Unless you've been living under a rock you know that the Democratic party in the United States has moved radically to the left. This didn't happen overnight and has little to do with the election of Donald Trump. Trump has just brought the depth and breadth of their lunacy out in the open for everyone to see.
This shift hasn't been happening only in America but also in Europe. Angela Merkel is the leader of the Christian Democratic Union which is supposed to be Germany's center-right party and had been Germany's most socially conservative and nationalistic mainstream party, but her and her supporters are neither conservative or nationalists. Instead, she has anti-traditional social views and she's a staunch anti-nationalist, so much so that she wants to dissolve Europe's sovereign nation-states and nationalities, something Marxists have planned for over a hundred years.
This swing to the left isn't happening because of the natural evolution of culture nor is it happening as some sort of accidental or unintentional consequence, but it's a pre-planned operation engineered by leftist to dismantle Western civilization to its core so they can rebuild it in their image. This isn't hyperbole. They'll gladly tell you that our civilization is an oppressive structure containing capitalistic, imperialistic, racist, sexist, patriarchal systems that produce inequality they want to replace with their imagined utopia.
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with cultural Marxism, aka critical theory, let me briefly define how the increasing embrace of far-left ideology in our society was indeed a pre-planned operation.
When Marxism failed to take root in the West, when the predicted worker's revolution didn't happen, a group of Marxist intellectuals in the 1920s created a school of social theory in Frankfurt, Germany commonly referred to as the Frankfurt School. They believed by focusing solely on economics Marx missed the huge effect culture has on people. They took Marxism, divorced it from economics and married it to culture and taught how that in a Democracy undermining Western values can be more effective than violent revolution.
Then in 1933 Hitler came into power and because Hitler's agenda included stopping the spread of Marxism to ensure what happened in Russia wouldn't spread to Europe and because the Frankfurt School Marxists were Jews they left Germany and took refuge in America where they were welcomed at Columbia University where they fully formed their philosophy and where they taught how to apply it to society, or rather, how to achieve social domination.
No post-modernist critiques were developed from critical theory, for example, Kimberle Crenshaw, Professor of Law at UCLA and Columbia Law School, who developed the theory of intersectionality, was a student at the school for Social Research in New York City which was the Frankfurt School.
Intersectionality is a theory of interlocking oppressions that states that those who are most marginalized in society are those who fall under multiple forms of minority social stratification, such as class, race, sexual orientation, age, religion, creed, disability, and gender. In the late 1980s, the theory began as an exploration of the oppression of non-white women within society. Today, however, intersectionality is typically applied to all social categories – including social identities usually seen as dominant when considered independently. source
One of the architects of this ideology that seeped into almost aspect of our society was Max Horkheimer, a German philosopher, and sociologist who was famous for his work in critical theory as a member of the 'Frankfurt School' of social research, who wrote;
You know what I find really troubling about this statement is what he's saying is; I'm proudly subverting yet another established society that has given me refuge and welcomed me. This also shows the Achilles heel of liberal democracies.
When Horkheimer is taking about universal egalitarianism he's not saying people should have equal rights, he's saying that people should have equal outcomes; that socially and economically. people should end up the same because people are innately equal, even morally. That's a foundational principle of leftist ideology today.
This is one of the biggest and most detrimental lies being told because it tells people and groups of people that if they're not the same if they don't have as much of something as the next person it's because they've been victimized.
It's telling people who are not oppressed that they are oppressed. This causes bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly which is the very definition of resentment. Leftism is the ideology of resentment and of victimhood. The left needs victims because without the oppressed versus oppressor conflict leftism is a dead ideology, just another philosophy that has little to no impact on our society.
Leftist ideology is based on the premise that everyone should end up the same because people are not flawed only systems and institutions are flawed, therefore they conclude that when people don't end up the same it's because something unjust is happening, namely oppression.
More specifically, cultural Marxists believe inequality in society occurs because prejudice dominant social groups, aka white people, exploit less powerful social groups which creates a system of privilege and advantage for some and disadvantage for others and so they preach the reason there is inequality in society is that whites have unearned privilege derived from oppression.
This creates an ideology of resentment towards whites.
Now, I'm not saying that historically oppression didn't exist. Of course, it did. Leftists like to quote examples of slavery in America quite often but conveniently leave out the fact that slavery, a least in America, was exclusively a Democratic construct. They will often pitch is as the South vs North being pro vs against slavery when it was, in fact, a Democratic (pro-slavery) vs Republican (anti-slavery) issue. But oppression and slavery were not created by America. It existed long before America was even a thing.
I don't see the US on this 2015 modern day slavery chart do you?
The first public sale of slaves started in Portugal in 1444 and existed in Africa before any Europeans ever set foot on their continent, quickly spreading to Spain and the rest of Europe.
In 1777 the State of Vermont, an independent Republic after the American Revolution, became the first sovereign state to abolish slavery and was led by Republicans.
By 1808 the United States passed legislation banning the slave trade followed by Sweden, Netherlands, France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Cuba, Brazil, and the UN in that order.
India, Muslims, Asian, Spanish, African, Native Americans, and pretty much every nation of every race had slaves and practiced oppression, but only one nation was the first to end the practice of slavery, the United States.
When the US abolished slavery it was celebrated the world over. The US sees no credit by the media today for pioneering freedom and equality.
Even though there was a system of inequality in almost every nation's historic past we have moved way past that kind of oppression and to think that inequality is the sole factor holding someone back today seems antiquated.
The reason there are inequality and a merit-based system like ours is that people are innately unequal. We are not the same and will never be the same and it has nothing to do with race or skin color.
Some people are faster, wiser, smarter, some are dumb as shit, some people are creative and end up being art teachers, some were analytical and pursue engineering, some are driven and some are content spending their life sitting of a sofa playing Mario Brothers. Some people are responsible, some irresponsible, some consistently make good decisions and for others, life is a never-ending string of bad choices. So, naturally, people and groups of people and civilizations end up differently.
The effects of a free market on society, for example, is not the same as the effects of socialism on a society. None of these facts have anything to with race, gender, sexual orientation, age, political ideas, or one's nationality.
Just to clarify, when I say we have a merit-based system I'm not under the illusion that it's perfect. I call it a relative meritocracy because people are inherently flawed and no, Marxism can't fix that. All Marxism can do is bring the best and brightest in society down to the lowest common denominator.
But because cultural Marxists blame white people for the cause of inequality whites who buy into leftist ideology have to support their own displacement and celebrate everyone but their own people.
So why do so many white people buy into this ideology? I really had to think about this for quite a while because I can't see myself in the shoes of these ideas any more than I can see myself being caught up in some psychopathic, Jim Jones religious cult.
I think one reason so many white people buy into this ideology is it gives them a sense of identity and purpose sprinkled with a sense of moral superiority. They see themselves as representatives of the oppressed fighting to defend them.
When people don't know who they are and where they come from and don't have a sense of purpose greater than themselves they leave themselves open to all sorts of doctrines, like leftism. They're like a tree without roots; when the first strong wind comes it knocks them over. That's why you don't see many people with a deeper sense of their identity, history, and culture buy into intercultural Marxism.
Another reason so many white people embrace leftism is the natural inclination people have to adhere to a group, the comfort of inclusion. Leftist ideology is touted by Hollywood, pop culture, the mainstream media, and major universities and kids don't want to be ostracized by being branded a racist.
By the way, this is an old school Marxist tactic. The word racist first became part of a societies lexicon in 1930s Russia and was used to browbeat people who weren't wholeheartedly communist. In other words, people who weren't politically correct, a term coined by the Soviets in the 1920s.
However, racist had a different meaning then. It meant someone who was nationalistic. Good communists identified with the communist collective, not with their ethnic and cultural heritage. Funny how leftists today are using the word racist the way it was originally used in early communist Russia, even towards black people who disagree with their world view.
So let me see if I understand this. The left says they are for inclusion but they have also made it clear that the consequences of dissension from their views are severe. For example, look at Roseanne Barr who was labeled a racist for supporting Trump and because she made a racy joke was fired costing her tens of millions of dollars, and to add insult to injury, the cast of her show, the very people who she single-handedly made rich and famous either kept quiet or proudly and publicly berated her for doing something that she's been doing all of her life, making racy jokes and being controversial.
Another example is Taylor Swift, who as far as I know is apolitical at least publicly. And because she refuses to take sides and talk politics, and therefore, refuses to denounce and bash Trump, she's a racist and white supremacist by default. Welcome to the noble revolution.
One other reason I can think of why many people are caught up in this cult is old fashioned conditioning. People have simply been conditioned through the government, the media, and often their parents that left-wing ideas like multiculturalism and cultural relativism are good and a notion like Sweden should generally be a country for ethnically Swedish people is evil.
However, it's still not all that easy for the left to convince the masses that whites are evil oppressors for creating a civilization that everyone wants to come and live in. Like we've seen time and time again throughout history, a little revisionist history, aka propaganda, is required to validate their insane bullshit. This is especially evil because this is how our kids are taught to hate themselves and their culture. which in turn makes them susceptible to leftist ideology.
The Crusades
I'd be rich if I had a nickel every time the left has cited the Crusades as an example of evil, white European Christians invading the lands of peaceful Muslims and brutalizing them in the name of Christianity. Well, the record of history is clear and it says, Islam was born in Arabia in the seventh century and the Muhammadans immediately began attacking the Middle East which was full of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and polytheistic Arabs.
Major Christian cities were captured including Antioch and Jerusalem. Then northern African cities like Alexandria and Egypt were invaded and captured. Then Muslims crossed the Mediterranean and began attacking Europe. They conquered the island of Sicily and using that as their base they attacked coastal towns which entailed killing, robbing, raping, and taking slaves.
During this time over one million, white Europeans were taken into the Islamic world as slaves.
In 846 AD or CE, if you want to be politically correct, while attacking Rome, Muslim invaders looted Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's basilica's, desecrating and pillaging the holiest places of all of Christendom. They also invaded and conquered Spain and tried to invade Europe from the southwest, but were stopped by the Franks at the battle of Tours, which historians regard as the battle that saved European Western Christian civilization.
All of these 400 years of brutal aggression happened before the first crusade was ever waged. Also, unlike the Muhammadans who waged war because their holy book commanded them to create a worldwide Islamic state, (sounds a lot like Nazis) the Pope only got involved to unite the different kingdoms and empires of Europe which were often at odds with each other, because in unity there is strength.
The Pope called on Western European Christians to aid Eastern Christians oppressed by Muslims. The Crusades were a push back and were a result of continual Muslim subjugation. Now, I'm not going to lie. When these kingdoms united and this push back happened it was brutal.
When the Crusaders, which consisted of about 4,000 mounted Knights and 25,000 infantry, when they moved east and began defeating Turkish armies and taking back cities it wasn't pretty. When they finally reached Jerusalem and breached the walls the Knights slaughtered everybody inside that wasn't a Christian.
Now, I'm not saying what those Knights did was right, but after 400 years of brutality against Europe and after three-quarters of their fellow Crusaders in bloody battles leading up to Jerusalem, I can understand why they were pissed.
Since this is about context what's important to know is the Crusades consisted of these battles.
The Crusade Battles
Compare that with the 400 or so battles Muslims waged against Europe leading up to the Crusades.
The Muslim Destruction of Classical Civilization
Unfortunately, the Crusades didn't end Muslim aggression. In 1453, long after the Crusades, they conquered Constantinople which ended the Eastern Roman empire. Then they hammered Eastern Europe all the way to the gates of Vienna. This jihad against the European Kaffir was relentless and lasted about a thousand years before white Christians were able really begin to push them back out and get some of their lands back.
On a side note, when a new Sultan came to power it was traditional for him to immediately launch new wars just so he would be known for how well he fought against the infidels. And between the 7th and 15th centuries, Muslims dominated the slave trade and they dealt in the trade of eunuchs which were castrated male slaves most often used in military service.
Eunuchs were created by amputating the penis and scrotum of 6-12 year old boys which is why there's no black population in the Arab world today. That and because they would kill the newborn children of their African concubines that they got pregnant.
I already mentioned Europeans being enslaved by Muslims as early as the 7th century but I want to reiterate while Muhammadans were killing and enslaving Africans they were doing the same with white Europeans. Before Catherine, the Great conquered the Muslim-ruled Peninsula of Crimea and put it under Russian rule, millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Armenians, and Slavs, aka white people, had been enslaved and sold through Crimea. The term the Crimean raids is familiar to every Ukrainian, Russian, and Pole as it is an integral part of their history.
Also between 1530 and 1790, it is estimated that North African Muslims abducted and enslaved more than a million European slaves from coastal towns and the high seas. They even enslaved Americans.
In 1788 when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary States, the estates of the Ottoman Empire North Africa. Their ships were stopped and it's crews and passengers taken off into slavery. An estimated one and a half million European and American slaves between 1750 and 1850.
Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind. We weren't in the Crusades, we weren't in the war in Spain. Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people?
And the ambassador said very plainly; because the Quran gives us permission to do so because you are infidels and that's our answer. And Jefferson said well, in that case, I will send a Navy which will crush your state which he did.
Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It's a masochistic lie to say so and it excuses those who are the real criminals and it blames us for the attacks made upon us.
Slavery
Now, that brings me to the holy grail of the anti-white narrative, slavery. It's not hard to expose leftists who want to single out whites and blame them for this immoral practice because just a cursory glance at history shows that slavery was common and an excepted way of life in every culture throughout history. It was fully established in every society and there was a myriad of ways you could become a slave.
You could be born a slave, you could lose a war, you could run out of money and be unable to pay your debts, or your parents could just sell you into slavery, but since the left only wants to talk about the Christian slave trade which was from about 1515 to 1815, let me add this, slavery in other civilizations was on a larger scale, lasted a longer time and was more brutal. Also, whites were the first to act on their conscience and abolish sla