6. Marxist Predictions about Social Democracy in the 1930’s

Communist failure to tie Social Democracy's colonial record even to its general function as upholder of capitalism had at least one fairly immediate result: predictions by Marxists in the 30s about Social Democracy’s future fell flatter than a bride’s cake.

What, specifically, were those predictions? How and why did they fail?

The grand-daddy of them all was one by Georgi Dimitroff [Dimitrov], remarkable defendant in the infamous Reichstag Fire Trial of Hitler Germany’s early days. Defeating intended legal murder by transforming his accusers into accused, Dimitroff survived his trial to become first president of the Bulgarian Socialist Republic.

Between July 25 and August 20, 1935, in speeches to the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern, he had summarised his own experience of Fascism, postulating how the working class and its vanguard should overthrow it where it existed and prevent its success elsewhere.

His ground-breaking analysis illumined the decay of bourgeois democracy during the twilight of imperialism.

While scrutinising Fascism, Dimitroff found it necessary to discuss Social Democracy:

"Comrades, in view of the tactical problems confronting us, it is very important to give a correct reply to the question of whether Social Democracy at the present time is still the principal bulwark of the bourgeoisie, and if so, where."

To his own question, he replied:

“It must be borne in mind that in a number of countries the position of Social Democracy in the bourgeois state, and its attitude towards the bourgeoisie, have been undergoing a change.

“In the first place, the crisis has thoroughly shaken the position of even the most secure section of the working class, the so-called labor aristocracy, upon which, as we know, Social Democracy relies for support. This section, too, is beginning more and more to revise its views as to the expediency of the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

“Second ... the bourgeoisie in a number of countries is it self compelled to abandon bourgeois democracy and resort to the terroristic form of its dictatorship, depriving Social Democracy not only of its previous position in the political system of finance capital but also, under certain conditions, of its legal status, persecuting and even suppressing it.

“Third, under the influence of the lessons learned from defeat of the workers in Germany, Austria and Spain, a defeat which was largely the result of the Social Democratic policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, and, on the other hand, under the influence of the victory of Socialism in the Soviet Union as a result of the Bolshevik policy and the application of living, revolutionary Marxism, the Social Democratic workers are being revolutionised, and are beginning to turn to the class struggle against the bourgeoisie.

“The joint effect of all this has been to make it increasingly difficult, and in some countries actually impossible, for Social Democracy to preserve its former role of supporting the bourgeoisie.”

In a major Left work of the 1930s, Palme Dutt had undertaken to bolster Dimitroff's vivisection with Fascism’s and Social Democracy’s actual records. Studying conditions at various historical periods of the working classes in advanced countries, he had noted that

"Liberalism enjoyed one last blooming in the earlier or pre-war period of imperialism ... The super-profits of imperialism provided the means in the imperialist countries to endeavour to buy off the revolt of the advancing workers with a show of meager concessions to a minority."

After World War I – at least in the victorious countries – expansion continued of these "meager concessions to a minority.” But, after the Wall Street crash of 1929 signaling the onset of the general crisis of capitalism, Dutt recorded a new development:

"With the rising colonial revolts, the basis of imperialism began to weaken. The stream of super-profits diminished . . . (leading to) the cutting down and withdrawal of concessions already granted."

Here, surely, was the harbinger of imperialism's actual demise, the world Left inferred, and a corresponding euphoria enveloped it. Nor was it surprising. The objective situation certainly appeared to support to the hilt their optimism: A united front pact between the French Socialist and Communist Parties had been signed on July 27, 1934, leading rapidly to the fall of the pro-Fascist Doumergue-Tardieu Cabinet. In Austria, the illegal Communist Party had become a mass organisation, absorbing Left Social Democratic and certain other elements, to found a United Socialist Party. In Italy, in the Saar and in Spain, similar developments were taking place.

“On the other hand, Dutt was forced to report, significantly, that "the British Labour Party and a number of other Social Democratic parties ... actively opposed the united front and even developed extended disciplinary measures to prevent its realisation."

In October 1934, a meeting between representatives of the Communist and Socialist Internationals was held; it was felt to augur great things. But in November,

"the Executive of the Second International at Paris, after a four-days’ debate, by a narrow margin rejected the proposal of the united front and broke off negotiations. Nevertheless, the strength of the united front was such that the ban of the Second International on the united front for its separate sections had to be lifted; and a minority declaration of seven parties was issued in support of the united front.

In a preface to the third edition of his book in August 1935, Dutt added that

"Since the book originally appeared, many new developments have taken place, among the most important of which are the new processes taking place in the Social Democratic parties, offering hopes of a healing of the split in the working class and of the passing over of the majority of the workers to the revolutionary cause."

7. Why the Predictions Failed

If the correctness of any analysis is measured by the accuracy of the predictions to which it gives rise, then it must be noted that neither the Communist-forecast "decisive struggles" not its "united front of the working class" materialised after all.

What is more, the preceding false predictions of what they would accomplish lulled Marxist vigilance, weakened self-reliance in the movements of the oppressed peoples, and supported a misinterpretation, continuing to this day, of the real role on the world revolutionary scene of the Western working classes.

What material factors had Dimitroff and Dutt omitted from their analyses to cause such an outcome?

When establishing his criteria for judging Fascism, Dutt had simply ignored imperialist parasitism, although he had noted:

"The ‘democratic freedom' of Western imperialism has been built on the foundation of colonial slavery."

As general conditions favouring the growth of Fascism, Dutt had listed:

“1) intensification of the economic crisis and of the class struggle;

“2) widespread disillusionment with parliamentarism;

“3) the existence of a wide petit-bourgeoisie, intermediate strata, slum proletariat, and sections of the workers under capitalist influence;

“4) the absence of an independent class-conscious leadership of the main body of the working class.”

(It is interesting that nearly all these conditions exist in England as these words are being written, May-June, 1968.)

Dutt documented these "general conditions", and concluded that Fascism was the

"characteristic instrument of finance-capital which can be brought into play in the most highly-developed industrialised countries when the stage of crisis and of the class struggle requires it."

Just when was that?

Dutt had an answer:

"Its success or failure, as in every country, depends on the degree of preparedness and militant resistance of the proletariat."

At this contention, history has thumbed its nose. For instance, what better indication of the "degree of preparedness and militant resistance of the proletariat” can there be than its closeness to revolution? Don’t facts suggest that revolution in that epoch was almost at hand in Italy and Spain, and that it certainly was closer in Germany, vanquished, than in Britain, the US, or even France? If Dutt were correct, why did Fascism not attain power where the proletariat was least "ready"? Obviously, the upheavals of the day did not have the content the Marxists attributed to them. Or else those Marxists were overlooking something big.

Within a remarkably short period after Dutt's analysis, it became clear that Western workers were blithely ignoring Left advise to "place no faith in the ‘democratic institutions’ of such countries." Forgetting the great struggles of the 30s, the Western proletariat year after year abandoned itself to the blandishments of exactly those "institutions": for example, elections from 1940 through 1964 in Britain, the U.S. and elsewhere in the West showed anything but "widespread disillusionment with parliamentarism." Understandably, for parliamentarism was again rewarding its faithful. (See Table 11, which shows a constant increase in both absolute numbers and percentage of eligibles voting in the US.)

To be fair, Dutt did try to protect his own rear when he said:

"All this is not to argue that Fascism must necessarily develop and conquer in Western countries."

As things turned out, here at least he came close to prophecy. Fascism actually did conquer some Western countries but not others, despite Dutt’s and other Marxists’ belief that it was an imminent danger even in the West’s "great democracies.” Despite the ferment of the post-Crash decade and the onset of capitalism’s general crisis, the Western "democracies" did not, after all, turn inward on "their own" working classes; they did not, as predicted, institute Fascism "at home".

What decided which countries Fascism conquered?

Marxists had proven that imperialist war was fought for division or redivision of colonial spoils. In 1918, the defeated — Germany, Austria, etc. — had been deprived of their colonies. More: those colonies had been redistributed. At the stroke of a pen in Versailles, the vanquished had thus been cut off completely from their former "stream of super-profits", while the "Allies" (who were, of course, the "great democracies") were cut in on a new, additional source. Military victory against Germany had thus ensured imperialism’s top dogs of a new lease on life.

Equally, military defeat had forced German imperialism and its associates either to find new outlets for their export capital or to turn inward against "their own" working classes. Hitler's cry for "lebensraum" accurately recorded that, for imperialism, "room" in which to "live" was synonymous with "room" into which ever more – monopolised capital could expand – and that for German capital expansion was indistinguishable from life itself. Somebody was going to have to supply the economically-choking vanquished with necessary "air." During the great depression, with the First World War too recent to be revived as the usual solution, only one obvious and available outlet existed: "one’s own" working class.

Countries like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and their like offer examples of what happens when, having reached the stage where capital export has become essential, a capitalist country has no foreign outlet for it. Germany, Austria and Spain demonstrate a corollary: what happens when a developing capitalist economy is deprived of such an outlet. In both cases, the ruling classed did, in fact, turn inward as their "solution".

Yet, oddly enough, while these examples were actually arising, Lenin’s warning was scarcely dead on the historical air:

"unless the economic roots of this phenomenon (that is, overseas financial activities as the specific source of imperialist parasitism - H. W. E.) are understood and its political and social significance is appreciated, not a step toward the solution of the practical problems of the Communist movement and of the impending social revolution can be taken.”

This prophecy has been fulfilled. Uttered in 1921, it had already indicated that "success or failure" for imperialism depended on the growth of parasitism, expressed as ever-widening pools of man-power and resources to be super-exploited by metropolitan monopolies.

If, then. Fascism was a specific stage of imperialism, where else could its "success or failure" lie?

History supports the observation that Fascism has in fact been exercised by imperialism against Western peoples only if they are about to be forced into the role of a "source of super profit", either to replace a lost, or to substitute for a never achieved, colonial empire. As long as real colonies, territorial or economic, exist, imperialism is "safe".

For these reasons, any conclusion in 1935 about "imminent Fascism” which did not document this crucial factor was bound to come to grief. International imperialism in the "democracies" still has room to maneuver, to "solve" its difficulties at the expense of peoples in colonial or neo-colonial areas. (Today, direct super-exploitation has ceased to be necessarily the main form of imperialist parasitism. But the principles enunciated in these pages remain the same.)

The system’s central pillar remains that vast colonial labor reservoir, available for super-exploitation.

Fascism’s "success or failure" inside Western "democracies" could simply not be accurately forecast in the way the Marxists of the 30s tried to do it.

Obviously from the foregoing reasoning, too. Fascism’s absence in "democracies" cannot be attributed to "greater benevolence” or "understanding" or, despite their inner conflicts on other issues, to any "differences in interest" among ruling classes or between one section of a given bourgeoisie and another when it comes to preserving their system.

Although Marxist analyses of Fascism had dealt with Social Democracy, they did not, in the writer’s opinion, fully analyse the connection between the two. They merely chronicled it, showing that wherever Fascism triumphed, Social Democracy paved the way for it. As "explanation", they contented themselves with repeating Lenin's 1916 formula that Social Democracy was "the principal bulwark of the bourgeoisie" ; without applying his criteria to the conditions of their own day, they could offer no satisfactory explanation for the failure of their predictions and simply dropped the whole subject.

From a historical vantage point three decades later, it now appears that those Marxists could have seen that – if the Western labor aristocracy under the impact of the great depression was indeed "revising its views as to . . . class collaboration" – the bourgeoisies in pivotal Western countries still had a couple of aces up their sleeves. Blinded by glittering generalities, Marxists got those aces slipped over on them. By leaving out of account the ruling class vector, Dimitroff simply drew wrong conclusions about Western labor’s real direction in his day.

When he had said that "the position of Social Democracy in the bourgeois state, and its attitude toward the bourgeoisie, have been undergoing a change", he had based himself on a firm material foundation: the crisis, he had said, has "thoroughly shaken the position of the . . . labour aristocracy." Surely the general crisis of capitalism is a solid enough cornerstone for such a prediction? Unfortunately, Dimitroff had relied not just on the crisis, but on a crisis to which he envisaged only one solution: namely, revolution. It proved a serious and costly underestimation of imperialist parasitism.

Social Democracy did not undergo any major change, either in its "position in the bourgeois state" or in its "attitude toward the bourgeoisie". Nor could it. Moreover, Lenin had already predicted as much. "It may be argued", he had said,

"that of the (leaders of Social Democracy), some will return to the revolutionary socialism of Marx. This is possible, but it is an insignificant difference in degree, if we take the question in its political, i.e., in its mass aspect. Certain individuals among the present social-chauvinist leaders may return to the proletariat: but the TREND can neither disappear nor 'return' to the revolutionary proletariat …

"We have not the slightest grounds for thinking that these (Social Democratic) parties can disappear BEFORE the social revolution. On the contrary, the nearer the revolution approaches, the stronger it flares up . . . the greater will be the role in the labour movement of the struggle between the revolutionary mass stream and the opportunist-philistine stream."

Those who did not know of, or forgot, such words missed the deduction that, because of its tie with colonialism (implicit in its need for super-wages), Social Democracy had to change tactics when a colonial empire seemed in danger. Its eye remained where Marxists should have kept theirs: on the state of imperialism's "stream of super-profits." Social Democracy admirably adapted its tactics to the varying levels of that stream: as long as that kept flowing in, super-wages were sure to follow.

So, although the labor aristocracy was, for the time being, "thoroughly shaken by the crisis", it was far from "revising its views" about class collaboration itself. Actually, Dimitroff had said only that the labor aristocracy was

"revising its views about the expediency of the policy of class collaboration."

The operating word was "expediency". If imperialism is forced to withdraw its bribes, polite class collaboration becomes, indeed, no longer expedient: some new form is required. This was where Fascism came in. And it served its purpose. In noting that the bourgeoisie could no longer afford democracy at home, and so had turned to "the terroristic form of its dictatorship," Dimitroff had been reporting fact. But this had little to do with what became of Social Democracy. For, both he and Dutt, the latter in irrefutable detail, had proved that this dictatorship generally did not deprive Social Democracy of its "position in the political system" or even of its legal status except in individual cases. Dutt had documented instance after instance where Social Democracy took part in that "terroristic form" of imperialism’s dictatorship.

In this, once it is admitted that its aim is to ensure the continued flow of super-wages to the labor aristocracy, Social Democracy was merely logical. That flow must come from whatever source is available.

In the light of current events, it can only be concluded that Dimitroff must have been motivated by an understandable wish when he suggested that Western workers had learned from the defeat of their class brothers in places like Germany. He was generalising too soon from working class actions of his day when he added that USSR success was revolutionizing Western Workers. If anything, his diagnosis was carried out in reverse.

Within a very short historical period thereafter, led by the shining example of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in victorious, soon- economically-rampant America, a veritable cascade of glittering bribes again began flowing into American working class pockets with effects soon to mock Dimitroffs theses. Restive workers in the U.S. were given on an increasingly grand scale a substantial stake in the status quo. The gift, accompanied by odes of virtually unchallenged praise for a system which makes such things possible, successfully, if temporarily, obscured the fact that even the bribed labor aristocracy is exploited. Marxists like Dimitroff had seen the exploitation, but had grievously underestimated how big a stake in the status quo could be raised, as well as the primacy, enormity and soporific effect "at home" of super-exploitation abroad. They had failed to foresee what a large sector of the Western proletariat were eventually to be bought over, serve alien class aims, thereby to keep alive a system which Marxist analysts of the 30s claimed was on its last legs.

Far from being unable, as Dimitroff had concluded, to maintain its allegedly former role of supporting the bourgeoisie, opportunism was soon rewarded for its police role during tight times by a new stream of super-wages at a level far higher than before. And, for its officials, lucrative Government posts opened up in ever-larger numbers.(In 1934, British TUC officials were represented on six Government committees; in 1949, on 60; in 1954, on 81; and in 1968, on more than 115.)

The halcyon days of the Western labor aristocracy had been but briefly interrupted. That that interruption was ended at the expense of renewed and deepened colonial slavery was, at the time – and even now – of little concern to comfortable Western workers.

But the price that was to be exacted from Marxism for its miscalculations in this area was to be high, indeed.

The book can be downloaded here. https://annas-archive.gl/md5/6d984f715c1e17ed915108272c4c8fe7

Awesome rendition of the international alongside a cinematic video of what seems to be like a brief history of the cpc (but im not sure lol)

What morality lies in bigotry? None. What morals exist in anti-bigotry? Every single one of them. When we experience bigotry, we know it’s wrong. To me, morality and bigotry are two opposites, and bigotry is wrong in both sense of the word, that is, as something illogical and immoral. We never say a racist man is moral, but is anti-racism moral in word or deed? Communists don’t just oppose racism in ideology; we act against it. Ours is a political movement, a fight against oppression. Thus, the answer is self-evident: No, we can’t be racist against whites. By virtue of our anti-racism being a political movement based on the liberation of the oppressed races, whites, as a race, are excluded from this anti-racism. When liberals claim “cracker” is a racist slur, they prove themselves to be crackers because only a cracker would take offense.

This post is mainly for liberals who sometimes visit lemmygrad, such as the community MeanwhileOnGrad

The myth claiming that fascists are stupid, lazy, and uneducated, or that “inbreeding” is a cause of white supremacist beliefs in a person, is problematic. And, of course, the latter is asserted by the liberals without any hint of irony.

Now, what is a fascist if not a militant nationalist? If so, what kind of nationalist? We hold it to be self-evident that Palestinian nationalism is not equal to German nationalism. And the nationalism of an oppressed nation is irrelevant here. Therefore, when we speak of the nationalism of neofascism we speak of the nationalism of Western nations. Hence, when Jeremy MacKenzie said “I think the Holocaust is f—king hilarious”^1 he was not just saying this as a white supremacist but he was also promoting the idea of Western supremacy. Let’s not forget that the nazis regarded themselves as the true interpreter of Western civilization. Alex Vriend, the vice-president of the Second Sons Canada, a fascist organization, claims a race war isn't just looming, but that “the race war is here.” According to the CBC, he was referring to the group’s martial arts training and military-style drills.^2 We may be tempted to view this as harmless trolling. Yet, just recently, Marc-Aurèle Chabot, Simon Angers-Audet, and Raphaël Lagacé have been accused of hoarding firearms and planning to take land in the Quebec City area by force. The RCMP said the charges are tied to ideologically motivated violent extremism and that they were building up an anti-government militia. Angers-Audet enrolled in the Canadian Army as a reservist in June 2019 until May 2022. Lagacé was a civilian instructor with the air cadets. And Chabot was serving in the Canadian Army at the time of his arrest. A fourth individual, Matthew Forbes, faces charges related to weapons possession, who is also in the Canadian Armed Forces.^3 Furthermore, in 2021, a former Canadian army reservist Patrik Mathews was sentenced to nine years in prison for what the FBI described as “a neo-Nazi plot to instigate a race war in the United States.”^4

In late 2025, the website WhiteDate was hacked, revealing that “many individuals [holding] positions of public trust, such as teachers, lawyers, health professionals, and military personnel,” were active on the dating platform. Royal Canadian Air Force Major Tristan Armstrong has been disclosed to be a user of this white supremacist website.^5 Lenti-Jones was another member. He is an entrepreneur who owns the Sovereign Vitality Natural Medicine clinic in Aldergrove, British Columbia. Lenti-Jones life’s purpose “is to catalyze not only the regeneration of a true form of Western Civilization, but for that revitalized civilization to be stronger, more dominant and sovereign than ever before.” He claims that becoming a business owner and medical practitioner radicalized him: “the more direct contact someone has with reality, for example having to deliver good results medically, make sound business decisions and so forth, the more rapidly the leftist worldview tends to evaporate.” As of 2023, Lenti-Jones sat on the governance committee of the prestigious Vancouver Club.^6 According to its website it was founded in 1889. The Club was the first private club in the city and is strictly exclusive.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Evan Balgord, the executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, says the white nationalist movement is burgeoning in Canada. The conference, Exiles of the Golden Age, an event held on July 26, 2025 at a cultural centre in Vancouver, British Columbia, reveals an unpleasant truth: a significant portion of the attendees hold respected social positions.

Thea Coburn is a classical violinist and operations manager with the Prince George Symphony Orchestra. Thomas Wolferstan has a long employment history as a shipwright in Victoria, BC. Michael Jacobsen was employed until recently as the marketing and communications manager at the Greater Vancouver Zoo. Karsen Miller appears to be one of the men behind the Northern War Cult, which is related to Vinland Battlewear, a neo-Nazi lifestyle and clothing brand owned by Josh Bruce and Robertson De Chazal. All three entrepreneurs were at the conference. Some MMA coaches and gym owners were also present.^7

Why is it that on Reddit they assume fascists to be unemployed and lazy? “So much unemployment and inbreeding in one picture,” said a Reddit user, referencing a recent Canada First rally in Toronto, a comment which had 126 upvotes.^8 Is it not clear that these petty nationalists are brats of middle class origin?

The myth that people who enlist in the army are poor and uneducated is likewise false. A study found out that “the majority of recruits have in fact come from the middle class, with above-average levels of affluence. Contrary to popular belief, the poorest communities are underrepresented in the armed forces. The study concludes that men and women who serve are likely to embody the values and culture of the median voters.”^9

At the Exiles of the Golden Age conference, a neo nazi from the United States, Paul Waggener, had to cancel his in-person appearance and gave a virtual speech instead. He operates Operation Werewolf, an entrepreneurial outfit built around books and workout programs, and other endeavours. Waggener also runs Devotion Jiu-Jitsu out of their Virginia property. In his speech he extolled the virtues of acquiring property and wealth in order to advance the movement. Mike Maxwell, the Canadian-born author of the book The Cultured Thug Handbook: A Guide to Radical Right Wing Thought, also addressed the audience remotely. He lives in Australia, where he runs a publishing house. David McGrigor was another attendee. He co-owns Celtic Landscaping and Design, a landscaping firm in the Greater Vancouver Area.^10

It’s not only the military or entrepreneurs but the police as well who are prone to fascism. In Ontario, a Hamilton police officer, Constable Renato Greco, is back at work after he was “investigated” for sharing racist and extremist content online. He proudly displayed stickers associated with white nationalist extremism on his vehicle, including a sticker of Diagolon, a fascist group led by Jeremy MacKenzie.^11 It seems the fascists are securely employed, contrary to what the users of Reddit may propagate. MacKenzie himself joined the Canadian Armed Forces in 2003 and worked as infantryman for the Royal Canadian Regiment in Afghanistan. He left the army in 2017 with the rank of master corporal. I think he’s now mostly making money off a podcast.

Patrick Gordon MacDonald has recently been sentenced to 10 years in prison for inciting hate and calling for violence against marginalized groups with terrorist propaganda images, memes and videos, all in an attempt to accelerate societal collapse through a hoped-for race war. MacDonald ran a graphic design studio out of Ottawa called Helios Design Studios. To this day, several propagandists in the neo-Nazi community copy his distinct style.^12

The Canadian military and the small business owners are in the process of seizing political power, while the middle class brats defend the privilege and accuse the "unemployed" of plotting a takeover of the government. The liberals want us to believe that the people who have no power, no money, or any influence are somehow causing the downfall of Canada! They are befuddled when they see protesters chanting slogans of Canada First while simultaneously giving vocal support for Trump. When will the left learn that the various countries dotting the Global North are irrelevant? The sole category useful for a proper analysis of current world events is the category of Western civilization; thus establishing and expanding Western supremacy is the primary objective of these white supremacists. An objective not too dissimilar nor in contradiction with the principle aims of liberalism, as again and again we witness murders, atrocities, and wars perpetrated against foreign countries, all under the guise of spreading and protecting the liberal’s idea of a democracy. In regards to Rubio speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany on February 14, journalist Ben Norton informs us

The US secretary of state asserted that Washington will not accept the fact that “the West’s age of dominance had come to an end,” and will use all the tools at its disposable — including and especially military force — to “build a new Western century” and “renew the greatest civilization in human history.”

What liberals and conservatives have in common is not just their views about the supposed superiority of capitalism over socialism, but a shared appreciation for the Western world and its history as well. Norton further observes that

Rubio repeatedly stressed that the United States is itself a European colonial creation. Throughout his speech, Marco Rubio emphasized that colonialism links the United States and Europe in a transatlantic imperial bond. Rubio similarly made it clear that he personally identifies with European colonialists. Although Rubio’s family is technically of Cuban descent, he made no mention of this in his speech. Instead, Rubio stressed that his ancestors came from modern-day Italy and Spain. Rubio sees himself, proudly, as a child of the European colonial elites of the Americas, rejecting his Cuban heritage. He admires the European colonizers, the conquistadores, who traveled to Latin America, declared themselves the ruling classes, and carried out horrific crimes against humanity against the indigenous populations.^13

EU officials gave Marco Rubio a standing ovation, applauding this Western supremacist ideology. It recalls the beliefs of Lenti-Jones, the aforementioned white supremacist whose life’s purpose “is to catalyze not only the regeneration of a true form of Western Civilization, but for that revitalized civilization to be stronger, more dominant and sovereign than ever before.” The secretary of state Marco Rubio, the EU at the Munich Security Conference, and business owner Lenti-Jones agree on the West’s inexorable prerogative for global hegemony.