European Integration & Globalization

European Integration & Globalization

By Andrew Hamilton

Ex: http://counter-currents.com/

European integration has been championed since the end of WW II by anti-white elites.

Beginning in 1948 with the establishment of the Benelux Customs Union (1948), increasingly powerful pan-European entities expanded their new institutional reach virtually without let-up: the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), the European Economic Community (EEC or “Common Market,” 1957), the European Community (EC, 1967), and, finally, the European Union (EU, 1991).

It is important to understand that the European Union is a supranational rather than intergovernmental organization. The latter depend upon voluntary compliance by their members. They possess no direct power of coercion to enforce their laws and regulations. Supranational organizations, on the other hand, can require members to cede control over policy and compel compliance with their mandates.

In Eastern Europe, Soviet armies and political agents established a tightly-knit colonial regime, thanks in part to Jewish and western elites’ intense ideological identification with and deep affection for their Communist bedfellows during and immediately after the war.

In the view of historian William H. McNeill, the war itself had been a major catalyst for pan-Europeanism:

Nazi racial and nationalist doctrines notwithstanding, the European continent witnessed a remarkable transnational economic and administrative integration during the latter phases of World War II. Having conquered most of Europe by 1942, the Nazis began to draw upon the manpower and material resources of the entire area under their command to supply the German armies. . . .

Memories of Europe’s war-time economic pattern could not be wiped away. When economic boom conditions returned to western Europe after 1948, men who had worked as slave laborers in German factories during the war were ready enough to return to Germany again as factory workers. Thousands of others followed. More generally, the postwar success of the Common Market was surely facilitated by recollections of the massive transnational migrations that had taken place during the war, when soldiers and prisoners of war as well as civilian slave laborers had criss-crossed Europe’s national boundaries by the hundreds of thousands. The breakdown of Europe’s national barriers thus appears as the ironic and altogether unexpected but probably most lasting monument to Hitler’s career. (The Shape of European History, 1974, 173-74)

In this connection, for example, it is not generally known that SS generals Otto Steinhäusl, Reinhard Heydrich, Arthur Nebe, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner all served as presidents of INTERPOL.

The most significant (of several) omissions from McNeill’s statement is that a German Europe, as distasteful as it would have been from the standpoint of freedom and representative government, would at least have been white, whereas the Europe that emerged is systematically cleansing whites from the continent and the planet, and lacks freedom besides.

Postwar European integration was in part a healthy reaction against the fratricidal nationalism that decimated the continent during World Wars I and II. And certain participants viewed the process as necessary to offset postwar American dominance. They believed that for the nations of Europe to exert a major role in world affairs, they would have to unite and command resources comparable to those of the US.

The formation of the European Union in 1991, though decades in preparation, was accelerated by the sudden collapse of Communism. Since then, ex-Communist Eastern Europe has been methodically incorporated into a single pan-European entity in the continuing attempt to realize the long sought-after “United States of Europe.”

One cannot help but recall in this regard former congressional investigator Norman Dodd’s 1982 (Cold War era) statement to interviewer G. Edward Griffin, subsequently quoted frequently by the John Birch Society (I have a taped copy of the interview, but it is also available online), that he had been told in the 1950s by Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither that the leaders of major private foundations had all had either wartime OSS or postwar “European Economic Administration” (presumably European Recovery Program—ERP or Marshall Plan) experience after the war. Gaither allegedly told Dodd that the major foundations operated under executive branch directives to use their grant making power “so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

Dodd’s statement sounded plausible at the time, and in light of subsequent events seems even more prophetic. If correct, it implies a time horizon generally uncharacteristic of whites acting on their own, as well as a form of elite dominance that many people will not believe in despite the 20th-century prevalence of centralized large-scale dictatorships, media operations, security agencies, and so on.

Way Station

The European Union is but one component in a much larger process of global integration.

In the decades following the Second World War, European elites systematically dismantled their colonial empires, and encouraged immigration of Third World populations into the European heartland.

In historical terms this occurred suddenly, and was a trans-European rather than national phenomenon. Britain, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Germany—literally everyone—cut their colonies loose within two or three decades. Despite surrendering white racial dominance, they retained the economic burden of empire in the guise of foreign aid.

Postwar elites also worked in deliberate, coordinated fashion, in parallel with Eastern European Communists, to destroy the First World nations of southern Africa and, ultimately, their white populations.

A trilateral regionalist structure emerged whose components are being integrated politically and economically in the same manner as Europe: North America and Latin America in the Western Hemisphere, and the numerous countries of Pacific Asia in the Far East (Australia and New Zealand are now classified as Asian).

All three regions will be mere way stations on the planned path to a unitary international order presently embodied institutionally in the United Nations.

Thus, the EU is not a destination in itself.

The Role of Capitalism

Although the process of globalization is politically-driven by internationalist planners, many multinational corporations already organize their foreign operations according to the following scheme: “the Americas”; “Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA)”; and “Asia Pacific and Japan.”

Nevertheless, businesses and corporations are primarily instruments of academic, administrative, and planning elites rather than the other way around. This is unquestionably true of the vast majority of businesses, large and small, which are heavily regulated.

Few enterprises have any choice when it comes to globalization and deindustrialization. They are driven by the imperatives of the marketplace to remain price competitive or go under.

State and globalist entities and elites determine the economic framework within which businesses operate by establishing policies of globalization, autarky, or something in between. From the “egalitarian” and anti-white perspective of planners and administrators, globalization makes perfect sense.

This is not to say that big businessmen are good guys. The larger enterprises grow, the more they approximate collectivism. Business as such possesses no patriotism or racial loyalty. It will do whatever the state and the legal system instruct it to do.

But businesses do not determine policy. Because economic productivity is (or ought to be) important to ruling elites, enterprises must be granted leeway to compete and innovate effectively. So, to the extent that they are involved in generating economic change, corporations have independent significance.

A handful of multinational firms and executives interact with policymakers in more intimate fashion, including back-and-forth exchanges of personnel and active participation in internationalist organizations. In that sense they exert influence and even participate in setting the agenda.

It is striking, for example, that John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the six blocks (18 acres) of midtown Manhattan real estate near the East River upon which the United Nations headquarters was built (today legally classified as international territory) after an initial offer to locate it on the Rockefeller family estate, Kykuit, was rejected (Rockefeller, who did not own the land, first had to purchase it from wealthy Jewish real estate developer William Zeckendorf), that Nelson, Winthrop, and John D. “Jay” Rockefeller IV were all powerful politicians, and that banker David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973.

Finally, financiers are a stratum unto themselves, more intricately bound to globalist elites than other businessmen, a dual function of economics and ethnicity.

Ironically, the anti-capitalist mentality, combined with a genuine need to regulate the activities of multinational corporations and financial institutions, will ultimately be a major justification used by the Left for the establishment of a world state.

However, it was the desire for such a state by administrative elites, combined with an iron determination to destroy white populations and Western civilization, which brought globalization into being in the first place. For example, the construction of the European Union began with economic unification imposed from above creating a regulated trans-European substructure upon which supranational political, administrative, and judicial superstructures were subsequently erected.

Veil of Secrecy

Regionalization and globalization have been, and remain, anti-democratic, top-down, and effectively secret.

Rarely have votes been taken, but on the few occasions they have been and lost, the matter was rescheduled for a subsequent referendum to override the initial negative outcome, just as US school boards reappear on the ballot every year until the latest property tax increase is finally “approved.”

National populations certainly never understood (or were told) what was happening, and the same is true of most elites as well.

To drive home this point, ask yourself how much you know about the history of the EU or the UN, the key players involved, current organizational structures and processes, and degree of power possessed.

Virtually everyone’s answer will be Nothing or Next to nothing, no matter how well-educated, informed, or politically-savvy they are. Most politicians at the national, state, and local level, and most members of other elites in the US and Europe, would draw a similar blank.

The United Nations and the European Union are effectively black boxes. Nobody really knows much about their formation, history, current structures and activities, or evolutionary trajectory.

True, observers may be either favorably disposed or hostile to them, and their normative evaluations sound in terms of their own value systems, but that is different than being truly informed.

This is the consequence of misdirection, as in magic shows where the attention of the audience is focused on one thing in order to distract it from another. Though not “secret” in the intelligence agency sense, required information is not easily obtainable or part of the common discourse.

Racist and Totalitarian

Two of the most salient features of the integrative process are its racism and totalitarianism.

Inflexible racial, immigration, and anti-civil libertarian laws and policies in all three regions leave no doubt that whites are targeted victims and Jews and other non-whites privileged castes. Ultimately, they insure the physical destruction of the white race.

The EU remains committed to political integration and the mobility of labor (and hence residence and population mixture) across Europe, and so strives to widen cross-cultural communication, actively encouraging subjects to learn multiple European languages, reflecting the EU’s motto of “United in diversity.”

But because the ultimate objective of elites is an Arisch- and Christ- rein Europe (Europe purified of Aryans and Christians), linguistic homogenization in one form or another is inevitable. Indeed, innumerable European languages within individual states will serve no purpose once their native speakers have been eliminated.

Intra-white racial and ethnic homogenization would result from such a borderless labor and economic market even absent existing interracial population policies. Genetically, the effects would replicate the unplanned blending of European immigrants and their descendants in America, except that miscegenation with tens of millions of non-whites will now be added to the mix.

Liberty and human rights are abridged because it would be impossible to commit genocide or establish the new world order planners covet if freedom, representative democracy, or republicanism held sway.

The project is extremely long-term in nature, with a seemingly “inexorable” quality to it. Indeed, the process has spanned several generations of planners and technocrats already, yet still rolls relentlessly on, year after year, decade after decade, despite opposition.

This suggests a time horizon atypical of whites and more akin to the exceptionally extended time frames characteristic of Jewish immigration policy, Communism, Zionism, neoconservative foreign policy, and the implementation of hate laws negating centuries of Western liberties.

The scale of the project is massive, and requires the political and economic disempowerment of entire national populations and displacement of existing elites with interests deeply rooted in the old order.

The intergenerational approach helps accomplish this.

Another technique is to buy people off—to align personal greed with monetary and status rewards.

A vast army of whites in all countries is employed full-time in well-paying but culturally destructive jobs: law enforcement, military and veterans affairs, schools and academia, child and family services, counselors, case workers, government psychologists, immigration attorneys and administrators, welfare workers, civil rights professionals, diversity officers.

Churches and other local organizations are paid big bucks to integrate non-white immigrants into white communities. Immigrants are furnished with new houses, cars, and even businesses of their own.

I’ve dealt with a recent African immigrant to a white community who operated a private transportation service for the elderly and infirm, taking them to and from nursing homes, clinics, and hospitals, entirely funded by Medicare and Medicaid—a complex, heavily regulated activity. Another ran the local Neighborhood Service Center. Mexicans with enviable salaries staff a local immigration services-activist center that has a budget of several hundred thousand dollars per year.

In the ideological realm, intolerance of the most extreme kind enforces political correctness with a mailed fist and a jackboot to the teeth of everyone from top Hollywood stars, athletes, elected officials, and journalists down to random outbursts on a train ^[2] or objections to blacks urinating ^[3] outside one’s residence.

The racism and totalitarianism at the heart of globalization fuels the entire process, and is not open to discussion or alteration.

Only when the seamless perfection of such strategies stops working will exploitable opportunities begin to open up, for that will be the sign that the Jewish-totalitarian death grip over the white race has begun to slip at last.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/12/european-integration-and-globalization/

L'art (?) idéologique contemporain : inhumain, désincarné et abstrait

L'art (?) idéologique contemporain : inhumain, désincarné et abstrait

Yvan BLOT

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/

Les partisans de « Golgota picnic » ou « Piss Christ », œuvres (?) subventionnées et médiatisées prétendent défendre la liberté d’expression. Mais la liberté d’expression, c’est aussi de pouvoir dire que le roi est nu. C’est aussi pouvoir dénoncer de fausses provocations subventionnées. C’est enfin pouvoir critiquer le non–art contemporain –un art (?) idéologique inhumain, désincarné et abstrait–  et penser que l’avenir est à la reprise vivifiante du fil interrompu de la tradition.
Le point de vue d’Yvan Blot pour Polémia.

 

L’art traditionnel, dans la plupart des pays et des époques, représente généralement les quatre thèmes qui constituent, selon, Heidegger, le « monde » des hommes.

La divinité, les hommes, la nature, l’idéal

L’art représente la Divinité : c’est le cas de l’art grec classique qui a tant marqué le nôtre. C’est le cas de l’art du Moyen Age, principalement religieux. L’art religieux constitue la plus grande part des chefs-d’œuvre présentés dans nos musées d’art anciens. L’art qui représente le bouddha appartient aussi à cette catégorie. L’islam se refuse à représenter Dieu mais les versets du Coran sont représentés de façon décorative.

L’art représente les hommes. C’est notamment le cas de l’art du portrait. Le visage humain est représenté non seulement dans les tableaux, mais aussi sur les monuments et sous forme de sculptures. Dans le Christianisme, représentation de Dieu et représentation des hommes convergent souvent car le Dieu s’incarne dans un homme, le Christ. Mais le portrait peut aussi représenter un roi, un guerrier, ou un simple paysan, des femmes ou des enfants.

L’art peut aussi représenter la nature, la terre qui porte les hommes. C’est l’art paysagiste. Au 19ème siècle, l’art paysagiste a pris une connotation patriotique. Mais l’art patriotique est plus ancien que cela.

L’art représente enfin l’idéal, les idéaux de la société. On représente sur nos monuments nationaux une femme qui symbolise la justice, la bravoure ou la charité (*). Des scènes peuvent représenter des batailles, l’aumône faite au pauvre, scènes réalistes mais où un idéal s’incarne dans l’action.

Ces arts ne sont pas « idéologiques » au sens des idéologies modernes. Dire que l’art chrétien est « idéologique » serait abusif.

Idéologies modernes et destruction des formes d’art issues de la tradition

Mais les idéologies modernes ont détruit peu à peu les formes d’art issues de la tradition et qui représentent le monde des hommes, sur terre, sous le ciel et face à la Divinité. L’art du Gestell (système utilitariste qui arraisonne les hommes à son service), pour utiliser ce concept de Heidegger, détruit ce qui n’est pas dans sa logique utilitaire.

Dieu n’est plus représenté car il est assimilé à la superstition. L’art idéologique officiel élimine toute forme d’héritage religieux et de transcendance. Il sera à l’occasion blasphématoire (voir le « piss christ » par exemple) afin de choquer, car le scandale médiatise et fait vendre.

L’idéal est considéré comme un outil de la répression conformément aux idées des faux prophètes Marx ou Freud. Il est donc évacué sans ménagement. L’homme n’est plus représenté car la masse est honorée et les particularités de l’individu, de sa classe, de sa profession, de sa race sont des choses gênantes qu’il faudrait oublier pour que les hommes soient parfaitement interchangeables dans le processus économique et social. Le paysage, la nature disparaissent car ils sont des éléments d’enracinement de l’homme sur la terre.

L’art contemporain : inhumain, abstrait et désincarné

L’art contemporain, qui devient l’art officiel obligatoire (voir les murs des ministères et des préfectures et bâtiments officiels), obéit à ces impératifs idéologiques. Il ne doit plus représenter le « monde » traditionnel.

Il rompt délibérément avec l’héritage religieux et humaniste de notre civilisation. C’est un art de rupture révolutionnaire.

Il est abstrait et désincarné car il rejette toute forme d’enracinement. Il n’incarne aucun idéal au nom d’un subjectivisme total. Sa tendance dominante est de représenter, s’il représente encore quelque chose, le monde quotidien dans ce qu’il a de plus insignifiant, utilitaire ou prosaïque. Souvent, il se veut choquant car en choquant, on attire l’attention des medias et des financements oligarchiques.

Cet art est inhumain au sens propre du terme car il ne représente jamais la figure humaine, et s’il la représente, c’est pour la défigurer le plus possible : comme l’a écrit Salvador Dali, « un homme normal n’a pas envie de sortir avec les demoiselles d’Avignon de Picasso ». (voir son livre : Les Cocus du vieil art moderne).

L’art contemporain : un art autoritaire qui interdit toute forme de critique

Enfin cet art inhumain ou ahumain est de nature profondément autoritaire comme est toute idéologie par essence. Cet art s’étend partout. Il interdit toute forme de critique laquelle est méprisée sinon diabolisée avec violence. Le bon conformiste n’osera jamais avouer qu’il n’aime pas une œuvre dite contemporaine. Cet art autoritaire est irresponsable car il ne répond pas à la commande d’un roi, d’un bourgeois ou d’un prince de l’église comme autrefois. Il peut répondre à la demande d’une bureaucratie anonyme : faites donc une fresque pour l’entrée de nos bureaux ! De plus, cet art officiel est soutenu par les pouvoirs publics autant que par des personnes privées. Il est financé bien souvent par l’impôt, c’est-à-dire par la force, ce qui accentue encore son caractère autoritaire.

Art déraciné, idéologique, inhumain et autoritaire, il fait l’objet d’une propagande médiatique permanente. Il reflète la boursouflure de l’ego de l’artiste, lequel pense se substituer au Dieu créateur, il favorise les spéculations financières et l’argent est souvent son seul impératif catégorique, il est déraciné, comme l’idéologie, car il veut avoir une vocation universelle. Cet art idéologique n’a guère les préférences du peuple censé être « inculte » mais il est révéré par l’oligarchie dominante.

L’art contemporain versus l’art traditionnel humaniste et enraciné

L’idéologie de l’art officiel déploie son dynamisme autour de ces quatre pôles :

L’argent
↑
L’ego ← art idéologique → les medias
↓
Abstraction (négation des racines)

L’art traditionnel, qui survit notamment en Russie (Saint Pétersbourg a aujourd’hui la plus grande école d’art figuratif) et sur certaines marges artistiques dissidentes en Occident, pourrait être représenté par le schéma suivant :
 

Idéal (le Bien, le Beau)
↑
Divinité ← Art traditionnel→ les hommes
↓
Nature

L’art traditionnel est humaniste et enraciné, il a la plupart du temps une dimension spirituelle ou idéaliste afin de tirer l’homme vers le haut. L’art idéologique, dit contemporain, et qui semble avoir son centre à New York méprise Dieu et les hommes pour établir l’ego et l’argent, ses fétiches, comme les moteurs de son dispositif autoritaire. Cet art idéologique, souvent financé par la force (l’impôt) n’est ni humaniste ni démocratique, contrairement au discours de ses promoteurs : on a donc bien à faire à un art idéologique officiel.

Yvan Blot
28/11/2011

(*) Voir ci-après l’image, illustrant le texte.

Voir aussi :

Le marché financier de l'art est à la FIAC - Et les autres marchés ?
Les reliques barbares vont-elles terrasser les arts conceptuels ?
L'art contemporain et la titrisation du néant
«L'art caché - Les dissidents de l'art contemporain» de Aude de Kerros
Le krach de l'art officiel mondial
L'art est nu et l'argent roi

Correspondance Polémia - 1/12/2011

Bulletin célinien n°336 décembre 2011

Le Bulletin célinien n°336 décembre 2011

Vient de paraître : Le Bulletin célinien n°336. Au sommaire :

- Marc Laudelout : Bloc-notes
- Claude Duneton : Un engagement lyrico-stylistique
- François Pignon : Retour en juillet 1961…
- *** : La vente du cinquantenaire
- Francis Bergeron : Paris Céline
- P. S. : Montaigne dans « Voyage au bout de la nuit »
- Jean-Claude Demeilliez : Céline à Dinard
- Robert Le Blanc : Céline en Bretagne, le grand retour

Un numéro de 24 pages, 6 € frais de port inclus.
Abonnement pour l’année 2012 (11 numéros) : 50 €

Le Bulletin célinien
B.P. 70
Gare centrale
BE 1000 Bruxelles

 

 

Le Bulletin célinien n°336 - Bloc-notes

À plusieurs reprises, j’ai déploré la dérive qui consiste à présenter Céline comme un antisémite ayant appelé de ses vœux le génocide. C’est, comme je le crois, interpréter erronément le langage paroxystique du pamphlétaire. Cette dérive a pu être constatée au début de cette année, lors du colloque organisé par André Derval et la BPI au Centre Pompidou. L’inénarrable auteur de Contre Céline y citait ce propos ambigu de Serge Doubrosky : « ...Que voulez-vous que, moi, juif, je fasse d’un écrivain qui voulait mon extermination ? Si je n’ai pas été gazé à Auschwitz, c’est malgré Céline. ». Il y a aussi cette phrase – « Céline appela à l’extermination » – extraite de la préface d’un livre édité par André Derval dans une collection célinienne qu’il dirige (1).
En cette année du cinquantenaire, un ultime colloque Céline s’est déroulé le 9 novembre à Paris sous l’égide de la Fondation Singer-Polignac. André Derval y prononça une communication sur « L’accueil critique de Céline, du vivant de l’auteur ». C’était l’occasion de lui demander si, dans le dossier de presse de la période concernée, il avait pu constater des accusations du même genre formulées par des exégètes céliniens. De sa réponse, j’ai essentiellement retenu que, selon lui, il n’y a nullement dérive et qu’accuser Céline d’avoir appelé à l’extermination, comme le fait Viviane Forrester dans la préface citée, ne fait pas nécessairement référence au génocide mais peut aussi s’appliquer, par exemple, à un pogrom. Certes (2). Mais je ne suis pas certain qu’un lecteur contemporain lisant « extermination des juifs » ne songe pas ipso facto aux événements de la deuxième guerre mondiale. Je ne suis pas davantage certain que certains spécialistes de Céline ne récusent pas ce commentaire de François Gibault selon lequel, après la guerre, « Bagatelles et L’École (…) apparaissaient à la lueur des événements que l’on sait comme des appels au massacre » [ce qu’ils ne sont donc pas, ndlr], et qu’« à la lumière de ce que l’on venait de découvrir en Allemagne, ces pamphlets prenaient un tour tragique (…), tandis que Céline lui-même prenait figure d’assassin. » Et d’ajouter : « Céline, mieux que tout autre, savait qu’il n’avait pas voulu l’holocauste et qu’il n’en avait pas même été l’involontaire instrument (3) ». Au risque de me répéter, je dirai qu’il ne s’agit nullement d’exonérer Céline de ses excès, ni même de nier qu’il a manqué de compassion à une époque où elle eût été requise. Autre chose est de lui dénier tout regard compassionnel, ne voyant que « manœuvre ressemblant fort à de l’opportunisme, dont l’auteur ne sort pas grandi (4) » là où d’autres — tel un Yves Pagès, peu suspect de complaisance à l’égard de Céline – perçoivent une réelle humanité. Dira-t-on bientôt que la figure du sergent Alcide dans Voyage au bout de la nuit est une construction habile totalement dénuée de sincérité ?

On n’a assurément pas fini de disserter du cas Céline. Un mot, pour conclure : s’il était ce monstre cynique, inaccessible à la pitié et indifférent au sort de ses contemporains, aurait-il écrit cette œuvre dont l’émotion et la sensibilité sont les caractéristiques premières ? Que ce pamphlétaire, avec tout le génie qui fut le sien, se soit fourvoyé, il était le premier à l’admettre. Sans pour autant formuler le moindre reniement, on le sait. Mais Céline serait-il Céline sans ses outrances et cette démesure qui lui vaut encore tant d’inimitiés ? Au moins ne faudrait-il pas lui prêter des idées qui ne furent pas les siennes.

Marc LAUDELOUT


1. Viviane Forrester, « La peau dernière », préface à Pierre Duverger, Derniers clichés, Imec-Écriture, 2011.
2. François Gibault, préface aux Lettres de prison à Lucette Destouches et à Maître Mikkelsen, Gallimard, 1998.
3. Dans Bagatelles pour un massacre, Céline écrit : « Les Juifs à Jérusalem, un peu plus bas sur le Niger, ils ne me gênent pas ! ils me gênent pas du tout !... Je leur rends moi tout leur Congo, toute leur Afrique ! »
4. André Derval, « Singulier ou pluriel ? Céline, du nombre... », Revue des Deux mondes, n° 6, juin 2011, p. 141.

Publié par Le Petit Célinien 0 commentaires  

Libellés : Le Bulletin célinien

Patrick Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower

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

By Greg Johnson

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Patrick J. Buchanan
Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? ^[2]
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 ^[3], 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.

 

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/11/he-told-us-so-patrick-buchanans-suicide-of-a-superpower/