Bertolt Brecht wrote a satirical poem after the 1953 East German risings:

"The solution
After the uprising of 17 June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the People
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist parties in Europe are doing. Perhaps the greatest idea of the Leftist parties after the Cold War was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural immigration parties and start importing voters from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape in Europe. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, I mean voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: "I vote for the Socialists because they give me more money." The Leftists are, in essence, electing a new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda.

In fighting Islamic supremacism, instead of an approach only based on tactical measures and efforts at clever twists of terminology, what if America had a true strategy that was instead based on the defense of our values on human equality and liberty?

The true challenge of Islamic supremacism in America and the free world is not about Islam, Islamism, or terrorism, but about us. It is a historic challenge to determine whether we truly have the courage of our convictions on equality and liberty and we are willing to f ight for these ideals, or if we will instead accept the continuing growth of anti-freedom ideologies here and around the world.

Islamic supremacists are counting on their belief that America is no longer willing to fight for such freedoms, that it has gotten too soft to do so, and that regardless of the success or failure of individual Jihadist tactics, eventually we will tolerate a continued growth of Islamic supremacism. The crossroads in history that we stand at remains whether or not we will prove Islamic supremacists correct, or if the idea defined in our very Declaration of Independence and chiseled in a marble memorial in America's capital - that "all men are created equal" - is an idea that America will once again sacrifice to defend.

[…]

B. "All Men Are Created Equal" Versus Sharia Tacticians believe the war is between Al-Qaeda and the West, the Taliban and the West, Hezbollah and the West, between Shiite and Sunni "extremists," or between terrorists and those who advocate non-violence. But this tactical view of world war only sees snapshots of individual theaters of violent activity and propaganda. The true aspects of the war remain a clash of ideological views, not merely individual political demands or battles.Many in the United States and United Kingdom government leadership positions definitely do not want debate on this clash of ideological views, because they rightly fear that this will lead to more, not less confrontation. The historical mistake that they make is the assumption that such confrontation is something we don't need and something we can avoid. American leaders who fear such confrontation ignore the historical lessons of how other supremacist ideologies were fought and defeated.

The root of the real war is the ideas of equality and liberty versus Sharia and an Islamic supremacist form of societal control. Little is written about this war, which has numerous fronts around the world -- violent and non-violent, with propaganda fronts, economic fronts, demographic fronts, legal fronts, educational fronts. It is really what happens in this war of ideas, not in the individual battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere that will be the deciding factor in our victory or defeat. But to understand this war of ideas, and understand the application of history in fighting supremacism to dealing with Islamic supremacism, we must understand the dual aspects of freedom and how they remain the greatest weapon in America's arsenal.

While Islamic supremacists view their growing population as their greatest weapon, America has its twin towers of freedom -- liberty and equality - which combined provides the greatest weapon on Earth against supremacism. Liberty and equality are the twin towers of America that can not and will not fall as long as American retains its commitment to its national values. America has proven the value of these hard-won ideological weapons against supremacist ideologies repeatedly throughout our history.

Liberty alone is not enough to fight supremacism. Liberty is only half of the equation of freedom; equality is the other completing half of freedom that provides the values to truly challenge any supremacist ideology -- the values of America that all men and women are created equal. We learned that nearly 90 years after America's creation, and we fought to rectify this with a dual commitment for equality as well as liberty.

In the larger, strategic war against Islamic supremacism, it is America's unique historical experience in the war of ideas against other supremacist organizations that our leaders must examine in finding answers and strategies in fighting Islamic supremacism today.

E. History on America's War on White Supemacism

If Americans can forget about or fail to understand who attacked them barely eight years ago on 9/11, it is not unreasonable to expect that America's 100 year war on white supremacism may also be inconsistently understood or remembered. Every day, untold millions of Americans touch a symbol of a memorial to the first leader of that war on white supremacism. They handle pennies, five dollar bills, and see the symbol quite possibly every day. Few pause to stop and think why that Lincoln Memorial exists in Washington, D.C. and why the symbol of that memorial passes across millions of their palms every day - the symbol with the words "All Men Are Created Equal" chiseled in marble inside of it. Even fewer remember that Lincoln's efforts were to fight for the values inherent in our American Declaration of Independence -- "All Men Are Created Equal" -- and to prove that American had the courage of its convictions.

It is important to remember where America has achieved great victories, such as the crushing defeat of the white supremacist ideology as a national force for political power and as an institution.

Some argue that America's war on white supremacism is not relevant because it was halting at times, and took sacrifices of over 100 years to accomplish. I argue that such sacrifices and struggle is what makes it especially relevant to the challenges that face us in the global war on Islamic supremacism.

Some argue that America's war on white supremacism is not relevant because others besides the federal government stood up in defiance for principles of equality that we all now cherish, not just to fight white supremacism. I argue that it is precisely because America fought with itself for the courage of its convictions on equality; as even a diminutive seamstress could stand up to supremacism, this demonstrates the ability of every American man and woman to confront Islamic supremacism on a global basis.

Some argue that America's war on white supremacism is not relevant because Islamic supremacism is not yet pandemic across American institutions, law, public schools, employment, and society. I argue that if America does not remember the historical lessons that it learned from the war on white supremacism, it will inevitably allow Islamic supremacism to grow as a cancer in the United States as it is continuing to grow unchecked around the world.
E.1. America's Moral Defiance and Military War against White Supremacism

The ultimate act of moral defiance against supremacist political ideologies came on January 1, 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation: "I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.... believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God." Per the National Archives, "[a]fter January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom."

While the American Civil War ended in 1865, this moral act of defiance began a 100 year battle in the United States against the political ideology of white supremacism - a total war of ideas against such a supremacist political ideology that would forever change America to fully validate the ideals set in its Declaration of Independence that "All Men Are Created Equal".

During this war, a resistance movement created from veterans of the Confederate Army was founded in 1866, known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). In 1869, a federal grand jury found that the Ku Klux Klan was a "terrorist organization." This white supremacist terrorist group and its offshoots would continue to be a focus, but hardly the only focus, of American leadership over the next 100 years.

The white supremacist KKK terror group declined in the immediate years following the Civil War, and President Ulysses Grant prosecuted its members under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. As previously mentioned, a second incarnation of the KKK developed during the 1920s with a peak membership of 4 to 5 million, but declined after the Great Depression and two world wars. A third incarnation the white supremacist KKK terror group developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and the U.S. federal government leadership once again focused a total war effort against this ideology, including every aspect of federal law, law enforcement, education, and communications.

Over the subsequent hundred years after the Civil War, the ongoing war against white supremacism, like any war, had its setbacks, failures, and plateaus. It is a national disgrace, while a key part of history, that the Ku Klux Klan terror group rose to such membership levels in the 1920s.

This war of ideas against the white supremacist ideology in the 1960s is of great importance in viewing a strategy in fighting Islamic supremacism today.

In fact, the total war of America against such a supremacist ideology - fighting both its violent and non-violent aspects at a tremendous cost and with a tremendous success - is the singular most important lesson for the entire world in fighting Islamic supremacism.

The American lesson of total war against the white supremacist ideology should be the first lesson for counterterror groups around the world -- know, define, and never appease a supremacist enemy.
E.2. War of Ideas in the 1960s against Supremacism

There is no question that the "war of ideas" on the political ideology of white supremacism in the 1960s was very much a true war - on both sides of the battle. The violent and the non-violent white supremacists shared an anti-freedom ideological viewpoint that remained the focal point of the "war of ideas" regardless of their use of violent or non-violent tactics.

Excerpts from white supremacist terror group Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard Sam Bowers' "Imperial Executive Order":
"The military and political situation as regards the enemy has now reached the crisis stage... This summer, within a very few days, the enemy will launch his final push for victory here in Mississippi... We must use all the time which is left to us in these next few days preparing to meet this attack. Weapons and ammunition must be accumulated and stored. Squads must drill. Propaganda equipment must be set up ready to roll. Counterattack maps, plans and information must be studied and learned. Radio and communications must be established." (Attack on Terror: The FBI Against the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi - by Don Whitehead, pages 5-9)

Excerpts from inauguration speech of non-violent white supremacist Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1963:
"It is very appropriate that from this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us time and again down through history. Let us rise to the call for freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Based on the thinking of some of today's counterterror analysts who apologize for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) groups, the non-violent political approach of Alabama Governor George Wallace would have been definitely more desirable because it used a non-violent, political method to communicate its viewpoint. Using the Islamic supremacist appeaser rationale, if today's appeasers had provided such influence in the 1960s, we would have still had parts of America that legally enforced racial segregation so that whites might not be incited to join violent white supremacist terror groups.

Thankfully for America, such groveling to supremacist ideologues was not acceptable to America's federal government leadership in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, American federal government's approach to the white supremacist ideology in this era was to attack it on every front - and in every aspect, including both violent and non-violent aspects of white supremacism.

Yet such American federal government efforts against white supremacism required the leadership and courage of individual citizens - whose fearless nature should serve as an inspiration to those speaking out against Islamic supremacism today.
E.3. Defiance of the Individual against White Supremacism

The true heroes in the war against white supremacism were those who put the lives and livelihoods on the line to stand in defiance of it. The ideology of supremacism, which is dependent on the tacit acceptance of others to maintain its control, was challenged one day by a seamstress.

Rosa Parks, diminutive in size, but large in courage, set an example of defiance against the ideology of white supremacism on December 1, 1955, when she refused to accept a white supremacist Montgomery, Alabama government law which called for segregating bus passengers by race, and refused to accept the order of a bus driver to move to make way for a white bus passenger.

Defiance takes many forms. Rosa Parks' defiance was just the first of many other acts of defiance against white supremacism, in terms of civil disobedience, marches, rallies, petitions, articles, and broadcasts in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. Many were jailed; some had homes and churches destroyed. Some were killed by white supremacist terrorists.

But the dream to realize in practical terms the ideology that "all men are created equal" in America that Abraham Lincoln demanded 100 years earlier, and that was inherent in our Declaration of Independence, would be reached by the concerted efforts of many individual heroic acts of defiance, and by concerted efforts by the American federal government to finally destroy the cancer of white supremacism once and for all.
E.4. Multi-Level War Against 1960's White Supremacism

Below are some examples of the total war by America's leaders against the white supremacist ideology - through criminal investigations and prosecutions, Supreme Court actions, federal legislation, U.S. military action, domestic counterintelligence, news media coverage, and public education:

-- FBI Criminal Investigations against White Supremacist Terror Groups. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a long history of infiltration and federal arrests on the white supremacist terror groups as the Ku Klux Klan. This 90 year war by the FBI against such white supremacist groups has lasted from 1924 to today. The FBI reports that on June 21, 1964, "[f]ollowing the FBI's MIBURN investigation, eight men, including Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price and Sam Holloway Bowers, Jr., the Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi, were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under the federal civil rights statutes for the crime." The FBI's MIBURN investigation was the result of white supremacists murdering three civil rights workers in 1964 in Mississippi. White Supremacist terrorist Groups continue to be investigated and arrested by the FBI today.

-- Supreme Court against White Supremacism. The U.S. Supreme Court of that era understood the threat of supremacist ideologues and their danger to American freedoms. In 1954, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka to end segregated schools in Kansas and 20 other states.

-- Federal Law against White Supremacism. The United States federal government attacked white supremacism with a series of sweeping laws designed to undermine the non-violent white supremacist political successes in states such as Alabama, led by Governor George Wallace. This included a 1957 Civil Rights Act to create a Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice, and a federal Civil Rights Commission. This was followed in 1964 by President Johnson signing into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate job discrimination and segregation in public accommodations, as well as creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

-- U.S. Military against White Supremacism. When non-violent white supremacist Arkansas Governor Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround all-white Central High School to keep nine non-white students from going into the school due to its white supremacist segregation policies, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army into Little Rock to stop the white supremacist actions, and ensure that federal law was upheld. The same Army division that has fought Nazis, Communists, and Jihadists - also fought white supremacists in America. Our total war against the ideology of white supremacism was that absolute.

-- FBI Domestic Counterintelligence against White Supremacism in 1960s-1970s. Numerous reports address the efforts of the FBI's intelligence operations, COINTELPRO, to discredit white supremacist Ku Klan Klan members, to infiltrate their organizations and work to disband their organizations. Such domestic counterintelligence operations were not limited to simply attacking such white supremacist terror groups, but also in aiding the press and anti-supremacists in acting against white supremacists. Per a Cambridge University report on the FBI's COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE operation, "FBI secretly coordinated efforts to discredit Klan organizations before local Southern communities that continued to tolerate vigilante violence. Intelligence information on Klan activities, provided discretely by the FBI to liberal Southern journalists, politicians and other molders of public opinion, helped those white Southerners who were opposed to Ku Klux Klan activity to transform their private dismay into public rebuke and criminal prosecutions."

-- News Media against White Supremacism. America's news media engaged public debate with a series of reports on white supremacist activity, both violent and non-violent, and how white supremacist thought and actions deprived other Americans of their civil rights. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the continuous coverage showing the evils of white supremacist behavior undoubtedly reached most homes in America through print, radio, or television news media.

-- Public Education against White Supremacism. America's public education systems taught a new generation of children on the evils of the white supremacist ideology, and instructed them against actions based on such a supremacist ideology, whether such actions were violent or non-violent. The pluralistic education system attacked the white supremacist ideology for its efforts in denying civil rights to all American citizens, and the generation of children who underwent this public education provided an ideological beachhead of freedom against white supremacists.

In every corner of America, the war of ideas was waged against the white supremacist ideology - in the homes, in the schools, in the houses of worship, in sports, in entertainment, over the airwaves, in the print media, in the military, in law enforcement, in the political arena, and in the hearts and minds of Americans everywhere. There was no dark space left for advocates of white supremacism to spread their propaganda of hate without a fight. It was a take-no-prisoners war of ideas where the white supremacist politicians' venomous propaganda was defanged by reason, truth, and justice, and was exposed for the savagery that it truly represented.

The federal government and the FBI did not fear a "war of ideas" nor did they look for someone else to lead the charge - it was a national, concerted war of ideas, where everyone - the school teacher, the newspaper writer, the FBI agent, the baseball player, and the average citizen - all played a role, all shared in sacrifice in defeating the white supremacist ideology - and no one, no one at all - feared using the name or identifying the enemy of the white supremacist.

The war against the white supremacist political ideology was hardly just a war on white supremacist terrorism or the Ku Klux Klan's terrorist tactics. It was a war of ideas that would validate and define America's identity, America's values, and America's dignity. It was a war that honored the sacrifices of those who gave their lives for defining the ideals of America.

America's total war against the white supremacism provides the benchmark for the world in what is necessary to fight Islamic supremacism.
E.5. Terminology in the War against White Supremacism

Confrontation against a well-defined enemy may seem too simple for some of today's government leaders and other analysts. But in fact, an important lesson in the war against white supremacism is the fearlessness in naming the enemy.

In the 1960s and today, there have been no qualms about defining the name of the ideology of "white supremacism." It is not called anything more complex, more convoluted, and less clear than what it was and is - supremacism by whites. In America's war against white supremacism, it challenged whites to change, if they supported, tolerated, or tacitly agreed with white supremacist ideologies. It was unquestionably confrontational terminology - that was the intent - to confront. America believed, then and now, that to call white supremacism anything less would be dishonest with itself, and with those who they sought to confront.

Three months after the DHS "terror lexicon" memo on why not to use the term "Islamic" or "Islamist" in referencing terrorism, the DHS continued to correctly use the term "white supremacist" in its documentation. The October 2007 Homeland Security Report (page 10) uses the term "white supremacist." The FBI and our federal law enforcement use the term "white supremacist." Of course, they should do so, just as when federal law enforcement profiles for "white supremacists" it will be profiling for "whites." Pretending that there isn't anything "white" about "white supremacism" would be just as intellectually and strategically dishonest as pretending that there is nothing "Islamic" about "Islamic supremacism."

America's war on white supremacism shows that terminology gadgets and appeasement do not and will not work. America's war on white supremacism shows that anything less than total war on an ideology that is opposed to our values will lead to failure.

There is nothing intrinsically “American” about what Mr. Imm claims is America’s heritage. To the contrary, America has been hijacked by utopian ideologues, from Unitarian Radicals during the American Civil War, who shared the Owenist proto-Communism of the Russian terrorist godfather Nikolai Chernyshevsky, to the Communists who created the NAACP that employed Rosa Parks as an agitator. Abetting them are neocons like Imm.

Contrary to Imm’s claims, the Union had interests other than Abolitionism: Abolition and the Reconstruction followed unsuccessful Northern efforts to continue abusive taxation of Southern states. The American Civil war cost over 625,000 soldiers’ lives — nearly one of every 50 Americans alive in 1860 — more than has any other war.

Just as Imm got American history wrong, he is wrong to compare jihadism and the quest for a global khilafat with white supremacism. Just as “curing” white supremacism gave us black-on-white crime and politically correct policies that abet it, resisting jihadism with ideology will make us dead or enslaved by the khilafat. As a small example of where non-violent resistance to Muslim goals will get us, blonde Swedish girls have learned from experience that dyeing their hair dark saves them from being raped by their Muslim neighbors.

The famed Scandinavian blogger Fjordman wrote:

American blogger Lawrence Auster believes that this civilization-wide epiphany that intolerance is the worst thing and must be eliminated “is the logical outcome of the older, more moderate-seeming liberalism, not of radical leftism. But even if I am mistaken and the present insane liberalism is the child of the radical left, it doesn’t matter, because that leftist-born liberalism is now the mainstream orthodoxy of the Western world.”

According to Auster, “liberalism” has meant many things over the last 300 years and has provided significant benefits to the human race. He distinguishes between three main stages of liberalism, which can overlap and co-exist with each other:

Classical liberalism, where “All men are created equal” meant no one is born to a different order, above other men. Liberalism meant the removal of traditional or arbitrary distinctions that were imposed on people. Liberalism meant restraints on the power of the state and a government of laws, not of men. It meant the self-government of a people, through their constitution and system of laws.

The Progressive Era, with its New Deal and Great Society liberalism, came to mean the use of government to prevent the economically powerful from having too much power, and to improve and raise up people’s condition and (in its Great Society phase). It was designed to make all people equal. Instead restraining government (because unrestrained government had earlier been seen as the main threat to liberty), liberalism now meant the indefinite increase of government in order to expand the provision of concrete social goods.

Finally, we have modern liberalism, established after the Second World War and especially after the 1960s: “Liberalism then came to mean that there is nothing outside or above the human self, that any higher or collective social reality (or even natural reality, such as sex distinctions) is an oppression. It came to mean that nations, religions, families are not legitimate because they impose a collective order on individual selves. It came to mean that the only legitimate order is a global world consisting of radically free persons, as in John Lennon’s ‘Imagine.’ It came to mean that truth itself is an oppression because if there is truth then the person is not absolutely free to do as he likes. It came to mean the elimination of self-government, because a people acting through its majority will still be exercising power over minorities and individuals. Therefore it came to mean unelected, unaccountable elites enforcing the individual rights of the whole of humanity.”

In Auster’s view, liberalism has formed much of the modern world and is associated with all kinds of goods, but has now been carried to an extreme that is destructive of civilization itself. Yet because people still have a positive image of liberalism, they are unable to see the destruction it is wreaking or to imagine a social order that goes beyond it.

I have a couple of comments to this. What Auster calls classical liberalism is exemplified by the quote “All men are created equal” from the United States Declaration of Independence written by Tomas Jefferson in 1776. It states that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I like many things in the American Declaration of Independence. It embodies the concept of self-determination and the right to institute a new government if the present one is hostile to your interests. However, I have reservations about the phrase “all men are created equal.” This is followed by the concept of “rights,” but it is still problematic. I am in favor of equality before the law, but this can be distorted into a demand for equality of outcome in all walks of life. Having equal rights does not mean we are created possessing equal potential. Some are more talented than others. This distinction is of great importance, as the idea that all human beings are not just equal before the law but equal in ability is now common.
- - - - - - - - -
Perhaps this is rooted in older, cultural ideas of egalitarianism. One could make a strong case that it has also been strengthened by the nature of the democratic system with universal suffrage, part of which stipulates that the political opinions of all human beings are equally valid. This political equivalence could lead to cultural democratization and the idea that the lifestyle choices of all human beings share a moral equivalence , one choice being as valid as another. In other words, this view leads to Multiculturalism and to cultural relativism.

To put it in another way: Will abolishing all social and political hierarchies sooner or later also lead to abolishing all cultural and even natural hierarchies? Were the seeds of the modern liberalism of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries sown already during the classical liberalism of the eighteenth century?

[…]

Journalist Kurt Lundgren reported on his blog about a magazine aimed at preschool teachers who take care of children between the ages of 0-6 years old. It included recommendations to promote “gender equality” and “sexual equality.” He said that in a kindergarten in Stockholm, parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress. Lundgren considers this sexual indoctrination to be worse than political propaganda[.]

[...]

Marxists [sic] theoretician Gramsci concluded after WW1, when the Revolution in Russia failed to spread, that the Marxist was blocked by the “Christian soul” of the West. Hence, breaking down this identity became a matter of great importance. In 1919, cultural Marxist Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Communist regime in Hungary. He set plans to de-Christianize the country by undermining Christian sexual ethics among children.

It is not difficult to hear an echo of this strategy now. The sexualization of children is promoted in order to break down their sense of modesty. However, some of the people advocating this show much more respect for Islam than for Christianity. Muhammad married a six year old child, so maybe sexualizing children is a form of soft-Islamization?

In general, Leftists hate Judeo-Christian values far more than they like Islam. Perhaps they think they can control Islam, or perhaps they are attracted to its totalitarian mindset. Either way, it is a fact that many of them are more aggressive against Christianity than against Islam.

Maybe I have a conspiratorial mindset, but the way left-wingers condemn Christianity and praise Islam is so consistent and aggressive that I cannot help but ask whether some of them have deliberately set out to uproot the plague of Christianity from our culture once and for all. They ridicule it at any given opportunity and destroy the values of the native culture, and at the same time they import a rival religion and groom it to replace the traditional one. When the day comes that people get sufficiently tired of nihilism, Christianity will have become so discredited as to have been eliminated as a viable alternative, and people are left with Islam.

In Sweden, the natives have been subject to ridicule of Western culture — and Christianity in particular — for generations. They are supposed to abase themselves in front of immigrants and tell them how worthless their culture is, or alternatively how much they lament the fact that they don’t have a culture. Swedish girls are told to be sexually liberated and end up getting raped and called “ infidel whores“ by Muslim immigrants. Meanwhile, Swedish boys are taught to be as “gender neutral” as possible.

To sum it up, I see some indications that our obsession with non-discrimination is rooted in classical liberalism, which became more radical after the Second World War. However, there are also impulses from Marxism at work. The notion that men and women are identical would have been considered ridiculous by most human cultures throughout history. It was pushed in the West by radical Leftists groups, but has since become adopted by society as a whole. In this case, conservatives fought a rearguard battle which they have constantly lost. At best they have managed to slow down the advances of ideas emanating from the Left, without ever being able to stop them.

It remains to be seen whether this trend can be reversed.

J.R. Nyquist wrote in 2004:

The economic disadvantages of socialism are hardly an obstacle to socialism's advance. Political battles are won by superior strategy, not by economic advantage. The capitalists invest their time and effort into business. The enemies of capitalism invest their time and effort into unraveling capitalism. This is not a level playing field.

If you want to predict the future, taking the longest view possible, you have to begin by admitting the cold hard facts of the case. Socialism has been advancing for 100 years while capitalism has compromised and retreated. Why has this happened? Because capitalism's success has, in the words of Schumpeter, "[Created an] atmosphere of almost universal hostility to its own social order."

President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher did not defeat socialism in the 1980s. They did not rid the universities of socialist professors. They did not stop the welfare state from expanding. They did not reverse the decline of the "bourgeois family," the disintegration of the religious superstructure of bourgeois life. They did not check "the cheating culture," sentimentalized envy, permissiveness, self-indulgence, petty thieving, paper money or other capital-destroying tendencies. They painted a happy face on a crumbling wall and called it "renewal." The self-congratulations of the political right resemble, more than anything, the bleating of sheep en route to the butcher shop. The lambs do not know where they are headed. They only know that their stomachs are full, the weather is pleasant and the man by the gate is smiling.

What has happened to our civilization is simple enough to explain. "When the habit of rational analysis of ... the daily tasks of life has gone far enough, it turns back upon the mass of collective ideas and criticizes ... them by way of such questions as why there should be kings and popes or subordination or tithes or property," Schumpeter explained in a book titled Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Not only is capitalism destructively self-critical, it is also anti-heroic. "Therefore," wrote Schumpeter, "owning assets that are apt to attract the robber ... and ... disliking warrior ideology that conflicts with its "rational" utilitarianism, the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie is fundamentally pacifist and inclined to insist on the application of the moral precepts of private life to international relations." This "bourgeois" approach to strategic affairs is ludicrous as well as self-defeating. Yet, this approach is built-in to the capitalist system. It does not identify with the militaristic posture of previously successful civilizations.

Consider the origins of modern capitalism: The institutional framework of capitalist civilization initially depended upon the warrior aristocracy of the preceding feudal period for its incubation. Under the noble code of chivalry, warrior aristocracy gave way to constitutional government as a gentleman gives way to a lady. Thus began a process of political rationalization, feminization and bureaucratization of function (not to mention the attending elements of mass culture). After several decades, tradition ceased to matter. Lineage, nobility, breeding and the "man on the white horse" were no longer part of the game. Chivalry was dead and the bourgeoisie killed it. "I have called the bourgeoisie rationalist and unheroic," wrote Schumpeter. "He can only use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will."

Those who would strike a mortal blow against capitalism see the logic in Schumpeter's argument: "the bourgeoisie is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic and international, that have normally to be faced by any country of any importance." As Schumpeter explained, "without protection by some non-bourgeois group, the bourgeoisie is politically helpless and unable not only to lead its nation but even to take care of its particular class interest. Which amounts to saying that it needs a master." Consider the American businessman who trades with China, who invests in Russia, who loans money to Third World dictators. Who will protect this fool from himself?

More importantly, no one will protect the rest of us from the weapons the fool's Communist business partners will buy for themselves.