Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 18th, 2011 #1
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
Default Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Patrick J Buchanan New Book.

Despite Buchanan's extravagant folly of choosing Ezola Foster as his running mate, I found it hard to hold a grudge against him and have purchased each of his books. Last year I heard him talking on a local radio show and when asked about his upcoming book he responded that it was going to be about the end of white America.

His latest book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? will be released on October 18th.

Over at
Amazon.com Amazon.com
the table of contents can be previewed with a limited number of pages for each chapter. The eleven chapters of the book are:

1. The Passing of a Superpower
2. The Death of Christian America
3. The Crisis of Catholicism
4. The End of White America
5. Demographic Winter
6. Equality or Freedom?
7. The Diversity Cult
8. The Triumph of Tribalism
9. "The White Party"
10. The Long Retreat
11. The Last Chance
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old September 18th, 2011 #2
confederate
Senior Member
 
confederate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,764
Default

to answer the question of this thread; no fucking way.
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!"

Dr. William Pierce
 
Old September 18th, 2011 #3
Chip Farley
Member
 
Chip Farley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Harsh Realm
Posts: 387
Default

Looks like Big Pat is going to be pulling out all the stops on this one and letting people know what he really thinks before he shakes off the mortal coil.

Hopefully a book like this may wake up some of the Tea Party lemmings.


 
Old September 18th, 2011 #4
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
Patrick J Buchanan New Book.

Despite Buchanan's extravagant folly of choosing Ezola Foster as his running mate, I found it hard to hold a grudge against him and have purchased each of his books. Last year I heard him talking on a local radio show and when asked about his upcoming book he responded that it was going to be about the end of white America.

His latest book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? will be released on October 18th.

Over at Amazon.com the table of contents can be previewed with a limited number of pages for each chapter. The eleven chapters of the book are:

1. The Passing of a Superpower
2. The Death of Christian America
3. The Crisis of Catholicism
4. The End of White America
5. Demographic Winter
6. Equality or Freedom?
7. The Diversity Cult
8. The Triumph of Tribalism
9. "The White Party"
10. The Long Retreat
11. The Last Chance

Chapter 12 is "It's the Jews, Stupid"....right?

Right?
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old September 19th, 2011 #5
Thad Charles
Master Race
 
Thad Charles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: neo-Weimar JewSA
Posts: 1,568
Default

Yeah, good old Patty has made an art of not naming the Jew. Reading his Hitler/Churchill/WWII was a real masterpiece in that regard, I just could not believe how he could roll through those chapters and not mention a fucking WORD. Astounding really.

He should teach a graduate-level class on not naming the Jew. Who does it better?

Regardless, I think we know his real feelings but a book of his would never get a major publisher if he finally decided to create a swan song that skull-fucks the Jews.
__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews
 
Old September 19th, 2011 #6
Chip Farley
Member
 
Chip Farley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Harsh Realm
Posts: 387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad Charles View Post
Yeah, good old Patty has made an art of not naming the Jew.


Sure he is no Alex Linder, William Luther Pierce, or Kevin B. Macdonald, but one can assuredly see that Big Pat has certainly named the Jew in the past:




Quote:
On Jews

Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)

During the Gulf crisis: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." (McLaughlin Group, 8/26/90)

In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage.... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (Guardian, 1/14/92)

Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction.

Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)

Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553
 
Old September 19th, 2011 #7
Maxfield Parrish
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 265
Default



Was Pat shot in the Adam's Apple during an assassination attempt?
 
Old September 19th, 2011 #8
Thad Charles
Master Race
 
Thad Charles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: neo-Weimar JewSA
Posts: 1,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip Farley View Post


Sure he is no Alex Linder, William Luther Pierce, or Kevin B. Macdonald, but one can assuredly see that Big Pat has certainly named the Jew in the past:
Yawn. He didn't name the Jew at all. Just as I said, he has perfected the art of not naming the Jew. Your examples are pretty good evidence of that.

Anyway, I want to hear the term "Jew[s]" actually pass his lips in a pejorative manner. Or, rather, through his pen. PC. Mac. Typewriter. Whatever.
__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews
 
Old October 8th, 2011 #9
Julien Sorel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

america is becoming a mongrel country just like brazil. all empires of earth have been destroyed when the aryan elements of the population started to mix with lower human blood. alexander destroyed the greek culture and the same thing happened with the persian empire. the greatest empires of earth were rooted in blood and not in economics.
 
Old October 15th, 2011 #10
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad Charles View Post
Yawn. He didn't name the Jew at all. Just as I said, he has perfected the art of not naming the Jew. Your examples are pretty good evidence of that.

Anyway, I want to hear the term "Jew[s]" actually pass his lips in a pejorative manner. Or, rather, through his pen. PC. Mac. Typewriter. Whatever.
No, Buchanan doesn't name the jew, per se, but he does name Israel; which is about as close as he can get without being relegated to the sidelines entirely by the jewsmedia. He's skating on thin ice as it is in his criticism of America's pro-Zionist policies. If you were truly aware of just how the system operates, you'd know that if he did what you suggest he'd be cut out of the picture, out of the national scene, completely. And if you'd read any of his books, you'd know too that he all but names the jew. He's a lot more critical in print than he appears on televitz; for reasons which should be obvious.

Buchanan's pro-White and anti-Zionist; that's just about as antisemitic as you can be and yet still remain in the national spotlight. And I'll take that anytime over all the other anti-White liberal and pro-Zionist "conservative" journalists and commentators and the shit they spout. If he'd only adapted a staunch pro-Israel line in his previous bids to be the Republican nominee for president, he'd have fronted the tickets. He refused to and he didn't -- that says a lot about the man.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old October 15th, 2011 #11
Maxfield Parrish
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 265
Default

Pat Buchanan's book is probably very good reading. I've read his two previous works.

However...

If I had any say after a WN seizure of this country, he'd be rounded up at gunpoint and put aboard a C-5A Galaxy headed straight for a village in the Congo, right along with his kinky-haired negress.

 
Old October 15th, 2011 #12
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

For anyone questioning Buchanan's views on jewry in general, or zionism in particular, just go to the website of the biggest, most powerful and influential pro-Zionist organization in the world, the ADL, punch in Pat's name in the search option located in the upper left hand corner of the screen and see for yourselves what pops up. (Link provided below.) After David Duke, Buchanan is without a doubt the national political figure in America that jews love to hate most. He isn't in fact "good for the jews" and if the articles in the search don't convince you of that then nothing will.

www.adl.org
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; October 15th, 2011 at 03:12 PM.
 
Old October 16th, 2011 #13
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

Betting on Both Horses

American Conservatives and the Jews

By Ian P. McKinney

The conservative movement can basically be divided into two factions: paleo and neo. The paleo-conservatives consider themselves to be the true conservatives. For them, cultural and social issues generally take precedence over economics. And admittedly they hew much closer to what we might think of as traditional conservatism, which was represented in the past by such notables as Senator Robert Taft, and today by persons such as Pat Buchanan and certain leaders of conservative Christianity. They are what might be properly designated as America's right wing.

The neo-conservatives, on the other hand, are regarded by the paleos as the new or "liberal" conservatives. Many of the latter are former liberals interested in preserving the status quo of post-New Deal America, or they are those who abide by liberal doctrines in all fields except economics. Neo-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and William Bennett are representative of this faction. For anyone who takes the time to listen to these people it is obvious that economics is usually at the forefront of their thinking. It is the filter through which they judge most issues.

The differences between the neos and the paleos become more marked the closer one approaches the touchstone issue of race. Neo-conservatives are for the most part in total agreement with the liberal left on such things as racial differences, race-mixing, and immigration. For them there are no significant intellectual or behavioral differences between Blacks and Whites. And although they sometimes decry multiculturalism, their opposition is based mostly upon the premise that multiculturalism causes dissension among the races. Ideally, to their minds, the greatest social progress will occur when all racial awareness is extinguished. Rush Limbaugh was rubbing our faces in multiracialism when he held his marriage ceremony at the racially mixed household of Black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his White wife.

The neo-cons have no aversion to interracial marriages or non-White immigration. For them what created America and made it great had nothing whatsoever to do with the race of its founders and majority population. For them, and for Reds and liberals also, the fact that America was founded by White people and based upon White European traditions and culture is just a coincidence and certainly nothing we should waste time dwelling on today. The neocons insist that America's success was due to the "free enterprise system" and the absence of an overt class system.

The paleos, most of whom are scared to death of being called "racists," often stress the idea that culture is the determining force in all societies, but when pushed to the wall they will probably admit that race had something to do with creation of much that was good in America. Occasionally a few paleos are very forthright in their ideas on racial matters. For example, many of them reject the policies that spewed forth from the Warren Supreme Court which invalidated hundreds of long-standing laws protecting White racial integrity, and a few of them will even admit this.

Dr. Samuel Francis is a noted paleo-conservative spokesman and former editor for the conservative Washington Times. In a recent issue of the American Renaissance newsletter Francis wrote:

Whites must correct the political and legal order to end the political power for non-white minorities and their white anti-white allies. This political effort would involve a radical dismantling of all affirmative action and civil rights legislation as well as a good part of the Federal superstructure that entrenches minority power.

Francis is probably one of the most outspoken figures in the paleo-conservative movement when it comes to racial matters. It is significant to note that he has been reported to be a close associate of presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and one of Buchanan's "idea men."
As a consequence of the above article, the Washington Times bowed to the screams of the Politically Correct censors and promptly fired Dr. Francis. But don't think for a minute that those making a din were exclusively the screaming meemies on the liberal left! No, a number of prominent neo-conservatives were in the forefront of the crusade to destroy Francis. Prominent among these neo-cons was Linda Chavez, non-White immigration apologist and president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, who was bitterly outraged that Francis would have the nerve to utter such Politically Incorrect thoughts. Chavez helped spearhead the campaign to destroy him. Now mind you, Francis' essay was not published in the newspaper of which he was an editor, but a small circulation newsletter. Still, Chavez and others like her simply cannot tolerate anyone expressing what she contemptuously referred to as "filth" even in such a relatively obscure venue.

In Dr. Francis' rebuttal to her attacks he describes the mind-set of the crypto-liberal neo-cons. He wrote:

That mentality (neo-conservatism) is so narrowly constricted to its own assumptions, values, and beliefs that it finds it impossible to give any benefit of the doubt to those who dissent from it . . . . Most conservatives are familiar with this mentality, if not from firsthand observation, then at least from the results of its blustering course through history in such windbags as Cromwell, Robespierre, John Brown, and the Abolitionists. Chavez and her brood are well met in their company.

Now as far as he goes, Francis and the publications that support him would appear to be courageous spokesmen for White people, and I suppose in their minds they believe themselves to be just that. They obviously are courageous. However, there is still one topic on which they maintain a "hands off" position -- the Jewish question.

In the article, "Whither the Populist Wave," that appeared in the July 1996 issue of a paleo publication, Chronicles, the Jewish author, Paul Gottfried, revealed a relatively unknown fact concerning presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan. In an ostensible defense of Buchanan he wrote:

Despite his abrasive remarks about AIPAC, (a branch of the powerful Israeli lobby) in 1991, Buchanan is not an anti-Semite. About half of his inner circle, which includes a Hasidic rabbi, is Jewish; and his praise for the present Israeli government is even more extravagant than was his criticism of the former Likud regime.

In 1993, it was disclosed that approximately 57% of Bill Clinton's appointments were Jewish. Considering that Jews make up only about 3% of the total U.S. population, that figure seemed truly astounding. However shocking that might be, it is much more surprising and disturbing when a man like Pat Buchanan, thought by many to be a defender of Western civilization if not the White race, has Jews comprise 50 percent of, not just his occasional advisors, acquaintances, or campaign workers, but of his "inner circle" -- his confidential advisors, speech writers, and political consultants. Now, many aware people might not be surprised if they were told that Buchanan had a Jew or two among his associates. And one might even convince oneself that Buchanan thought such a thing wise so as to deflect charges of anti-Semitism. But we're not talking about one or two Jews. We are talking about the disconcerting discovery that Jews constitute 50 percent of his closest advisors.

First, as much as we may sympathize with Buchanan's independence from the New World Order gang and the Jewish establishment, we must remember that he is not a racial patriot. He was one of the first Republicans to denounce David Duke for his racial opinions when Duke was garnering huge support among White Louisianans. Buchanan was a functionary of the Nixon administration when that administration was bussing little White children into ghetto hells, and we have no evidence that he used his position to do anything about it.

Assuming that Gottfried is not exaggerating, this revelation may actually be good news in a way. For decades the Jews have rarely failed to attack and suppress any candidate that espoused anything remotely resembling nationalism and especially one that was tinged with White racial undertones. What this revelation of Jewish penetration into Buchanan's inner circle really tells us is that these ideas -- political and economic nationalism -- are ideas whose time has come, and the Jews are very concerned. They are concerned enough to infiltrate the staffs of some of the most prominent proponents of these movements.

Now, there are those that will say to me: Can't you accept that there are at least some Jews not engaging in or supporting activities which are detrimental to America and the White race? Yes, I can accept that.

There are Jews who are not anti-White crusaders, destructive media moguls, or Marxist subversives. I know Jews who don't support many of the destructive activities of organized Jewry. Jews, especially non-influential ones, live in many of the same neighborhoods that we do, and they have also become victims of the non-White violence that organized Jewry has unceasingly fostered. I know Jews who deplore non-White immigration and racial mixing. But I am not here to make excuses for the Jews.

But let's not fool ourselves: If a few Jews denounce these things, its not because their goal is to preserve the White race. Perhaps there is a growing awareness among some Jews that an America dominated by non-Whites might not bow in veneration to the "Chosen People." Non-White domination might bring about conditions far worse for the Jews than anything they experienced in Europe or America. Recall especially the numerous anti-Jewish pronouncements made in recent years by some of Louis Farrakhan's lieutenants. Also, I suspect they realize that the growing number of Asians might represent a group more difficult to deal with than Whites. It is interesting to note that Jews have made few significant inroads in Asian nations.

Given these circumstances, should it surprise anyone that a few Jews are making their way into what they see as "safe" nationalist publications such as Chronicles, American Renaissance, and others? But when I see large percentages of Jews prominent in such publications alarm bells start going-off in my head. This indicates that there is more afoot than just a few conservative Jews looking for cover amidst the multi-racial chaos now permeating American society. It makes one suspect there's a concerted effort by certain Jews to prevent any backlash against themselves for all the anti-White activities engaged in by organized Jewry for the past fifty years and more.

If these conservative Jews were really sincere and really wanted to fight for the preservation of America, then their energies would best be spent denouncing the activities of organized Jewry. But, as far as I know, none of these Jews in the paleo-conservative movement has uttered one peep against the anti-White activities of their fellow Jews. Not much is said by them with regard to the Jewish domination of the Marxist movement and the destruction it has wrought. Not one word in exposing the Holocaust myth and the White collective guilt encouraged by its promoters. And most important of all, no condemnation of the filth and anti-White subversion that have been and continue to be rammed into the public's mind by the Jewish-controlled news and entertainment media. No, we haven't heard much of anything from these "Good Jews" on any of these important issues. Nonetheless, I have been recently informed that a Jewish speaker at a past American Renaissance conference, when cornered on this issue during a private conversation when the microphones were turned off, frankly admitted that organized Jewry has been a driving force behind a multitude of anti-White operations for many years. Despite this discrete private admission, the same rabbi has never seen fit to reveal publicly this important fact.

In view of these Jews' recent claims of supporting the White racialist movement, one might certainly be excused for asking, what better work could these Jews engage in than enthusiastically exposing the destructive chicanery of the Jewish power structure? After all, who could attack a Jew as a "Nazi" or anti-Semite? As far as I know, there has only been one Jew to do this with real energy and commitment, and his name was Benjamin H. Freedman. He exposed the activities of organized Jewry for all to see and spent his fortune in the effort; he held nothing back as he exposed their lies and subversion. He depleted his wealth and sacrificed his reputation exposing the anti-Western animus behind both Zionism and Communism, and he equally exposed the Jewish domination of the American media. While I assign considerable credibility to Benjamin Freedman, I hold in extreme suspicion those Jews now making their way into several branches of the "Patriotic" movement. Many of them seem to be devoting their efforts to smearing, threatening, and purging so-called "anti-Semites" from patriotic groups. Jews agitating around the fringes of Second Amendment and militia groups are vehement in their frantic denunciation of all "racists" and openly hope that the gun owners will begin shooting racists when the time is ripe. Beware, beware, beware.

Most of the blame really falls at the feet of Patrick Buchanan and those like him for failing to recognize that Jewish interests do not coincide with our interests, and for allowing themselves to be co-opted while posing as the "Great White Hope." But as I said before, as deplorable as these things may appear, they show that the feeling of nationalism and the pressure of an awakening White people are making themselves felt in American politics. The Jewish power structure is still working feverishly to suppress it but despite their best efforts this racial attitude continues to grow and is resonating in the minds of more and more White Americans. So now it is evidently the time for the Jews to use other measures, namely to corral potential White spokesman or political candidates and render them impotent; let them wail against the Blacks, mestizos, liberalism, affirmative action, etc., etc., just don't allow any criticism of God's Chosen.

Even if such a Kosherized White movement succeeded (very unlikely since the Jewish fifth column would be in a good position to torpedo any impending successes) and re-established White America more or less as our forefathers intended it, the Jewish minority would still be a dangerous incubus on the body politic. Not because Jews espouse this particular creed or that -- creeds can be picked up and discarded with the ease with which one dons or doffs a mask. No, they cannot be allowed to lead us, simply because they are not us, because they regard themselves correctly as a different people, with their own interests.

When Jewish interests conflict with ours, as they surely will, they will sacrifice us in an instant as they have proven time and time again throughout our people's history.

So the next time you hear an ostensibly patriotic radio program or listen to a conservative candidate's message, see if you can detect a Kosher imprimatur. It may well be there.

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs968b.html
 
Old October 20th, 2011 #14
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

Sailer On Buchanan’s SUICIDE OF A SUPERPOWER: Bareknuckle Brawler and Wisest, Most Objective Man In American Public Affairs

By Steve Sailer on October 19, 2011

Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? Patrick J. Buchanan’s eleventh book, documents with vivid details and acute quotes how, among other globalist mistakes, state-sponsored demographic-replacement via mass immigration is undermining the social cohesion and trust that is absolutely required if Americans are to govern themselves in a Republic.

Buchanan is not upbeat in his assessment of the perils self-inflicted by America's "welfare-warfare state"—"Globalization dissolves the bonds of economic dependency that held us together as a people, as the cacophony of multiculturalism drowns out the old culture". But Suicide of a Superpower's very existence, much less its position on the bestseller lists, raises the cheering question of however Pat's career has survived since William F. Buckley Jr. issued a fatwa against him in 1991.

The same can't be said for several other conservative intellectuals decreed verboten by Buckley, such as the late Joe Sobran. So how has Buchanan managed to stay afloat in an age of politics by character assassination?

One thing to keep in mind about Pat's career: he's a great guy. He's one of the kindest, most considerate people in public life. (Full disclosure: Pat quotes me several times, citing my VDARE.com articles on the “racial ratio”—Affirmative Action beneficiaries vs. benefactors i.e. losers—and the real meaning of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores among others).

Buchanan has made himself into exactly what you would want in a political intellectual: famously pugnacious in argument, but a gentleman who fights fair and feels the other side is entitled to its say. He wants to win arguments, but not suppress and personally destroy his opponents.

In his new book, Buchanan laments that in 21st Century America:

"The crudeness of our public debate is matched by its incivility. In politics it is insufficient to defeat an opponent. One must demonize, disgrace, and destroy him. The tradition of political foes being social friends when the sun goes down ... is passé. Today, we criminalize politics and go for the throat."[Links added]

Buchanan's genial honesty helps explain why relatively few liberal Bigfoot journalists have piled on to the two decade-long neocon jihad against him. They are ideologically closer to Buchanan’s neocon detractors, but they know from personal experience that Pat is the better man.

The subtitle of Buchanan's new book, Will America Survive to 2025?, pays tribute to Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik's 1970 essay Will the Soviet Union Survive to 1984? (Notice the 14-year span in both.)

Amalrik predicted that a dragged-out Soviet war with China would unleash centrifugal nationalist energies and ultimately dismantle the Soviet empire's "prison house of nations."

As it turned out, the Russians blundered into war in Afghanistan rather than with China, and it took until 1991, not 1984, for the Soviet Union to dissolve into 15 countries. Nevertheless, as in horseshoes and hand-grenades, close counts when forecasting—so Amalrik deserves his renown.

In contrast to Amalrik, Buchanan's book does not explicitly predict that the U.S. will crack up. He merely concludes:

“American is entering a time of troubles. The clash of culture and creed are intensifying and both parties are perceived to have failed the nation…And the crises that afflict us—culture wars, race division, record deficits, unpayable debt, waves of immigration, legal and illegal, of people never before assimilated, gridlock in the capital, and possible defeat in war—may prove too much for our democracy to cope with. They surely will, if we do not act now.”

Clearly, our country does suffer from overstretch. The unsustainability of the bipartisan conventional wisdom of Invite-The-World, Invade-The-World, In Hock-To-The-World is obvious.

But what comes next is not. Buchanan sums up the unpredictability of the situation nicely:

"On the news of Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga in 1777, which portended the loss of the North American colonies, John Sinclair wrote to Adam Smith in despair that Britain was headed for ruin.

"'There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,' replied Smith.

"We are severely testing Smith's proposition."

Buchanan is one of the few public figures to have taken our victory in the Cold War seriously. He'd dedicated his life to struggling against Communism and then, over a two-year stretch in 1989-1991, much of what he'd hoped for came true.

Most individuals in that situation would smugly keep on keeping on. But Buchanan quickly began advocating a new set of policies attuned to the post-Cold War world.

This has not, however, been a terribly respectable notion. He writes:

"From 1941 to 1989, America played a great role as the defender of freedom, sacrificing and serving mankind, a role of which we can be proud. But having won that epochal struggle, we found ourselves in a world for which we were unprepared. Like an aging athlete, we keep trying to relive the glory days ... As our rivals look to tomorrow, we live in yesterday."

As if trying to illustrate Buchanan's point about the pointlessness of contemporary games of empire, on Friday, October 14, President Obama announced to Congress that he was sending 100 armed U.S. troops to South Sudan, Uganda, the Central African Republic, and/or the Democratic Republic of the Congo to chase around the Lord's Resistance Army. America's newest and most random enemy ever is a gang of a few hundred juvenile delinquents who rape and pillage in the hinterlands. (Evidently, it takes a child to raze a village.)

An important element in Buchanan's good nature: he is one of the few pundits who will admit freely that his biases are tribal as well as ideological. Sportsmanship is one of Buchanan's defining traits. He's like a wise old Notre Dame fan who has no illusions that the Fighting Irish are more cosmically deserving of victory than the other football teams. But they're his team. Thus, he can discuss with perfect objectivity the prospects of other teams because he isn't the puerile kind of fan who furiously argues that his team should win. He just wants them to win.

Buchanan, advisor to three Presidents and winner of a New Hampshire presidential primary, has been "in the arena" (to use Teddy Roosevelt's phrase) since the 1960s. Active engagement for decades with the political process typically narrows the imagination and constricts the soul. (To see what I mean, just read skeptically Matt Bai's long, sympathetic article Does Anyone Have a Grip on the G.O.P.? on Republican Establishment operatives like William Kristol and Vin Weber in last week's New York Times Magazine.)

Buchanan's career in politics goes back to Richard Nixon's comeback in the mid-1960s. Unlike so many others, however, Buchanan has emerged from all those years and all those conflicts wiser, more judicious, more empathetic, more broadly informed, and more principled.

In contrast, neoconservatism, which strikes neutral observers as equally tribal in motivation, has unleashed so much violence over the last decade precisely because of its pretenses to universal benevolence. If you root for some other team than the neocons root for, well, that's not just an accident of birth, as Buchanan understands. Instead, to a neocon, rooting for the wrong team is proof that you are, as Richard Perle and David Frum used to say, evil.

Worse, you aren't supposed to get the joke when it comes to neoconservatism. If you realize why neocon claims to be repairing humanity are funny, you are worse than evil.

As Buchanan mentions in a brief aside:

"Neonconservatism, which shares attributes with the Trotskyism that is one of its roots, is one of the new ideologies to have seized the imagination of those seeking a cause ...

But, in Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan isn't out to kick the neocons while they are deservedly down. He merely concludes, dryly:

"The conversion of George W. Bush to neoconservatism was not without consequence."

Buchanan's sportsmanship helps make him a strikingly unsentimental observer of American history. For example,

"No one would suggest the Indian wars were about equality. There were about conquest and subjugation."

He's glad his team won, but that doesn't justify spinning how it was done.

Similarly, Buchanan sees no reason to be furtive about the fact that House Republicans triumphed in 2010 "because white America came out to vote and minorities and the young stayed home." In Chapter 9, "The White Party," he explains in detail how the GOP (or, more properly, what Peter Brimelow calls “GAP”, Generic American Party) can win again in 2012 with the same dynamic.

As Buchanan argues, strategies aimed at turning out the Republican Party's white base are the best bet for winning in the short run. In the (very) long run, however, as Buchanan notes in his lapidary prose:

"Either the Republican Party puts an end to mass immigration, or mass immigration will put an end to the Republican Party."

To see how much the Establishment Republicans and Establishment Media don't want to talk about immigration, consider once again Bai's New York Times article about Washington G.O.P. insiders' views on Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and other candidates. Although there are 7,179 words in the article, not a single word is "immigration." And Bai published this after Rick Perry blew his lead in the race largely over immigration.

In contrast, in a subsection entitled "A Moratorium on Immigration," Buchanan offers a seven-point plan:
•"A moratorium on new immigration until unemployment falls to 6 percent. To bring in foreign workers when 23 million Americans are still underemployed or out of work is to put corporate profits ahead of country."
•Reform legal immigration in the long run to bring in those most easily assimilated.
•Finish the fence.
•Declare that there will never be an amnesty and begin deportations, starting with drunk drivers.
•Congress should pass a law denying citizenship to anchor babies, and add an attachment that "the law is not subject to review by any federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court."
•Begin high profile immigration raids on egregious scofflaw employers.
•Pass a constitutional amendment "making English the official language of the United States."

If not now, when?

One of Buchanan's important tactical points: in 2008, John McCain won only 45 percent of the Catholic vote, which comprised 27 percent of the electorate. He writes:

"If Republicans can raise their 2012 nominee's share of the Catholic vote from 45 to 52 percent—what Bush won against Kerry and the party won again in 2010—that seven-point gain would add more votes than going from 20 percent of the Jewish vote to 100 percent. Which one of these feats is easier for the party to accomplish?"

Buchanan, who is German Catholic on his mother's side and Scots-Irish on his father's, helped Reagan win over Reagan Democrats—typically, northern metropolitan Catholics.

But the plain fact is that the current generation of Republican strategists don't have much of a plan for benefiting this demographic (other than, apparently, putting them on the Supreme Court). Yet Obama's collapse in the polls with white Americans in mid-2009 coincided with his tangling with—and losing to—two stereotypical Reagan Democrats. As Buchanan says:

"If the GOP is not the party of New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci and Cambridge cop James Crowley, it has no future."

Notice that Obama's decision to nominate Sonia Sotomayor, who had voted to cheat Ricci out of his promotion because he's white, and Obama's imputation of racism to Crowley, weren't part of some brilliant Republican master plan. They were just gifts that fell into the G.O.P.'s lap. And they then paid off remarkably in Massachusetts later than year, when Republican Scott Brown won the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

However, reviving the Reagan Democrat strategy—in essence, what VDARE.com calls “The Sailer Strategy”—does raises a tricky issue for Republicans that Buchanan doesn't dwell upon. Let me delve further into it.

The typical Republican voter's reaction to the election of a President with a black activist past to the White House has been to emphasize libertarian small-government ideology to ward off charges of “racism”, while trying to prevent the Obama-led Democratic Party from redistributing their wealth to its client constituencies. Thus, for example, Herman Cain has risen to near the top of the 2012 Republican pack at present by being a black Tea Party candidate.

The ire of Republicans has thus been directed toward schoolteachers and, to a lesser but growing extent, public safety employees. Big City workers like teachers and firemen, in the sort of jobs that require degrees or passing tests, both 1) use up a lot of tax dollars and 2) tend to be whiter than the cities they serve—making them a relatively safe target for Republicans terrified of accusations of racism.

But if the Republicans really are the "white party," as Democratic chairman Howard Dean gaffed, these white v. white conflicts are counter-productive. What’s needed, from a GOP/ GAP standpoint, is white solidarity.

Let's consider from a Buchananian perspective the latest article by the outstanding journalist Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Blind Side, and The Big Short), is called "California and Bust" in the November issue of Vanity Fair.

Lewis is emerging as the voice of the "frequent flyer" class of Republican-leaning corporate middle managers. He tries to explain California's dire finances by focusing on the fire department in Vallejo, the San Francisco Bay Area municipality that famously managed to go legally bankrupt in May 2008.

Lewis has an entirely legitimate complaint about the fire department's pay. But it's also worth noting a fascinating fact about Vallejo that Lewis leaves out of his story: it's a perfect emblem of California not just because it's broke, but because it's so extraordinarily diverse.

Buchanan laughingly quotes Dan Quayle telling the Japanese that "diversity is our strength." Vallejo, therefore, ought to be the strongest city in America because it may have the most uniformly diverse population: 25 percent Asian (mostly Filipino), 23 percent Hispanic, 22 percent black, and eight percent multiracial. [VDARE.com note: Also 32.8 percent white, but that doesn't count towards diversity.]

So in the Quayle-echoed conventional wisdom, which Lewis doesn't dare challenge directly, Vallejo should be paradise. After all, as one resident told Lewis, Vallejo is “a boat ride to San Francisco. You throw a stone and you hit Napa.”

And Vallejo has already arrived at that long-awaited nirvana of a Benetton commercial come to life, an entire city out from under the iron fist of White Majority Rule.

But instead, as Buchanan's framework would predict, Vallejo epitomizes dysfunctionality. Suicide of a Superpower devotes several pages to liberal Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam's landmark survey of 40 American communities:

"After thirty thousand interviews, Putnam concluded that ethnic and racial diversity devastates communities. In diverse communities, people not only do not trust strangers, they do not trust their own kind. They withdraw into themselves, they support community activity less, they vote less."

There are several obvious reasons why diversity diminishes community effectiveness.

First, as Buchanan notes, "Anyone who has been in a debate on a racially charged issue like the false allegations of the rape of a black woman by members of the Duke lacrosse team knows how fast the room temperature can rise." Few people combine Buchanan's good manners with his ability to not take matters personally, so they'd rather stay home than debate in a diverse setting.

Second, immigrants from corrupt countries like Mexico and the Philippines expect public affairs to be crooked and ineffectual, so they organize their lives around their clans and don't try hard to be good citizens.

Third, and most fundamentally, diverse people, by definition, want diverse results—so they are more likely to wind up at loggerheads than a homogenous people.

Diversity thus makes public affairs ripe for exploitation by highly unified groups, such as, in Lewis' article on California, the prison guard's union and local firemen. Lewis's reporting on how Vallejo's fire department is an island of cohesion in a sea of anomie is excellent. Vallejo's fire chief Paige Meyer recalls that when he was a young lifeguard: "He started talking to firefighters and found that 'they all absolutely loved what they did. You get to go and live and create a second family.[VDARE.com note: I. E. A Band of Brothers.] How can you not like that?'”

Moreover, because the vibrant residents of Vallejo tend to set their houses on fire more frequently than the duller residents of less diverse Northern Californian communities, the Vallejo FD attracted some of the most gung-ho firefighters from all over the region.

Not surprisingly, the Vallejo fire department—a rare institution in Vallejo with a high degree of what Putnam calls "social capital," or espirit de corps among its employees—managed to outmaneuver the divided and listless citizenry in grabbing a slice of the pie bigger than could be afforded by the populace's mediocre ability to generate wealth.

Of course, one of the most important services to the Republic the aroused citizens of the Tea Party can perform is to do what wasn't done in Vallejo: to subject government employee contracts to the gimlet eye.

But on the other hand, white firemen and cops are the archetypal Reagan Democrats. So, it doesn't make sense for the GOP to declare total war on a crucial segment of swing voters.

Republicans need to offer Reagan Democrats something in exchange.

Fortunately, there's an obvious, principled solution that would be a political winner for Republicans: in return for not letting public employee unions loot the public purse, protect white government employees from racial discrimination by Democrats.

If you want a cost-effective government, don't pay the employees too much and don't make them hire deadwood just because of the color of their skin.

That's a winning electoral proposition.

Buchanan also observes that polls show that young people, a demographic that Republicans lost badly in 2008, are more highly averse to affirmative action than are older voters.

To an old cynic like me, racial preferences for African-Americans seem to be unavoidable. But we can't afford to continue to lavish it on the ever-growing number of immigrants. So it's easy for me to forget that young idealists tend to find the very existence of quotas unjust. It is, after all, contrary to all that content-of-their character rhetoric.

There’s a perfect opportunity for Republicans to make these points: protest the current discrimination ruling against the Fire Department of New York—which, you might remember, sacrificed 343 men on 9/11. A Clinton-appointed judge threw out the hiring of hundreds of new firemen because whites had studied how to put out fires too hard.

That's racist!

With Obama in the White House, the public is getting sick of accusations of “racism”. The FDNY is a place to make a stand.

But is even one Republican talking about the FDNY? They're still too worried about being called “racist” to dare raise it.

In fact, it was a Bushbot Republican Affirmative Action-appointment, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who filed this ludicrous case back in the carefree days of 2007.

It's time for the Republican Party to wake up the fact that it's 2011 now.

In summary, Buchanan, who has always pictured himself as a bare-knuckled brawler, is now perhaps the wisest, most objective-minded man in American public affairs. That's a tremendous personal accomplishment.

It's also, as Pat would be the first to admit, a little scary in what it says about our civic life.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/sailer...f-a-superpower
 
Old October 21st, 2011 #15
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
Default

Pat Buchanan’s SUICIDE OF A SUPERPOWER: The Suicide of Liberty
By Paul Craig Roberts
Created 10/12/11
Topic:
On Topic
Pat Buchanan’s latest book, Suicide of a Superpower [1], raises the question whether America will survive to 2025. The question might strike some readers as unduly pessimistic and others as optimistic. It is unclear whether the US, as we have known it, will survive its next presidential election.

Consider the candidates. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who was likely to have been an early Obama supporter, now wonders if Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.” Despite Obama’s failure, the Republicans can’t come up with anyone any better. One Republican candidate admires Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman who gave us financial deregulation and the financial crisis. Another is ready for a preemptive strike on Iran. Yet another thinks the Soviet Union is a grave threat to the United States. None of these clueless dopes are capable of presiding over a government.

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the “superpower” is over-extended financially and militarily. The US is currently involved in six conflicts with Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Pakistan on the waiting list for full fledged military attacks and perhaps invasions. Russia is being encircled with missile bases, and war plans are being drawn up for China.

Where is the money going to come from when the country’s debt is bursting at the seams, the economy is in decline, and unemployment on the rise?

Washington thinks that the money can simply be printed. However, enough has already been printed that the rest of the world is already suspicious of the dollar and its role as reserve currency.

As John Williams has said, the world could begin dumping dollar assets at any time.

I don’t think we can dismiss Buchanan’s concern as pessimistic.

Buchanan documents his concern across a wide front. For example, the combination of mass immigration and its consequent demographics together with the “diversity cult” means the end of “white America” and the transformation of what once was the dominant population into a disadvantaged underclass.

Buchanan cites a Wall Street Journal article [2] by Ron Unz published 12 years ago [3]. Unz found that white American gentiles who would be considered Christian are dramatically under-represented in America’s elite universities, [4] which provide the elites who dominate government, business, and the professions. [5]

Unz reported that white Americans who comprised 70% of the US population made up only 25% of Harvard’s enrollment and that the composition of the student bodies at Yale Princeton Columbia, Berkeley, and Stanford was much the same.

Asians who comprised 3% of the US population comprised one-fifth of Harvard’s enrollment, and Jews, who comprised 2.5% of the population comprised between one-fourth and one-third of Harvard’s student body.

As Buchanan puts it, the country’s native-born majority has relegated its own progeny to the trash bin of history.

Buchanan doesn’t address the question whether the rest of the world will miss white America. Considering the endless wars and astounding hypocrisy and immorality associated with white America since the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the world is likely to cheer when power slips from the hands of what Leonard Jeffries termed the “ice people,” that is, people without souls or feelings for others. Americans are so wrapped up in the myth of their “exceptionalism” [6] that they are oblivious to the world’s opinion. American soft power, once a foundation of US influence, has been squandered, another reason the “superpower” status is crumbling.

Financial deregulation and the consequent financial crisis, collapse of the real estate market, and evictions of millions of Americans from their homes have greatly dimmed America’s economic prospects. However, as Buchanan points out, the offshoring of US jobs and industry under the guise of “free trade” has damaged the middle class, halted the growth in consumer purchasing power and left many college graduates without careers.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the Bush/Cheney years, America lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs. During this decade, Michigan lost 48% of its manufacturing jobs, New Jersey lost 39%, and New York and Ohio lost 38%.

During this decade, the US incurred trade deficits totaling $6.2 trillion, of which $3.8 trillion is in manufactured goods. In other words, imports of manufactured goods are a larger cause of the trade deficit than oil imports. Early in the decade the US lost its trade surplus in advanced technology products. In recent years the US has run up $300 billion in trade deficits in advanced technology products with China alone. As Macy Block’s site, Economy in Crisis, documents, foreigners have used their huge dollar earnings to buy up American companies, with the consequence that foreign earnings on US investments now exceed US earnings abroad, thus worsening the current account deficit.

Although Buchanan makes many points, this is not his best book. He becomes lost in old arguments that no longer make sense, such as the claim that the poor vote away the property of the rich, and he ignores the destruction of the US Constitution in the name of “the war on terror,” which has transformed the US into a police state.

Conservatives are stuck in the canard that democracy is a tool used by the poor to provide themselves with benefits at the expense of the rich. Buchanan cites statistics of those on welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and so on as evidence that the rich are being plundered. Yet, the facts are the opposite. The distribution of income has completely reversed since the 1960s.

In the 1960s, the top 1 percent received 11% of the income gains, and the bottom 90% received 65%, leaving 24% of income gains for the 9% of richest Americans just below the top 1%. In the first decade of the 21st century, these figures have reversed. [7] The top 1% receive 65% of the income gains and the bottom 90% receive 12%, leaving 23% for those rich Americans in the 91-99 percentile.

If recent history (Yugoslavia, Soviet Empire) is a guide, Buchanan is probably correct that a country whose population consists of diverse ethnic and racial groups is less likely to share a common interest and enjoy political stability. However real this threat, it is not comparable to the threat to American identity of a destroyed Constitution.

The Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes have shredded the constitutional protections that gave American citizens their liberty. By dictate alone, the executive branch has acquired the power, prohibited by the Constitution, to incarcerate citizens indefinitely without presenting evidence and obtaining conviction. According to the US government, a secret executive branch panel now exists that has acquired from somewhere the unaccountable power to put citizens on a list to be assassinated without due process of law merely on the basis of an unproven government assertion. How does this differ from Stalinist Russia and Gestapo Germany?

The transformation of the US into a police state has been achieved quickly and with scant protest. Congress and the courts are silent. The media is silent, as are the law schools and bar associations. Out of 535 US Senators and Representatives, only Ron Paul has protested the destruction of liberty.

Buchanan is concerned that America might not survive until 2025. Instead, shouldn’t we be concerned that the American police state could last that long? Shouldn’t we be worried that the police state will survive yet another presidential election, or even one more day?
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old October 25th, 2011 #16
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

[Did Patsy choose "suicide" deliberately in order to exculpate the jews? Kevin MacDonald calls it murder.]

McCain v. Buchanan

By Steve Sailer on October 22, 2011

With John McCain issuing a vague death threat against Vladimir Putin following NATO's hit on Gadaffi, it's worth considering that McCain is an elder statesman of mainstream Republicanism, while Patrick J. Buchanan is a terrifying extremist. We similarly saw this back in August 2008, when little Georgia, then proposed for membership in NATO, invaded Russian-held territory. McCain responded with bellicose support for the aggressor, while Buchanan thought it was nuts for the U.S. to get militarily involved 600 miles south of Stalingrad.

As I mentioned in my review in VDARE of Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan is one of the few people in Washington who took the end of the Cold War as a signal for anything other than self-congratulation. The struggle with the Soviets meant we had had to do many things that were painful, costly, dangerous, or distasteful; therefore, Buchanan reasoned in the early 1990s, let's now stop doing them.

For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had been an improvisation made necessary by superpower conflict. It had preserved the peace by heightening the stakes to a "balance of terror" via a mutual defense pact. It had done its job, so it was now time to wind it down.

"As Russia had gone home, some of us urged back then, America should come home, cede NATO and all the U.S. bases in Europe to the Europeans, and become again what UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick called 'a normal country in a normal time.' Our foreign policy elites, however, could not accept that the play was closing after a forty-year run ..."

That heresy made Buchanan an outcast among the Serious Thinkers, to whom NATO wasn't an adventure, it was a job. (Brussels is lovely this time of year.) Their slogan became "NATO must go out of area or go out of business."

Hence, globalist leaders have gone looking far afield for wars, such as bombing Serbia and Libya, to keep NATO "relevant." The U.S., Buchanan points out, also repeatedly violated its pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand NATO "one inch to the East," in return for which the last Soviet leader agreed to West Germany taking over East Germany. Moscow's resentment of NATO backstabbing was then cited as proof that Moscow has a Bad Attitude, which requires NATO to encroach even more upon their natural sphere of influence.

But, as Buchanan points out in Suicide of a Superpower, this empire-building-on-autopilot has reached economic, political, and geographic limits. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. And the strategic logic of expanding NATO to unstable and unimportant countries such as Georgia or Ukraine, as once planned, is derisible.

There's the public history of modern Europe that lauds the expensive international institutions that keep bloodthirsty nations from starting new wars, and then there's the hidden history: Stalin's massive ethnic cleansing in 1945 of nearly all Germans from Eastern Europe left Europeans with relatively little to fight over (other than their domination by the extra-European superpowers, the Soviet Union and the U.S).

Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times last Sunday does a good job of summing up the Buchananite critique of Pinkerian optimism. (Although Douthat doesn't mention Buchanan, he does namecheck the Derb). Buchanan and Douthat both cite Jerry Z. Muller, who wrote in 2008:

"The creation of ethnonational states across Europe, a consequence of two world wars and ethnic cleansing, was a precondition of stability, unity, and peace. With no ethnic rivals inside their national homes, European peoples had what they had fought for, and were now prepared to live in peace with their neighbors."

To say that Buchanan is pessimistic about American foreign policy, however, is to miss the key point: there isn't much reason to fight. Sure, we should continue to promise to defend Taiwan with our Navy, but are the Chinese really going to try to conquer Taiwan? Both sides are making too much money doing business with each other to have time for a war.

Or, imagine that a majority in Ukraine decide to reunite with Russia, while a minority rebel. Would the American public agree to fight the Russo-Ukrainian army fighting the rebels? Would we be willing to reimpose the draft to liberate West Ukraine? (Buchanan helped out way back in 1967 with Richard Nixon's hugely popular decision to phase out conscription.) Buchanan thinks the idea of the U.S. going to war in the ex-Soviet Union is politically absurd.

Thank God lunatics like Buchanan are marginalized while thoughtful statesmen like McCain are accorded the respect their wisdom has earned.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/mccain-v-buchanan
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.
Page generated in 0.31433 seconds.