Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc.
play little role in the cultural Marxist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-
collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He
is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve
his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The cultural Marxist is antagonistic to the
concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
Art forms that appeal to cultural Marxist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat
and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there
were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left
was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
cultural Marxist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to
insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions
about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of
objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that cultural Marxist philosophers are
not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge.
They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack
these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an
outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power.
More importantly, the cultural Marxist hates science and rationality because they classify
certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed,
inferior). The cultural Marxist feelings of inferiority run so deep that he/she cannot
tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as
failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many cultural Marxists of the
concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. cultural Marxists are antagonistic
to genetic explanations of human abilities or behaviour because such explanations tend
to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Cultural Marxists prefer to
give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
"inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.
The cultural Marxist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make
him/her a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind
of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and
self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and
his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behaviour.  But the cultural
Marxist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot
conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable; hence the collectivism of the
cultural Marxist. She can feel strong only as a member of a large organisation or a mass
movement with which she identifies herself.
Notice the masochistic tendency of cultural Marxist tactics. Cultural Marxists protest by
lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them,
etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many cultural Marxists use them not as a
means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a cultural
Cultural Marxists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral
principle, and moral principle does play a role for the cultural Marxist of the over-
socialised type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for
cultural Marxist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of cultural Marxist
behaviour; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much cultural Marxist behaviour is not
rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom they claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for Muslims, does it make
sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be
more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least
verbal and symbolic concessions to non-Muslims who think that affirmative action
discriminates against them. But cultural Marxist activists do not take such an approach
because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping Muslims is not their real goal.
Instead, problems related to Islam serve as an excuse for them to express their own
hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm Muslims, because
the activists' hostile attitude toward the non-Muslims tends to intensify the irritation or
If our society had no social problems at all, the cultural Marxists would have to INVENT
problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
We emphasise that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of
everyone who might be considered a cultural Marxist. It is only a rough indication of a
general tendency of cultural Marxism.
2.18 Democracy and the Media Bias
In democratic societies the press, the Fourth Estate, should supposedly make sure that
the government does its job properly as well as raise issues of public interest. In
practice, we now seem to have a situation where the political elites cooperate with the
media on making sure that some topics receive insufficient or unbalanced attention while
others are simply kept off the agenda altogether. This isn't the case with all issues but
with some more than others, especially those related to multiculturalism, mass
immigration and anti-discrimination where there seems to be a near-consensus among
the elites. Together they form a new political class. This trend is recognizable all over the
Western world, but it has become more deeply entrenched in Western Europe than in the
USA, partly because more media outlets in Europe are either controlled by or at least
sponsored by the state, but mainly because the political class has become formalised
through the European Union.
In Europe, politics is more and more becoming an empty ritual. The real decisions are
taken before the public even get a chance to vote on them, and the media won't talk
honestly about important matters. Our daily lives are run by a bloated bureaucracy which
is becoming increasingly transnational. Ever so slowly, everyone is reduced from being an
individual to being a cogwheel in a giant machine, run by supposedly well-meaning
administrators and technocrats. They don't really care about you; they just don't want
anybody to rock the boat, so they constantly grease the bureaucratic machinery with lies.
In 2007, former German president Roman Herzog warned that parliamentary democracy
was under threat from the European Union. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the
legal acts in Germany – and the majority in all EU member states - stemmed from
Brussels. According to Herzog, "EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of
democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers." Despite this, the EU
was largely a non-issue during the 2005 German elections. One gets the feeling that the
real issues of substance are kept off the table and are not subject to public debate.
National elections are becoming an increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have
already been settled beforehand behind closed doors.
As British politician Daniel Hannan says: "When all the politicians agree, the rest of us
should suspect a plot against the ordinary citizen. Without all-party consensus – and this
is true of all the Member States, not just Germany – the EU would never have got to
where it is." He believes the EU was intentionally designed this way: "Its founding fathers
understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of
Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had
to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure
where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public
opinion. Indeed, the EU's structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic."
In the eyes of American theorist Noam Chomsky, "The smart way to keep people passive
and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively
debate within that spectrum." This is undoubtedly true, which is why it's strange that
Chomsky thinks that the Internet, currently the freest medium of all, is "a hideous time-
In June 2004, a survey showed that 50% of all Swedes wanted a more restrictive
immigration policy. Mass immigration reached the highest levels in history in 2006,
yet before the general elections that year, all the major parties and the media cooperated
successfully on keeping a lid on the issue. During the past few elections in Sweden, there
has been virtually no public debate about mass immigration, but a passionate debate
about "gender equality" in which almost all contestants call themselves feminists, and
only argue over which ways to implement absolute equality between the sexes. The more
suffocating the censorship becomes regarding the problems created by Muslims, the
more discussion there is of ways to get rid of the straitjackets of heterosexuality. This is
clearly done in order to give the citizens the sense of living in an open, free and tolerant
society. Diversity of sex is used as a substitute for diversity of political opinions.
Author Bruce Bawer describes how before the rise of maverick politician Pim Fortuyn,
the Dutch political scene had to a great extent been a closed club whose members,
regardless of party affiliation, shared similar views in the widest possible sense. Most of
the journalists belonged to the same club. If the majority of the populace didn't quite
agree with this cozy elite regarding the most sensitive issues - and the most sensitive of
them all was Muslim immigration - this hardly mattered much. Since all those who were
in positions of power and influence were in basic agreement, the will of the people could
safely be ignored.
According to Bawer, "Fortuyn had been an active politician for only a few months but had
already shaken things up dramatically. Before him, Dutch politics had been essentially a
closed club whose members shared broadly similar views on major issues and abhorred
open conflict." Journalists and rival politicians alike - notice how they worked in lockstep -
responded by smearing him "as a right-wing extremist, a racist, a new Mussolini or
Hitler." Indirectly, this led to his murder by a left-wing activist who stated that he killed
Fortuyn on behalf of Muslims because he was "dangerous" to minorities.
Later, the Islam-critic Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight. As Bawer states,
"In 2006, in a crisis that brought down the government, Ms. [Ayaan] Hirsi Ali was
hounded out of Parliament by colleagues desperate to unload this troublemaker. When
she moved to Washington, D.C., last year, polls showed that many Dutchmen wouldn't
miss her. The elite, it seemed, had reasserted its power, and the Dutch people, tired of
conflict, had embraced the status quo ante. (…) Five years ago, Fortuyn inspired
widespread hope and determination. Today, all too many Dutch citizens seem confused,
fearful, and resigned to gradual Islamisation. No wonder many of them — especially the
young and educated — are emigrating to places like Canada, Australia, and New
Pim Fortuyn was indirectly murdered by the political, cultural and media elites whereas
Theo van Gogh was murdered by Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been driven from the
country. Islam-critic Geert Wilders is still there , but he is subject to similar smears as
Fortuyn was about being a racist, receives daily threats from Muslims and not-so-subtle
hints from the establishment that he should tone down his criticism of Muslim
immigration. The Dutch spirit appears to have been broken, at least for now, and things
are slowly returning to normal. The extended political elites are once again firmly in
control of public debate, and the embarrassing peasant rebellion has been successfully
I've suggested before that native Europeans face three enemies simultaneously when
fighting against the Islamisation of their lands: Enemy 1 is the anti-Western bias of our
media and academia, which is a common theme throughout the Western world. Enemy 2
are Eurabians and EU-federalists, who deliberately break down established nation states
in favor of a pan-European superstate. Enemy 3 are Muslims. The Netherlands from 2001
to 2007 is a clear case in point where enemies 1, 2 and 3 have successfully cooperated
on breaking down the spirit of the native population through intimidation and censorship
and by squashing any opposition to continued mass immigration.
The fact that members of the media and the academia tend to be more, sometimes a lot
more, left-leaning politically than the average populace is well-attested and documented
in the Scandinavian countries. Senior members of the BBC in Britain frankly admit that
they are biased and champion multiculturalism in their coverage. During the 2005 Muslim
riots, it was openly stated by several French journalists that they downplayed the
coverage of the riots because they didn't want it to benefit "right-wing parties." Judging
from anecdotal information it seems fair to assume that this trend is universal throughout
the Western world.
Bill Dedman, investigative reporter at the MSNBC, made a list of American journalists'
political campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007. Of the
143 journalists surveyed, 125 had donated money to the Democratic Party. Only 16 of
them had donated money to the Republican Party or conservative causes, and two to
Dr. Chanan Naveh, who used to edit the Israel Broadcasting Authority radio's news desk,
mentioned, with no regrets, examples in which he and his colleagues made a concerted
effort to change public opinion: "Three broadcasters - Carmela Menashe, Shelly
Yechimovich [later a Labour party Knesset Member], and I - pushed in every way
possible the withdrawal from Lebanon towards 2000... I have no doubt that we promoted
an agenda of withdrawal that was a matter of public dispute." As Charles Johnson of
American anti-Jihad blog Little Green Footballs commented: "Journalists are no longer
in the business of simply reporting facts and events; increasingly, they see their job as
'activism,' and the points of view they promote are invariably leftist and transnationalist.
Honest journalists will admit this outright, and we see the pernicious effects of this
information manipulation and filtering everywhere."
But why is the situation like this? One could claim that this is the effect of the Western
Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, or alternatively a product of the Cold War.
But if you believe the esteemed Friedrich Hayek, the trend was discernable already in the
late 1940s, before the Cold War had left a major impact. How do we explain that ? One
plausible hypothesis could be to assume that those with conservative viewpoints will
generally direct their energies towards business and commerce, while those with left-
leaning sympathies desire to get into positions where they can influence people's minds.
Over time, this could mean that in an open society, the media , the academia and the
intelligentsia will tend to gravitate towards the political Left and become dominated by
people sympathetic towards Utopian ideas. Because of the positions they have gained,
their political bias will significantly influence what information is presented to the general
masses, and how.
In his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism, Hayek noted already around 1950 that
"Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is a
construction of theorists" and intellectuals, "the secondhand dealers in ideas. The typical
intellectual need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he
even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of
ideas. The class does not consist of only journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers ,
publicists, radio commentators , writers of fiction , cartoonists, and artists." It also
"includes many professional men and technicians, such as scientists and doctors."
"The most brilliant and successful teachers are today more likely than not to be
socialists." According to Hayek, this is not because Socialists are more intelligent, but
because "a much higher proportion of socialists among the best minds devote themselves
to those intellectual pursuits which in modern society give them a decisive influence on
public opinion. Socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary
character. The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or
practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions."
He warns that "It may be that as a free society as we have known it carries in itself the
forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted
and ceases to be valued, and that the free growth of ideas which is the essence of a free
society will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends. Does this
mean that freedom is valued only when it is lost, that the world must everywhere go
through a dark phase of socialist totalitarianism before the forces of freedom can gather
strength anew? If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new
liberal program which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free
society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage."
During a conversation I had with a Swedish friend and a lady who grew up in the
Communist dictatorship of Romania, we concluded that Westerners are at least as
brainwashed by Political Correctness and multiculturalism as they ever were with
Communism. There never was a universally shared belief in multiculturalism in Western
Europe, and the percentage of True Believers is declining by the day. Still, it is probably
accurate to say that more people believed in multiculturalism in Western Europe in 1998
than who believed in communism in Eastern Europe in 1978. But how is that possible?
Ideological indoctrination is most effective if the people maintain the illusion that they are
free and that they are being served balanced information. Citizens in Communist states
knew that they participated in a large-scale social experiment, and since ideological
hegemony was upheld at gunpoint, this left little room for doubt that they were being
served propaganda to shore up support for this project. Yet in the supposedly free West,
we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism, seeking to
transform our entire society, and still we refuse to acknowledge that we are being served
ideological nonsense by the media.
The differences, particularly on issues related to Jihad and immigration, between the
information reported in blogs and independent websites and the information
presented to us by the established media are so great that it shocks many ordinary
citizens once it dawns upon them just how much censored propaganda we are spoon-fed
every day. This experience has shattered the myth of free, critical and independent
Western media, at least for some.
In the view of blogger Richard Landes, the media play a critical role in the global Jihad's
success. The major media outlets "are the eyes and ears of modern civil societies.
Without them we cannot know what is going on outside of our personal sphere, with
them we can make our democratic choices in elections, assess foreign policy, and
intervene humanely in the suffering around the globe. But as any paleontologist will tell
you, any creature whose eyes and ears misinform it about the environment, will not long
This can be compared to being attacked by an angry and hungry polar bear, while your
eyes and ears, the media, tell you that it's a cute koala bear who
just wants to be cuddled. Meanwhile, your brain has been
indoctrinated to think happy thoughts about diversity and smile
to all creatures, regardless of their nature or intentions. This is
pretty much how the entire West is today. The heavy bias of our
media and our education system constitutes a very real threat to
2.19 a. The EUSSR/USASSR Media hegemony
"[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without
any need for an official ban."
George Orwell, UK writer
Why the Western media does not always report everything that is going on in the world.
How language is used to obscure the facts and mold opinion.
Living in Western Europe we are told that the news media (television, newspapers, radio)
are free. It is certainly true that there are few government conspiracies to censor. Unlike
in totalitarian countries, the media is not generally state run or controlled. However this
is not the full story. Because the media is part of the global economy, there are certain
properties that deny readers, viewers and listeners a balanced view of world events.
There are six reasons why a balanced view of world events is not generally received in
the Western European media:
1. 99% of journalists support multiculturalism
This is covered already (see other chapter).
2. Media Ownership
Most newspapers, television and radio stations are owned by large and powerful multi-
In the USA, NBC and CBS (two television companies) are owned by international
conglomerates such as General Electric and Westinghouse all supporting globalism and
multiculturalism. Time-Warner and CNN merged in the late 1990s to form one of the
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested