The Long Surrender
What level of carnage and death would be necessary before you even consider it appropriate to question multiculturalism?
As usual, I prefer to allow the dust to settle before sharing my thoughts on a hot topic. I often find my initial reactions were warranted and this time around is no different.
For those of you who need a rundown on the mass murder at Bondi Beach in Sydney:
Families gathered for the Chanukah by the Sea event on Sunday, which kicked off at about 5pm and was due to run until 9pm.
However less than two hours in, shooters opened fire, killing at least 15 people and injuring 40.
Police received their first call at 6.43pm.
“Two individuals began firing on a crowded group of families, a crowded group of families on Bondi Beach at Archer Park,” NSW Premier Chris Minns said on Sunday night.
People were captured on video fleeing from the beach, with two men – one appearing to be armed with a shotgun – firing towards the beach in another video.
And yes, it was those people. The shooters, a father-son team, were Muslim. They were immigrants.
This should be a moment of clarity for the West. Once upon a time, it would’ve also served as a moment of unity. Unfortunately, as you’ll see, it’s been anything but. Rather, it serves as proof that not only is the West indeed fracturing from within, it may very well have been defeated already.
A Win For Multiculturalism
I’m not being facetious. Looking at some of the reaction plus takes on social media, there’s an almost celebratory mood to it. Much of it surrounds the fact one of the men who stopped the shooter was himself a Muslim and a refugee, operating a fruit stand near the incident when it occurred.
Here’s a look at the incredible moment:
Don’t get it wrong - the man’s a hero and should be recognized as such. A GoFundMe established for his benefit raised a couple million dollars in just a few days. He earned it. However, he wasn’t the only hero. He wasn’t the only person who exhibited great valor, either.
There’s an aerial shot, which I’ll neither post nor link to, which shows how the two died in each other’s arms. Neither one expected this was how their lives would end. The only consolation, if that, is that they died together.
Just look - despite their age, they recognized danger and instead of standing idly by or being paralyzed with fear, they acted. I don’t know if their actions managed to save any lives, but they tried and that’s what counts.
There were others. We can honor all these heroes and we should. Not one of them was any more or less heroic than the other. However, Ahmed Al Ahmed is getting the lion’s share of the public spotlight because he’s Muslim and his was the most dramatic act caught on video. Every tragic story needs a hero and he fits the bill, especially in a multicultural society.
Yet he didn’t even stop the terrorist, not really. Ultimately, the police - the men with guns - were the ones who ended the threat. Here, I want to be careful because not only did he do more than most anyone did or would’ve, killing another human being, even in self-defense, is a line most of us will have a hard time crossing. Ahmed didn’t wake up that morning thinking he might need to attack a man holding a gun. Most of us simply aren’t prepared for violence, especially in civilized societies such as ours. So I don’t want to rag on him, but I also think everyone needs to be more measured in their praise and more willing to learn hard lessons from his actions.
Ahmed being Muslim gives the Regime an out, a way to spin this otherwise terrible incident into a win for multiculturalism, and ultimately downplay the role Islam played in the attack. But does the valorous actions of one Muslim cancel out the fact that this was, ultimately, an act of Islamism? Should it distract us from the fact Muslims are responsible for a disproportionate amount of terrorism not just in the West, but throughout the world?
Christianity is arguably the most scorned religion throughout the world, especially in the West. Yet it’s just a fact - nobody’s worried about Christians. They’re just not. They’re annoyed by Christian judgment and preaching, not violence. Nobody actually thinks Christians are about to shoot up or bomb large gatherings. Anyone who says they actually fear this is outright lying and should be called out on it. In addition, the vaunted far-right threat isn’t just overblown, it’s rarely religious in nature, either.
All forms of extremism are bad. But not all forms of extremism present an equal level of threat, either. It’s the height of stupidity to say we should be as concerned with, say, animal rights extremism as we are with Islamism. Animal rights extremists are capable of violence. But when was the last time their actions resulted in even one fatality? Believe me, I’m going to defend myself against an animal rights activist if it came down to it, but I’m not going to pretend like they represent some serious threat to national security, either, because they don’t.
Nor is this even about individual Muslims and I’m tired of hearing this. It wasn’t that long ago that the Left opposed judging people exclusively as individuals rather than members of groups because doing so denied the realities of racism and other forms of prejudice in society. As their views have led to political losses, the Left is now shifting towards individual judgment, but we all know this is untenable. For one, the Left still espouses multiculturalism. This means people will invariably be judged as members of groups. For two, minority groups, like Muslims, hold a strong group identity and expect to benefit as a group. If so, then there’s no argument against judging them as a group when things go wrong.
The fact that one of the heroes of the day was a Muslim in no way means Islam isn’t part of the problem. If you’re still struggling with this question, ask yourself this: if this were neo-Nazis carrying out the attack, and the man who disarmed the attackers also happened to be a neo-Nazi, would that change your opinion of neo-Nazis? Of course not, and you’d be ridiculous to do so. The fact that one neo-Nazi understands you can’t just kill innocent people doesn’t cancel out the fact that the ideology calls for nothing more than the killing of people they don’t like.
It’s crazy to think, but despite the carnage, the multiculturalists managed to turn this into a win for themselves, and make Muslims out to be both the heroes and the real victims all at once. The message from political leadership has been that the worst thing that can come out of this tragedy is to judge Islam harshly, to suggest Muslims need to change their behavior and views in any way, since there’s nothing wrong with them, and it’s our attitude and culture which needs to change. It’s an old trick, one which has lost potency, but as long as the institutions plus those in power continue to favor Muslims over the rest of us, it’ll remain a problem.
Islamophobia - the irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Except there’s nothing irrational about peoples’ fear of either. Between 2001 and 2024, there have been 64,678 Islamist attacks, resulting in 243,124 fatalities. Now, context is needed - the overwhelming majority of these attacks occurred in Muslim countries, most of which were embroiled in war or some other form of armed conflict.
However, two glaring patterns stand out. One, there are very few countries in the world untouched by Islamist terror. Two, while the First World West experiences a small percentage of attacks, not only are there quite a few in number, many have suffered dozens of casualties in just the last ten years alone. If we all at least agree Islamist terror is a bad thing that shouldn’t happened in civilized, developed countries, then the fact it happens at all is troubling.
Ironically, Islamist terrorism seems to affect the First and Third Worlds overwhelmingly. Many Second World, developing countries, though certainly not all, are fortunately spared this scourge. They all have their problems, but Latin America in particular doesn’t have to worry about Islamism, for now, anyway. Japan and South Korea are also untouched by Islamism.
The point is, people have reason to worry about Islam and its adherents. Besides Blacks, there are very few other people in the world who are universally a problem anywhere in the world. This doesn’t mean we assume every individual Muslim is a terrorist or even an extremist. They’re probably not. However, as a group, is it justifiable to judge them as uniquely problematic? Yes. Is it justifiable to implement policies which prevent them from coming to your country in large numbers? Given that even a small number of Muslims will cause problems, the answer is, again, yes.
The Bondi Beach shooters gave no indication to neighbors they were going to commit mass murder. The next time you hear anyone play the “I know a Muslim and they’re so nice!” card, remember that someone probably thought the same about the Bondi Beach duo also. Being nice and normal is hardly sufficient for judging the danger any person poses to society, not when it comes to Muslims or others from the Third World.
According to liberals, the logic seems to be that the Islamic world is full of peaceful people the West must bring over, it’s just that you need to bring over lots of them to get the good Muslims. Whatever problems the rest of them cause? It’s a price worth paying to enjoy the benefits of having Muslims in your country, whatever that might be. The reality is, while many Muslims simply want a better life, there is a significant number who truly resent the West, to say nothing of the entire developed world, and are driven by grievance and a need to correct what they feel to be historical wrongs.
The fact is, we can show praise for the individual Muslims like Ahmed Al Ahmed while also recognizing that Muslims as a group do pose a unique problem for our society to handle. The two sentiments aren’t intractable; we apply this logic to many other contexts. For example, liberals will rail against White people while being friends with White people. Whatever logical disconnect exists in distinguishing between groups and individuals, the lesson is that people think and act this way.
Here’s something that’ll help the undecided understand:
Again, let’s consider a more relatable parallel. Many Germans fought for the United States during both world wars. Does that mean Germany wasn’t the enemy? Not a single liberal would make that argument. Remember that German is the single most-reported ancestral group in the U.S. So the argument by liberals that we cannot call Islam the enemy because millions of its adherents live in America is bunk. Millions who live in America are of Russian descent also. Does that mean Russia isn’t our adversary? Once again, we know liberals would never say that.
There’s really not much more I can say which hasn’t been said already about the issue, either by myself or someone else. I just don’t know what more evidence anyone needs to understand we’re doing this wrong, that we’re on a road to disaster. If I had to ask the multiculturalists one thing and I was confident they’d provide me an honest answer, it’d be this: What level of carnage and death would be necessary before you even consider it appropriate to question multiculturalism?
It calls back to mind this all-time great satirical tweet from the late comedian Norm Macdonald:
Left-Islamist Solidarity
I maintain that anything within the “visual spectrum” of politics is mostly kayfabe, if not entirely. However, we can only judge what we see. From what can be seen, not even the murder of 15 Jews by members of their political coalition can break the left-Islamist alliance.
Here’s left-wing Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responding when asked about the threat posed by radical Islam:
One of the issues. I suppose that’s the best we can expect from the Left. It’s all so tiresome, but Albanese and other leftists made sure to implicate the “far-right,” to the point anyone not familiar with the Bondi Beach massacre couldn’t be blamed for wrongly thinking it was the work of right-wing extremists. In some ways, the only thing more endemic than antisemitism might be anti-rightism. Piggybacking off that Norm Macdonald tweet from above, the reality is that Islamists could kill millions of people and the Left would likely still find a way to blame it on the Right. It sounds absurd, but is it, really? A hallmark of the Left is their propensity to absolve certain groups of agency, but never the Right.
I don’t know how the event is playing out in Australian news, but from what I’ve seen, there’s very little talk in the mainstream discourse about the role Islam and immigration played in this tragedy. There’s an awful lot of talk about the “far-right,” however. Some of this is undoubtedly simply out of hatred for the Right, but I think it also suggests the Left understands Islam and immigration are liabilities for them, henceforth they need to shift blame onto something else.
We’ve reached a point where leftism and Islamism are inseparable, one in the same. There’s literally nothing that could fracture the coalition at this point. This is because Islam has become a potent force within the coalition. The Left increasingly needs Islam more than the reverse, not just for votes but also for their ability to cow the public into submission. It’s not just about terrorism, either. It’s their ability to mobilize, their willingness to confront. Meanwhile, the Left, with control of the institutions and understanding of the law, provide backing and top cover for them.
Just look at the way Muslims who do speak about the danger Islam poses are regarded:
If even the good Muslims cannot be part of the coalition for pointing out obvious threats posed by members of their religion, if even they can be tarred as “Islamophobic,” what makes you think people getting killed by Muslims will change anything?
It’s very bad for our societies, but going forward, the Left will close ranks with the Muslim community even more as these sorts of events continue to happen. There may come a day when the Left realizes what an awful choice it was to make common cause with the Muslims against their own countries, but that day seems very far off right now.
Moral Cowards Blame Guns
Australians, along with gun control advocates around the world, wasted no time further celebrating the incident as validation of Australia’s strict gun control policy as a success. It was the deadliest mass shooting in almost 30 years in Australia, after all. Surely, the fact that it happens so infrequently is cause for celebration, yes?
A little research shows that while mass shootings are quite rare, they also happen more frequently than Aussies might be comfortable letting on. Much of the comparisons in gun policy were made with the U.S., and while I readily admit the U.S. has an excess of gun violence, without understanding cultural and demographic differences between the two countries, such comparisons are intellectually empty and don’t tell us much.
Still, gun violence is less of a problem in Australia and mass shootings aren’t something which needs to be factored into one’s personal safety assessments in The Land Down Under. It’s only fair to point out that Australia is indeed safer than the U.S. in this regard and part of the reason the Bondi Beach massacre was so shocking is because this sort of thing just doesn’t happen much in Australia. In response, authorities are planning to tighten gun laws even further.
Wait a second - if Australia’s gun control policy was a success despite this mass shooting, then why are further gun restrictions necessary? It makes no sense unless the objective is to disarm the public entirely and leave not a single gun in their hands. And if that’s indeed the objective, why didn’t they do that before? Clearly, if the policy was working and had the support of the majority of the population, that justified going even further, didn’t it? So why wait for another mass shooting?
Furthermore, as Australian YouTuber The Cyberpunk Dingo points out, most gun violence in Australia was committed by unlicensed shooters and with unregistered guns. In other words, these crimes were committed by criminals. Again, I’d be disingenuous if I claimed the policy was a complete and utter failure, but this only proves that gun violence is committed by people who aren’t inclined to obey the law in the first place. So, what would more gun laws do?
In addition, why’s it that the first mass shooting in three decades for Australia just so happened to be committed by Muslims? This despite the country’s great diversity, once again another success story. There’s a common thread here and it’s not guns. Clearly, diversity couldn’t prevent this, either.
It’s easy to blame guns because they don’t talk back to you. People do, however. If you blame people, they get to say something in response. Aussies, along with many people of the West, simply lack the courage necessary to say that Islam is a problem, so they opt for blaming inanimate objects instead. Ironically, it’s not those willing to criticize Islam who are Islamophobic. It’s those unwilling to do so who are, because they’re afraid of how Muslims would respond.
Nobody’s afraid of calling Christians out in public, because Christians simply don’t defend themselves the way Muslims do. Nobody’s intimidated by Christians. They are by Muslims, however. A Christian march through London recently was met with jeers from onlookers, something very few, if any, would dare to try with Muslims. This, despite the fact the Christian march was undoubtedly peaceful and not at all intimidating.
Back to guns. Every time a mass shooting occurs, liberals demonstrate a childish understanding of them, making their arguments extremely difficult to take seriously. For example, here’s our favorite victim, Matthew Yglesias, sharing his wisdom on guns:
He later clarified that “powerful” was probably not the correct term, and was referring more to the rate of fire. Even there, he’s ignorant. High fire-rate guns are scary, but they’re also less accurate and expend ammunition inefficiently. Their value comes not in their ability to mow down targets, contrary to popular opinion, but to provide suppressive fire. In the case of Bondi Beach, the terrorists used high-caliber, bolt action-rifles which, when employed with accuracy, can kill lots of people, as it so happened.
Still not convinced? Know that there’s nothing theoretical about guns; we have centuries of data showing how they work in real life. The most accurate shot a shooter will take with a high fire-rate weapon is the first, because it’s the only one that’s fully aimed. Taking advantage of high fire-rates means sacrificing accuracy. When the M16 rifle was introduced during the Vietnam War, it was thought issuing all infantrymen fully-automatic guns would be a game-changer. It instead resulted in troops wasting ammo and not hitting a whole lot. Subsequent variants of the M16 removed the full-auto option, and troops are taught to take one shot at a time. Again, this is the real world.
On the topic of ammo, high fire-rate weapons require lots of it in order to be effective. But ammo is heavy, something the general public and anyone unfamiliar with guns leaves out of the debate. It doesn’t matter how quickly your gun discharges rounds if you don’t have the bullets for it. Carrying a couple hundred rounds is a challenge for the average person. The reality is, someone with a highly accuratized firearm like the bolt-action rifles the Bondi Beach shooters had who is also a skilled shooter can rack up a high body count just by making most of their rounds hit the target. Killing people is about accuracy, not about how many rounds you can quickly send downrange.
This is all whistling past the graveyard, however. Not a single liberal will allow their minds to be changed with facts. Guns are bad, they literally fire themselves, and that’s the end of it. Just remember: 15 died and 43 were injured at Bondi Beach, but they still want you to believe that it could’ve been much worse. Sure, it could’ve been, but trying to pass off 15 dead and 43 injured as something to breathe a sigh of relief over is depraved. But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen the Left rationalize unnecessary loss of life in the name of ideology. If this attack had been carried out by neo-Nazis, I strongly doubt they’d waste any breath praising Australia’s “successful” gun control policies.
Blaming guns is all part of a bigger reality-denying effort. As The Cyberpunk Dingo said in the same video, it’s not even the lying itself that’s most troubling, it’s the fact that nobody feels as though they need to be honest about anything. The level of moral cowardice in our societies is, without a doubt, what’s most blackpilling of all.
Fortress Western Civilization
There’s no denying it: the West is in retreat. France is canceling New Year’s Eve festivities in Paris:
The normally proud and defiant French are waving the white flag in the face of migrant terror.
Paris has shockingly decided to dim the lights on its annual New Year’s Eve fête along the iconic Champs-Élysées.
The massive midnight concert that drew a jubilant crowd of a million people last year — with the festivities having drawn throngs to the “most beautiful avenue in the world” for six decades — has been scrapped and replaced by a pre-recorded video to be viewed in the safety and comfort of French living rooms.
The fireworks will still illuminate the Arc de Triomphe when the clock strikes 12, but with officials urging revelers to watch on television rather than in person, the soirée will be a far cry from the famed French joie de vivre of years past.
The famed avenue has become a flashpoint of violence lately, with throngs of young, mostly Muslim migrants streaming in from Paris’ infamous suburbs at night looking for trouble, looting lux stores, and brawling with Parisians and police.
The Paris police, which pressed the mayor to scrap the concert, cited security concerns such as “unpredictable crowd movements” without going into details – but critics loudly blamed France’s open-door immigration policies.
To be perfectly honest, I can’t help but wonder if this was the right move. We all know France is a dangerous mess of a country. It could very well be that holding the festivities could very well put lives at risk. If something did happen, I’m sure some people would criticize the decision to do so. If authorities have determined that providing security for the events outstrips their capabilities, then there’s no sense in taking the risk.
The real questions are: how come this wasn’t a concern in the past? Why are the security concerns now so overwhelming? These are the questions they refuse to answer, let alone ask. But we all know why. Through mass immigration and sowing disorder throughout society, they’ve made it impossible for people to enjoy things, to live their lives in peace. This is a colossal, unacceptable level of state failure that I still don’t believe enough people in the West truly fathom.
James Tidmarsh explains what it all means [bold mine]:
It marks the collapse of what used to be one of the simplest pleasures of Parisian life. For decades families and friends would spill out onto the streets on New Year’s Eve. Families, couples carrying a bottle of champagne, tourists wrapped in scarves, all drifting towards the Champs Élysées to count down the final seconds of the year. It was spontaneous and cheerful and open to everyone. That Paris no longer exists.
Over recent years ordinary Parisians quietly stopped going. The Champs Élysées on any holiday weekend has become a no-go zone. The crowds have changed. The atmosphere’s changed. I remember hosting American friends one New Year’s Eve a couple of years ago. They suggested walking up to the Champs Élysées at midnight because it was the thing to do. We persuaded them it wasn’t a good idea. Anyone who lives here understands why.
This year what was once the celebration has been reduced to a simulation. Paris must now film a celebration in advance because it cannot trust itself to manage a real one. The city that staged the Olympics cannot handle a national holiday. Paris, a capital that used to defy threats, can no longer manage its crowds.
It reminds me of 2020 and how we were all locked down, forced to put our lives on hold, to combat a disease whose lethality was questionable and has become more so in the years since. People’s lives might not be on hold this time around, yet they’re still living in something of a lockdown; there are no safe places outside one’s own residence, and even that might not be entirely safe.
Is this the future? One where we go to work, run our errands, and come straight home, enjoying our lives entirely behind closed doors? One where we cede all our public spaces to the invaders and savages? What kind of world is that? What do we pay taxes for if the state’s every decision only makes everything more dangerous?
We have crossed a threshold. The question is no longer whether attacks will happen, but which gatherings remain viable.
The economics are brutal: security costs rising, insurance premiums climbing, attendance declining. The calculus that once made public festivals possible is breaking.
Cities face a choice: transform celebrations into controlled environments with pre-recorded broadcasts and fortress perimeters, or watch traditions die.
And:
Watch Sydney’s NYE fireworks decision. Watch European capitals through January. Watch insurance markets repricing public gatherings.
The attackers did not merely kill fifteen people. They proved that any open celebration, anywhere, requires a small army to protect it.
The Fortress Era does not announce itself. It arrives one cancelled concert, one heightened patrol, one security budget at a time.
Until we wake up and realize: the public square we inherited no longer exists.
The more you think about it, the more undeniable it becomes: the West is already at war. These are the kinds of measures you used to see during times of war or major crisis. Yet both state and society are in denial about this fact. We simply accept this as the new normal, while refusing to identify why this became so normal in the first place.
Socially, we’ve become atomized, thanks in part to multiculturalism. But we’re now also atomizing because it’s a survival strategy. At least in America, people still go out because the security situation isn’t as bad as it is elsewhere in the West. But many people are also choosing to stay home and enjoy social gatherings indoors. The issue isn’t that there’s something wrong with this. The issue is that people throughout the West are being made into prisoners in their own countries, where the only place a person could feel safe is at home or work. Even the safety at these places isn’t guaranteed.
This is very much what the future looks like. A place where safety means locking yourself inside your homes, where everyone’s more than just a stranger: they’re a threat. All while ignoring the real threats inside the country. A place where nothing less than a large police or even military presence will ensure attendance at major events.
White Flags Are Waving
This is all part of what I call “The Long Surrender.” In many ways, the West is already a defeated force. The incapacity for resistance, the unwillingness to even be honest about the situation, has rendered the West completely defenseless. Anyone who attempts to exercise their defensive instincts is crushed by the state. It’s false to say nobody asked for this, either. Decades of indoctrination via the media and schools manufactured consent.
As such, the regimes of the West have effectively negotiated a surrender along these terms: please don’t kill us, not all at once, anyway, and we’ll gradually cede more of our country and power over to you. It’s not even a “death by a thousand cuts.” It’s more like death by terror. Demographically, Muslims and Third Worlders cannot replace Westerners. But they can use violence, threats, and the protection of the state to force us all into submission.
Make no mistake: there’s nothing peaceful about any of this. Less than a week after the Bondi Beach massacre, this happened:
Counter terrorism police have arrested seven men in Liverpool who were understood to be on their way to Bondi.
New South Wales Police received intelligence the individuals had travelled from Melbourne and were intending to go to Bondi Beach.
It is understood police took a cautious approach to the intelligence, given the climate in the wake of the Bondi terror attack on Sunday evening.
Nonetheless, dramatic scenes played out in Sydney’s south-west as heavily armed officers discharged multiple rounds of rubber bullets and rammed a white Hyundai to the side of the road following a traffic stop.
Australia, like so much of the West, is full of Islamists. Immigration brought them here. To keep pretending like it’s not the problem is suicidal. So is pretending like religion isn’t the problem. Officials and other public figures will repeat the lie as many times as needed, for as long as they can get away with it. We all keep thinking one day they won’t be able to get away with the lying any longer, but there’s no reason to hold our breaths. They lie because lying works.
We can’t control their actions. But we can control ours. The important thing is to not lie to ourselves and those close to us. We don’t have to hate Muslims or any other foreigner. But we can be honest with ourselves about who they are. We can judge them. We can keep them out of our lives. If we see something, we can say something. We can also refuse to be cowed into becoming prisoners within our own countries. Safety always comes first, but we can also take calculated risks. There’s still much life to enjoy. Often the greatest act of defiance is to just keep on living.
Time to talk about it - what’s your reaction to the Bondi Beach massacre? Is Islamic terrorism making a comeback? Are we past the point of having a serious discussion about immigration? Will anything ever break multiculturalism’s stranglehold on society or the Left-Islamist alliance? How strong is your fortress these days?
Let’s discuss it in the comments section.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
You captured the essence of the disconnection between liberal elites and everyone else when you said, "We can be honest with ourselves about who they are. We can judge them." This is why post-liberalism has become a thing. The self-destructive fictions of liberal cosmopolitanism that so many elites and "normies" make themselves believe unquestioningly are why this discussion will never take place on a societal level. At least not until things reach levels of authoritarian dystopia that we see in places like the UK, with speech arrests, mass censorship, and unpopular, unaccountable levels of mass immigration. In countries spiraling this rapidly, actual widespread civil disorder and societal fracturing seem inevitable, which will fundamentally force either a course correction or civilizational collapse.
The fact that liberal cosmopolitans were able to spin the story to fit their narrative shows the extent of the problem. Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) recently released a good video essay discussing Baudrillard's concept of hyperrealities and how the cosmopolitan worldview's simulacrum prevents leftists from understanding the empirical realities of cultural incompatibility. The reason a discussion about mass immigration did not take place after this attack, or 9/11, or the 2015 Paris Massacres, is that ideology has so entrenched us in different hyperrealities that what actually happens empirically in front of our very eyes is not understood as one empirical event but as a simulacrum of one that conforms to the ideology of the person perceiving it. We need to reach a post-liberal paradigm to pierce the veil of this simulacrum if we want to effect real, meaningful change that enjoys widespread support across the political spectrum.
Thank you for laying it out so clearly and unflinchingly. The gradual erosion of Western culture through unchecked mass immigration from incompatible ideologies isn't some conspiracy theory, it's a observable reality playing out in cities across Europe and beyond.
We've seen the no-go zones, the rising crime stats tied to certain demographics, the self-censorship in media and politics, and the endless accommodations that always flow one way.
It's not about hating individuals—it's about preserving the hard-won freedoms, secularism, and equality that define the West.
The "long surrender" you describe feels spot on ~ decades of elite denial, guilt-driven policies, and fear of being called names have brought us here.
But it's not irreversible if people wake up and push back democratically ~ through voting, speaking out, and demanding real integration or deportation.
I'm fully with you on this.
How much longer do we let this continue before it's too late to turn back?