In the previous article we discussed the similarities between liberalism and Marxism and how these twin ideologies have worked in tandem to usher in the modern age. Now we will examine the utopian vision of the “end of history” shared by these ideologies. Both liberalism and Marxism posit that there is an identifiable arc to history, indeed that the entire historical process is the progression, albeit a slow one, towards a global utopian society that will reach ever-greater heights of scientific knowledge, technological development and moral perfection. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” This well encapsulates the historical worldview of both modern ideologies; i.e. that the past was littered with superstition, oppression and untold depravity. Thus humanity’s historical march — particularly the last five hundred years — has seen mankind gradually emerge from this primordial dark age through a slow but progressive process of enlightenment which is proven to the modern ideologue by the rationalization/mechanization of all facets of human life, the erosion of organized religion, greater technological advancement, the formal institutionalization of human rights and the empowerment of formerly marginalized groups.
This historical perspective is shared by both liberals and Marxists. Although the form this eventual utopia will take differs significantly between the liberal and Marxist visions, the basic outline remains the same — an end to human want and such material abundance that human particularities such as ethnic and religious divides will be put to an end and, to the degree that religion even exists, it will be a private nonessential activity subordinated to economic priorities.
In his seminal work and now classic piece of neoliberal triumphalism, The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama lays out his claim — using the model of the Hegelian dialectic — that liberal democracy has prevailed over all challengers through its inherent flexibility, thus allowing the nations following this system to harness the power of science and technology to bestow material abundance upon the previously impoverished masses while giving them a sense of dignity and recognition, thereby mobilizing them as active and enthusiastic agents in the cause of liberal modernity. This book was first published in 1992, therefore one must have at least a little patience with its overly triumphalist tone.
For Fukuyama, Hegels historicism is important because — as a partisan of liberal modernity — he is making the case for a universal, linear and progressive history for all humanity, therefore the Hegelian dialectic is a useful literary device. That’s not to say that Fukuyama is disingenuous; on the contrary, he seems to exhibit the enthusiasm of a true believer, but Hegel is a philosopher who is notoriously hard to decipher and is often attacked by liberals on the charge of illiberalism. However, that said, Fukuyama’s interpretation of Hegel is widely accepted.
Despite charges by his various critics as being an apologist for the Prussian monarchy or a philosophical forerunner for twentieth-century totalitarianism, according to Fukuyama: “For Hegel, the embodiment of human freedom was the modern constitutional state”, and instead he was a philosopher who defended what classical liberals today would define as political and economic liberties.
Hegel himself believed that he was the quintessential philosopher of freedom:
The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.
— Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
The concept of the Hegelian dialectic has been distorted by conspiracy theorists who have twisted it beyond recognition as a means to justify their skewed vision of reality. Far from being a contrived “problem, reaction, solution” formula concocted by the power elite to forward their agenda, the dialectic according to Hegel was an organic process through which antithetical systems of thought and political organization are brought into conflict with one another. It is through this crucible of struggle between civilizations and social systems where the strongest survives, and, if both are hopelessly flawed, a new system is born, free of the “contradictions” of either of the previous ones. According to the dialectic, it is this historical struggle through which humanity achieves progress:
The Hegelian dialectic is similar to its Platonic predecessor, the Socratic dialogue, that is, a conversation between two human beings on some important subject like the nature of the good or the meaning of justice. Such discussions are resolved on the basis of the principle of contradiction: that is, the less self-contradictory side wins, or, if both are found in the course of the conversation to be self-contradictory, then a third position emerges free of the contradictions of the initial two. But this third position may itself contain new, unforeseen contradictions, thereby giving rise to yet another conversation and another resolution. For Hegel, the dialectic takes place not only on the level of philosophical discussions, but between societies, or, as contemporary social scientists would say, between socio-economic systems. One might describe history as a dialogue between societies, in which those with grave internal contradictions fail and are succeeded by others that manage to overcome those contradictions. [End of History]
In Fukuyama’s reading of Hegel, the philosopher viewed the height of human freedom and rationality as being embodied in the liberal democratic state and indeed Hegel declared the end of the historical process after the Battle of Jena in 1806, where Napoleon won a decisive victory over the Prussian monarchy, believing that the modern principles of liberty and equality had triumphed over the forces of Tradition. In this, Hegel was definitively on the side of the French Revolution and its embodiment in Napoleon, who, for all his imperial pretensions, was still a product of the Revolution and did little to reverse the levelling reforms of it but instead sought to bring it to all of Europe under his sovereignty. Indeed, the Napoleonic Code, which guaranteed legal equality of all men and officially eliminated all privileges of the former aristocratic class, is still used in France today as well as Belgium, Luxembourg and Monaco.
According to Fukuyama’s interpretation of Hegel, man walks onto the historical scene as an autonomous individual who is concerned only with validating his own ego, risking his life in a battle of “pure prestige” in a struggle for recognition. This is yet one more theory that holds liberal individualism as its presupposition, maintaining that sociability simply exists as a function to satisfy individual desires. To Fukuyama, the engine of history and human progress is the narcissistic drive for the glorification of the self and is thoroughly based in individualism and the urge for the validation of the ego, citing thinkers from Plato and Machiavelli to, of course, Hegel to support his thesis. There’s nothing higher in his analysis, not family, tribe, nation, or faith and to the degree that he does acknowledge them, they only really matter as an extension of the self. The social contract theory is an equivalent theory with the same presuppositions, that man — as an isolated autonomous individual whose first and only real concern is his own well-being and gratification — goes through life and the historical process for his own self-aggrandizement and all other considerations are, at best, secondary and, at worst, simply justifications for him to pursue is own egotistical desires.
UNIVERSAL APPEAL?
In the twentieth century, liberal democracy largely owed its popularity after the Second World War to the dominance of American media and its cultural hegemony across the globe. Long before the unipolar moment, America was exporting its culture, such as it is, through movies, music and other mediums of entertainment that glamourized the American way of life and showcased its unprecedented prosperity, itself a product not only of the power of the American manufacturing base but also the privileged position it was gifted post WWII when all possible competitors were both financially and industrially ruined by the war.
In his book The Grand Chessboard, American foreign policy strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as the American National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981 under President Jimmy Carter, wrote about how global cultural hegemony is an invaluable weapon in America’s arsenal to project power worldwide:
Cultural domination has been an under-appreciated facet of American global power. Whatever one may think of its aesthetic values, America’s mass culture exercises a magnetic appeal, especially on the world’s youth. Its attraction may be derived from the hedonistic quality of the lifestyle it projects, but its global appeal is undeniable. American television programs and films account for about three-fourths of the global market. American popular music is equally dominant, while American fads, eating habits, and even clothing are increasingly imitated worldwide. The language of the Internet is English, and an overwhelming proportion of the global computer chatter also originates from America, influencing the content of global conversation…
Democratic ideals, associated with the American political tradition, further reinforce what some perceive as America’s “cultural imperialism.” In the age of the most massive spread of the democratic form of government, the American political experience tends to serve as a standard for emulation. The spreading emphasis worldwide on the centrality of a written constitution and on the supremacy of law over political expediency, no matter how short-changed in practice, has drawn upon the strength of American constitutionalism. In recent times, the adoption by the former Communist countries of civilian supremacy over the military (especially as a precondition for NATO membership) has also been very heavily influenced by the U.S. system of civil-military relations.
The appeal and impact of the democratic American political system has also been accompanied by the growing attraction of the American entrepreneurial economic model, which stresses global free trade and uninhibited competition. As the Western welfare state, including its German emphasis on “codetermination” between entrepreneurs and trade unions, begins to lose its economic momentum, more Europeans are voicing the opinion that the more competitive and even ruthless American economic culture has to be emulated if Europe is not to fall further behind. Even in Japan, greater individualism in economic behaviour is becoming recognized as a necessary concomitant of economic success.
The American emphasis on political democracy and economic development thus combines to convey a simple ideological message that appeals to many: the quest for individual success enhances freedom while generating wealth. The resulting blend of idealism and egoism is a potent combination. Individual self-fulfillment is said to be a God-given right that at the same time can benefit others by setting an example and by generating wealth. It is a doctrine that attracts the energetic, the ambitious, and the highly competitive.
As the imitation of American ways gradually pervades the world, it creates a more congenial setting for the exercise of the indirect and seemingly consensual American hegemony. And as in the case of the domestic American system, that hegemony involves a complex structure of interlocking institutions and procedures, designed to generate consensus and obscure asymmetries in power and influence. American global supremacy is thus buttressed by an elaborate system of alliances and coalitions that literally span the globe.” [The Grand Chessboard]
While today the US entertainment industry is much more concerned with shoring up regime support domestically — via evangelizing the state ideology of intersectionality — during the Cold War Hollywood used its global entertainment footprint to project an idealized vision of the American way of life. It’s not hard to see why many behind the Iron Curtain would have viewed such idealized projections of the American way of life as an appealing alternative to Soviet totalitarianism. Indeed, even during the height of its power and influence the Soviet Union — with its overtly totalitarian state apparatus and lack of material opulence — was never able to project an image quite as appealing as the one crafted by America. After the Cold War when the superiority of the American system seemed apparent to all, it’s not surprising that many nations, aspiring to achieve a similar level of development and prosperity, would seek to imitate the American system. This has very little to do with the unconscious drives that Fukuyama ascribes to the appeal of liberal democracy and everything to do with the perception of reality in a particular moment in time. People like a winner and if someone, or a country, appear to be on top of the world it’s natural to emulate strategies and lifestyles employed by those who have the appearance of success.
The truth is that there will always be people who are dissatisfied with the political order and seek to replace it with one that better suits their interests and is more in line with their worldview. Fukuyama is more correct than most liberals when he acknowledges that there is a political part of man that goes beyond the calculation of “rational self-interest”; however, Fukuyama sees this vital aspect of mankind through the lens of liberalism, so he distorts it into something egotistical and ugly. The crux of his argument rests on the Hegelian dialectic and the question of whether or not any inherent “contradictions” exist in the liberal democratic model. From the vantage point of 1992 one can perhaps forgive his liberal triumphalism, but thirty-two years later, as liberal democracy wanes into its late stage and the final stores of civilizational capital — accumulated over centuries — are in the process of being burnt off, it’s easier to see the very real problems or “contradictions” that exist with this system.
To answer the above question, we must first ask what exactly counts as a contradiction in the Hegelian sense as interpreted by Fukuyama? Well, Fukuyama writes:
Are there any “contradictions” in our contemporary liberal democratic social order that would lead us to expect that the historical process will continue, and produce a new, higher order? We could recognize a “contradiction” if we saw a source of social discontent sufficiently radical to eventually cause the downfall of liberal democratic societies—the “system,” in the language of the 1960s—as a whole. [End of History]
He also cites the works of another liberal interpreter of Hegel, Alexandre Kojève, to make his case:
Kojève claims that we have reached the end of history because life in the universal and homogenous state is completely satisfying to its citizens. The modern liberal democratic world, in other words, is free of contradictions. In evaluating this claim, we do not want to be sidetracked by objections that misunderstand the point of Kojève’s contention—for example, by pointing to this or that social group or individual which is demonstrably dissatisfied by being denied equal access to the good things of society due to poverty, racism, and so forth. The deeper question is one of first principles—that is, whether the “good things” of our society are truly good and satisfying to “man as man” or whether there is in principle a higher form of satisfaction that some other type of regime or social organization could provide. [End of History]
Fukuyama’s declaration that liberal democracy represents “the end of history” ultimately rests on two claims: first that liberalism is a perfectly functioning system with no “contradictions”, meaning that the system and its elites are able to solve the problems that arise to face it, and as such there is no potential for social unrest because, with the exception of a few malcontents, the people are more or less fulfilled with the system in which they live. Secondly: that liberal democracy does in fact offer “the good life”, that people who live in liberal democracies have more meaningful and fulfilled lives than people who live in other systems or who lived in the past.
In regard to the latter claim, it seems very obvious that today’s society doesn’t even begin to satisfy our most basic social needs. In the last article we briefly discussed how the disintegration of the family seen in liberal societies has statistically had negative consequences for the children of divorce, whether it be higher rates of criminal activity, drug use or sexual promiscuity. This trend has only accelerated in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, creating a cascading effect of accelerated social dysfunction. As it turns out, when the ideological presupposition to your culture is the belief that optimal outcomes occur when every citizen egoistically chases their own interests — and that there is no purpose to life higher than self-aggrandizement and indulging in one’s every desire with little regard for those around you — the eventual result is a society of dysfunctional narcissists. Ironically, none of this self-striving has made anyone any happier. Despite the inordinate amount of attention given to women’s issues and the sycophantic levels of flattery given to modern women by progressive ideologues, it would appear women are less happy than ever, according to a Gallup poll released in 2023:
Over one-third of women (36.7%) now report having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their lifetime, compared with 20.4% of men, and their rate has risen at nearly twice the rate of men since 2017. [Gallup 2023]
Suicide rates are also on the rise; according to the CDC the rates of adolescents in the US who admit to seriously considering suicide has jumped from 14.5% in 2007 to 17.2% in 2017, while hospital admissions for young people with either actual suicide attempts or suicidal ideation tripled from 2008 to 2015, with the largest increase being white teenage girls, although an increase was noticed among all demographics.
What is the cause of this rise of systemic dissatisfaction with life in the West? In two words: social isolation. The decline of the family has eroded the most important, in fact primordial, social institution. People used to have big families, to whom they would look for social support and connection. These days many come from broken homes and have the resulting emotional scars, making it difficult for them to form healthy relationships in general, thus compounding their sense of isolation. On top of this, every institution charged with informing the citizenry and cultivating their opinions has decided that its good social policy to propagate the message that if one’s friends and family relations aren’t in lockstep with the vanguard of the perpetual social revolution that is part and parcel of liberalism that they are effectively a heretic, an “enemy of democracy” and as such must be condemned and disavowed. As the political polarization in the West has become more pronounced it is a rare person who has not had a relationship with a friend or family member ruined over this growing divide.
The product of liberalism is the deracinated mass man, a disconnected de-historified consumer, with no sense of embeddedness or context. He is Nietzsche’s Last Man, bereft of all connection with ethnos, custom, Tradition or lineage, often maligning such things as primitive and backwards. While smug and self-satisfied in his consumption on the outside, liberal man harbours a deep emptiness within because after all the baseball games, funko pops, craft beer and casual sex he’s left with nothing real, nothing ennobling. What he has is certainly nothing worth dying for; it’s barely worth living for. When examined from a higher perspective it’s of very little surprise that when faced with an existence where the only prospect many people see is a life based upon a seemingly ever-increasing level of blatant nihilism, so many have decided to check out. The sad fact is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Too many good people have been lost to this nihilistic system because keeping the masses in a nullified state of half-life is the very basis of power for a parasitic class of plutocrats. If the majority of men in the West suddenly reconnected with their roots and rediscovered their true heritage — a heroic vision of life that was the basis of European civilization — this decadent and corrupt system wouldn’t last a day. This is why European Man is so hated and feared by the systems overlords, yet they still need us to prop up the system as soldiers, workers and consumers, so they do everything they can to keep us in this despicable state.
All of this, by and large, is enough alone to prove that something is deeply wrong with the state of the West and its narcissistic culture of the self. Liberalism has so effectively dissolved not only the civic bonds that once served to unite people with those around them — through perpetual cultural change and the resulting polarization — but also kin bonds with the subtle sabotage of the family unit through no fault divorce and the normalization of family dissolution, as well as the pernicious idea — which is simply liberalism taken to its logical conclusion — best expressed by the mantra, “no unchosen obligations”, i.e. the idea that one should be able to choose all aspects of one’s life, and that those facets of one’s life not explicitly chosen are somehow a hindrance or an imposition, or at the very least expendable. Social connection is one of the most fundamental human needs. Sure, you can’t live physically without food or shelter, but without a higher purpose, without a connection to the divine and without social bonds embedded within a cultural context, what are you actually living for?
For all his triumphalism regarding the innate superiority of liberal democracy, at times Fukuyama tacitly concedes that the capitalistic system of the West might in fact very well be lacking in terms of human fulfillment — when compared to more traditional ways of life — but due to the awesome material force of industrial society such ways of life were by necessity annihilated as they were organic ways of being and therefore incompatible with the mechanistic way of life demanded by liberal capitalist modernity.
For labor markets to function efficiently, labor has to become increasingly mobile: workers cannot remain permanently tied to a particular job, locale, or set of social relationships, but must become free to move about, learn new tasks and technologies, and sell their labor to the highest bidder. This has a powerful effect in undermining traditional social groups like tribes, clans, extended families, religious sects, and so on. The latter may in certain respects be more humanly satisfying to live in, but since they are not organized according to the rational principles of economic efficiency, they tend to lose out to those that are. [End of History]
Indeed, technological progress — so fetishized by progressive ideologues both liberal and Marxist — has a disintegrating side. As was mentioned briefly in the last article, the peasant population was forced out of the countryside and into the urban slums as a result of the Industrial Revolution and land enclosure policies, thereby consolidating land ownership in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the name of rational production. Peasants were evicted and former communal land usage rights that were enjoyed by peasant farmers, such as grazing and collecting fallen wood, were completely eliminated in the privatization process that washed away the last remnants of the feudal order. This was an important part of the transition from feudalism to capitalism and was instrumental in the creation of the modern self-satisfied Last Man urbanite. It was this push that first forced formerly landed peoples into the city with all its crime, filth and exploitation. Far from willingly submitting themselves “to the discipline of the clock” to satisfy his desire to consume evermore products, this was forced on the peasant, for his only other option would have been starvation and death.
Technological innovation is, by its very nature, disruptive. You can’t have a technological revolution without it having a profound effect on the rest of society as well. This brings us to the rise of social media and the internet and how these technological innovations have fundamentally changed how people interact. Instead of meeting people organically while one is living his life, people meet one another on online applications, to the point where it’s seen by a growing number of people as odd to approach a stranger in public and start up a conversation. More and more romantic relationships are started on applications like Tinder that have commodified the courtship process, a fundamentally human act, reducing the users to a quantifiable commodity, degrading everyone involved.
The women on these apps generally match with the top ten percent of men and are then surprised when such men — having a plethora of options with many women opting to be a number on a rotation rather than settling for the social equivalent to what their mothers or grandmothers would have — are happy to sleep with them but are unwilling to commit. Such women have their minds clouded by a narcissism fuelled by mass media girl-power narratives, believing that no matter what they should have a six-foot tall man with a chiselled jaw who makes a million dollars a year, regardless of their own situation, virtue or beauty. The men on these apps aren’t any better — while often being just as delusional about their appeal — and, whether successful or not, are often looking to find a harem to satisfy their own sexual desires and gratify their narcissistic ego.
Through all of this, all sides are either depressed, or ailed by some other spiritual sickness, yet completely unwilling to give an inch because of Western societies’ collective narcissism.
Indeed, our entire existence has become commodified, with our social and spiritual lives at the mercy of the market, with all its volatility. Instead of living our lives in a social context surrounded by a community we’ve known our whole lives, we are expected to be economic nomads, rootless cosmopolitans, proles expected by the forces of global capital to uproot ourselves as servants to the market. Those that refuse to do so, or can’t, are viewed by the managers of this system with contempt and judged to deserve their lot.
Unlike the nomads of the past who hunted game as tribes of families, modern man is expected to hunt employment opportunities as an autonomous deracinated individual. One might be fortunate enough to have a family but such things, like all things today, have a very temporary nature to them. A marriage only lasts as long as it is convenient to both parties and there is very little social or institutional incentives or pressure to keep a marriage together. If one side gets bored or decides to move on, that’s it, the nuclear family unit is dissolved like a corporation and a new arrangement is decided upon, whether amicably or by the courts.
Regarding Fukuyama’s former claim, it seems that liberalism, through its own logic, has created its own “contradiction”. The disenfranchisement and systemic replacement of the European races, while privileging immigrant latecomers at their expense, has created a powder keg ready to ignite. The contempt and disregard for the interests of European-descended peoples, both in our homeland of Europe and in North America, has become a completely normalized policy, with so many examples one hardly knows where to start. We could talk about how academia in its entirety has become a chain of ideological training centres for the cultural revolutionary vanguard, with their entire political praxis centered on white disenfranchisement. We could discuss the narratives in the media that paint any positive commentary about European civilization or European-descended peoples as hate speech. We could talk about how criminal non-whites like George Floyd have been lionized as saints just to perpetuate the social myth that people of European descent are murderous oppressors. We could talk about the baseless demonization by the corporate media of people like Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington kid, whose only crime was to smirk at a native American activist loudly chanting in his face. We could mention the political persecution of activists who advocate for the interests of whites, in comparison to how the NAACP or La Raza advocate for blacks and hispanics, respectively, are treated. There are so many facets to this issue and literally hundreds if not thousands of examples to choose from, it seems almost pedantic to focus on one and elaborate on it when so many others have done much better than I can here. That said, mass immigration must at least be touched on briefly for it is deeply interconnected with these other issues and — more importantly for our current discussion — appears to be the cause of liberalism’s main ”contradiction”, using the criteria laid out by Fukuyama (remember that according to Fukuyama, the existence of a “contradiction” is evidenced by a source of social discontent large enough to cause a collapse of the system).
Liberalism views all humans as interchangeable cogs for use in the global economy and thus the machine of global capitalism is forever on the hunt for cheaper human material, therefore mass immigration of low-skilled workers makes perfect sense to globalist plutocrats. The international financiers obtain cheap subsidized labour by flooding Western countries with low-skilled workers willing to work for a small fraction of the wage demanded by their domestic counterparts who — unlike uppity whites— won’t complain because no matter how reprehensible the working conditions, life in the West is generally a significant economic upgrade to wherever they came from. Of course, the capitalist class, simply avatars of the subversive forces driving the international system, have completely internalized the mechanical logic of economic liberalism. After all, the capitalist is just adhering to the logic of the market and only looking out for his rational self-interest. All notions of family, tribe, nation and faith are completely subordinated to economic necessity.
For all its pretensions, liberalism is a supremely anti-human philosophy because it denies the very things that make us human, those unchosen forms of identity that make us who we are on a fundamental level and mould not only our experiences, but how we perceive and understand such experiences, such as our ethnos, gender, nationality, culture and faith. It attempts to wash these things away, dismissing them as irrelevant, a hindrance to actualizing ourselves as individuals. However, it’s these attributes that make us who we are, which shape our personalities, our lived experiences and which create an embedded identity. Indeed, without an embedded identity we are just mass man — a collection of hobbies, interests, and preferences — indistinguishable from any other mass man on the planet. While liberals appeal to individuality, even claiming that they are such unique creatures that they transcend gender norms, they ironically are almost indistinguishable from one another and, more often than not, are incredibly boring. When you strip away what constitutes a genuine and organic identity, you are left with nothing but a faceless, raceless, androgynous automaton, an identityless avatar of a globalized system. Mass-produced and fundamentally inhuman. This is the endgame of liberalism.
In the late1960s and early 1970s, the leaders of Europe and the Anglosphere decided to drastically alter their immigration policies. The result has been the complete demographic transformation of the European-inhabited world. In recent years Western elites have only accelerated the systemic disenfranchisement of European peoples through mass immigration. The treasonous elite of the West have decided that the best way to secure their power is not by providing for the welfare of those they govern through prudent, well-thought out policies, but by creating a client group of formerly low status groups and bolstering their numbers by importing a fresh, more malleable, and less demanding population from the Third World, all the while ruthlessly oppressing any who oppose these measures. The most recent example can be seen in Ireland where a grassroots movement of the indigenous Irish population has risen in response to a number of violent crimes committed by immigrants and so-called refugees, particularly an attack by an Algerian man on three children. In response, the neoliberal regime ruling Ireland has introduced draconian new “hate speech” legislation in an attempt to effectively outlaw dissent on this issue. Never mind that there is a housing crisis in Ireland, with 61% of people polled citing it as a top issue facing the country, the state is determined to fill the country with unvetted immigrants from the Third World and thereby change the demographics of Ireland as fast as possible.
In his book Racial Civil War, Guillaume Faye outlined his prediction of a civil war in Europe along racial lines as a result of cultural and immigration policies. Highlighting the escalating violence of criminal immigrants, including attacks against the police and the subsequent failure to take any of the perpetrators to account, as well as the hostile and treasonous attitude towards the indigenous population of French elites. Throughout France and other parts of Europe, there are “no-go zones” where authorities refuse to enter without significant backup due to the level of violence and aggression they face. Back when mainstream outlets still printed a fragment of truth, Canada’s National Post published an article discussing this subject:
Molenbeek is what terrorism and security experts call a “no-go zone.” In Europe, no-go zones are what North Americans would call ghettos. But French and Belgium no-go zones have a distinct profile. They are usually ethnic enclaves in otherwise prosperous cities, like Paris and Brussels. They are almost exclusively populated by Muslims. In France, these are largely Muslims from North Africa and former French West Africa. Some are French citizens and some are illegal residents. [National Post]
In recent years Sweden has often been used as a cautionary tale of the dark future that awaits the West as a whole if we don’t change course, therefore let’s look at Sweden as a case study. The situation in Sweden has become so extreme that it’s not an exaggeration to say that Sweden is losing control of its own country. Beyond the escalation of sexual assaults and other brutality inflicted on the native Swedish population, the state itself seems to be losing control of law and order. In a statement in 2018, Jimmie Akesson, the leader of the Swedish Democrats, a populist political party in Sweden now making up a part of the coalition government stated:
We have re-occurring incidences of cancelled bus lines in fear of entering certain immigrant heavy areas, frequent attacks on emergency vehicles, oftentimes lured in there by fake 911 calls for the sole purpose of attacking the emergency personnel, and even reluctance in simple services such as delivering mail or investigating illegal television/cable services. In some areas self-appointed sharia police patrol the streets enforcing dress-code rules and proper Islamic behaviours. [Breitbart]
The breakdown of control by law enforcement has been officially documented by the state itself. A 2014 report by the Swedish government, titled A National Overview of Criminal Networks with a Major Impact on Local Communities, states:
3.4.1 Drugs
In all the areas that the study visits have reported, extensive and relatively open drug trafficking is going on, and it seems to be widely known both to the police and to the residents which individuals can be associated with it. How the drugs are delivered to the areas differs. There are cases where the drug is smuggled directly from abroad or where cannabis is grown in its own area but mainly the drug is distributed within Sweden. Drug trafficking takes place primarily between the vulnerable areas and through older criminals’ contacts with ethnically based smuggling networks.
A distinctive feature of drug trafficking in these areas is that the customer base consists of local youth who belong to the same circle as the drug dealers. It is mainly cannabis that is sold, but also other preparations such as cocaine, amphetamine and spice. Younger criminals in these types of areas fund their abuse in two main ways: by selling, or by committing theft. In this way, their own drug use becomes a natural gateway to crime.
The high economic value of drugs means that there is always a great economic risk element, both for sellers and for buyers throughout the distribution chain. This makes debt relationships easy to emerge. Disagreements in debt relationships have in some areas resulted in some form of punishment or escalation into conflict.
Other types of perceived violations and personal misdemeanours may also be causes of environmental conflicts. Perceived intrusions into the criminal market also lead to conflicts between criminal competitors in drug dealing. In order to protect their market from competitors, there are checks on vehicles in the areas.
3.4.3 Theft and extortion of traders
In addition to drug handling, extortion and theft with subsequent receipt are the most prominent profitable crime types in the vulnerable areas. In many of the areas, local traders are exposed to pressure and extortion. It is primarily about local restaurants, taverns and convenience stores that are squeezed for money, are subjected to so-called sheltering activities or forced to sell contraband goods. Representatives of the pub industry are affected by the fact that criminal actors are forcing benefits and free goods. In some cases where the criminals have not been granted such benefits, it has led to serious consequences in the form of threats and violent expressions.
3.4.4 Disorders of order and social concerns
In the vulnerable areas, distrust of society is perceived to be widespread and in several places it is clearly expressed that the Police are not welcome in the area. In everyday police work, it is expressed that unguarded police cars are attacked, for example through broken tires. Sometimes it expresses itself in social unrest where, among other things, police and other social actors are attacked. In several areas, police testify that a large number of people gather during interventions, which can create an insecurity to work as an official in the area. There are also a number of examples from various areas where police have been attacked by persons who were not affected by the action during the intervention. After all, in most areas, policemen are able to walk freely and patrol without fear of being attacked
3.5 Impact on the local community
The term parallel society is sometimes used in connection with descriptions of the areas. What is meant by the concept has varied and included various components such as own legal order in the criminal environment, lending activities, protection activities or simply that criminals are perceived to control and dictate the conditions for the population in a certain area. In the vast majority of vulnerable areas, developments have not gone so far that it is justified to talk about parallel societies in the sense of alternative social order. However, the situation is experienced to a great extent by the impact on the local community in the vulnerable areas. The impact occurs at different levels in the local community structure where everything from the public to business and government representatives is affected.
As mentioned earlier, there are also vehicle inspections that make it difficult to conduct concealed police operations.
In cases where the public perceives it as not possible to police and investigate these crimes, it may have contributed to the perception that criminals “rule” in the area. The fact that the Police has adapted their working methods in the areas by, for example, increased security measures during interventions also sends a signal to the public that the Police assess the area as dangerous, which can have a stigmatizing effect.
5 Final Discussion
All in all, the situation can create a negative spiral that gives birth to fear and insecurity without the need for concrete threats. In this way, an informal power structure is established in the local community, which in turn benefits the criminal actors. In several areas, police feel that such a process has taken place and that the public’s fear of reprisals has resulted in the ordinary legal system being partially put out of play. This is believed to lead to a risk of undermining confidence in the state’s monopoly on violence. The police therefore regard the situation in the areas as serious.
Due to the escalating social and criminal unrest, in 2017 the Swedish government announced a plan to train ten thousand new police officers by 2020 to deal with the spike in crime, with an estimated 1,500 of the new officers to hit the streets by 2020. However, in late 2019 the total number of police officers had actually dropped by 470.
The issue has not been resolved since, with the military being deployed to support civilian police on October 5th, 2023 due to a wave of violent crime and explosions, particularly an explosion on September 28th. One wonders how anyone in NATO believes Sweden will be any kind of asset to the alliance militarily when it can’t even maintain order within its own borders.
If we look across the Atlantic, the situation in the United States is no less precarious. As the disenfranchisement and demonization of whites has continued to escalate — one simply has to turn on MSNBC or any other major media outlet at any time of the day to see this exemplified — its population of European decent has simply dropped out of the institutions that they once propped up. The US military is facing a recruitment crisis as the demographic they have traditionally relied upon to fight their wars, white men, have decided to check out in increasing numbers.
In 2018, 56.4% of new recruits were categorized as white. In 2023, that number had fallen to 44%. During that same five-year period, Black recruits have gone from 20% to 24% of the pool, and Hispanic recruits have risen from 17% to 24%, with both groups seeing largely flat recruiting totals but increasing as a percentage of incoming soldiers as white recruiting has fallen. [Military.com]
As the American regime has increasingly marginalized European-descended Americans — using whites as a boogeyman to galvanize their coalition of client groups with very little in common other than a shared hatred towards a scapegoat chosen by their political sponsors — the result, unsurprisingly, is that whites are deciding en masse that they will no longer fight for a regime that openly despises them. There are families who have served the US military for generations, many of whom have given up on the forces, with older veterans and servicemen actively convincing younger family members not to join. Such families with a multigenerational tradition of military service — which have historically made up a large percentage of recruits — are a form of civilizational capital that cannot be recreated overnight. Indeed, how does one simply recreate a warrior caste? Ironically, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth recently said — when referring to US military families — that the US shouldn’t rely on a warrior caste for military service. It looks like she may just get her wish.
While whites are abandoning the military, blacks and hispanics aren’t picking up the slack. Indeed, the ideology of the American regime has completely demoralized every demographic. On the one hand, they have doubled down on their contempt for Americans of European descent who haven’t wholeheartedly bought into the state ideology of ugliness and degeneracy, while, on the other hand, regime cadres have no case for why these other groups should stand up and fight for the regime. According to America’s agents of cultural revolution, America is a racist nation built upon the genocide of one race and the slavery of another, which still indiscriminately kills innocent blacks every day. Not to mention that women, gays and transexuals — according to this narrative — have been systemically oppressed since America’s very founding. Assuming one actually takes the intersectionality narrative seriously, why would any self-respecting member of these groups want to fight for an oppressive colonial state built upon the pillars of slavery and genocide which, according to the narrative, is still governed by the principles of patriarchy and white supremacy?
This could be the very ideological contradiction that brings the whole thing down. America’s global military supremacy is facing its first true challenge in decades at a time of unprecedented weakness.
Indeed, according to the mainstream press, America has the smallest military force in 80 years, 41,000 personnel short of their 2023 recruitment goal. All the while, the Global American Empire is facing a challenge the likes of which it hasn’t seen since the Cold War and — at the same time — the homeland is more divided than ever. US forces have come under attack in Iraq and Syria by militias reported to be associated with Iran and, according to Foreign Policy magazine, the US is now considering a full withdrawal from Syria and Iraq, with some policymakers seeing it as inevitable:
It should be cause for significant concern, however, that this could involve a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. While no definitive decision has been made to leave, four sources within the Defense and State departments said the White House is no longer invested in sustaining a mission that it perceives as unnecessary. Active internal discussions are now underway to determine how and when a withdrawal may take place. [ForeignPolicy.com]
While Iran itself has been reported to have finally developed the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
In other theatres, despite every attempt at financial sabotage and international isolation by the US and its vassals and all the support given to Ukraine, Russia appears close to victory in its “Special Military Operation”, or more accurately the Reconquista of Ukraine, a territory that has long belonged to Russia throughout its various incarnations. Not to mention China is still a growing concern and seeks its place under the sun with plans to rebuild the international order in its own image, or at the very least drastically renegotiate the terms under which it operates so as to reflect the reality of China’s economic might and growing military strength. America’s rivals and adversaries are growing in power in an emerging multipolar world; meanwhile the politics in the US has become increasingly fractured.
Recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott released a letter announcing his intent to disregard a Supreme Court ruling authorizing the federal government to remove razor wire and other barriers installed by state of Texas authorities at the southern border, even going so far as pledging to install even more wire and barriers. The Governor of Oklahoma and 24 other states voiced their support and solidarity with Texas and later that week Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma openly discussed the possibility of state national guards going toe to toe with the forces of the US federal government in a confrontation over border security.
At the same time, former President Donald Trump took to his social media accounts to encourage all willing states to support Texas by sending in their own national guard to secure the border.
On January 29th, the Lt. Gov. of Texas stated that not only was Texas putting up more wire fencing, but implied there could be a confrontation between federal authorities and the state of Texas:
“I was down there Friday with our troops to thank them, support them, and also to stand with them in the event the Biden administration did send Border Patrol there,” he said. “Wisely, they did not. We’re thankful they did not. We don’t want a confrontation, but we want this border secure.” [Hill.com]
At this point it looks like the Biden Administration has backed down, as Texas — ignoring the Supreme Court — continues to reinforce the US border with barbed wire. Only time will tell if this will escalate towards a force on force confrontation with state and federal authorities or if this episode will simply set a precedent of a US state disregarding federal mandates at will. Either way, this signals a decline in the power and authority of the United States federal government at the same time that American hegemony faces unprecedented challenges abroad.
Meanwhile in the background, America’s plutocratic establishment is doing everything in their power to make effective political opposition functionally illegal. The most brazen example are the desperate attempts to legally hamper Donald Trump’s next election bid. While Trump is far from a radical, even the smallest reformist deviation will not be tolerated by America’s demented elites, who will settle for nothing less than complete financial and ideological domination and the utter subjugation of the historical American nation, thus creating even more tension internally.
As the next election cycle heats up, it is very likely that we will see an escalation of tensions domestically and with the US forces at an unprecedentedly weakened state the possibility exists that America’s foreign adversaries could very well take advantage of the situation. Given the precarious position the American Empire finds itself in at the moment, an unanticipated crisis might just be the cause of a chain reaction that, due to the many preexisting systemic issues, brings the entire system crashing down. Empires can limp on for a very long time, like Rome, but they can also end very abruptly, like the USSR. The question of which fate will befall the Global American Empire has yet to be seen. However, the elderly and sclerotic plutocrats in the US do seem to have a striking resemblance to the doddering elderly elites in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union before the fall of the USSR. Let’s see if the American plutocrats can squash the burgeoning secessionist movement better than their Soviet counterparts. Even if they are successful this time, without a complete ideological realignment and institutional restructuring of the American system, the underlying systemic causes will remain. On the other hand, if a much needed American reformation were to occur, that in itself could send the empire into a tailspin. After all, we all know what happened to the USSR under the stewardship of Mikhail Gorbachev, a reformer.
Far from the “end of history”, it looks like the collapse of the American counter-imperium.
This is all very sad. Reminds me of what Kurt Saxon said on his radio show, back in the 1990’s!