It’s important to be precise about what is the root of the problem which you are fighting.
The language we have at our disposal is not ideal. I have used words like ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, ‘leftism’ in this series of articles as if they are interchangeable. There are subtle differences and some of my definitions are purely my own.
‘Socialism’ is the attempt to even out class and income differences by concentrating power and wealth into a state apparatus which seeks to micromanage people’s lives and subjugate the individual to the collective will, as determined by those who control the socialist state.
‘Communism’ is the way countries such as the Soviet Union, its satellites and Mao’s China sought to implement socialism, involving the nationalisation of all industry and most real estate.
‘Leftism’ is a broader term encompassing the above, along with more gradualist and recent approaches including current identity politics and Cultural Marxism.
‘Cultural Marxism’ is a term rarely used in left wing circles. They prefer terms such as ‘progressivism’, ‘liberalism’ or ‘social justice’. All these terms are loaded to make it sound positive, or are Orwellian doublespeak, so I don’t use them. What we on the right mean by ‘Cultural Marxism’ is the infiltration by leftist of our public institutions, education system, media and entertainment industry to implement their ideology, through identity politics in particular, bypassing democracy and any kind of honest public debate about what is taking place.
‘Populism’ is generally regarded as a pejorative. I have less of a problem with it. Democracy is considered a positive word, so if you don’t like the will of the people, you call it ‘populist’ instead. To me ‘populist’ means being on the side of the common people, rather than the privileged elite. If there’s a better word, without the negative connotations, please let me know. Wat Tyler was a populist, but not a socialist, because socialism hadn’t been conceived. Socialism seeks to hijack populism to its own end to put a particular faction of the ruling class in absolute control.
As for ourselves, who are opposed to leftism, what label should we choose? ‘Conservative?’ I’m still a radical, even if I’ve changed my perspective on a few things over the years. “Patriotic?” Perhaps, but it has militaristic overtones. “Right wing?” Perhaps, but this is an almost meaningless concept which tries to reduce politics to a simple duality. What defines right versus left? The privileged versus commoners? Big versus small government? Nationalism versus internationalism? Religion versus atheism? Tradition versus new ideas?
Most of all people are too tied to the ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels as tribal identities. If only some of those who consider themselves ‘leftists’ could listen without prejudice to us, perhaps they might come on board. Anne-Marie Waters is a case in point: a leftist lesbian feminist who has come to the realisation that Islamisation spells bad news for women’s and gay rights. If only more like her could come on board, rising above this ‘left’-‘right’ dichotomy getting in the way.
Anne-Marie Waters wasn’t elected leader of UKIP, though her supporters have been very vocal on this site. The thrust of the argument is that Islam is the problem that we have to fight at this point in history.
Islam is a problem, but not the problem. If we dealt with Islam there would still be a whole bunch of other problems threatening our nation, society and culture.
The problem is leftism, particularly Cultural Marxism, dragging us all down to destruction with their cultural self-hatred.
Islam has been encouraged and empowered by Cultural Marxism: through the politically correct paralysis of the authorities; through multiculturalism – telling Muslims that they don’t need to integrate with our society; through telling them our imperialist past gives them a justifiable grievance for which they are entitled to reparation; through our cultural low self-esteem, shame in our history and who we are, degeneration, emasculation and self-destruction; and through our pandering to patriarchal ‘community leaders’, thereby doing a disservice to those from a Muslim background who want to break free from traditional restrictions.
Today’s Islamism is a result of a cross-fertilisation of conservative Islam with leftism, particularly via the Muslim Brotherhood. Young second and third generation Muslims in the West are actually becoming more hard-line as the influence of Salafism spreads, helped along by a sense of grievance fostered by the left. Radicalisation in prison is not tackled due to political correctness and a fear of violence. We see terrorists who are home-grown petty criminals, radicalised in prison. Leftist lawyers, judges and NGOs actively hamper efforts to tackle, imprison and deal with extremists and abusers. It is leftism which is tying our hands behind our back trying to deal with these problems.
Add to this the keenness of our government to suck up to Saudi Arabia to sell arms, avoid another 1970s-style oil shock and maintain the petrodollar system, careful not to upset them and allowing them to continue funding the promotion of their extreme Wahhabi brand of Islam – not to mention the bombing of a number of Muslim countries (by in many cases purportedly liberal Western governments) and turning them into failed states over the last 16 years, giving IS fuel for their propaganda and creating hotbeds of terrorism.
I’ve read others try to say the problem is we’re turning away from Christianity. As an agnostic I have to disagree. One doesn’t need to adhere to a religion to come to the logical conclusion that dogmatic ideology is repressive and self-destruction is insane – quite the contrary. When we see Christian leaders like the Pope praising mass migration and others bending over backwards to appease cultural Marxism as Islam, despite both being bent on the destruction of Christianity, churchmen seem to be part of the problem rather than the solution. The teaching to turn the other cheek leads to Christians being complicit in their religion’s destruction.
True liberalism is surely what we stand for: a live-and-let-live approach; equality under the law; a safe society; democracy; reason; free speech and diversity of opinion.
[Ed: This is the seventh article in the series. There are more to come which will be published here in the next days. Read Article Six here and Five here, and find links to the earlier articles at the bottom of the page here.]