What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Vanguard of the Revolution

Hat-tip to Mangan for pointing out what he rightly describes as "a simply amazing post" by Degowulf at "The Joy of Curmudgeonry."

Long story short: documents released by WikiLeaks reveal our public officials busily meddling in the internal affairs of France, in an attempt to promote their worldwide agenda of egalitarianism and multiculturalism. Here's a sample:

"In keeping with France's unique history and circumstances, Embassy Paris has created a Minority Engagement Strategy that encompasses, among other groups, the French Muslim population and responds to the goals outlined in reftel A. Our aim is to engage the French population at all levels in order to amplify France's efforts to realize its own egalitarian ideals, thereby advancing U.S. national interests. While France is justifiably proud of its leading role in conceiving democratic ideals and championing human rights and the rule of law, French institutions have not proven themselves flexible enough to adjust to an increasingly heterodox demography. We believe that if France, over the long run, does not successfully increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally. To support French efforts to provide equal opportunity for minority populations, we will engage in positive discourse; set a strong example; implement an aggressive youth outreach strategy; encourage moderate voices; propagate best practices; and deepen our understanding of the underlying causes of inequality in France. We will also integrate the efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our strategy" [emphasis added].

And that's just the opening summary of a much longer document which repays careful study. As Deogowulf aptly paraphrases:

"In other words: ongoing, widespread, and subversive manipulation of the workings of another country for the sake of an egalitarian-revolutionary ideology. Here it seems that France, the land of the world’s second-born left-wing republic, is just not left-wing enough for the land of the world’s first."

Strong new evidence for Mencius Moldbug's contention that, temporary aberrations apart, the true vanguard of the worldwide leftist revolution is now and always has been...the United States of America. Or, as Fjordman comments at Mangan's: "This raises the following question: Is the United States of America currently the Anti-White Empire, dedicated to the dispossession and destruction of people of European origins worldwide? I fear the answer to that question is yes. As much as I loathe the European Union, the EU is secondary to the US in importance."

Comments (22)

Gottfried writes about this phenomenon (the exporting of multiculturalism by the U.S.) in his "Liberalism" trilogy. See esp. the 3rd book, The Strange Death of Marxism.

"In other words: ongoing, widespread, and subversive manipulation of the workings of another country for the sake of an egalitarian-revolutionary ideology. Here it seems that France, the land of the world’s second-born left-wing republic, is just not left-wing enough for the land of the world’s first."

"This raises the following question: Is the United States of America currently the Anti-White Empire, dedicated to the dispossession and destruction of people of European origins worldwide? I fear the answer to that question is yes. As much as I loathe the European Union, the EU is secondary to the US in importance."

Both true and depressing quotes. One might add to this Obama's speech in Berlin a couple years ago where he all but orders the Germans to continue with massive Third World immigration.

Concerning Fjordman's query, I think the English rightist, Jonathan Bowden, might answer yes. To listen to him speak of America -- in his excellent talks for New Right London found on youtube -- it is the US that is almost irretrievable given the non-European immigration we've permitted since 1965 whereas England still has time to avoid our fate. In my experience, the discussion is almost always the other way around with Britain wallowing completely in Left-socialism and America standing as the last bastion of conservatism in the world. I'm not so sure that's the case.

Anecdotes are a dime a dozen, but from my experience of living in France, I found many of the French to be right-wing in a way (grounded in blood and soil identity) that most Americans never could. If America truly is the first "universal nation" then if follows that traditional blood and soil identities should be discouraged, if not banned, and that such rootless American universalism must be spread around the globe (at gunpoint if necessary).

MAR, that's a good point. I have never understood why it is that people who trumpet the origin of the US polity or the US "identity" in actions that speak more to ideals than to blood or land should feel that a national identity originating in blood and land is, somehow, defective. Nor why it should be thought that a nation whose polity originated in actions that speak to ideals is immune to the natural long-term consequences of being settled on a given land, in terms of national identity. What was not true of us in 1789 can become true of us in 2011, given 2022 years additional time.

It seems that many Americans hold patriotism to be a despicable, shameful thing.

Sorry, that's 222 years additional time.

I have a growing suspicion that our founding wasn't quite the thing I have been led to believe. Dispensing with monarchy was pretty extreme for its day.

Dispensing with monarchy was pretty extreme for its day.

But did we really dispense with monarchy? The Presidency was arguably more powerful in 1790 than the King of Britain in terms of direct command authority within the government.

I consider myself a loyal American. One of my ancestors helped finance our revolution. But our wiser ancestors reguarded our revolution as just that, "our revolution". It wasn't believed by the saner founding fathers that we should interfere in the affairs of other countries. Washington said don't do it in his farewell speach. Sadly there has always been a small minority in this country, at the highest levels of society and government, that has always wanted to change the world so it would conform to American ideas or what would pass as American ideas. Nearly all of these ideas were imported from France, Germany and later Russia. These ideas were transmitted to or country by secret societies like the Masons. These ideas were called Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism. all these ideas were taught in the educational systems, the mass media, and from mouth to mouth. The last two were rejected by the mainstream intellectuals becase of the bad reps they developed, but they eagerly embraced the first three. All of these ideologies require an overthrow of the old (Christian) order. It's the embrace of these various ideologies that has put this nation into the nation changing business. Is it any wonder why other countries hate and fear us? Is it any wonder why we keep getting into one morass after another in our misguilded efforts to make the world safe for whatever? Isn't it time to make America safe for Americans?

But did we really dispense with monarchy? The Presidency was arguably more powerful in 1790 than the King of Britain in terms of direct command authority within the government.

Well, Mencius Moldbug would say that the British monarchy of the 18th and 19th centuries was more Whiggery than monarchy.

~~~traditional blood and soil identities should be discouraged, if not banned, and...such rootless American universalism must be spread around the globe (at gunpoint if necessary).~~~

And don't forget the consumerism that goes along with it. Multi-national corporations are all about making everything the same. Helps business. This is what is meant by "opening new areas to U.S. markets."

The multi-culti PC crap travels along as part of the show, as it too is a leveller.


With respect to the good Deogolwulf, America at the time of the founding was not a left-wing republic of any sort. That came later.

It's almost becoming a commonplace to say that America is "the true vanguard of the worldwide leftist revolution". But it's a tendentious reading of history to allege, so-called "temporary aberrations" apart, that has always been the case.

Those "temporary aberrations" - perhaps described as Whiggish isolationism - could be seen as the American norm, and the current resolve to support international leftish solutions could turn out to be an egregious misjudgment by the political class.

I spotted this memo when it was first released, glad to see it's getting attention.


It talks a good game about diversity and uplifting minorities, but in the end it functions to exploit minorities as American clients to subvert the French establishment, especially the “overwhelmingly white” media.

The State Department strategy also has a line about how minorities need to learn the importance of “transcending the bounds of their own communities in order to make a broader, national impact.” Cultural dissolution cloaked as upward mobility.

It’s hard to say how much of 10Paris58 is wishful thinking. But if you read it closely, you'll find we've been backing Muslim websites.

Universalism always uses war to dissolve particularities in favor of itself. The white ethnic populations of the US were particularly targeted in WWI and WWII, either for fear they would serve as fifth columnists, or for fear their subcultures and alternative media were more immune to government propaganda.

Now the US government is doing the same thing around the world.

With respect to the good Deogolwulf, America at the time of the founding was not a left-wing republic of any sort. That came later.

The American Revolution was carried off against what was then the most left-wing government the world had ever seen. The complaint, it seems, was that it just wasn't left-wing enough. To be a republic is to be, ipso facto, left-wing. To rebel against a republic then thoroughly dominated by Whigs, is merely to be moreso.

Perhaps you mean, "America at the time of the founding was not nearly as left-wing as she has become." Indeed. But once you have pushed the snowball down the hill, you can't very well go complaining about its failure to stop.

Have to side with Steve Nicoloso against Matt Weber on this one. I think it's mostly true that "to be a republic is to be, ipso facto, left-wing," at least comparatively speaking.

(Though these left/right distinctions can be elusive: was the thoroughly oligarchical late Roman Republic to the "left" of the ensuing Principate in any very interesting sense?)

Anyway, this is a great line: "...once you have pushed the snowball down the hill, you can't very well go complaining about its failure to stop."

Though these left/right distinctions can be elusive: was the thoroughly oligarchical late Roman Republic to the "left" of the ensuing Principate in any very interesting sense?

Good point. The Moldbuggian would I think say that anything that divides executve power is inherently left-ish. There are of course republics and then again republics, which at certain times and in certain places find themselves at wildly different distances from the norm of a Personal Executive, but I think the spectrum basically holds in this regard. Rule by landed or otherwise powerful aristocracy may in fact be preferable than rule by an evil or stupid king, but once you've divided power... well there's just no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

To be a republic is to be, ipso facto, left-wing.

Oh, come on. I rarely disagree with Steve strongly, but I have to say this looks like one of those times.

"Left" and "right" do not exist in a vacuum, they are inherently relational: leftwards of something else. A republic is generally going to be rightwards of a socialist dictatorship, just about every time.

And some other dictatorships simply can't be place "leftwards" or "rightwards" on the scale, because they defy the characterization - it takes more rule of law to be left or right than some despotic regimes harbor. A change from such a despotism to a republic is not a leftward move at all.

Maybe what Steve means is that there is a greater natural tendency in republics to degenerate toward a leftward mess than to degenerate toward rightward excesses. That is probably true. But since neither set of excesses belong to republicanism as such, it is hard to see why we should declare that To be a republic is to be, ipso facto, left-wing.

"Left" has some sort of real if imprecise meaning. Something like "equality uber alles." The American Republic was liberal not left-wing.

The American Republic was liberal not left-wing.

The former appears to be a way station to the latter.

I have never understood why it is that people who trumpet the origin of the US polity or the US "identity" in actions that speak more to ideals than to blood or land should feel that a national identity originating in blood and land is, somehow, defective. . . . It seems that many Americans hold patriotism to be a despicable, shameful thing.

I find the comments in this thread entirely detached from reality. Nobody uses the term "blood and soil,", but the idea that Americans don't treasure and take pride in their ancestry and land is not accurate, and it is absurd to think that some universal aspirations, which we all have, negates this. The universal and particular exist in tension anywhere, and it will always be. The public swings back and forth as it ever has. Christianity itself has breathtaking and sobering universal claims that we are expected to carry out. This does not negate the particular. Holding the two in tension correctly is the difficult task of life.

The former appears to be a way station to the latter.

I think it is true that bourgeoisophobia is the reactionary creed of our age. It is the only major 19th-century creed still standing. Marxism, Social Darwinism, and Freudianism are all gone. It is the one remaining that thrives, and thrive it does.

A republic is generally going to be rightwards of a socialist dictatorship, just about every time.

Socialism is just democracy in a hurry. A dictatorship is the only practical way to handle that hurry. Stalin was, after all, merely the General Secretary of the Communist Party--see: just one among many equals, comrades. Of course a republic is going to be to the "right" of a socialist dictatorship, because a republic is merely democracy in less of a hurry. But that doesn't mean that a republic is the "right" of an hereditary monarchy, whither power was divided to make the former.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.