Liberalism, 13

Post-war liberalism

The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and several proxy wars, but the widely feared Third World War between the Soviet Union and the United States never occurred. While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, an economic crisis in the 1970s inspired a move away from Keynesian economics, especially under Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US.

President_Reagan_1981This classical liberal renewal, called pejoratively “neoliberalism” by its opponents, lasted through the 1980s and the 1990s, although the Great Recession prompted a resurgence in Keynesian economic thought recently. Meanwhile, nearing the end of the 20th century, communist states in Eastern Europe collapsed precipitously, leaving liberal democracies as the only major forms of government in the West.

At the beginning of the Second World War, the number of democracies around the world was about the same as it had been forty years before. After 1945, liberal democracies spread very quickly, but then retreated. In The Spirit of Democracy Larry Diamond argues that by 1974, “dictatorship, not democracy, was the way of the world,” and that “barely a quarter of independent states chose their governments through competitive, free, and fair elections.” Diamond goes on to say that democracy bounced back and by 1995 the world was “predominantly democratic.”

Liberalism still faces challenges, especially with the phenomenal growth of China as a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism.

Published in: on September 8, 2015 at 4:12 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Unbelievable!

I have just watched this unbelievable American Renaissance 2015 debate and still cannot believe my ears! John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow saying that political reform may save us; that we need a second Reagan—and this is the gem of the debate: that the Jews will “wake up” and be on our side to save the white race?

pathetic_speakers

(Listen what Ann Coulter told Hannity yesterday about her brand new book.) Even the other guys—Sam Dickson, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and apparently the audience itself—are far closer to the white conservatives I’ve been watching on Fox News than real Aryan advocates like the Nazis, Rockwell, Pierce and presently neonazis like Linder.

Finally I am starting to comprehend why the best novel that has ever been written in the US, The Turner Diaries, is not the huge bestseller among American racialists it deserves to be: racial conservatives are really retarded beyond repair!

My prediction: All sort of conservative types must die in order that real Aryan advocacy may be born…

Jewish-controlled media – Why?

The blogger Armor linked the below article by William Pierce in the previous thread but the question remains: How on Earth could whites handed over no less than their culture-creating medium to an alien tribe?

For goodness sake!: Why? I for one blame the latest phase of Western Christian civilization for such treachery (see The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

Pierce said:


JEW-TOP-MANAGEMENT1

There are so many things worthy of comment today that it’s difficult to make a choice.

Certainly, one of the more significant things is the world’s reaction—or lack of reaction—to the election of Ariel Sharon to be Israel’s prime minister, as soon as he can put together a government. Do you remember the reaction of the mass media, the politicians, the leaders of the Christian churches, and all the rest of the big shots when Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party won enough parliamentary seats in the Austrian elections a little over a year ago to have a role in the Austrian government? Some countries recalled their ambassadors. Politicians around the world were shaking their fingers at Austria and announcing that they would not tolerate Haider’s participation in the Austrian government. Trade embargoes against Austria were threatened. And the reason? Haider had broken some taboos by making statements the Jews didn’t like. He had said that there had been many decent people fighting on the German side during the Second World War, including people in the SS. He had said that some of Hitler’s economic policies in the 1930s had made good sense. And he had called for a cutoff of immigration into Austria.

Now, Haider is not made of very stern stuff, and when he was criticized for his statements, he apologized and back-pedaled. But his apologies had not been enough, and the electoral success of his party resulted in a continuous barrage of sensationalistic media attacks against him and the ostracism of Austria by everyone who stepped to the music of a Jewish drummer.

So now Ariel Sharon is set to become the prime minister of Israel. Sharon is the man who, as Israel’s minister of defense in September 1982, during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, made the arrangements for the slaughter of more than 3,000 Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps just outside Beirut. The Palestinian fighters had evacuated the camps, leaving their women and children behind, after being assured by the U.S. government of Ronald Reagan that their families would be safe. As the Jews moved in, radio communications among Israeli military commanders were monitored in which they talked about carrying out “purging operations” in the refugee camps. Then the Jews surrounded the camps with their tanks so no one could escape and sent in the butchers. For two days they kept the camps sealed while the slaughter went on. They kept the camps illuminated with flares at night to assist the murder squads. That was Ariel Sharon’s work: more than 3,000 murdered women and children, murdered in a characteristically Jewish way after tricking the men into leaving their families unarmed and defenseless.

But the massacre of refugees in Sabra and Shatila that gave Sharon the nickname “Butcher of Beirut” wasn’t his only work. Long before 1982, when Sharon was an Israeli army general, he was notorious for the atrocities he and his troops committed. He liked nothing better than to sneak into an undefended Jordanian village at night with his soldiers and go on a throat-cutting rampage. After the reaction to his butchery in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, Sharon was obliged to resign as defense minister and leave politics for a while. But when he decided to run for prime minister last year, he prepared the way by deliberately provoking the violence and killing that have been so much in the news in recent months. At a moment when things were already extremely tense, he marched up to Jerusalem’s TempleMount with a large contingent of armed bodyguards who chased away Moslem worshippers and caused outrage among Palestinians. This outrage predictably erupted into stone throwing by Palestinian children and the shooting of Palestinian civilians by Jewish soldiers. Barak couldn’t restore order, and so Sharon beat him in last week’s election and won the chance to become prime minister in his place.

And where is the outrage among the politicians who were wagging their fingers at Jörg Haider a little over a year ago? Where are the sensational media stories about Sharon’s criminal history? Why are the church leaders who condemned Haider’s “immoral” statements now silent? Who is threatening to recall an ambassador from Israel or to cut off trade with Israel?

This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Israel’s atrocious behavior but about the hypocrisy and utter dishonesty that characterize virtually all of those outside Israel who occupy positions of power and influence. And it also is a lesson about the nature of our mass media, a lesson about the motivations of the men who control the media. The conventional wisdom is that the media are liberal, that the men who determine their policies are liberals, leftists. But that isn’t so. The truth of the matter is that the media are not liberal: they are Jewish. The men who control them are not liberals: they are Jews. And that is why the media reacted the way they did to Haider’s electoral success in Austria and to Sharon’s success in Israel. Understand? If you believe that you have any other explanation for their behavior, tell me about it.

Well, I could talk all day about this subject—about the absolutely fundamental problem for the whole world that this Jewish control of the media is—but let’s talk about some other things today. There have been lots of new Black-on-White crimes that the media bosses have decided that you don’t need to hear about. An unfortunately high percentage of these crimes have been against young White women. In Little Rock, Arkansas, for example, a serial rapist has raped at least eight White women at gunpoint during the past five weeks. I say “at least eight” because eight victims so far have come forward and given matching descriptions of the Black rapist to police. I have no idea how many other women have been too afraid or too embarrassed to go to the police or simply are unable to give an adequate description. Anyway, we have a Black rapist on the loose in Little Rock who has brutally raped at gunpoint at least eight White women in the last five weeks, and it’s not news outside of Little Rock.

Three months ago, back in November of last year, I told you about the disappearance of Lucie Blackman in Tokyo. Lucie was an exceptionally attractive 21-year-old English girl—a tall, slender, blue-eyed blonde—who went to Japan as a tourist and ended up working as a “hostess” in an exclusive Japanese businessmen’s club. And then she disappeared. In November I told you that although no trace of her had yet been found, Lucie almost certainly had been drugged, raped, and murdered by a Japanese real estate tycoon, Joji Obara, with whom she had been seen leaving the club. Obara liked tall, blonde girls and already had raped a number of them and gotten away with it. Well, now Lucie has been found. That is, her head, her torso, and her hands have been found embedded in a concrete block a little over 200 yards from Obara’s waterfront luxury apartment. It’s big news in Japan, but I’ll bet you hadn’t heard about it. I mean, what a story! Tall, beautiful English girl, wealthy father, predatory Japanese rapist who is a business tycoon, girl’s dismembered body discovered in concrete block near tycoon’s apartment, and it isn’t news in America!

Listen, this is another subject I could spend all day talking about. I have detailed reports on my desk right now of half a dozen other cases of White women raped or murdered or both by Blacks here in the United States in the past few weeks, and the news has been covered up except in the immediate areas where the crimes took place. I believe that it’s worthwhile continuing to talk about these crimes even after I’ve made my point because there always are new listeners who need to be convinced.

After I reported on the mass rape and murder of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by two Blacks a few weeks ago, I had a number of new listeners write to tell me that they hadn’t believed me when they heard my broadcast, so they had checked it out themselves and were astounded to find out that it was true. They hadn’t thought it possible that anything so horrendous could be or would be covered up. They hadn’t believed that any responsible person—the news director for any national news medium, for example—would want to cover up such a thing. I believe that every time I talk about something like the Wichita massacre I help a few more people discover just how serious a problem we’re facing.

And certainly it’s a serious problem when the people who control the national media deliberately distort the news, suppressing some news and exaggerating other news, in order to mislead public opinion. That is a serious problem. But I’m afraid that often I am guilty of not probing the nature of the problem deeply enough. I’ll give you an example. Members of my organization, the National Alliance, have been distributing some of our publications in Little Rock recently, calling attention to the rising incidence of Black crime against White people. This is a bit of a sensitive issue in Little Rock at the moment because of the series of Black-on-White rapes there I mentioned a minute ago, and while the consciousness of the White citizens of Little Rock is up a bit, we are seizing the opportunity to provide some information to them to which they otherwise might not be as receptive.

Well, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that a majority of the White citizens of Little Rock—and every other city in the United States—are not receptive to any information or idea that is Politically Incorrect, no matter how atrocious the situation. They will cling to Political Correctness like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. They will think what they are told to think and say what they are told to say by Authority. They are lemmings.

After one of our distributions in Little Rock a couple of days ago I received a letter from a lemming there. He began his letter:

Get out of Little Rock! The last thing this city needs is a bunch of ignorant, shortsighted, ill-bred bigots tainting the rest of us with hate. I was disgusted when I saw hundreds of your organization’s pamphlets littering the driveways of normal, decent people here. Et cetera.

He went on to tell me in a prissy, self-righteous way that he is a White conservative who always votes Republican. He also said, however:

Give up your dream of a White nation. It is not going to happen, and it shouldn’t. The world is a diverse place, and it is the better for it.

That, of course, is the party line of both the Democrats and the Republicans, with perhaps a barely detectable difference in emphasis. “Diversity is good. More diversity is better” is the Politically Correct party line. The lemmings believe it because they have heard it directly from their TV. Their favorite sports stars and Hollywood celebrities say the same thing. Al Gore and George Bush say that they believe it, and, by golly, so does every lemming. And the lemmings never heard either Al Gore or George Bush say a bad word about Black rapists who prey on White women. Their TV never has told them anything about Black rapists.

Undoubtedly they are against rape—at least, the respectable, Republican lemmings are. Presumably, the lemmings who have voted for Bill Clinton in the past can’t be very much against rape. But even the Republican lemmings will suddenly have very mixed feelings when the racial aspect of rape is raised. They know that it’s okay for them to be against rape. But it’s not okay to talk about or even think about Blacks raping White women. That hints of not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the wonderful diversity that has been growing like a rapidly metastasizing cancer in our society for the past 40 years or so. The Correct party line is that diversity is all good; there must be no reservations about that: nothing that questions the goodness of diversity.

I mean, just imagine where talking or even thinking about Blacks raping White women might lead. One might think back to a time where Blacks raping White women was virtually unheard of, because, for one thing, Blacks weren’t permitted to hang around White neighborhoods, and for another thing, for a Black to lay a hand on a White woman meant certain death. One might then begin thinking about how and why such a big change has come about over the past 40 years. One might begin thinking about the relationship between the increase in diversity and the increase in the incidence of Blacks raping White women. Oooh! Very Incorrect thinking!

It’s easy to see why the Republican lemming who wrote to me from Little Rock is upset. He is afraid that if I and other National Alliance members talk about the racial aspects of rape in Little Rock it will, to use his words, “taint the rest of us with hate.” Which is to say, that if National Alliance members in Little Rock make a big enough fuss about Blacks raping White women there, and people in Little Rock start thinking about it and talking about it, people in other parts of the country may suspect that the folks in Little Rock are “tainted with hate.” They will suspect that the Republican lemmings of Little Rock aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about increasing diversity there. I believe that, unfortunately, the Republican lemming who wrote to me is more concerned about that than he is about stopping the rape of White women by Blacks.

Ten years ago I used to think that the way to straighten out the thinking of Republican lemmings was to hit them up alongside the head with a piece of two-by-four or with a sturdy, oak table leg. Then as I learned more about lemmings I realized that wasn’t really necessary. Trauma and privation certainly aren’t bad things when people need to be reoriented, but what is far more effective is simply to change their authority figures. Lemmings don’t need to have their thinking straightened out with a piece of two-by-four, because in a very important sense of the word they don’t think.

The Republican lemming who wrote to me didn’t look at the evidence, think about it, and then come to the conclusion all by himself that more diversity is better. That’s what his TV told him, and he’s just parroting it back. Lemmings no more think about what they’re saying than talking parrots do. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re stupid. This Little Rock Republican may be able to program his own VCR and figure out his income taxes all by himself, but when it comes to the question of Political Correctness, he does not think. It’s a conditioned reflex.

I’ve talked with you before about this lemming phenomenon, but it’s an extremely important idea, and it leads to some very important practical conclusions, so I want now to run quickly through the idea once again. First, in the struggle for racial survival in which we are now engaged perception is extremely important. It is essential for people to believe that our struggle can be won. Many people who should be working with me or actively supporting me look at all of the people parroting back what they hear on TV, and they compare that 96 or 97 or 98 per cent of the White population with the very small number of people who are willing to speak out against Sumner Redstone’s plan for a more diverse America, and they are discouraged. They conclude that it’s hopeless, that the odds against us are too great, that the forces of lemminghood are too strong. And so they give up. They won’t fight back.

But you know, that’s the wrong way to look at the struggle. It’s not us versus the lemmings. It’s us versus the people who tell the lemmings what to think. And that’s a very important distinction. I’m reminded of something I saw as a small boy. It’s the scene in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and her friends discover that the seemingly all-powerful wizard is not so powerful after all without his illusions and special effects. The Jews are primarily illusionists. They work behind their television screen to create the illusion that everyone agrees with their poisonous ideas and is happy with the way Jews are pushing things: the illusion, for example, that every “normal, decent” person is happy with the trend toward more and more “diversity.” But pull the plug on their television, so that the illusions no longer appear on their screen, and one finds them not so formidable a force after all. And the lemmings, without being told what to think, can only mill around in confusion.

Which is not to say that the lemmings in their mindless millions are not dangerous and can be ignored. The point is that we don’t have to convert the lemmings. We don’t have to persuade them. We just need to whip the illusion-masters. Then the lemmings can be turned 180 degrees in a matter of weeks. The same lemmings who now call for more diversity—and really believe what they are saying—will be calling for racial cleansing and a homogeneous White America—and really will believe what they will say, when the mass media have been taken away from the Jews and returned to the control of our own people.

And that is why I emphasize over and over on these broadcasts the importance of being able to communicate with our people, the importance of breaking the Jewish monopoly control on the dissemination of information and ideas and images and illusions. The key to the survival of our people—the key to returning our people to moral and spiritual and racial health, the key to salvaging what is left of our civilization and our culture and restoring them to health and progress—is, first, to be able to compete effectively with the Jews in communicating with the non-lemming two or three or four per cent of the population able to think for themselves; and then to smash the Jews’ grip on the media with which they control the thinking of the lemmings.

That certainly is not an easy task—but it’s a much more feasible task than trying to make the lemmings think for themselves, and it is more feasible than trying to convert the lemmings while the Jews are still in control of their machinery of illusion. So what we do now is continue to build our own media—continue to gain more listeners every week to these broadcasts; continue to build our ability to disseminate leaflets wherever they may reach anyone with an open mind; continue to make books and other printed material and audio material and video material available to people seeking the truth—and to do this faster than the Jews can move forward with their efforts to ban the First and Second Amendments, thereby outlawing their competition and assuring the perpetuation of their monopoly control of the minds of the lemmings.

We’ll talk more about this in later broadcasts, because it is by far the most important task for the survival of our people.

________________________

Originally a broadcast, “Sharon, Rape, and the Wizard of Oz” was eventually published in Free Speech – February 2001 – Volume VII, Number 2.

Most Americans will have trouble feeding themselves

The below essay, “US, SU: Same Scenario?” is the thirteenth essay of Michael O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, available from Counter-Currents Publishing here.





Book review
of Dmitry Orlov’s

Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2008)


Despairing of my people’s passivity, I have often thought the collapse of the United States might be the one thing to turn them against the system that seeks their destruction.

This “catastrophist” perspective is, admittedly, a strategy of desperation. For collapse (what Joseph Tainter calls a “recurrent feature of human societies”) may delegitimize the existing system and make whites more receptive to their racial/national interests, but, in a worst case scenario, it could pose problems even more threatening than those of the last 60 years.

The literature of collapse is consequently of the utmost relevance, especially now that the “American Century” seems to be nearing its inglorious end.

Of the numerous works on fallen civilizations, perhaps the most pertinent are, for obvious reasons, those related to the Soviet collapse of 1991. Hence the propitiousness of Orlov’s recently published work.

A computer engineer by training, Orlov and his Russian Jewish family emigrated to the US in the 1970s. He has since maintained ties with the land of his birth, having returned during those periods leading up to, traversing, and following the Soviet collapse. Writing from a radical ecological perspective critical of industrial civilization (which he implicitly—Hebraically?—associates with white civilization), Orlov suggests what collapse entailed in the SU and why the US is no less a candidate.

His book, though, is no work of scholarship.

“I am not,” he writes, “an expert or a scholar or an activist. I am more of an eyewitness. I watched the Soviet Union collapse and this has given me the necessary insight to describe what the American collapse will look like” (p. vii).

He accordingly spends little time sketching the big picture—the structural forces driving the collapse—and, instead, concentrates on its “micro-scale” processes and experiences. This makes his book a “personal” work, without claim to scientific authority, but nevertheless one that is very readable and informed by the all-important “human” dimension of collapse.

Despite their different methods and styles, Orlov sees the two 20th-century superpowers as “antipodes” of the same techno-economic civilization committed to social management, economic growth, material accumulation, world domination, and the realization of the Enlightenment vision of a totally rationalized world.

As such, Orlov argues that the US and the SU both sought a better life through science, approaching every human problem in terms of a technical fix. They both were militaristic, imperialistic powers who, through direct or proxy wars, made a mess of the international arena and, though Orlov doesn’t mention it, introduced reforms in the Third World that has caused it to grow out of control; they both devoted endless fanfare to celebrating their democratic, egalitarian institutions, however fraudulent; both assaulted popular beliefs and values in the name of a higher rationality, discouraged traditional social relationships, created meaningless, uncreative forms of work, exalted materialist values over others, repressed dissent, recruited corrupt, venal elites—and, most seriously, cared little or nothing about the white, or European, race, though Orlov doesn’t actually think this. It might be added, and this too isn’t in Orlov, that the US and the SU both were social experiments that favored Jews, making them, and their values, dominant.

The list of similarities goes on. But the basic point—that the US and the SU were techno-economic civilizations devoted to roughly analogous worldviews at odds with nature and the nature of ourselves—seems rather indisputable. As such, one civilizational model collapsed, and the other, for roughly similar reasons, now faces the prospect of a similar collapse.

Orlov gives no credence to the Reaganesque bombast that the United States defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. He argues that its collapse had little to do with ideology and even less with American influence. Instead, he attributes it to the SU’s “chronic underperforming economy, coupled with record levels of military expenditure, trade deficit and foreign debt” (p. 8). These economic problems made it increasingly difficult for “average Russians” to get by.

When Soviet reformers under Mikhail Gorbachev at last attempted to fix the centrally-planned stagnation, they couldn’t. This failure, combined with military humiliation in Afghanistan and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, so discredited the Soviet state that it imploded.

Given that Orlov’s book appeared before the US financial meltdown of September 2008, it looks mainly at those structural weaknesses in the US economy that most resemble those of the former SU—rather than at that institutionalized system of fraud responsible for pulling off one of the great historical swindles.

Stressing the inherent flaws in the US economy and noting that it has taken a couple of decades for the US to catch up to the SU, he suggests that the US may soon face a similar fate.

Like many ecologists, he rejects the facile conviction that modern society is exempt from the rise-and-fall cycles characteristic of pre-industrial societies or that present rates of economic and population growth can continue indefinitely.

The United States, he sees, is especially vulnerable to collapse, due to the petroleum basis of its economy. He points out that the US, with its “energy-intensive model of empire,” is more dependent on cheap oil than any other industrial economy, that its crude oil production “peaked” in 1970, and that three-quarters of its energy is now imported.

Any rise in oil prices will consequently be paid for in declining economic growth and higher food prices (agriculture being petroleum-intensive). Once the era of cheap energy comes to an end (sometime supposedly past its peak), world economies will be forced to undergo changes as significant as those that accompanied the onset of industrialization. This will lead to further decline and ultimately to collapse—which Orlov, citing the archdruid John Michael Greer, defines as that condition whereby “production fails to meet maintenance requirements for existing capital” (p. 2). That is, when the declining economic system starts “consuming” its infrastructure (cannibalizing itself, in effect) to compensate for declining incomes, it will simply hasten the inevitability of its demise.

But however central, energy is only one of the problems that Orlov, peak-oilist that he is, considers.

Because the US has outsourced most of its manufacture overseas, no longer produces the high technology on which it depends, and relies on imports for most of its basic needs, it has incurred an enormous trade imbalance, sustained by massive borrowing in foreign money markets. (For different reasons the SU acquired massive trade imbalances and debt in the 1980s.)

The problems created by America’s increased energy costs and the financialization of its economy have been compounded by a runaway military budget, a debt pyramid that grows at an exponential rate, and the decline of its overseas empire and “tribute economy.” Combined with imperial disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, a growing international reputation for incompetence and corruption, violent changes in weather patterns (which produce killer hurricanes, like Katrina, having a system-disrupting potential), and the impending breakdown of neglected infrastructure (bridges, levees, poisoned water tables, etc.), these factors suggest that the US might eventually follow the SU into the dustbin of history.

The federal government and “the self-enriching political elites” that feed off it have, moreover, a vested interest in “perpetual growth” and imperial overreach, which means they can’t be expected to do anything constructive to stave off the impending collapse. As the economy begins to decline, tax revenues too will decline and public debt grow.

The only solution the elites have come up with to address the state’s impending fiscal crisis, thus far, is to crank up the printing presses and introduce more worthless paper into the market.

Orlov’s explanation of the Soviet failure and his prediction of an impending American collapse, given the impressionistic nature of his work, should, of course, be taken as merely suggestive, though economic contraction, declining energy availability, and increased political turmoil already loom on the horizon.

His work, moreover, is short on the specifics of collapse, he neglects any consideration of collapse as a “political process,” and he ignores important questions as to how and in what manner collapse occurred (in the SU) and will occur (in the US). It’s also not evident if an American economic collapse will mirror the suddenness of the Soviet collapse (which was historically unprecedented) or if, like more traditional cases, it will be stretched out over decades.

Qualitatively more persuasive, though, is Orlov’s claim that the Soviet Union was better situated than the United States to endure and recover from a political-economic breakdown.

In his view, Americans see their “spendthrift debtor nation” as a “land of free ice cream and perpetual sunshine” (p. 16). Never having experienced invasion, world war, famine, or bloody dictatorship, it’s hard for them to imagine a future unlike their past. More than Russians, Americans have been severed from their past and redesigned as gratification-oriented consumers whose defining character is materialist rather than ethnic, historical, or cultural. They also lack the psychology of resilience “bred” into the long-suffering Russians. Finally, they are more ideologically deluded by the system’s pretenses, just as they are more integrated into its increasingly dysfunctional institutions.

Born of a less happy, but more bona fide nation, Soviet Russians put greater emphasis on individual achievement and recognition than on economic success. Money and materialist designations didn’t play quite the same role in their lives as they do in the US, for their primary needs—work, housing, basic services—were essentially provided by their collectivized economy and the lifestyle consumption native to the American economy wasn’t an option. When the political system stopped functioning and the formal economy suffered its knockout blow, there simply wasn’t the moral and social devastation that is likely to affect Americans.

The SU was also favored in terms of food and shelter. Most Soviet housing was owned by the state. Though “drab and soulless,” it was well-built, insulated, and designed to last. Almost all housing was surrounded by public lands on which people kept kitchen gardens. Prior to the collapse, nearly 90 percent of the country’s domestic food supply came from these kitchen gardens and other individual plots, for Communism had turned Russian agriculture, once Europe’s breadbasket, into a basket case.

The Soviet regime also had a phobia of food riots and virtually every city stored large grain surpluses for emergencies. This made the Soviet-style food system almost immune to breakdown. After the collapse, most people were thus able to keep a roof over their heads and to provide themselves with food. All Soviet utilities, such as heat, running water, electricity, and garbage removal, were also public and could be counted on even after the dissolution of the central state. Above all, Russian housing was overwhelmingly urban, situated near the country’s extensive public transportation network, which continued to operate.

This will not be the case in the US, whether it undergoes a sudden Soviet-style collapse or if it should, as is more likely, experience a extended period of decline.

Most Americans, who don’t own their homes, will in either case face foreclosure, eviction, and homelessness.

They will also have trouble feeding themselves, once the shelves of their suburban supermarkets, stocked by just-in-time deliveries, are emptied.

Because the entire country is built around the auto—housing, shopping, work are virtually inaccessible without it—when the economy bottoms out and energy costs become prohibitive, this car dependency will prove catastrophic. Even in the oil-rich Soviet Union, there were gasoline shortages and severe rationing.

Without significant domestic supplies of gas and without spare parts for their foreign-built autos, suburban Americans will find themselves stranded.

Orlov suspects there will be a mass exodus from distant suburbs, as people are forced to relocate to centers whose supply and distribution networks remain operative. If this should occur, the world will shrink to areas that can be covered on foot or bike, long distance and global trade will be drastically curtailed, and the key principles of globalization will become totally untenable. More generally, “the world” will become “the local” and self-sufficiency the supreme virtue.

Consumerism will then become a thing of the past. Though the Soviet economy was notorious in its neglect of consumer goods, it nevertheless made things, with some conspicuous exceptions, to last. American goods, by contrast, are produced with artificially short replacement cycles and often in plastic, which means that once the container ships stop arriving at US ports many of the consumer items that have become essential will disappear, not to be replaced.

The greater prosperity and materialism of American life also means that things most of the world considers luxuries—cars, central heating, refrigeration, flush toilets, cell phones, packaged and processed foods, washing machines and kitchen appliances—have become necessities; their disappearance will be felt more intensely than in the Soviet system of socialized poverty.

An American collapse (or decline) is likely, then, to entail shortages of food, fuel, and countless consumer items, combined with outages of electricity, gas, and water; breakdowns in transportation systems and other infrastructure, including public health; widespread shutdowns and mass layoffs; all accompanied by confusion, despair, and perhaps violence.

Society as a whole will then be forced back to a less complex mode of operation; centralized forms of control will wane; things will suddenly become “smaller, simpler, less stratified, and less socially differentiated”; regions and communities will assume a greater centrality of tasks. Whether there will ensue a Hobbesian “war of all against all” is anyone’s guess.

As the old economy begins disintegrating, old forms of capital (cash, stocks, bonds) will progressively lose their value. Trucking and airplane fleets deprived of fuel will end up as scrap. Scientific and industrial equipment may be exported as forms of exchange, along with antiques, jewelry, and art objects. Numerous jobs—cable installers, lawyers, sales representatives, plastic surgeons, store clerks, stockbrokers—will become superfluous.

Given both the social and economic dislocation this will set off, law enforcement will probably be overwhelmed, replaced in part by private security and neighborhood defense units. Many laws will be ignored. Established authorities, no longer able to ensure the security of its citizens, will almost certainly cease commanding respect and new power structures may arise. Organized criminals, gangs, former cops, and military contractors will find new employment or self-employment. (This will be a good time to be in a Private Military Company.)

As the established market breaks down, an informal economy will likely replace it—an economy that largely revolves around the liquidation and recycling of the old economy and is based on “direct access to needed resources or the threat of force, rather than on actual ownership or legal authority” (p. 61).

As in Russia, we’ll probably see old people in open air flea markets selling off their treasured possessions, middle-class people rummaging through trash, the few remaining stores under heavy security.

All this will happen to a people not only psychologically unprepared for social upheaval, but ill-suited to the harsh realities it’ll bring. Americans, in fact, have lived so long with a radical disconnect between their “culturally acceptable beliefs” and their personal experiences that they are already afflicted with various mental diseases, evident in the tens of millions of anti-depressant and mood-altering drugs they daily consume. Collapse will send a great many of them over the edge—into new fantasized stages of denial or, perhaps, into a millennial “end times” revival.

The good news is that whites will also become increasingly unsupportive of a regime that no longer delivers the goods. Indeed, because the legitimacy of America’s managerial/ therapeutic regime is so closely linked to economic well-being, the latter’s breakdown will likely also either bring down the state or “hollow” it out. But whatever happens, the fall of the American system, based on a highly controlled system of “communications” and programmed consumption (i.e., on packaged goods and packaged lives), is going to lead not to the rapture, but to a very rude awakening.

This is worrisome to the degree that the most vulnerable to collapse, besides the “couch potatoes” spawned by our “prosthetic society,” are whites. For they are the most integrated into the existing system, they are the most deluded by the ideology of the American Dream (which holds that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will succeed), they are the most shorn of their former identities, culture, and communities (which assume a primary importance in times of crisis), and they lack any consciousness of being a people, based on a specific stock with a specific culture, and thus lack any consciousness of why they should act cohesively as a people.

However, once whites cease being sheltered in the bubbles of their cars or in their cubicle jobs, they will have no choice but to deal face-to-face with blacks, Mexicans, turbaned Sikhs, and the other exotic fauna that now cover their land. At this point, they may discover that a nation is not a “racial ragbag,” but a community based on a “consciousness of kind”—i.e., on a consciousness of being related in blood and spirit, of belonging to a people with a shared ancestry and a common culture.

The ensuing anarchy might similarly provoke conflict along ethnoracial lines, exacerbated by high gun ownership on both sides, that could conceivably lead to violent clashes and perhaps forms of ethnic cleansing.

Such conflict will have a far greater role to play here than it did in ethnically homogenous Russia, where communal relations remained civil, if not amicable (except in respect to Jews and other non-Russian minorities).

If American whites should remain unconscious of who they are as a people, they will almost certainly become victimized by the higher cohesion and consciousness of non-whites, whose ethnic identity, family ties, and cultural motivations are both more primitive and more powerful than theirs. The big question, then, is whether whites will passively succumb to black and brown predators, like sheep before the slaughter, or if, in an awakening, they’ll join with other whites to fight back. (I’m betting it won’t take long before they realize that it’s a matter of “us or them.”)

Relatedly, successful, middle-aged white men will be especially prone to nervous breakdown and depression—as the career, savings, and property they spent a lifetime pursuing suddenly go down the drain. Suicide, emotional paralysis, drink, and drugs will strike them at higher rates than other sectors of the population. Their fragility will be further compounded by the fact that their work experiences leave them totally unqualified for employment in a collapsed economy. Concentrated more in business, management, communications, law, sales, and information processing, they will find that non-white immigrants with practical skills as carpenters, mechanics, and general laborers are better situated to take advantage of the remaining job opportunities.

At the same time, as single households and nuclear families prove to be unviable, whites will find that extended families and friends are their most valuable assets.

The Russian family wasn’t much healthier than the American family, but economic conditions and housing shortages before the collapse helped keep marriages together, with three generations often sharing the same dwelling. And like most people worldwide, Russians also tended to live in the same locale all their lives. As a result, they had extended family ties and knew the people among whom they lived, both of which enhanced their survivability.

American whites lack these extended networks, and this is going to affect their adaptability in a broken world. To survive, they will have to rediscover the meaning of community and revive those organizations and activities that were once a mainstay of American civil society. In making the transition to a Third World lifestyle, whites then will either have to rediscover their own traditions or else revert to the sort of practices common to non-whites.

It took Russia only a decade to recover from its collapse and regain pre-collapse economic levels. This relatively speedy recovery was due to the individual Russian’s ability to adapt to crisis conditions and to the country’s vast oil reserves, which enabled their economy to bounce back relatively quickly, once world gas prices revived.

The US is not so well-situated. It will take longer to recover from whatever collapse brings, and it’s likely there will be no “recovery” from the decline of its techno-economic civilization (given the inevitable rise of energy costs and the unfeasibility of a globalized economy based on cheap energy). There’s also no single figure in the US governing elite capable of emulating the nationalist-minded Vladimir Putin, who prevented the oligarchs from turning post-collapse Russia into a colony of the world’s financial system.

But all’s not doom and gloom in this scenario. The crash, if and when it comes, will help whites shed their liberal illusions, perhaps lead them to discover what is most important in life, and, in the best of all possible worlds, prompt them to reestablish the racial-nationalist ties that once made them a great, enterprising people.

Of course, it would have been better if they hadn’t screwed around for 60 years, leaving it until the very last possible moment to recoup the Aryan qualities that will enable them to overcome the coming dark age, but better at 11:59 p.m. than never at all.

In this pre-collapse interlude, before the fall, nothing can be done to halt the inevitable or mitigate the immitigable. We are facing, in America’s world decline, not a solvable problem, but an unavoidable predicament that promises to rip apart the illusions that have animated American life for at least the last two generations—especially the illusion that unlimited growth and limitless consumption are possible in a world of finite resources.

We have, moreover, absolutely no control over what is about to happen: All our efforts would be like “wiggling our toes at a tsunami.” The only certainty now is that the process of decline has begun.

Worse, there are no oppositional parties, political formations, or extraparliamentary forces representing white interests to lead them, once the smoke clears. The impending crisis—this make or break time—comes thus at a relatively inopportune moment.

However, as individuals and, more importantly, as European Americans concerned with their people’s fate, they still have time—a civilization rarely collapses all at once, as Orlov and survivalists fantasize, but rather gradually, often over the stretch of decades—to turn inward to prepare themselves mentally for the looming economic breakdown and, as they do, to start turning outward to develop those “resilient communities” of friends, family, and fellow tribesmen, who, when the moment strikes, might not only help them survive—but perhaps also prompt them to start thinking about what should succeed the failed United States.