Book Review: Suicide of a Superpower

Pat Buchanan's new book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025 is the bluntest and most cogent statement of the truth about the present course of Western civilization that has been seen in American bookstores in many years.

In this book, Pat takes the gloves off and hits the American Left with the Hard Right. He knocks the liberal establishment out of the ring. Everything that real conservatives have privately known to be true for generations is finally aired in this brave and long overdue new book.

Christianity is the foundation of Western civilization. As people of European ancestry abandoned their traditional faith, Western culture began to die. As Western culture began to die, Western civilization began to die. Finally, the people of the West are literally dying out and the Third World is flooding into the West to take our place in our own homelands.

The American Left has become a utopian death cult in the grips of a suicidal ideology like the Shakers. The Baby Boomer elite that was captured by the counterculture in the 1960s has set America on a course to national oblivion: radical multiculturalism, open borders, the welfare state, affirmative action, the obsession with diversity, the embrace of the sick and degenerate "free love movement," the embrace of abortion and family planning, the embrace of an adversary secular culture that has flatly declared war on Christianity.

As a historian, Pat Buchanan is here to remind us of the awful truth that this sort of progressive worldview and the lifestyle that accompanies it has consequences:

First, America is disintegrating into a balkanized landscape of racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious enclaves - a secession of the heart, as Buchanan describes it - that disagree with each other on the most profound and fundamental questions that unite a people.

Is this not true? Surely, the Left must admit there is some truth to this after the debt ceiling crisis and the failure of Barack Hussein Obama to usher in the "post-racial" and "post-partisan" America that was promised in this 2008 presidential campaign.

Does it seem like America is unraveling at the seams? Does it seem like the "center" has collapsed? Does it seem like the federal government is increasingly unable to perform the most basic tasks of a functioning government? Does it seem like we talk past each other on television?

That's what happens when there is no longer any moral or cultural common ground to appeal to anymore in Washington. The Left set out to dismantle America's traditional Christian culture - it was racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, nativist, reactionary, bigoted, repressive, etc. - and succeeded in shredding our national fabric which underpins our state.

Second, the attack on the European-Christian core of the American nation by the revolutionary cadres of the Baby Boomer elite has been successful. Christianity is no longer the dominant culture in America. It has been replaced by a secular hodgepodge of various radical utopian leftwing counterculture causes. The adversary culture has become the dominant culture.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the "Civil Rights Movement" triumphed in America. The "Antiwar Movement" triumphed in America with the assistance of the Mainstream Media. The "counterculture" of the hippies and beatniks triumphed in America and became the new mainstream - the free love movement, radical environmentalism, gay liberation, second wave feminism, the cult of self-centered, liberated individual that rebels against any form of restraint.

What's the result of this? What does the awe inspiring Baby Boomer culture of social liberalism look like when it has been tried out in practice?

A quick survey of the wreckage of the European-Christian core of America will find a demoralizing culture of chronic drug addiction and nihilism, millions of aborted babies, dysfunctional children living in shattered households, soaring household debt, soaring income inequality, sexually transmitted diseases, infidelity, the "hook up" culture among adolescents, teen pregnancy, the "man-cession," unprecedented suicide rates, obese slobs covered in tattoos and piercings, "boomerangs," and now Millennials are being labeled the "Lost Generation."

If European-Christian America is a jet plane, then we have stalled somewhere above the clouds. Now comes the terrifying descent, the inevitable nosedive, and the awful crash into reality.

The Left, which has always hated European-Christian America, has succeeded in destroying European-Christian America for the Gen X'ers, the Millennials, and their children.

Third, the utopian leftists of the 1960s made sure to throw open America's borders to all comers. These hippies invited the whole Third World into the United States to feast upon the fat of the land. They were also encouraged not to assimilate to the hideous and racist culture of the richest and most scientifically and technologically advanced society that had ever existed in all of world history.

By 2042, freedom loving European-Christian Americans will become a minority in the United States - the European-Christian core of the American nation, which was the wealth producing dynamo that rocketed America to the top of the international pecking order, is swiftly collapsing like a black hole.

Every year the burden of taxation, affirmative action, diversity, multiculturalism, the welfare state, and socialist wealth redistribution schemes to fund these wild utopian projects becomes more unbearable for the 53 percent that is the Atlas that carries around the 47 percent on its back.

As things stand today, it is the aging and shrinking European-Christian core of America (along with intelligent, hardworking, and entrepreneuerial Asian-Americans) who are propping up the declining United States. Foreigners know this despised, maligned constituency is the foundation of America.

Black America is culturally and economically a basket case. Hispanic America is worse off in some ways, better in others. White America has gone completely off the rails under the influence of the counterculture. Even Asian America has been negatively affected by the sickness of the dominant culture.

The Left is ideologically committed to pushing the limits of diversity, democracy, and radical egalitarianism. In Suicide of a Superpower, Pat Buchanan unflinchingly takes on all three liberal sacred cows from a traditional conservative perspective.

Historians will look back in stupefacation at twentieth- and twenty-first century Americans who believed the magnificent republic they inherited would be enriched by bringing in scores of millions from the failed states of the Third World.

Far from being a strength, diversity is our greatest weakness. Far from being the American ideal, the Founders took a dim view of democracy. The Constitution of 1789 was designed to shackle and restrain democracy within a republican political order. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges equality only in the sense that all men have natural right to liberty.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the foundational documents of the republic and the organic documents of American union. And the word "equality" does not appear in either. Nor does the word "democracy."

The Founding Fathers rejected social equality. They rejected economic equality. They also rejected the Left's insane dogma of human equality. None of these forms of equality are reconcilable with liberty.

In 1971, the Atlantic Montly ran a cover article by Harvard's Richard Herrnstein. His thesis was that even if we are able to equalize the home and school environment of all children, natural academic ability will enable some children to outperform others. No matter how much money is invested in reducing class size and enhancing teacher training, an "hereditary meritocracy" will arise in a public school system where expenditures are equal ...

America plunged forward. U.S. and state governments and local school districts began the most massive investment in education in all of history. Expenditures per pupil doubled and tripled. Head Start, a preschool program for low-income children established in 1965, was lavishly funded. Perhaps $200 billion was poured into Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provided additional funds to schools based on their population of low-income students.

What were the results? Writes Murray, "no evaluation from Title I from the 1970s onward has found credible evidence of a significant positive impact on student achievement ... A 2001 study by the Department of Education revealed taht the gap widened rather than diminished.

There is no proof that all people are literally equal at the cultural or hereditary level - it is an absurd idea, a doctrine easily refuted by history and experience. Similarly, there is no proof that human societies can conform to the Left's ideals of social equality and economic equality and survive in the long run.

In order for social and economic equality to exist and for "diversity" to be celebrated as our greatest strength, you need a massive state apparatus to constantly redistribute wealth and repress freedom of association - you have to strangle liberty to force society to conform to this type of "equality," as it is a rebellion against natural law and cannot be sustained without the state application of force.

European nations that are being forced to conform to this cruel and inhumane leftist experiment are dying. European-Christian Americans are dying out at a slower pace. The Left looks upon the death of European Christendom as a "progressive" development and a cause for celebration. It wants First World nations without Europeans and without Christianity.

The pursuit of this utopian fantasy will usher in a dystopian return to the Dark Ages: Western civilization will collapse, the American Republic will collapse, the global economy will collapse, the world will descend into chaos and warfare, as the shibboleths of the Left become as antiquated as Roman aqueducts in the future which is about to befall us.

America is entering a time of troubles. The clashes of culture and creed are intensifying and both parties are perceived to have failed the nation. Republicans were repudiated in 2006 and 2008, Democrats in 2010. And the crises that afflict us - culture wars, race division, record deficits, unpayable debt, waves of immigration, legal and illegal, of peoples never before assimilated, gridlock in the capital, and possible defeat in war - may prove too much for our democracy to cope with. They surely will, if we not act now.

At this point, Pat Buchanan is warning us yet again as a statesman that such a world is all but inevitable. Even if we were to radically change course now, the momentum of Western decline will still take us straight into the path of the historical iceberg. It is too late. This sucker is going down like the Titanic.

Predictably, Buchanan's small minded critics on the Left - groups like the SPLC, Media Matters, and "Color of Change" - are distorting his work and charging him with heresy against the hoary old pieties of political correctness, as the Tea Party, the flash mobs, and Occupy Wall Street, not to the mention the mobs in Greece and Spain, arrive as omens of the American future.

A true statesman writes for history and posterity. One day the Millennial generation will look back and wonder why no one listened to the man who saw it coming and who could have been our president.

P.S.: Perhaps the most unimportant observation made in Suicide of a Superpower is that the GOP will share the fate of European-Christian America. The Republican Party can either start representing the interests of the shrinking pool of European-Christians which constitutes 90 percent of Republican voters or follow in the footsteps of the Whig Party.

“On what planet do you have to be from to believe that Hitler’s 1941 invasion of Russia proves that he didn’t want to invade France & England?”

Well, let’s see: Hitler wrote an entire book about foreign policy, two books actually, about his dream of forming an alliance with Britain, which clearly showed that he had no desire whatsoever to fight a war in the West or against the British Empire, and wasn’t willing to go to war with France either over Alsace and Lorraine.

It was Britain that declared war on Germany. France was dragged into the war. It was all about maintaining an absurd system of alliances - Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia - which in theory were supposed to hold down the Germans, but which in reality only dragged Britain into another world war that caused it to lose its own empire.

“Winston Churchill did not become Prime Minister May 1940. Germany had already invaded at least 7 countries on the Western Front.”

The German invasion of Norway and Denmark was actually inspired by Britain’s plan - actually, Churchill’s plan - to occupy both countries to launch an attack against Germany. It was a disaster like Gallipolli.

Britain and France declared war on Germany. That’s why Germany overran the Netherlands and Belgium to bypass the stupid French defense perimeter. There was no preconceived German plan to attack those countries.

It was entirely the result of Britain declaring war on Germany.

“England had declared war on Germany, but had not taken any significant offensive action.”

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Why did they declare war? Because, Chamberlain had given the war guarantee to Poland, which Poland interpreted as a license to hold onto Danzig.

“There was no indication they would, if Germany had stayed status quo. Any British leader in history, would not allow Germany to control all of France.”

There never would have been a war between France and Germany if Britain hadn’t dragged France into the war. The French weren’t that enthusiastic about going to war over Poland.

“It’s basic geopolitics. Germany did not have to invade all of Western Europe to keep Danzig, Which they already controlled anyway.”

Germany invaded Western Europe - because, Britain and France declared war on Germany, as part of their genius of an alliance with Poland, to force Germany into a two front war.

There is no proof that Hitler had any desire to attack the West. On the contrary, there is mounds of evidence that his goal was to attack the Soviet Union, and that he was stunned when Britain went to war over Poland.

“There is not theory of war or geopolitics that says that was necessary. Also, they had a long-developed plan to invade France. Why did they need that, if they had not intention to invade France.”

How many times had France attacked Germany over the past two hundred years? It was France that attempted to dismember Germany after WW1.

“How can you contradict yourself in one sentence. If Germany and Russia went to war then Poland will be annihilated anyway.”

How so?

The war would have been fought in the Soviet Union, not in Poland. There wouldn’t been any fighting in Germany, Poland, Hungary, Italy, or Croatia.

In your view, the best of all possible worlds was the death of millions of German and Polish Catholics, and the conquest of Hungary and Croatia by communists.

“In fact, you suggest the one circumstance that could have resulted in a worse outcome for Poland than what actually happened.”

That’s odd: the Germans and Russians fight each other to the death, Poland’s historical enemies, and the worst possible case for Poland?

Poland would have come out better off losing millions of its own people? Over Danzig ... a city that was destroyed in the war, which was 95 percent German?

That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

“If the war had happened later and more gradually, Poland would have been even more screwed.”

That’s comforting to Poland I am sure - after losing its independence for half a century, losing the lives of millions of its Catholic and Jewish citizens, becoming a warzone for Nazis and Communists ... nickcarraway is confident that Poland would have been “even more screwed” if it had just sat out the war like Ireland, Sweden or Spain.

No, I am saying that Britain shouldn’t have given the war guarantee to Poland.

Here is where Buchanan's third grade logic and ignorance of history trip you up.

There are 2 things you have consistently said:

1. England's war guarantee of Poland is the source of all the trouble's in the world. 2.Winston Churchill is the war monger who caused all the problems in the world.

One slight problem. Winston Churchill had no power and was not Prime Minister when the war guarantee was given.

OOPS! Pat Buchanan is so ignorant of history, he can't even look up a small fact in the encyclopedia. You can try to spin this every way you want, but your two slogans just don't mesh. So, before you employ M.C. Escher logic again, why don't you sit and think, maybe Buchanan sold you a bill of goods. He has to twist the facts to get his theories to work.

The whole, "it's all about the war guarantee," thing reminds me of Al Gore debating. What was it with him, the lock box. You can't use one minor thing to distract everyone from all the major one's. It just won't work.

“That one war guarantee FORCED Hitler to go on a rampage? Really?”

There wasn’t a rampage: instead, there was a war between Germany and Poland, one which could have been avoided, but which at worst was a regional war that could have stayed a regional war.

It was Britain that created the war between Germany and Poland and which transformed it into a world war.

“I’m not sure I agree they should have done it, but your idea that it outweighs everything is preposterous.”

No, what’s preposterous is your defense of a war and a maniac who destroyed the British Empire and who destroyed Poland and who destroyed Germany, and who arguably inflicted a mortal wound on our entire civilization.

And to think, it was all because a city that 95 percent German, which America acknowledged was German by refusing to ratify the Versailles Treaty. To think that it could have all been avoided if Poland had simply ceded that stupid city where only 5 percent of the population was Polish.

If a few incompetent warmongers in Britain had been thrown in prison, there wouldn’t have been a world war.

“How can a war guarantee be so terrible, but invading and bombing a countries that haven’t martially attacked you is so innocent.”

Germany never attacked Britain - it was Britain that declared war on Germany, and the decision was made because Neville Chamblerlain had given a war guarantee to Poland, a worthless war guarantee at that, which ensured the destruction of the country.

“In other posts you decry the U.S. military being deployed in recent circumstances.”

I think it is a laughable waste of our resources - deploying thousands of troops to Germany to protect Lithuania from Russia, while allowing Mexico to invade California and Arizona.

How does anyone rationalize that?

“But you think Germany’s invasion of Western Europe is nothing to be criticized.”

There never would have been an invasion of Western Europe if Britain and not declared war on Germany. In hindsight, we know that Germany had no plans to conquer Western Europe, much less Britain, still less America, an idea so preposterous that FDR should have been laughed out of office when he lied to the American people.

“How come you and Mr. Buchanan give, “special privileges,” to Nazi Germany that other countries don’t get?”

The best case scenario for Poland, Britain, America, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway and all the other Western countries - that would have been staying out of the war like Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain somehow managed to do.

You are the one who thinks the most destructive war in the history of the world was a great idea. We think that it would have been wise to avoid the “Second World War” and the “Cold War” that followed it.

“What is the justification for this double standard?”

Why on earth should Britain have given a war guarantee to Poland ... a country where Britain had no real interests, where Britain couldn’t militarily come to the rescue even if it had wanted to, and which “guaranteed” (the only thing it managed to guarantee) the destruction of Poland?

Instead, why couldn’t Britain have simply tended to its own Empire? Why couldn’t France have tended to its own Empire? Why couldn’t America have stayed out of a stupid European thousands of miles from North America?

Why didn’t we just let Hitler and Stalin go to war?

“One slight problem. Winston Churchill had no power and was not Prime Minister when the war guarantee was given.”

One slight problem with that analysis ... I said that Chamberlain had extended the war guarantee to Poland, and he gave war guarantee to Poland largely to appease the war mongerers like Winston, who had criticized him and turned public opinion against him after Munich.

It was also Churchill’s debacle that resulted in the German invasion of Norway and Denmark.

“OOPS! Pat Buchanan is so ignorant of history, he can’t even look up a small fact in the encyclopedia.”

Laughs.

No, Buchanan is far smarter than you are and knows far more about the subject. Churchill was the leader of the warmongers in Britain and Chamberlain’s “get tough” policy was designed to appease them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

“In this job, he proved to be one of the highest-profile ministers during the so-called “Phoney War”, when the only noticeable action was at sea. Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the war. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed, and the operation was delayed until the successful German invasion of Norway.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

“You can try to spin this every way you want, but your two slogans just don’t mesh. So, before you employ M.C. Escher logic again, why don’t you sit and think, maybe Buchanan sold you a bill of goods. He has to twist the facts to get his theories to work.”

The facts are that Neville Chamblerlain and Winston Churchill destroyed the British Empire, dragged America into the war, and “guaranteed” the destruction of Poland as well.

“Wow! Churchill used mind control to Make Hitler attack those two countries. And he wasn’t even the leader of any country, unlike Hitler. Why don’t you use the same mind control to make Obama do what you want?”

Hmm.

Let’s take a peak at Martin Gilbert’s biography of Churchill. Because I seem to recall Germany invading Norway because Britain had violated Norway’s neutrality as part of Churchill’s scheme to cut off the Swedish iron ore fields:

“The Chiefs of Staff had set March 20 as the date for the Narvik landing and a military advance on the Swedish iron-ore fields. Churchill therefore went ahead with plans to mine Norwegian territorial waters as the preliminary to a landing ...

Confidently, on April 2 Chamberlain declared in a public speech that Hitler had ‘missed the bus’. But as Churchill had forecast in his letter to Halifax, the Germans also had a plan; it was to cast into jeopardy and confusion all that the War Cabinet had so belatedly agreed to do. Indeed, the nature and timing of the German plan were such that, at the very moment on April 8 that British naval forces were laying their mines in the fjord leading to Narvik, German military forces were being transported by sea to six points on the Norwegian coast, including Oslo. On the following morning a German force also landed at Narvik.”

“So, you’ve come out of the closet? So you believe we can take everything Hitler said as true?”

Hitler left behind voluminous writings about foreign policy and records that historians have poured over for years.

It is clear from his reading his own books that Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain and no desire whatsoever to go to war with the British Empire. He also believed in settling accounts with France by ceding Alsace and Lorraine.

There was never any grand plan to go to war with Poland or any of the Western countries. On the contrary, the war in the West came about because of Britain’s declaration of war on Germany - something that Hitler was stunned by and hadn’t anticipated - as he thought it was ludicrous that Britain would go to war over Danzig which was a German city.

“Just so I get you to admit this: If I come up with a quote from Mein Kampf, you will attest that you believe it to be true? Please post that in reply to this post. I will go to the library tomorrow], and find some quotes.”

Feel free to get yourself a copy of Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Zweites Buch. He talks in both books about forming an alliance with England against the Soviet Union.

There is nothing in there about world conquest or conquering the Western Hemisphere or the need to attack the British Empire.

Hitler’s worldview is plainly stated on so many occasions that his agenda is crystal clear: annex the German minorities that had been ceded to the surrounding countries, go to war with the Soviet Union.

The only reason there was a war in the West was because Britain and France went to war over Poland. If they hadn’t declared war on Germany, there never would have been a war in Western Europe or Southern Europe.

“Then you can make a post that say’s, “I WilliamHouston agree with XXXXX, because Hitler said it in Mein Kampf and I cited this book as a reliable source to NickCarraway.”

Are you denying that Hitler wanted to form an alliance with Britain?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.