This piece has been chosen for my collection Day of Wrath. It has been slightly modified and presently can only be read as a PDF within the book, ready for printing in your home for a comfortable reading.
by Michael O’Meara
But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?
The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or sober,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher.
A brief discussion in another thread moves me to add a few excerpts from the beginning and the end of “Novacadia: White European Political and Geographical Redoubt” (based largely on the coming peak-oil crisis later in the century) by Sebastian Ernst Ronin:
Over the last several months the notion of secessionist breakaways has gained considerable traction within the NAmerikan White Nationalist community as a legitimate political option to ensure the continuation of the White Race on the NAmerikan continent. The clarion call of Michael O’Meara’s 2009 TOQ Essay Winner Toward the White Republic begins to take some form. Seasoned secessionists take note with one eye cocked. New secessionist arrivals exuberantly and naively trip over themselves to enter the debate…
In conclusion… White Nationalists need not overly concern themselves with having to “do” such task. It is the historical condition with corresponding opportunities and synergies that will unravel the artificial identity of large-scale nationalism. Secessionists need merely to perceive such and adapt accordingly. This is the unfolding of history; it need not be taken personally.
There is much work to be done. There are no guarantees and there most certainly are no freebies. Secessionist adversaries are many and have at their disposal the full resources of the state. If, as according to a 2008 Zogby poll, secession is more favorable to traditional liberals than to traditional conservatives remains to be seen and is highly debateable. As offered above, a realistic argument can be made that White Nationalists have now “captured” the NAmerikan secessionist movement. Within the context of an energy-depleted future, Empire implosion and related depletion of a nanny-state social infrastructure, the support of liberal, and largely urban centrists and statists could easily wane while support of conservative, and largely rural decentralists increases. No one yet knows how the hybrid political initiative of “radical right meeting radical left” will actually present and play itself out. However, the political hybrid does slowly begin to come into focus and, as with any other birthing process, will carry like dynamics.
For most NAmerikan White Nationalist secessionists it may be time to deal with the political schizophrenia of attempting to be both a secessionist and a national patriot. To borrow a strand from current pop culture: It is time to let it go. Tourists will need to be shown to the tourist compartment of the secessionist vehicle. Once the secessionist Rubicon has been crossed, there is no turning back.
Most of the work to be undertaken over the next two decades by White Nationalists will be to agitate and to educate, as the revolution we propose is largely a revolution of thought, a revolution of perception, a revolution of identity. People fear what they do not understand.
my favorite essays of
Toward the White Republic
8. Call to Arms
An edited version of the following excerpt (published originally at National Vanguard) appears in the last pages, “Call to Arms,” of Michael O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, available from Counter-Currents here.
Freedom, Hegel says, is the recognition of necessity. If we desire to remain free—free to be who we are, free not to accept the termination of our unique bioculture—we must learn again to worship our gods of war, those spirits standing for what is strongest and most noble in our being. Otherwise, the hideous deities of the darkening tide will seize the reigns.
We must stop lying to ourselves. Our ancestors defended their lands with sword in hand. Have we forgotten this most fundamental principle of human existence?
The gods of war must be our Juggernaut. It’s either that or death.
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.
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.
The 5,000-word article “2009: Crisis or Opportunity?,” the twelfth essay in Michael O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic, is available from Counter-Currents Publishing here. I’ve edited it down to less than 3,000 words:
In the last two years, one crisis has followed another. First there was a housing mortgage crisis, then a liquidity crisis that led to a banking crisis, then a dollar crisis, then a credit crisis, then a geopolitical crisis, then an energy crisis, then a crisis of consumer confidence, and finally a political crisis at the highest level of the state, involving a crisis of the spirit which brought a negro to power—a negro symbolizing everything against which the American originally defined himself, and thus symbolizing the destruction of America’s historic identity. The burning question today is: are these cascading crises “conjunctural” (i.e., due to a combination of circumstances) or are they “structural” (inherent to the system’s nature)? If the latter, then the “American System,” which has governed the world since 1945 at the expense of its white population, faces a systemic breakdown, whose implications are potentially catastrophic. If only conjunctural, the news is still good, for it cannot but highlight the system’s anti-white nature, of which most whites still unfortunately remain clueless.
A crisis is a turning point, “a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or worse, is determined.” Though most commentators have emphasized the economic nature of the crisis, almost all recognize its system-disrupting potential. Hence the current obsession with the Great Depression of the Thirties and, in more radical quarters, the Soviet crisis of 1985, which brought Mikhail Gorbachev to power. A crisis, then, can be seen as the prelude to a historical transformation.
Though time alone will tell what the exact nature of this transformation will entail, it is nevertheless likely to undermine the legitimacy of the established powers and imperil the well-being of the middle class, thus advancing the cause of the white-nationalist ethnostate. Indeed, given the absence of an organizational structure and a popular following in the real world, the white nationalist project is predicated on just such a crisis—for it’s the one thing that offers our people a possible alternative to their programmed extinction.
1. The Crisis
A great many white Americans think theirs is the world’s preeminent country, though they know almost nothing about it and less about “the rest of the world.” Compared to the black and brown nations of the Third World, America, of course, is a paradise (even if most whites are lonely, isolated, and lacking any sense of who they are as a people). But compared to Western and Central Europe, or to Japan, Hong Kong, and certain of the other Asian Tigers, it more and more shapes up badly.
The great industries that once made America the world’s foremost economic power and provided working people a decent standard of living have been shipped overseas, along with the technologies and know-how that made them such powerhouses. Before the crisis, the economy was in fundamental disequilibrium, based on consumption rather than production, with consumer spending making up more than 70 percent of the GNP. Since the crisis, it has been turned topsy: the banking system, the bedrock of US capitalism, has failed, wholesale markets have frozen, the entire regulatory system is in a shambles, and consumer confidence is at its lowest point in history.
Against this backdrop of decline and looming disaster, the dominant mantra, endlessly echoed by the media, remains to “consume”—to rack up those credit card purchases that keep the banking/credit/ financial industries afloat—even though there’s nothing Americans produce or earn any longer to pay their debts. It seems poetically just that the country’s principal export is now the junk culture fabricated in Hollywood, a “culture” which celebrates behaviors and values historically considered pathological.
The country’s compromising dependence on exterior forces is compounded by the “Ponzi” or “pyramid” dynamics of the US financial sector, based on speculative bubbles that create a false prosperity; by debt-ridden, mismanaged, and often unaccountable corporations run by “Wall Street con men, hedge fund nabobs, and casino capitalists” unconcerned with taking “outrageous risks with other people’s money”; and by government policies (shaped by special interest groups) that redistribute assets from competent people to incompetents (particularly minorities that sponge off the public in the form of welfare, subprime lending, “positive” discrimination, and a host of other racial privileges).
To pay the interest on its spiraling debt, the country in the last decade has had to borrow two to three billion dollars a day from foreigners, mainly Chinese and Japanese, who are acquiring in the process ownership to wide swaths of the economy, while American speculators have racked up vast (and, as it turns out, largely meaningless) ciphers of wealth in cyberspace. Though the United States has never owed so much money to the rest of the world, its financial and political elites, addicted to fiat money, continue to believe they can expand the debt indefinitely.
America’s “human capital,” evident in the darkening of its populace, is also in conspicuous decline. Literacy rates are among the lowest in the industrial world; its once prestigious graduate schools of science and engineering are filled mainly with foreigners; its public schools are concerned less and less with mastering the rudiments of reading and writing than with dispensing contraceptives to fourteen year-olds and preventing the use of hand guns on school premises; the population as a whole is socially balkanized; its incarceration rate is the highest in the world; and its spirit, culture, and understanding is increasingly “McDonaldized.”
But perhaps of greatest consequence, the dollar is starting to lose its status as the world’s reserve currency—which means no more free credit and no more free rides. The United States will now have to pay normal market price for the funds it borrows abroad, and it can expect a sharp devaluation of its currency, as foreign investors unload their US dollar assets. Some commentators have gone so far as to claim that the dollar’s demise is imminent. But whatever happens, it seems safe to conclude that the fat times we have known are not coming back. Because these economic problems bear directly on the country’s political and social order, both American and foreign academics, some with distinguished credentials, have begun predicting “an economic and moral collapse [which] will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the United States.”
What’s especially revealing in the recent spate of doom-and-gloom predictions about America’s future is the expectation, among not a few establishment authorities, that the crisis could—perhaps won’t, but might—lead to violent class struggle, military dictatorship, or even social revolution. This is unprecedented.
Against those who confuse the state with the nation, it needs stressing that the American System responsible for the crisis is not, and never has been, a national-state system committed to the defense and well-being of the people it represents. Its principal function has instead always been to defend those liberal democratic practices that facilitate market transactions. Uncommitted to the embryonic white nation that made up the American people prior to 1965 (a nation is not founded in 400 years, especially a nation based on such divergent European stocks as the United States), the ruling liberal elites have been free to pursue whatever policies foster their specific institutional interests or those of the dominant economic interests, while policies favoring the country’s white majority have only rarely been adopted and then usually in the form of electoral bribes. Indeed, the very notion of European America is an offense to these elites, who see the nation not as an organic body, but as a great market made up of competing individuals, whose interests are primarily economic, not social, racial, or national.
If white Americans had but a modicum of political savvy, they would have long ago realized that a state which does not serve them as a people has no right to govern and, in fact, is their enemy. The system’s folly, whose ramifications are going to be paid for with a good deal of popular misery, assumed fantastic—and, as it turns out, unbearable—proportions under the former Bush Administration. Thus it was that the neo-liberal, globalist tenets, which ideologically undergird the American System and reduce every question to a matter of individual economic interest, were emboldened under Bush’s neocon cabal by the boundless vanity of its Judeo-Evangelical “faith-based community”—which held that anything the American state does is right, that the United States always triumphs in the end, and that, contrary to traditional Christian stricture, the United States pursues God’s purpose in the world. Like the left, whose ideology leaves it unable to accept the realities of race, sex, and sexual orientation, Washington for the last eight years has been unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy, as it chases its various ideological chimeras. All the while, aliens, at the top and at the bottom of the American polity, were allowed the full run of things—from Jews dictating foreign policy that had nothing to do with the national interest, to Mexicans challenging American sovereignty on American streets.
When George W. was asked in his last press conferences who should be held accountable for the present economic disaster, he answered that no one person or group was actually responsible. “The whole system,” he said, “became inebriated.” To the degree the crisis is systemic, he, better than most, has designated the real culprit. But what he failed to mention is that the system wasn’t just temporarily inebriated: it has been so from the start. And like the mind-numbing incoherence of any serious drunk, the destabilizing, destructuring, and disordering power of this well-oiled system—despite the wealth and prosperity it has created for some—is about to provoke the most massive civilizational hangover in history.
2. The man of destiny
There’s been no better example of the bankruptcy of America’s liberal ideological system than the presidency of George W. Bush (whose only brush with Nemesis thus far has been dodging Muntader alZaidi’s shoe). That this third-rate individual, lacking an understanding of the most basic things, including English syntax, was put at the helm of the most powerful state in history unambivalently testifies to the system’s unfathomable corruption. Obama’s programmed election was specifically designed to restore something of the power squandered by the Bush Administration. In the highest reaches of the American establishment (and this is evident less in written documents than in the innuendoes and asides of its representatives), it became apparent in the last year or so that a restoration of American power and prestige in the world would require a makeover of unprecedented proportions. Hillary, who was previously the leading establishment candidate, was thus abandoned, for, besides being white, she was simply too closely associated with the establishment to create the impression of a major turn-around in American politics.
Hence, the scheduled entrance of the dusky knight, who was provided the money, the advisers, and the media frenzy to make his candidacy a shoo-in. This “47-year old black man with a political resume as ephemeral as a Mets pennant drive and a governing philosophy as dubious as Paris Hilton’s choice of boy friends” has not disappointed his handlers, for he was an ideal candidate. Given his race and undistinguished political profile, he possessed the seemingly “populist” credentials to appeal to an electorate fed up with Washington’s neocon mania; he spoke a recognizable form of English, dressed respectably, and avoided public displays of negro behavior; but, above all, he (or his advisers) knew how to appeal to TV-educated youth, who saw his campaign as another Great Awakening (with “racism” replacing the older Calvinist notion of sin).
It’s questionable, though, if the new administration has the capacity to lead. For those who care to see, scandal and fraud lurk behind every facet of Obama’s media-constructed image. His past has been carefully erased from the public record; his numerous, compromising ties to the big New York banks, the major foundations, black liberation theology, Chicago crime, and K Street have all been ignored by the controlled media; he may not even be a native-born American and thus not constitutionally eligible to be president. This cover-up won’t last. The strident anti-white racism of his wife, as well as his bonds to the nation’s financial oligarchy, will also eventually surface. Given the nature of the economy, he probably won’t even be able to deliver the goods to the black masses, who see him as a cargo-cult Messiah, and this will undoubtedly become a source of further unrest. But most of all, this frontman of the elites is thick with the Jews, whose wealth and power controls the Democratic party (even more than that of the neocon-led Republicans) and whose interests, as already evident, will be foremost among his administration’s concerns. It’s hardly coincidental that his chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, is the son an Irgun terrorist and is himself a rabid Zionist; and that the prominent Jews Obama has delegated to resolve the crisis (Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, etc.) “represent political duplicity and malfeasance on a grand scale.” Obama, in fact, is such a creature of Jewish interests that some have begun to call him “the first Jewish president.” The incompetence, corruption, and Jewish jingoism already evident in the new administration suggests, moreover, that the former neocon regime was less responsible for the present disaster than the system itself. Obama, Bush—black hustler, bungling cowboy—it doesn’t seem to matter who occupies the office. It’s the system that rules, and the system is now on life support.
Obama’s failure will come, though, not through an exposure of the smoke and mirrors surrounding his fabricated persona. There is a deeper, structural problem confronting the first post-American US government. As William Lind points out, “the heart of our inability to reform is the crisis of the state itself. Reform endangers the money and power of the New Class, which controls the state and feeds off it.” Though there will be a qualitative expansion of the state under the new regime, as money is thrown at the crisis and expanded social programs are introduced to root out “racism,” the anti-national impetus of the American System, which is at war with the forces of history, culture, and nature, is almost certainly to remain untouched. Likewise, the kleptocratic economic system, so crucial to the elites who support Obama, will go unreformed, as even vaster sums are looted from the government’s coffers in the name of his “stimulus plan.” At best, his Zimbabwe-style Keynesianism (whose soundness is a matter of debate in this period of rampant budget deficits) may provide a palliative to the crisis, but no cure. At worst, there’s simply not enough money and far too much structural rot to rescue everyone.
Given the government’s dismal track record, especially its criminal regulatory negligence, its bailout of those responsible for the crisis, and its alliance with Big Money, it’s also doubtful if it will have the wherewithal to save those firms that might become future wealth producers and sacrifice those beyond recovery. Indeed, one wonders what economy there is left to stimulate, considering that most productive enterprises have relocated offshore.
The man of destiny may turn out, then, to be the man manipulated by destiny, especially considering the impossible expectations he is certain to disappoint. As the refutation of America’s European being, it would be ever so fitting if he should preside over the demise of the failed experiment known as “the United States,” opening the way, thus, to the founding of another, more authentic expression of European America.
3. The knife
As white Americans slide deeper into the economic abyss created by their new Afro-Judaic leaders, they face something far more challenging than anything their ancestors faced in 1776. For they have fallen victim to a regime that cannot control the dysgenic economic forces it unleashes; a regime ruled by incompetents, thieves, and alien manipulators; one that never considers the interests of those it rules but attends to every whim of the rich and powerful; that is at war with the history, culture, and interests of the majority; that refuses to defend the border; that is influenced by foreign lobbies; that relentlessly attacks Christianity; and that imposes “hate” laws and free speech restraints to muzzle whites opposing its anti-national policies.
A half-dozen years ago, “Yggdrasil,” one of the pioneers of American white-nationalist thought, argued that the United States would likely go the way of the former Soviet Union if its system of financial rewards and punishments should ever cease to benefit the white majority. For though US elites have not the slightest interest in its welfare and security, the majority willingly accepted their tutelage as long as its material welfare was ensured. Today, we are entering an era when the regime’s ability to ensure its security is obviously diminishing.
For this reason, I believe the impending catastrophe has the potential to cause white Americans to abandon their allegiance to the existing system. Such a possible transfer of loyalties away from the central state will likely entail less a racial awakening than an understanding of how to cope with a hostile world, once the virtual realities of the American System collapse. Nevertheless, at that point when whites abandon the status quo, the possibility of an emerging white-nationalist movement championing their racial-social interests will quicken.
Our role as nationalists ought thus to be subversive and revolutionary. For there is nothing worth conserving in the existing antiwhite system. Against it, we need to forge a spirit that opposes it at its root—by defining Our America as a nativist variant of European civilization, affirming the primacy of our ancestors’ beliefs and values, and preparing a new Declaration of Independence.
The complete article can be read here.