Patrick Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower"/>
Print this post Print this post

He Told Us So:
Patrick Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower

1,960 words

Patrick J. Buchanan
Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2011

As a White Nationalist, my darkest political fear (for the short run, anyway) is that the United States might retain sufficient vestiges of political realism to pull itself together for an Indian Summer of Caesarism before the big cold sets in. Specifically, I fear that someone could put our present Jewish-dominated, multiracial system on firmer economic and political footing. All the instincts of our best conservative thinkers and politicians, like Patrick Buchanan, strain in this direction.

I speak of “Caesarism” because the existing democratic system produces politicians too beholden to special interest groups to serve the common good, thus it has become increasingly necessary to repose important political decisions in the hands of non-elected bodies, such as the commission that oversaw the closing of military bases. The logical extension of this trend is the emergence of a dictatorship, which at least would have a chance of saving America.

But a period of conservative Caesarism would be the worst possible outcome for our race, for no conservative would address Jewish power or the danger of whites being demographically swamped by non-whites who are already here legally. Thus a benevolent conservative dictator just might prolong the system’s life long enough for the forces of anti-white racial degradation and replacement to drive our people past the point of no return.

I agree that we need a time-out from immigration to give White Nationalists some extra time to get our act together. I wish all immigration restrictionists well. But the last thing I want is the present system to stabilize itself, for realistically the system’s collapse is our only hope for the creation of a White Republic—provided, of course, that White Nationalists develop into a viable political movement that can offer a credible alternative once the present system collapses.

Patrick Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower argues, with crushing persuasiveness, that the United States is headed toward a collapse. He is so convinced of this that he is even willing to venture an end date in his subtitle, albeit in the form of a question: Will America Survive to 2025? I found this striking, because when I first conceived of Counter-Currents in the Spring of 2010, I found myself thinking in terms of a 15-year make or break period for a North American New Right. At the very least, such a date focuses the mind wonderfully.

In Chapter 11, “The Last Chance,” Buchanan offers a slate of reforms that might actually prolong the life of the republic (if implemented by a dictator). But I see no reason to think that any of his proposals will be implemented given the generally low levels of intellect and courage among American conservatives. But ultimately, that is a good thing for whites.

Chapter 1, “The Passing of a Superpower,” summarizes America’s economic decline particularly vis-à-vis China. This chapter, like the rest of the book, is extremely well-documented. I will be returning to this book again and again for data, and for that reason alone, I recommend it to all white advocates.

Chapter 4, “The End of White America,” chronicles our race’s demographic and cultural decline in America because of low white fertility, high non-white fertility, and torrents of non-white immigration. Chapter 5, “Demographic Winter,” puts the American experience in global perspective. It seems that below replacement fertility is a characteristic of every First World society, including practically every white nation plus Japan, China, Singapore, Korea, and Jews in Israel.

The common denominator in is not modernity, or mere secularism, as Buchanan argues, because the Soviet bloc countries were modernist, materialist, and secularist yet had growing populations. Nor is it a Jewish conspiracy to suppress fertility, which could not explain the trends in Israel and the Far East.

Rather, the problem seems to be a form of modernity that stresses individualism and consumerism. We have created societies in which the people who should be having families instead restrict their fertility to pursue higher education, careers, hobbies, or ecological responsibility, allowing the stupid and ugly people to inherit the earth.

In the white nations, this problem is compounded with Jewish-engineered race replacement policies, primarily non-white immigration. Jews do not have the power to impose these handicaps on Asian nations, and they have no interest in imposing them on themselves.

Chapter 6, “Equality or Freedom?,” is a surprisingly frank and utterly devastating critique of egalitarianism. Chapter 7, “The Diversity Cult” and Chapter 8, “The Triumph of Tribalism” are similarly frank and crushing critiques of the idea that diversity is a strength. Tribalism, not globalism and universalism, are deeply rooted in human nature. Buchanan shows that despite economic globalization, political nationalism has been the dominant trend in the 20th and 21st centuries. Thus, by pursuing diversity, America and other white nations are betting against history and human nature.

Chapter 9, “‘The White Party,’” explains why the Republicans are the de facto party of white America, arguing that the party has no future if it refuses to represent the interests of the white majority. Beyond that, the party must work to preserve the white majority. Again, Buchanan presents a devastating case. But is there one Republican in a thousand with the moral courage necessary to explicitly represent white interests, much less act to preserve a white majority?

Chapter 10, “The Long Retreat,” is a critique of US foreign policy, arguing that the United States needs to downsize its international commitments and expenditures. Currently we maintain more than 1,000 military installations around the world. US troops are present in 148 countries and 11 territories. The United States is committed to intervene on behalf countries around the world, and to maintain our massive budget deficits, we are borrowing from our allies and their enemies alike. Again, Buchanan’s argument is carefully documented and quite compelling.

I saved the bad chapters for last. In Chapter 2, “The Death of Christian America,” Buchanan has the brazen effrontery to assert that Europe civilization is identical to Christianity, such that the decline of Christianity entails the decline of European civilization. Historically, this is of course false. European man existed before Christianity and will persist after Christianity disappears. Christianity, like Marxism, may be just a phase our people are going through, one of many in our long history since the Ice Ages.

Yes, religious people are currently more fertile than non-religious people, but religion is not the only factor that encourages fertility. During the baby boom of the Third Reich, Germans did not suddenly become more religious. Nor did Americans during the post-WW II baby boom. The common denominator was high national optimism. And even if people need an Imaginary Friend to tell them to have babies, Christianity is not the only pro-natal religion.

A White Republic should at least try to preserve freedom of religion (or irreligion) and work to create secular incentives for the best people to reproduce early and often. For example, why not encourage bright young women to have families before going to college by offering a free college undergraduate degree to every mother of three children who stays home with them to the age of six?

Buchanan also asserts that America is a Christian nation. This is false on the face of it, as the United States has never had an established church and the inhabitants of America have never been entirely Christian. That did not, of course, prevent Christians from thrusting their religion into the public square anyway. Over the last hundred years, there has been an attempt to push Christianity back out of the public square by atheists, agnostics, liberals, and members of other religious groups, including Jews. Buchanan sees this as a terrible decline. I am not entirely comfortable with the process, but overall, I consider it progress toward religious tolerance, which is a worthy ideal.

In Chapter 3, “The Crisis of Catholicism,” Buchanan discusses his own church’s decline from its post-WW II heyday due to Vatican II. He says nothing about how the Catholic Church became so large and influential in America before it committed suicide. He does, however, mention that there were only a few thousand Catholics in America at the time of the Founding. Given the strength of anti-Catholic sentiment in America, the rise of Catholicism was made possible only by the so-called separation of church and state, i.e., the refusal to allow an established church and the embrace of religious toleration, which is a product of the Enlightenment liberals, Freemasons, and deists whom Buchanan despises. It is a heritage worth defending from Muslims—and Christians—who would turn back the clock.

Now, some might be tempted to think that Buchanan is engaged in a cynical bait and switch routine: “Now that I have gotten your attention with the impending doom of the white race, can I interest you in a time-share . . . ?” But Buchanan sincerely believes the package deal of Christianity, the white race, and European civilization. (Let’s hope they hurry up and elect a black pope.) He puts his chapters on Christianity right near the beginning, where the foundations of an argument go. But Buchanan’s in-your-face Christian apologetics are quite unfortunate, for if our race is going to have a future on this continent, it is by uniting on the basis of deep roots of common identity, not by emphasizing highly divisive religious differences.

There are many ways in which it is true that America is committing suicide. But there is also a sense in which America is being murdered. Kevin MacDonald, among others, has chronicled how America is ruled by a hostile Jewish elite that has instituted many of the ideologies and trends decried by Buchanan as suicidal, including multiculturalism and massive non-white immigration. Jews, of course, more than any other people, are aware of the necessary conditions of collective survival. They are concerned to secure these conditions for their own people even as they deny them to us. The obvious conclusion is that they mean for us not to survive as a people. America is being corrupted, exploited, degraded, and murdered by the organized Jewish community.

Buchanan, of course, knows all this. But he has avoided saying so because it is not politic. He wishes to maintain his access to television and publishers. He wishes to maintain his credibility and connections. His friend Sam Francis felt the same way. He wanted to bide his time, preserve and augment his capital, keep his powder dry. But he fantasized about the day when he would finally whip it out, when he would drop the J-bomb. Unfortunately, Sam died with his credibility intact. And you can’t take it with you. You can only spend it while you are here. Patrick Buchanan is now 73 years old, sixteen years older than Sam was when he died. What is he saving himself for? There is so much more he could do for our people.

Suicide of a Superpower is a useful and important book. I recommend it to all White Nationalists. It is not a White Nationalist book, but it gets the reader almost all the way there. If we can’t close the deal with this kind of set-up, we aren’t worth our salt.

Suicide of a Superpower could save America, although it will not be heeded. And when America goes down, people will say that Patrick Buchanan told us so. That will be a nice epitaph for America—and for Buchanan.

But saving America is not the same thing as saving the white race. If our people have a future on this continent, it will only be by freeing ourselves of the wreckage of America and American conservatism. Conservatism is all well and good if one has something worth conserving. Once we have the White Republic, then we can dust off Buchanan’s proposals and put them to work conserving our system, not the enemy’s.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

37 Comments

  1. Will
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    The move toward Caesarism is readily apparent in the Republican debates. They all (with one glaring exception) talk as if they are running for Dictator. The Democrats of course do the same. The empowerment of the Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative has been a big priority for the Neocons and Neoliberals, and they’ve been working on it for decades. Gingrich seems especially desirous of the job. Anyone else notice that he wore a Masonic lapel pin during the national security debate?

  2. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Great review.

    Buchanan is an important writer, thinker, and publicist. But he is and always has been a conservative, not remotely a white nationalist or racialist, and certainly not an anti-Semite—not even in the privacy of his own mind.

    Whether or not the white race survives is of importance to Buchanan from a conservative perspective. Our race existed, had a magnificent and proud legacy, ethically and legally possesses the same group rights possessed by Jews and other non-whites, and hence should survive.

    So, unlike 99% of conservatives, he is at least principled.

    But, one cannot imagine Buchanan under any provocation, including state-sponsored genocide against us (which we have), taking a revolutionary stand on the issue. Even America’s revolutionary heritage, and the well-known words of Jefferson and others, leaves no impression.

    Nor can one conceive of him genuinely opposing the Jews as Jews. In that regard he is like most whites, indeed most Gentiles, and that is the way he will go to his grave.

    Buchanan’s friend Sam Francis was much the same. I do not think that he held much in reserve on the Jewish question. (True, he did some.)

    But, intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally, Francis was more flexible, sophisticated, less ideological, and more empirical than his friend. So, Francis’s views about Jews had the potential to evolve in a more constructive and realistic direction, which Buchanan’s almost certainly do not. In addition, Francis was more radical and less conservative than Buchanan.

    Only a tiny minority of whites are capable of wrapping their heads around the Jewish question—a capability, unfortunately, which will prove indispensable to the survival of our people. A series of convenient, early, and systematic deaths, together with numerous imprisonments based upon blatant frame-ups and hate laws, has decimated the already thin ranks of this elect.

    What remains of white nationalism has become increasingly Buckleyized and irrelevant. Assuming the process proceeds apace, our eradication is assured, just as Buckley willingly partnered in the destruction of the freedom he so piously bleated about.

    • Greg Paulson
      Posted November 28, 2011 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

      For what it’s worth, I knew and worked with someone that worked for Buchanan and he said he was definitely anti-Semitic and that he risked telling holocaust jokes in front of his aids (or whatever they were called). This was from someone who was not a White Nationalist nor really anti-Jewish (he was open to talk of Zionist power but that was about it). It didn’t really bother him though, he just thought it was something left over from an older generation and left it at that. Based on that, and other public remarks Buchanan has made, I think it is safe to say he understands the Jewish Problem, at least in part. So I don’t think we can excuse him on those grounds (ignorance/stupidity).

      Other than that, I agree with your analysis about him.

      • Uncle Fritz
        Posted December 1, 2011 at 4:07 am | Permalink

        I can believe that Buchanan has some “anti-Semitic” tendencies, but would also assert that your friend was probably correct, in that is was a more a hold-over from a time when Jews were openly held as suspicious even devious individuals – but not much more. In other words, I don’t think he understands the broader Jewish problem at all. Yes, he is aware of certain elements of Jewish self-interest(ie. the Jewish-Lobby), but I just don’t see any evidence of him putting all the pieces together!

        I know one must be wildly cautious about coming straight out and “naming the Jew” as some describe it. But Buchanan’s own written words betray even a “secret” knowledge of the true nature of the JQ. I believe Andrew Hamilton pretty much nailed Buchanan to a “t” above.

  3. Sandy
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Greg, considering that the founding stock of America came over in the Mayflower to practice their Christian religion in freedom I think it is hardly fair to imply that the Christians are thrusting their religion into the public square. Apart from that little quibble I can’t really argue with what you say against Christianity; in fact you have done more to “defend the Faith” than most Christians by carrying Fraser’s The WASP Question in your book catalogue.

    You do hit on a number of issues:
    That the church has earned the growing anger that is building against it.
    That with the failure of the Buchanans to mention the implacable enemy of the church (his church in particular) there is a need to groom new writers to reconcile Christians to the idea of preserving God’s Creation in all it’s entirety.
    The third issue, the immediate survival of the system, should be answered by TOQ in it’s spring edition.

    Regardless of how it all shakes out count me in for your 15-year make or break period for a North American New Right.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      RE religion and the public square, I am talking about the post-constitution US, not the colonies. But maybe your point is that religion was all over the place in America before the Freemasons set up their system of tolerance. That is certainly true.

      • Greg Paulson
        Posted November 28, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        I agree with having religious tolerance, at least for the first hypothetical White Nation-State but please tell me you are not a fan of freemasonry outside this issue.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted November 28, 2011 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

          Freemasonry played an important role in establishing religious tolerance in America. That’s the only nice thing I have to say about it. Since then, particularly in Europe, it has become a tool of Jewish subversion, aided by its old-testament focus.

  4. Posted November 28, 2011 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    @ “my darkest political fear is that the United States might retain sufficient vestiges of political realism to pull itself together for an Indian Summer…”

    That won’t happen. Do you remember that CC thread where many complained about Gustav Mahler because he was a Jew? Something similar can be said about Peter Schiff, who predicts that the dollar will crash within this American presidency or the next one (I believe that the next issue of The Occidental Quarterly will deal with this possibility).

    I doubt we’ll have Indian summers until 2025. Schiff may have Jewish ancestry but his Austrian School of economics is spot on. His long, videotaped debates with academic pundits convinced me that Keynesian economics, the orthodox model in today’s American universities, is dead wrong.

  5. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    The J Bomb – I love it. How can it be debated since few of them even know they’re doing it? Look at the incredible things ants and bees do: they don’t what they’re doing but they sure know how to do it. And that’s the problem: any conversation would immediately be hijacked by them. In other words, any conversation would require the maturity to exclude them – which could ionly come after a long conversation amongst ourselves.

    T.S Elliot said the same thing as Buchanon: Christianity is Now the Culture of the West. And any other culture would take centuries to evolve. And none of us living would feel comfortable in it. Of course there have been many strong underground currents that have begun to reverse the dominance of Chrisitianity – so in that sense, Elliot was wrong. And obviously, the Masons and Free Thinkers didn’t feel comfortable living in a Theocracy. But the general decency and moral order that Christianity supplied is the great loss. And the Masons, Free Thinkers, and Atheists cannot replace this. And no Jefferson Bible can pick up the slack. The People have different needs than the Intellectual Elite. What a concept. Can we resurrect Hierarchy? How? Remember the fat, jovial Senator in Spartacus? “Publicly I believe in all the Gods, privately, none of them.” The Founding Fathers understood this but it seems to have been forgotten in the heat of 19th and 20th Century Ideology.

    • Petronius
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 1:48 am | Permalink

      You mean the soul of Bach and Handel? Of Durer and Grunewald? Of Dante and Michelangelo? Of gothic cathedrals and the domes of Rome? I will never get this. I feel people who talk like this are full of ideology but have no sense or actually knowledge of the actual history of the West. Christianity basically made the West, its greatness and uniqueness. Besides that, I think these differing opinions on Christianity today should be regarded as a dispute “among friends”.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted November 29, 2011 at 1:59 am | Permalink

        Europe is more than the “West.” It is the “East” too–an arbitrary and destructive distinction that we owe to Christianity, by the way. The artists and buildings you name are among the finest expressions of the genius of our race. But would that genius have taken different form and found different outlets if Europe had remained pagan? I think so. But even if all these things can be simply credited to Christianity, doesn’t one also have to deduct the cultural losses due to Christianity? The pagan temples destroyed, the books burned, the books allowed to disappear since they were not valued (e.g., the majority of Attic Tragedies and Comedies).

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 2:21 am | Permalink

      The role of Christianity in teaching ethics is overstated. No people can live without a moral code, religion or no religion. We were evolving moral codes during the Ice Ages. Thus when Europeans were Christianized, we already had moral codes, including values that are much healthier and more consistent with White survival and flourishing than those preached by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

      Beyond that, don’t you think that honesty is a virtue? How about rationality? How about acceptance of reality? As far as I can see, Christianity does nothing to promote these values and much to combat them.

      We don’t need to “evolve” a new culture to replace Christianity. Christianity is a relatively late and thin veneer on a living European cultural tradition that goes back into the mists of prehistory. My ancestors were Europeans for more than 10,000 years. They were Christians for less than a thousand. It is just a phase our race is going through.

      • Uncle Fritz
        Posted December 4, 2011 at 7:47 am | Permalink

        How desperately I wish many more of our kind, particularly among various self-styled White Nationalists, Conservatives, etc., could understand this!!! Perfectly stated!

  6. Junghans
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Buchanan harps on the Christian theme quite often, probably because he believes it, and also because it strikes a spiritual chord with huge numbers of White Christian believers, and he may thus get their attention by warbling about it. The statement by the Roman Senator that “Publicly I believe in the Gods, privately, none of them” is probably the way that many agnostic White Nationalists feel. Why generate antipathy by taking a too hostile position regarding Levantine religious superstitions, when the issue is better skirted and deferred? Indeed.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted November 28, 2011 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Junghans made an astute observation I would like to review, comment on, and extend my comments to include the role of Christianity in bettering our situation as we move towards the White Republic.

      Junghans in blockquote:

      Buchanan harps on the Christian theme quite often, probably because he believes it, and also because it strikes a spiritual chord with huge numbers of White Christian believers, and he may thus get their attention by warbling about it.

      Christianity offers something more politically useful than that. The most “racist” place in America is church, particularly the smaller churches, which are pretty much one form of an extended family. A tribe, if you will.

      Institutional control of the power of Christianity has perverted it to being a tool of temporal power; ask Constantine’s heirs if it was easier to control a province with thousands of expensive troops, or one man who the people believed stood between them and God.

      The larger churches are tools of Institutional Control; the small churches offer Community in the fulfillment of a metapolitical purpose. The issue is how to define Christianity effectively, so it is something more than the parody of itself, as a mere Semitic desert cult.

      We can not play Charlie brown on this, blindly accepting the Adversary’s definition of Christianity as something limited to the Incarnation, with an optional acceptance of the Resurrection thrown in. Christianity, the outworking of Christ on Earth, is much greater than any of us can imagine.

      And there is part of the greater Key for us.

      We have ALWAYS “dreamt small,” rather than accepting what as possible, and possibly, much better. I use the Nineteenth Century of the Mormon Church, and, extend that into the Twentieth Century.

      The Twenty-First Century will require the stage in development of Christianity as something that supports the transformation of Culture in support of the Race, and the Race must return the favor. This starts with families, forming home churches, forming home schooling, centered around a new Church, supporting a New Culture, and, in time, forming the foundation of a New Civilization.

      Stripping out the superfluous from what Christianity has become seems an excellent first step. That is what Jesus did to the faith of the Israelite people. An excellent example to follow.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 1:51 am | Permalink

      By arguing in secular terms that the decline of Christianity is leading to the decline of Western civilization, Buchanan is obviously not arguing for a return to Christian belief, since you can’t argue for that on essentially secular grounds. Instead, he is seeking to persuade doubters to adopt the attitude of pious fraudulence recommended by that Roman senator. That sort of apologetic strikes me as the last gasp of a dying faith that is no longer able to inspire real piety and so is willing to settle for pious fraud. I wonder just how advanced this sort of corruption is among conservatives. The conservatives themselves don’t want to know. They want you to lie to them. I have been in rooms where an outright majority of nonbelievers bow and say grace because they think that they cannot afford to antagonize the Christians among them, whose numbers they overestimate considerably. My question is this: Could there be a connection between a movement in which this kind of petty dishonesty (all dishonesty being rooted in cowardice) is the norm and the long sorry record of conservative retreats, defeats, and betrays of white interests?

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted November 29, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

        Greg Johnson in blockquote, emphasis in bold:

        That sort of apologetic strikes me as the last gasp of a dying faith that is no longer able to inspire real piety and so is willing to settle for pious fraud. I wonder just how advanced this sort of corruption is among conservatives.

        Far advanced, for the reason that their practice of “Christianity” is as much a matter of Form, and as little a matter of Substance, as their “CONservatism.” Useful as a means to an end, and of no value whatsoever, as an end unto itself.

        The conservatives themselves don’t want to know. They want you to lie to them.

        That is precisely the Cold, Hard Truth. If you haven’t noticed, the CONservatives are in hot support of Gingrich, whose website lists examples, one after another, why he should not be trusted, based on his past deeds, and why he should. “Why he should” is winning out for the CONservatives.

        I have been in rooms where an outright majority of nonbelievers bow and say grace because they think that they cannot afford to antagonize the Christians among them, whose numbers they overestimate considerably.

        Is it numbers, or political effectiveness, that is the issue. We all know of the 2% who all but openly control the 98%. They aren’t worried about “alienating” the Christians; they are worried about breaking the Consensus Trance (HT: Horus the Avenger), and losing their friends. To them, for the most part, politics is simply an excuse to get out of the house, get some free entertainment, and see their friends while feeling morally superior to the rest of us. It’s tonight’s entertainment, wrapped in the patriotic equivalent of moral superiority.

        My question is this: Could there be a connection between a movement in which this kind of petty dishonesty (all dishonesty being rooted in cowardice) is the norm and the long sorry record of conservative retreats, defeats, and betrays of white interests?

        Sure. Nothing like a good, solid, safe, diversionary influence to keep busy with the Form of Activity, without the Substance of Productivity. They are both examples of Political Kabuki – two wings of the same bird of entertainment, all acting like Charlie Brown, all never hitting the football, all going Nowhere.

        And not one of them is willing to look in a certain direction…

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  7. Trainspotter
    Posted November 28, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Good review.

    As to religion in the public square, one of the more interesting facets is something other than, well, the issue itself. By this I mean that the real story isn’t the merit of the thing, one way or the other, but instead how the religious conservatives are giving up. Back in the 80′s and even into the 90′s, we heard a lot about the importance of prayer in school. Now? It’s more about home schooling. Going further back, Buckley’s God and Man at Yale was an effort to reclaim our institutions of higher learning. Now? Nobody seriously believes that’s possible.

    Point is that, for all the sturm and drang, conservatives are giving up on America, or at least its core institutions. They know they can’t win on the fundamentals. Sure, they can still kick up some dust every now and again, for example their reaction to Obamacare. But the overall direction of the thing is clear: it’s over, and more and more of them know it by the day.

    Of course, conservatives being the rather dull knives that they tend to be, many can’t really articulate this shift in position. But the smarter elements can. Just recently I posted a quote from Auster where he acknowledges Western civilization will not survive in its present form, that instead something new must be created (he’s right about America, I’m not so sure about Europe). Even Buchanan himself has gone from an aggressive fighter in the culture wars to basically acknowledging that it’s over: his side lost. No more Buchanan Brigades, no more pitchforks, no more marching to the sound of the guns. Conservatism can’t motivate people like that anymore.

    It really is over. As a Gen Xer, I’ve personally witnessed this transformation from the 80′s to the present (how guys who truly experienced pre 1968 America can stand to walk down the street today is beyond me).

    As depressing as all of this is, there is a tremdendous upside to it. A vacuum is being created. You can’t expect a people who were in control of a continent for hundreds of years to just give up on the status quo overnight. It takes time for the new reality to sink in. Some of the younger readers here don’t even remember a time when most whites saw this country as unquestionably “theirs.” But you only have to go back to the 80′s for that attitude to have been strong and widespread. Go back twenty years before that, and I don’t doubt it would have been damn near absolute.

    Then, in the 90′s, it all slipped away. Of course, it’s obvious now that the rot was expanding rapidly under the false and destructive veneer of Reaganism (a disastrous president for us, but that’s for another time), and of course we can trace the problems back many decades, some would say centuries earlier, but the decay became glaringly obvious in the 90′s. I remember visiting Myrtle Beach, South Carolina sometime around 90 or 91. Had a fantastic time. Pretty girls everywhere. Then I saw something strange. I saw this van cruising down the strip, doors wide open (the jackasses had a mattress clearly exposed to the world LOL!) and the guys – white – were blaring rap and dressed like niggers. A true milestone: I had seen my first whigger, and it was not good.

    I remember laughing, they seemed so ridiculous. To me, they were utterly pathetic, and I truly couldn’t imagine at the time that I was seeing the start of a megatrend. Then, it was back to making time with the pretty white girls who were out in force. Oh, and I’ll also mention that there were confederate T-shirts and hats EVERYWHERE. The white crowds were literally covered in the Stars and Bars. Keep in mind this was only about twenty years ago.

    I returned to Myrtle just a few years later. Can’t recall the exact year, but let’s call it mid nineties. Barely a Confederate flag in sight. Whiggers everywhere, they were pretty much the norm (as to my initial response of laughter a few years earlier, I was reminded of how the Greeks supposedly laughed at the Chrisitan missionairies when first they heard of the “good news,” as it seemed so absurd to them…little did they know). And by the way, if you have a taste for the absurd, spend some time around a white South Carolina guy with a thick accent, trying to talk like Tupac. Absurd, painfully so.

    And yes, there were still white girls, but now a huge percentage of them were with black guys, something that I had not seen a single example of just a short time earlier.

    Needless to say, I was appalled. Not to mention depressed. I realized that the sea of Confederate imagery just a few years earlier had sort of been a last hurrah, I final protest against what was coming. The white herd did not understand what was approaching, but it sensed it. At the end of the day, so were Buchanan’s presidential runs, and Duke’s impressive attempts in Louisiana. Does anyone think that he or Buchanan could do something like that today? I don’t. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never, but not today.

    All of this, of course, is really depressing. But to depress is not my intent here. What is really happening is that conservatism has jumped the shark. The resulting vacuum is an opportunity for a new intellectual and ultimately political movement. Conservatism is still alive only in the sense that it can still provide jobs, whether on Capitol Hill, in various think tanks, political campaigns, etc. That, and the Jews/liberals allow TV time to raceless conservatism. There are perks to being a lapdog. But as a meaningful intellectual movement, and as a true movement of the heart and the gut, it’s done for. It’s now just inertia.

    The only question is whether the New Right can take advantage of this situation, and win a meaningful number of adherents, creating the foundation for the White Republic. However this plays out, no one can say that circumstances didn’t offer us a chance.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 1:22 am | Permalink

      Thanks for your kind words. It means a lot.

      Do you think that the whiggers of today were the stars and bars wearers of yesterday? Could it be that both were equally empty and conventional fashionable politics and nothing more?

      We simply cannot underestimate the depravity and cowardice of the Republicans and movement conservatives.

      I was told by a person with decades of experience in immigration restrictionist lobbying that the standard Republican reply to the argument that immigration will lead to whites being demographically swamped was “It’ll never happen.” Then some time in the 90s, suddenly the mantra switched to “It is inevitable. Nothing can be done to stop it. We have to appeal to Hispanics.” The common denominator of both positions was: DO NOTHING — DO NOTHING FOR WHITES, that is.

    • Petronius
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 2:40 am | Permalink

      Here is a hilarious though somewhat embarrassing scene from a corny early 90s flick starring Vanilla Ice. Behold the advent of The Whigger:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex_gBUtEuMw

      Even by today’s standards this seems as retarded as it gets…

    • Jim Stark
      Posted November 30, 2011 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      Thanks Trainspotter.

      What you described was my experience too. Growing up in the 70 and 80s could never prepare you for what America became in the 90s. What a shock. However, I think the people who came before Gen X gave up a long time ago and retreated into their narcissistic cocoon. It doesn’t even seem to bother them what America has turned into. They live only for themselves and internalize very little.

      Most pre-Gen X people do not take any responsibility for the condition of the country and race is a mere abstraction to them. They believe in the warped version of enlightenment ideas, because it allowed them to think they are the center of the universe. Those people really believe the world revolves around them.

      The common people are by nature narcissist and this system exacerbates that tendency. This is why I think a “Republic” is/was and will always be a bad idea. People are not altruistic enough to have any say in their government.

      I think we were fooled because all that “patriotism” was just a pretense. For them, America was a small concept that only included their “individual selves.” The word solipsism comes to mind. So, they were only interested in their little fantasy world and what was in it for them. It would be hard to imagine people of the West less interested in leaving something for the next generations. They believe the world begins and ends with them.

      The one thing that can be said in their defense is that somebody needed to destroy this system. It would have been nice to know what was going on at the time, though.

  8. MOB
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    This web page is old, and it doesn’t appear to have been updated since I first saved its contents:

    http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm

    For decades, reading Buchanan’s articles was pure exhilaration for me; his forthrightness on the subject of Jews was fundamental, steeped in detailed historical context, delivered in the scholarly voice of experience and conviction. There was no fear in him in those days; he was giving facts and, best of all, he was pointing out their connections.

    I don’t know if I’m correct in dating the change in him at the time of the on-stage physical attack on him during his last campaign, but that’s the scene to which my mind returns.

    Buchanan is despised. I have seen ordinary people become livid at the sound of his name and hostile toward me for mentioning him favorably. The only other person toward whom I’ve witnessed the same instant intense hatred has been Richard Nixon.

    I stopped watching the once-great McLaughlin Group years ago. The last few times I did tune in, a noticeably benign Pat and Eleanor the shark had magically become allies, and bulldog Monica Crowley (was she removed for “smacking down” John’s best gal, Eleanor?) seemed to be cozying up to Mort Zuckerman the genius. For me, fun had flown the group.

    Inside Pat Buchanan’s mildly mannered exterior lies an ally of the first water.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 29, 2011 at 2:25 am | Permalink

      Thanks for this perspective.

      Buchanan is 73. He should let down the mild-mannered pose soon, or he will lose his chance.

  9. Jim Stark
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    Thanks to Greg Johnson for addressing an issue that is probably on a lot of peoples’ minds.

    Pat Buchanan likes his position and money. But he has more than enough money? In the final analysis, Pat doesn’t really believe in white victory. He made his choice and I would hardly call a person like him an ally, regardless of what he’s selling. Mr. Buchanan’s alarmist tone sells books, but do we really need statistics to know what shape the white race is in? It’s a little late in the game for that. Because of his age, he really belongs to the past.

    Nothing based on 18th century thinking will survive. So even if the form of government is changed, if it still is anti-white, it will fail. I don’t think concentrating on forms of government are relevant at this point. What counts is purpose. If these new forms continue to put pressure on the white race, they will fail. It’s all about the white race from here on out.

    The idea of stabilization as purely economic is wrong. As long as whites and coloreds are treated the same, no “stabilization” government will work, in my opinion. I also think the white race cannot be damaged anymore than it already has.

    Strong, COMPETENT leadership is the way of the future. So, the shift away from legislative bodies only makes sense. Legislative bodies are there to stifle change, not create it. What needs to be created is a hierarchy in concert with decentralization at the local level. A National Government should lay down general principles, which it can enforce, not micromanage State and Local governments.

    The Jews do not have supernatural power and cannot just impose any solutions to their liking. The more they grasp for power, the more they lose it. Everything is against them. Only in a “free society” that believes in being a “free and open society” can the Jews be successful. We are way past that point.

    Despite what many here seem to think, Christianity is not responsible for the Enlightenment or our present situation any more or less than other Western secular institutions. In fact, Christianity came to the race mixing table rather late, believe it or not. All high cultures open up eventually as it begins to doubt itself. Since The West was so advanced, it brought many people together before anybody had time to really think about it.

    I think White Nationalists need to get more optimistic. Stop worrying about what will happen and start making reality the way you would like to see it. Extend that to whatever field you are interested in. Stop looking at the surface. The realities of the past are crumbling. Look deeper.

    Just as an aside, the white man’s interpretation of Christianity defined The West. It’s very curious to see people decry Christianity with a messiah complex firmly intact. Nietzsche comes to mind in this regard. The outer forms of Christianity may leave The West, but never its influence.

    On the other hand, America accepts religion over Culture. It really is needed as an anchor. I think America will rediscover Christianity, as Europe invents a new religion for itself.

    • francis alexander
      Posted November 30, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      Great comment. On All points

  10. CompassionateFascist
    Posted November 29, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Buchanan sold AmCon to spic-immigrationist Jew Run Unz. For big money. Sez all, and that’s how the Jews rule. For the time being. But that time frame isn’t going to be the 15 years that B. and Greg envisage. Some of us are going to be stunned by how fast the Wheel of History is about to turn. Mid to late 2012 will see a co-incidence of existential political crisis (3-way election), economic cataclysm, and a Mid-East War that will cut off c. 4o% of the world oil supply. The Dollar, and with it the Jew-power in America (never mind “Europe”), will disappear abruptly. There’ll be a wide-open door for the HardRight, via Civil War II. First Tuesday in November, 2012. Then: 60 days to Fort Sumter.

  11. Sam Davidson
    Posted November 30, 2011 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    “Christianity basically made the West, its greatness and uniqueness.”

    That’s like saying the greatness of ancient Greece was due to their religious cults.

  12. anon
    Posted November 30, 2011 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    “Jews do not have the power to impose these handicaps on Asian nations”

    “Sex in the City” etc – I think Jewish media power effects everyone, including Jews.

    (Korean Cosmopolitan http://cosmopolitan.joinsmsn.com/ )

    To a large extent i believe the Jewish media assault on traditional values is/was more of a hostile reaction to the host culture than anything else. They are brought up to be hostile to the host so they promote whatever is the opposite of the host culture as a way of attacking it – more spite than part of a plan.

    As traditional cultures will have evolved in the way they did for a particular purpose e.g. successful reproduction, then a purely oppositional counter culture created simply out of spite by a hostile Jewish minority will automatically reverse the traditional effect.

    As that counter culture is transmitted electronically it effects everyone who watchs it including Jews and Koreans.

    1) Traditional culture including a pro-natal aspect aimed at women.
    2) Jewish minority with media power and a strong hostility to all aspects of the traditional culture wage electronic war on all aspects of that culture.
    3) Women in the urbanized and industrialized parts of the world inject the electronic poison.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 30, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      This is a good point. I have never seen Sex in the City. Sarah Jessica Parker is just too ugly. But I did see a Bollywood musical, Kal Ho Na Ho, which a friend described as “very Sex in the City.” But that was largely stylistic. In the end, the substance was still very traditional. But that substance can only be eroded by the globalization of America’s Jewish-distilled spiritual toxins.

      • anon
        Posted December 1, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

        “Sex in the City” and similar are electronic versions of Cosmopolitan and you could sum up Cosmopolitan as “how do we stop semi-educated and educated young women having children till it’s too late.”

  13. Catiline
    Posted November 30, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    With regards to the demographic decline Buchanan frequently calls attention to; does anybody here besides myself find it a little strange that PJB is himself childless?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      What of it? There are lots of possible explanations for that. The fact itself says nothing.

    • Posted December 1, 2011 at 6:02 am | Permalink

      Not at all. Sadly not all couples can have children. I myself was adopted by parents who couldn’t have their own children.

  14. Mr. Dithers
    Posted December 4, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    If I’ve learned anything about American politics it’s that, while some conservatives talk a great game, they rarely, if ever, conserve anything or follow up their tough talk with meaningful action. And even though Buchanan wields a trenchant pen as evidenced by his latest book, and is an exceptional case among so called conservatives, he still pulls punches so typical of conservative pantywaists.

    While I haven’t read Pat’s latest book, from the reviews I’ve read he is reticent about how to deal with the 100 million or so non-whites (thanks largely to the Jewish inspired immigration act of 1965) squatting on our soil. But true to his conservative ideology and Catholic religious convictions he fervently believes that if we simply impose an immigration “time out” the long broken melting pot will once again work its magic and transform hostile non-whites into the Brady Bunch and the Cleavers. Need I point out that if this were even possible it would still result in the Brazilification of North America which Pat, presumably, steadfastly wishes to avoid.

    We’ve reached the point where the Jewish-white liberal-non-white coalition of the Democratic party openly despises white people while the supposed party of white people, the Republicans, are wholly indifferent to the needs and interests of its overwhelmingly white base of support. Conservatism and the Republican party are a spent force and have nothing to offer except low income taxes and expansive wars for Israel. The rot is so deep that racially conscious whites should look forward to the dissolution of the United States and the emergence of race based republics over America’s carcass.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted December 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Mr. Dithers in blockquote, emphasis added in bold:

      The rot is so deep that racially conscious whites should look forward to the dissolution of the United States and the emergence of race based republics over America’s carcass.

      Yes. Yes. Yes.

      Might I mention Michael O’Meara’s book, “Towards the White Republic,” available from countert-currents. Just look in the upper right corner of your screen.

      As well, as usual, a Mr. Harold Covington has led the way in thinking about such issues. His Northwest Republic series of novels are enlightening to one and all. I would start with “A Distant Thunder,” but that’s just me. That is also the book I used to teach relatives of mine, high school graduates, to read with.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  15. john thames
    Posted December 25, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    Buchanan knows everything about the Jews. He just cannot afford to say it publicly.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance