According to a study. White people are the least racist whilst PoCs are the most racist.

This is not a good thing.
Non-whites don’t give one miserable fuck about being racist. They shrug it off. It glides off them. Tolerance is not demanded from them. Only the white person cowers and shrinks when called racist. Only the white race cares enough to respond to the slander that is racism.
Again - Non-whites don’t care about being racist. At all. At best they’re indifferent and at worst they’ll laugh in your face and tell you that they’re incapable of being racist due to reasons that defy logic. They benefit from being intolerant and we would as well but such is taboo for us.



According to a study. White people are the least racist whilst PoCs are the most racist.

This is not a good thing.

Non-whites don’t give one miserable fuck about being racist. They shrug it off. It glides off them. Tolerance is not demanded from them. Only the white person cowers and shrinks when called racist. Only the white race cares enough to respond to the slander that is racism.

Again - Non-whites don’t care about being racist. At all. At best they’re indifferent and at worst they’ll laugh in your face and tell you that they’re incapable of being racist due to reasons that defy logic. They benefit from being intolerant and we would as well but such is taboo for us.

(via daretobesane)



Of course this was going to happen, like every time someone right from the center gets democratically elected or even receives a large enough amount of votes.

First one says something like “Yesterday, 781120 Swedes voted for [Sweden Democrat symbol].

The third urges people to post selfies with the number 87, saying they’re part of the 87% who didn’t vote SD.

Think of the Sweden Democrats what you will, this is just a complete and utter lack of journalistic integrity and another example of the madness that has taken hold of Sweden. Democracy apparently is only acceptable if the outcome is what the left and the media want it to be, and if the people democratically say no and choose something else, that’s a “black sunday” and those must be ostracized instead of having their opinion respected. This, people, is how marxist one party states operate and this is what the left wants us to be.

Whether you like SD or not, this is your democracy, and it shouldn’t only exist as long as those guys like it. Stand with the 13% who exercized their democratic rights and voted SD.

Expressen is the newspaper that used stolen data to publish the personal details of members of the public who criticize immigration online, leading to a number of people being attacked by criminal anti-fascist gangsters. Incredible that they think they can take any kind of moral highground.

Sweden is the worst



When people say they want to live in Europe so badly they mean “I want to live in the major capital cities such as London, Berlin, Paris, etc where it’s easy to ignore Europe’s issues and pretend there is no racism happening” because I’ve asked…


Melanie Phillips: Does she care about British natives, or is it about Israel?

Clare Ellis

She’s gone from the left-wing establishment to celebrity status on the right.

Islamists, Leftists, and Neocons

Islamist extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizb ut-Tahir, Indian Mujahideen, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS (or ISIL), among many others, are spreading disorder wherever they exist in the world. From beheadings to terrorist attacks across the globe, to active genocide of Christians and the destruction of ancient villages and monuments in Muslim countries, to the kidnapping and forced marriage of young non-Muslim girls and the pedophile rape gangs of young White girls, to forced conversions, crucifixions, and mass killings of non-believers, ‘moderates’, and different Muslim sects, to the Sharia occupied territories in Europe, the Trojan Horse plot in Britain, and violent riots, arson, and looting, to demands of religious, legal and cultural accommodations from European majority populations and claims of Islamophobia or victimhood when those demands are not met, to placing severed heads on stakes and gates in Islamist conquered areas in the Middle East such as Syria and Iraq.

Some people call Muslim extremists ‘terrorists’, others call them ‘freedom fighters’, still others call them ‘barbaric animals’ and ‘psychopaths’ while others call them ‘liberators’ or ‘soldiers of Allah’. Whatever you may name them they are certainly no friend of the European peoples. Like the Leftists, some European New Right thinkers, such as Pierre Krebs, suggest Europeans ought to make an alliance with ‘moderate’ Muslims in an effort to counter the hegemony of America over Europe and the globe, which is rapidly destroying the diversity of peoples and forcing them to align with the homogenizing utopian New World Order. These thinkers consider ‘moderate’ Muslims to present, as an ethnic group based on religion, a strong identity in opposition to this American implemented and European compliant secular ‘brave new world’. They think this strong traditional identity is a matter of admiration and they therefore would make good allies in the fight. Although it is hard to disagree that there is something to be said about the strength of Muslim identity, it is completely illogical that European peoples should become allies, even for just a moment, with Muslims to counter a common enemy. Muslims and their varying strategies of violent and non-violent counter-hegemony (moderate or not) are no better than the Neoconservatives and the Leftists they are fighting against.

These three ideological groups are all vying for global hegemony. Each one has already decided how the whole world ought to be and how all people should behave. Their worldviews, regardless of their differences, systematize all people into a homogeneous ‘humanity’ as if all peoples of the world were like some mass-produced shop window manikin, while at the same time they make the Manichean mistake of claiming that if individuals or a people do not comply with their ideology there is something wrong with them – mentally, morally, intellectually, psychologically, or whatever - and split peoples into two moral groups of good and evil, civilized and barbaric, human and subhuman. They all claim they have the ‘Truth’ that will solve all ‘human’ problems, and present it as a new enlightening revelation that is good for humanity, but are totalitarian in some way or another, bent on eradicating all opposition to their ferocious appetite for world supremacy and moral superiority. All think that the demolition of existing situations and peoples is necessary to achieve their global aims, whether through direct destruction by war and genocide, or indirect annihilation through cultural, economic and demographic engineering.

While Neoconservatives maintain their warfare policies in the Middle East and middle of the road liberals (The Economist) press on for global markets and cultural standardization against traditional organic life, Islamists sustain their pernicious creed of violent death Jihad against the West and Leftists remain committed to furthering the spiritual nihilism and historical famine of European culture and ethnicity. These three groups are separate but interlinked anti-European ideologies. On the one hand, we have Neoconservatives, corporations, Fox news, Republicans, Sun News, and libertarians fighting European traditional conservatism and Islamism, and, on the other hand, we have Islamists and Leftists fighting American militarism and corporate globalization.

Neoconservatives promote immigration for economic ends and thus indirectly fund the Leftist utopian dream of stripping regular people of their ethnic and national identity for a new global order by spreading abstract man: homo economicus. Although Leftists are supposed to be in opposition to American-led hegemony, they contribute to the corporate agenda by supporting mass-immigration and miscegenation, end of Whiteness, multicultural rights, claims of racism and Islamophobia, and limits on the free speech of majorities. Leftists really are either useful idiots or willfully committing treason.

In addition, although Leftists are supposedly against capitalism, they make alliances with capitalists; many prominent socialist writers and institutes have and are funded by millionaires, such as the Soros Institute, the Frankfurt School, and the Fabian Society. Leftists also use Islamism (not necessarily the violent Islamism of ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliated groups) to counter Western Neoconservative global hegemony. In turn, Islamists employ the Leftist cultural and political discourse of white privilege, white racism, affirmative action, human rights, and collective multicultural rights, so as to gain further ground on all spheres of life in their attempt to counter Western hegemony inside and outside the West and establish a world-wide Caliphate. Although Islamists utilize Leftism for their cause, Islamists ultimately consider Leftists as decadent infidels who produce spiritually and morally vacuous societies and thus ultimately rejects them.

Londonistan and The World Turned Upside Down

With these general points in mind, let us now examine a prominent Neoconservative opponent of Islamism: British journalist Melanie Phillips. She has written several books, including Londonistan (Encounter Books, 2006) and The World Turned Upside Down (Encounter Books, 2010).

In Londonistan you find a bunch of material on the history, people, and groups involved in the rise of Islamism, information about London being the hotbed of terrorist activities in Europe, and a relentless critique of Leftism and its destruction of traditional values. However, you would think that from the title of the book you would be reading details of the radical transformation of Britain into a Muslim enclave by mass-Muslim immigration and how the indigenous Brits are suffering as a consequence. But no. Instead, Phillips devotes most of the book to the plight of Israel and the Jewish people in the face of Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Although she does address the pernicious effects of Leftism, the ineptitude of the British intelligentsia on dealing with homegrown Islamic terrorism, and the complicity of politicians in the tragedy by seeking the Muslim vote, not once does she meaningfully mention the white working classes, the ethnic identity and interests of the British masses, or how Muslim subversion is affecting them on the day to day level other than a passing comment or two about the demise of their traditions and culture in the face of Islamism. So why call the book ‘Londonistan’ without first and foremost a distinct and wide coverage of the issues everyday native Britons are experiencing?

It seems that Phillips used the title to pay lip service to the issue of the Islamization of Britain so she can get to her primary aim of steering the critical discourse about Islamism in general and elicit Western support for Israel in its conflict with Palestine and the Muslim-Arab world in particular. In this process, she conflates two separate issues regarding Islam – the problem facing the West and the problem facing Israel. But this is necessary for her argument: on the one hand, she dismisses the ‘Arab view’ (also shared by Leftists) that the oppression of Palestinians by Israel and the alliance of Israel with Neoconservatives is a strategic reason for Muslim aggression against the West; but, on the other hand, her focal point is Leftist and Muslim aggression against the nation of Israel and Israel’s main supporters, the Neoconservatives of Britain and America.

Rather than addressing the Neoconservative foreign policy in the Middle East and Western global hegemony, the point Phillips makes is that the West and Israel are targets of Islamists because Muslims have a religious hatred for the Jews, and because Westerners and Israelites share religious roots — Judeo-Christian roots — they face the same religious enemy, “this hatred lies at the core of the war against the West” (104).

She also writes:
It is not that Israel’s behaviour has inflamed the jihad against the West….It is rather that the jihad, which views the West as a threat to Islam, sees Israel’s existence as living, breathing proof of the Western and Jewish intention to rule the planet. The battle with Israel is thus conceived as a metaphysical struggle between good – the Islamic world – and evil – the Jewish-backed Western world. Israel’s struggle to defend itself against this monstrosity is therefore the West’s struggle to defend itself against the same monstrosity. Israel’s struggle is simply being played out in a unique place where metaphysics and geopolitics have become fused (102-103).
Of course she refers to several other reasons as to why Islamists are aiming their aggression against the West and Israel, which are not wrong, such as the degeneracy of Western culture, the decadence and spiritual vacuity of progressive Leftism, the historical 1400 year war waged by Muslims against Christendom and the Jews, as well as overall Muslim anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism, but she uses these reasons to dismiss the pivotal connection between the geographical fact of land and ideological identity (e.g. Israel and Judaism versus Palestine and Islamism) and thus denies as relevant a vital contributing factor to Muslim violence against Israel and the West. She writes,
It is not a national or territorial conflict but a historical, religious, cultural and existential conflict between truth and falsehood, believers and infidels, prosecuted through jihad until victory or martyrdom (109, my emphasis).
There is no doubt that the existence of the territory of Israel is a thorn in the Islamist flesh, but Phillips insists that Islamist terrorism against the West is only a struggle about metaphysical principles, rather than being also driven by the physical existence of Israel and the military support of it by Western Neoconservatives. Although religious factors, which provide a moral imperative for Islamists, are indeed a central influence, Phillips will get nowhere by dismissing the other facts involved in this bloody affair. While she claims that land is not the issue, in The World Turned Upside Down she claims that the territory of Palestine never really existed anyway, that it was a recent invention and thus Palestinians are not really Palestinians as a legitimate racial ethnicity with a long heritage that could defend the legal claim to the land as a ‘people’, but a mixture of different ethnicities, including Jews, such as “Arab…Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians” (58) and so on. In any case, she thinks the Palestinians had plenty of opportunities in the past to form their own independent state.

This argument of arbitrary national construction however does not apply to Israel, or so she argues. Jews lived in the area prior to its creation in 1948 and, more importantly, Israel is the ancient historic homeland of the Jews, as found in the Old Testament, and is thus determined by racial ancestry. Phillips defends this claim on land as determined by ethno-religious ancestral factors:
The Jews’ aspiration for their homeland …. derives from Judaism itself, which comprises the inseparable elements of the religion, the people and the land […]The unique Jewish entitlement to Israel is not just a Biblical story but historical fact. The Jews are the only people for whom the land of Israel was ever their national homeland (55-56, The World Turned Upside Down).
She further defends this racial-religious factor in the creation of the state of Israel by emphasizing the legal construction of Israeli territory, upheld by the British and bound by international law:
The legitimacy of Israel rests not on the United Nations vote of 1947, which finally established it as a state, but on the setting up of the Palestine Mandate in 1922 by the precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, which paid recognition to ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country’ (56, Ibid).
This claim of legitimacy by an appeal to the League of Nations, which is now a defunct international organisation, is confusing considering that in Londonistan she repeatedly criticizes supranational organisations such as “the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union, the United Nations or the European Court of Justice” for increasingly becoming the “sole sources of legitimacy” (26).

What is more, Phillips seems to be saying that the only nation that is legally (and religiously) allowed to be ethnonationalist is Israel. For example, jumping on the Leftist bandwagon of decrying White pride and preservation, Phillips calls White Nationalists, such as the British National Party, the National Front, Combat 18, and the White Nationalist Party, far-right “racists,” “white supremacists”, “neo-Nazis” or “neofascists” as they attempt to maintain their distinct ethnicity in the face of various forces, such as Leftism and Neoconservative Americanism. And part of the reason why she says this is because some have made an alliance with Islamists, like the Leftists, due to their criticism of the perceived influence of Zionism on American and Western foreign and domestic affairs:
These ultranationalist, racist and anti-Jewish groups saw in the Islamists something beyond their wildest dreams: a global force, armed and trained, committed to the destruction of both Jews and the Western political order (217, The World Turned Upside Down).
Now, as mentioned above, it is not logical for any European Right-leaning counter-hegemonic group to join forces with Islamists in order to combat American global hegemony and cultural Marxism for they merely aim to supplant one global hegemonic order with a utopian version of their own.

In contrast to accusations that ethnonationalism is racist and must be eradicated, it must be said that every nation should have the right to self-determination, such as independent decision making in accordance with national and ethnic interests, and that every ethnicity should have a homeland that is safe and secure and therefore have the right to defend that territory. However, just because Islamism and Leftism are a threat to the Western nation states as well as to Israel this does not mean that the West has to necessarily form an alliance with the Neoconservative view of Israel in the fight against these pernicious ideologies.

But this is exactly what Phillips appeals to in Londonistan. She tries to promote an inter-religious cooperation between Israel (Judaism) and the West (Christianity) in the face of Islamism and Leftism. She repeatedly and informally, like it is an irrefutable fact, states that the West has Judeo-Christian foundational values based on the Mosaic Code (Ten Commandments) and thus, she claims, Israel and the West are closely united according to these shared values:
Jews were at the very heart of those Western values [and] At the core of those Western majority values lay the Mosaic Code, which first gave the world the concept of morality, self-discipline and laws regulating behaviour (118-119).
She then uses this as a main premise to argue against Leftism and promote a Western-Israeli alliance (the civilized ‘free world’) against a shared religious and historical threat, the barbarism of Islamism:
As [the Left] took aim at morality and self-restraint, it seized a golden opportunity to pulverize the very people [the Jews] who invented the rules in the first place [and] the far left and the Islamists have become a marriage made in hell….[they] use each other to fight the West (119).
Phillips’ claim that the West is Judeo-Christian at heart is simply not true. Europe and the West do not derive their core historical values from Judaism; they may share the Ten Commandments but that is about all, and, furthermore, many more foundational morals actually come from the Classical Greeks, Christianity itself, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Christianity may have arisen from Judaism but developed independently thereafter, and Judaism was merely one strain of historical influence on the rise of Christianity, others include Greco-Roman religions, Hellenic philosophy, and European paganism. In addition, not only do Christianity and Judaism differ in fundamental ways, such as the rejection of Christ by Jews, but before Europe was known as Europe it was known as Christendom not Judeo-Christendom.

In fact, the West is majority White European by ethnicity and majority secular Christian by ethics, thus the West primarily ought to have an interest in preserving and protecting the European people’s native homeland in particular and the European character of the West in general, not Israel. European interests are what matter but Phillips wants these interests to become subsumed by the interests of Israel and its conflict with Islam.

Although Phillips denies that the territory of Israel and British and American pro-Israeli foreign policy are destabilising elements that contribute to the militant strategy of Islamism against the West, the aggravation they elicit from Muslim communities across the world (civil unrest, war, terrorism) is increasingly hard to contest, and this aggression is being transported into the Western world by Muslim mass-immigration, such as seen in the recent, massive and violent pro-Palestinian protests across Europe.

In her criticism of Leftist practices such as mass-immigration of Muslims into Europe, political correctness, the human rights victim culture, and feminism, Phillips suggests that they stem only from the writings of one person. She writes in Londonistan:
During the 1960s, the decade in which so many of our current leaders remain firmly stuck, the most influential thinker was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci […] Antonio Gramsci, the philosopher who became the iconic thinker of the 1960s, laid down the blueprint for exactly what has happened in Britain (71, 118).
While she is not wrong to claim that the Marxist and Lenin inspired Gramsci was responsible for outlining a pernicious plan to subvert Western civilization by infiltrating all of its institutions, a plan that manifested first with the counter-culture movements of the 60s, it is quite deceptive of her to suggest that Gramsci is solely to blame. Many others contributed intellectually to this subversive plan, and have come to be known as cultural Marxists or Frankfurt School Critical Theorists, such as Felix Weil, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Friedrich Pollock, Leo Löwenthal, Otto Kirchheimer, and Franz Leopold Neumann. These theorists centered their anti-Western cultural Marxism on the philosophy of Karl Marx, and were significantly influenced by Sigmund Freud and George Lukacs. And, in fact, rather than Gramsci being ‘the iconic thinker of the 1960s’ it was Herbert Marcuse who was considered as the ‘guru’ of the New Left.

Phillips may criticize the Leftist ‘long march through the institutions’ but never mentions the Frankfurt School out of which this strategy was further developed, incorporated, and disseminated. She may have no clue about these connections, it does not really matter. What matters is that in her effort to rally support for Israel (and demonize any criticism of its dealing with the Palestinians) there is an obvious misrepresentation of the causes of Western and European cultural demise. On the one hand, she laments and vehemently critiques this degeneration but on the other hand she skips a major cultural force, the Frankfurt School. She rails against Leftism in an attempt to unite Western anti-Islamists with the causes of Israel but she does not acknowledge the seminal contribution of Frankfurt intellectuals to the decadence of the West.

Furthermore, in terms of preserving European ethnicity and culture, Phillips’ criticism of Islamism and Leftism does not go far enough. She goes on and on about how Islamism and Leftism are bent on destroying the traditions of the West, which is not wrong, but Islamism and Leftism are only two destructive mounts. Neoconservative globalization is another destructive mount. Phillips is an avid supporter of American corporate capitalism and American-led Western hegemony. She is outright pro-American regarding foreign policy and, even though she is anti-Leftism, she is actually for open borders and mass immigration if it is about minorities assimilating into the majority culture and adopting liberal individual rights and not multicultural rights. It seems she has no problem with Britain and other European countries being swamped with a multitude of non-European ethnicities from the whole World, as long as they don’t demand any kind of religious or cultural accommodations.

Her plain support for American-led and British foreign policy in the Middle East (war on terror), and for global capitalism pits her against Leftists and Islamists. But the New Right, although it is also (or mostly) anti-Islamist and anti-Leftist, rejects as well American foreign-policy, the spread of Western values around the world, and economic globalization. It suggests ethno-nationalism as a solution to cultural and ethnic genocide and the preservation of real diversity in the world.



Dear Fellow White People,


Stop complaining to blogs that you’re “bothered” or “worried” or “concerned” when they “speak as if the whole of white people are racist” or “act like all people are racist” or whatever. Just. Stop.

The majority of us…

 White people shouldn’t give a shit if anyone thinks were “racist”. The accusation of racism or xenophobia is just a means to control White people. Do Arabs care if anyone thinks their racist? What about the Japanese? People just want to exploit Whites self hate and altruistic tendency to their own benefit. 

So longer as distinct ethnic groups exist so will racism nothing you do can ever change that.

I didn’t say “White people were the least eurocentric” i said they were the least “ethnocentric” 

Maybe people migrate to the West because it’s better then their own countries? I’m sure the welfare system with its never ending freebies hold no enticement to them whatsoever!

You need to stop saying “we”. I didn’t invade any country. Did you? Why am i being held responsible for what my government does without my consent?

So now because Europeans colonized parts of the world we now have to let the world colonize us? Is that what your saying?

Like i said What other race of people floods their countries (to the point they will soon be minorities) with millions of foreigners, pretends to be “enriched” by their culture, spend billions on foreign aid and billions of welfare checks, food stamps, free housing, education, medical, free money, teaches their own children they are oppressors, goes out of their way to adopt non-White children, blames all of the failures of non-Whites on their own people, allows non-Whites to be elected into government positions where they openly speak of their  hatred and detest for the White people they demanded the right to live with?

Were not talking about intra-racial were talking about inter-racial. Now all the White women being raped are liars? Can you prove that? Where are all these Black man being lynched in 21st century America for rape?

"white people attack black people far more than black people attack us"

Do you have proof of this?

Somebody asking you where you come from now affects your health? Where is your proof of this? Does this apply to everyone or just people with brown skin? 

Except there are no “White supremacist” in control. The entire Western world is run by the left. Pro immigration, pro multiculturalism, pro race mixing, feminism, open borders etc 

Half of your points are you mumbling on about bullshit or saying something that i  never said then commenting on it. Get your shit together.

 ”read a book” says the person who knows nothing about history, you are the one who needs to pick a fucking history book. Non-Whites were conquering,enslaving and committing genocides long before Whitey ever left Europe. Did you fall asleep in history class?

How did American Indians bathe? Australian Aboriginals? Did these people have baths?

White people never started slavery. We did abolish it though. (its still practiced in the non-White world)

The KKK can’t afford the scissor to cut holes in their White sheets. The New Black Panther party openly call for the murdering of White people and White babies but that probably slipped your attention i am sure.

Except only a small % of White people are well off.

White people are not immigrants we are settlers. Do you not understand the different sugar?

" act cruel and malicious, act inhumanely against POC"

If we are treating these people so bad why do they stay here? They are free to leave whenever they want? Yet i don’t see any max exodus quiet the opposite they are coming by the tens of thousands. This is the first time in the entire course of human history people have risked their lives to live with their “oppressors” it’s truly amazing

Yeah i am not believing that your getting your masters when you 1.think white people started slavery. 2. don’t have a even a tiny grasp of world history.

Your entire argument is you not knowing anything about history, name calling and LOLHAHAHAHA!!OMG

The Islamization of the Teaching of Western Civilization

In the United States today only two percent of colleges offer Western Civilization as a course requirement. I teach Western Civ in two parts, but they are not required, and I had to change the title to “Sociology of Western Civilization” for approval. Since I decided to teach this subject ten years ago, I have detected in new texts, and in newer editions of older texts, a growing emphasis on Islam in their narration of the cultural history of the West.
A well-established older text is The Western Heritage, by Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank Turner. This is a relatively conservative text by the standards of today. I have the tenth edition at hand, published in 2010. (A new 11th edition has just come out). I can’t say when this text began to include sections on “the Western debt to Islam,” cute captions on topics such as “European Embrace of a Black Saint” or an alleged “Multicultural Book Cover” from Carolingian times. But it is clear that the 2010 edition, in comparison to the first editions, with the first going back to 1979, has felt the impact of political correctness. The Wikipedia entry on the first edition(s) of this text observes: 
  • Considered conservative and old-fashioned when it was published, reviewers chided it for ignoring the Byzantines and Ottomans as well as giving short shrift to Russia and Poland.Others indicated lack of attention to the role of the Islamic states and ignorance of Islamic sources.
But now in stark contrast it is clearly stated in the Preface that a new feature of the 10th edition is a greater emphasis on the West’s connections to the rest of the world, with a series of comparative essays added at various points in the text under the general heading of “The West & the World”. There is nothing wrong with this per se. Students should learn about the West’s connections with the world. But something else is going on here. Without getting into details, older editions did not neglect these connections; the difference now is that academics who still teach the West — as this course has been replaced by more loving histories for Us All — feel that they can only justify the teaching of the West as long as they frame its history as an inclusive affair in which all the peoples of the world participated. 

Most of the Preface reads like an effort to placate those who think that the West should no longer be taught. They are not calling for an end to the teaching of Western civilization; they are right wing liberals who believe that the West represents the first magnificent example of a civilization that speaks for humanity. The Preface notes:
  • Students reading this book come from a variety of cultures and experiences. They live in a world of highly interconnected economies and instant communication between cultures. In this emerging multicultural society it seems both appropriate and necessary to recognize how Western civilization has throughout its history interacted with other cultures, both influencing and being influenced by them. For this reason, we have introduced in this edition a new chapter on the nineteenth-century European age of imperialism. Further examples of Western interaction with other parts of the world, such as with Islam, appear throughout the text (xxii).
Nevertheless, Western Heritage is still a very good text. It is the textbooks being published in current times that show the full impact of multicultural correctness. A recent text is Clifford Backman’s The Cultures of the West: A History, first published in 2013. This two-volume text calls for the inclusion of the Islamic world in the West:
  • This book overtly…insists on including the region of the Middle East in the general narrative, as a permanent constitutive element of the Greater West. For all its current appeal, Islam is essentially a Western religion, after all…To treat the Muslim world as an occasional sideshow on the long march to western European and American world leadership is to falsify the record and to get the history wrong (xxii).  
Check its front cover here. What justifications Backman offers for the “Greater West”? To students already accustomed to diversity and wobbly images aboutconnectedness, he says that the “European world and the Middle Eastern world have been in continuous relationship for millennia”. World historians, of course, follow this idea to its logical end: Europe is a continent connected to Asia, and the history of the Middle East and Asia constitute an amalgam of many cultures and civilizations, all of which have been in continuous relation with each other and with Africa, and with the Americas after 1500; therefore, a proper understanding of the history of the West requires a history of the whole world

But Backman is a modest man seeking fairness in a world of extremes, he believes that it is possible to teach a course in Western Civ as long as this civilization is conceived as “the Greater West,” which, I might add, includes not just the Near East but Muslim India and Muslim Africa. He thinks this “Greater West” is justified on the grounds that 
  • nearly every one of the fundamental turning points in European history…have been experienced jointly by the European and Middle Eastern societies (xxii)
This is a falsification of the historical record. Nowhere in Backman’s textbook do we find a substantive argument supporting this claim. For one, there is no way round the fact that the classical Greek invention of deductive reasoning, disciplined infantry warfare, invention of prose writing, analytic historical writing, discovery of the mind, the literary forms of tragedy and comedy, and citizenship politics were achieved when Islam was not in existence, and so was the Hellenistic revolution in scientific knowledge, the Roman invention of the legal persona, continuation of republican institutions, and numerous novelties in warfare and engineering.  The Muslims played a role in retaining, commenting, and advancing some of the works of the classical Greeks from about the 8th century until 1200, but thereafter every single turning point in European history was accomplished by Europeans. 
Proponents of connectness never care to pose why all the turning points in the making of modernity happened inside Europe; if Europe was connected to the Muslim world, and the Muslim world was connected to Europe, why can’t they point to a single turning point inside the Muslim world? Even the Twelfth Century Renaissance was a uniquely European phenomenon, and so was, in fact, the Papal Revolution of the eleventh century, and numerous technological inventions and innovations
Volume 2, which is three times the length of Volume 1, commences with the “Renaissances and Reformations,” pluralizing these two terms so as to give the impression that there were renaissances and reformations in the Middle East and North Africa. But since Backman cannot marshal a single argument demonstrating any degree of Muslim responsibility for these turning points, he is compelled to create separate sections for the Muslim world with bits of information about trade connections and European impacts on this world, as well as events in this world, none of which can be framed, however, in terms of anything that could reasonably be called a renaissance or a reformation.
The net result of making space in the text for events outside Europe is the diminution and suppression of key formative events, intellectual figures, and even whole epochs in the making of the actual West. He leaves out all the great artists of Renaissance Italy: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, Botticelli, to name a few. There is nothing about how Italian merchants created modern double-entry accounting

In separate sections, he tries to create the impression that Muslims were at the forefront of modernity; for example, in the championing of the rights of women (807). We are supposed to have a picture of Muslim co-participation in the Industrial Revolution simply on the strength of the eventual adoption by a Muslim country of techniques invented in Europe. Forget that not a single technology of this revolution is shown to have been invented in the Muslim world. 
Students are actually made to think that if there was any opposition to modernity it came from the nasty Catholics. In a section, “The War on Modernism,” Backman writes:
  • To many in the broader Western society, the [Catholic] church’s war on modernism seemed a painful embarrassment, not merely a flat-out inability to understand modern scientific and textual thinking but a petulant refusal by pious ideologues to think or to allow others to do so (773). 
Clifford Backman at Boston University
This description actually applies to Backman. It is well known in the narrow circles of medieval scholarship that the Catholic Church played a crucial role in the development of Western modernity starting in the Middle Ages, as Thomas Woods explains in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Rodney Stark in Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success, and Edward Grant in The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. In the words of J. L. Heilbron of the University of California, Berkeley:
  • [The] Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions.
Yet, Backman, an expert in medieval European history, though the “social history” type, ignores this literature. He acknowledges that “few of the advances and discoveries of the 19th century made much of an impact in the Islamic world,” but then asks his students to show sympathy for Muslims and disapproval of Europeans:
  • [Muslim] opposition was not merely a knee-jerk rejection of innovative thinking. Rather it was a rejection of European political imperialism (779). 

In the Introduction Backman portrays himself as an edgy professor willing to rock the boat, a man with a peculiar talent for “eccentric” ideas, a dissident in a world of conformity; in short, the one and only proponent of the “Greater West.” The truth is that this idea has been in the air for some time, proposed by Ian Morris in Why the West Rules — For Now, by many advocates in the West (and the Islamic world) of an “Islamo-Christian Civilization”. 

As I explained at length in a two part paper, the idea that Europe’s history has to be seen in connection to the rest of the world cannot be divorced from the political promotion of the colonization of Europe by non-Europeans through mass immigration and indoctrination. This political agenda is being pursued by all the established parties and institutions. Backman is another pawn pushing in the same direction. Deep down he knows it is about politics, and says as much in the concluding pages of his text dealing with Europe after 2001. “To center Western identity on Christianity is just bad politics.” Why? Because “the Western world is increasingly Muslim” (1154).

Good politics equals the rewriting of the history of the West so as to justify the current reality of Muslim mass immigration. It does not matter that the historical evidence invalidates the concept of a “Greater West”; students must be made to believe in this concept; they must accept the current Third World colonization of their homelands. “We have often forgotten that Islam has been a Western religion from the start” (1156). From the start? There was no Islam in the Middle East through the entire epoch of classical Greece, Hellenistic times, the long reign of Rome, and the first centuries of the Middle Ages. Historical veracity is not the issue. The goal is to create students who will view an increasingly Muslim Europe as a natural phenomenon consistent with the past.

Will these students, then, see the Rotherham rapes as a “Western” problem committed by ethnic groups that were British “from the start”? 




protect muslim girls and women at all costs

Haha no, protect white people and our cultures at all costs. Send the hijabis and muslims of all kinds back to the Middle East where they can deal with their own cultures.

Protect innocent girl that are being raped across the west who are ignored by the political correct media because of their race.

protect white girls and white women at all costs


Right now in Australia, it is so bad. Since our national security was turned up a notch because we’re sending troops to help stop ISIS, people here are going so far up their ass regarding Muslims.
A good example of this is, there was a mosque meant to go up on the gold coast and so many white…

First of all it’s not racist because Muslims are not a race.

People have a legitimate concern when it comes to Muslims/Islam.  

Do you want to live in a country where gay people and publicly lashed or thrown into prison?

Where people can be killed/thrown into prison for changing their religion?

Maybe because Buddhism and Islam are two difference religions you fucking idiot?

(via zombie-unicorns-unite-deactivat)








i hate westerners so much

Its a mutual feeling

we hate you too

lol she lives in australia?

"i’m anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-israel, pro-palestine…

here i was thinking nazi were lefties and socialist ;)

'national' socialism is an ideology of the right. it's not leftist. please revert to a state in which you don't interact with people on tumblr, this is embarrassing for the rest of us

Your user name is “non binary kits” for fuck sake.

Hitler was not right wing, his socialist policies were designed to transcend class differences. His policies were anticapitalist, anticonservative and antiliberal, exemplified by his “Volksgemeinschaft” doctrine or “people’s community”. Hitler and the Nazis campaigned as Socialists. They also believed in Nationalism. To believe in both Socialism and Nationalism is not mutually exclusive. Certainly to believe in Nationalism does not automatically make you right wing. e.g. Stalin ruled as a Nationalist referring to his “Mother Russia”