Posted on 01/03/2002 7:56:52 AM PST by sinkspur
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."
The gist of The Death of the West's messages:
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."
But Buchanan has no intention of abandoning public debate.
"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."
For education and discussion purposes only.
I'm curious for those who believe the above, how many of you are accepting the credit for childcare expenses? And do you not find a conflict with saying the above and accepting, perhaps eagerly, the childcare expense credit(?)?
I of course agree with you that families should not be subsidized by other families and it's why things like the childcare expense credit should be eliminated for starters in favor of a tax reduction for both working and sah parents alike and those with children and the childfree alike ie everyone. And don't even get me started on public education--LOL.
On this side of the pond, dear Ivan, we the people are the government. So the answer to your question is the American people decide.
Sounds rather like the socialists saying that the government is the extension of "the will of the people" and therefore it is the only body competent enough to make economic and social decisions. But at rate, to suggest that the government is a direct expression of the will of the people, rather than an interest group in and of itself is laughable - was it the "will of the people" to raid Waco, snatch Elian or impose income tax on themselves? Get real, the government is often the problem, as Ronald Reagan clearly stated.
Having demolished that nonsense, let's see what we find....
Question 2: How will this "Americaness" (sic) be determined? You can be born in America, speak English as a native tongue and have an American passport yet be on "the other side" - witness Berkeley.
Since I and countless others believe that America has a rich and unique culture, those ‘on the other side’ are Americans in name only. I’m quite certain Sir Winston would have considered them for some eugenics study had they been British during the London blitz...
Doesn't answer the question. Comrade Pat wants to save a culture by encourage the birthrate of those who are "culturally acceptable". How is this determined? What mechanism is used to discern who is and who isn't? You have totally failed to answer this and instead retreat to your usual line of anti-British propaganda. Maybe your fellow Patsies are stupid enough to buy this but no one else will be.
Question 3: What happened to the idea that the government should not play a role in social engineering? It didn't work when the leftists tried it, why should Pat be any more successful?
Since when is the acknowledgement and acceptance of our American culture ‘social engineering’?
Mindless platitudes. You haven't identified the mechanism that is going to sort out the "culturally acceptable" Americans from those who are not, you have basically just said that the government, which did such a bang up job in determining which Cuban refugees should be shot up with happy juice and deported, is going to be administering this process, and finally now you're running away from the fact that the government tinkering with society like this is indeed social engineering.
Your answers may cut it with the Sinn Fein IRA admiration society after a few pints but not here. Try again.
Ivan
As Nietzsche put it, the end (purpose) of history can only be seen in its highest exemplars.
My question, “On this side of the pond, dear Ivan, we the people are the government.”
Your answer, “Sounds rather like the socialists saying that the government is the extension of "the will of the people"
My question was based on the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Please allow me to introduce it to you,
RE: “Comrade Pat wants to save a culture by encourage the birthrate of those who are "culturally acceptable".
Please cite the page number for your assumption.
RE: “Mindless platitudes. You haven't identified the mechanism that is going to sort out the "culturally acceptable" Americans from those who are not.”
You want a mechanism? How about a well functioning INS? We can start the weeding out process with that British bastard with the exploding sneakers. Then we can jump to that lousy Frenchman currently in custody, known here as the 20th hijacker. From there we can work our way to sealing our borders and shipping every illegal alien back to whatever third world hell they came from...
Buchanan refers to these types of people as DINKS, (Double Income, No Kids).
Yes, I know. School choice is definately part of the solutuion. The NEA is definately part of the problem.
If the founders did not believe in anything there would not be an America because there would be nothing to fight for.
RE: 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."
Butt, butt,,,dear Ivan,,,,American women are already encouraged via tax breaks to have children. Don’t believe me? Grab an IRS Form 1040 and read it. The deduction for children is quite clear. Economics 101 taught my that tax incentivies increase wanted behavior. Perhaps your study of Riccardo and Smith were deficient, eh?
So, Buchanan wants to increase this deduction and limit it to Americans? Sounds very Republican to me. What a dreadful man this Buchanan...
RE: "American cultural" is in quotes from Buchanan's book. I even put it in bold for you.
So what’s your point. There IS an American culture. You agree, right?
RE: Jump 200 years later and dear Ronald Reagan is standing on the steps of the Capitol saying "Government is the problem". Furthermore, this document does not state that the government is the a reflection of the will of the people at all times and occasions.Herr Ivan:
Reagan was partially wrong. He should have said, “Government is the problem because we have allowed government to become the problem.” And it is this troubling "We the people" American concept of government that flies clean over your powered wig. Americans have allowed pigs like your eugenic adoring Churchill and the Fabian twit Blair to use our government (ie, our military) as a modern day version of your Hessians.
It is on this point that your knickers get knotted....
RE: “Same INS that shipped Elian back, I see. Or were you in favour of handing him back into the hands of Fidel?”
I did say a well functioning INS, correct. That would mean Elian would have remained in America, and Reid, the British Sneaker Bomber, would, this very minute, be shark bait...
Regards,
- Tull
People cant afford their families BECAUSE of taxes!
Children have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for which they may not be able to attend to themselves being children. If assuring the education of children is not in the general welfare of the country then nothing is.
Funny how a uniform tax break for mothers is wrong but illegal immigrants going straight for welfare is ok and would be racist to complain about.
It was the belief that all men should be free from a tyranical government that unified the colonies to stand up against the English.
If the founders did not believe in anything there would not be an America because there would be nothing to fight for.
Basically true (though very oversimplified). I see you're starting to get over your obcession with skin color. Now let me ask you, where did these "ideals" come from, and why are they to be found only among the people of one particular civilization?
LOL, where were you?!
Don't kid yourself. The only thing the left ever cared about was increasing its own power, a task accomplished by increasing the numbers of poor people in this country through immigration. Leftists in government have always been pro-immigration. Immigration restrictionist movements have always come from the right. This was true at the turn of the century, and it is true now.
The only exception to the above rule were among the grass-roots of the left, i.e. those people actually living and working among the poor. However, the leadership of the left has always been violently pro mass immigration.
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.