It's evening in America, Buchanan says, and immigrants are to blame (Buchanan interview)

Pat Buchanan is aware that potential readers of his new book already either adore him or disdain everything he writes "because I am the one writing it."

So in The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press, $25.95), the ex-presidential candidate and conservative pundit is trying to back up his apocalyptic projections with facts and figures provided by such disparate sources as "Russian leader Mr. Putin, a British archbishop and the United Nations. By drawing on what anyone would have to consider neutral sources, this makes my message far more powerful."

Low birthrates are decimating the population of almost every European country - by 2050, only one-tenth of the world's population (America included) will be of European descent.

The unchecked influx of immigrants into America, legal and otherwise, is gradually handing the nation over to insurgents who come to force their foreign values on us rather than accepting ours.

Political correctness on the part of unwitting Americans plays into the hands of those who intend to obliterate our culture.

The events of Sept. 11 may provide enough of a wake-up call, Buchanan says, to make "the death of the West" only a threat rather than a certainty.

"The book is about a point I've been making for a long time, that the West is dying," Buchanan says during a lengthy phone conversation. "If we don't change how we do things, we'll be gone by the middle of this century, if not before. The horror of Sept. 11, I think, awoke a lot of Americans to new realities. It's a healthy thing to remember there are people out there who want to destroy us."

In Buchanan's opinion, it took terrorist attacks on New York City and the Washington, D.C., area to drive that message home to an American public more intent on hedonism than heroism.

"The '90s were a time of prosperity I've likened to the 1920s," Buchanan says. "The '20s were about money, drinking, jazz. The '90s were money, drugs, rock. The '20s ended with the stock market crash, the Depression, then on to Hitler, Tojo, Stalin. The 1990s ended on Sept. 11. We're at the kind of place Walter Lippmann called 'a plastic moment,' a time when people can change their destiny. I hope this book helps that. I'm not so much predicting these awful things will happen as saying, 'This is what the end is if the numbers remain the same.' "

Not that he holds much hope: "To many American young people, people like me belong to a bad old era. They've been taught that in school, indoctrinated in it. They want to say goodbye to the way our generation did things. This is why I don't think much will be done about the problems we face."

Buchanan acknowledges he's saying things that most Americans would prefer not to hear and that many condemn as racist and inflammatory.

"My response is that it's too late in the day for political correctness," he says. "After Sept. 11, with those acts perpetrated by people we literally welcomed into this country, Americans ought to be aware there is such a thing as too much diversity, too much welcoming. Look: I've said that if you bring 100 Zulu tribesmen into Virginia and 1 million British, the British would be assimilated more comfortably. I base that on those British coming into an American culture based on English law and tradition. And when I said that, something that seems like a simple statement, I've been accused of racism."

Now, Buchanan says, "I could substitute Iranians or Saudis for the Zulu, and people might understand." And, he adds, originally citing the Zulus was in no way racist "because I'm friends with the Zulu ruler. It's just a matter of acknowledging the differences in culture."

Potential immigrants should be judged by one measure, Buchanan adds: "Are they likely to carry on our culture, which makes America a unique country and civilization? Or are they not?"

Population explosions in Islamic, African and Latin American nations are coinciding with a decline in the U.S. birthrate, Buchanan notes, citing U.N. studies. To bolster "American cultural" numbers, Buchanan concludes in The Death of the West, American women should be encouraged via tax breaks to increase the country's population: "A free society cannot force women to have children, but a healthy society can reward those who preserve it by doing so."

Though he doesn't broach the subject in The Death of the West, in conversation Buchanan is willing to also discuss his own future.

"Politically speaking, I ran two times for the Republican nomination," he says. "We came close in '96, and we'd have gotten it instead of [Bob] Dole with one more primary win. In 2000, we tried to create a new party. It didn't work. So my political career is probably over."

"I've done my best to say the things I thought necessary, and I intend to keep writing books and to keep speaking out," he says. "I love doing it. I hope the Lord gives me 25 more years. If people don't like me or my message, well, that's not my concern. Political correctness is almost an impenetrable shield of basic realities."

Which is, that one person should not be forced to subsidize the family of another.

One person is not forced to subsidize the family of another with the others money. There really is a difference between a subsidy and lower taxes. Families are not mere behavior anymore than education is mere behavior. Both are in the countries best interest.

Ohh and you are expected to subsidize education arent you?

People either will or will not have more children (probably not, as all experience has shown that populations stabilize once the economy rises sufficiently far above the hand-to-mouth level).

In Germany it's sophistication, lack of lebenraum. In America it's taxation, sophistication, couples forced into the labor market, Hillary Rosie and Barbara, family planning kooks et am neuseum.

In Afganistan it's Islam, dominate men, polygomy and unsophistication. In Russia a dooms day complex caused by 70 yrs of communism, lack of justice and opportunity, atheism. In China it's compulsary abortion and sterilization.

All this is caused by those in power over our institutions and government, and it can be changed! Pat is right again in bringing up this important subject.

You can't write it off with psycholbabble.

35 years or so ago, our government decided that we needed greater population to make our country economically viable. Instead of giving the people already here real incentives to have more kids, they started their immigration campaign, spending the 'tax break' money on 'English as a second language' instead.

This comes 'round full circle to what Pat is talking about. The white population is on the decline since we all went after the 'American Dream' and wanted a couple of kids that we could afford, rather than 6 or 8 that we couldn't feed.

One person is not forced to subsidize the family of another with the others money.

Since we agree that tax cuts should go equally to all who pay $X of taxes, regardless of children or other social-engineering statistics, what's the problem?

There really is a difference between a subsidy and lower taxes.

Lower taxes across the board does not constitute a subsidy. Lower taxes for selected persons does constitute a subsidy.

You have not offered up an iota of evidence that a government subsidy (other than an astronomically high one), would have a material impact on the middle class birthrate. Germany has such a subsidy I think. It has been a massive flop. And lack of room in Germany is a silly concept in an economy that is almost entirely industrial and post industrial rather than agricultural.

In fact, every nation on this planet with a high per capita income (other than one associated with extracting oil from the ground), has a low birth rate, and most with middle of the road per capita incomes are joining the club. The correlation between per capita income levels and birth rates is very, very high. With respect to most other factors, it is very, very low.

"What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don't want Negroes around. We don't need Negroes around. We're not asking you know, we don't want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That's in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation...." --David Duke, March 1985

Sound familiar?

Sorry, that's your job. You made the allegation. Now prove it.

There is nothing to prove. There is only well established and documented historical fact.

If you can prove you are interested I will consider reading it to you.

When immigrants become citizens they must take a test that is very detailed about out history and government

Hmmm, I wonder if the mass naturalization candidates during the Clinton administration took those "detailed" tests of "up to 20" multiple-choice questions. Or maybe they "verbally answered" "a set of civic questions." (Check out the INS site: if you study the colors of the American flag, you'll probably pass.) There are also language waivers for at least 3 different situations.

True, children of long-time citizens know far less about American history than their parents were taught, but is that not the result of our school systems' concentration on "multiculturalism," which is in turn foisted upon us by the massive influx of foreigners?

In that context, differences based on special privilege are anathema to justice.

Mothering is a special privilege? Granted by who?

Do you feel that the state view that children have a right to eduction is an anathema to justice?

Isnt public education just state mothering where you end up having to pay for other people's families?

But an actual mother and her familiy doesnt have a right to their own money that they earn? You would rather wait for the state to take care of the problems.

There really is a difference between a subsidy and lower taxes. Families are not mere behavior anymore than education is mere behavior.

Lower taxes for everyone is one thing. Lower taxes based on your status in life will get you a lot of deaf ears on FR.

Both are in the countries best interest.

This statement has been used over the years to justify a crippling number of government programs, entitlements, and special benefits, resulting in the confiscation of 40% of a household's income. THAT is NOT is our country's best interest.

Ohh and you are expected to subsidize education arent you?

Where in the constitution does it say I must pay for the education of others? If you cannot afford to educate your children, you should think twice about having them, rather than insist you have a claim on the income of others.

I do not expect people to agree with me completely. But the types of comments I see reveal that these people aren't even seriously pondering the ramifications of the policies they support. For all it's positives, FreeRepublic has been the vehicle for demonstrating to me just how deeply in trouble this nation is.

George Bush was barely elected last year despite running against the likes of Gore, and the remnants of the Clinton White House, most of which Gore would have retained. Despite this, and the decine of our nation at a rate that closely parallels the influx of massive amounts of foreign immigrants, legal and illegal, nobody is able to fathom that 1+1=2.

Whew! Is our nation in a world of hurt or what?

But, if there weren't so many non-whites around here, it wouldn't be that much of a problem. White young people would marry each other because there would be no other choice.

So now whites marrying non-whites is a big problem, for you?

How Aryan.

Sure, immigrants are assimilating. But they're not assimilating to the self-confident America of Teddy Roosevelt, when we had a President who could denounce "hyphenated Americanism." And they're not assimilating to the self-confident America of Calvin Coolidge, who could announce, when signing a bill restricting immigration, "America must remain American." And they're not assimilating to the self-confident America of Pres. Eisenhower, who could deport illegals en masse in "Operation Wetback."

Instead, they're assimilating to an America filled with muslticulturalism, political correctness, and government largesse, which is why immigrants are MORE likely to vote for liberals than native-born Americans (according to the 2000 election returns) and MORE likely to receive government handouts than native-born Americans (according to economist George Borjas). And this change in the culture helps explain why Hispanics and Asians are beginning to form all sorts of special interest groups, modelled after the NAACP and the like, to lobby for more goodies and discrimination against white people, which is politely referred to as "affirmative action." These changes alone make mass immigration undesirable.

And that's leaving aside the immigrants coming here with unassimilable and anti-American ideas, such as the immigrants who gave us Septmber 11. (Those immigrants, by the way, confirmed the neocon argument that immigrants are doing jobs Americans don't want: not many Americans want to fly airliners into skyscrapers)

As I stated on an earlier thread the fact is that even if we totally cut off immigration we would still become a nations of mutts eventually. If people share the same country they will eventually intermix. This is a fact of nature.

Those wishing to have an America with an ethnically "pure" majority, be it of any race, are doomed to fail.

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.