The Unmaking of the West

It is undeniable that the world generally seems to be at an inflection point.  In 2024, around 75% of nations will be having elections meaning that it is possible that politically the world could be a very different place by the end of the year.  What seems obvious to the dispassionate observer is that the liberal consensus that had maintained a kind of shared value base for the democracies of the West, e.g., the importance of free speech, respect for those of opposing views, the importance of law and order, equality before that same law and equality of opportunity; and then undergirded by the basic democratic principle that the fundamental legitimacy of government derived itself from the will of the people in the sense that the people could choose their leaders and replace them by exercising their vote, has been collapsing.

In this essay, we posit that this is a deliberate policy, orchestrated by an eclectic alliance of scientistic [1] scientists, globalists, Marxists [2], neo-Marxists (aka. “Critical Analysts”), communists, and Islamic revolutionaries who have coalesced around the single point of agreement that the West has failed, is failing, will always fail, and who want to remake or “reset” the world in response to this crisis.  We argue that only by recovering our sense of these important values of the West and the integrity of the nations that make up the West, will we preserve what had made the West the most powerful and influential of cultures in the last 500 years.

Thus, firstly, to illustrate our present crisis that we alluded to in our opening remarks, we need to go no further than to consider the open support on the streets of most Western nations for an internationalist revolutionary Islamic movement, one of whose central aims is the complete destruction of the West.[3]  Likewise to reinforce our point regarding the unintuitive, eclectic nature of the movement, they have been joined by revolutionary Marxists in common cause.[4]  The communist ANC of South Africa has recently made common political cause with the revolutionary Islamic movement on an official, governmental level.[5]  This is particularly significant as the last decade has seen cultural Marxism, characterised by identity politics and an oppressed-oppressor moniker, become mainstream within the politics and cultural conversations of the West.[6]  Large segments of mainstream national media have shifted from quasi-objective news reporting to subjective news-making and showcasing a particular point of view; this too, often statist and socialist in its basic positioning.  One of the lasting legacies of the COVID pandemic was the acceptability of censoring opposing points of view, with hi-tech/social media, which had once characterised itself as a democratic, free-speech space, now dovetailing with “Deep State” [7] and transnational UN-bodies such as the WHO, to control what was “acceptable” speech in contrast to “misinformation” and “disinformation”.[8]

In similar fashion, free speech has been increasingly qualified with respect to a subjective standard of “hate” speech widely interpreted as being that which might cause distress to someone, even if it was not criminal or illegal.[9]  The practical impact of such redefinitions has been to curtail the scope of legitimate expressions of dissent and to target innocuous activities such as street-preaching or prayer vigils outside abortion clinics.[10]  Likewise, from DEI for business, to pronouns on the signatures of our emails reflecting our subjective “gender” identity as opposed to our objective, biological sexual identity,[11] the influence of this radical Leftist thinking has become pervasive.  This thinking is above all else reconstructive in its perspective – all the institutions of the State, be they law and justice, education, or health, must be re-made to ensure equality of outcome;[12] but this reconstruction is also individual and sociological, the very notion of “family” and “selfhood”, what it means to be a citizen and the meaning and context of individual “rights”, require a radical recapitulation.

This has been particularly evident in the most influential nation in the world, the United States.  Since 2016 and the election of populist Donald Trump, distinctive because he was a businessman rather than a professional politician,[13] the vision of just what it means to be a “democracy” has become an existential issue.  Trump and his supporters consider themselves to be rescuing a democracy which is being destroyed by the advance of progressive [14] policies and positions of the Biden-Harris administration.  In kind, the Biden-Harris response is to characterise the “MAGA Trump republicans” and their supporters as the principal threat to the survival of the American republic and democracy.[15]  There is no greater threat than Trump to the American democracy with his white, bigoted rural voters.[16]  However, that is where there is a rub and what we must understand if we are to understand what is happening throughout the Western nations.

“Democracy” has been redefined in the West from the political consensus resulting from the policies and records of the politicians the people vote for, to the preservation of the institutions (and political status quo) of the countries that call themselves “democracies”.  This has far-reaching consequences.  The “enemies of democracy” then become the enemies of those institutions and the political status quo.  Subsequently, those institutions must turn the apparatus of the coercive State, particularly the intelligence agencies with their surveillance capabilities, and the associated legal systems, to the elimination of those threats to its own existence.  In other words, paradoxically, you destroy democracy on the level of the people’s choice, to save the democratic institutions.

That is, you must manage and control who the people may vote for by conditioning ballots through high tech interference,[17] controlling the media and the media narratives, even banning candidates from the ballot, and engaging in other “lawfare” – the practice of frivolous but very expensive litigation against your political opponents.  After all, the people are easily swayed by disinformation and conspiracy theories, they need to be protected and told “what is true” by their governments and their fellow-traveller army of “factcheckers”.[18]  Does any of this sound familiar?  It should, this is precisely what is happening in the US with the anti-Trump campaign that began running in response to his shock election in 2016.

This campaign has been relentless beginning with the “Russiagate” hoax, an elaborate, international, CIA run operation that created a complete false web of evidence to characterise Trump as a Russian asset.  This then allowed the FBI to investigate and monitor the Trump campaign and to interfere in the name of “national security” in the electoral process.  This is no longer a “conspiracy theory” as the reports and documents are now leaking into the public domain; the CIA leveraged Ukrainian assets to pretend to be Russians who were then hired to contact members of the Trump campaign.  Recordings were made of these interactions, and these were then dropped by the CIA to the “Five Lion” intelligence agencies – UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, US (FBI).

You read that right, the CIA pushed false but “corroborated” material to their own FBI – this is because the CIA has no internal jurisdiction in the US, the FBI are the only organisation authorised to investigate American citizens and open an investigation of Trump.  As soon as the FBI bit, the media were then tasked with creating the “Trump is a Russian asset” narrative, that would then allow detailed surveillance of Trump and any associates, with mass collection of privileged financial information and private communications contrary to the Constitution, but all justified in the name of “national security”.

Anyone that privately or publicly supported Trump had to deal with potential public exposure and financial or legal sanction.  It was designed to be “guilt by association” – anyone supporting Trump would be a friend of Putin.  The operation had the simple aim of influencing the outcome of the subsequent 2020 election for the purpose of “protecting democracy”, i.e., interfering in the democratic process to ensure the institutions of the democracy, the substructures of the intelligence agencies, the military-industrial complex making money off continuous wars with each new President, were not compromised.[19]  However, it was completely false and fictitious, the dossiers about Trump signed by over 50 ex-intelligence agency operatives were fabricated.

Contrast this with the Hunter Biden laptop case – this was a genuine laptop dropped off by Hunter himself with real compromising material, proving massive corruption by the Biden family.  This was framed at the time as “Russian disinformation” to protect those who could be guaranteed to continue policies in line with the agenda and programme of the political elite invested in establishing the “new world order”.  This too is no longer a “conspiracy theory”, the allegations against the Biden family are now heavily corroborated to the point impeachment would be likely if Biden was to remain in office.[20]

However, the redefinition of “democracy” has become narrower still – those who have pushed this redefinition have in mind have a particular progressive, secular, socialist and internationalist vision of “democracy”, politically reimagined by globalist bodies such as the World Economic Forum.  Despite being decades old, the WEF became famous during the COVID-19 pandemic with leader Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset” where he offered an exposition of what he called a “stakeholder” model of capitalism.[21]  However, the programme self-describes a new settlement for a responsive “Welfare State” respecting the various stakeholder’s needs, it is thus explicitly a socialist model albeit with an elaborate new vocabulary and some visionary, globalist ambition.  One of the most distinctive idioms of the public marketing of this position, was that society had been transformed because of the restrictions during the pandemic into a “new normal” of strong government action necessary to keep everyone safe, “no one is safe until all are [made] safe”.[22]  The key here is the amplification – the legitimisation of the “making” by coercive government of action for some amorphous conception of the “common good”.

Thus, the “enemies of democracy” become the political dissenters from this “new normal”.  This “new normal” is a global vision and thus global resources are utilised to deal with the threats.  The US experience with Trump illumines this well and we can give extensive attention to this to help advance our thesis.  Trump became President radically against the odds; for most mainstream commentators Hilary Clinton was the rightful heir to the Obama era and the next step upon the remaking of the US, and the world in line with the globalist vision.  Obama in his final term had none of the reticence and shrewd politicking that characterised his emergence during the Clinton and Bush years.  His positions on immigration, undocumented aliens and “gay rights” became radically reconstructive in total contrast to his conservative statements when running for office where even as late as his 2008 run he defended marriage as between a man and a woman only [23] and that the border should be secure and non-porous for the security of the nation.  This was in contrast to late in his second term when he described “undocumented” residents of the US as “Americans in every way except name” and his aggressive advancement of the “gay rights” agenda.

However, there was a misjudgement by the liberal reconstructionists of the mood of the nation.  It was a major upset to see Trump elected on a populist, “American-First” platform utterly inimical to the “new normal” of the globalist, liberal vision for “democracy”.  Thus, Trump became the prime enemy of this “democracy” and the CIA with its various NGOs, Ukrainian assets and domestic political actors, executed an operation to evict him from office and interfere with the 2020 election to ensure he did not get re-elected.  The CIA are experts at destabilising and causing violent agitation to promote regime change and the focus in this case was inward.

There is now substantial evidence that the FBI was tasked either wittingly or unwittingly to provoke the crowd to allow charges of an insurrection and invalidate any possible challenge to the certification of the votes.  Video footage released of the Jan 6th “insurrection” show capitol police ushering protestors through to private areas, opening closed external doors, operatives pretending to be protestors bumping fists after fake arrests.  One of the most “violent” assaults led by Epstein was dealt with quietly behind closed doors amounting to nothing but a $500 fine whilst other Jan 6th offenders are kept in solitary confinement without charge.

It is difficult to conclude that this was anything but a staged operation; the former head of the capitol police detailed all sorts of operational anomalies on the day.[24]  Video has even emerged of a “backup plan” should the results of the 2020 election been challenged because of the irregularities that were plainly coming into public view – ballot stuffing, compromised voting machines still connected to the internet (all functionality was supposed to be removed before use) and “Two Thousand Mules” engaged in systematic fraud.[25]  Postal votes were abused, absentee ballots were abused and people were imitating the dead, people were turning up to vote in person to be told they had already voted by mail-in.  All these allegations were substantiated after the fact.

The backup plan was the DNC/RNC “pipe bomb” plot – the FBI announced that “viable devices” had been found at those two locations, these had timers that were to coincide with the certification of the vote.  Contrary to all protocol and precedent, the VP-elect was not in the chamber for the most important event of her life but conveniently positioned close to the bomb at the DNC headquarters.  She did not admit to being there until it was proved otherwise and has offered no explanation.  However, the inference seems clear – should too many questions be raised about the legitimacy of the vote, the bomb would be detonated, and the media would be informed that an attempt was made on the VP-elect’s life, and this would be used to substantiate claims of insurrection and make impossible any challenges to the certification process by making the count moot by inditing Trump.  The reason why this spectacular and scandalous inference was possible is because it is now documented on actual video footage from the security cameras around the DNC on the day and the utter unexplainable behaviour of the Secret Service and capitol police on site.  CIA operatives and FBI operatives are now confirmed as present.[26] They clearly had advance knowledge of the devices and their placement.[27]

In the wake of the events, despite the creation of a January 6th enquiry and high-profile subpoenas and arrests, detention without charge or trial of citizens exercising their constitutional rights to protest, Trump was not even charged, let alone convicted of insurrection.  However, that did not prevent States then taking unilateral, unconstitutional action to keep him off the ballot in those States – again, the justification was that Trump was an enemy of “democracy” and rather than allow the people to decide by not voting for him, the institutions of the democracy would take pre-emptive measures.

Do we see how we destroy democracy in the name of protecting democracy – what in fact we see is the “liberal” version of the democratic institutions using all measures to prevent their loss of power to execute their agenda of deconstructing the West by destroying the US.  Quite remarkably the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the State action was unconstitutional (but state attorneys were publicly unrepentant), but this legal challenge was but one of 100 other actions brought against Trump to interfere with his ability to campaign and in an attempt to bankrupt him.  This we previously called “lawfare” and is a common tactic in 3rd world countries and fascist/communist nations where you go after the former president to prevent him from ever running again (as has just happened in Brazil).[28]  As has now been noted, this is the first time this technique has been applied in US politics and sets a dangerous precedent.

The second great destructive tool used throughout the Western world is what left-leaning academics in the early 2000s began to characterise as “demographics is destiny”.  It began to be a topic of discussion in the US academic and public quasi-intellectual space and refers to the theory that white people will be in the minority in many countries that were historically white and were built by majority white populations.  With the demographic changes caused by immigration, legal and more significantly in the last decade, illegal, the balance of power would shift in the interests of the political right to the political left.  The latter being the case because the Left understand that those seen to be arguing to create a path for citizenship for you when arriving illegally, redesignating and destigmatising you by relabelling you as a “newcomer”, you are more likely to vote for you than your opponent who wants to deport you.

Similarly, Europe has been absolutely assaulted with mass migration over the last decade, with enormous Moslem migration exacerbated by the conflict in Syria and the steady flow across the Mediterranean from Africa via the people smugglers out of Libya, and the consequent social agitation that accompanies radical Islam.  Britain and France have both witnessed severe Islamic terrorist violence as their Moslem populations break the 15% threshold with some inner-city areas almost entirely Moslem and 99.9% non-White.  Controversy recently erupted in a London borough when local Moslems declared an independent “Sharia” law zone and put-up signs around the area, announcing they would then police with their own young men.  Despite announcing that compliance would initially be “voluntary”, the implication was that coercion would follow.

Likewise, both the US and the UK are suffering a border crisis and their respective governments have been adopting policies aimed at maximising the level of immigration into their countries and in providing a pathway to citizenship for those claiming “asylum”, even if they arrive illegally or in an undocumented fashion.  In the UK, corrupt lawyers create fake asylum claims on demand [29] crafting stories for “newcomers” aiming for entry – like the US, the stigmatisation of being called an illegal immigrant is replaced with the politically correct term “newcomer” or “economic migrant”.

Thus, UK “newcomers” get accommodation, benefits, and mobile phones at the citizen taxpayer’s expense.  Politicians make a lot of noise and promises regarding managing immigration in order to protect the native population of the country, whilst at the same time presiding over massive increases.  They make it harder for people to legally immigrate (which has always been of great benefit to the country and should be welcomed) [30] for the sake of political soundbites and reputation, but in the name of compassion and social justice allow illegals to remain and at liberty whilst their claims for asylum work their way through a complex and lengthy process.  It is now a common site for mass congregations of migrants, predominantly young, single men, in European city centres accompanied by major law and order problems, particularly with sexual assault against women.[31]

With a delay in the US of 8-years to a court review and no requirement to report regularly to immigration authorities, this effectively means a “newcomer” faces little prospect of deportation for monitoring.  Additionally, containment policies are so weak, that illegals can easily find their way into the general population and disappear into the black economy, failing ever to report for immigration interviews or asylum hearings.  Evidence is now emerging that they then work at establishing networks and facilitate the trafficking of others, often with criminal backing of particularly brutal and unpleasant gangsters as reported by the London police with regards to the Albanian gangs now operating in the city.

The UK suffered an epidemic of Eastern European prostitution and criminal trafficking gangs as the EU expanded Eastwards.  Even TV investigative programmes were to feature East European gangs caught with false ATM facades and running pop-up brothels across the wealthy South of the nation.  Chinese run cannabis farms became common, some which were so large that they were discovered because of the drain on the local power grid.  The UK was known for its “soft-touch” and became the destination of choice, with other European countries facilitating the passage.[32]

The political aim of the policy was to dilute the anti-EU tenor of the country which has always had a tense relationship with the bloc.  France was hostile to the UK ever joining and the EU was increasingly characterised as a Franco-German collaborative project which primarily benefitted those nations at the expense of others.  Although Brexit happened, it is clearly viewed as a temporary interlude with the Left in the country already finding ways to reintegrate with Europe and making policy decisions to do so, including agreeing to take even more “migrants”.  Ireland has also seen unprecedented levels of immigration as a deliberate policy despite the strong, and now violent reaction to the influx.[33]  The political class in Ireland are busy dismantling the conservative underpinnings of its culture and constitution, taking aggressive political action against famous public dissenters such as Conor McGregor.

Most dramatically, the US has seen the present administration going to extraordinary lengths to facilitate immigration.  Over 325000, known in advance to be those illegible for settlement but who have used a special government created mobile application that enables them to pre-book an immigration interview, have been flown into the US at the citizen funded expense, bypassing normal custom controls and immigration checks.  Special “undocumented” queues and waiting areas have now been filmed at major US airports with privileges afforded the undocumented illegals denied to citizens.

It is estimated 20 million would have entered by the end of this year in just four years, with over 100 Trump-era border control measures removed and furthermore, bragged about being removed as a policy priority.  “Sanctuary cities” and “Blue” states are allowing newcomers to vote in local elections, and non-citizens are entering government posts, police and shortly the military.  New legislation is being prepared to allow voting by non-citizens in federal and presidential elections – this would make the citizen requirement irrelevant and complete the “demographic” transformation of the country, consolidating the power in the hands of the Democratic Party.  The longer motivation is to remove the obstacle of constitutionalism by “packing” the Supreme Court which has stood in the way of a worldwide transformation as envisioned by the globalists of the WEF.

Globalists have long viewed the US-Constitution as the biggest obstacle to world government as it is constructed in such a way as to deny a foreign power sovereignty over US-citizens and to protect the US-citizen from its own government behaving in a tyrannical manner.  The present administration caused an enormous reaction during COVID when it became evident they were attempting to grant the WHO executive authority over US-citizens,[34] usurping constitutional provisions.  This was replicated worldwide a year or so later when the WHO announced the “Pandemic Treaty”, a treaty that for the first time would allow the WHO to decide and enforce global health policies in the event of a pandemic.  Pushback has been non-trivial to the degree that the UN has announced a special “non-stop” conference aimed at progressing the measure with the US proposing a resolution that would recast it as an “agreement” rather than a Treaty.[35]

Thinly veiled behind these initiatives is the presumption that the nation state has outlived its usefulness.  We are to consider ourselves “citizens of the world”.  We might celebrate our heritage and even insist on our identity but there is a higher “good” which we, like the members of the Federation of Star Trek, voluntarily give our lives for and to.  Once we have done so, we have left behind that which of our old self would stand against the vision of us now enlightened.

If we share the planet then it stands to reason we should be able to live anywhere we choose.  From the grand ancient Assyrian empires, through to Alexander the Great and ever onwards, the desire of a world government is homogeneity and a transnational identity that would bind people together.  People would not war with one another if they were “one”.  This would seem astonishingly naïve as the colonisation of South America created a number of Spanish speaking nations that despite a common colonial heritage were not willing to be a single nation.

However, there is a contingency plan here even for this stubborn trait of human beings refusing to surrender their individuality, the new societal planners deny in principle the legitimacy of those individual “rights”.  Without rights, we become children in need of discipline which will be provided by our elites who work all things according to our good.  Noah Harari, as a prophet of this new transhuman age has expounded, “rights” are “nice stories [like God] but have no biological reality”.[36]  He, and visionaries like him, such as Prof B F Skinner as a historical precursor, view concepts such as freedom, individuality, natural rights, right and wrong as relics of a post-Christian age.  In the new scientific age, such anachronisms can be dispensed with, and we can have real scientific planning of society by an elite (of which, naturally enough, he and others like him such as the fellow-travellers to the WEF, considers themselves as members).[37]  With a pause for critical thinking, we might think this sounds a lot like Plato’s philosopher kings or Auguste Comte’s [38] rule by technocrats.

So, to summarise our investigation, we must understand that the destruction of the West is desired both by the Islamists and their new partners the Marxists, but also by the technocratic leaders of what we have variously called the “Deep State” or the “New World Order”.[39]  We understand that mass illegal migration is a “weapon” that combined with internal policies that allow the “newcomers” to be integrated into civic and military society, and to vote despite being non-citizens, having no allegiance to the Constitutions of our nations.  It is designed to transform our nation states into members of a transnational body.  The EU had pushed this agenda hard, and it has malfunctioned with the biggest upset in Europe being the UK Brexit and in the US the emergence of Trump.  However, such internationalists never give up and the immigration route to the UK is wide open as a deliberate policy to create a UK with a demographic favourable to re-entry to the EU bloc.  Similarly, within the US, the border was intentionally opened as a matter of “humanity” and there is now no such category as an “illegal alien”, but we are now “newcomers”.

My task with this discussion has been above all to inform and to understand this is not an unplanned event.  If we do not act, we will lose the West and the historic Western, democratic values to be replaced with a tribalistic form of government that separates people on the basis of race or some other identifier, limiting their freedom of speech and using “diversity, equity and inclusion” as mechanisms of social control.  This means we must vote and educate accordingly to arrest the decline in our cultures.  We must act. It should be unacceptable for those who come to the West as students or temporary residents to aggressively demonstrate for Islamic revolution and the destruction of the nation in which they are guests.  Their rights to study or remain should be withdrawn and they should be rapidly deported.  Thus, it was correct that the top US law-firms announced that any signatories to the Harvard Lawschool declarations of support for HAMAS against Israel, would not be considered for future employment.  Demonstrators that call for worldwide “Jihad” or “Intifada” and the genocide of a whole nation, need to understand that there will be consequences for refusing to respect the rights of others in a democracy.  We also need to ensure the reformation of state and educational institutions to divest them of the Marxist influence and to protect individuals from being victimised by such policies.

In the same way, we must recognise the manifold failure of the premise of multiculturalism.  It is now empirically proven that most non-Western cultures that have a strong sense of their own identity do not migrate West to peacefully assimilate but rather to establish a base and to colonise, in a benign manner or otherwise.[40]  Our history demonstrates what were thought of as peaceful minorities become violent agitators for their own way of life as insular and self-contained communities developed.  If there is no investment in the culture and values of the nations in which we are resident, but rather a concentration on where we came from and a value equivalence granted between newcomers and citizens, the citizens will become the marginalised and subsidise their own destruction.  There can be no clearer example of that at the moment than with the practice of mass immigration and the “catch and release” policies, or the millions spent on housing the “undocumented” or “newcomers”.  Not many of us would deny that we should be always willing to grant asylum and to facilitate immigration, but it should be under very clear and strict, legal terms.

So, to finish where I began, it is of no question to me that the UK (and the West) are experiencing an inflection point that are undoing its very democratic foundations.  There is an ushering in an era of a socialism that is far more sensitive to how it markets itself, wrapping itself in social justice motifs as an excuse to mitigate against the freedom of the individual and to tyrannise over those who stand in its way.  The government, and now the international strata of government represented by UN and transnational NGOs, are working hard to get people to buy into the utopian vision, to surrender their freedom in the name of social and environmental responsibility.  We must not allow them to succeed.


Further Reading

Bongino, D. (2020). Follow The Money – The Shocking Deep State Connections of the Anti-Trump Cabal. New York: Post Hill Press.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind. Vintage Digital.

Jones, A. (2022). The Great Reset: And the War for the World. New York: Skyhorse.

Lopez, T. M. (2014). The Winter of Discontent: Myth, Memory, and History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Saxby, T. (1987). Pilgrims of a common life: Christian community of goods through the centuries. Herald Press.

Schaller, T., & Waldman, P. (2024). White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. New York: Random House.

Schwab, K. (2021). Stakeholder Capitalism. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.

Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). COVID-19: The Great Reset. Geneva: Forum.

White, J. (c2000?). The Greater London Council 1965-1986. Retrieved from London School of Economics (LSE):


[1] “Scientism” is the belief that the only questions worth asking are the questions that science can answer; or alternatively, the only legitimate answers are the answers offered by naturalistic science.  The logical positivist manifesto of 1933, tr. “the Scientific View of the World”, the Humanist manifestos  and the rise of scientific naturalism in the 1960s (particularly in the post-positivism of W.V.O. Quine), are examples of this category.  Noah Harari is a modern example, who argues we are now in a “post-human” age as humans merge with technology, they are the “intelligent designers”.

[2] Modern Marxist sects that still consider alienation between human beings as primarily economic, rather than in the broader categories of the neo-Marxists and critical theorists (see note 6), will typically label themselves “Trotskyite” (more open to pragmatic market-mechanisms and democracy) in contrast to the centralisation and tyrannical authoritarianism of the Stalinist character of Russian communism, that was never truly expunged until the meeting of Reagen and Gorbachev, followed by the reestablishment of the Russian republic with Yeltsin and then extensive democratisation under Putin, who was initially very willing to work with the West.  Just how betrayed Putin felt during the Bush and Clinton era can be heard in his controversial interview with Tucker Carlson, .

[3] The HAMAS charter (1988) can be read here: .  Although you have no doubt in reading this that the West are the imperialist powers allied with the “Nazi Zionists” and that “Jihad” is the only way to solve problems (“initiatives, proposal and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavours”, Article 13), it must also be strongly stated that as with much Islamic literature, it is relatively mild compared to the practice of HAMAS some 37 years later.  Perhaps the largest distinction that can now be drawn is the response to the “Communist East”, HAMAS sent a delegation to Moscow within days of the present war starting, see also note 4.

[4] I consider the background to why two seemingly disparate revolutionary groups would make common cause in .  In brief, Lenin supported Islamic revolution as a localised expression of the Communist revolution in one of the first post-revolutionary congresses.

[5] This was why it was South Africa that brought proceedings to the International Criminal Court against Israel on behalf of the revolutionary Islamic movement, despite their own questionable record on human rights issues.  Just this week (11th March 2024) the South African government announced it would arrest any of its citizens who had fought for Israel in the current conflict with HAMAS.

[6] It is arguable that in the academy, Marxist or “critical theory” (Marxist analysis applied outside of its original economic context, i.e., no longer is it just economic relations that “alienate” humanity, but it is the “imbalance of power relations” in most spheres of life, e.g., sex, race, gender etc.) has been particularly strong in the Western academy since the 1960s.  Faculty and specifically tenured faculty (who then build a faculty around themselves consolidating and reinforcing their positions), have been unabashed in their advocation of Marxism in fields such as law, sociology, economics, and political science.  In a UK context, it was significant that one of the first significant reforms that Premier Thatcher made in the early 1980s in her reform of Higher Education and her general battle with the “enemy within” (which to her was ‘socialism’), was to remove tenure of this kind.

[7] “Deep State” is a contentious term eliciting visions of dark conspiracies in the subterranean strata of the governments of the West and there is no doubt some merit in such an analysis as the Biden family corruption saga rolls on and the various hoaxes and “lawfare” prosecutions perpetrated by opponents of Trump in an attempt to impeach and discredit him, are almost too many to count (103 active cases at the moment).  However, “Deep State” in its most benign sense in the US might be roughly analogous to the “Civil Service” in the UK, it refers to the relatively politically agnostic bureaucracy of government that would be employed regardless of the tenor of the elected executive.  Arguably, with the rise of identity politics and its aggressive tribalism, this principle of neutrality is becoming a thing of the past and “Deep State” has increasingly imported in the notion of the nefarious opponents embedded in the bureaucracies usurping the execution of the policies of the executive by their “principled resistance” for the sake of the greater good.

[8] The distinction between the two is significant, “disinformation” might be considered a contraction of “disingenuous information”, i.e., intended to deceive, and might be argued to be destructive or dangerous.  “Misinformation” is far weaker, perhaps information without sufficient detail or context.  Historically, in a democratic society, being misinformed might have been considered at worst reprehensible but was hardly a basis for censorship.  In contrast, disinformation which has criminal motive or deceptive intent might legitimately face prosecution or sanction.

[9] As an illustrative British example, the recent submission of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill ( contains controversial clauses which create new categories of “speech which might cause distress or disturbance” without being considered criminal.  However, like crimes, they can be recorded against an individual.

[10] In the UK, unlike in the US and perhaps some other locations, rather than by blocking entrances and other ‘direct action’ to save the unborn, these are almost exclusively passive and low-key in the sense they offer support to women by non-aggressive approach, who may feel there is no other option other than to have an abortion.  These are often immigrant or poorer women, or those in very difficult circumstances such as spousal or partner abuse.  I supported, personally, a campaigner who had been helped in such a situation as an immigrant in an abusive relationship who was offered help and support on the way into an abortion clinic and now has a seven-year-old daughter; she took the campaign for the right to offer support as far as she legally could.

However, in recent years this “quiet” support has been the subject of aggressive and noisy counter protests by radical pro-abortion groups and the British government has allowed the introduction of “exclusion zones” around these facilities, despite recognising that it was often the counter-protests that were loud and aggressive.  It is notable that even silently praying to oneself within these zones makes one liable for arrest for your “thoughtcrime”; when tested in court such arrests have been deemed unlawful, but some individuals have been arrested multiple times by multiple officers in the same locations despite these rulings – one white-headed mature lady was arrested by six officers.

[11] It should be recognised that around 1 in 10000 human beings have a biological basis to claim to being “intersex”, where either they have male and female genetic identifiers, or both sets of sexual organs.  However, this is qualitatively different than subjective, sociological, and psychological claims of “intersexual variation”.

[12] In broad strokes, “equality” might be conceived of in two ways – of opportunity or of outcome.  The former might be considered the classic liberal or libertarian view, an individual chooses whether or not to avail themselves of the opportunities which are made available to them – a just and equitable society is conceived of one in which these are available to all without discrimination, but also without compulsion.  Implicit in this is the motivation and character of the individual, leading to a diversity of outcomes, status, and wealth; it might be considered the paleo-capitalist view first codified in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) which was prefaced with a particular theory of moral sentiments which emphasised the importance of wealth as a tool of creating social infrastructure to benefit all men and women, rather than for personal aggrandisement or shareholder profit.  Rather, “profit” was a legitimate aim because it created “wealth”, the raw material of societal improvement.

The latter is the socialist view, in which the tool of the coercive State is used to prevent inequalities of income or the development of personal fortune by, as in the Marxist version of socialism, the collective ownership of the means of production; each has an equal stake in the success of communal businesses and equality is imposed in a top-down manner.  In most communist nations of Eastern Europe, South Asia and South America, this manifested itself in brutal dictatorships, barren and austere functional styles of architecture made with concrete and a meagre subsistence living.  Albanians were told they enjoyed the highest standard of living in Europe, with the government providing a single loaf of bread a day for the population.

Utopian socialists believed this reorganisation could be on a voluntary cooperative level as in Robert Owen’s “New Harmony” community experiment (1824) which sat atop of the original Lutheran “Harmonie” community.  Owen later lamented the failure of the community because of the problem of human nature, “I was then ignorant of what everyone who attempts to govern men ought to know—that every person has within him a self-constituted judge…which will not be controlled by any laws or regulations that are not in accordance with it.” New Harmony lasted barely four years but still exists as a tourist attraction, Saxby (1987) offers a salient description and analysis of the interaction between the early socialist and Christian communitarian movements which had substantial comment in Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto.  For the Manifesto, utopian socialists were considered to be to the “left” of the true path, i.e., Marx and Engel’s.

In most Western nations, the severity of the Marxist model was somewhat diluted from the aggressive communist revolutionary form, but it is still this model of equality which has been far more common in the last two hundred years rather than the libertarian or liberal views.  States have become progressively larger and more invasive, i.e., more socialist.

[13] Most professional politicians in the West (and probably the East also) are “groomed” throughout their lives.  The persistent Platonic notion of the “philosopher kings” as a ruling elite of society that are best equipped to rule in contrast to the riotous plebian mob committed to democracy and populism, is still alive and well.  Both the British and the US politicians (and I would guess most other European nations) have their own elite schools and universities which provide a cultured path to those who rule according to such a perceived birthright.  In British political culture, even the Leftist radicals within the Labour Party have felt able to avail themselves of this system once elected, sending their children to the best “public” schools (in the UK, unlike in the US, a “public” school is anything but, it is an elite institution), even though their public support for policies that would wipe such institutions away.

[14] There is an issue of nomenclature here.  Historically, socialism and socialists in the US in the early part of the 20th century almost exclusively adopted the label “progressive” to avoid association with the tyranny and brutality of the French revolution (nominally 1789-1799, but whose effect was to continue throughout the next century and might be considered the intellectual heritage of the Marx-Engels synthesis in their Communist Manifesto (1848)) and the Russian Bolshevik communist revolution (nominally 1917-1923).  Further, in modern American parlance, the progressive is synonymous with the “liberal”, with the latter often preferred in politically sensitive environments; though some on the radical Left, post-Trump, are comfortable to publicly identify as “democratic socialists”.

This was not the case in Europe, socialists distinguished themselves with pride from the “bourgeois liberals” and identified themselves as socialists first in opposition to European liberalism.  To the European, this classic “liberal” (sometimes now known as neo-liberal), encapsulated the optimistic pathos that individual freedom, collective justice, and equity could be ushered in by enlightened legislation and a primary respect for individual rights and freedoms.  The classic statement of this view was J S Mill’s On Liberty (1859) which begins from the premise of maximising the individual’s freedom and demarcating the activity of the State with respect to this premise.  It is considered one of the classic works of political philosophy.  The changes to society are viewed as incremental; it is this “evolution”, above all else, that the radical socialists with their revolutionary model rejected – no modification of the old, corrupt institutions was possible, they must be swept away by revolution and replaced from the ground up.  In practice though, European socialism came back from the brink of embracing revolutionary politics (with notable exceptions, there are still plenty of splinter Trotskyite factions) in the early decades of the 20th century (in lieu of the violence and bloodshed of the Bolsheviks) and the socialists became a feature of the political democracies with the large expansion of suffrage.

In my view, this was, rather paradoxically, also owing to the influence of Mill.  Mill in 1830 went to France and read a range of the revolutionary works by the Saint-Simonian school (Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825); Amand Bazard (1791–1832), Barthélemy Prosper Enfantin (1796–1864)) which might be considered the first corpus of an explicitly socialist political programme.  Though there had been precursors in the egalitarianism and collectivism of the English Revolution with groups such as The Diggers and The Levellers emerging from Cromwell’s New Model Army, inspired by his political pluralism (being the first to support religious rights for the Jews), they were still Christian in their basic assumptions; modern secular, ‘scientific’ and materialist socialism emerged from the writings of these later men.  Mill moderated the practice of these writers but might be considered as incorporating the ideas as the noble aims of the liberal politics.

[15] Biden’s “State of the Union” speech (2024) began with a comparison of Trump with Hitler (though Trump was never explicitly named, the inference was deliberate and obvious) and that America was facing the greatest threat to its survival as a democracy since the Civil War.

[16] This is the thesis expounded by Schaller & Waldman (2024) whose work was showcased on MSNBC (a national US-broadcaster). If ever there was an academic working out of Hillary Clinton’s description of rural, white Americans as “deplorables”, this was it.  As the Daily Beast reviewer approvingly agrees, “[they] persuasively argue that most of the negative stereotypes liberals hold about rural Americans are actually true… The main problem with Trumpism is not Donald Trump but Trump voters.”  On the basis of this analysis, I should imagine the converse is also true – the rural Americans can take comfort in that their stereotypes regarding urban liberals as elitist and condescending, are also substantially true.

[17] I examined this in an article published on my blog at: .

[18] During the COVID pandemic, the premier of New Zealand announced to her people that the “government will tell them what is true”, that was the essence of a committed, socialist premier.  New Zealand adopted some of the most brutal lockdown policies and some of the harshest sanctions against “deniers”.  People faced jail if their COVID test was not conducted by a medical professional.  The Premier became increasingly unpopular and left her country after COVID receded to take up a well-rewarded lecturing position at Harvard.  New Zealand is now suffering one of the highest incidences of “Adult Sudden Death” syndrome and vaccine related injury.

[19] Trump was notable for never entering a conflict and architecting the Abraham Accords which brought peace in the Middle East as close as it has been.  He had the respect of Putin, the Chinese and even the North Korean leader after the very public “rocket man” incident.

[20] The fact is that Biden will not remain in office, as it is now generally accepted his cognitive decline means he could not take up the office even if he was to be successful.  It may well be his next VP pick, perhaps someone so politically Left they would never be supported by the voters, would be the real target for power and executing the plan for the transformation of the US into a post-constitutional form of government more in line with the demands of globalist orthodoxy.  Paradoxically, impeachments tend to improve the public perception of the impeached and for this reason are reluctantly executed (Clinton actually benefitted from his impeachment).

[21] See the bibliography for his primary works of that period.  The first was a “popular” version of the more academic second work.  Schwab is no fool and neither are those he represents, they are visionaries, secular scientists, and technologists, frequently bequeathing to science a messianic tone as witnessed in the writings and speech of those such as Noah Harari.  Their writings and research are non-trivial and their critiques of big-money capitalism where profit alone motivates, are cogent and legitimate.  Notwithstanding, their work claiming to be a benevolent reimaging of capitalism, suited for the planet and other “stakeholders” is an entire, integrated political programme that reimagines the world along the lines of a new “scientific” consensus which becomes the normative basis of a new social contract for all.

Thus, despite its energetic claims to be otherwise, this is not a free-market model where individuals and nations trade with one another, creating wealthy nations and thus social progress through the building of institutions through the generation of capital and value, the essence of Adam Smith’s form of free market capitalism; but a central reorganisation of societal relations, with a detailed and elaborate marketing programme designed to promote the lay acceptance of the programme; we might call that “scientific planning” which is worth correlating with Marx’s vision that his was a “scientific socialism” in contrast to the utopian socialism of some of his peers.  This is a prescription for a benevolent “Welfare State” orientated to the needs of its stakeholders, where capital flows away from “shareholders” to state social institutions; capital must yield to state priorities for “all”.

With its emphasis on central planning, no matter how distributed the local iterations and implementations of the programme might be, this is planning of a new social contract with global scope and a new tier of transnational organisation, i.e., at base a radical, globalist, internationalist, socialist model that sits below the tier of the “elite”.  Schwab’s machinations in describing the privileging and de-privileging of certain “stakeholders” to support the intermediate or transitory state from “shareholder capitalism” to “stakeholder capitalism” in which all stakeholders should be equal but cannot be during this time, can but remind one of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ where the pigs, as a first privilege, had the milk mixed in with their food because the cows needed to be milked.

[22] This is a quote from an official UK government response to a petition against mandatory vaccinations for “keyworkers” (e.g., government bureaucrats, National Health Service workers as the largest groups).  “Official petitions” registered with the government that gain over 100 000 signatories get a response from the government and a “debate” in a minor committee room with no law-making or changing power.  Apparently, this measure was introduced to “strengthen” and improve “participation” in British democracy.

[23] This was widely perceived as being a means to capturing the black evangelical Christian vote.

[24] An illuminating and interesting discussion with the former head of capitol police is found here, .

[25] This was a title of a film made by De Souza that used cell phone data to strongly suggest systematic fraud, .

[26] The video was shown to the Intelligence Committee in Congress and the minority group (the Democrats) were clearly shocked at what they saw.  The “plot” was clearly approved at the highest levels and many Democratic senators and congress members were clearly unaware of it.  This is why it is called “Deep State” action or “uniparty” action that transcends the Party divisions but represents the interests of a political elite.

[27] Dan Bongino during the first two weeks of Feb 2024 (Ep. 2189, 2186) featured this footage on his programme and the reporters who had done the investigative work.  These podcasts are available on Dan’s site on Rumble, .  Dan started with the NYPD, worked at the Secret Service during the Clinton and Obama years and was Fox’s anchor before starting in the new media space 8-years ago.  He now has over 3 million followers on Rumble.  Dan’s show is not for the fainthearted, he is a public MAGA Republican, aggressive and outspoken, but he is an exceptional newsperson and aims to be fair and open in his reporting despite his own strong views.

[28] Jair Bolsonaro left Brazil two days before the end of his term for Florida and has not returned.  Subsequent to his leaving office, many of his high-profile supporters, journalists and professionals have left the country before they were arrested by the incumbent President who immediately went after his political opponents to consolidate his razor thin hold on power, a story told firsthand by .

[29] The problem became so evident in the UK that the government created and announced a public policy of shutting down legal firms that were proved to have provided false narratives for immigrant clients.

[30] I consider the complexities of immigration in .  An additional dimension to the problem was also identified in the controversy surrounding the ‘Sound of Freedom’ film; open borders mean traffickers are not forced through points of entry where they are most likely to be discovered.  Open borders are exploited by cartels with sex-trafficking the world’s second largest criminal enterprise after illegal drugs.  I examined this in more detail in .

[31] Sweden, with its liberal government immigration policies, had major problems over the New Year period.  In one district of Florida, 29 out of 30 occupants of the city jail were undocumented, illegal immigrants who had been processed into the US by the “catch and release” policy and who were arrested for serious sexual offences.  The local Sheriff posited that it was “cultural differences” – what the men were doing was perfectly acceptable in their own countries.

[32] The moderate Conservative Party primeminister David Cameron once announced it was the dream of many a Eastern European to make it to Britain, such was the rate of exodus from some of the Eastern bloc countries as they joined the EU.  TV programmes chronicled the empty villages of Bulgaria, as they headed westward to a “better life” in the UK.

[33] Discussed in

[34] The US had sponsored an amendment to the WHO constitution which would have granted them executive authority over the national governments in pandemic conditions.  The UN, via the WHO, is continuing to push for a Pandemic Treaty, which is really the trojan horse for establishing an additional layer of executive world government with binding powers over the nation states.  If it can be established with Health, it will follow for areas such as Education and Social Policy.

[35] This is because a Treaty has to be ratified by the full US-Senate, an “agreement” requires no ratification.  This has all the appearance of a shameless piece of politicking.

[36] Don Bongino during Feb 2024 during breaks on his radio show, often carried this clip.  Jones (2022) is specifically critical of the implications of Harari’s atheistic view; a section of Harari’s famous bestseller Sapiens (2014) has an entire chapter on humans transcending the human condition to become “gods”.

[37] They are very public about it too.  The WEF broadcasts most of its sessions and I remember one particular episode where the immaculately manicured presenter lamented that “people just do not trust the elite [us] anymore”.

[38] August Comte was a 19th century philosopher of science and is credited with the founding of scientific sociology, as well as founding the “positivist” movement, that sought to describe through “positive evidence” rather than to abstractly theorise or explain.  He also proposed an elaborate new humanist religion, there are still “positivist” churches in Brazil.  “Positivism” became famous with the logical positivists of the first half of the 20th century and some of his religious tenor is found in the first Humanist manifesto of the 1930s.

[39] There might be a functional distinction between the two, with the “Deep State” properly understood as the instrument of the New World Order but key players migrate via powerful NGOs between the two.  One such organisation called the Atlantic…  has six former Directors of the CIA on their staff (I intentionally omit the full name here, but Dan Bongino’s book goes into detail about the history and make-up of the group).

[40] This is not to suggest that individuals or families have not assimilated or have been grateful for asylum or have immigrated legally.  Rather, I have the case in mind of our so-called “Manchester Bomber”, the son of Libyan “refugees” who within 10 years hated the country enough to execute a suicide bombing which killed 22.  The parents returned to Libya just four weeks before the bombing and the bomber himself was with his family in Libya just four days prior.  As with the case of Laken Riley in the US, it is difficult to avoid the equation that these deaths were preventable by enforcing a rigorous asylum and immigration protocol.

One thought on “The Unmaking of the West

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.