Posts Tagged ‘pat buchanan’

Folk Heroes Of The Apocalypse

Monday, August 28th, 2017

Many people are currently telling you that the Alt Right is doomed, but they are only partially correct. The Alt Right is growing, and will become the Right, because it finally beat the civil rights warriors of the 1960s. It did that by assuming the position that those social warriors took: as the victims of an Establishment, and the folk heroes who would liberate us all.

In 2017, European-descended peoples are really tired of the diversity gig. It always works out that a few white people end up paying for a vast horde of third world people at the same time that diversity, by lowering social trust, destroys the white society by making it paranoid. This means that on an individual level, at an existential level, white people live in fear and uncertainty for the future.

They are now tired of this. We have seen where Leftist programs like diversity, social benefits and equality lead, which is to a Soviet-style society, and so we are fighting back. The only problem is that now we are the revolutionaries against a system filled with dimwitted bureaucrats who are making a good living by being Leftism, Inc. and they do not want to cede that role. This applies whether they are Democrats (socialists) or Republicans (liberals).

You can see that the tide has turned because today, in normally Left-leaning “Pravda on the Potomac” newsrag The Washington Post, there is an article entitled “Black-clad antifa attack peaceful right wing demonstrators in Berkeley,” which is notable for several major reasons:

  1. They noted that Antifa were the attackers.
  2. They acknowledged the Right-wing demonstrators as peaceful.
  3. They called them “right wing demonstrators” instead of “white supremacists” or another dogwhistle term.

Holy mackerel, this is unbelievable. The above changes represent either the longest typo in the history of the world, or the media hedging its bets because it has seen how popular the Alt Right has become. The latter makes more sense because in the 1990s, anyone demonstrating along neo-Nazis would have been written off immediately. In the 2010s, people are less bothered by the Nazis

And although the anti-hate and left-wing protesters largely drowned out the smaller clutch of far-right marchers attending a planned “No to Marxism in America” rally, Sunday’s confrontation marked another street brawl between opposing ends of the political spectrum — violence that has become a regular feature of the Trump years and gives signs of spiraling upward, particularly in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville.

“I applaud the more than 7,000 people who came out today to peacefully oppose bigotry, hatred and racism that we saw on display in Charlottesville,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a statement. ” … However, the violence that small group of protesters engaged in against residents and the police, including throwing smoke bombs, is unacceptable. Fighting hate with hate does not work and only makes each side more entrenched in their ideological camps.”

Last May, 150 similarly black-clad agitators caused $100,000 worth of damage when they smashed through Berkeley protesting a University of California Berkeley speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. Portland, Ore., has been the scene of street battles between antifa and white nationalists this summer. White nationalist Richard Spencer was sucker-punched by a protester in a January video that went viral. And Inauguration Day 2017 in Washington, D.C., was marked by violence when masked protesters burned vehicles, smashed windows and clashed with police, leading to 231 arrests.

Unbelievable. Amazing. Stunning. This shows the media reporting what they absolutely refused to in the past, which is the possibility that more than one side exists. Granted, they like to get the core message in there — “Fighting hate with hate does not work and only makes each side more entrenched in their ideological camps” — because their hope is for a return to centrist politics, so that over time as the voters go to sleep again, the Left can resume its steady infiltration and takeover of everything to the left of Charlemagne.

Public opinion is shifting toward the Right. The last eight years just showed us what all those nice people really intended to do in the 1930s and 1960s, which is make us into the Soviet Union. This caused people to lose faith in freedoms, civil rights, liberties and pluralism as a means of protecting them from the insanity of human social collapse. They no longer want democracy; they want order, and only the Right delivers order, because only the Right believes in an organizational level above the atomized individual.

In part, the reason opinion is shifting is that the Baby Boomers are retiring, and people who grew up under the disaster that the 1960s created are rising. Skipping the Millennials, most of whom seem to have taken what they were taught in school and Wikipedia as gospel, Generation X and Generation Z are appalled by the adult world they were expected to enter, because they realize that in this world, nothing good wins, ever, and most people are crazy and most of what we do is merely for show and has no value.

This is not a political revolt, but a social one inspired by the fact that the existential experience of European-descended peoples — how we think about the future, the meaning we find in life, the hope we have of being relevant — has declined radically over the past two centuries, and the situation now is too bad to endure. We are turning to politics because the crazy people who run our society have made daily life (jobs, marriages, dating, socializing, public life) into a uniquely placid and pacifistic form of Hell, and we want out. But the only way out is to overthrow the crazy Leftist regime ruling over us.

Among other things, the brightest of these generations have turned toward the Alt Right:

Among many anti-racists, there has long been a naïve hope that racism is handed down from one generation to the next. If that cycle is broken, this view goes, then racial harmony can finally prevail.

…Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right—which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials—forcefully condemns their parents’ generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough.

…To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America’s social and economic leaders against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites.

In other words, the Alt Right is not the ancient specter of racism rearing its head, but the result of people who are not racist but then encounter diversity and the half-socialist hybrid of a Leftist society that we live in, and decide that both are broken. This is why the Alt Right so heavily embraces social issues like chastity, discipline, morality, cleanliness and most of all, order. We grew up in the disorder of failed marriages, clandestine affairs, soulless jobs, constant ethnic resentment, high taxes paid to subsidize parasites, heart-crushing dating, urban blight and crass mass culture, and we hate all of it. We want something that works instead.

A recent poll by ABC News and the Washington Post revealed that attitudes are changing toward the far-Right in gradual but steady steps:

Additionally, 9 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll call it acceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views, equivalent to about 22 million Americans. A similar number, 10 percent, say they support the so-called alt-right movement, while 50 percent oppose it.

Twenty years ago, the numbers of those who outright oppose the Alt Right would have been much higher, and few who have admitted that neo-Nazi or white supremacist views were acceptable in any form.

The poll reveals the separation of views along ethnic and ideological lines, which makes sense given how we see Leftist whites and minorities forming the bulk of the Antifa who vandalize and riot their way across America, and protesters against Alt Right events:

Trump has 44 percent overall approval among whites vs. 22 percent among nonwhites, including just 11 percent among blacks. On Charlottesville the pattern also is similar – 35 percent approval from whites, 14 percent among nonwhites and a single-digit 8 percent among blacks.

…Trump’s approval rating overall drops from 80 percent among Republicans to 34 percent among independents and 12 percent among Democrats; it’s 67-27-16 percent moving from conservatives to moderates to liberals.

The country is divided: on one side, white Democrats who are still hammering on the 1960s message of inclusiveness, and minorities; on the other, Republicans and a new audience who have realized that if each group gets to have “identity politics,” European-descended people need an identity too, and this means divorcing themselves entirely from those who are not European-descended.

Unfortunately for the Left, they are now in the place that conservatives have been since the French Revolution, which is the unenviable role of defending the wisdom of the past against the trends of the moment, and arguing for the preservation of an imperfect society against those who damaged it and now want to finish the job. The Left, after having made themselves powerful enough to alter society, pointed to the results of failing Leftist ideas and claimed that those failures were the result of capitalism and conservatism, and so were able to style themselves as revolutionaries attempting to overthrow a failing system.

Now the shoe is on the other foot; it is obvious even to outside observers that Leftism ideals dominate academia, the lower levels of government, the media, every non-white group, and even many of our largest corporations. The Alt Right are the underdogs, the little guys, the brave few who dare to say that the Emperor has no new clothes after all, and this makes people sympathize with them, especially since the Leftist system is achieving bad results across the board which are hidden by a lap-dog media, and has no intention of changing course, which makes it an old calcified geezer ranting about ideological purity while everyone around him starves.

In another strangely sympathetic article in the mainstream press, the idea behind the Alt Right is revealed in its simplest form:

…”[The Alt Right] think that liberalism and diversity have led to the decline of Western civilization.”

What people are starting to realize is that Leftism — the notion of human equality — naturally leads to diversity. “Workers of the world, unite!” as the unions used to say. The Left views race through the filter of class, and to them the goal is class warfare which puts the proles on top and the natural elites on bottom (we have seen this in Obama’s America through relentless pro-diversity affirmative action styled programs) and this requires accepting all as equal, and using diversity to shatter any culture or heritage that people have in common.

Culture limits class warfare. You might see someone with more money than you, but think, “He’s one of us, and he’s not a bad guy, so I’m not against him.” If he is also a positive contributor to your community, you can see it as not just fair but intelligent that he has more money and power. Diversity erodes that.

The Alt Right takes a different approach to anti-Leftism, which is to create a cultural wave like the Polish Dissident movement which helped overthrow Communism. It combines all things that existed before the Left — order, hierarchy, culture/nationalism, civilizational morality, family focus, spirituality — and champions those while mercilessly mocking the gap between what Leftists promise and what they deliver.

It is this mockery which has inspired a wave of censorship against the Alt Right, but most Americans values free speech over safe places, and so the Left is driving a wedge between those who desire a normal, healthy and organic society and its own SJWs and SWPLs, who want an anarchic State-sponsored perpetual lynch mob.

From this division, people are starting to reject those things which came before the current Left and enabled it, because they realize that these were not accidental correlations. Any Leftist — egalitarian — ideas lead to full Leftism, which now we see revealed as something like Full Communism. The only solution is to rip out any idea or practice based on the notion of “equality,” which exists in mathematics but not reality, and apparently is the opposite of “quality.”

Even relatively staid paleoconservative Pat Buchanan has noted the link between equality, democracy and crazed Antifa Leftism. As he writes, faith in democracy is falling as the Left gains power, and proves to be a worse Establishment than any before it:

To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral “progress” of recent decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, “This isn’t the country we grew up in.”

Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a “basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic…bigots,” and altogether “irredeemable.”

So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and fundamentalist faith?

If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us, what is the compelling case for it?

The answer of course is that America is gone. Leftism killed another one. “This isn’t the country we grew up in,” is beyond obvious, but the real story is that the old America is not coming back because it was based on an illusion, which is that we can all get along if we just adopt the same Constitution, sing the same songs, speak the same language, and use the same economic system. 2017 answers with a definitive “Nope.”

As everything fails at once, with a debt-ridden government presiding over a herd of selfish and oblivious citizens, those who are not products of the decay are uniting to oppose it. We want escape, but know that it will not leave us alone, so we are rising to take power and drive out the bad and replace it with the good. The Alt Right are folk heroes of this movement, even as all seems lost and the future uncertain.


Tuesday, August 8th, 2017

Pat Buchanan writes about the inevitability of an American breakup:

As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.

The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.

Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.

In other words, the Left has finalized its attack: they seek to remove Donald Trump through whatever means they can, none of which will be really legal but with a lapdog media, who will know? Instead this will be another shadowy incident where the people in power destroyed anything which came to change their comfortable parasitic relationship.

As Buchanan points out, democracy always ends this way. People in groups make terrible decisions, and so even if we did not take The Bell Curve at face value and realize that most people will always vote foolishly because they lack the biological ability to do the thinking necessary to make decisions about complex issues, we recognize that democracy will inevitably self-destruct.

Whatever is popular wins, and among humans, what is popular is that which is individualistic. We are not yeast; we are individuals. However, individualism occurs when the individual prioritizes himself over the order and hierarchy existing in society, and by replacing that, creates a mob. This mob can then be manipulated, which makes those who are born manipulators into its new rulers.

On this blog, we talk quite a bit about balkanization, or what happens when the “diverse” society separates into different groups by ethnicity, race, caste, religion and political alignment. Like Rome, we will not be shattered so much as fail to hold together.

As Will Durant, the writer of the excellent The Story of Philosophy, reminds us, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” We destroy ourselves by being unable to cooperate toward a purpose, and so our only option is control or manipulate a herd, which produces corrupt leaders.

We The People are the problem because we agreed to all of this and, in the name of “everyone getting along” and “compromise,” we sacrifice any remaining purpose to the system itself. Our individual failings, including hubris or individualism, and our herd behaviors make us into an unruly mob, and that requires cynical manipulators to keep it in line, and not surprisingly, they are sociopathic.

And so the USA passes into oblivion. What do “Americans” have in common? Not much, and the most basic schism will be politics because the Left and Right want entirely different versions of the world. The Right wants social order, and the Left wants the individual to be King, which always results in an unruly mob, corrupt leaders and eventually, third world conditions.

When the manipulators, who by their nature as sociopaths are destroyers, win, it will signal the end of faith in democracy, Buchanan says:

The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.

However, as Samuel Huntington predicted, faith in democracy has already died, and people are just waiting to see if they can fix the problem without having to engage in conflict.

If Trump is prosecuted, much less brought down, the conditions for Civil War 2.0 will detonate. Our first Civil War never solved the fundamental conflict in America, which is those who want to live sanely versus those who want to make popularity rule us because that gives them the ability to live without standards, morals, culture or rules.

The North, in comparison to the South, and this is a relative measurement so the amount of difference is more important than how we see it from the present, was a Soviet empire of death. Cities filled with tenements, where people worked in mindless repetitive jobs, and the most important thing was to be accepting of equality, which back then meant ethnic equality with the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews and Poles.

The South exhibited the conditions of classic Indo-European culture: a social order with aristocracy and moral standards, a manor-based lifestyle where the best in society ruled officially or not, a strong code of honor and sense of purpose that allowed cooperation by the unequal. This offended the North, where everyone wanted to be “equal” more than they wanted to be good, right or realistic.

Since that time, we have replicated our classic civilization the best we could by fleeing to the suburbs and shutting out the horde. Then in the 1960s, that came under attack as the new Leftist popular wave supplanted the old Anglo-Saxon elite. The horde discovered that it could use “civil rights” to bash down any enclave and that no one would object for fear of being called racist.

That uneasy truce held while we had a common enemy in the Soviets, and while the fear of being too obviously Soviet kept the Left in check, but that condition no longer exists. As a result, the city people are coming for the suburbs just as they did in 1861. Under Clinton, Bush and Obama, they fundamentally changed America to be like a third-world country. Now they are going in for the kill.

As Buchanan asks, the question is, “What next?” One guess is that the dividing line will occur when people in service of government stop enforcing the decrees of government, allowing localities to balkanize and start keeping their wealth away from municipal, state and federal government coffers.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan revitalized America by stopping the Leftist surge that was destroying it from within. Donald Trump wanted to do the same, and for his troubles he has a gang styled after organized crime that wants to remove him so it can put its candidates back into power through the democratic force of the 53% of America who are tax-takers not tax-makers.

This places us at a crossroads where things are awfully bad. The Right wants to break away, but is unwilling to break away from structures like democracy and equality which have been shown to grow a bumper crop of neurotic, destructive Leftists in any nation. Their tendency is to hunker down, shout “work hard, pray hard” at Fox News on their screens, and then do nothing. But doing nothing is no longer an option.

Pat Buchanan — Like Most Mainstream Conservatives — Punts On Nationalism

Friday, April 28th, 2017

It is undoubtedly wonderful to see Pat Buchanan writing about the downfall of the Leftist world order. However, he skips out on a few crucial concepts.

“My concern has been that it hasn’t really come off as smoothly as one would have hoped. Quite frankly, there’s an awful lot of forces in this city of Washington, DC, where I was born and raised, that really want to cashier and dump the populist-nationalist agenda. Excuse me, but that’s the future of the world. You take a look at countries all over the world. Populism, ethno-nationalism, economic nationalism, sovereignty concerns, identity concerns – these are what is moving mankind. With all due respect, the European Union is yesterday,” Buchanan said.

Marlow invited Buchanan to define “nationalism,” one of the most contentious terms in contemporary political discourse.

…“Also that we are a country, a unique people with its own culture, with its own identity, with its own history, its own heroes, its own holidays, its own cuisine,” he continued. “We are a separate nation, a different nation from other nations, and in looking out for this, we look out for basically what is our own national family first.”

No, Pat, that is not what “nationalism” means.

The American and English governments fought WWII against the nationalist powers, who were those who believed that nation was defined by a single founding ethnic group and not a “melting pot” as the USA was.

Naturally the idea of “nationalism” therefore offended these groups, who were trying to integrate different ethnic groups into empires of their own. Their eyes glowed with the prospects of power enabled by having millions under their control, working together toward empire.

Eighty years later, we see that the melting pot model has failed. Diverse groups do not assimilate; they create a Balkanization where society divides into many different groups, and all of those have less investment in the future of the civilization. Thus, the civilization fails.

Nationalism was demonized because it was a remnant of the old order that the French Revolution had tried to smash. They broke monarchy, but then found that national populations remained resistant to the encroachment of Leftism. Therefore, world Leftism had to destroy national populations.

This became unfortunately easy because of the overlap between these Nationalist movements and denials of the types of freedoms, civil rights and human rights praised by democracies. For that reason, democracies found it easier to ally with fellow Leftists in the Communist states than Fascists and National Socialists.

Since that time, Nationalism has been demonized, and in America we extended our natural myth of being a society of frontierspeople into the idea that we accept all people, independent of race. This denies both (1) the natural abilities and inclinations of each race, (2) the failure of mixed-race societies, and (3) the necessity of race as a basis for culture and values.

A nationalist is an anti-racist; to accept nationalism, one accepts a place for each racial and ethnic group which is preserved by racial separation.

Buchanan, like other conservatives, wants to believe that we can form a society out of surface traits, or those which are taught, such as customs, history, values and religion. This inverts the truth of these things, which is that the understanding of them is — like every other trait — genetic, and therefore, tied to a group.

In the West, we are a people united by common heritage which split into national groups over time. The groups which make the West, and selected individuals from elsewhere who are Western in traits, can easily integrate into a national group as in England or the USA where the common Western European heritage unites them.

Heritage forms a way of locking in the traits of a group, which in turn allows that group to separate itself and develop further; the fear of some groups rising above the rest, like the fear of individual excellence, drives the Crowd impulse to demand “equality” or in other words, to erase those differences and bring everyone down to a standard of comfortable mediocrity.

This shows us why nationalism is necessary; groups must be able to exclude others say that they may maintain their own standards:

In short, the three laws lead us to recognize that the whole concept of community (barring defining community as “everything in existence”) depends upon exclusion. Being a community at all requires having a unique identity that excludes other potential identities, particularly when those other identities would be contradictory or imply a degree when the reality is either/or (like a pacifist in relation to war).

This is precisely the problem with “inclusiveness” if it is defined as a community’s highest value. No matter what specific community you have in mind, a totally inclusive community—that is, a community that defines itself by the standard of inclusion—is incoherent and self-defeating.

The three laws referred to are the laws of Aristotle, which establish the principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle. Identity states that a thing must be what it is; non-contradiction means it cannot be another thing that conflicts with the first; and the excluded middle refers to the need for things to branch, or be one thing to the elimination of all others.

When these are combined, we see the necessity of each group to define itself as something distinct from the rest, and with nationalism, we see that this takes the form of heritage passing along the traits that made that group distinct. In that view, diversity is a way of erasing this distinctiveness of the group and obliterating it.

Buchanan comes close to seeing this fundamental distinction, but by backing off of its core concept in biology, inverts the definition to mean shared indoctrination instead of shared heritage. He probably does this because he still must do so in our anti-nationalist times, but we benefit from reading between the lines and seeing what really must be done for Us to survive.

Suicide of a Superpower by Patrick J. Buchanan

Sunday, December 18th, 2011

Suicide of a Superpower
by Patrick J. Buchanan
St. Martin’s Press, 428 pages, $16

Some books exist to comment on trends and to show us the richness of events unfolding before us. Other books come out of the cold with a singular mission, which is to find a pattern — connecting the dots — between all these trends and then to use that to kick open a door to a new level of discourse. Buchanan’s latest is the latter, and it must be read on two levels.

Its first level addresses the concern leveled by its title: is the USA, like Rome and Greece before it, in decline as an empire (sorry, “superpower”)? If so, what are the symptoms, then what is the underlying cause, and finally, how do we fix it? Buchanan addresses this with Reagan-era political pragmatism and a hint toward the subtext of this massive inspection of the cracks in the American facade.

The second level on which this book lives is a covert, subversive idea, which is that we took a wrong turn at the start of the last century. All that’s old is new again, and that means politics as understood to be “eternal” in the same way the emotions that characters face in Shakespearean plays are eternal. Eternal politics includes nationalism and the idea that a nation is defined by the unity of its heritage, beliefs, customs, values, language and culture.

But there’s the rub. As Buchanan devotes several hundred pages to explaining through remedial history (which is necessary, since they haven’t taught history in any meaningful way since the 1920s), the last century has been dedicated to kicking eternal politics to the curb. Patriotism and the “proposition nation” (really: proposition nation-state) have replaced unity, acceptance has replaced standards, and political correctness has replaced having a purpose. No wonder the empire is creaking from within.

The audience for this book is presumably the average American conservative, who is 75% likely to be European-descended and at least friendly to religion. Buchanan’s surface thesis (the first level) is that America is in decline because we no longer have any “glue” to hold our society together. This addresses the questions that your average conservative is going to have as we watch the liberal entitlement state collapse, and our “new” voters elect Barack Obama, our least qualified president.

Long before him, the Italian philosopher Vilfredo Pareto wrote that equality “is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor, the latter being their chief concern.

Cui bono? — Who benefits — is ever the relevant question. When a new class advances preaching the gospel of equality, who gets the power? (225)

Buchanan is careful to be gentle with the average conservative reader. As someone who has studied history and watched recent American developments explode out from under a once-stable society, he is aware of both the vastness of the threat that America faces, and the broader challenge of a lack of values in common in the West. He does not explicitly blame the French Revolution for a worldwide revolution in liberalism, but uses the post-1968 version as a type of metaphor for all liberal revolutions, drawing parallels to Russia and France.

For readers who are accustomed to the denser tomes from academia or philosophy, this book will seem a bit “bready.” Buchanan obeys the media rule, which is to tell people what they’re going to hear, tell them, then give them three examples and explain how each is an instance of the subject, and then tell them what they heard. This gives the book a steady but slightly languid pace, like a summer afternoon under rain, but he accelerates the heart rate with some of his more apocalyptic visions, which artfully accelerate as the book progresses.

The Founding Fathers did not believe in democracy. They did not believe in diversity. They did not believe in equality. From what Jefferson wrote and the fathers signed it is clear that the only equality to which they subscribed, as an ideal and an aspiration, was an equality of God-given rights. (191)

Unlike most political books, Suicide of a Superpower is not about cheering for the red team over the blue team. Similar to Anne Coulter’s Demonic, this book uses the current threats to America to talk about the fundamental problem of liberalism, which is that its mania for equality is divisive. Buchanan extends this by showing us how a healthy society will have unity of religion, values and heritage, and how each of those are under assault for us.

In order to avoid being slandered as a bigot — a strategy which did not work — Buchanan first talks extensively about Christianity as a lynchpin of American society. The only possible objection here for people who are not Christian-haters is that the problem is not a lack of religion, but a lack of agreement between citizens in the three major areas he targets in the book. For readers who dislike Christianity, this section is a bit of a squirmer but can easily be skimmed once you realize religion is a surrogate expression for the utter lack of values in common between Americans.

Since the internet is full of smug Europeans who like to talk disparagingly about “Americanization,” it is worth mentioning that Buchanan carefully illustrates between the lines how liberalism is Americanization, globalism, conformity, political correctness and social breakdown. As he demonstrates with frequent invective against the values of the Baby Boomer leftist revolution, the demands for civil rights, atheism, multiculturalism and the entitlement-welfare-Nanny State are byproducts of the liberal mania for the equality of judgment over all of its citizens. Simply put, liberalism opposes a single standard of reality or values, and so creates a disintegrating society that can only be held together by strong commerce, a police state, and millions of Nanny State bureaucrats trying to keep us all in line.

It is worth reading this book in conjunction with Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations because these two books are clamshells around the era of liberal power. The 20th century was an experiment in liberalism inspired by the revolution of 1789 in France, and this experimented culminated in globalism, which now has proven itself as unstable as communism and so we are reverting to the ways that served us well before this detour: nationalism, unity, spirituality and conservatism. The essential idea of liberalism is that we have as many directions as there are people, but this permits no winning strategy for governance — or getting elected.

In 2008, black and Jewish voters each gave McCain just one percent of his vote. Why then the GOP obsession with African American voters who went 24-1 for Obama, but are outnumbered by white voters 6-1? Why does the GOP spend so much time courting Jewish voters, who are outnumbered by Catholic voters 13-1 and by Protestant voters 25-1?…You go hunting where the ducks are, said Barry Goldwater. As whites remain three-fourths of the electorate and Christians four-fifths, this is where the GOP will find victory or defeat. (346)

America and Europe are in the grips of economic liberals and cultural Marxists who are behind the times and still clinging to the spectrum of leftist belief which at 222 years is showing not only its age, but its utter dysfunction. In denial of this obvious truth, the liberal elites in America and Europe are tightening their grip as their “ideological” policies hasten decay. Buchanan’s book exists not to stave off a disaster that he repeatedly hints is already upon us, but to prepare us for what we must do to rebuild.

Recommended Reading