Status anxiety

Is this the beginning of the end of liberal democracy?

Enlightenment values have proved to be thin gruel next to the heady cocktail of anti-western ideology and a brutally literal interpretation of the Quran

21 November 2015

9:00 AM

21 November 2015

9:00 AM

As a graduate student in the Harvard Department of Government in the late 1980s, I became slightly jaded about the number of visiting academics who warned about the imminent demise of the West. The thrust of their arguments was nearly always the same. The secular liberal values we cherish, such as the separation of church and state and freedom of speech, won’t survive in the face of growing religious animosity unless they’re rooted in something more intellectually and spiritually compelling than capitalist individualism. They were talking about Islamic fundamentalism, obviously, though sometimes they threw in Christian fundamentalism to seem even-handed.

These political scientists were, without exception, left of centre and their critique of classical liberalism was usually accompanied by a call for some version of socialism or communitarianism. I was a member of a small band of conservatives in the department, and after the visitors’ words had been warmly received by everyone else, one of us would put up a hand and ask if they’d name the date at which liberal democracy would expire. Ten years? Fifteen years? Fifty? If they were foolish enough to suggest a date, the follow-up was instantaneous: ‘Care to make a wager?’

There have been many occasions since then when I’ve regretted that callow response, with the terrorist attack in Paris being the latest example. The West has rarely seemed more weak or divided than in the past few days, with the muted reaction of President Obama, the continuing refusal of Jeremy Corbyn to countenance airstrikes against Syria and the usual platitudes from all sides about how the Islamic State isn’t genuinely Islamic, which isn’t a view shared by all of the world’s Muslims. In a poll conducted in Saudi Arabia last year, 92 per cent of respondents believed ‘IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law’.


Britain’s liberal intelligentsia have been particularly bereft of ideas. Their continuing opposition to extending the investigatory powers of our security services, as well as their commitment to open borders, seem destined to join proportional representation on the dust heap of lost causes.

It isn’t just the inadequacy of the West’s response that suggests the horse is ‘weak’, to use Osama bin Laden’s metaphor. It’s the fact that the terrorists were, for the most part, French and Belgian nationals. The universal values of the enlightenment have proved to be pretty thin gruel next to the heady cocktail of anti-western ideology and a brutally literal interpretation of the Quran. They’re not outliers, either. According to a recent ICM poll, 16 per cent of French citizens have a positive view of Isis, with the figure rising to 27 per cent for 18- to 24-year-olds. One crumb of comfort is that the numbers in the UK are lower. The same poll revealed that 7 per cent of British citizens look favourably on Isis — still an astonishingly high figure — falling to 4 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds.

Patrick Marnham wrote last month in The Spectator about a growing band of French intellectuals known as les nouveaux reactionnaires. They blame multiculturalism, moral relativism and post-colonial guilt for the decline of the values that used to define France, such as freedom of expression, a sense of universal brotherhood and egalité. Their solution, apart from replacing François Hollande with Marine Le Pen in 2017, is to call a halt to Muslim immigration and do whatever it takes to get France’s existing Muslim population (7.5 per cent of the total) to ‘integrate’, starting with the vigorous enforcement of the niqab ban introduced by Sarkozy five years ago.

That seems fairly draconian and I’m left wondering what -authority, apart from a dying European tradition, they can appeal to in the hope of winning over their disaffected Muslim citizens, as opposed to alienating them even further. The enlightenment project of basing liberal values on reason and empiricism has long been discredited, and we’ve probably left it too late to reverse the decline of Christianity. The West is crying out for a -leader who can solve this conundrum and in the absence of one emerging, the future described by the French novelist Michel Houellebecq seems ever more likely. In his last novel, the aptly named Submission, France becomes an Islamic republic in 2022, with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Socialist Party uniting behind a French Tunisian President to keep out the Front National. Judging from the British left’s accommodations with Islamism, that doesn’t seem too far-fetched. If this particular Cassandra offered me a wager, I wouldn’t take it.

Toby Young is associate editor of The Spectator.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • davidshort10

    You’ve done your bit by having four children. If many others followed suit, the problem would begin to solve itself.

    • douglas redmayne

      No there are too many people. If we don’t want to be outnumbered by others who don’t share our values then there are other means of preventing this.

      • goodsoldier

        Deportation of all Muslim men between 18-30 years old. No human rights for savages who don’t recognize our laws anyway, who hoard weapons while we would be arrested in 24 hours if we owned a handgun. They are left alone by the police.

        ‘Something like this doesn’t surprise me,’ a resident of St Denis told Le Parisien, ‘that terrorists have hidden here. In this district the cellars are full of weapons. Outside there is a dealer every 100mtrs. It’s common knowledge around here that people go and come back from Syria with ease. The past year the atmosphere has been awful in the street…it’s very hard.’

        • crosscop

          Picking on 18-30 year old men is both sexist and ageist. Boot out all of them.

  • sidor

    What does Enlightenment have to do with “liberal democracy”? The common Continental form of government since the 17th century has beed police state: Richelieu, Gustav Vasa and Friedrich the Great.

  • Chris Hobson

    The baby boomers have a lot to answer for with their self absorbed liberal narcissistic greed. Egos on legs.

    • Guest 1

      To be precise (shades of the Thompson twins there, unfortunately), the fatuous, self-loving ’68ers’ – enemies of Europe:

      watch, 28 seconds in:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4e7n7g1xAM&list=FL-nj2foVHt52zPuh0TdAiiw&index=5
      DEFEND EUROPE!

    • Malcolm Stevas

      Crass! I’m getting a little pi55ed off with these sweeping condemnations of me and my peers by youngsters with more than a vestige themselves of narcissism, greed, and inflated ego…

  • boiledcabbage

    Stuff comes and goes, even the hardcore stuff. Adolf is defunkt, Pol Pot perished, Mao toast. Without security, there is no freedom – the Left dont get this. So after the lax years, it will tighten up for a while. Democracy? People want everything, for free, now.

  • sfin

    A moratorium on immigration has been, successfully, carried out before – precisely for reasons of integration, and whilst no means perfect, has created the most successful multi-ethnic country on the planet.

    I’m talking, of course, about the USA – who shut the door to immigration in the 1920s and spent the next two generations integrating its disparate peoples. Now – you can be whatever you want to be in the USA, but first you are expected to be a Stars and Stripes man, hand over heart, Uncle Sam, home of the brave, land of the free etc, etc…

    The problem in Europe’s case is that it is determined on a policy of continued mass immigration for two reasons:

    a) It needs to continue funding its social democratic state welfare schemes in the face of declining, indigenous birthrates.

    b) Its drive towards “ever closer union” necessitates breaking down peoples adherence to their existing nation state.

    It’s going to end very badly indeed.

    • Joe Long

      “It needs to continue funding its social democratic state welfare schemes in the face of declining, indigenous birthrates.”

      Third world immigration is in fact a heavy financial burden

      “Between 1995 and 2011, those originally from Europe – whether they arrived under Heath, Thatcher, Blair or Cameron – added just £4 billion to Britain’s economy. Meanwhile, those who came from further abroad – the West Indies, India, Australia etc – took out £118 billion. It’s hard to call that a good deal.”

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11210687/Immigration-the-real-cost-to-Britain.html

      There is huge youth unemployment and under-employment in Europe as it is, esp South and Eastern.

      The pay our pensions line is pretty fatuous IMO

      • sfin

        I think you underestimate the lunacy of social democratic European politics. All European countries adopted various forms of state welfare, post WWII, and all of those countries knew that to sustain them it required net economic growth over longer cycles – but more importantly – year on year population growth.

        As part of its drive for economic growth – it put women into the labour market, leading to a collapse in the indigenous birth rate.

        Now, in the USA, for example, population decline isn’t too much of a problem, in the short term at least, because the individual American doesn’t rely half as much on state welfare schemes – he is an adult who takes care of himself.

        European politicians need workers – preferably from cultures with high birth rates. The dilution or eradication of individual state cultures is a bonus.

        Cultural conflict and short term costs (we’re all living in low interest rate credit economies, after all) do not figure on their priorities list.

      • vieuxceps2

        Evetone I know says the same . Obvious really So why do the lefties and the government continue to deny the truth on non-EU immigration?

      • Guilttripjunkie

        Even the UCL had to admit that non EU immigration from African/Muslim countries cost the UK 120 billion between 1997 and 2010. This is a taboo that won’t be mentioned by the rabid pro multi culturists.

    • jim

      Islam cannot be housebroken .Integration? With them? Even if such a thing were possible do you really want it? There is no solution that does not involve ending immigration and the forced removal of millions from europe.The alternative is some sort of jerry-built accommodation with islam which will leave our west unfit for anyone else.Religious and ethnic war is very possible.What’s happening in Syria can happen here.Plenty of blame to go around.Everyone was wrong except those who were dismissed as bigots. I see no alternative to lePen, Wilders and I consider Farage to be soft on islam.

      • sfin

        I can understand your sentiments…

        I think it is possible – but, and this is something that drives me nuts over the rank stupidity of “progressives” – they will not see that these things take a great deal of time.

        Evolution works, but these clowns are in a constant state of revolution, and revolution, as we know, always lead to conflict, violence and bloodshed.

        • Zaba

          conflict, violence and bloodshed.

          14 centuries of islam…..so far……..

    • Pioneer

      Obama, the identity politics poster boy, has been destroying the US over the last 7 years. America is in real trouble.

      • sfin

        Yes – our US cousins made a grave mistake in twice electing someone so unfit for that office…

        What really worries me is the number of sheep one sees cheering that, obvious and documented, liar and crook, Hilary Clinton, at selection rallies.

        • vieuxceps2

          Does anyone think that odama would have won had he not beel Black (of mixed race actually)?

  • Joe Long

    “Britain’s liberal intelligentsia have been particularly bereft of ideas.”

    Pretty well encapsulated in the fatuous waffle of the idiotic Owen Jones

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/nov/19/owen-jones-paris-attacks-terrorists-video

    “That seems fairly draconian and I’m left wondering what -authority, apart from a dying European tradition, they can appeal to in the hope of winning over their disaffected Muslim citizens, as opposed to alienating them even further.”

    Integration is a non-starter

    We started out with that in the sixties – it was assumed by people such as Barbara Castle, when it was put her that there might be risks and downsides, that they would become “just like us”.

    When that pious hope failed to materialise we got multi-culti, when that was perceived to be a failure there was a brief dabble with inter-culturalism; followed by more integration guff – back to square one

    This was all nonsense – because what we have here is a colonisation event with which quite apt Dark Ages parallels have been drawn by Rear Admiral Parry(The Goths are coming) and a week or so ago by Niall Ferguson

    “Judging from the British left’s accommodations with Islamism, that doesn’t seem too far-fetched. If this particular Cassandra offered me a wager, I wouldn’t take it”

    True, and if one wants a parallel from our own history one could do a lot worse than Gildas –

    “What utter depth of darkness of soul! What hopeless and cruel dulness of mind! The men whom, when absent, they feared more than death, were invited by them of their own accord, so to say, under the cover of one roof: Foolish princes of Zoan, as is said, giving unwise counsel to Pharaoh.”

    http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gildas_02_ruin_of_britain.htm

    Not much sign of a new Arthur I’m afraid

    • Clive

      The men they …feared more than death… were Saxons, invited in to deal with the Scottish.

      All of this presumes a kind of human being with mores and social character much more primitive than our own. That certainly may have been true in Tertullian’s time – although Tertullian called women the ‘gateway of the Devil’ and had some strange ideas about the supernatural of his own.

      It is not true of this time. The people who belong to Daesh are recognisable. They could be any kind of fanatic or s@dist or just amoral opportunist.

      They are no Saxons without civilisation. They are worse. They know what civilisation is but it did not treat them well, so they break its rules and its artefacts like so many thugs before them.

  • Damaris Tighe

    I’ve been commenting for a long time that the post-Christian west is a hedonistic vacuum which Islam is attempting to fill. There are many young converts to Islam who are looking for the boundaries that our culture refuses to supply. They need more than strictures on what is or isn’t ‘appropriate’. They need something to believe in, to structure their chaotic lives. It’s telling that they’re being proselytised not by our pathetic, value-free, politically correct churches, but by Muslim preachers.

    • Tom M

      I can see the sense in what you say. The West, as you say, is bereft of social and moral anchors.
      Lets educate our young people with a common set of proper beliefs and values. When that has got through to them we will find that we are now still at odds with the Muslims but all agreed as to the solution. We will be able to wage war against them from the new collective standpoint because it willl still be 180 degrees from anything taught by Islam.

    • Miss Floribunda Rose

      Many people want their lives, and reality itself, to have pattern and meaning. Wouldn’t it be strange if there were no absolute meaning, and all values and boundaries, although necessary for happiness, morality, a sense of security, order, and purpose, were in fact quite arbitrary. I have just finished reading Georg Buchner’s drama, ‘Danton’s Death’: “The world is chaos, nothingness its true messiah!”, and am about to begin reading Plato’s ‘Republic’. After that I shall read Sir Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’. ‘Utopia’ means ‘no place’, by the way. Time for yet another pink gin. Cheers.

    • Kasperlos

      Tosh. These young converts are bereft of independent thought. Those in the West who convert would do well do drop the Quran and pick up books on Western Civilisation and history. Compare the Occidental and Oriental worlds – which has given people more to live their own lives to find their own boundaries rather than through some death cult. The beauty actually of the Western world is that it offers an individual almost no boundaries in finding ones own happiness and worth. Why is it that some people find the need to have their lives sorted out, steered by some warped organisation. C.G. Jung warned people to avoid organisations.

      • red2black

        Jungian ones as well?

        • Damaris Tighe

          In fairness, Jung didn’t set up the first Jungian Institute & Club in Zurich. His students did & he was quite reluctant himself.

          • red2black

            I enjoyed reading ‘Man & His Symbols’ many years ago.

      • blandings

        “pick up books on Western Civilisation and history.”
        Such books describe the past not the present.

        “The beauty actually of the Western world is that it offers an individual
        almost no boundaries in finding ones own happiness and worth.”
        In other words: It offers nothing – and people notice.

    • In lamenting the vacuum of “the post-Christian west” do you mean cultural, institutional Christianity or adherence to the actual religion (you know, the stuff to do with following Jesus etc.)?

      • Damaris Tighe

        Both. Whether you like it or not, many people have a ‘God shaped hole’ in them. Islam will fill that hole. Better that it should be our native tradition, with the additional benefit that Christianity isn’t institutionally supremicist.

        • I couldn’t agree more that we neglect the importance of spirituality in our culture at our peril. Naturally, people’s collective faith or lack of faith will have knock on effects on society. In my view the importance of ‘actual Christianity’ far outweighs that of cultural Christianity. Those who like to employ the latter as some sort of “cultural heritage” or whatever to bash people in political arguments I consider to have not only hypocritical views but incorrect priorities. There are some benefits to our hotchpotch cultural traditions, I suppose, but I don’t necessarily value them all that much.

          • Damaris Tighe

            I agree. It’s a great shame that the native population is so disconnected from their grandparents’ religion that they’re terminally ignorant about Christianity if they’re looking for a spiritual practice. For example, if they’re attracted by the discipline of the day punctuated by prayer, that already exists in the Catholic (Roman & Anglo) tradition – the Office. They’ve been brought up with no spiritual practice at all, so when that God-shaped hole starts to speak to them, they’re vulnerable to Islam which is actively proselytising. And they have no answers to Islamic criticisms of Christianity.

          • The ignorance is perhaps the saddest part. When it comes to other religions (including ones like bahai which are increasing in popularity) they have the appeal of being new kids on the block. People, in contrast, think that they know and understand Christianity, which in many cases they really don’t.

          • Damaris Tighe

            You only have to see the truth of your last sentence in many of the comments that appear right here, by people who consider themselves to be opposed to leftism & all its works.

  • Malcolm Stevas

    Pity that Young’s piece starts with a picture captioned “far right”, that sad label dashed off reflexively by lazy journalists, as well as by Leftists for whom anyone to the right of (say) Hugh Gaitskell is a fascist. Is Young aware that UKIP is still frequently labelled “far right”, absurdly enough, even by so-called “centre right” types?
    The FN is too Statist and authoritarian to suit me, but it isn’t “far right”: it does not wish to stick all non-Aryans into cattle trucks and deport them to the gulag, its supporters do not wish to parade in paramilitary uniform. Unlike typical supporters of our own neofascist BNP…
    The FN is conservative, tough on law ‘n’ order, anti-immigration – and anti-EU from the start, which ought to gather it some support in this country, some encouragement for it to do still better in France pour encourager les autres among the UK political classes…
    And the FN has been doing better in recent years, as Young notes. So 16% of those polled in France have some sympathy with ISIS? In the 2012 presidential elections the FN secured 18% of votes in the first round, better than they ever did previously. More power to their elbow I say – a pragmatic view I feel safe in holding since I don’t have to make a decision whether or not to vote for them…
    I do not accept the fatalistic view of Young that “The enlightenment project of basing liberal values on reason and empiricism has long been discredited…” I see no conflict between patriotic, liberal, moderately nationalist policies such as those advanced by UKIP, and enlightenment values. I do however agree with Young when he writes, “The West is crying out for a leader who can solve this conundrum.” We are crying out for leaders of the calibre this country has had in the past, leaders who place principle and conviction above Party political manoeuvering, who are intellectually robust – and who are patriotic, wedded unshakeably to England’s unique history and to the cultural integrity of its people.

    • The_Missing_Think

      “Unlike typical supporters of our own neofascist BNP…”
      _____

      There’s the madness that created Londonistan.

      Stevas and his up-tickers backstabbed the Cockneys, and they’re still having a good crow about it.

      Nice people. First they came for the ‘plebs’…

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Still not recovered from your Saturday night’s boozing with the boys down the Third Reich regalia collectors club, I see. I’ve known (still know) Cockneys and they wouldn’t give you the time of day. Keep on fantasising.

        • The_Missing_Think

          No, fact – see below – you called, and still are calling, ‘German’ coloured British Nationlist Nahhzzies, yet you’re very ok with the Israeli Govt issuing DNA tested passports. Not one insult for the Jewish race. Not one ever.

          Your racial hypocrisy – in part – created Londonistan, here is the evidence:

          “Just 44.9% of Londoners are White British, according to census data”

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html#ixzz3S5xefGsB

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Your obsession with Israel/Jews is par for the course…

          • The_Missing_Think

            It’s a direct racial parallel that goes to the crux of everything.

            That’s why you cannot give an honest explanation, as to why you support DNA tested passports for one race, but not the ‘German’ coloured races…. hhmmm… isn’t there a word for this?

            Just layer upon layer of evasive sneers, but you never give a clear explantion. This says a lot about your imaginary ‘English’ values.

          • Clive

            When the SS first started they would not accept people with dental fillings because they thought it implied genetic weakness.

            Have you got fillings ?

            The question is, what would you use the racial passport for ? And why ?

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I advise you not to employ reason with this fellow: he’s a bit of a weirdo to say the least.

          • The_Missing_Think

            “The question is, what would Israel use the racial passport for ? And why ?”
            _____

            Why can’t you see your own default raced based moral duplicity, (see above DNA passport citation ), is a form of racial passive aggression?

            As with Stevas, you refuse to treat all races equally, and have different moral standards… based on… race. That’s plain wrong, and you both know it.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Good grief, wind you up and you churn out the same old guff like a clockwork toy. Your think is still missing.

          • The_Missing_Think

            Until you stop evading and give an honest answer, you force repetition.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Where oh where do you get this odd conceit that I ought to answer your dimwit questions? Your incomprehension is economy sized.

          • The_Missing_Think

            Asking why racial equality is being denied, isn’t a dim witted question.

            Why do you vehemently oppose the European races having exactly the same DNA calibre passports – that you heartily approve of – as the Jewish race does?

            I note you’re not denying you support the concept passports being DNA based, for some.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Hard to believe, but you are even more thick than I thought. I have no idea what you’re talking about in para 2, or this weird “DNA based” thing – I presume it’s part of your post-Hitlerian fantasy about Zionist world domination. Your think is not so much missing, as receding rapidly into outer space.

          • The_Missing_Think

            You’ve been given the evidence many, many times… sigh… here it is again… read it perhaps?

            “The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that many Jews from the FSU who were born out-of-wedlock can be required to bring DNA confirmation of Jewish heritage in order to be allowed to immigrate as a Jew.”

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-speakers-who-want-to-immigrate-could-need-dna-test/

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Why on earth would I follow any link provided by you, or read something on this topic? I am indifferent to Israel’s immigration policies. You’re obsessed with Israel and the Jews. I’m not. Most of us are not. You’re a creepy obsessive.

          • The_Missing_Think

            The link is called evidence, it records ‘facts’, they trump emotions, in the sane world.

            It’s from The Times of Israel, it’s what we call ‘concrete evidence’.

            It utterly trumps your spittle-flecked 1930s sneer rants…

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I bet you several bottles of ginger beer that it does no such thing.

          • The_Missing_Think

            “‘facts’, they trump emotions, in the sane world.” – 2 hours ago.

            Given the on-going stream of hallucinations you’re having, a caveat was included in anticipation of other known symptoms starting up.

            You’ve obviously ‘gone off’ again. Go get drunk or something.

        • Miss Floribunda Rose

          Do these Cockneys of yours still actually live in the East End? I went down there recently. There was not a Cockney to be seen, unless of course they had disguised themselves beneath a burka…..

          • Malcolm Stevas

            No, they don’t.

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            Why not?

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I’m sure you’ll provide the answer.

        • vieuxceps2

          “Keep on fantasising” If only you and your fascist lefty pals would stop fantasing we might get somewhere.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Would you care to elaborate, explain, propose something concrete? Interested by your somewhat rude “fascist lefty” idea: I’m not acquainted with any fascists, and although I’ve had (still have) one or two friends who were very Left, I have never shared their politics. I meet and mix with a wide variety of people, probably wider than most do, and I don’t interrogate them about their political stance before offering friendship…
            Does your name mean something like “old mushroom”? Just guessing. Perhaps you’re an old Tory? I’m a sort of getting-on-a-bit former Tory.

          • vieuxceps2

            The name is derived from that of a very fine wine. I’m surprised you don’t know that. All my friends know that, both of them if you include my mother,but even so,they wouldn’t dream of patronising me.They know it’s never a good idea.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Well, I’m not exactly a supreme oenophile, just have a keen appreciation of middling decent wine, so you’ll have to forgive my ignorance. Not patronising you, just trying to understand your puzzling remark about “fascist lefty pals”.

      • Miss Floribunda Rose

        The Cockneys are on the verge of extinction. They have been ‘cleansed’. Looks like poor old Alf was right all along…..

        • Guilttripjunkie

          Yes Alf wasn’t really a racist bigot but was a victim of ethnic cleansing.

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            He was a racist bigot, and he has been cleansed. There are no more racist bigots in the East End. The silly old moo has also been cleansed.

          • Guilttripjunkie

            Many moved to areas like Thurrock in Essex in the sixties and seventies. They now find themselves being pushed out of that area as the great enrichment process expands into places like Thurrock. Westminster council were buying up comparatively cheap homes in towns like Grays and then moving their less wealthy ethnic minority residents to these properties. I know numerous “Alfs” who are moving into North East Essex and East Anglia.

    • jim

      Islam was driven out of western europe at the point of a sword hundreds of years ago. If this had not happened we’d all be moslems today.If liberal democracy cannot keep islam at bay then I’m prepared to try another way.The Liberal Democratic value system has to take some of the blame for sinking us into this mess.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        I cannot agree. Liberal values and democracy are very fine things and we discard them at our peril. But they depend for their proper functioning on having competent, principled leaders to oversee them. Sooner or later we’ll have decent people again, but for the moment we are led by donkeys.

        • Zaba

          Sooner or later we’ll have decent people again…..

          One problem: islam

        • vieuxceps2

          We are led by donkeys because we have been donkeys for so long,believing in the absurd “progressive” views of the vocal (gobby) lefties and their unpatriotic anti-White agendas. We’ve been dormant, tme to wake up, time to return to the world of reality. If we don’t we will become a failed and faded people merged and bred into oblivion.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Well, sort of, maybe – I just hope you’re not a chum of that “Missing Link” (?) BNP bloke who’s worryingly obsessive about Israel, Jews etc…

          • vieuxceps2

            Your comment is rather strange. Are you the class-monitor? Must I have yourseal of approval before writing?

          • Malcolm Stevas

            ??

    • vieuxceps2

      Well said. It is essential that we begin to talk about England rathe than Britain as that “State” will soon be gone and we need to re-establish ourelves with our own Paliament and to revert to being English once again. We have far too many hyphenated citizens claiming to be “British”.

    • Corneliu Codreanu

      learn the correct definition of right. Right is monarchist and in favor of hierarchy, state religion, etc. There are no ‘far right’ parties in Europe, unfortunately. Nationalist parties yes, but remember nationalism was in opposition to the right during its inception because it wanted the breakup of things like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Nazis were not right wing, they were just cast that way by the Communists who wanted to portray themselves as the far left.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Thanks, but I’ve been around long enough to know what “right” means. Your moniker is like that of a Romanian vampire. I’m a nationalist but not an authoritarian: I prefer freedom of the individual, political liberty. For me and mine, within my own country, natch.

        • Corneliu Codreanu

          But inevitably this elects leftists to power. History shows this to be the case.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            What do you mean by “this”? Political liberty? If you flush that down the toilet and install some far-right gang in power, rather than similar leftists, what exactly have you gained?

  • MrBishi

    I’m not at all sure that an article bemoaning the demise of liberal democracy does any favours to itself by attacking the very pillar’s on which liberal democracy stands.
    There are many reasons why the concept of liberal democracy is being eroded starting with the decision of the fourth estate to become an arm of the establishment.
    But that’s just my view.

    • new_number_2

      There seems to be so much pessimism around these days.

      • MrBishi

        Pessimism sells newspapers.

        • new_number_2

          True, sadly.

        • Miss Floribunda Rose

          Optimism sells magazines.

          • Sue Smith

            So does ostentatious, Facebook-mourning.

          • MrBishi

            Perhaps the richest 10% do buy magazines.

      • Bristol_Boy

        Not as much as there is apathy.

      • Miss Floribunda Rose

        Pessimism produces insight. Read Arthur Schopenhauer.

    • right1_left1

      Definitions:
      Liberal: while not accurately bounded those interested in politics will have an idea of what the word means
      It does have major downsides which are circumvented by never asking the elctorate what they want…
      eg?
      Homosexual marriage
      Lots see this as liberal.
      I and many others see it as a retrograde step undermiing the evolved naturally state of marriage.and in keeping with the ‘non judgemental’ attitudes of many who consider themselves liberal but who in fact damage everything they try to improve..
      Dont mention immigration or the death penalty.

      Democracy: a word that when examined closely has no meaning at all.
      eg?
      The Scottish in/out referendum
      How was the democratic will of the 45% who voted YES expessed. ?

      • MrBishi

        The phrase “liberal democracy” has a meaning that is not necessarily the sum of its parts.
        In particular it emphasises “fairness” and nothing could be fairer than allowing a minority of the population the chance to enjoy marriage just like the rest of us.
        I’m not sure that you are ready for an explanation of democracy.

        • blandings

          You are a disappointment Mr Bishi.
          I thought that there was more to you than this.

          • MrBishi

            My views on gay marriage have been often repeated.

          • blandings

            It was not your support for gay marriage as such that I was referring to, but your reasoning, which I found facile.

          • MrBishi

            Interesting.
            Which part of: ‘The phrase “liberal democracy” has a meaning that is not necessarily the sum of its parts.’
            particularly drew your wrath?
            And while you are writing I would appreciate a pointer to the error/facileness in my “reasoning”.

          • blandings

            Marriage has nothing to do with “liberal democracy”.
            You are just signalling your virtue.

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            The mutilation of marriage and handing it to perverts is a direct symptom of liberal democracy in which the government, elected as it is, seeks to destroy the institutions which might jockey for power and authority in the lives of the populace. So the government attacks the church, attacks the father-figure, attacks anything which people might look to for guidance which doesn’t fit the paradigm of the left.

            Any support by ‘heterosexuals’ for same-sex marriage is indeed just virtue-signaling. The same for “I’m not a racist!”. If you could somehow make it virtuous to once more oppose middle age men raping adopted infants, then these people would be on your side. Unfortunately, the ones in power shape the narrative, and they have deemed every perversity imaginable to be virtuous, including men who cut off their penises and walk into women’s locker rooms.

          • MrBishi

            You appear to have exhausted your critique of my post and are now standing on the sidelines making silly comments.
            My comment – had you bothered to read it – was about gay marriage where notions of fairness have triumphed over bigotry and ignorance.

          • blandings

            I merely pointed out that marriage has nothing to do with liberal democracy.
            I’m not married myself – barbaric institution.

          • MrBishi

            You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment or Mrs Bishi would set about me with the frying pan again.

          • blandings

            I wouldn’t wan t to get you into trouble, so please assure Mrs Bishi that I was just being provocative for comic effect.

        • right1_left1

          Your claim that the phrase ‘liberal democracy’ has a meaning different than the the sum of its parts is really just an attempt by you to make words mean what you think they mean.

          if we belonged to different sects of Islam we would fight to the death over the matter.
          if I were a Brahmin Hindu I would know you were wrong by virtue of my social status
          Were I a UK parliamentarian I would impose ‘homosexual’ marriage on society with never a mention in any manifesto..

          Your use of the word ‘fairness’ is totally naive.
          That may be considered fair is what is thought to be fair
          Likewise with the word ‘justice’

          You haven’t got an explanation for the meaning of the word ‘democracy’ so to preserve your ego you ascribe limitations to me
          You a giant in your own estimation of yourself.

          ‘Homosexual marriage’ is the ‘oxymoron of oxymorons’ used by loose thinkers who care nothing for language , tradition and the role marriage ideally plays in the upbringing of children.

  • Bristol_Boy

    ‘do whatever it takes to get France’s existing Muslim population (7.5
    per cent of the total) to ‘integrate’, starting with the vigorous
    enforcement of the niqab ban introduced by Sarkozy five years ago.

    That seems fairly draconian’
    Draconian?????

    If these measures were contemplated in Britain the bleeding heart liberal left would be choking at the idea! but these feeble attempts to change things by a miserable law enforcement do not go far enough! either more rigorous measures are taken, or just do as they have doing for the past decades of ‘invasion’, NOTHING.

  • Randal

    The secular liberal values we cherish, such as ……. freedom of speech

    Particularly amusing to note that my reply to Young here was immediately censored (though it contained no undue personal abuse or obscenity, nor any advocacy of violence), purely because it expressed political views the Spectator evidently believes ought not to be expressed.

    Young and the Spectator will certainly hide as usual behind the notion of private property and claim that they merely prefer such views not to be expressed here. This is pure hypocrisy, both because such views are pretty consistently suppressed across the entirety of the British mainstream media, enabled by quasi-state “charitable” enforcement organisations and leftist bodies such as the NUJ – rendering it in effect as national censorship, and because it reveals the Spectator’s basic lack of belief in the underlying Enlightenment premises of free political speech – that truth can only be reached by free discussion and that one should “defend to the death” the right of others to say things with which one disagrees.

    The Spectator, Young, and the British political and media elites in general are the most blatant hypocrites as far as “free speech” is concerned.

    • colchar

      There is no free speech in the UK. Big Brother is alive and well.

      • Randal

        Which is exactly why we need to take every opportunity to keep reminding the liars who claim it is and to be believers in it, especially publications like the Spectator and hypocrites like Young, of that fact whenever they repeat their false claims.

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Let’s face it, generations of Marxism and post-modernism have deracinated (and i use the term advisedly) the intellectual power of the West. However powerful the critical mind challenging this idiotic position, there are more of them than us, and they have the institutions stitched-up. Few of us are secure enough materially to “deconstruct” this crap within our work-places, and it suits the CEOs, as managerialism is their sort of thing.

  • evad666

    Musn’t criticise the Muslims must we?

  • James Chilton

    “Is this the beginning of the end of liberal democracy?”

    Is there such a thing as an “illiberal democracy”? So what’s the difference between democracy and liberal democracy?

    • sidor

      “Liberal democracy” is contradiction in terms. Either liberalism or democracy. The right of an individual to express whatever opinion that contradicts the opinion of majority isn’t consistent with democracy. This is demonstrated by the well-known aggressive conformism of the American society.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        I’d certainly prefer liberty to democracy – but how about Switzerland? Pretty democratic, it seems to me, in a good way.

        • sidor

          It is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-confessional society, and these distinctions are geographically defined. I don’t think you would be able to freely criticise the Roman Catholic Church when living in a Catholic canton. Recently they voted against building a mosque.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Not a freedom any of us in this country are able to enjoy.

          • sidor

            Not any more, it seems. Did you hear about poor Tim Hunt crucified for his absolutely innocent remark? If the mob could do it with a Nobel laureate, they can do it with anyone.

  • JustSomeChap

    We need strong liberal democracy and laws that protect people’s rights to speak as they wish and do as they wish as long as they do not contravene the rights of others. We also need people who are not afraid to do what British people once did when their rights and liberties were challenged. Liberal Democracy is in no threat of dying out in the United States, I notice.

    • colchar

      You’re operating under the assumption that the US is a democracy.

      • JustSomeChap

        The US is far more democratic on a local level than anywhere in the UK. A country is not just its highest office and its legislature. Not to mention that while an American is arguably less represented in Washington DC then a Briton is at Westminster, they seem to be far more capable of protecting their established rights and liberties than we have been over the last century or so.

        • sidor

          Yes, it is. And for that reason there is much less freedom of discussion there.

      • Leftism is a societal cancer

        Democracy can never actually exist in a societal scale. It is utterly delusional. Oligarchy is the natural order of things because people aren’t equal and never will be. What democracy means in reality is a hidden financial oligarchy with puppet show parliaments. Give me real and open aristocracy over that any day

    • sidor

      You can never say anything that wouldn’t adversarially affect the feelings of some group of individuals. Remember the monkey trials? If you want to keep it nice and quiet, and everyone happy, forget about freedom of speech.

      • Sue Smith

        Watch the film “Inherit the Wind”. Produced in 1960 it had some very powerful things to say about freedom of speech through the prism of challenging some of the tenets of the Bible. Sound familiar?

        It was based on the “monkey trial” and, apart from the interminable drum-beating religious fundamentalist scenes, it has a magnificent argument to make. When a man wants to teach a more ‘literal’ understanding of the bible he is taken to court for his views which are seen as a direct challenge to the ‘credibility’ of the bible – which the folks there believe is based on FACT. Note that he wasn’t accused of being an Infidel and murdered!!

        The prosecuting lawyer is a bible-basher and the defense is a true liberal attorney. The liberal questions the fundamentalist prosecutor in a daring move – having him sit in the witness box!! The fundamentalist is more than ready to ‘defend’ his religion and the bible. The liberal asks the fundamentalist if he thinks God, believing all creatures have value, would think that a sponge – one of the lowest living creatures – has value. The fundamentalist answers, “yes…but if God wanted a sponge to think, it would think”.

        The prosecutor points his finger towards the accused and says, “This want wants to be accorded the rights of a sponge; he wishes to think”!

        • sidor

          I first saw the movie when I was 18. Recently I watched it again, and realised that the reality it reveals is much deeper than the specific event and the specific problem resulting in this event that was depicted. I am not sure those who made it realised what they showed. This is quite typical for any real piece of literature or drama: the author’s talent is in conveying, not in rational analysis of the phenomenon.

          This movie , and the story look quite peculiar in the context of the recent development. We see now that aggressive Darwinists are trying to use the same judicial system to suppress the right of their opponents to argue their opinion. It is really scary. Some academics were fired for disagreeing with the Darwinian rubbish, no rational public discussion of it is possible. This is just another view of the same phenomenon: conformism characteristic of the American democracy. Which spreads to Academia.

          “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

          Voltaire: “The best government is an enlightened despot”

          • Sue Smith

            Thank you for your considered and intelligent response.

          • sidor

            China is quite different. It is a strongly elitist society, traditionally run by meritocratic intelligentsia. For that reason the habits and opinions of the masses are strictly regulated, and cultural traditions are carefully preserved.

          • Kasperlos

            Good for you! You successfully fought back against one of the 21st century’s zombie Red Guards. Give as good as you get! These cultural Marxist academics are frauds, devoid of anything resembling an alive human being, but parrot all the claptrap someone shoved into their ears. Like spoilt children they are. Glad I’m the age I am and will never have to experience university in today’s horrid intolerant PC matrix. A prison factory, really.

          • sidor

            Interestingly, Stalin was very conservative in his tastes of music and literature. Disliked left-wing radicals. Liked opera and classical music, including Shostakovich and Prokofiev. The Russian culture really benefited from his rule. Maybe he wasn’t a real Marxist?

          • vieuxceps2

            Many think of him as a Stalinist. Odd, really.

      • JustSomeChap

        I don’t particularly care about keeping people happy. Regardless, the Scopes Trials (which were about violating a law passed against teaching evolution in a state school, which is different from expressing your opinion as a private citizen or in the press), the outcome of the trial led to a backlash against such practices. Why you’re bringing it up on the context of freedom of speech, I don’t know.

        • sidor

          You confuse several points. The US public is convinced that democratically elected legislature and courts, reflecting the opinion of the people, can decide concerning purely scientific issues. That is, a scientifically illiterate judge and scientifically illiterate members of the jury take the liberty to rule about the laws of Nature. 100 years ago they stopped teaching Darwinism, nowadays they are stopping anyone who argues against Darwin. This is the same problem of idiotic conformism characteristic of a democracy, whereby any rational discussion is suppressed.

          • JustSomeChap

            So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t like freedom of speech if it allows people to reach the wrong conclusion, and the answer is to remove freedom of speech?

          • sidor

            You didn’t get it again. I don’t like when the stupid and ignorant democratic majority uses judicial system and legislature to interfere in a scientific discussion which is well beyond their comprehension. They all, people, Congress and the judges should stay nice and quiet and mind their own business until the scientists inform them about what is right.

            A good example is the current hysteria about climate: every housewife, including journalists and politicians, have their opinion about it.

          • JustSomeChap

            I get it completely. I disagree with you. Part of the problems of being free is that you are free to make mistakes, but it is not worth giving up the benefits for that risk.

  • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

    Quoting the article “The secular liberal values we cherish, such as the separation of church and state and freedom of speech, won’t survive in the face of growing religious animosity unless they’re rooted in something more intellectually and spiritually compelling than capitalist individualism.”

    -Freedom of Speech is a conservative value rooted in the US constitution

    -Multiculturalism is a liberal value that allowed for an “open door” policy on immigration going on the assumption that all faiths, cultures and people are basically equal.

    -Secularism goes back centuries in Europe when Galileo challenged the orthodoxy of the Papacy that ideas can take place outside of the Church. It evolved to what eventually became the separation of the church from politics.

    -Individualism is one of the best examples of the right of citizens to be free from cultural norms, and the imposition of the State of Faith, including the freedom to think and live as one chooses.

    Finally what makes the situation in Europe and the US so hard to accept and that is the arrival of Islam is that the reverse is not considered. No Muslim nation would allow people of other faiths to become citizens of their nations, build Cathedrals. Temples, Viharas, Synagogues, or Gurudwaras but they expect that privilege from Non Muslim nations

    • Malcolm Stevas

      You’re misusing “liberal” in that American way – perhaps you’re American? To be “liberal” is simply to be fair and open minded, not to be confused with the “progressive” Leftists whose politics are ultimately authoritarian, Statist and illiberal.

      • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

        Maybe I am but then I am an American, so my opinion would be biased by my culture.

        • kingkevin3

          Americans invented free speech…what a laugh. You are joking right?

          • Sue Smith

            I think he was referring to the American variety of ‘free speech’?

          • vieuxceps2

            “We must be free or die/ Who speak the tongue that Shakespeare spake…..”

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            If I ever said that “Americans invented or discovered” free speech it would be said as a joke. you misquoted me. then you take your own misquote of what I wrote and find it hilarious. See the problem?

      • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

        What is your definition of “fair and open minded”? if that is what liberalism means to you?.
        also
        the flip side would mean to be conservative is to be the opposite or “Unfair and close minded” again what aspects would your concept a conservative who is “unfair and close minded” be on?

        • Malcolm Stevas

          It’s what “liberal” means in English – that is, its traditional/dictionary meaning, in England. Not just my personal definition. Your hypothesis about “conservative” doesn’t even begin to follow.

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            That is not what I asked you. I asked you if you believe that liberal thinking is
            “fair and open minded” you must have some concept of what that means to you. just going by your comments you have a good grasp of the English language to expand on it. So what is ‘fair and open minded” in your opinion

            and

            if so then a conservative, by definition, will have to be the opposite, so they are “unfair and close minded”. again what does that mean to you? Now if you reverse those questions to me without first addressing them yourself remember you gave me that definition. then it is up to you to follow through by what that means.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            You really do not understand: you’re still thinking of “liberal” in its corrupted US sense. I am rather conservative so I am liberal minded – because conservatives reject the illiberal paternalism of the Left. Right?

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            Malcolm
            we both know what “fair and open minded” mean but it changes according to what each person considers those words. ‘
            If you want to avoid a direct simple question of your own definition of liberalism fine, i really do not care,.but please save your sermons to me about the meaning of liberalism when you do not even have the guts enough to explain what you mean.

          • Headstrong

            Bernie, why do you resort to ad hominem attacks as soon as you have nothing to say? We both know that you don’t know what “fair and open minded” means – not if it came and socked you on the nose! You are as bigoted and racist as those you accuse, if they do not fall in line with your views. You shout from the rooftops about “American values”, yet you resort to hate speech about Obama and calling his wife a black b**ch. You speak against ISIS, but salivate at the prospect of them repeating their savage attacks on “others”. You really are in no position to lecture others…..

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            You mean

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            That was what Falco said after he returned from India and after I read his book I had to agree.

          • Headstrong

            Thank you, Bernie, for confirming what I just said

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            You mean

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            That was what Falco said after he returned from India and after I read his book I had to agree.

            You are welcome. Glad to help anytime

          • Headstrong

            Let me say again – What *I* just said. Racist, bigoted, intolerant, coward, juvenile – and now moronic too! You’re making progress, Bernie!

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            Personal attacks again headstrong? and all because of this?

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?
            and “India Shattering the Illusion. The Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” by Columbus Falco

            That was what Falco said after he returned from India and after I read his book I had to agree.

          • Headstrong

            No those are not personal attacks, just facts. What you say about the Brits though – they’re downright filthy, not just personal. Shame, Bernie!

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            But this is a fact too

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Headstrong

            Your repeating it sadly doesn’t make it so. Refer Einstein’s definition of insanity. You provide a definitive example, Bernie

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            and you sadly tail me

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Headstrong

            Not at all, Bernie. Your repeating of hate does not make it true. Similarly, your endorsement of ISIS’s tactics only shows your true self – unlike the moderate image you attempt to portray. You are anything but moderate – your racism, bigotry, cowardice and pathological hatred (even towards the Brits, towards you aimed some pretty unsavoury remarks about what they do when they wear kilts) is evidence. Your comments on these articles bear witness
            http://atimes.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-brings-back-haunting-memories-to-mumbais-2611-victims/
            http://atimes.com/2015/11/is-financed-from-40-countries-including-g20-members-putin/
            “Go run along to one of your British mosques The Muslims will give you a penny for a blo job”
            “Do you realize bugring sheep were done by you British a long time ago and well before the Romans did it?did you also realize that you British wear girly skirts which are called kilts and it is because it is easy to bugr the sheep when one wears a skirt with no underwear?” and so on…….

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            Yes it is headstrong and that includes your pathetic attempts to even make websites of your insanity. or that you are angry because:

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            That was what Falco said after he returned from India and after I read his book I had to agree.

          • Headstrong

            The websites are there, Bernie, and so are your comments.

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            ooo so you want prove something? that you are a nut case or that you are mad at me?

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Headstrong

            No, Bernie, you do a good job of proving that you are a nut yourself…..

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            But you just love it so you tail me and why?

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Headstrong

            To see you dig a deeper hole for yourself, Bernie. That is fun!

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            You love the hole

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            You headstrong are doing it better of what you are

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Headstrong

            Tell me, Bernie – do you pathologically hate the British too? or are you just casually contemptuous of them?

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            The British may want to know why this saying is so true. when they go to India and get r*ped or robbed or murdered they will remember this:

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?
            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Headstrong

            But they still come, Bernie. Anyway, done making a fool out of you here. Next, on other sites 🙂

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            Oh please do. I need to let as many people know this:

            INDIA = “I’ll “N”ever “D”o “I”ndia “A”gain?

            or
            the book
            “India shattering the illusion. the Birth of New Nations. Kashmir to Elam” By Columbus Falco

          • Malcolm Stevas

            BS, Bernard: you have access to a dictionary? Look up “liberal” – the non-US, traditional, general meaning… I repeat, it’s not my personal definition! You want me to write you an essay, just because you fail to understand basic terminology? Not a chance.

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            I just did Malcolm and here is the quote:

            “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” That is around what you stated but not exactly,. I got it from Google.

            What I quoted did not say “fair and open minded” and my quote which says “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values” applies to Mussolini. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini , Pol Pot too. They were “Open to new behavior and opinions and willing to discard traditional values”

            that is why I specifically asked you what does “Fair and open minded” mean to you. It is vague and nebulous at best.

            those terms be they what you or I quoted are subject to the time. What one considers “traditional” or “new ideas’ change. those “new Ideas” with time, become traditional in an ever changing society. So you have to define those terms or the reader has to fill it in with his own concepts.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            OED: “(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform: a liberal democratic state…” Your references to 20thC tyrants in this context are bizarre.

          • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

            it is normal if you strictly interpret Liberalism according the dictionary version. that is why change for the ‘better” includes those people. Lenin was loved, so was Hitler, so was Mao, so was Khomeini by those who got them into power
            .
            Individuality
            Free market economics
            “moderate political and social reform” is too vague for me. Again what is your concept of this.
            The concept of
            “Individuality ” today is conservative for that means a “hands off” approach to society , government interference, tradition, etc. It defines the old rugged American persona.
            Liberalism today in the US is exactly the opposite.

            Free market economics is a far cry from the regulations and taxes imposed by the government which have full support by the liberals who want government intervention.

            In Europe the concept of “multiculturalism” goes against the people of Europe and is imposed by a small few including the leaders. it is based that all people regardless of culture,. religion or ideology are equal, and the liberals support that
            they consider Multiculturalism
            “Fair and Open minded” for Europe should be “fair and open minded” to the teeming masses from around the world. .

    • Randal

      Freedom of Speech is a conservative value rooted in the US constitution

      Now it is, but originally it wasn’t. The American secession, precisely because it was a regional secession led by local elites and not a popular revolution, was an interesting confusion of conservative and liberal ideas. Free speech is generally advocated defensively by those out of power, which is why it is mostly an issue for conservatives today in our progressivist dominated societies (it’s also a conservative issue partly because it’s been established dogma for a long time, prior to its current suppression by offence-mongering leftists).

      Those in power, such as our modern leftist elites, generally don’t like free speech because it is inherently threatening to them and the ideological dogmas that sustain them. That’s why even supposedly “conservative” establishment publications routinely censor nationalist, racist, sexist, anti-“h omophobic” etc opinion.

      • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

        You are right that originally it was “traditional liberal” or the Jeffersonian principles that included a good deal from Europe, and “traditional conservatism” during the American revolution would have leaned towards the British Monarchy

        Then one has the “contemporary liberal” where censorship is based on politically correct terminology and has become the government, while “contemporary conservatism” should be open to free speech and decentralization of the government (as in amendment 10 of the Constitution).

      • Sue Smith

        That last paragraph of yours; apposite. If anything, it will be always ‘consensus’ and ‘free speech’ on the Left’s terms!!

        Priceless. And rubbish.

    • global city

      Respect and empathy need to be mutual, or it is really just pathological altruism.

      • Sue Smith

        SPOT ON.

      • vieuxceps2

        “pathological altruism”? For Europe it has been suicidal altruism.

      • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

        In the context of my comment I agree.

  • Hegelman

    So some Muslims resorted to terrorism and the great liberal tradition the West has been so proud of went kaput?

    ISIS achieved what even Hitler could not?

    Seems a pretty shabby ending to me, smacking of arrant cowardice.

    And how ridiculous and mean to suggest all immigrants are somehow a threat. When most are not even Muslim.

    The West has coldbloodedly encouraged Islamic fanaticism to fight the Soviets. It is now reaping the results.

    • vieuxceps2

      In answer to your five points:-
      1) Our liberal tradition is not being imperilled by terrorrism from Islam but by the increasing presence of muslims amongst us.
      2) Imagine if there had been millions of German people living in the European lands,what a weapon Hitler had there.
      3) Not all muslims are a threat, nobody said they were. Add up the totals of muslims in Europe and Scandinavia and you’ll find that they outnumber the others.
      4)The soviets invaded Afghanistan,whose people resisted them. The Cold War was on, so the West supplied arms on the basis of my enemy’s enemy is my friend.
      Revise facts and history as you will, reality remains inviolate.

  • Alison Houston

    Don’t be so negative Toby.

    • Sue Smith

      That’s right; form a circle, sing Kumbaya, burn candles and incense and then engage in a group hug. After that, make sure OTHER PEOPLE are willing to die to protect the freedoms you value.

      Keep up your bogus refulgences if they make you feel better. The rest of us have business to attend to.

  • Randal

    And here’s another great “white liberal encounters reality, runs away” anecdote:

    Trying to Gentrify a Jihadi Neighborhood: The Molenbeek Case Study

  • Cornelius Bonkers

    “literal interpretations” are the only kind which most Moslems can deal with. Even those who “study” the Koran only learn to recite it. This is a primitive religion and way of life and we ought to have nothing to do with it. As for its “intellectuals” – Tariq Ramadan especially – in the valley of the blind it’s SO much easier to impart radicalism under the cloak of moderation…and they do…

    • red2black

      Yet Islam is one of the three Abrahamic religions that share the same God and earliest mythical and historical figures.

      • Mongo

        share the same God? I thought Allah was the only true God

        • red2black

          I’m not religious.

          • Mongo

            yes you are

          • red2black

            How so?

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            Modernism is a religion, it has its own dogmas, and it worships progress. The so-called enlightenment was simply the imposition of a new religion. Man cannot escape religion.

          • red2black

            Religion means re-joining with God.

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            and modernity has its god, it just isn’t the God mentioned in any of the sacred texts of the world.

          • red2black

            I understand what you say in terms historical continuity, which may be regarded as regressive by some and progressive by others. Karl Marx replaced Religious man with Economic man, for example, while Aleister Crowley described Science as being the new Magic.

        • Guilttripjunkie

          According to his more extreme followers he is the ‘best’ god. My god is better than your god seems pathetic in the late 21st Century, yet Mo’s legions of extremist followers believe this to be true.

          • red2black

            ‘the late 21st Century’? (tee hee)

          • Guilttripjunkie

            Oops my mistake but is your god better than mine?

          • red2black

            When it comes to proof-reading, probably so.

      • LittleRedRidingHood

        Share the same God? Err no! Just because Mo plagurised existing texts for his own ends does Not mean Christendom or Judaism shares anything with that ideology.

        • red2black

          Which texts were plagiarised? Judaism considers Christianity to be heretical.

          • Mongo

            Islam was an artificially created religion invented by a deeply narcissistic, yet very charismatic man with a messiah complex, who managed to convince a lot of other people (usually by the threat of violence) that God was speaking to him (and him only)

            essentially a medievel version of Scientology, with a founder similar to the likes of Jim Jones or David Koresh

          • red2black

            A sort of variation on “He’s not the Messiah… He’s a very naughty boy!”

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            The difference between Mohamed and Jesus was that the latter staked his entire claim on rising bodily from the dead, while the former staked his entire claim on his military success.

            Military success can occur through chance or skill, resurrection cannot.

          • LittleRedRidingHood

            To recycle important figures from other religions and decree that yours is the final word does not put Islam in the same theological group as the other two. Mo was a schizo who recognised how control the masses, very clever, but unhinged.

      • JohnJ

        “share the same God” what an idiotic cliché. What in God’s name ( whoops!) does that mean? Please have a bit of a think about what you just wrote. Is it like ‘time share’? Do they all pray to the same… ehhhh .. person thing. Then why does the last shareholder (33.3%) want to kill the first two?

        • red2black
          • JohnJ

            Oh no I’ve been wiki’d, So you have no argument – no thoughts – no intellectual defense of your position, no pride …… the ultimate academic end of discussion – an online reference. For Heaven’s sake.

          • red2black

            Fair enough. I’m not a religious person, but… ‘There is only one God’.
            Other than that, there either isn’t a God or any gods at all, or there are more gods than one. The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, insist that there is only one God.

          • JohnJ

            Red – I like you so I am going to tell you are few things you can use in life. First is the Christians spent a long time and many deaths arguing about the trinity and variations. See Nicaea and Chalcedon . Was Jesus another God, one expression of God or just a regular guy. Then the Hasidics ( Jews) can argue with God – never heard that from our Islamic brethren. Then the various secs of Islam – even though they say there is only one God – have a terrible time ensuring that no one worships Mohammed or any of the Ayatollahs. Then there is the whole problem of angels and devils.
            So “only one God” stuff is more an admonition than a description of fact. Basically it is code for “get rid of your god/s and hang with ours or we will kill/starve/enslave you”.
            Basically there has always been a tapestry of gods, but it suits WIki’s of the world to go with the one God byte – it’s simpler and fits the Hexadeca code of the modern world

          • red2black

            It sounds like what should really be neat and tidy is actually a complete mess. That seems to happen a lot.

      • Cornelius Bonkers

        Mmmm! I’m inclined to answer: so what? As the most recent manifestation of monotheism, Islam imagines its message from God to be the purest and most “accurate” form of it – obviously an absurdity. Islam is a catastrophe for us and especially if you are a woman, gay, a child of more than 6 years of age (especially if you are a pretty boy) an apostate and so on…

        • red2black

          I’m inclined to ask why people make these things up.

          • Cornelius Bonkers

            Which things? Religious things?

          • red2black

            Yes.

          • Cornelius Bonkers

            I fear liberalism’s consolations – peace, wealth, welfare state, social order – are no match for the consolations of the religious life, particularly as they are imagined at the most literal/primitive end of the spectrum (Islam). When the chips are down, This-life can never compete with the After-life…members of Liberal democracies will sacrifice themselves in war and personal life for payback in this-world but never in the world-to-come…

          • red2black

            No-one knows what happens after you die. If there is an after-life, I hope it’s a pleasant one. If there isn’t an afterlife, then so be it.

          • Cornelius Bonkers

            Er, OK!

  • Sue Smith

    So-called “liberal democracy” won’t survive when so many seem more than enthusiastic about actually giving it away. The seeds of its destruction will occur from within. We are only now coming to terms with the war of attrition which is political correctness.

    • aspeckofboggart

      “me” is missing at the end of middle sentence.

      • Sue Smith

        You were there in spirit, my man!!

    • vieuxceps2

      Political Correctness is a powerful weapon used by leftiess ,as you say, in their war of ttrition. Every day it seems that more actions and words become anathema to it. We must fight back. Otherwise We will lose the war .

      • Sue Smith

        Please listen to this appalling piece of audio from our national broadcaster, the ABC. It’s an interview with a muslim ‘academic’ and sometime talk-show clown, Waleed Aly, a massive apologist for Islam who says “IS isn’t powerful at all”. LIsten, please to the sneering comments about the Paris massacre. This Waleed Aly is ubiquitous on Australian TV as a kind of know-it-all apologist for Islam. He has been nicknamed as Comical Aly after his nemesis “Chemical Aly” (remember him?). I find this a deplorable piece of cant and it tells us a lot about the so-called mentality of public broadcasting. Please listen and tell me your thoughts:

        https://soundcloud.com/702abcsydney/air-waleed-aly#t=0:00

        • vieuxceps2

          I listened to your audio excerpt, Sue. The interviewer certainly allowed the muslim fellow an easy ride, but It was interesting to hear him say how weak Isil,or Da’esh, are and in reality and could easily be wiped out. Even if true it would just be a short time before the jihadis became martyrs in the eyes of othe muslims and the whole shebang would start again.
          We do need to lose our mealy-mouthed approach to the islamic faith and tell the truth about their customs and practices so that people may understand what will happen if we simply go on as we are.As you say, a good start would be to resist the encroachment of PC language.I never accepted being told what I may say ,other than when kindness is wanted, so I will not start now.

          • Sue Smith

            We just need to tell all the European leaders, including Russia (and I guess Assad would be keen to know!) just how weak IS, or Da’esh, really is. Perhaps it’s just another political beat-up to avert the public’s eyes to, well, what..? When they just needed to consult Comical Aly!!!

  • ohforheavensake

    No.

    Next question?

    • vieuxceps2

      “Next question?”-What shall we do about it?

  • Veritas

    The French author Jean Raspail predicted in his novel The Camp of the Saints that Western Europe would be destroyed by a deluge of Third Worlders.
    The biggest threat to European civilisation is not climate change but population change.
    The misery, chaos and violence caused by mass immigration tempts one like the Roman to utter the phrase:
    Delenda est Carthago !

    • Mongo

      the global population explosion in the Third World will be the defining issue for mankind in the 21st century. Expect large scale droughts, famines and wars for resources across much of the third world. Horrible to contemplate, but that’s the way things are going

      This will lead to mass emigration to the West, which as we know has already started. If western nations don’t consider seriously toughening their stance on immigration, then the Third world’s catastrophes will bring the West down with it. Unless we believe that 6 billion people can all squeeze into Europe, North America and Australia, as some like Green nutter Natalie Bennett, Corbyn and Benedict Cumberbatch seem to believe

      all this might be avoidable if people could demonstrate a little care with family planning, or in Jeremy Kyle’s words ‘put something on the end of it!’

      • trobrianders

        European peoples didn’t get this far by being dumb enough to hold onto ‘liberal’ values in the face of all this.

      • Guilttripjunkie

        The populations in the MENA and sub Saharen African regions are doubling every twenty five years. The left refuse to accept this underpins the causes of the so called refugee crisis.

        • Mongo

          it’s a numbers game – the more children one has, the greater likelihood some will survive childhood to reach adulthood. That’s the mindset of these cultures.

          • red2black

            There’s a contradiction there between having a lot of children in the hope a couple of them will survive into adulthood, primarily to care and provide for their parents in their old-age, and the idea that people shouldn’t have kids if they can’t afford them. More generally, it’s a consequence of poverty.

          • Guilttripjunkie

            Most are reaching adulthood, judging by the the birth bulges in these countries.

      • Autolocus

        Failing which cut it out.

  • Singularis

    It may not be the end of democracy but liberalism perhaps. The trouble with liberalism is that it has become neither consistant nor liberal – those who push this modern version of liberalism are at heart spiteful authoritarians posing as liberals, seeking to dictate, in detail, what we should do, think and say. Worse than that, they apply their so-called values on the basis of favouritism for certain minority groups, completely abandoning the idea of consistancy.
    It is a suprise they lasted as long as they have and whether you like Le Pen, Farage or anyone else with strong, clear ideas, it is that clarity and sense of purpose that makes people support them.

  • jack

    Liberal democracy is dying because it gave more credence to the idea of championing minority causes rather than taking care of the majority.

    The neglect and sidelining of majority values in pursuit of end of stage Roman decadence is the result we see today; with societies ironically paralysed into inertia, due to ever more laws created in pursuit of fashioning the utopian ideal of a so called ” Liberal democracy”.

    • vieuxceps2

      “Minority causes rarher than……majority”-Exactly so.See the new and strange transgender lobby adopted by gays to further their cause(s).One ofthe minority causes which fails to get support is christianity,which some decades ago was in fact a majority whilst the greatest care is taken to avoid hurt to the muslims ,sikhs ,hindus etc. Why should this be I wonder? There are others of course, usually causes followed by White people which do not benefit from financial or legal help,rather the reverse. Often there is a distinct feelling in the media and in entertainment that the causes of White people, especially English people, deserve to be mocked and ridiculed,for the merriment and delight of the lefty establishment.( When they’re not revising our history of course).It does not lead to “social cohesion”-so why do they do it?

      • jack

        “so why do they do it?”

        Because that little bit of extra education they have, makes them believe they are capable of superior intellectual thought over the majority.

        And instead of seeking help from a doctor for being delusional , they will most likely seek comfort with other like minded people in the world of politics, media, entertainment and higher education, where they can practice their form of ‘lateral’ thinking.

        So here we are. Where people ranging from Blair to Jones to Brand, have literally buggered our Society.

  • trobrianders

    Does Young not see how these authoritarian ‘liberal’ values have become entrenched in the West? Civil administration, local, national and international politics, education, broadcast media and even parts of the military are under their control. Only a hard right government could even begin to purge these institutions.

    • Autolocus

      Not least the British Broadcasting Corruption.

  • Lady Magdalene

    When the liberal intelligentsia of western Europe decided to impose Communitarianism on western European nations in the form of the EU, they deliberately weakened nation states and their belief in their own Sovereignty, democracies and national leadership. They then extended it eastwards.
    At the same time the liberal British Establishment ramped up mass immigration and decided to impose a policy of multiculturalism on the native British people.
    Enoch Powell warned us what would happen. He warned us about the EEC/EU and he warned us about mass immigration and multiculturalism. On both counts he was right.
    The Elite destroyed him ….. at the same time as they hit the self-destruct button for the UK and western Europe. They can’t say they weren’t warned.

    • vieuxceps2

      No they can’t say they were’nt warned.But neither can we, the people. And what did we do about it? Sweet FA. Hence the England of today.

  • stewart

    “Is this the beginning of the end of liberal democracy?”
    No, hopefully it’s the end of the beginning of it

  • trobrianders

    Wouldn’t it have been so much easier on everyone if we ha just declared War on Arabs from the very beginning?

    • TRAV1S

      Isn’t that what the Communists did in the USSR?

      • trobrianders

        They lacked imagination

        • Corneliu Codreanu

          believe me, the USSR had far more imagination than pathetic atheistic westerners

    • Leftism is a societal cancer

      We need Christianity in the West.

      Atheism on a large scale in society means nihilism and apathy. It means anti-natalism and consumerism. http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf

      • locomotion

        Nope, atheism is more likely to mean living free, not been shackled by belief in false goods, enjoying life because you know there’s no afterlife, judging things on their own rather than employing ancient religious dogma, and so on. Anyway, I take it you’re an atheist about the approximately 5,000 other gods that have been believed in at various stages in human history?

        • Corneliu Codreanu

          Living free will condemn your children to slavery

        • Leftism is a societal cancer

          “Living free” to you means living a life of dependence and self-gratification rather than discipline and self-improvement. We were freeing when we had conservative social mores and religiousity than we are. More free to keep what we rightfully earned, more free to self-organise in our communities, more free to speak our mind, more free to acquire capital, etc. You could go months without meeting a state employee.

          I am currently an agnostic.

          • locomotion

            I may share many of your political beliefs but I don’t see how ‘atheism’ gets in the way of any of the things you list. It is simply not believing in something; there are lots of things people don’t believe in.

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            I suggest you read “The Socialist Phenomenon” which is free online.

      • Eques

        I think that’s true, but I would put the nihilism down principally to the triumph of Thatcherism, much more so than immigration or trendy left wing thinking.
        Thatcherism elevated materialism to the exclusion of all else. It established the principle that all that mattered for individuals and societies was the accumulation of wealth. As a result we got to a point where nothing else mattered: religion, community, philosophy, principles of any sort, consideration for others, consideration of the wider effects of one’s actions, high culture, any form of abstract thought – to sum up, nihilism.
        I am not saying she personally was nihilistic but that was the effect she had on our national character over time.
        More practically, her obsession with privatization rendered it increasingly difficult for the country to function – because it led to an increasing amount of public services being run not to provide the service but to provide a profit.

        • Sean L

          But it’s the same everywhere throughout the world, in urban areas anyway. And if you imagine there’s more consideration for others in the Arab world or in urban Africa, where people work for slave wages, where there are no labour laws, or none that are enforced, you must be having a laugh. And when it comes to conspicuous consumption, flaunting one’s wealth in the midst of poverty and squalor, the like of which is unknown, inconceivable here, there’s absolutely no contest. Compared to these regimes Mrs Thatcher’s was hardcore socialist.

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            The problem is the capitalist system itself, which those on the right don’t dare criticize. It has never occurred to anyone that socialism is totally impractical and unworkable, but capitalism produces big gains while eroding that which holds society together. There is a third way, practiced for thousands of years prior to modernity, without the endless cycle of boom and bust, and the corruption of big business and government lobbyists.

          • Sean L

            Yes the affluence generated by urbanisation and technological advances, “capitalism” in shorthand, erodes communal ties. But those bonds persist in rural areas, and in less developed societies where the extended family operates as the social security system, not that that’s a bed of roses either. People flee to the relative anonymity of urban life precisely to escape such communal ties, and experience a freedom they can only dream about, however illusory it turns out to be in reality, there being nowhere as lonely and alienating as the big city.

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            urbanization is definitely a driving factor of decline. There was a time when few people actually lived in cities. Cities served as trading hubs and the seat of government and entertainment, but people lived quiet lives in the country.

          • Eques

            I wasn’t necessarily talking about Islam, just making a general point that it is right wing ideology, not left wing which has destoyed our indentity, culture and cohesion.

            “where there are no labour laws, or none that are enforced”

            In fact Thatcher’s heirs, under pressure from their big business donaters, are doing their best to dismantle labour laws (or the burden of regulation as they call it). Man, they even introduced a £1000 to launch an unfair dismissal claim (just after being sacked????)

          • Sean L

            Nothing to do with Islam, nor left wing or right wing ideologies, whatever that’s supposed to mean in this context. The differences between UK governments have been negligible in respect of economic policy, for all the rhetoric. The kind of economic reforms implemented by Thatcher here were a feature of all Western polities. If Mrs Thatcher exerted any lasting influence it was in the international arena, most notably the Falklands War and the collapse of the Eastern bloc which she possibly helped bring about sooner than it might otherwise have occurred.

        • Leftism is a societal cancer

          Yes, I agree that Thatcherism is damaging and encouraged a nihilistic, juppie ethic. Doesn’t mean the answer is socialism which always ends in disaster and actively encourages evil and irresponsibility.

          “Public” services are nothing of the sort. They are state services that wind up destroying the productive people, encouraging the lost to surrender and serve the interests of the over-bearing, criminal state.

    • Eques

      Then it wouldn’t be liberal democracy

      • trobrianders

        You’re either an atheist or in denial of that fact. So yes it would still be liberal democracy.

        • Corneliu Codreanu

          your ignorance about the world is astounding. atheism is about as laughable as any idea can get. Teleologically, it’s just indefensible.

          • trobrianders

            Get your definitions straight before you start citing teleology. You are wilfully confusing denial for belief.

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            you deny God, and believe the implausible because you do not wish to be accountable

          • trobrianders

            Sort out your god problem and then come back. We might then have a rational discussion.

        • Eques

          The very fact of banning an opinion because you happen to disagree with it. Now you may think that you have a very good reason to ban it, you may think that reason is unanswerable. The opinion in question may totally p you off.
          Nevertheless, if you ban people from having it that is not a liberal democracy.
          All Dictators think they have strong reasons for repression.

  • TRAV1S

    I thought the Enlightenment was anti-western ideology. Destroy, overturn, we can make ourselves gods, that sort of thing..

  • Ian Dewar

    France & Europe has always been left-wing & by its nature 5th columnists to the disintegration of its western traditions by bring in revolution fro outside. (That is after all what Marx put forward in his Das Capital). Britain has done the same. Since 1948 I suggest all British Governments to a greater and lesser extent have been traitors to the indigenous people of this country. Enoch Powell’s words were prophetic.

    • red2black

      Mr Powell encouraged immigration when he was a government minister.

      • vieuxceps2

        No,Powell recruited overseas health workers from the Commonwealth when he was health minister. This balloon is always floated by those who cannot bear to know that he was right,and spoke the truth.That is more than any politician of any party has done since his time.

        • red2black

          Controlled immigration seems reasonable enough, whether they’re Commonwealth immigrants or not.

          • Mongo

            so why all the Enoch hatred?

          • red2black

            I don’t know. Mr Powell was a brilliant academic.

          • Autolocus

            He challenged left wing orthodoxy as he had seen what a con it was.

  • Guilttripjunkie

    Western Europe hasn’t been a true liberal democracy for years. It has been a dictatorship defending far left ideological constructs such as multi culturism and diversity. The introduction of draconian ‘hate crimes’ which limit freedom of speech are examples of this.

    • vieuxceps2

      Agree with you. What astounds me is that so few people realise how far to the left we have drifted,(eg the present “Tory” government) and how the hate-laws inhibit our freedom. Who has done this,and to what end?

    • Autolocus

      ‘First let’s kill all the members of political parties’ – to misquote the bard-

      At least that would give democracy a chance.
      Let’s start with the party whips and see how it goes.

  • Kasperlos

    Britons had better dust off the lyrics to Rule Britannia, especially the part about Britons never shall be slaves. To avoid that the entire West needs to get off the couch, turn off the telly and start to get a grip as to what is slipping from their lives, viz. freedom, liberty, iand dentification of the rights of the individual. I doubt most Europeans want to fall under the thumb of a despotic ruler, and certainly not a Mohammedan follower. The peoples of the West are under a relentless and remorseless attack aided and abetted by people within their own countries. Each passing day brings the West closer to a darker age.

    • red2black

      There are a number of religious and occult traditions that regard the present days as the dawn of a New Dark Age. The Precession of the Equinoxes, as Pisces moves into Aquarius, for instance.

  • Sean L

    I don’t quite follow who the Cassandra’s meant to be in the final sentence. Quite early In that novel you refer to, its narrator, a university lecturer, mentions how for years Le Monde and other centre-left newspapers have been denouncing the ‘Cassandras’ who predict civil war between Muslim immigrants and the indigenous population. But a colleague in the classics department tells him it’s an odd allusion to make, because in Greek mythology Cassandra is an example of worst-case predictions that always came true…

    Otherwise you have, or had, a somewhat impoverished conception of conservatism, however orthodox it might be among your peers, assimilating it with economic liberalism. “Conservatism” in this sense adds up to little more than an economic theory, defined by nothing so much as its opposition to “socialism”.

    But properly understood, conservatism is closer to socialism than liberalism, at least from a theoretical standpoint, because conservatism is fundamentally concerned with society as a whole, society as a living organism, not with ideas of personal freedom or market economics, however valuable such concepts might be in the realm of practical policy making.

    Thus such “conservatives” say they’re also “socially liberal”. In effect they’re mistaking the map, their ideas and opinions, for the territory, people and society, that’s to say people and their economic and social relations considered in their totality, past present and future: Burke’s partnership between the generations.

    As to the present, I’ve never seen what’s so mistaken with this idea of the primacy of economics diagnosed so pithily as in that novel, when a character talks of the Muslims’ approach to politics:

    “To start with, the economy is not their main concern. What they care about is birth rate and education. To them it’s simple – whichever segment of the population has the highest birth rate, and does the best job of transmitting their values, wins. If you control the children, you control the future. So the one area in which they absolutely insist on having their way is the education of children.”

    In fairness to Toby Young, in more recent times he appears to recognise that also. Though he’s bound to argue his case on the spurious grounds defined by our native compatriots, and permitted by our globalist mass media, the relatively meaningless and insignificant notion of “social mobility”.

    • Leftism is a societal cancer

      Very good post here.

      • Sean L

        Cheers mate – good name. I’ll tell you what’s an absolute travesty, that headline next to an image of one of the few politicians doing anything meaningful to defend liberal democracy. In the light of what happened last week, to insinuate that Marine Le Pen symbolises the real threat to Western liberal values, rather than the movement in whose name Paris was attacked last week is shameful beyond words. And this is supposed to be a conservative or “right of centre” publication. Yet in juxtaposing those words and that image it’s implicitly siding with Islamic revolutionary terrorists against a constitutional politician who defends her country’s native traditions and institutions. That’s not so much appeasing Islam, as endorsing it!

        • Leftism is a societal cancer

          Orwellian double-think is literally everywhere in our society at present. It’s insanity of the highest order to think that “Islam is a religion of peace” or that “closing the borders to Muslim immigrants is exactly what ISIS wants us to do” are statements that have any reference to reality.

          I did the stupid thing of trying to actually argue with the lefties on Facebook recently because all the things they were posting were so damn infuriating. One post got shared numerous times argued that because Nigel Farage’s surname is of Hugenot origin that it’s therefore ironic and self-hating that he is in favour of immigration control. It’s funny as well because Farage is actually quite PC compared to Le Pen and usually only refers to Polish immigration which isn’t even really a problem. I think we could do with more White European Christians who don’t hate themselves.

          • Eques

            “”closing the borders to Muslim immigrants is exactly what ISIS wants us to do”
            I don’t know about that, but it’s certainly true that ISIS want Muslims and Nons to hate and distrust each other and to stir up conflict between the two.
            It is also true that ISIS represent only a very small minority of Muslims,and there is in fact a huge and complex spectrum of Muslim religious belief, religious practice and indeed there are huge numbers of non-practicing/agnostic/cultural Muslims.

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            So you agree closing the borders to the Mohammedans is a sound idea that ISIS doesn’t want us to do?

          • Leftism is a societal cancer

            They are the ones who hate us. “Tolerance” and “love” for you means European self-hatred and surrender.

            I’d rather die a proud Kaffir thanks.

    • Elephant in the room

      Cassandra : (Greek mythology) a prophetess in Troy during the Trojan War whose predictions were true but were never believed

  • johnb1945

    The decline of Christianity can be reversed if people start to understand that its reformation was the wellspring of the enlightenment and the birth of modern European secularism.

    If people start to understand how coherently Christian these ideas are, and that it was Christians, basing ideas on re examination of Christian scripture, who first articulated them.

    People may struggle to believe in the literal truth of virgin births or resurrections, but they should be able to understand the idea of “Render unto Caesar” etc. etc.

    Unfortunately, people now are encouraged to dismiss Christianity, which is a deeply philosophical and theological religion, as simple “sky pixie worship”.

    • Corneliu Codreanu

      True, but that kind of atheism is fading now. It’s largely just become nihilistic disinterest, and it is condemning Europe to death.

      • johnb1945

        I definitely agree with your point about Atheism’s cynical, apathetic nihilism, which is just as bad, but I think the militant tendency is still strong.

        Read any online free to comment article about Christianity and its place in both modern Europe or its role in the evolution of our societies and a depressingly large number of comments will be of the “sky pixie/ imaginary friend” variety.

        These people simply don’t think. They don’t care for any insight or analysis beyond their own immediate, instinctive and pathological desire for instant answers and instant gratification, and because understand the complexities of any religion and its relationship with society does not offer that they spout single line sound bites, which they really, really believe.

        Kids get taught this stuff at school, or rather…. not taught. They barely get any education in comparative religion, they’re simply taught that it is unimportant and that they’re all the same, innit?

        Well, they are not. There is a reason secular democracy sits so uncomfortably in the Islamic world compared to the Christian world, and it has something to do with differences in the religious traditions of both.

        • Corneliu Codreanu

          Never mistake internet activists as representative of the population at large. Most just don’t care.

          Secularism and democracy are intrinsic suicide plans, arising in Europe proper less than 300 years ago, and leading to our current problems. Democracy elects the least capable people into office, the worst scoundrels one can imagine, it isn’t about who is best to lead but who is best at campaigning. Secularism is a myth in and of itself, promising the abolition of religion in public life, but really just imposing a stealth religion with its own new dogmas of equality, feminism, anti-racism, etc. These behave in the same way as religious doctrines and are defended with just as much fever.

          Islam is right to resist such things being imposed on Arabia, because guess what… if they were, then in 100 years, Arabia would be flooded with Africans in the name of ‘multiculturalism’, and I doubt many Arabs would be happy about that. Cultures want to survive. They don’t often wish harm on other cultures, but they want their own space to flourish. Liberal Western culture is the exception. It wants to die. When governed by the monarchs and he church it was willing to defend itself, but today its own central doctrines teach it to let even more Muslims in, promote more diversity, more disintegration of the family, more more more! Nothing will wake them up, and my fear is many Christians will suffer because of this.

          • Jonty Cecil

            They dont teach, it imposes this non-doctrine of diversity upon us. The nihilsim of liberalism or neo-darwinism is non other than the negative catharsis of Martin Luther and the ascendency of his ignoble ilk.

  • Hippograd

    How can liberal democracy be ending when it never started? Third-World immigration into the UK and other western nations took place against the wishes of the majority, not with their democratically expressed consent. We have traitors at the top, unlike the nation to which David Cameron is genuinely devoted:

    A day after opposition leader Isaac Herzog called on the government to take in Syrian refugees, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went South to launch construction of the next section of a multibillion shekel security fence along the border with Jordan aimed at preventing infiltration from the east. Since returning to power in 2009, Netanyahu oversaw the construction of a similar fence from Kerem Shalom to Eilat along the Sinai border, as well as an enhanced security fence on the Golan Heights.

    “We are beginning today the construction of a security fence on our eastern border, as a continuation of the security fence that we built on the border with Egypt, and which will join up in the end with the security fence that we built on the Golan Heights,” he said, accompanied by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Transportation and Intelligence Minister Israel Katz.

    Netanyahu said the world today is witnessing what happens when countries lose control of their borders. He said the combination of brutal terrorism, which is spreading along Israel’s borders, as well as illegal migrant workers makes it imperative for Israel to have control over all of its borders. Weach out and hug the world, People!

  • locomotion

    When a culture has been created where “racist” is the most terrible thing someone can be called, it’s no wonder there can be no proper debate on immigration and multiculturalism. We reap what we sow. And of course those responsible for helping creating this culture are the liberal left, so damn them, damn them forever.

    • Cornelius Bonkers

      Where then ought “racist” come in the hierarchy of social crimes and accusations? I’m no liberal but racism was/is a reality which needs recognition doesn’t it?

      • locomotion

        Indeed. But we’ve reached the point where it is subsumes everything, where lives are destroyed because of accusations of it, where justice is warped because of the perception of it.
        To cite but one example from scores I could list: the Clarkson punching affair. The guy’s now suing him – but for racism, not actual assault! That’s a society gone wrong.

        • Cornelius Bonkers

          I agree with all you say. When the failed alliance between the liberal/socialist Left and the old white working class broke down in the 1980’s (because the white working class wanted neither “revolution” nor the EU, i.e., mass immigration) focus has shifted to race. To be a race enemy is now worse than being a class enemy. Being a sex/gender enemy is another thing altogether and probably as bad. Of course, the REAL target of all this is RESENTIMENT of the power of white men who other men (Moslems) now regard as pansies… It’s up to us I feel

      • Jonty Cecil

        Funny thing about race is that the honky or the ‘white’ are the one race most open and have been historically, more open, to mixing than all the races who consistently now wail ‘racism’who only wail the woes of racialism because some renegade honky’s have encouraged, engendered and funded this degenerate platform in our academic institutions. Slavery.. was contested by the Claphamites because they’d vastly benefitted themselves from the ‘slave labour’ of the industrial revolution and wanted no competition, wanted nothing more than the pulling up of the ladder beneath that they themselves used. This lamentable hypocrisy persists.

        • Cornelius Bonkers

          There is the point also that race means objectively nothing, but subjectively everything to many people…Those oppressed by race also oppress by race – the example of freed American slaves in Liberia would seem relevant here…as you say, hypocrisy persists especially when race is the topic…

  • Corneliu Codreanu

    It’s necessary to reject the ‘Enlightenment’, which was a bunch of BS anyway.

    It’s quite clear the West needs to recapture its Tradition, and Christendom needs to be re-imposed. High birth rates, warrior classes, heresy legislation to keep Muslims out, and the end of pathetic democracy which elects the most feckless people into power. We’ve been living ‘enlightened’ at our children’s expense, and unless you want them speaking Arabic, realize this is a religious defensive war.

    DEUS VULT

    • trobrianders

      Christianity works so let’s use it? Sounds teleological to me

      • Corneliu Codreanu

        When something is true, it typically works in practice. Learn some basic logic. And what I said here has nothing to do with teleology, that was an entirely different point you ignoramus.

        • trobrianders

          Not a Christian ignoramus though, am I?

          • Corneliu Codreanu

            Apparently not. your god is progress

      • Cornelius Bonkers

        I think you mean FUNCTIONAL (reasoning from CONSEQUENCE) rather than teleological (reasoning from PURPOSE). I hope this helps…

    • Cornelius Bonkers

      Yo Corneliu, Not so sure about the “imposed” bit. And tradition CAN exist alongside enlightenment. The problem is that we now have FUNDAMENTALIST ENLIGHTENMENT, which in the hands of the likes of Clegg et al turns out to be as dangerous (in its trust in the goodness of human nature) as the crimino/religious barbarism of ISIS. Christianity worked for us because it allowed for the mutual existence of God and Caesar – Islam cannot…

    • Jonty Cecil

      We forget, because we aren’t taught, how long we did defend ‘Christendom’ from Saracens, ‘Turks’ and other attempts by Sunni Caliphates. The division of Christdom by the Luthern reformation only occurred because German Princes took an opportunity afforded by the fact the Holy Roman empire was tied up with defending south east Europe from constant incursions by the Grand Turkic hordes. This threat only began to show signs of waining in the late 18thC. The enlightenment was very much a legacy of Luther, which is ironic because he would of loathed it. But the fault does lie with him.

  • Athelstan

    Liberalism is the real death cult.

    • Cornelius Bonkers

      OK, But surely only in the fundamentalist form it has now become. The “Great” liberals, i.e., conservatives would never have stood for all this “caring” – for criminals, paedophiles, illegal immigrants, lumpenproletarians in general and so on…

    • Ralph

      Liberalism works when those who practice it are willing to defend it and not be afraid to upset people.

  • Viking.

    ,Muslims are a special case, there is nothing existing today that can be compared to them. They are duty bound to destroy any country that they enter and create by subterfuge and force a Muslim nation there. Until everything belongs to Allah . This is the core of Islam, forcing people to submit to it. Every Muslim knows this and every non-Muslim should understand this.

  • Dyfus

    Since when is Saudia Arabia representative of the global Muslim world?
    Even amongst Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia is a unique country. Saudi Arabia is a closed society that does not allow anyone into the country unless under the direct supervision of a Saudi national (unless you’re there on religious pilgrimage. But if you just want to see the country as a tourist and sight-see, you’ll won’t be granted a visa). Saudi Arabian society is segregated between men and women at every conceivable level, which is definitely something you won’t find in other Muslim countries like Indonesia or Malaysia where most of the world’s Muslims live. Furthermore Saudi Arabia adopts an austere form of Islamic theology called Wahabism which is not shared around the Muslim world and is what various groups like Al Qaeda used as a basis for their own Islamic theology. And the final nail in the coffin…. Saudi Arabia has financed groups such as ISIS because ISIS is a nominally Sunni group and Saudi Arabia prefers Sunni groups (Rather than Shia groups) to be in charge… no matter how crazy those Sunni groups may be. To the Saudi’s, bankrolling ISIS is a way to controlling Iran’s influence in the region via other Shia group/fighters.

    So to say that 92% of Saudi’s support ISIS and hold this up as a reflection of global Muslim opinion is incredibly misleading to the point of intellectually dishonest. Saudi Arabia is not only a unique polity in the Muslim world, it’s also financially linked to ISIS itself. So big surprise, most Saudi Arabians hold a view point that coincidentally aligns with the political narrative of their dictatorship monarchist leaders. Saudi Arabia is a police state where the King actively controls the message his citizens receive via the media.

    And as for France becoming an Islamic Republic…. you must have a sense of humour. Even if every Muslim in France picked up a weapon and demanded France become an Islamic nation… they’re the minority and simply don’t have the numbers to succeed. And if ever they did have the numbers to succeed, we’d be looking at World War 3 as France tore itself apart. And I’m pretty sure other countries won’t just stand by idly and let a bunch of Islamic nationals take control of France. You’d have Britain and Germany and Spain all sending troops to aid the secular French government.
    So please, let’s apply a modicum of pragmatism to the crystal ball when attempting to gaze into the future.
    But yes, democracy’s days are numbered. And I’ll tell you why very simply. Democracy is built upon the foundations of a “government of the people, for the people” and the championing of personal freedoms. People are actively starting to question whether or not the successive political family dynasties created by the two-party system, really do represent the best interest of the common people? Also with the war on terror, irreversible changes have been made granting powers to spy agencies and police to monitor our own citizens to see if they’re up to no good. Make no mistake, these powers will never be handed back even when the war on terror is over. This slow march towards centralised and increased national security undermines the philosophical narrative of what it means to be a democracy country with a democratic government.
    Now you can hee-and-haw and counter argue as much as you like….. I’m not criticising or supporting these changes, I’m just saying they’re not democratic changes and they will have a permanent and long lasting impact. The Roman Empire took over a thousand years to fall. Humanity then had Feudal governments which ruled Western Europe for centuries. Now we have modern nation states and democratic forms of government. The political evolution will continue, for better or worse.
    And anyone who thinks democracy will be the form of government Western society will continue to adopt forever more into the future clearly has not read human history. Did you think any of the Romans thought their Empire would collapse? Do you think any of the Kings, Queens, nobility and peasants thought Feudalism would end? We’re wedded to democracy because it’s all we’ve ever known… and like the Romans and the Kings and their peasants… to be without that with which we are familiar is unthinkable. And this is not unique to Western society. It has occurred in the Middle East with the Islamic Empire that stretched from Spain through to Persia…. and Chinese cultures which had dynastic monarchies that said China was holy and the centre of the universe. Political systems never permanently endure.
    I don’t need to nominate a date. I can just say it will happen and it will probably take centuries. And that’s I wager I’ll happily make with anyone. How am I so confident? Because the weight of human history is on the side of my argument…. nothing lasts forever. Some people refuse to accept that universal truth. Like the Romans, the Islamic Caliphs, the Kings of Egypt or the feudal Kings of Europe… they think they’re special. They think they’re the exception to the rule, the one who will endure. And it is the same with people who believe democracy and market capitalism are the final political evolutionary end points for humanity. It’s their sacred cow and they never doubt that their sacred cow will live forever.
    Good luck with that, I say!

Close