Jul 14, 2009

By | 8 Comments

Preparing for America’s Collapse: Lessons from the Soviet Union

“US, SU: Same Scenario?”

Reinventing Collapse:
The Soviet Example and American Prospects

by Dimitry Orlov
Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publications, 2008

“A time of crisis is a great opportunity.”
–Barack Hussein Obama

orlov1Despairing of my people’s passivity, I have often thought that 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”) (The Collapse of Complex Societies [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], 5) 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 sixty 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 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 moved 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, Orlov relates what collapse entailed in the SU and why the US is no less a candidate for collapse.

His book, though, is not a 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).

Accordingly, he 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, full of wit and humor, and informed by the all-important “human” dimension of collapse.

Despite their different methods and styles, Orlov sees the two twentieth-century superpowers as “antipodes” of the same technoeconomic 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.  It might be added that the US and the SU both were social experiments that favored Jews, making them, and their values, dominant.

The list of similarities is extendable.  But the basic point — that the US and the SU were technoeconomic civilizations devoted to roughly analogous world views 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 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 meltdown of September 2008, he looks mainly at those structural weaknesses in the US economy that resemble those of the former SU — rather than at that institutionalized system of fraud responsible for pulling off one of the great financial swindles in history.

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. (The foundational work for this view is the ecological classic: Donella H. Meadows et al., The Limits of Growth [New York: Universe Books, 1972].) 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, world economies will then 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 (feeding off 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 considers.

Because the US has outsourced most of it manufacture overseas, no longer produces the high tech 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 also 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, that have a system-disrupting potential), and the impending breakdown of neglected infrastructure (bridges, levies, poisoned water tables, etc.), these factors suggest that the US is about to 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.  But as the economy begins to disintegrate, tax revenues will decline and public debt will grow.  The only solution the elites have come up with thus far to address the state’s impending fiscal crisis is to crank up the printing presses and introduce more worthless paper into the market, adding inflation to their other worries.

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 are already looming 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 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 rather than on economic success.  Money and materialist designations didn’t play quite the same role in their lives as it does in the US, for their primary needs — work, housing, basic services — were essentially provided by their collectivized economy and the life-style consumption native to the American economy wasn’t an option.  When the political system stopped functioning and the formal economy suffered its knock-out 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 bread basket, 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 head 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 an 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 up 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.

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 artificial 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, etc. — 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.

Then, as the old economy begins to disintegrate, 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, stock brokers — 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 will 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 fantasied 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.

Once whites cease being sheltered in the bubbles of their cars or in their cubicle jobs, they will then be forced 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 rag bag,” but a community based on a “consciousness of kind” — i.e., on a consciousness of being related in blood and spirit to a people with a shared ancestry and a common culture.  The ensuing anarchy might also 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 homogeneous Russia, where communal relations remained civil, if not amicable (except in respects to Jews and certain non-Russian minorities).

If American whites should remain unconscious of who they are as a people, they will almost certainly be victimized by the higher cohesion and consciousness of nonwhites, 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/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 life time 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 immigrants with practical skills as carpenters, mechanics, and general laborers will be better situated to take advantage of the remaining job opportunities.

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

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 nonwhites.

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 technoeconomic civilization (given the inevitable rise of energy costs and the infeasibility of a globalized economy based on cheap energy).  There’s also no single figure in the US governing elite capable of emulating 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 will help whites shed their liberal illusions, perhaps discover what is most important in life, and, in the best of all possible worlds, prompt them to reestablish the racial-national bonds that once made them a great, enterprising people.

Of course, it would have been better if they hadn’t screwed around for sixty 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 PM than never at all.

In this pre-collapse interlude, before the fall, the fact nevertheless remains that nothing can be done to halt the inevitable or mitigate the unmitigable.  We are facing 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, then, 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 us, once the smoke clears.  The impending crisis — this make or break time — comes thus at a relatively inopportune moment.

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


Related Posts

  1. Dedalus said:

    You know when there are times when you just need to vent?
    Well . . .

    Both SU and US controlled by a specific group, the same group, and both failed. What does that tell you? Well, a whole lot we can’t get into here, that’s for sure. [You CAN get into it here. That’s the whole point of TOQ and TOQ Online.–Ed.]

    And not just about that specific group. After all, you don’t enter recovery to get your wife sober, or therapy to modify the behavior of the people who annoy you.

    Though you do join a Karate school to reduce or eliminate the chances of the local bully beating up on you again; same with reading, and studying, great books, i.e., so you are not dependent on the opinion of others.

    One of the advantages, and there are many, to studying Cultural History (and I don’t come at it from the position of an academic-scholar-critic, rather as something I stumbled onto out of necessity as a young man in search for some meaningful answers) is that it gives so much of what is being said today that all important frame of reference.

    And when you look at things through the lens of Cultural History what you see is that Qualitatively the most important thing to come out of the nineteenth Century is Romanticism, and Quantitatively, the spread of eighteenth Century Enlightenment ideals.

    The latter culminated in a middle-class money culture that gave birth to both the US and the SU, and both have ended in spectacular failure.
    And that is what we’re witnessing, the absolute death of Enlightenment ideals.

    Oh, they will continue for some time to come, but kind of like ghosts. What you don’t or can’t transcend you transmit. And when what you transmit no longer exists you just keep acting out the patterns, like an amputee who still “feels” his leg and is only convinced its not there when he actually reaches for it and looks.

    Some amputees will sink into despair (especially those who can’t afford a good prosthetic) and others will get their fake limbs and get to work. Very few will be emotionally or psychologically unaffected.

    The analogy limps, but you get the idea.

    Romanticism is the high water mark of Western Civilization and its crowning achievement is the Sovereign Individual and his difficult and exhilarating task is Cultural Transcendence. But the problem is the battle between Quality and Quantity.

    Whites operating at the highest cultural levels only rarely need to remind themselves they are White. But in times of crisis that is exactly what they do, or should, in my view. The others, well, they don’t, until it’s too late.

    To me the best analogy here is Narcissus. There is a Good and Bad one, if you will. The good one knows we all need a sense of self-image, that we have to check in from time to time to make sure we’re still there. That is the historically, behaviorally self-conscious White man who has successfully transcended the limits of the norm, and put quality before quantity, growth before conformity, reality before orientation.
    the Bad narcissist is the one who has a bad or too good (i.e., bad) relationship with himself and cannot get enough of himself and sees all of the world always and only in relationship to himself. He is a true pest. A genuinely obnoxious creature.

    The Self-Satisfied Man, a True Monstrosity. Collectively and Historically he has amounted to one protracted fart. No wonder so many of the great thinkers and artists from Carlyle to Caspar David Friedrich used Mountains as metaphors for the Free Spirit to escape this stench of the Mass Man.

    And it is the Mass Man and his ignorant, brutal, stupid, and arrogant disdain for the Free Spirit that destroyed the West.

    Forget Black on Black crime. This — THIS — was the great White on White crime that most Jews and their minions in the non-White, anti-White world merely exploited.

    How irresponsible for us to lay the blame solely on their doorstep!

    Ah, now that felt good. Thanks TOQ for giving one a place to vent.
    And thanks Mr. O’Meara for another great article.

  2. William of OC said:

    Wonderful article. It is always instructive to read this sort of article, because I think predictions of national collapse invariably fall short and the eventual events on the street will shock even the most seasoned commentator. I am most interested in the prospects of ethnic violence, actual gun battles in the streets a la Yugoslavia or Lebanon. I am an active white nationalist in Orange County, California, and for a number of years I have been toying with the idea of forming a private security company, or a private military company for White Americans. Community self-defense units. It is articles such as this one that give me the impetus to go ahead and do it. Thanks again.

  3. Dedalus said:

    Both SU and US controlled by a specific group, the same group, and both failed. What does that tell you? Well, a whole lot we can’t get into here, that’s for sure. [You CAN get into it here. That’s the whole point of TOQ and TOQ Online.–Ed.]

    Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post. Even a brief one. It’s nice.

    But what I meant was, I didn’t have TIME to go into it. That’s all.
    I should have been more specific.

    But, to tell you the honest truth.

    I wrote the post after reading the article. And I read the article after waking up in the middle of the night, thinking about all of this. I literally couldn’t sleep.

    I doubt I am the only one concerned. But, speaking for myself, one of the thoughts that come to me is that there are lots and lots of people who are sleeping just fine.

    Those are the moments when I burn like a piece of green wood, to steal a superb expression from Nietzsche. Slooooow burn. But I am able to contain the fire. Lots of practice. But let me get to the point (and, when I have more time, I will avail myself of the forum offered here and elaborate).

    If race is extended family, and whites don’t seem to care about the family, then they don’t show much hope as a race.

    We have lost millions to abuse and neglect. Millions.
    If whites cared for their children they would care for their families and care for their race. But they don’t care about any of these things. It was one of the things implied in the article.

    Fear of Intimacy gets buried in Love of Abstraction.

    No, I don’t mean intimacy as in physical contact; I meant the emotional and psychological close contact between family that many avoid like the plague. I mean working through problems that NEVER go away. THAT kind of intimacy. ie; a deeper knowledge and experience of oneself and their family; this would be easily translatable to race and help us tremendously.

    But, we don’t. So the need to connect is experienced in something safe. That is why a family can abuse one of its own, deny it, ignore the problem, or even blame their victim, and then turn around a “love” the non-whites. The two go together.

    Just look at the Kennedys. How much drug and alcohol abuse, but NO, they “care” about society.

    All of those on the Left care about Society. They have all of the questions and all of the answers. That is why they can talk about Society, talk about its problems, talk about the “causes” of those problems, talk about the solutions, and form committee’s, groups, hold conferences, advertise, and make t-shirts to promote whatever it is they are promoting, without ever ONCE talking about the Matrix of Society – The Family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No one talks about it, and yet the information is all there. I can vouch for it as a reader and as a survivor. But I will say this. I have no intention of ever absolutizing family systems; but hell, let’s at least TALK about it, acknowledge it, say something, for goodness sake. Sometimes I think these sissy marys who run for political and social and economic cover by turning their backs on their race to praise the the most incompetent and dishonest among the non-whites as if they were the second coming, would talk about jewish influence on our culture before they would talk about family. It just scares the shit out of almost everyone. But for more courageous and daring spirits (and whites hands down have produced more of this type of man than any other) see it as an opportunity.

    But where have we seen ANYONE talk about it. Even the websites I respect and read every single day.

    Just read John Bradshaw’s On The Family and you have it right there. Anyone here would get it immediately, ie; who he is talking about, indirectly.

    That is why he vanished almost as soon as he appeared. At first he could be used to slap the Man around; The White man that is, as the big bad creator of the Patriarchal System; and there’s not question that Bradshaw sinned; he is guilty of trying to reconcile Deep Democracy with Political Correctness (it can not be done). But his mistakes can be forgiven, or at least explained.

    Still I submit that the basic concepts of family systems should be added to the great ideas we are getting from the TOO family and others sites who are coming up with the necessary talking points that will arm us, so to speak, prepare us, sustain and inspire us.

    The rest must come form Morse Peckham, simply because NO ONE has come close to what he has done to help us understand European Man (of which the American is a cultural extension). And that is why most of his books were permitted to go out of print.

    I got to talk to him a couple of times by telephone from NYC (he was in Columbia, SC).

    And I asked him to confirm something, an impression I got from his later work.

    I asked him “Is it safe to say that you think that Mankind is a biologically mal-adaptive species who shouldn’t laugh at the dinosaurs for getting themselves extinct.”

    There was a brief pause and he said simply,


  4. Brilliant review and commentary of your own Mr. O’Meara as always. You’re easily one of the best advocates for our Race in the US. I always admire Americans that are able to kill that artificial, that mechanical ‘soul’ that Lawrence attributes to Franklin in creating, and heeding the call of their blood and a more ancient soul; that to the chagrin of Uncle Sam was not able to completely destroy, just force into the unconscious.

    I’d also like to congratulate Dedalus for doing as much. What you wrote is spot on, I couldn’t help but smile and nod in agreement as I read your post. It must be the most difficult thing in your lives my Brethren living in the US; to go against all that you have been taught since birth, and all your forefathers for over 200 years and then some if we consider their Puritan predecessors!

    Although being born in EVROPA would have been more desirable, I still count myself lucky for being born in Australia, whose spirit is very much Indo-European as evidenced in the writings of our nationalists going back some 150 years. However, since the Second European Civil War when Australia’s ‘protector’ switched from Britain to the US there has been a process of making the Australian a bona fide Benjamin Franklin American. Sadly our equivalent of your ‘movement conservatives’ have been complacent, if not willing in this process. Going so far as celebrating the 4th of July! Absurd isn’t it!

    This brings me to the theme of this article; survivalism. A leading Comrade of mine believes that 70% of the Anglo middle class will be wiped out as a result of our self-inflicted condition. I am at times more pessimistic. The Australian, once noted for his courage, ruggedness, and what we call mateship (i.e., feelings of kinship) have all but been removed from his psyche, although the mainstream media will parrot these terms like they had any meaning. Instead what we have now are Last Men, and for the most part they don’t care; they’re enthusiastic in their fabian genocide (i.e., drawn out).

  5. Oh, and another thing…

    One of the advantages of growing as the family scapegoat, and in a large family, is that you get to see psychopaths and sociopaths project on a daily basis, while being placed above criticism*.

    If you survive you walk away with a number of important facts relating to certain patterns of behavior found in the politics of power, and how it repeats itself in different social groups, from the smallest to the largest. You walk away with a special knowledge of human behavior that nothing else can match. And you also get to see the value of a careful study of cultural history which provides us with specific examples of this behavior.

    In short, Susan Sontag’s comment is perhaps the best, because the shortest, and most concise, example of projection, ever.

    And Dedalus’ first law is “No Self-Reflection = Automatic Projection.”
    A nice runner up, though longer (in book form) is Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.”

    In both cases “Chutzpah” becomes synonymous, not with a folksy, warm and endearing pride, but rather with an aggressive and shameless dishonesty and hatefulness.

    This is why they can not ever aquire power, and keep it, in a country that allows freedom of speech or assembly. They come from a culture that denies the five freedoms. The freedom to see and hear, to think, to feel, to ask, and to risk.

    Summoning Cultural History to our aid, a quick glance at the past 100 years in America makes it undeniably clear that corresponding to an increase in Jewish power is a decrease in our basic freedoms.
    Of course the Patricarchal System begins with the Old Testament, and in relation to family, with God telling Abraham to kill his son to show his love for God. Wow.

    God as twisted Mafia boss.

    And the Old Testament God, a Patriarchal System, and twisted Mafia bosses all have one thing in common, Fear of Exposure.

    After all, look at the documents (and with History that is all we have to go on, not events, but documents). In the Old Testament God tells Adam and Eve that they will be punished for disobeying him. But he tells others (Who? I don’t know.) “Behold, the man (the Man!!!!) has become as one of us, to know good and evil…” the sentence continues but breaks off without finishing. I guess God was so beside himself with fear of being exposed as a fraud right from the start that he couldn’t even think straight and finish his thought.

    In any event, “he drove out the man.” As Peckham pointed out, “The motive he presented to Adam was one of just punishment, the motive he presented to the mysterious others was fear.”

    My goodness, you have the pattern right there. You could replace God with Contemporary Jewish Power, and Adam with, well, Us. Wow, talk about a compulsion to repeat!

    But with this kind of culture, since it’s so old, this fear is long since been deeply internalized. So much so that it might as well be genetic. It’s certainly an inhereted trait.

    Could this be the REAL reason behind the hysterical, yet swift and immediate, reaction to James Watson?
    Could this be the real reason behind the “Left’s” refusal to talk about inhereted characteristics?

  6. *of course they get to indulge in this pathology exactly because they are above criticism. Or is that the other way around? ie; they arrive at a place above criticism as a result of a relentless and unwavering indulgence in pathological behavior.

  7. I think the analogy fails in that the author really does not understand the strong link that still exists between the land and the white people. Most are only one generation away from the farm and the hunt. We can survive. It’s the city people in the offices and the unionized spoiled factory workers who will fold under the pressure. It is they who might support the analogy, who will die in the interracial battles.
    Many white people are ready for what will come; they know that the Indians, Asians, Africans, and third worlders get by only on “tax” funded money and non taxed jobs. Their ghetto stores and tribal rules will not be able to overcome the mean, white, surprisingly well-educated citizens of the farmlands who will not turn over the food to the enemy.

    The third worlders are dependents. They need the tax money and freebies turned over by the current liberal establishment. When it disappears so shall they.

  8. Stronza said:

    Another limits-of-growth-type book that you might find interesting is Paul Hawken’s Seven Tomorrows written in 1982. He says that severe dystopia is not necessarily a sure thing (though the future looked mighty bleak to him even back then).

    But we aren’t all the bunch of sissies as implied by Orlov; I wouldn’t be so quick to believe that most white people will be falling over drunk and dead because they’ve no more money to spend at all those funky, trendy, bohemian shoppes while our third worlders supposedly survive & thrive. Pffft.

    I don’t know how bad things are going to get; but I am only middle aged yet I know what it is like to exist, year after year, without central heating, refrigeration, flush toilets, a telephone, electricity, & packaged and processed foods (some of which are listed above as being considered luxuries by third worlders.) It’s the third worlders here in N. America who are spoiled rotten, having become quickly accustomed to having all their needs (and then some) handed to them on a platter.

Back to Top