        Anything that threatens the free flow of oil from Muslim countries to the rest of the world is the business of everyone in the world.

        • neoteny says

          The free flow of oil from the oil-producing nations to Europe and Asia is very much the business of the United States.

          So you say, but you don’t offer any support for this astonishing claim.

      • neoteny says

        Don’t bullshit me. I’m quite aware of the propaganda technique of the Big Lie: a claim so outrageous that people get intimidated into accepting it because they lose the moral courage required for sustained questioning.

        The (second) Iraq War disrupted Iraqi oil production plenty; were the USA’s aim ensuring the “free flow” of oil, they wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

        American companies stopped selling oil mining and associated equipment to the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA because the latter couldn’t pony up the hard currency needed for those purchases. Were the USA’s aim ensuring the “free flow” of oil, the federal government would have extended credit to the PDVSA for buying American-made equipment.

        Accordingly, you have much work to do yet in order to show that the First Iraq War and the USA’s involvement in it was inevitable.

  34. Hypatia says

    It is not a question of “either / or” but rather “both / and”. This is why Murray’s book is credible. She is not defending US foreign policy nor its neoliberal economics, but rather social liberalism of the kind found in the US Constitution. She critiques BOTH American hypocrisy AND political Islam. She does not see any need to choose between a critique of one or the other and in is more consistent in explaining why both need to be tempered.

    • scribblerg says

      Oh stop already with the “neoliberal economics”. It’s such pile of bs. And what American hypocrisy are you speaking of? Don’t give me meta nonsense, rather cite specific examples. I’ll be waiting for your answer.

  35. Harbinger says

    ….it’s not a “paternalistic orthodoxy” which has arisen, it’s a maternalistic, “compassionate” one. And this novelty, may well be the reason the response in the West is so passive.

  36. dirk says

    Overseeing the global ideological scene with the eyes of a historian or geographer: I guess that where you divide all human endeavours and more or less succesful societies in liberal/iliberal (whether liberal principles are the heart and driving force of socioeconomics and civilisation), you won’t come further than 25 illiberal to 1 liberal one. Probably even much less. Even in the modern Cairo declaration of human rights, liberal values like free speech and freedom of religion and women rights are absent.

  37. Respek Wahmen says

    Islam is a plagiarism of the worst parts of Judaism and Christianity. Judaism is the least reprehensible of the three because it doesn’t feature a hell. The new testament is more reprehensible than the old.

    Christianity has at least some small basis for a separation of church and state (Matthew 22:21), and in practice Christians are capable of following this interpretation. Islam is “more” totalitarian, since not only does it not have an equivalent, it’s explicitly a total solution to everything.

    Post-modernism is allowing Islam to flourish, by rejecting the basis by which we mock, show contempt for, discourage and neutralize religion (enlightenment thinking).

    It’s not an alliance. They’re doing this unwittingly, since Islam in the west will naturally present itself as a cringing minority, deserving of all the protection that a small and vulnerable group needs in the eyes of the regressive. It’s a coincidence that they’re both totalitarian.

    Because regressives are antinatalist and because of migration, we can expect most western countries to look much like the muslim majority countries of today. Why wouldn’t they?

    Thanks Obama!

    • dirk says

      Any idea, Respek, why islam plagiarised only the worst parts of the bibles, and not the better and more human, liberal ones? I think, cultural anthropologists have an answer on this one. Or should have!

  38. LGH says

    There are four broad sources of people who are anti-Western and anti-White:
    * progressive Whites
    * Muslims
    * leftist Jews
    * right-wing Jews
    * and selected so called “minorities” (who represent 92% of the world’s population) who are anti-White (usually Western or Marxist educated)

    For the progressive-Whites they think they are bringing equality and a shot at marxist utopia (they aren’t), whilst atoning for racial sins (colonialism, racism, the holocaust, wealth).

    For Muslims they are doing what their religion bids them to do.

    For leftist-Jews they are also doing what their religion (substitute culture for non-religious Jews) bids them too. And at the same time believe they are making societies safer for themselves (they aren’t but they believe they are – nothing being more dangerous in their minds than White societies after all).

    For right-wing Jews it is the same for left-wing Jews, except where the leftwing Jews want to multiculturalise White societies and concurrently turn them marxist, right-wing Jews have a little bit more apprehension about Islam and do not want a marxist society. Right-wing Jews would rather White societies under their control, and Whites a minority, but not a society turned over in sufficient numbers to others to enable them to be a viable alternative power block to their own power. They are also wary of others trying to destroy White societies too rapidly and in doing so believe they might re-awaken the “Nazi” in Whites. All other groups prefer the speed of takeover to be as rapid as possible.

    For anti-White minorities they wish for White & Western overthrow out of envy and or past racial grievances, whether they really are fair and warranted or not. Mostly the vigour of their hate has been sharpened in the West by White & Jewish progressives.

    All these groups are united for the massacre of White & Western societies except for the Jewish-right, who have the appearance of standing against the process but in reality are against its speed, and the dangers inherent in the process for themselves when the process is conducted at speed & its resulting decimation of the kind of society that best supports their needs (there are probably less wealthy Jewish basketball team owners in Jewish-marxist multicultural utopia).

    Under the ructions wrought by this process, provided they can keep themselves in power, the Jewish-right and Zionist Jews gain the most benefit – a divided society is unable to address their power effectively and by uniting with the White right, the Zionist left and right-factions more broadly are able to prosecute a great deal of the foreign policy that both delivers gains for Israel and their own financial interests. In short in enables the continuation of the White-Imperialist-Colonialist project but with Jews in place of Whites, and Whites taking the blame from the misinformed (which is most).

    What is the answer?
    The only fair solution is for every major racial and ideological group on earth to have some space to themselves to live out their own beliefs, without inflicting them on large numbers of people who wish to pursue a different path.

    Anything else is not liberalism, or progressive, or justice, just colonialism, imperialism, genocide and rape.

    Which group is the only one articulating for such a world today? The far right.

    • Andrew Elsey says

      Does it ever dawn on you people that at least a million more Jews would be voting Republican if you could learn to keep your mouth shut with the tin foil hat stuff? Morons like yourself are a walking advertisement for the Omar-Cortez party

    • hail to none says

      @LGH: you need to get out more. Jews are all over the map politically, socially, and geographically and to somehow think they all share some kind of secret handshake and the will to undermine Western Civilization is silly and ignorant. Just take a look at who are among the ranks of the strongest defenders of Enlightenment values today.

  39. Hamish Alcorn says

    I’ve always loved multiculturalism, not merely for the cuisine (but that’s good) but for its colour, cultural events (Greek Panitiri, Chinese New Year, Buddha’s birthday etc) and the access it gives society to languages and stories.

    It disturbs me that because of Islam, an aggressively evangelistic religion with (let’s be kind) some unfortunate tendencies, multiculturalism itself comes under attack. I rarely see the position that Islamism threatens multiculturalism itself, and that multiculturalism is not negated just because of the problems with one religious culture.

    • dirk says

      A good one, Hamish, that’s how I see it too. In my youth, there was one all over powering and superior culture and civilisation, the Western Christian one, with its liberal humanism, other cultures were studied by antrhopologists , arabists and missionaries, they were either interesting or subject for evangelisation. Now we have multiculti, real diversity, but the question is whether the social system can bare it.

  40. R Henry says

    “The only purpose for which power can rightly be exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. ”

    Try explaining this to your everyday abortion advocate.

  41. scribblerg says

    I think that every sentient Western adult should be forced to read Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In it, the reader will be treated to a walk through the mind of one of the greatest geopolitical thinkers of our time. I’ll offer this and try to be pithy.

    Christendom was used interchangeably to describe Western civilization regularly up until 40-50 years ago, without blinking. There are a number of such entities throughout history and shocker – Islam is one of them. Get this. Islamic civilization shards off of the Christianity as the final Abrahamic religion in the 7th century and proceeds apace on an utterly separate arc from Christendom. Much of the mideast was Christian at this point, a fact lost on many who try to understand the actual history. One other quick point. The Crusades only happened after hundreds of years of Islam’s abuse of historic Christian sites and refusing pilgrims to them in Bethlehem and elsewhere. And even then, Islamic Caliphates attacked the West and invaded and conquered in its lands 60x more frequently than the West did. Bet you didn’t know this either.

    Our civilization’s aren’t compatible. The history of Islamic migration to foreign lands always has the same pattern, and ends in political uproar and much worse. Every time. Every place. Why? Simple, Islam as believed in and practiced by the majority of Muslims in the world is supremacist and anti-modern. Don’t believe me, go research both Sunni and Shia scholars who encountered modernity throughout the Islamic world and watched it develop. They were quite analytical and strategy-minded as an imperial force and they realized how modernity was creeping into the Islamic world and theology. The decision is taken to revert from it. Salafism is emblematic of this, but is by no means the only fundamentalist Islamic sect that overtly rejected modernity.

    Consider that Christianity spawned and morphed and birthed ‘the age of reason’ and one can see its schismatics and reformations as contending with and aligning with modernity. While Islam instead shut the door.

    What’s really going on is a resurgence of Islam as a civilizing impulse after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago. Fyi, Erdogan of Turkey has spoken of being the leader of a new caliphate – Turkey, a NATO member. This should freak any Westerner out.

    So, any conversation about Islam must be grounded in what it is and isn’t, not mere theoretical analyses and comparisons. I’m only discussing modernity, there are also the very real differences between the theology at work in Islam vs Christianity. Islam is truly a totalitarian and authoritarian, anti-modern moral, spiritual and legal code for every aspect of running one’s life and society. It demands “submission” – the definition of Islam is “to submit” and a Muslim is one who has submitted.

    Our civilizations are rivals. Muslims get this and think it’s hysterical that Westerners do not. Some Muslims want to live a secular life in the West but the polling data on Muslim attitudes in Western nations is terrifying. When it comes to homosexuality, women, tolerance of free speech and many, many other aspects of what our free society demands Muslims are simply is out of step with the West if they are practicing Muslims. A Muslim who westernizes either is in a non Jihadi sect like Bahi, Sufi or Ammadya (about 200 million at most of world Muslims) or ignores much of his/her religion.

    And what’s happening is that Muslims are becoming more fundamentalist in Western nations, young and old. This is the pattern of Muslim immigration, and once 10% or greater happens, that’s when you get open violence, such as is regularly occurring in France with 12% Muslims.

    We cannot afford ignorance and happy thoughts when it comes to Islam. It’s not an esoteric or even primarily a moral issue. It’s a practical issue based on understanding the world and a bit of history.

  42. Morgan Foster says


    “This is the pattern of Muslim immigration, and once 10% or greater happens, that’s when you get open violence, such as is regularly occurring in France with 12% Muslims.”

    And in France you see a renewed interest in right wing nationalism in response.

    Muslim immigrants, then – not Ronald Reagan’s hypothetical alien invaders – are seen by increasing numbers as the common enemy uniting otherwise disparate Frenchmen.

    • scribblerg says

      Giggling at your obtuseness, Morgan. The vast majority of “Nationalists” in France are not racists or anything but classical liberals who have found their nation overrun and crumbling. They see massive violence and unrest from the Muslims they did their best to welcome into their societies – and none of it is working.

      What’s your plan? Other than not going out alone at night on Cologne on New Year’s eve? Answer a larger question too. Do self-governing people’s have a right to determine who is offered citizenship based on ethnicity, religion, race and other innate qualities? Hint, dingbat, almost every nation that is worth moving to do so on this earth already does so.

      Of course patriots are alarmed by this. Leftists think its part of their Revolution – we are saying fuck your social revolution. We don’t want any of it. And fyi, the Left doesn’t own the civil rights movement, the Right supported it massively in the U.S. and elsewhere.

      I’d love to debate you live, Morgan. Do you have the guts to face live debate? We can stream it on YouTube…Let’s discuss the morality of mass migration from pre-modern societies to the West. I bet you can’t or won’t, lol. Typical leftist of course.

Comments are closed.