The Deliberate Undoing of the West: How the illusion of Hypocrisy Masks a Systemic War on Our Civilization (Video)

Across the Western world, a growing number of people are beginning to sense that something is profoundly wrong with our societies and cultures. The cries of “hypocrisy,” “double standards,” and “two-tier policing” are becoming louder as citizens grapple with the contradictions between what they are told and what they see with their own eyes.

Yet, what if these explanations only scratch the surface? What if the events we are witnessing aren’t merely inconsistencies in enforcement or failures of leadership but the result of something far more deliberate and systematic? Failing to understand the true nature of these changes could leave us unable to address them effectively—at least not before the damage becomes irreversible.

To illustrate this, let’s consider an example that encapsulates these concerns. This time, from Canada:

In Toronto, a man wearing a shirt representing the Jewish Defence League (JDL) is told by police that he must either remove it or reverse it so the text cannot be read.

First, let’s break down the surface-level aspects of this situation as anti-woke media might present them:

A man supporting the Jewish right to exist in Toronto is forced to hide his visible support for Jewish people. Meanwhile, the communist/Islamic alliance protesters—carrying flags, insignias, posters, signs, and banners for groups like Hizb’allah and Hamas—are openly allowed to display their allegiance to illegal terrorist organizations and chant genocidal slogans without consequence.

The JDL is not a banned group in Canada. Wearing their logo is not illegal. Unlike these protesters, the Jewish community and their supporters are not shutting down streets, harassing diners, or taking over entire city blocks every weekend without permits.

These are the obvious points that conservative media would likely highlight, but there is something much deeper and far more troubling here.

Let’s move beyond the surface and examine what this incident reveals about the last two decades in the West.

We know that skilled people with no criminal records who seek legal immigration to Western nations face enormous obstacles. The process is expensive, cumbersome, and punitive, leaving applicants vulnerable to deportation if they attempt to work or engage in productive activity.

Meanwhile, millions of illegals have poured into these countries with what appears to be active government support. Even local officials are often blindsided by the scale and speed of these operations.

Take, for example, a grassroots protest in Ottawa against the construction of large permanent tents, known as Sprung Structures, to house illegals in a West End neighborhood. The project was planned without consulting local residents and placed in an area with zero infrastructure to support such a population. Shockingly, the local city councilor, Wilson Lo, had to file a FOIA request just to uncover details about the plan. Even months later, his questions remained unanswered.

This deliberate sidelining of elected representatives to accommodate illegals is not a one-off occurrence—it’s part of a broader, coordinated strategy that demands closer scrutiny.

Clearly, then, the order to house large numbers of illegals was issued from higher up and was hidden from the actual elected representatives who would normally make these kinds of decisions.

Looking at how various protests are handled—whether it’s UK Labour Party Leader Sir Keir Starmer’s response to the Southport stabbings, U.S. President Joe Biden’s handling of the January 6th protests, the forced removal of a JDL hoodie in Toronto, or the thousands of communist-Islamic protests over Gaza in just the past 14 months—we can see an undeniable pattern.

Provoke the people of the West until they react, then criminalize the reaction, tightening the state’s vice grip against any form of defense people believe they can muster.

The pattern reflects the destruction of the rule of law and its replacement with an entirely different system of thought. This is where it becomes difficult.

Understanding such a fundamentally alien system from within our own worldview is almost impossible. At best, we can describe what we observe using our frame of reference. For example, some cultures attribute natural phenomena to the actions of gods, while others—rooted in Greek Socratic and Aristotelian traditions—see these phenomena as mechanical processes governed by mathematics and science.

It is challenging to transition from one system to another.

And this is where we are at. We have all been raised with a solid belief in the Rule of Law. By this, we mean that police have a duty to uphold the law. The law protects our personal property, our rights, and, to a degree, our safety, except where that infringes on our rights.

When we see police acting decidedly against the rule of law, for example, to favor a large, screaming, rabid mob chanting for genocide or claiming to be victims of one, we tend to see this in our own terms: that of hypocrisy or a double standard. Especially when people protesting for their rights as guaranteed in the law are punished, either by the state or their unofficial agents like ANTIFA or BLM.

In fact, there is now a new standard altogether. Everything we knew of fairness, of equality before the law, has been replaced with a Hegelian/Marxist system where all actions by the state are destructive to our classical culture—a culture which is based on Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian traditions and modes of thought, like ours was.

Instead of a fair, orderly society where the interests of all are served by the maximum liberty of the individual, we have a system where deliberately destructive actions are taken by the state, and opposition to those actions will be punished—even criminalized. One can just look at the selective use of “hate speech laws” as one example of many.

One clue as to the nature of this formal, deliberate, and calculated strategy against the West is the consistency with which destructive efforts such as legislation are named. The names of the various bills across the West that destroy our rights are given names that appear to be granting them.

Also, the fact that the illegal migrants who entered the USA during Covid after 2021 did not need to get the mRNA shots, while everyone who wished to remain financially and socially intact in the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe had to take it.

Immediately, we know this was not about a disease. Scientifically speaking, not injecting the illegals would have negated the value of the shots according to the narrative of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” In other words, if everyone had to get vaccinated to protect the vaccinated, as the sloganeering went, omitting the hundreds of thousands who entered illegally (but by invitation) certainly negates the value of the shots, even as they were sold to us.

In Canada, profoundly destructive laws have been passed which bear names that indicate the opposite of the policy, but also let us know how we are to be punished for opposing these laws—laws which in and of themselves are unconstitutional.

For example, the “Online Harms Act,” which seeks to control what can be said on the internet, is actually a cover for criminalizing anyone who opposes state narratives.

It is not an accident that Orwell attempted to explain this strategy to us in his book, 1984.

The ministry that produced propaganda and rewrote history was called the Ministry of Truth. The secret police who tortured people in struggle sessions and then tortured them more to get them to love their oppressor was called “The Ministry of Love.”

In Canada, Bill C-4, which makes it a crime to talk your own child out of becoming permanently sterilized and incapable of sexual pleasure ever again in their lives, is called the “Anti-Conversion Therapy” law.

This harkens back to when some Christian groups had camps which attempted to get gay men to be straight via means that many would consider cruel and unusual. This was called “Conversion Therapy,” and the naming of this law was meant to make it difficult to question, lest you seem anti-gay.

The man in the video at the top of this post who was forced to remove his JDL hoodie was perfectly within his legal rights to wear it. But the police, at this point, act much like the Mafia “good cop” who tells an extortion target that “this is a nice house you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

In other words, the police act as a kind of leading edge for the mob rule we, in fact, do have. The mob of leftists and Muslims—and, it is our contention, many of whom have been actually imported into the West to do exactly what they are doing.

The police, in other words, use the state-granted monopoly on force to, in essence, manage the collapse of Western civilization with minimal chaos and bloodshed—for the moment, at least. These actions are far too consistent and have been going on across the West for too long to be anything else. Protests by patriots are punished, restricted, monitored; its participants and supporters are illegally spied on and debanked, and their homes and businesses are occasionally targeted by the street thugs—the Jacobins of the communist state which, in fact, is in charge—ANTIFA. Sometimes under the beard of BLM.

If one needs a simple formula for understanding how things work in this new system, there is one.

The takeaway could be that there are only two groups in terms of how the communist-revolutionary state sees things:

Revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries.

Revolutionaries, that seek to end the Western nation-state of rule of law and equality for all, can break laws with total impunity and even be rewarded if their actions further the cause of the revolution. We know this is true from the riots of 2020 across North America and even parts of Europe under the BLM mask of the revolution, and today with the incessant “protests” of the alleged Palestinians. The fact that, in many cities, the protests are as much or more so by communists than Arabs, Muslims, or “Palestinians” is a testament to that, and this phenomenon has been well documented at RAIR.

Meanwhile, consistently, those who act against the revolution but fully within the law can find themselves anywhere from debanked for formerly innocuous things—like a Canadian veteran who asked her bank to have one Canadian flag and two pride flags instead of three pride flags and no Canadian flag—and found herself debanked and her mortgage canceled.

It also must be noted that people are being criminalized formally using the “hate-speech” dialectical weapon of the state or informally by leftist enforcers for speaking empirical truths.

A man cannot become a woman by just saying so. To claim that one can is magic. This is literally “ABRACADABRA” or speaking a thing into existence—the sole province of God. Yet, to object to the claim is to become a thought criminal.

This transformation of our entire system of thought could not have happened with mere elected representatives. After all, if we just had Members of Parliament, or senators, or congressmen who would claim Islam is the religion of peace, or that untested gene therapy was safe and effective, etc., they would have been laughed out of office in short order.

No, we needed to have fully captured narrative-enforcement media as well as schools from kindergarten on up.

As I write this, it is Christmas Eve. December 24th. Here is an article from the New York Times (NYT):

There will, of course, be justified outrage that the New York Times would never dare publish an article questioning whether Muhammad existed—especially not during Ramadan. Many will point out the double standard and call it hypocrisy.

This brings us to a related issue. During an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (a popular late-night talk show hosted by comedian and political commentator Stephen Colbert), the lead actress of the acclaimed political thriller Homeland revealed something noteworthy. She shared that, according to what she learned from the CIA while preparing for her role, U.S. intelligence actively partners with journalists. However, before she could elaborate further, Colbert abruptly interrupted her, steering the conversation away from the topic.

it is crucial to understand that we are facing a consistent, multi-front attack on our very identity. Articles like the one mentioned above are being used as weapons. For example, forcing people in the UK to call Christmas markets “Holiday markets” instead of using the word “Christmas” is a deliberate assault on our culture. The fact that no similar restrictions are imposed on other faiths is not hypocrisy—it is a calculated strategy. To borrow a term from Stephen Coughlin (a prominent expert on national security and ideological subversion), it is an effort to deracinate Western culture, traditions, and beliefs.

Note also how the word “inclusivity” is used as a tool to stifle objections to policies that, ironically, focus entirely on excluding Western cultures. This aligns perfectly with the naming conventions employed by many left-wing Western leaders for their authoritarian laws.

Referring once more to Orwell:

• “Freedom is slavery”
• “War is peace”
• “Ignorance is strength”

And today, we see similar doublespeak:

• “Diversity is our strength”
• “Safe and effective”
• “Math is racist”
• “Protect Trans kids”
• “Pandemic of the unvaccinated”

And the list goes on and on.