Alex Kurtagic

With juvenile delight, the Huffington Post reports today the findings of a recent intelligence study: racists are dumb.

The report states:

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.

Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.

Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.

Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.

"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones.

In any case, the study has taken the Internet by storm, with some outspoken liberals saying that it validates their suspicions about conservatives and conservatives arguing that the research has been misinterpreted.

Besides a hundred-year-old photograph of mostly out-of-shape Klansmen, a few things should jump straight out.

Firstly, notice the paragraph in red, containing an opinion that directly contradicts the thesis of both the article and the originating study: the second shortest, its low-key phrasing and location, just before an altisonant final paragraph with links to external websites (the second of which contains an anemic and muddled conservative quibble), has been clearly engineered to de-emphasise that contradictory opinion.

Secondly, and following from the first point, the article self-servingly ignores the fact that egalitarianism is a simplifying ideology, analogous to the worst anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, since it blames everything that goes wrong for coloured peoples in the West on White ‘racism’.

Thirdly, the study itself is ideological, for it equates prejudice with Right-wing ideology, when egalitarianism is probably the strongest form of prejudice in modern Western society. No egalitarian is ever willing to entertain any science or data that contradicts his prejudices on race or gender or anything else, let alone listen to any dissenting opinion: all such studies are biased, all such data lies, all such opinions racist or phobic.

Fourthly, remarks about socially conservative views show the level of narcissistic myopia that characterises the Left. In contemporary society, it is the liberal-egalitarian view that is normative and socially conservative, since for long now that has been the official establishment view and also the safe, socially acceptable position being conserved. Racial consciousness and traditionalism is the radical, anti-establishment position.

The existence of such biased, politicised studies and their concomitant reporting in the media are simply weapons in the establishment’s political arsenal.

The core message is: ‘only morons people disagree with us, so don’t openly disagree with us unless you want to look like a moron'.

Their aim is to encourage conformity and smooth the way for their rainbow dystopia.

Kerry Bolton
Revolution from Above
London: Arktos Media, 2011

The popular imagination conceives Marxism and capitalism as opposing forces, imagining that—obviously—Marxists want the capitalists’ money and capitalists do not want Marxists to take it from them.

Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above disproves this notion.

As it turns out, and as many readers probably already know, the Marxist revolutions in the East succeeded in many places thanks to the ample funds supplied to them—consciously and voluntarily—by finance-capitalists in the West.

With access to all the money they could wish for and more, the finance-capitalists in Bolton’s narrative were, and are, primarily motivated by a desire for power, and their ultimate aim was not even more money per se, but the enduring ability to shape the world to their convenience, which translates into a collectivised planet of producers and consumers.

Marxism was useful in as much as it was a materialistic ideology that destroyed traditional structures and values and turned citizens into secular, deracinated wage slaves, irrespective of race, gender, age, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.

Capitalism was useful in as much as it made money the measure of all things and created a consumer culture that ultimately turned citizens into debt slaves, also irrespective of race, gender, and so on.

In this manner, Marxism and capitalism were seen as complementary, as well as a method of pacifying the citizenry: too busy labouring in the factory or in the cubicle, and too befuddled by daydreams of shopping and entertainment during their free time, the citizens of this global order, fearful of losing their jobs and not being able to buy things or satisfy their creditors, are left with little inclination to, or energy for, rebellion.

Bolton explains how the finance-capitalist oligarchy is the entity that truly runs our affairs, rather than the national governments. The latter are either financially dependent, or in partnership, with the financiers and the central bankers.

To illustrate this dependency he documents the United States’ government relationship with the Bolsheviks in Russia during the revolution, not to mention the similarity in their goals despite superficial appearances to the contrary and despite alarm or opposition from further down the hierarchy. Bolton shows how genuinely anti-communist efforts were frustrated during the Cold War. And he shows that the close relationship with communist regimes ended when Stalin decided to pursue his own agenda.

The book then goes on to describe the various mechanisms of plutocratic domination. Bolton documents the involvement of a network of prominent, immensely rich, tax-exempt, so-called ‘philanthropic’ organisations in funding subversive movements and think tanks. Marxism has already been mentioned, but it seems these foundations were also interested in promoting feminism and the student revolts of 1968.

Feminism was sold to women as a movement of emancipation. Bolton argues, and documents, that its funders’ real aim was to end women’s independence (from the bankers) and prevent the unregulated education of children: by turning women into wage-slaves they would become dependent on an entity controlled by the plutocrats, double the tax-base, double the size of the market, and create the need for children’s education to be controlled by the government—an entity that is, in turn, controlled by the plutocrats. Betty Friedan, who founded the second wave of feminism with her book The Feminine Mystique, and Gloria Steinem are named as having received avalanches of funding from ‘philanthropic’ foundations.

With regards to the university student revolts of 1968, the book highlights the irony of how, without the activists knowing it, they were backed by the same establishment they thought to be opposing. These students were but ‘useful idiots’ in a covert strategy of subversion and social engineering.

The subversion does not end there, for the plutocracy has global reach and is as actively engaged in global planning today as it ever was. Revolution from Above inevitably deals with George Soros’ involvement in the overthrow of governments or regimes not to his liking. According to Bolton’s account, the reader can take it for granted that any of the velvet or ‘colour revolutions’ we have seen in recent years have been funded in some way or another by George Soros through his extended network of instruments. ‘Regime-changes’ in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (orange revolution), Kyrgyszstan (pink revolution), Tunisia (jasmine revolution), Egypt (white revolution), Lybia (red, green, black revolution), and Iran (green revolution) were not the result of spontaneous uprisings. Anti-government parties, think tanks, media, campaigns, demonstrations, and even training courses for political agitation—all and in all cases received vast funding from finance-capitalism overseas, not from local collections of petty sums.

In other words, many a modern revolution has not come from below, but from above. And in the context of governments being in a dependent relationship to the stratospherical plutocracy, this aggregates into a pincer strategy, with pressure coming secretly from above and from below, with the pressure from below—however spontaneous and ‘messy’ it may seem when it hits the headlines—being the result of years of careful planning, financing, and preparation by overseas elites.

The reader must ask himself how it is that whenever we see one of these ‘colour revolutions’ somehow someone is able, almost overnight, to overwhelm the streets with a tsunami of well designed, professionally printed, and colour-coordinated merchandise: flags, scarves, placards, posters, leaflets, balloons, headbands, t-shirts, face-paint, you name it, it all seems very slick, aesthetically consistent, and fashion-conscious for uprisings that are supposedly spontaneous demonstrations of popular rage.

Overall Bolton crams in an enormous mass of information within 250 pages. The lists of names and figures—and some of the sums involved are truly staggering—are endless, and the persistent torrent of footnotes considerably expand on parts of the main narrative. The plutocrats’ web of influence and deceit is immensely complicated, not only as a structure but also as a process, since it thrives in double meaning, double think, and ambiguity. Those interested in a detailed knowledge of the machinations behind current and recent events, or even twentieth-century political history, would do well to read this book more than once—at least if they have ambitions of explaining it all to an educable third party.

One aspect of Bolton’s narrative that seems quite amazing is the superficially inoffensive tone of some of the enemy quotes provided. Were it not because Bolton’s findings flow in the same direction as other books uncovering the machinations of the oligarchs and their partners in Western governments, or because the answer to cui bono is provided unequivocally by the unfolding of current and historical events, it would be easy to think that the statements quoted came from deluded idealists. It may be that some truly believe in the goodness of their cause, yet such selfless altruism is hard to believe given the known absence of ethics among our current elite of super-financiers—the banking system they engineered, not to mention many of the opaque financial instruments we have come to known through the still unfolding financial crisis in the West, is a deception designed to obscure a practice of legalised theft.

The lessons are clear: firstly, modern ‘colour revolutions’ are not instigated by public desires for more democratic or liberal governance, but by private desires for increased global power and control; secondly, subversive movements can be given a name and a face—a name and a face averse that hides behind generic institutional names and orchestrates world events at the end of a complex money trail; and thirdly, the those seeking fundamental change should first become proficient capitalists or learn how to gain access to them. These are all obvious, of course, but Revolution from Above is less about teaching those lessons than about documenting how the world is run, by whom, and for what purpose. In other words, this is material with which to back up assertions likely to be challenged by, or in front of, the unaware. Sober and factual in tone, it is also good gift material for those who may benefit from a bit of education.

My first contact with Kerry Bolton occurred on the back of my first article for The Occidental Observer, 'Memoirs of a Dissident Student in Post-Modern Academia', where I recounted my experiences in graduate school. At the time, and as will be seen in the interview, Dr. Bolton was having a few unpleasant experiences of his own, so it is easy to see now why my piece resonated with him. A fellow at the Academy of Social and Political Research and of the Centre of Independent Studies, an extraordinarily prolific essayist and writer, publisher of the journal Ab Aeterno, and a contributor to publications such as The Occidental Quarterly, Counter-Currents, the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, and, of course, Alternative Right, among others, Dr. Bolton is the author of Thinkers of the Right and, more recently, Revolution from Above, which was published by Arktos last year. He holds two doctorates: one in Theology and another in Historical Theology, while his writing deals with geopolitics, history, revolutions, conspiracy, religion, the occult, and Freemasonry. In an interview posted on Wermod and Wermod (links below), I explore Dr. Bolton's career, learn about his experiences in academia and the media, and get a sense of the man behind the legend.

The interview appears in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.

Back in 2008 I was excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy in the then forthcoming presidential elections.

His formula appealed to my individualism and my loathing for the system of fiscal predation and debt slavery. I also liked his rejection of neo-conservative foreign policy and his apparent rejection of America’s colonisation by Third World peoples.

I did not think he would fix everything, but he seemed a step forward.

Things look different in 2012.

I now think a Ron Paul presidency would accelerate existing trends, even if he successfully reformed the monetary system and ended America’s foreign wars.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve, rebasing the dollar, and ending wasteful wars, and government programmes would be a good step towards putting the American economy on a sounder footing.

To truly achieve this, however, he would have to decree a debt amnesty and institute a neo-mercantilist economy based on savings, investment, manufacturing, and exports.

And this, whether because of ideology or because of its impracticability, I doubt he would be able to do. At least within his allocated four years.

Yet this is not the main problem.

The main problem is the fact that, as a rationalist believer in free markets and sovereign individualism, he represents not fundamental change, but rather a more pure expression of the worldview that led the United States to its present predicament.

Americans suffer today not because they abandoned these values, but because they pursued them like no one else.

Ron Paul has grass-roots support because in American terms he is traditional. On the surface, his outlook is materialistic and secular, and the latter would appear untraditional; but this is not so, for his is a materialist theology, and in this sense he is consistent with both the English ethic of capitalism and Karl Marx, with whom he shares a common ideological origin.

Moreover, we can also conceive his campaigning brand of economism as a form of evangelical puritanism.

Ron Paul’s quantitative conception of life relies on rational arguments and empirical evidence, not on transcendent authority or spirituality, or millenarian tradition.

The modern secular bias may see this as a strength, but it is a weakness: arguments can be defeated with other arguments, data with other data. It is always possible to produce both abundantly in support of any point of view, irrespective of their relationship with the empirical world.

The radical Left has been doing this successfully for decades and having the data against has made no difference to the reigning intellectual paradigm.

Many think Ron Paul is anti-establishment because he attacks the Federal Reserve and wants to reduce the size of government. This is to ignore that the establishment has multiple facets, and his represents one that looks like change simply because it has not been dominant for a while and the popular imagination associates it with a time of prosperity.

And I say imagination, rather than memory, because many of Paul’s supporters are young and they were not around when government was small, money was sound, and taxes were low.

Many have turned to Ron Paul because, believing him to be anti-establishment, he is appealing in a time of instability, when it is clear the dominant paradigm has failed.

Yet, like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, Ron Paul’s quantitative, rationalist, individualist outlook makes sense only in prosperous, stable, racially homogeneous societies.

In times of austerity, instability, and racial heterogeneity it poses an existential threat because the collectivism and authoritarian bias of competing non-White groups enable them better to exploit the opportunities opened to them by crises and uncertainty.

The White man wants to have a civilised reasoned debate, but neither Blacks nor Hispanics are interested in that.

As Jared Taylor amply illustrated in White Identity, Blacks want and practice Black Power, Hispanics want and practice Brown Power—legal or illegal, logical or illogical, whatever advances their cause, rationality, civility, equality, constitutionality, history, or logical consistency be damned.

What is more, the Anglo-American White is an island, fiercely concerned with his independence. He resists group memberships and when he does accept them they are always loose, distant, contingent, expedient relationships based on legal, contractual, or philosophical abstractions. In contrast, the coloured man from everywhere else is much more ready to combine with others of his kin, and the relationship is nearly always essential, biological, inescapable, not soluble through argumentation.

In times of crisis and uncertainty, Whites argue with each other, while the 'wretched of the Earth' unite against them.

Worse still, in times of crisis and uncertainty, people have demonstrated quite willing and capable of sacrificing freedom in exchange for security.

Thus, crises and uncertainty benefit whoever is more rigid, harsh, and intolerant, since authority and strength, or at least its appearance, provide a sense of security, and security is always preferable to uncertainty even when that security is unpleasant.

With his grandfatherly manner, open, free-for-all proposition, Ron Paul’s ideological purity would be no match for the brutal disturbances ahead.

In fact, since the crisis we face already means every White man for himself, squared, Paul would sanction the very condition that opens the way for a more frank and ruthless level of racial and economic predation.

It would be every White man for himself, cubed.

And every coloured man for his collective, also cubed.

In some ways, the Ron Paul phenomenon represents an act of denial: the tacit wish that things are not as far gone as they seem and that by electing the right Republican candidate, a return to traditional American values of small government, sound money, free markets, and sovereign individualism will put America back on course. It also represents the erroneous belief that America has ended up where it is because it went off course, when in reality it is where it is because it is exactly on course.

What we are witnessing is not a deviation, but a fulfillment of potentialities that go back even before the founding of the Republic.

Having said this, Americans desiring change would do well not to ignore Ron Paul or the tactical value of his campaign, for with his grass-roots support he offers an opportunity to attack the system from within, even if he represents a puritanical expression of the system.

The attacks on him by establishment opponents amount to more than a squabble between two Leftist factions, even if that is what it is, for they imply a recognition by the reigning establishment faction that he represents the thin end of a wedge able to operate on an area of shared discontent between an ill-informed public and the non-authorised, alternative Right.

The Ron Paul campagin against the Fed, war on Iran, neo-conservatism, big government, and the nanny state provide popular, socially acceptable critiques that contribute to weaken and discredit the dominant faction. In turn, he provides a popular but weak alternative made inappropriate by the ever-worsening crisis.

The reigning faction both fails to understand how Ron Paul could benefit them in the long run and fears, correctly, that a free-for-all opens the way for fundamental change in our direction. After all, free-for-all conditions, laissez faire competition, also opens the way for non-authorised factions to act without restriction.

From this standpoint Ron Paul offers both denial and possibility.

My predictions for 2011 were all fulfilled: over the past year there was indeed more debt, more taxes, higher taxes, more inflation, more immigration, more liberalism, more legislation, more surveillance, and more bureaucracies. Turbulent as it was, 2011 consisted of more of the same, and it was turbulent precisely for that reason. My predictions for 2012 are as follows:

More Debt

Efforts to solve the financial crisis—now entering its fifth year—will be made, but they will consist of finding ways to kick the can down the road, hold on to credit ratings, levitate the markets, resuscitate consumption, and prevent civil unrest, rather than on actually eliminating the problem. It seems that the only politically viable option is covertly to devalue the debt. The news services will keep the middle class on the edge of their seats dramatising the never-ending Euro crisis, which may provide some jolts.

More and Higher Taxes

Although debt reduction through currency devaluation will remain the preferred method of crisis containment this year, the political establishment is acutely aware of the need to pacify the populace. The White middle class has proven timid and, following the Tea Party experience in the United States, members of the establishment are satisfied that their most profitable constituency (the White middle class is the establishment’s open wallet) can be successfully neutralised by simply calling them racists. The establishment, however, worries about the lumpen proletariat. The Tottenham riots in London in August this year, albeit triggered by a police incident, offered a preview of the civil unrest that an economic shock could bring: the rioters did not demand equality or rights, they wanted iPhones and plasma television. So, more and higher taxes will be levied on the middle class (‘the rich’ in political parlance) in order to fund pacifying handouts for coloured immigrants and their descendants (‘the poor’). Some of the increases in the fiscal burden will be hidden, but some of them will be open, and will be justified in terms of the need for ‘the rich’ to do their bit for society. The system’s contrived pseudomorality will seek to bring tax avoidance further into convergence with tax evasion.

More Wasteful and Counter-Productive Government Measures

See above. In general: good spending will be cut, bad spending will increase. With the shutting down of the space shuttle programme and assorted NASA cutbacks, Americans in 2011 saw Obama end the space age in the United States.

More Money Printing

The money printing will continue, and efforts to conceal its true extent will also continue. Because banks have so far hoarded much of the money that has been printed since the crisis began, the true consequences of the money printing have yet to be felt. Consumer depression will also contain demand and therefore price increases, although the latter only partially. I suspect that parts of this containment will start to fail in 2012, even if consumption and consumer confidence is low. However, even if there is higher inflation, we are years away from the hyperinflationary apocalypse dreamt of by some. We will not see price tags printed on electric paper exponentially revising prices upwards in real time as we make your way to the till.

More Colonisation

Despite the millions of unemployed, ‘immigration’ policy will continue to focus on pacifying voters through deceptions. In the United Kingdom, wholly unsurprisingly, the same Conservative Party that promised drastically to cut ‘immigration’ has governed over a record increase over the past year. Instead of the tens of thousands annually that the promised, the Conservatives have governed over a quarter of a million settler colonists arriving in Britain. Of course, new measures were designed to work like sieves. The modern Conservatives will carry on being more Labour than Labour, the same way that Democrats and Republicans in the United States will carry on increasing their redshift values.

More Scams

A desperate consumer culture co-existing with an economic crisis means only one thing: glory for the Golden Age of the Scam. The ever-diminishing opportunities for legitimate wealth creation mean an ever growing necessity for illegitimate wealth redistribution. Corporations will focus more than ever on a model of planned obsolescence, slave labour, and government handouts. More small and medium entrepreneurs will drop out of the economy and get on the government teat. Cheap consumer products will break on the same day we buy them, forcing us to buy more expensive versions next, which will break after a week. True quality will still only be found in obsolete technology and goods, found in museums, eBay, attics, and antique shops.

More Obamanation

Obama is likely to win a second term, albeit by a narrow margin. The Anglo-American media will back him. All-White Republican candidates will pull their punches, any one of them afraid of being the one who ends the Afro-American dream. Should Obama lose, Afro-Americans will be enraged. If by a narrow margin, as I think likely in this scenario, accusations of racist electoral fraud may well surface. Obama’s post presidential career, whether it begins in 2013 or in 2017, will see him rise to the status of a secular saint. The Left’s historical revisionists will labour to recast him as an American Nelson Mandela, victim of racism, bad luck, and an insuperable legacy of mismanagement by his blue-eyed predecessors. Some way will be found to enumerate allegedly great or visionary achievements that were derided or underreported at the time.

On a Positive Note, However . . .

There will be positive developments on the fringes. Marxists will of course benefit from the continuing crisis because it is easy for them to point to banksters and Big Business as exploiters of the labour force. Yet, in this they share common ground with dissenters on the alternative Right, who are also likely benefit from the disturbances of 2012. Opportunities will continue to grow outside of the mainstream, and traditionalist dissenters will continue shifting away from quantitative gloom-and-doom analyses in favour of a more positive, subjective approach; away from simple forensics in favour of aggressive deconstruction and the active pursuit of new and original solutions, new ways of thinking, speaking, and operating.

In Sum

…more of the same, with some jolts, shocks, and possibly even a few changes along the way in the economic sphere that, although apparently dramatic, will not be fundamental, together with exciting opportunities on the fringes and beyond. The place to be will be on the outside.

Language is always evolving, and the direction of a language’s evolution is a function of its users. In Jamaica this meant, first, the development of a creole by West African slaves after British rule in the 17^th century; and, secondly, with the island’s population being majority Black since the 1670s, said creole’s growing into an unofficial national language.

Because it was based on a White man’s language, and Whiteness had long been associated with high social status, Jamaican patois was traditionally looked down upon as a failure to attain the White Englishman’s educational standards.

This, however, is changing (at least in Jamaica), and linguists at the University of the West Indies in Kingston have been working on a translation of the Bible into Jamaican patois. The hope of supporters is officially to legitimise the creole as an authentic language in its own right.

The results are striking. What follows is from Luke’s Gospel—or, in patois, Jiizas—di buk we Luuk rait bout im:

Original: ‘And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.”’

Patois: ‘De angel go to Mary and say to ‘er, me have news we going to make you well ‘appy. God really, really, bless you and him a walk with you all de time.’

The BBC report on this development includes a film where a Jamaican cleric frames this in nationalist terms. His easy switch from patois to Standard English, from illiterate to literate English, as if they were different languages, is rather odd.

Jamaican patois’ literary pretensions may represent a more advanced stage in a development that has occurred in other former colonies.

In Singapore the local creole is known as Singlish. It is an accretion of words originating from English, Malay, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi, and, to a lesser extent, various other European, Indic, and Sinitic languages, with television-derived American and Australian slang thrown in for added global spice. Singlish is disglossic, meaning it has high (acrolectic) and low (basilectic) variants. The former is most similar to Standard English, the latter appears almost like a foreign language: compare ‘This person’s Singlish is very good’ with ‘Dis guy Singrish si beh zai sia.’

In Malaysia the English-based creole is called—somewhat appropriately—Manglish. The creole shares roots with Singlish, and West-coast Manglish is nearly identical to the former.

Closer to home, in the United Kingdom there is Hinglish (Hindi + English), which is spoken both in India and in the United Kingdom. Its usage in Britain is so widespread that some years ago Collin’s published a humorous dictionary, titled The Queen’s Hinglish, How to Speak Pukka.

Hinglish is not like Jamaican patois, Haitian creole, or Singlish, but operates more like Spanglish, with borrowed words thrown into the base language and occasionally rearranged grammar. Hinglish words include: airdash (travel by air), chaddis (underpants), chai (Indian tea), crore (10 million), dacoit (thief), desi (local), dicky (boot), gora (white person), jungli (uncouth), lakh (100,000), lumpen (thug), optical (spectacles), prepone (bring forward), stepney (spare tyre) and would-be (fiancé/e).

Sensing the rage of White citizens and the existential threat it poses to the status quo, British politicians have sought to keep the chanko stew in the multicultural pressure cooker from exploding through feinted acts of appeasement—purely cosmetic, if not outright deceptive, ‘changes’ in immigration policy. In the minds of many mainstream White politicians, immigration is inevitable, necessary, and will not fundamentally affect the power balance in the country. And in the minds of some such politicians, immigration might alter the outward complexion of the country, but will not change its fundamental values or institutions—Blacks and Asians will become ‘White’ inside. Thus, any rage coming from within the indigenous White majority (‘racism’ in the PC dictionary) is a nuisance that needs to be managed and controlled until ‘education’ and exposure eliminates it in time.

Yet, based on the experience of former colonies, a fundamental alteration of the ethnic and racial composition of the citizenry in the European territories now being colonised by settlers from Asia, Africa, an the Caribbean, will bring along with it the long-term decline of Standard English and the rise of creole variants, which, may in due course obtain official legitimation. In this sense, Jamaica may be affording us a preview of Europe’s future, rather than another emblem of the island’s further divergence from Britain and convergence with West Africa.

In this scenario, the traditional upper classes in Britain would gradually change complexion, becoming progressively Asian and Muslim. Whiteness retaining its link with high status would prescribe a period of mimesis, where the new upper class would initially use a variant of Standard English as a class demarcator. In time even this Standard English will likely be seen as an obsolete vestige from a superseded past under White hegemony. It will likely be said that ‘no one speaks like that anymore’, the same way that no American politician today sounds like Woodrow Wilson in 1912, William Taft before him, or William McKinley in 1896. The same way that the BBC abandoned Queen’s English, even a creolised form of our Standard English will give way to a full creole.

This is not to say that what we call Standard English would remain static in a scenario where Europeans regain control of their destiny. The various spelling reform efforts in English predate the era of mass immigration, and scientific and technological advances, along with the social structures and behaviours that they give rise to, are constantly adding terminology to our dictionaries. New words have legitimately entered the English language from non-Indo-European sources via, for example, American, South African, and Australian English. Language is and should be constantly evolving. The question here is how ours is likely to evolve, who it is that will influence its evolution, and for what reasons.

I am a child of the Cold War, so I spent most of my life in an epoch where the 'Year 2000' was synonymous with ‘The Future’—a time when, provided we averted a thermonuclear apocalypse, people would be wearing silver spacesuits and bases would have been long established on the moon.

When the year 2000 finally came, however, it was anti-climatic: I spent New Years Eve in the company of investment executives, whose host never cared to keep track of the time in order to witness the year change at its precise moment. I was the only one to notice the stroke of midnight while sitting at the dinner table. When the date changed, I elbowed my neighbour to point out that we had entered the year 2000, but she only gave me a brief, distracted, half-lidded glance and an indifferent “Ah, yea… Hm.”

Twenty years earlier I would have been exasperated, but by 1999, amidst the hype surrounding the so-called “millennium” (which was not due until the following year anyway, since there was no year zero), I had began to think about the dating system we currently use in the West.

While we are on the topic of immigration and the sentiment it elicits among frustrated White folk everywhere, it is worth highlighting once again how the media reports collisions between communities.

Perhaps one of the most egregious recent example I have seen is a report on the Copenhagen Post, ‘Denmark’s leading source for news in English’.

Titled, ‘Fears of Vigilantism After Rape of Young Girl’, the report begins:

The rape of a ten-year-old has shocked the residents of a small town in Jutland, and led to fears residents would seek revenge against the suspect – a 16-year-old boy of Somalian descent.

A week ago last Saturday two girls were threatened at knife-point by a boy and led into a forest. While the nine-year-old girl managed to escape and sound the alarm, the ten-year-old was raped.

It took over a week for the police to make an arrest, and in the meantime the description of the culprit – an ‘African-looking’ male between the ages of 16 and 18 and with black curly hair – was circulated.

So far, so good, right? Mr. Stanner has reported the crime and identified the suspect, not neglecting to mention his race. Now let us examine how the rest of the article runs. The next sixteen paragraphs follow directly after the above three, without transition:

Some 40 percent of the town’s residents are immigrants and several boys and young men fit the description given by the girls. While the police began collecting evidence, rumours started circulating that groups of residents were looking to take matters into their own hands and young immigrant men were warned to stay indoors.

To help calm nerves, a meeting was held the following Tuesday in which a family member of one of the two girls urged residents to let the police do their job in apprehending the culprit.

One of those in attendance was Kaj Mortensen, the manager of a local housing association, who told the press that fears of a vigilante mob forming were overblown, though it was worth reminding residents of the consequences of vigilantism.

“It’s something we want to avoid, it’s the police who have to handle these things. We shouldn’t do anything ourselves,” Mortensen said. “Broadly speaking we discussed the need to talk to each other, regardless of which ethnicity you might have.”

While it seems residents did allow police to conduct their investigation in peace, a right-wing political organisation used the incident to spread their anti-Islamic agenda.

Twenty members of the Danish Defence League (DDL), were spotted in the nearby town of Herning on Thursday night on their way to Gullestrup, where the next day posters could be found declaring the town an ‘Sharia Free Zone’ and signed by the DDL.

The DDL admitted on its Facebook page to hanging the posters and called the act a ‘good effort’.

The group is tied to the British organisation English Defence League, which is made up largely of white males linked to the football hooligan community and who are responsible for violent anti-Islamic rallies across the country.

In a press release, the DDL declared it was prepared to take on the role of the police at times when they felt the Danish people were not being protected

“The Danish Defence League declares that we will take the streets in areas where the number of rapes are rising if the authorities in Denmark are not getting the situation under control. We take this position after the Danish police once again have shown that they either can’t or won’t – or don’t have the resources to – protect the Danish people from Muslim immigrants’ perverted desires.”

A 16-year-old was been arrested late last week after forensic evidence linked him to the crime. The police would not confirm what the evidence was but one report suggests his fingerprint was found on a condom packet lying close to the scene of the crime.

According to information obtained by the tabloid Ekstra Bladet, the 16-year-old had recently returned from a year in Somalia and had reportedly witnessed that country’s strife at close quarters.

Acquaintances of the suspect described how the experience has affected him.

“He was unrecognisable when he came home. He seemed hard and superficial and spoke very loudly, almost shouting all the time,” one source was quoted in Ekstra Bladet as saying.

The boy appeared in court last Saturday in a close door hearing.

He denies any involvement in the rape.

Interesting, is it not, how the report focuses entirely on worries about the feelings and safety of the immigrant residents, and spares not one word for the feelings of the 9-year old who was threatened with a knife, or of the 10-year-old girl who was raped at knifepoint, or of the families of these two girls, or of the Danish local residents who may be parents to young girls. The safety of local Danish girls does not fall under reporter Peter Stanner’s radar.

What does fall under his radar are the feelings of the young rapist thug. Some would want to point out that Mr. Stanner’s report is sympathetic to the rapist, for it spends five paragraphs attempting to, let us say, nuance, or add context, to the Somali youth’s despicable crime, so that readers may not rush to conclusions. It is the boy who is the real victim, not the girl who will be traumatised for the rest of her life. The villains are those irascible Danish barbarians living in the neighbourhood and of course the DDL.

We have seen ample evidence of how, for mainstream journalists, context is essential when attempting to understand attacks on White folk by coloured immigrants or their descendants, but wholly unimportant when attempting to understand the frustration of White folk who, Emma West or Darren Scully, decide they have had enough. For the likes of Mr. Stanner, the existence of the DDL has no context other than simple racism, and their reacting to this event is merely base opportunism, motivated by a mean-spirited desire to exploit an unfortunate incident for political gain. There is no legitimate reason to defend the Danish, of course.

We have finally learnt why England crawls with working-class women willing to complain openly about immigration: it seems the United Kingdom is run by a secret cabal of Nazi sympathisers, lodged deep within the Conservative Party, and close to Prime Minister David Cameron.

On Sunday the nation stood still as the Daily Mail, in an epic and immensely detailed report, made the terrible revelation. Earlier this month, Conservative Member of Parliament Aiden Burley attended a stag party, where 34-year-old Oxford-educated Mark Fournier, who works as an accountant and whose stag party it was, revealed his true colours—in public, in front of gay and Jewish eyes, and of those of respectable French citizens trying to enjoy a peaceful dinner with friends and family. Unable to bottle up his Nazism any longer, and eager to be as transgressive as possible, Mr. Fournier went around in full German Nazi SS uniform, complete with swastika armband, in proud and brazen defiance of French laws.

Fortunately, reporters from the Daily Mail happened to be in the same restaurant on that precise evening and at that precise time, and were able to document the outrage, filming it and photographing it conclusively. This is reporter Matt Sandy’s account [emphases here and further down are mine]:

Mail on Sunday photographer John McLellan and I were in Val Thorens working on an unrelated story last Saturday when we went to Restaurant La Fondue . . .

As we ordered drinks, we noticed a rowdy group of men at a table. Then we saw a man in an SS uniform walk past us to the toilet. We were surprised by the group’s brashness and their taunting of the waiters.

It was a small restaurant, with room for 50 diners, and was two-thirds full.

Watching other British people behaving as this group were in a foreign country was at the very least embarrassing.

Outside, we chatted to the men. Several agreed to pose for photos and, without prompting, did Nazi salutes. I have seen this happen only once before – at a football match.

The group invited us to join them at a British-themed pub later that evening. It was only at this stage that we discovered that one of their number was a Conservative MP.

In the bar, which was packed with holidaymakers enjoying apres-ski, they continued drinking, and their chanting became more frequent and uninhibited. It was hard to believe that an MP did nothing to halt this offensive behaviour.

This offensive behaviour included a toast that ran:

Let’s raise a toast to Tom for organising the stag do, and if we’re perfectly honest, to the ideology and thought process of the Third Reich.

Mr. Burley, who ‘[i]n an entry on [his] website, dated June 21 this year, . . . describes a visit to Israel’, witnessed this act, heard these words, and did . . . nothing. Worse, he was photographed paying the bill.

The British nation need not fear, however, for prompt action has been taken. According to the Daily Mail,

[a] French police spokesman confirmed that an investigation could be launched, and said: ‘Anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi crimes are taken extremely seriously in France. Anyone suspected of breaking the law in this respect can and will be prosecuted.’

The news report clarifies that

[t]his is because under the French penal code it is a crime, unless required for a film, a play or a historical exhibition, to wear or exhibit in public anything reminiscent of what was worn or used by the Nazis.

Meanwhile, Mr. Burley released a statement (through Conservative Central Office), stating,

There was clearly inappropriate behaviour by some of the other guests and I deeply regret that this happened. I am extremely sorry for any offence that will undoubtedly have been caused.

And the BBC reports that

[a] Conservative Party spokesman confirmed there would be a full investigation into what had happened.

Unsatisfied with that, shadow transport minister and Labour MP John Zak Woodcock, who is chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel group, has ‘called for Mr. Burley to be sacked’.

Events are unfolding, so we will see where this leads. Mr. Burley and friends have good reason to worry, for some have had their careers ruined for less.

Last month, for example, one Mr. Darren Scully, another conservative politician and now former major of Naas, in Ireland, was forced to apologise, resign, endure days of abuse and public humiliation, and face a police investigation—and a possible prison sentence of up to two years—following a radio interview where he expressed frustration with the bad manners of his Black constituents and his decision earlier this year to direct them to colleagues better suited to take up their concerns.

With so many reports of racists and Nazis coming out into the open, claiming support of the BNP or wearing a costume as the ultimate act of defiance to the system, the inevitable conclusion must be that more ‘education and love’ are needed, because if love for multiracialism is not forthcoming, it must be that we need yet more of the same.

Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is an apt follow-up to his 2002 volume, The Death of the West. Although the new book focuses on the United States, it restates and updates the narrative of the older book. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the former refers briefly to the latter early on.

Buchanan’s main thesis is this:

When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian summer of our civilization.

Suicide has stirred some controversy in the mainstream media for stating what for many is, or should be, known and obvious, but which for the majority is either not so or taboo: the negative consequences of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Yet, the book has obtained wide coverage and seems widely available—last month, while travelling in the United States, I saw it prominently displayed in the bookshops of major airports. This is a significant achievement that must not pass without notice, for there are others who have been advancing identical theses without the same level of exposure.

Suicide, however, is not without significant limitations, and these merit detailed discussion, for they stem from an outlook that will need to be overcome if we are ever to move forward with an effective solution to the suicide of America and the rest of the West.

The Pluses

With 428 pages of meat in it, Suicide is divided into 11 chapters, each of which is in turn divided into shorter sections with lapidary titles. The chapters are: The Passing of a Superpower, The Death of Christian America, The Crisis of Catholicism, The End of White America, Demographic Winter, Equality or Freedom, The Diversity Cult, The Triumph of Tribalism, The ‘White’ Party, The Long Retreat, and The Last Chance.

In none does Buchanan flinch from presenting the facts as they are. And where there are lacunae, Kevin MacDonald has already filled them with his Culture of Critique. The first chapter is in tone apocalyptic, yet the sheer rapidity of the United State’s decline as a superpower justifies that tone; Rome’s decline in wealth and capability may have taken longer, but America’s is comparable and, as Buchanan presents it, suggests familiar buildings and everyday objects one day becoming ruins and broken artefacts in a continent abandoned to a dark age. Buchanan proposes solutions in the final chapter, but, besides flawed (and I get to that further down), they are conditional, which lends the trajectory of decline traced throughout most of the volume an aura of inevitability. This is not an indulgence on pessimism, because all previous empires eventually collapsed, and all previous great civilisations in history came to an end.

In his detailed discussion of Christianity’s role in the United State, and of the crisis of Catholicism, Buchanan acknowledges the importance of the transcendent. Many of the ills that afflict the West in our age are linked to, if not the result of, a materialist conception of life, and of the consequent subjection to a secular economist criterion of all matters of importance to a nation and a people. The dispossession and loss of moral authority of the White race in their own traditional homelands was to a significant degree achieved through, or caused by, economic arguments. It was not the so-called ‘civil rights’ movement in the United States that turned Detroit into a ruin; what turned it into a ruin was the reliance on economic arguments—so characteristic of the materialist liberal outlook—that enabled the decision to purchase Black slaves in African markets and ship them to North America. Similarly, the loss of moral and spiritual vigour, which has so enfeebled the White race and sapped its will to live, can be traced to the rise of secularism, to the severing of the race’s link to the transcendent. ‘Where are the martyrs for materialism?’ he asks.

To this Buchanan adds a helpful discussion about equality and freedom. He explodes the liberal conception of them as concomitant concepts, and convincingly presents them as polar opposites in a dichotomy: greater equality means less freedom, greater freedom means less equality. Buchanan makes clear that the only possible way to see these two concepts as concomitant is by ignoring human biodiversity, for, where inborn differences in physiology impose upper limits to human plasticity, equality—the elimination disparities in outcome—cannot be achieved without handicapping the cause of those disparities. Thus, the freedom to choose among the best universities is limited for bright White students when entry requirements are relaxed among less able non-White students in the effort to achieve equal outcomes among all racial groups.

The chapters on the diversity cult and tribalism re-state arguments that have for years been advanced by Jared Taylor. Taylor has done it in much greater detail, but Buchanan will reach a much wider audience, so this is a gain. Buchanan also echoes the Sailer Strategy—‘the idea that inreach to its white base, not outreach to minorities, is the key to future GOP success’—in his discussion of his party’s prospects as Whites decline in the United States. And, like Taylor, he ridicules those who see this decline as a cause for celebration.

Also like Taylor, but in the economic area, Buchanan reveals some astonishing facts. Apparently, the United States military relies on equipment that cannot be made without parts manufactured by potential enemies and economic rivals. Did you know that?

Another helpful discussion is introduced in the final fourth of the book, where Buchanan, following Amy Chua, deals with the fatal design flaw that afflicts multiethnic nations that have embraced democracy and capitalism:

Free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of a market-capable ethnic minority. Democracy empowers the ethnic majority. When the latter begin to demand a larger share of the wealth, demagogues arise to meet those demands.

This is a reply to the economic argument for the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism in the West, repeated without proof and refuted by empirical studies everywhere, that supposedly boosts economic growth because diverse immigrants ‘bring in skills’ and foster greater creativity. In fact, said policy leads to Whites becoming dispossessed minorities, as they already did in a number of other former European colonies. Buchanan points out that people like Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, and Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, use ‘principles invented by white men—universal franchise and majority rule—to dispossess white men’. He also quotes 19^th century Rightist Louis Veuillot to describe how democrats are dispossessed by non- (or ‘instrumental’) democrats: ‘When I am the weaker I ask you for my freedom because that is my principle; but when I am the stronger I take away your freedom because that is my principle’. He asks: ‘What does the future hold for the West when people of European descent become a minority in nations they created, and people of color decide to vote themselves proportionate or larger shares of the national wealth?’

In terms of solutions, Buchanan offers common sense advice: the United States should live within its means and actively take steps to cut its deficits. For him this means pruning government and government expenditure, including social security benefits and military bases overseas; and instituting a policy of economic nationalism, levying tariffs on imports and cutting corporation tax to zero, so as to revive manufacturing in the United States, attract overseas investment, and reduce reliance on imports. I do not think even economists will agree on whether this would yield the desired results, but at least Buchanan is making concrete policy proposals that place the interests of his country first, and is willing to accept that ethnonationalism is an inescapable reality of the human condition. 

The Minuses

There are fundamental flaws in Buchanan’s exposition.

Firstly, he equates European civilisation with Christianity. This is surprising, particularly coming from an American writer, advancing an Americanist position, given that some of the basic principles and practices upon which America was founded, such as the constitutional republic, originated or had their roots in Europe well before the dawn of Christianity. What about ancient Greece? What about ancient Rome? Were those not European civilisations? A more accurate statement is that the United States is a Christian country. This is defensible, even if the United States never had an established religion and even if not all Americans were Christian. Perhaps what Buchanan means is that Faustian civilisation—the civilisation of Northern Europe, of which North America is an extension—is a Christian civilisation.

Buchanan is correct to identify the decline of Christianity in America as one of the roots of its decline. In doing so, however, he has Edward Gibbon as his inverse counterpart, for Gibbon identified the rise of Christianity in Rome, that is, the decline of the Roman religion, as one of the causes of Rome’s fall. Gibbon would have sympathised, perhaps, with the statement, ‘When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die.’ Yet, given that the fall of Rome did not mean the end of European man, and that if the rise of Christianity was linked to Rome’s fall, the rise of Christianity was also linked to the rise of Faustian civilisation. All this tells us, therefore, is that we may be witnessing the end of a cycle involving Christianity. However, even if it is Christianity’s fate to pass, as have other religions, or to become a ‘Third World religion’, as Buchanan puts it, European man will still be there, at least for a while, and, provided he survives as a race, he will give rise to a new civilisation, traceable to the Greek, the Roman, and the Faustian, but founded on somewhat different principles. This will bring no comfort to Christians, nevertheless, and Buchanan, as a Christian, is justified in his alarm.

Gibbon would concede that Buchanan makes a powerful argument for Christianity. A monotheistic religion with a personal god can be a potent unifying force, eliciting much stronger commitments from its followers. The Roman pagans were easygoing, and vis-à-vis other religions, the pagan outlook, as expressed by Nehru in a conversation with the former Chilean Ambassador in India, Miguel Serrano, is generally ‘live and let live’. One can easily accept that it is not difficult to decimate a people with that outlook, for, in as much as it resembles the multiculturalists’ easygoing attitude to all religions except Christianity, it is proving daily in our society an agent of dissolution. It may well be that in a world of intense ethnic competition, a high-tension—even totalitarian and intolerant—religion is the more adaptive group evolutionary strategy. Buchanan’s discussion on the growth and endurance of evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and militant Islam indicates he is of this view, and that is a plus consistent with his recognition of the importance of the transcendent. Yet he inadvertedly exposes a conundrum: if Christianity is a universal faith, accommodating every race and nationality, as he says, and if, as he also says, non-evangelical forms of Christianity have declined because they are accommodating, then, would this not suggest that Christianity will not survive in practice as the White man’s religion unless it becomes a non-accommodating faith?

Secondly, Suicide makes it clear that Buchanan cannot conceive of anything beyond the America of the 1950s. This is the most unfortunate aspect of this book. It is also the reason why Buchanan offers no real solutions, other than turning back the clock. Were his recommendations implemented in the United States, they would only retard the processes that are in place, achieving a temporary reprieve, a momentary stabilisation, before resuming their course, perhaps with renewed vigour and speed.

What Buchanan seems not to recognise is that, while the 1950s may have felt good for many, the conditions for the modern trends that he condemns were already in place then. They were simply masked by the transient prosperity, stability, and romanticism of the era. The 1950s led to the 1960s. And the upheavals of the 1960s had their roots in the academics of the 1930s, who in turn had their roots in Marxism, dating back to the 19^th century, which in turn had its roots in liberalism and the Enlightenment in the 18^th century. And this is not merely a question of there having always been a hostile faction within the American republic, seeking to undermine it with its insidious liberalism; the conservatives who opposed Marxism also had their intellectual roots in 18^th-century liberalism. Buchanan makes it seem as if the United States has been hijacked by liberals, but the fact is that it has always been in the hands of liberals, right from the beginning: the United States was founded and is predicated on the ideas of liberal intellectuals, and its Founding Fathers were liberals. If the United States seems to be spearheading the process of Western decline, bringing everyone down with it, it is because liberalism took stronger root there than anywhere else, due to a lack of opposition to liberal ideas.

From this perspective it can be argued that Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is not the result of the United States’ being ‘far off the course set by [the] Founding Fathers’, but rather of the United States’ being exactly on that course, even if the Founding Fathers never anticipated that it would lead where it has led.

As a conservative in a republic founded by liberals, Buchanan is by definition a liberal, defending a previous stage in the development of liberalism. Hence his failure to see beyond liberalism’s event horizon.

Liberals have a linear conception of history. Thus Buchanan hopes that by prescribing better liberal policies (what he would call conservative policies), the American republic can be set back on course and resume its trajectory of endless progress and economic growth. Unfortunately, treating the problem as if it were a disease in need of a cure is futile when the problem is a congenital defect. In such cases the best hope is genetic resequencing, a form of death and rebirth. Most likely it will mean certain death and a possible rebirth, elsewhere, as something else, perhaps in North America, but at first, if at all, only in a part of it. Concretely this means the break-up of the union into regions and the emergence among them of a dominant republic among weaker ones, with strength or weakness being a function of the dominant racial group in each case.

Similarly futile is the attempt to revert a civilisation to an earlier stage of development. In the Spenglerian view this would be like trying to turn an old dog back into a puppy, or an old tree back into a bush. Technology may make it possible one day to reverse the physical effects of ageing, but it will not erase the memories and conclusions of a lifetime, and therefore not rejuvenate the spirit. This applies even in the non-organic realm: we may be able to restore an old mechanical typewriter so that it looks and works like new, but it will still be obsolete technology, and its reason for being will shift from usable tool to unusable antique.

Unfortunately for those living today, reality is more in accord with the organic conception of history, whereby things go in cycles and slow build-ups lead to rapid changes in state. Following Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey argued that attempts to cause a reversion into an earlier state of development will at best yield temporary results, introducing distortions that will be magnified as the next stage of development indefectibly follows.

One can sympathise with the argument that it would be worse if the current political leadership in the United States managed to stabilise the economy and perform plastic surgery on the face of America, as this would buy said leadership more time and permit existing trends to remain in place until the possibility of a White rebirth in North America, even without United States, became extinct. A Spencerian collapse sooner may open up avenues that may be closed later.

Buchanan wonders whether the United States will implode by 2025. This was my own scenario in Mister, where the United States disintegrates in a hyperinflationary chaos. But it is difficult to predict with accuracy and I would not want to speculate beyond a possible dismemberment along regional lines sometime this century. When it happens, whenever it may happen, those who remember the America we know today and who did not know better until it was too late will be amazed that people thought the United States would go on forever. They will also be amazed that people ever thought as they do now, despite the final outcome being so blatantly obvious. Buchanan’s diagnosis is mostly accurate, but his treatment, well intentioned as it is, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The Balance

Despite its defects, there is no escaping it: Suicide of a Superpower is a punishing indictment of the United States’ post-war political leadership, authored by a prominent conservative who speaks as part of America’s mainstream establishment. Any White American fed up with the way things have been going in recent decades and looking for new politics beyond Democrat or Republican will find here solid justifications for going beyond convention and eventually adding his muscle to the struggle for fundamental change.

Suicide will not awaken the complacent, induce the fearful to speak up, or cause ideological enemies to change their views. The complacent is comfortable in his ignorance and does not want his world disrupted by inconvenient truths; in most cases he has the means to avoid them by insulating himself economically. The fearful, who knows but remains silent, will not be emboldened by Buchanan’s confirming him in his views; he will wait, as he has always waited, and then side with change once it looks like it is going to win. The ideological enemy is beyond convincing; the only solution is to crush him thoroughly.

Should you buy Suicide of a Superpower? The answer is yes. Not only is it brave, but it contains many helpful insights and bewildering facts to fuel a healthy debate. The fact that the book is everywhere has also infuriated the radical Left, who have renewed their efforts to have Buchanan fired by MSNBC. The radical Left does not want this kind of discussion to take place in a mainstream media forum. In fact, radical Leftists would like Buchanan to be banned from the networks, shunned by his publishers, phlebotomised by the taxman, prosecuted by the ICC, and sent to the gulags, to spend his old age in poverty, obscurity, and hard labour—surrounded, of course, by politically correct diversity. To his credit, Buchanan has not buckled in to criticism. Therefore, every copy that is sold is a kick to the radical Left, and added impetus for the book to reach more persuadables.

With enough manpower and talent it will be possible to survive the cataclysm and make it through to the other side. The other side is something entirely new; traditional, but different—it is not the White America of the 1950s, nor Reagan on steroids, nor is it a linear extrapolation of what is good about the 2010s minus what is bad. For Whites to survive in America, Americanism must end. Those who survive will be the architects of what comes after Americanism; they will not call themselves Americans—the designation may not even make sense for them. Viewed from the other side, with the old certainties gone and new ones in place, it will be impossible to think as we do today, even if future generations carry forward much of our knowledge, traditions, and cultural legacy.