Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Buchanan Links Decline of West to Gramsci (Review of Death of the West)
www.amazon.com ^ | Ray Olson

Posted on 01/06/2002 3:23:03 PM PST by IM2Phat4U

An interesting review from Amazon.com gives new insight into Pat's new book.:

From Booklist

Maverick presidential candidate Buchanan decries the end of Western civilization portended by declining birth rates, out-of-control immigration, and loss of Christian and Jewish faith in Europe and non-Hispanic North America.

Indeed, the UN estimates on which he bases his first contention, which project large declines in the indigenous populations of Germany, Britain, Italy, Russia, and westernized Japan, in particular, are alarming in terms of the social services required by burgeoning numbers of elderly. Unless trends change, immigration must fuel growth in workforces and, hence, tax bases.

That's happening, so what's the problem? Well, those immigrants come from very different cultures at a time when Western elites discourage Western enculturation.

Buchanan traces those elites' attitudes to "Four Who Made a Revolution," the Marxist theorists Lukacs, Gramsci, Adorno, and Marcuse, who directed a "long march through the institutions" (Gramsci's phrase) of the arts, education, the media, and even the churches.

The Left's power has grown steadily since the 1930s, and now there is a leftist capitalism to go with leftist politics, hence the European Union and the many global free-trade schemes. At this point, Buchanan turns to the U.S and updates his familiar positions on schooling, the quarantining of religion, and the intimidation of opponents of the Left.

In the end, he counsels specific tactics for another Gramscian long march, this time animated by the soul of the West. This is a cry from the heart that hopes not to become a cry from the grave.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: ex-snook
I agree that it was good for the world to have both Russia and Germany shed as much of each others blood as possible.
21 posted on 01/07/2002 7:30:08 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Hitler said "today Germany tomorrow the world" he wanted it all.
22 posted on 01/07/2002 7:31:04 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Hitler said "today Germany tomorrow the world" he wanted it all. Regardless of what he said, Hitler simply did not have the means to attack the United States. If he couldn't launch an invasion accross the English Channel, how in the world was he going to launch an invasion accross the Atlantic Ocean?
23 posted on 01/07/2002 9:25:37 AM PST by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
If he had defeated England Russia and subjugated the rest of Europe he would have the means.
24 posted on 01/07/2002 9:27:37 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: weikel
A. He couldn't even defeat Britian when Britain did not have any allies. Remeber the battle of Britain?

B. A war with Russia would have (and actually did) exhaust Germany to the point where it did not have any offensive capabilities.

C. Germany had no blue watter navy, and after a long campaign against Russia would have no money left to build one.

25 posted on 01/07/2002 10:20:04 AM PST by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
But they did it with American aid.
26 posted on 01/07/2002 10:26:23 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Also the British navy would fall into German hands if Britain was defeated.
27 posted on 01/07/2002 10:29:34 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Also the British navy would fall into German hands if Britain was defeated.

But as I said before, Germany could not defeat Britain when Hitler was at the zenith of his power and the British were all alone, at their nadir of power. True enough, lend-lease indeed helped the Brits win the Battle of Britain, and lend-lease is a policy that Pat praises in his book. It was one of the few things FDR did right. It was also explicitly supported by the vast majority of Americans. Pat explicitly states that the US could not afford to have Germany invade and take over Britain, for the very reason you mentioned.

After the battle of Britain, which took place nearly 2 years before the US entered the war, Germany was no threat to the British Isles.

28 posted on 01/07/2002 12:29:51 PM PST by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Either/Or
Thanks for the link @ #18.
29 posted on 01/09/2002 12:04:57 PM PST by IM2Phat4U
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson