Buying votes. Appearing sensitive. Understanding ‘root causes’. Always ‘deeply concerned’. Supportive of cultural ‘relativity’. Active in enhancing state power. Addicted to spending more money. Increasing taxation to ensure ‘fairness’. Rejecting Western traditions. These are the ‘values’ that underlie modern day populism as expressed by all major political parties in the post-reality Western nation state. These are of course cultural Marxist concepts that if left unchecked, will destroy Western nation states.

The absurdity of cultural Marxism can be illustrated in many ways. Education, the media, entertainment, the rewriting of history, unfettered non-Western immigration and the pathological hatred of the Western tradition including its Judeo-Christian roots, is endemic in the West outside of the US. Even inside the US the brain-washing of youth, the imposition of immoral relativity and low standards in TV, music and Hollywood, and the constant populism emanating from cultural Marxist political warriors has deeply warped the US psyche and forced the US into a severe leftwards drift that threatens its very existence as a nation state. Outside of America the advance of cultural Marxism is even more profound. [see Sartre, Foucault, Hobsbawm etc].

Consider the nuttiness of this idea. You have a state but in good cultural Marxist fashion you need to reject the 3000-year Western cultural heritage. Thus, you demand the equal importance of all ‘cultures’. This is cultural relativity. Just to make sure that no-one gets left out you need to highlight various ‘communities’, within these distinct cultures or ‘nations’, within some political and economic construct called the ‘state’. This is the multi-cultural Marxist mantra of relativity taken to extremes. It is foolish and dangerous.

In order to demolish the Western nation state cultural Marxists need to eradicate the Judeo-Christian ideals and philosophies from existence, and divorce current and future populations from their past heritage. Therefore, in Canada or in Europe the once majoritarian culture is now nothing more than just another expression of reality. These successful nations have a culture that is no better than say Islamic culture, or the various Asian, African or Latin expressions of reality. The fact that the Western European model of development is the most moral and successful in mankind is rewritten by the cultural Marxist fetishists as nothing more than a catalogue of rape, racism, plunder and criminality.

Buying votes also mandates the division of society into little cultural Marxist groups. Want the Chinese vote? Pander to the Chinese community within the nation citing supposed grievances, racism, intolerance and other victimology claims. Need that French vote? Satisfy and emulsify their emotional immaturity and swaggering arrogance with references to cultural superiority and uniqueness. Need some Muslim money? Cry that Islam is peaceful, and more mosques are needed so we become accepting of Islam’s wonderful civilization.

Thus the idea that we only have ‘ethnic communities’, within racially defined ‘nations’, inside of something called a ‘state’ takes ferverish hold of the cultural Marxist and vote buying elite. What better way to rewrite history then to ignore it and embrace the relativity model that all blood lines, races, ethnicities are actually nations within a larger group? If that is true then the nation does not exist – it is just a state controlled empire. But destroying a successful history, culture and heritage is unimportant when faced with buying votes and appearing sensitive and culturally hip.

So you have ‘conservatives’ droning on about the ‘Quebecer’ nation within a nation. What next? Will there be a Hindu nation of Canada? Or a Portugese one? How about mixed bloodlines? Are you still part of the Quebecer ‘nation’ if you part French and part something else? Will we have a genetics police investigating bloodlines? What does the word ‘nation’ mean exactly? Will the Quebecers or the Hindus or the Chinese now have special rights, privileges legal or otherwise to form or enhance their ‘nation’? If not then why call them a ‘nation’?

In Western nation states the elevation of cultural Marxism and the multi-cult club makes the above questions relevant. Quebecers are certainly asking these questions in Canada. "The mere symbolic aspect, maybe it's a feel-good factor for the immediate future, but it's not going to last for long if it's not accompanied by anything concrete," said Pierre Martin, a professor of political science at Universite de Montreal. No kidding. "It's going to be interpreted as something that has to mean something. It's going to be interpreted as something that has to lead to some sort of consolidation of powers or jurisdictions. ... If that is considered the end of the road for the Conservatives, it in fact may be considered just the beginning for some people in Quebec." So says a former Quebecer separatist politician. In other words – thanks for denoting us a nation – now give us the power to be one.  So when will the 5 million Moslems in Canada (Quebec has 7 millions), ask for status as a ‘people’ and a state within a state (the Umma)?

The ugliness of race-based sociology, or ethnic-tribal ‘reality’ in politics is evident across the world and inevitably leads to death or at the very least the dismemberment of the state. The unnatural Hapsburg empire, the first tottering postmodern state, was consumed by high spending, exorbitant taxation and the political recognition of its sociological reality. It was a disaster that shattered into many smaller ethnically divided states. This is one outcome of cultural Marxism. Another likely outcome is that to keep the unnatural ‘community of nations within the greater state’ together, politicians will bribe, spend more money and raise more taxes to keep the social peace. Cultural Marxism thus leads to statism and more government power.

But this is what the cultural Marxist elite wants – more power. By dividing up a state into little groups they disperse opposition, ensure infighting between various elements and consolidate power. It is an old trick. It is however pathetic that ‘conservative’ politicians engage in such mindless anti-historical, and contra-Western practices.