Tag Archives: Conservatism

The Forest and the ‘Faustian’ Soul

“Deep roots are untouched by frost.” -J.R.R. Tolkien


Against Libertarianism

Libertarian philosophy, which achieved it’s clearest development in the work of Robert Nozick, rests on the state of nature fantasy, conceived of by Rousseau, which conceives of man as a self sufficient automaton who rationally gives up a portion of his independence to benefit from the law and order of a just society. Thus, for liberals of all stripes, but especially libertarians, the relation between man and society is contractual, man serves society only insofar as it is beneficial to his own self interest. The conception of a cause greater than individual self interest is discarded, if not explicitly then implicitly. Libertarians may pay lip service to nationalism, community, religion or other forms of tradition, but this can only be considered lip service – their philosophy relegates these to a place of subservience to the self, and their existence is thus contingent on their being perceived to benefit a collective of this self interest. To make these tings contingent on individual interest is to remove all their significance, and to condemn them to an inevitable downfall among a mass of other superstitions which, in the liberal mindset, were only hindrances on the individuals growth.

Libertarianism differs from other forms of liberalism in that it is completely amoral. Other forms of liberalism leave a place for some kind of universal morality, generally based on universal compassion or the remnants of a Christian morality, libertarianism by contrast sees it’s amoral principles as steadfast due to their objective fairness within the conception of man the libertarian holds. This a priori, objective nature is what draws a lot of young intellectual types to the movement, they, like socialists, want an easy solution, a few basic principles which are applicable to all forms of social organisation, at all times, for all people. Taking these principles as sacrosanct, any societal problems which develop under them are seen as faults of he individual, protecting the objective rightness of the principles involved. But there will be losers under libertarianism, and these losers will be those who cannot make themselves valuable in the open market.

This is another problem of libertarianism, it is almost wholly an economic philosophy. It’s founders and chief propagators, Friedrich Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard and others, were economists who sought to build a wholly a priori economic science which was not so reliant on the whims of politicians and changing circumstances as Keynesianism was. Keynesianism necessitated politicians deciding when the time was right to stimulate the economy with tax payer money, and when the time was right to restrict growth to prevent eventual downfall. With an understandable and natural distrust for this kind of cynical authority, they sought to take this power over people’s lives out of the politicians hands and into the individuals, through their collective choices to supply and demand the market and thus dictate a fair equilibrium, and also to objective, fair, a priori principles, which could do the job politicians tried to do better than the politicians. Libertarianism is the philosophy of the modern automaton. The wholly individual, self seeking economic unit, the “ego and his own”, free to forge his destiny through the amoral pursuit of his desires.

But man is more than an economic unit. Who has ever seen the Individual that the libertarians speak of? Man is an aspect of, a reflection of, a creation of and an integral part of his community. Man is his family. Man is his religion. Man is his nation. Man is his ethnicity. Man is his people’s history. Man is NOT simply a pleasure seeking animal, man, as Aristotle says, is a social animal. And more importantly, man is a being who thirsts for something greater. In his day to day life, he chases one pleasure after another, life, as Schopenhauer says, swings like a pendulum between pain and ennui. And yet, there is an intuition within us all that there is something greater than the material, that there is a good or goods to be pursued, whose pursuit goes beyond any narrow economic interests, and whose pursuit we feel is the justification for this endless game of survival.

Finally, libertarianism, more than any other credible political philosophy, is anathema to nationalism. For the libertarian, every individual is equal and should be given an equal chance, there is no concern over mass immigration for within libertarianism this is fundamentally fair. Let as many immigrants come as they please, the best will be hired, the worst will not, that is what’s fair. This is also to suppose that outside of the government’s interference we can have a totally color blind world, where individuals escape the shackles of the ignorance of racism and other prejudices. Libertarianism is also steadfastly opposed to all forms of protectionism, and, in it’s usual a priori way sees Free Trade as objectively fair and right, regardless of national interest. What this unabashed free trade would mean is a fully global market and the removal of borders in any meaningful sense.

This is hardly surprising when one looks at the founders of libertarianism. Von Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Nozick and Ayn Rand were all racial jews. Kevin MacDonald in his book The Culture of Critique gives two characteristics of Jewish intellectual movements. They are generally internationalist in nature, and propose a world free of nationalism and national interests, and they rest on unproven, often unprovable a priori assumptions. This fits Marxism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and of course libertarianism. It is easy to see why it has attracted many prominent jews among it’s ranks, for it promises a world free of nations, free of irrationality, free of collective interest in any groups, and favours a society which would inevitably be run by a small economic elite, free from taxation or responsibilities to their host nation. Let no man call himself a libertarian who opposed internationalism, liberalism, atheism, modernism and the materialism and selfishness which accompany it.




Edmund Burke


A lesson from the Irish in America

The Whitehouse yesterday put out the following release, announcing he return of March as Irish – American heritage month. The statement read:


– – – – – – –



Irish Americans have made an indelible mark on the United States.  From Dublin, California, to Limerick, Maine, from Emerald Isle, North Carolina, to Shamrock, Texas, we are reminded of the more than 35 million Americans of Irish descent who contribute every day to all facets of life in the United States.  Over generations, millions of Irish have crossed the ocean in search of the American Dream, and their contributions continue to enrich our country today.

From our four Irish-born Founding Fathers to Thomas Francis Meagher, the Irish revolutionary who became an American hero after leading the Irish Brigade during the Civil War, Irish immigrants have shaped our history in enduring ways.  Throughout the centuries, hard-working Irish Americans have contributed to America’s innovation and prosperity — tilling the farms of Appalachia, working the looms of New England textile mills, and building transcontinental railroads — often overcoming poverty and discrimination and inspiring Americans from all walks of life with their indomitable and entrepreneurial spirit in the process.  From these early beginnings rose generations of Irish Americans who continue to lead our cities, drive our economy, and protect and defend the land they embrace as their own.

American culture carries an unmistakably Irish-American imprint.  Our literature, cinema, music, dance, sports, and visual arts are filled with the names and influence of great Irish Americans.

Irish Americans should be proud of the deep cultural, historical, and familial ties that have contributed to the strength of our vibrant transatlantic relationship with Ireland.  As we honor the past during Irish-American Heritage Month, we also celebrate a bright future of friendship and cooperation for generations to come.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2017 as Irish-American Heritage Month.  I call upon all Americans to celebrate the achievements and contributions of Irish Americans to our Nation with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first.




Now let me say, as a proud Irish man I am glad to see the American administration recognise the strong bonds between our people. The story of the Irish Americans can teach us a lot. I expect the extreme left will be up in arms over Trump celebrating a fellow white race, but there was a time when no one faced greater “oppression” than the Irish.

The Irish fled to the U.S. from a desolate Ireland, destroyed by a laissez faire British economic policy designed to systematically lower the population of Ireland. Motivated by economic theories popularised by David Ricardo and others, the British administration believed the Irish Catholics over bred and their population needed lowering if they were to be economically viable. Thus it was that they could justify exporting huge amounts of livestock out of Ireland during the potato famine. During the famine there were numerous cases of people resorting to eating rats in a desperate attempt to survive. The Irish population was lowered in half.

The Irish, fleeing this dire situation, came to the USA with nothing but hope and an unmatched work ethic. They did not have dreams of getting rich or living an American dream, they simply wanted to earn enough to survive. For many decades the Irish were treated as second class citizens. Restaurants regularly displayed signs saying “No dogs, No Irish” and the Irish were often refused work due to their race. Yet, they persevered, and over time became an integral part of the growth of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. The Irish helped build the American dream, and few understood it better than they.

Today they are an unmistakable part of the American culture. Through their hard work they (we) have come to dominate certain sectors such as certain fire and police departments. Did they do this through quotas? Did they do this through welfare? Through political correctness forcing the indigenous population to talk to them in a way they found agreeable? No. They did it through hard work and virtuous living. They kept their faith and customs in such a way that they never descended into becoming a criminal underclass as other racial groups tended to do. This is not to say that they didn’t integrate. Indeed, another reason for their unique success was their willingness to embrace American culture and ultimately help shape it. Despite the hatred and discrimination they faced, they still very much believed in the American dream, and resolutely refused to become a victimised minority.

They succeeded, not by quotas, not by reparations, not by welfare or pity from the majority, but by the strength, determination and goodness present in their character. This lesson is one more relevant now than ever.

Is Trump Selling Out?

During the campaign I never exactly got on the Trump train. However, I was hopeful on some aspects of his campaign. Hopeful he could curb immigration, curb some elements of the far left social agenda being pushed on the American people, renew relations with Russia and stop the disastrous policies being pursued in Syria.

Since he has taken office however, the early signs have been very disconcerting. Last week Trump claimed that Crimea is rightfully Ukranian and accused Putin and Russia of stealing it from the Ukraine. This despite the fact that the vast  majority of Crimeans consider themselves Russian and Putin himself warned NATO that if they launched a coup in the Ukraine he would take action to annex Crimea. The Trump administration has also “Put Iran on notice”.

In other words, Trump has instantly began shilling to the Zionists who hold a dangerous amount of power in US politics. Russia is an enemy of the Zionists due to their support of the Syrian administration, which Israel launched a proxy invasion of in an attempt to remove Assad, weaken Syria and its ally Iran, and ultimately balkanise the middle east and allow a strong Israel to dominate without challenge. This is why Russia and Iran are the great enemies of the Zionists. Iran because it exists outside the globalist strangle hold and refuses to submit to Israeli hegemony, and Russia both because it is renewing traditional values and resisting globalism, and because it is willing to use force to resist Zionist and neocon plans for the middle east.

Let’s not forget, despite his rhetoric against the elite, Trump has appointed no less than four Goldman Sachs alumni, including jews Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin. He also appointed his Jewish son in law Jared Kushner as a senior adviser. What exactly qualified Kushner for this position? Who can say, but it seems the Zionist influence in Trump’s administration is already making it’s presence felt, and Trump’s nationalist rhetoric is morphing into more of the same neocon, pro Zionist propaganda.

De Maistre on Human Nature

It’s Too Late for The West

 “Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.”
Thus goes W.B. Yeats lament regarding the degradation in character and morals of the Irish middle class in the early 20th century. It’s ironic that this is found in his poem September 1913 when you consider that just three years after the date the Irish would participate in a brave rebellion against the British in Dublin, a rebellion they knew would end in failure and their blood sacrifice. In other words, Yeats was wrong, there was an aspect of romantic Ireland which survived, inside the hearts of every Irish man and woman as a spark of nationalist sentiment, a spark which was fanned into a veritable inferno by the events of September 1916. What is the point of this? The point is that people are always lamenting the degradation of what they hold dear, society is always collapsing, even when it isn’t. Man holds a certain pessimism for the progress of society. But I will venture to say it again, we, the west, are in decline. I am so sure of the downward direction our society is advancing in that I am now convinced there is no hope of redemption. The West is dead.
Now, some may say my pessimism is unfounded and badly timed, giving the growth of the alt right, nationalist politics, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. All these are signs that most people are throwing off the cosy liberal consensus and returning to a more reactionary approach to governance. This provides some hope, but ultimately it is motivated by the same motives as those who vote for liberal policies. In each case people vote based on the prospects of their finances under whatever leadership. Who will make them wealthiest, give them the most benefit for 4 years. No one votes on ideals, and the constant drive for economic prosperity is part of the reason the West is doomed. For it, we have sacrificed much, but the greatest sacrifice of all was morality. The West cannot survive because it is decadent. In our material comfort, we have lost reverence and respect for the ideals which were the formation of the West.
The educated are resented, knowledge is scoffed at, philosophy and theology are seen as a joke, simply leaching off the more noble field of science, which guarantees continuing prosperity and comfort for us. Religion is seen as one hobby among many, no greater or worse than yoga, though perhaps worse for the hatred it inspires, though this can’t be said regarding Islam, for most muslims are non whites and thus immune to any criticism. Political correctness has stifled free debate, and shown us that liberalism as it ultimately manifests itself is little more “free” than medieval political arrangements. With the sacrifice of morality we can not recover. Even if there is a great awakening in the West, a massive reaction against the liberal consensus, the reactionaries will not know with what principles to replace those they rebel against. Rome did not collapse because it over extended itself or because it embraced Christianity, it collapsed for the same reason every great empire has – having long enjoyed prosperity created by men of belief, it fell into unbelief and decadence. The weak, nihilistic men this decadence spawned drove their inheritance into destruction. It has happened to every great civilization, it will happen to the West. Many on the left may embrace this, but what could possibly follow it is more worrying. Lament the death of the West, the Moslem barbarians wait at the crumbling walls of our civilisation.

A Call To Tradition









As of today this blog has been renamed The Traditionalist, and it’s new url is radicaltraditionalism.com. I feel it would be remiss of me to let this opportunity pass without explaining my decision to make it explicitly a space for the promotion of traditionalism.

The story of my journey to an embrace of traditionalism probably may not be captivating, but in many ways it seems to parallel the journey humanity has been on the past few centuries, though the conclusion is far from certain to be the same. What i mean is, I was raised with a romantic and firm belief in a religious mythology, began to embrace it intellectually, then encountered certain heresies against those beliefs and, after a rather poor intellectual examination of those original beliefs dropped them, first in favour of agnosticism or a kind of deism, and then in favour of full fledged materialism and atheism. I then faced the consequences of such a belief and, still desiring something greater than myself to believe in, I turned my passion to radical politics. Having seen the failings in such views, I then again dropped into a kind of nihilism, before embracing a return to traditionalism. Were my story to be akin to that of humanities, it would seem we are at the penultimate stage of development, though I am less than hopeful that is how it will pan out.

Raised a Catholic, I was quite devout as a child and for a time I even wanted to be a priest when I grew older. Around a certain age, say 14, an older family member introduced me to a YouTube documentary which viciously attacked religion and the Catholic Church in particular, and then casually “refuted” Christianity with it’s explanation of how the story of Jesus had been fabricated, taking common aspects from other religious myths such as Horus, Mithra and Krishna to construct a satisfying fairytale to keep stupid poor people under the thumb of the all powerful church. Of course, at the time I neither had the critical faculties nor the knowledge to challenge these shocking claims, and thus left my faith.

Despite losing my faith in any and all religion, I always remained an agnostic rather than an atheist, and still had a certain intuition that bare faced atheism could not be true, but I did not trouble myself with thinking over the matter. is there a God? Who knows? Better not to trouble oneself with such unanswerable questions and get on with life. My first great intellectual interest was politics, and I dived into it with all my heart and soul. The same family member who showed me the falsehood of all religion pointed my intellectual endeavors in the direction of radicalism, expressing his horror at the evils of capitalism and the crimes of the US. Once again, he seemed right minded on this, and I became quite left wing for a time, being convinced that socialism was the answer to the ills of mankind.

it is interesting looking back to see how tied my socialism was to my belief in determinism. Before any foray into philosophy, practically from the moment I dropped religion, I was convinced that free will was an illusion. I did not know such a theory even existed outside my own head, but it seemed clear that humans are impacted by the outside world the same way a stone or a tree is, and our movements are similarly determined. How did this tie into my radicalism? If there were such a lack of free will, the result of anyone’s position in society was there upbringing. The poor were poor because they were born into conditions destined to make them poor. The rich were rich by chance, being born into a wealthy family which had similarly won the lottery ticket of birth and been born into favorable circumstances. Having accepted this as true, what option was there other than to enforce a leveling on society, and ensure that all were given the same opportunity (and outcome). If no one was responsible for their position in life, what else could be fair? Of course, I was not so naive as to embrace a bare faced communism, the ideology which had caused the deaths of tens of millions and failed in practically all of it’s aims. I needed an alternative which was just as radical, but avoided the trappings of “orthodox communism”. Aided by reading a lot of Chomsky, I found this in anarchism, anrcho syndicalism, libertarian socialism or whatever other name is being used for it nowadays.

My faith in this belief system was also motivated by another thinker who I had come to love, Friedrich Nietzsche. As he is with many, Nietzsche was the first philosopher I read seriously,in fact, I did not just read him, i devoured him. Nietzsche opened my eyes to a terrible realisation I had somehow always avoided, unintentionally or not. If there was no God, if God really was dead, then everything was fundamentally meaningless. Concepts such as right or wrong, good or evil, better or worse, were just subjective preferences, statements of belief with no objective validity. This meant my passion for radicalism was basically just a silly little passion of mine. No system of governance was really better than another, because to believe that you had to believe in a right and wrong, and the reality we all faced was that in the end we will all die, all our suffering, all our joy, misery, success or failures will all come out in the wash the same. Infinity +1 is still infinity. However, I still had a strong sense of justice, and so I found a new, more Nietzchean way to justify my radicalism. A form of anarchism, it seemed, could be constructed which did not rely on resentment or the remnants of a Christian morality. Rather, this was a more positive system which sought to maximise the potential of all rather than maintain the narrow aims of ensuring everyone got their share of bread and water.

It would be much more simple to point out some moment where my whole perspective entirely changed, but belief is much more complex than that. Over the next few years I studied economics, politics and especially philosophy intently. I came to disregard Nietzsche and actually think him a quite worthless philosopher. I was drawn to the perennial philosophy. It seemed incredible to me to see the enormous similarity found in the doctrines of Eckhart and other Christian mystics, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Sufism and the Upanishads. I especially took an interest in Eastern philosophy, and after intense study of it’s teachings saw Vedanta, the philosophical school of Hinduism, as the culmination of all philosophy, and it’s Brahman as being the absolute reality of which all religion attempts to express and celebrate. I also became convinced of the truth of idealism, and came to see materialism as an empty and fundamentally false philosophy, laced in error. During this time I became almost apolitical, I had given up on leftism, gradually feeling disdain for the tactics and arguments leftists used to advance their ideology, which to me seemed to appeal to nothing but man’s desire for comfort, before I had any stronger beliefs this always seemed to be an attitude worthy of disgust. I had hated the conservatives for always seeming to appeal to nothing but their constituents greed and desire to become wealthy, but now I realised those on the left appealed to desires just as base. People voted liberal or conservative, basically, based on which one would be most to their advantage, generally financial.

I came to see the whole of modern politics, and the whole of the modern world, as being built on a lie. The lie was never actually spoken, but it was ever present, underlying all discourse and argument. The lie was the promise of heaven on earth. It was the conviction that materialism was true, that God was dead and that the only real truth was the self. We can not believe anything to be absolutely true, and thus we can not believe that anything could be greater than the self, the medium which relegates these other potential truths to mere relativity. And the unavoidable conclusion of such belief is that the only path left for the human race is to pursue a logical path to both ever increasing personal freedom and manipulation of nature through science with the intent of increasing it’s potential to alleviate our suffering and increase our pleasure. The world is slowly moving from what remains of the Christian slave morality to a new utilitarian approach, which trusts in science and personal preferences to dictate the direction of human progress.

I realised this was the spirit of the age, and I detested every aspect of it. The utopianism, the promise of paradise on earth, that same promise which the communists and the fascists had used to justify their grave crimes against humanity. The positivism and scientism, which assumed science could answer all our questions, and anything that could not be answered in such a way was a not a meaningful question in the first place, thus relegating philosophy and religion without even bothering to debate them in any fair way. The belief that nothing was greater than pleasure. That art, education, literature, poetry, beauty, adventure, discovery, invention, religious experience, all of these only had worth in so far as they were enjoyable to the person experiencing them or benefited the survival and pleasure of the human race as a collective. That morality was non existent, that we could not condemn certain behavior or praise virtuous behavior. I detested these views, and I saw that they were not really separate beliefs at all, but rather branches on the one tree, sprouting from the one, fundamental belief which characterised the age they dominated. The belief was materialism. Liberals and conservatives are left and right on a spectrum which operates entirely in a materialist framework, a framework established during the Enlightenment by figures like Rousseau and Locke. Thus, the only alternative was not another place on that spectrum, another point on the compass, rather, the alternative would be to leave that spectrum entirely. To throw away materialism and modernism having accepted it’s failure, and to return to the kinds of beliefs which birthed Western civilization and all it’s fruits.

The alternative? Well, as the Traditionalist writers often point out, all religions have both an exoteric and an esoteric aspect. The exoteric aspect is that expressed to the masses, it is heaven and hell, God in heaven and people on earth, angels and demons, sins and sainthood. The esoteric aspect is that common to all religion. It is the mystical aspect, the one truth expressed by all great mystics and spiritual teachers, which the exoteric side is a simplified, doctrinal version of. These two options seem to be two alternatives to the modern dichotomy. In other words, one could embrace an exoterism, and thus embrace the absolute truth of one religion and struggle for it’s implementation as an alternative to the very post modern malaise we find ourselves in. The other option is esoterism, which would amount either to a form of paganism or an embrace of unity and detached, compassionate action, which could manifest politically as the promotion of spiritual seeking in all it’s forms. This is rather vague, and there’s a reason for that. The esoteric attitude is fundamentally a detached, apolitical one, which does not concern itself with the trivialities of organising the material world when the more fundamental task of achieving gnosis or enlightenment is ever present, and is something the individual must do alone. As such, embracing this spirit seems to land one in a new age, hoky, ultra liberal embrace of humanity which will struggle with relativity of liberalism, and which also lacks an absolute morality.

Thus, the solution, in my view, is a synthesis. A middle way between the esoteric and exoteric sides of traditionalism. This was the case in many ways while Europe was dominated by Christianity, for Christianity is perhaps the only religion which synthesises estoericism and exotericism It is exoterically esoteric, and it thus achieves the unity of the positive aspects of each. Thus, a Christian renaissance would be ideal for the kind of synthesis I believe is now desirable. Nevertheless, the point remains, that a return to the kind of traditionalism once enjoyed is not possible, as the subconscious prejudices and beliefs which enforced it have been challenged and called into question, and that alone is enough to derail the validity of the system they enforced. And so, my firm conviction is that our future, if we are to have one, rests in a ‘Neo Traditionalism’ which can find the best aspects of Traditionalism and a way to synthesise them with aspects of modern life and development which either will not or should not go away. The search for, promotion, and refinement of this viewpoint will be the purpose of this website.

The Frankfurt School: Who They Were And Why They Matter

You may or may not have heard of the Frankfurt School. Though they may not be as well known as other philosophers or social critics, their influence on the world can not be doubted but is grossly underestimated.

The Frankfurt School was founded in Germany by a group of Jewish intellectuals as the Institute for Social Research in the University of Frankfurt, hence the name. Among their best known members were Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. In order to understand their foundation, one must look to Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci wrote in his famous prison diaries on the nature of communism and the reasons for it’s failure in generating a mass revolt of the proletariat and destruction of capitalism. Gramsci placed the blame for this failure in the proletariat’s ideology, manifest in culture. Gramsci lamented that people maintained traditional loyalties to ideas such as the family, religion, morality and race. Gramsci was intelligent enough to realise that communism could never win substantial support while people maintained a love for these things – the only way to win people over to communism would be to undermine and destroy their competing loyalties. Marxism would have to switch from a focus on economics to a focus on culture if it was to be successful.

Taking up this idea, the Frankfurt school, who were forced to emigrate to the US due to the rise of Nazism in Germany, attempted to critique and undermine traditional social bonds and loyalties. They fused the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud with a Neo Marxist view of of society and economics to create a new way of critiquing and understanding culture, hence the common label for their ideas as Cultural Marxism. Their chief weapon came in the form of critical theory, now thought across universities.

Why is this significant? After all, surely a few philosophers writing on culture and the state can’t do much harm. The fact is the Frankfurt school achieved the ultimate success, their ideas have infested the mainstream of culture. What are characteristics of their approach? There is the attempt to pathologise anyone who does not share their communist world view as being mentally ill, or being motivated by an irrational hatred like homophobia. There is also the denouncing of religion as being oppressive and archaic, the support for extreme versions of feminism, the promotion of globalism over nationalism and the equating of nationalism with racism at every opportunity.

Essentially, any of the traditional bonds which traditionally have kept people away from the lure of communism were and are under attack by the Cultural Marxist approach. Nationalism is undermined by it’s association with Nazism and racism. Traditional views on marriage or other social issues are deemed to be motivated by a pathology. Any promotion of Western culture or values is also deemed racist, while one is an Islamophobe if one holds the opinion that the West becoming Islamic, or Islam influencing western culture would be a bad thing.

The above all undermine Western culture and promote an intellectually grey, vapid communist approach to understanding the world. Fundamentally however, the chief way of undermining traditional values and morality is by promoting it’s polar opposite – unabashed materialism. This is now ongoing at an unstoppable rate, people are becoming more and more self centered, dull, shallow and materialistic. They see nothing beyond their most base material desires and consumer goods capable of satisfying them. While it may at first seem absurd to suggest that it is in the interest of communists to have the masses engaging in greedy unabashed consumption, the reality is this consumption is a symptom of what the Marxists really want – a materialistic outlook which ultimately rejects the higher and embraces the promised paradise on Earth of Karl Marx.