The Decline and Fall of the Western Liberal Political Class

I will be completely honest.

My attitude toward democracy has somewhat improved after reading this book because I increasingly see liberalism as the problem that ails the West. We never got the chance to vote on countless things like mass immigration, political correctness, multiculturalism, gay marriage, etc. Those key decisions were all made on behalf of the public by our elites. The British voted for BREXIT and Americans voted for Trump’s agenda and look what happened.

The following excerpt comes from Simon Reid-Henry’s book Empire of Democracy, The Remaking of the West Since the Cold War, 1971-2017:

“On a troubled and lonely late-night flight across the country on Air Force One in September 1995, President Clinton “ambled back to the press Cabin,” reported one of the journalists present, and confided to the rest of the press pack that the country seemed to him in something of a “funk”; not down, by a long way, but out of kilter. In Europe as well, admist the new prosperity, there could be no denying the almost palpable sense that public life had somehow lost its soul. Something strange had transpired amid the post-Cold War peace dividend and what seemed to many Westerners, at the height of the 1990s, as the economic boom of ages. Confidence in democracy was not growing stronger; it was ebbing slowly away.

One basic indicator of these underlying concerns was a sharpening erosion of civil trust. In 1964, 78 percent of Americans believed they could “trust” Washington to do what was right; by 1994 that number had fallen to just 19 percent. In fact it wasn’t just the system but its representatives that were facing an historic decline in popular faith. Faith in democratic principles remained strong but surveys repeatedly placed politicians and political parties near the bottom of the pile of trustworthiness. Even in Sweden, where 60 percent of respondents to an election study in 1968 said they thought that political parties were interested in people’s opinions, not just their votes, it transpired that by 1994 only 25 percent of Swedes still thought this. The decline in respect for the political class fostered a more general disengagement from politics as well, since where political trust was lower, voter turnout tended to be lower also. After 1990 voter turnout in national elections declined nearly everywhere, until it reached its lowest postwar average of 62 percent in 2001. Political polls told their own story too: beginning in the 1990s, fewer and fewer people were prepared to take part in them.”

In the postwar era, liberalism dissolved the guardrails around democracy, which had previously been grounded in the nation-state and bounded and stabilized by it. These countries all used to be racially and culturally homogeneous and high trust societies.

America could no longer be a White European Christian country. It was decided that was “racism” and “white supremacy.” The same is true of Australia which could no longer be a White European Christian country or France or Ireland or Sweden, etc. Somewhere around the 1960s, liberalism became the foundation of the social order, not the traditional combination of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, history which had previously formed our national identities.

Millions of Third World immigrants flooded into North America, Europe and Australia in the process eroding the social fabric and the relative voting power of natives. Every non-White immigrant that arrived in Ireland cancelled the vote of an Irishman. This process has been turning democracy into a tool of dispossession. What’s more, every time the public got fed up with this and voted for change it ended up not mattering because some judge unilaterally nullified their voice or politicians were bought off. Liberal democracy has ceased to be democratic. Strangely, it is not very liberal either anymore and relies on authoritarian methods to suppress criticism.

What do you call “liberal democracy” when it is neither liberal or democratic and is ruled by a technocratic elite that is despised by the public and rules by repression and without a popular mandate? It seems like “authoritarian oligarchy” is the more accurate description.

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. There is a lot of anger out there. The problem is leadership. There is no focal point to rouse the aggrieved masses and reform or even topple the enemy order. And any such possible leader – whether Trump, Tommy Robinson, Pim Fontuyn – must be mercilessly attacked or even killed. Salvini is pretty close to what we’re looking for, though.

  2. The problem is that for many classic Republican types, distrust of the Government meant trusting corporations to govern. As much as I don’t like the government, I do support government crackdowns on monopolies, abuses of corporate power etc, wrongful termination, war lobbying etc.

    Republicans will have you go from the pan to the fire.

    • @Daryl B

      That’s a Democratic party trope but it isn’t true. The first “trust buster” was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt.

      Unlike Democratic party talking points, FDR’s New Deal did not lessen the power of corporations; quite the contrary, FDR simply cartelized the top corporations and prevented any competition to them.

      The Democratic party had the support of labor unions for maybe 40 something years. It was Jimmy Carter that first destroyed the power of labor unions via financialization and “free trade” – Reagan was just the mopping up operation. Bill Clinton aligned the new Democrats against labor unions and it was Al Gore that was his point man pushing free trade.

      The “woke left” who call themselves “progressives” are extremely anti-liberal – and regressive – and despite what they call themselves, they aren’t even socialists. They merely want more welfare state programs. But they are so viciously anti-white they only want welfare state programs that help non-whites. Just read what they themselves write; they are hysterically, monomaniacally anti-white. They hate whites more than Hitler hated Jews and that’s not even a slight exaggeration.

      Any sort of “economic left” that works in the interests of the working class is going to come from Whites and it’s going to be traditional, conservative, and populist. Neither Blacks nor Mestizos have the ability to organize anything more than showing up to vote once a year; they can barely do that.

      And of course the traditional “left” and the Democratic party is 100% controlled by Jews. Look at what happened to Ilhan Omar. Look at what happened to the Black who ran the Woman’s March; she was a fan of Louis Farrakhan and she got fired for “anti-semitism.”

      Even Marx was working in the context of a white Europe. The entire point of multiculturalism is to keep workers from organizing in their interests. That’s why the first thing that a company does when they see a union forming is to bring in scabs of a different race.

      Hell, that’s why the planters imported African slaves to Dixie – they didn’t want to pay whites.

      • BannedHipster,

        It was Chicongo jew rahm emanuel acting as Clinton’s chief of staff that pushed NAFTA through congress.

        There are ghost towns of mid-sized towns throughout the Midwest and Rust Belt that are the result of that treaty that both parties passed with unrestrained enthusiasm.

  3. It’s clearly an oligarchy and it ceased to be liberal under the Bush-Obama era.

    You can tell if a regime is liberal or not by whether it supports freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of association. If it doesn’t support those things it’s not liberal.

    Old fashioned normal conservatives have always complained about “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench.” These days, if you want to be cool, you get all “NRx-ey” about it and use the term “kritarchy,” but like most of the neo-reaction, that’s just slapping a new label on an old phenomenon to make yourself sound smart; Curtis Yarvin said he coined the term “neo-cameralism” because of its “Google virginity” – in other words, he wanted to get more hits on his blog so he made up a new term for “unified executive.”

    But liberalism has an economic side, which is capitalism and free trade. Our economic regime is “neo-liberal” to some degree, although the financial system has been a cartel – thus illiberal – since the founding of the Fed in 1913. FDR’s National Recovery Organization was a federalized cartel of industry based on the Federal Reserve cartel of finance; it was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but the Federal Reserve was never ruled on by the Supreme Court.

    The Federal Reserve basically kept the Great Depression going far longer than it would have; instead of expanding money supply they tightly restricted the money supply preventing a normal recovery. This is the thesis of former Fed chair Ben Bernake and why he was appointed to the Fed. Everyone knew Bush’s housing bubble was going to crash.

    Most normal conservative white people would be happy with a “national liberalism” that makes a clear distinction between insiders and outsiders; between citizens and foreigners. Free trade internally, tariffs externally. Civil liberties for citizens, restrictions on foreigners.

    But the USA is an Empire; in fact, Lincoln was really the first imperialist. FDR expanded the Empire. When the Soviet Union fell, the Empire went into overdrive and Bush II brought it out of the closet and dropped even the pretense of a liberal Republic – I will note, to the cheers of 90% of white conservatives, who love watching war on TV.

    Most normal conservatives would be happy too with representative government, an oligarchy where we choose the oligarchs. But we don’t have that because we have a media cartel. Consider: when goy Ted Turner started CNN all the other networks went into a frenzy and collaborated to take it from him; he himself admitted he was bamboozled.

    Goy Steve Case of AOL suffered a similar fate: in charge of a massive new form of media, he was eventually sidelined by the existing kosher media cartel.

    Neither liberalism nor democracy is perfect and both have inherent flaws. Nevertheless, the point of democracy is to come to a rough consensus and get the buy in of the losers in an election. Only white people have ever make liberal societies. Liberalism is a white privilege.

    Everything that normal conservatives hate: anti-whiteness, mass immigration, LGBTQLMNOP, Wall Street bailouts – no one voted for any of that. Even far-left California voted against “gay marriage” only to have the courts simply ignore their vote and pass it anyway. That is neither democratic nor liberal.

  4. It was insane for the Constitution to leave the final say so of what is and is not Constitutional in the hands of the Supreme Court. That is a conflict of interest because it gives one branch of the national government the power of policing another branch of the national government where their is no difference in kind only function!. Instead we should have a council of elected judges chosen by the states that would be the final authority on the Constitution.

    Consider a corporation. The more shares you have the more votes you have because you contribute more. Now translate that into a democratic system which I will call Ascendant Democracy.Its propose is to elevate that national aristocracy among our people-which Thomas Jefferson believed was essential to good and orderly government- to positions of national influence. Every citizen would have one basic vote. But additional votes beyond that must be earned by service, merit, and accomplishments.Read the book( but ignore the movie) Star Ship Troopers to obtain an in depth analysis of this philosophy. In this system government has a responsibly towards the responsible and vice-versa.In my spare time I have created a chart on how such votes would be earned under such a multiple franchise system.

  5. “Liberal democracy has ceased to be democratic. Strangely, it is not very liberal either anymore and relies on authoritarian methods to suppress criticism.”

    In other words, it has been taken over by the Jews. Before they took over, no one in Western governments and institutions had any desire to destroy White people.

Comments are closed.