So: Trump punted on DACA. The border wall now involves strengthening existing walls, instead of building a bad-ass Escape From New York style barrier. And the dreamers can stay. It sure sounds like “we” lost to me. Or does it?
American politics is based on the simple idea that government is harmful when it acts in its own interests, so it must be crippled by an extensive system of hoops, chutes and ladders that makes it almost impossible for government to get anything done. This system has a weakness, of course, which is that once government makes a mistake, it is doubly impossible to remove it. First, the system hampers any action; second, voters are usually oblivious to any changes which remove things, as they would prefer to think about good things coming their way, like winning a lottery or the chance that their favorite team might win the superbowl.
To date, Trump has outplayed every adversary he has come up against. When he began his campaign, it was all but written in stone that Hillary Clinton would become Barack Obama II, or rather William Jefferson Clinton III, and then use her power to bring in more immigrants from around the world to vote Leftist. Like others of her type, she does not care about consequences, like the destruction of the nation, so long as she gets her way. If you are thinking of Captain Ahab commanding the ruins of his boat to chase down the white whale, here, you are correct. The white whale is the Western European majority and Leftists will not be happy until they have subjugated it forever, and they do not care if this destroys themselves in the process (imagine someone saying “Allahu Ackbar!” with a Beltway accent). Of course, even that will not make them happy because Leftists are fundamentally unhappy people, but for them to confront that is to self-destruct.
The departure of Steve Bannon was a major event in the Trump administration because it represented a shift in strategy. Instead of trying to remain united, the group that brought us the Trump presidency has begun fighting on different levels. Trump dispatched Bannon to apply pressure on Trump from the media, since it has become clear that Breitbart will replace Fox News as the major source of information for conservatives, followed by the Daily Caller and aggregators like the Drudge Report and Real Clear Politics. When Bannon left, it signaled that the initial phase of establishing an administration and setting up strategy is over, and the Trump has a game plan for both of his terms.
For the first half of his first term, his goal has changed. He cannot directly achieve any more than he is currently doing with executive orders, through which he is restricting the extremes of Obama-era policy, and through appointments, through which he is dismantling the lower-level infrastructure of fanatical Leftists that infests the American government. Instead, he needs to clear aside some obstacles, and he is doing this in a classic formula from his days as a builder: offer a solid plan, let the opposition destroy it, and then force them to come up with their own instead of adjusting his own plan to meet their needs, as any other candidate would do. He will give lip service to compromise, but really, he is going to keep trotting out plans that he does not believe in simply because they are centrist compromises that will unite the Democrats and domesticated Republicans in opposing them. At that point, he sits back and forces the decision onto them, which fractures their fragile coalition and makes Congress the “owners” of existing bad policy and the type of hacked-up committee thinking replacements that career bureaucrats — sorry, “politicians” — like to cook up.
While he is doing that, Trump continues to play a game of misdirection and false signals. He has made statements about DACA, but not anything that immigrants can rely on. He did not offer amnesty, nor did he adopt a compromise policy, but instead deferred action. At the same time he is doing this, agents of his administration are increasing pressure on those who hire illegal immigrants, which is causing a steady outflow along the borders but, more importantly, beginning to slow the inflow. This is the “pincer strategy”: raises costs for doing what is not wanted, while making what is wanted seem more appealing. By increasing the crackdown while refusing to adopt amnesty, Trump is raising the cost to be an illegal immigrant in the US; by stabilizing regions around the world, he is also making the prospect of staying home become sweeter. This will slow the influx and have ripple effects as the trend of immigrating to the US dies out, at which point many people here will reconsider what they are doing. No one wants to be on the wrong side of a trend.
If he is as experienced and critical of a thinker as many suspect, his real target is an idea: the notion that the majority should be penalized in order to increase diversity. This is summarized by a range of laws and legal theories, including disparate impact and affirmative action, that form the heart of the Civil Rights and Social Justice movements. He will probably target these through the interpretations of laws such as our Civil Rights code, changing perceptions so that simply cracking down on non-majority people, or refusing to hire or sell to them, is no longer seen as a violation of their rights. When this theory — the basis of affirmative action and all quota programs — falls, the pincer strategy will have more power. When a non-majority person can walk into any job knowing that they will be hired over a majority person simply because the business fears a lawsuit, they can dominate; when parity is achieved, the march of the Leftist-minority coalition into American institutions will stall and then violently reverse itself. This is the real target in the short term.
Trump will spend the first half of the first term making Congress weak. The 2018 elections are coming up, and all of these actions which he has deferred will then be questions before Congress, which means that people will be forced to see how their local representatives choose. At the same time, a number of people riding Trump’s coattails will be running for office. In a pure win situation, Trump ends up with a quarter of Congress being people who are elected for the sole purpose of being like Trump, which means they are going to vote with him. Even if only a few Congresscritters get voted out, the fear will spread. At that point, Republicans will find themselves judged on whether or not they uphold conservative policy, and Democrats will be seen as obstructionists, because Trump has not advanced any radical bills as the media predicted he would. Instead, he is systematically dismantling illusion, which is not a shift to the Right so much as a reversal of the shift to the Left which has pushed us very far from center over the past thirty years.
His “now you own it” strategy is terrifying to face. The foes who reject anything he offers must then come up with something of their own, and it will either appear too far Left or too indecisive, at which point they lose face and with it, power with the electorate. His pincer strategy is driving back the Leftist-minority coalition and creating market forces that create replacements for minority labor, at a time when automation is just entering the market and replacing most of those jobs anyway. Someday, the robots will do all of our jobs, at which point people will make their living solely by trading and owning stock, and many will simply exit the first world anyway to go live in the more comfortable third world environments where subsistence farming, shopkeeping and artisan activity will keep them busy. In preparation for that, he is clearing away the unskilled labor and starting the momentum against The Diversity Project at the same time.
Is any of this emotionally satisfying? Not really, compared to the Great Wall Of Texas or other wonderful visual images. But Trump is trying to dismantle seventy years of fanatical Leftism that has systematically infected and dominated American government, while working within a system designed to impede and thwart such radical changes. In addition, he faces a deeply entrenched self-serving cartel of Leftists who apply nepotism rigorously to help each other across government, media and industry. The old Leftist slogan was “never trust anyone over thirty,” but our new slogan might be, “never trust anyone with an office job.” Counteracting that, Trump has his work cut out for him, but it is not time to lose heart yet.
Zionism is Jewish nationalism, which is the idea that the only way to preserve the Jewish people is to curate them in a state inhabited only by people who are ethnically Jewish. This is no different from any other form of nationalism, which always seeks to preserve an ethnic group by creating a homogeneous society and excluding all outside influences.
In this way, nationalism is not bigoted, but xenophobic, in that it recognizes any foreign intrusion as a pathogen which will eventually harm the health of the “nation,” or the ethnic group united to its land, as a whole. Nationalism views ethnic groups as organic wholes, meaning arising from nature and consisting of unequal parts interacting like an ecosystem.
Three days after Israel’s top court ruled that African asylum seekers can be deported to Rwanda and Uganda, but only can be held in detention for sixty days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited south Tel Aviv neighborhoods and the area around the central bus station, where many asylum seekers live.
…”We will return south Tel Aviv to the citizens of Israel, they are not refugees, but infiltrators looking for work,” he said. He added: “If needed, we will legislate an amendment to the law or change the agreements with the African countries, or both.”
…Speaking with residents, the prime minister also promised that the government would step up enforcement against asylum seekers “in the face of those who employ them, in the face of the lawless infiltrators.”
…The flow of African migrants into Israel has been halted entirely, with only one person getting caught attempting to cross the Israel-Egypt border. In addition, in the first six months of 2017, about 2,100 of the asylum seekers have left Israel.
Netanyahu has followed a course of action which will work across the West: use the courts to remove special protections given to migrants, then identify the refugees as a hostile commercial force, and finally, go after those who employ them, which will cut off the attraction that brings them in.
Further sensible action would consist of removing civil rights laws, affirmative action programs and all social benefits because those also serve as magnets for the worldwide population of impoverished people without the moral fortitude to stay and improve their homelands. In this way, Netanyahu and Trump are working in parallel by showing first-world nations that diversity can be gently abolished.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West pursued its victorious form of Leftism, but without competition or an upper boundary as imposed by the Soviet example, American Leftism quickly expanded to an intensity like that of the Soviets, only without the centralized, so it was enforced by citizens and businesses instead of government in a form known as “soft totalitarianism.”
Using diversity as its driving force, the Left smashed down all existing order on the basis that it was discriminatory, a move that people tolerated out of a desire to be good. With the rise of Barack Obama, however, it became clear that racial problems were becoming worse and that civil rights was being used as a means to further Leftism on a path toward Soviet levels of control.
As the world recovers from the financial, environmental, political, social and existential disaster of the Obama years, the founding groups of the first-world nations are discovering that they, too, can have identity politics. For them, this consists of an anti-parasitism view, which is that we do not need diversity, and would prefer to live with our own kind, so it is time to end it.
This contrasts how the Left has portrayed the sensible xenophobia of identitarian populations as bigotry, when really it was a drive for self-preservation against the perhaps not hostile intentions of other groups, but the certainty of destruction with their inclusion, since diversity makes societies fall apart.
As more nations emulate the Israeli example, nationalism will recover from its post-WW2 demonization as it becomes not just a viable force, but a worldwide assumption about the correct basis for social order.
Now that the corruption in American government and media is as obvious as that of Brazil, it has become clear that the republic we’ve grown to know and love is not likely to survive the next generation. The battle lines for the next civil war are being drawn, the alliances between various political factions are beginning to solidify, and it’s becoming clear how this war is likely to play out.
Much like prelude to World War I, multiple micro-conflicts are escalating in America. The Trump administration is at war with Obama loyalists, the mainstream media, the old guard of the intelligence agencies, and neoconservative Republicans. Antifa is at war with both the extreme nationalist right and the moderates defending free speech. Black lives matter is at war with the police. The well-funded tech platforms are at war with the alt-tech and the cyber armies of the darkweb. But just as World War I saw multiple alliances forge two solid armies, we will likely see the same here in the United States. All that we’re missing at this point is a hair trigger moment like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to set the bullets flying.
One that moment arrives, a likely scenario would play out as follows…
The conservative side — let’s call them the “American Republican Army” — will be led by Trump and will be comprised of his loyalists, the military, most of the police, private militias, and civilians of states with less-restrictive gun laws. The multitude of conservative factions will align with this side. This means the Alt Right, Alt-Lite, moderates, constitutionalists, libertarians, and some neo-cons will set aside their differences and stand shoulder to shoulder. Most of the nation’s centrists will also join this group, as the left is far more radical and far more intolerant. This group will be supported most of the working and middle class of America and nearly all of its veterans.
The opposing side — let’s call them the “Socialists for a Democratic Society” — will be led by George Soros (with Bernie Sanders or Mark Zuckerberg as the face of the movement) and will be comprised of private military contractors (PMCs), Antifa, civilian anarchists, and some traitor state/city military loyal to democrat mayors, senators, and donors. This side will have the mainstream media, celebrities, and social media platforms radicalizing much of the population in Democrat states and large cities and will also include progressives, socialists, radicalized colleges, and some of the more donor-owned neoconservative Republicans. This group will represent the upper class and will unfortunately convince the lower class that it represents them as well.
The war will be short-lived and vicious. The SDS, heavy on cash, will rely on mostly private military contractors and guerrilla tactics. Operations will be similar to that of the Islamic State, with unthinkable acts of violence to which the media will turn a blind eye. The superior training and sheer size of the ARA, however, will be swift and decisive in eliminating this foe. The civilian Antifa and anarchists will be armed, but untrained and undisciplined, and quickly picked off by gun wielding conservative citizens in battles fought in open territory. The untrained SDS soldiers will succeed only in terrorizing civilians to stay loyal to their cause, until their numbers are brutalized. Throughout the conflict, Russia will keep NATO loyal to Trump’s America. Mexico may throw its support behind the Democratic Socialists, but will be partially or fully annexed either way.
It will be urban warfare throughout most of the campaign with New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. being the site of the decisive battles. Once the ARA knocks the mainstream media and social media outlets offline and executes the celebrities and celebrity reporters, the sensitive citizens supporting the Democratic Socialist army will pressure them to surrender. The private contractor armies will eventually betray the men funding them. Riots will be short lived, and the billionaire class will flee the United States in droves.
Trump’s army will emerge victorious, and all of his adversaries will be vanquished. The country will be unified into the first American Empire, and the nation will see a more authoritarian version of the America of the 1950s. For the first time the media will be controlled by the state, as well as the flow of information, and law will be aligned firmly with Christianity.
As a constitutionalist, and as a man of my word, I will continue to support the republic I have pledged my allegiance to. But as an intellectual, a free thinker, and a realist, I recognize that the American republic that we know is not likely to survive for much longer.
People get the government they deserve. There is an inverse relationship between how much a population can control its impulses and how heavy-handed its government is. Countries where crime and corruption is rampant end up with strongmen in power to keep the rudiments of control in place, where groups of mostly sensible people end up with gentler government.
In turn, government shapes who succeeds in it. A society that is chaotic will eliminate anyone but the strongmen early on; if they do not get outright killed, they will at least be made to seem wimps and voted out. In America, government rewards its participants with the ability to sell exclusive access to things only government can do, and so corruption has gone mainstream.
Many people on the Alt Right have tried to dodge the label “conservative,” mainly because they erroneously assume that the Republican Party defines what is conservative. In fact, the opposite relationship is true, and the important thing to know about the GOP is that it is a business that makes its money by saying things that get people to vote for it, and most conservative voters tend to vote against instability rather than for ambitious fixes. They would rather put up with high taxes, a parasitic welfare state, dysfunctional foreign policy and corruption than risk rolling the dice on something that could provoke rebellion; like the people in Los Angeles, they keep paying high taxes to buy off the poor so that they do not revolt, because everyone knows that all societies die when the proles take over and then, being inept, steer the cordycepted community right off a cliff.
Any corporation that does not find a niche will perish, and the Republicans found their niche in being the captive opposition. This is the best position to take, economically and mathematically, because they are able to attract votes without having to actually do much of anything. They realize that in a democracy, the idea of conservatism — preserving the best of all history, which involves an order larger than the individual — will always be at a disadvantage to the Leftist idea, which is that the individual is the largest unit in society and all policies must be considered in terms of their impact on individuals. Democracy is inherently Leftist. For this reason, conservatives do not expect to win, but have retreated to a position of defending business and the military so that society can survive the stuff that Leftists do it. This has a downside in that conservatives end up being a subsidy and foil for the Left, and since this role is easier than fighting, the political system selects for people willing to be captive opposition on the Right.
For this reason, no matter what they say, they will never unite behind Trump, who is a conservative second and a realist-pragmatist hybrid first. A realist is someone who is inclined to study the patterns of nature through cause-effect relationships so that he can predict how his own actions will work out, and adjust his actions accordingly; this is like the “scientific method,” but without the pretense of empiricism or universalism. A pragmatism is someone who does what he can according to conditions at the time, which does not necessarily mean that he will compromise principles. He may work gradually toward his goals instead of demanding that they be realized all at once. The primary approach that Trump takes is to reject unrealistic ideas, while working pragmatically toward outcomes that generate wealth, and on top of that he has tapped into the social conservative viewpoint that America has changed too much with its demographics, and we like the 1980s style morality better.
This clashes with the approach of post-Buckley conservatives, which is to ignore most actual social issues and focus on a libertarian platform centered around business and defense. They trot out a few token social issues — abortion, patriotism, Christianity, Israel — and ignore the real contentious themes found in the sexual revolution, demographics, values and a shift toward a theory of dependency and atheism as the basis of society instead of culture, heritage and faith. Republicans will not leave this position because it is easy for them to defend, since they have industry and the “military-industrial complex” (a network of companies, lobbyists and generals) on their side. Politics is much like a prison gang. If you can get enough big guys to agree on something, it happens even if the general mood is against it. Trump, like the Alt Right, wants out of this conservative ghetto, and what the RINOs in charge fear is that Trump may succeed, at which point their franchise goes away.
If Obama muscles his way in front of the cameras and starts attacking Trump, every Republican and right-leaning independent in the country who’s making a stinkface at the president right now will rally behind him in the ensuing partisan food fight You’ll even get some true independents frowning at Obama for his lack of presidential etiquette in attacking his successor.
If Obama muscles his way in front of the cameras and starts attacking Trump, Republicans will play the usual game of attacking Obama in public while failing to support Trump in private. They cannot both support Trump and have the convenient arrangement that has allowed them, like the Leftists, to become wealthy by indirectly selling favors made possible by their positions of power. If Trump wins, this cozy black market goes away, and for this reason, the Republicans will never join behind him.
Another factor comes into play as well. Republicans are not strictly conservative; they are conservative in inclination, and some are conservative, but the official outlook of the party is toward cooperation with the Left, with whom they share a basic belief in equality. That notion of equality conflicts with a hardline realist view as someone like Trump will have, if nothing else as a result of experience with humanity and realizing that many if not most people are inept and will simply obstruct anything good that someone else is trying to do. The American Right has absorbed much of the American Left because, in trying to reconcile its natural wisdom of the inequality of humanity with the egalitarian sentiments in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, it has become Leftist, accepting that all people are on some level equal and therefore, that they are either all good or that good and bad do not matter. To a realist, people are many things, but good is not one of them. Some are better than others, with varying degrees, based on the basic construction of their personalities and their abilities. Everyone is somewhere on a learning curve, but there is also an upper limit built in to all of us. Realism requires recognizing this as a good manager must because it has a heavy influence on outcomes.
Further complicating things, most Republicans live in Ivory Towers. They grew up in stable middle class neighborhoods, went to elite schools, then graduate schools, then got a series of jobs leading to positions of power, rising quickly above the entry-level existence that most people experience for life. As a result, for these Republicans, dodging the failures of society was a matter of a few years of frustration, followed by the title and wealth that allowed themselves to place themselves out of those conditions. To them now, relating to this other life is impossible, and the memory of being less powerful is distasteful, so their consciousness does not even include it. While Trump was born to wealth and made himself even wealthier, his daily experience consists of dealing with the many layers of human failure from inept employees through corrupt local governments and greedy contractors. In the world outside of government, the raw selfishness of the human animal becomes apparent, something which Ivory Tower people never see and would not acknowledge, in part because they want to believe that the world is like them and their friends, as that way they may maintain a positive view of the future.
A schism has erupted in politics because people have no faith in the way things are done. We want an end to the comfortable working relationships of politicians. This does not happen by us directly managing politics, but by raging around until we all come to a mind on something. No voting — that corrupts the will, and makes us inclined toward compromise and other weakness — but a uniformity of focus. We must find out what is real and agree on it. Then we can delegate to men like Trump, who really care nothing for the Ivory Tower, and want to get their hands dirty. And then, bit by bit, we can begin deconstructing the Empire of Death that is modernity and replacing it with something real.
The Alt-Right is in the process of taking over the Republican Party. It’s a hostile takeover to be sure. We’re making inroads with Americans and the Identitarians are shifting the debate on immigration in Europe. However, if the Alt Right is to truly become the mainstream political movement that the Left fears it can become, we must look to history to understand how to avoid the fate of the America Party, otherwise known as the Know-Nothings.
We must develop a coherent message beyond just immigration reform and white identity. Indeed if we are to fully engage white Americans we must understand that much of what concerns them isn’t just immigration, but the effects of immigration. We need to engage with them in terms of economics, as in, we need something to present beyond basic bitch conservative “lower taxes” and “fiscal responsibility,” as if those are anything more than marketing buzzwords. We need to engage with whites when it comes to education, both primary and secondary. We need to have a coherent healthcare solution, or at least the beginning of one. And ultimately, we need some kind of foreign policy for dealing with the Middle East, China, India (the rising power that’s often forgotten) and we need to be ready for a multipolar world where the United States is not the lone superpower.
To make this clearer, look at the difference in the success of President Trump and the failures of Wilders and Le Pen. Trump tied immigration to jobs in the rust belt states and to the need to control our borders. He did not win with immigration alone, but instead made it a part of a comprehensive strategy to “MAGA.” On the other hand Le Pen and Wilders were seen in their respective countries as immigration-only candidates and while it should be noted that Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) did quite well, he did not win his election. Perhaps it will take a second election cycle in Europe for Europeans to embrace anti-immigration and anti-migration platforms, but it won’t happen without incorporating plans for other aspects of the population’s concerns.
White identity will be the defining issue of the next generation of Americans. We cannot afford to lose potential voters, many of whom will be former Democrats or libertarians, because we failed to make a comprehensive and coherent platform centered on issues of practical, real-world importance to whites.
So let’s look at the history of the Know-Nothing Party in the United States to make sure we can avoid their fate. First, they operated as an independent party. That was a little more feasible in the nineteenth century, but America was still effectively controlled by two major parties. The Know-Nothings were the response to rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the 1840s centering on the influx of Catholic Germans and Irish. This is what earned the party the label of anti-Catholic. And indeed this helped them do very well in the 1850s.
But their success was short lived.
The Know-Nothings broke along predictably geographic lines due to the issue of slavery. Anti-slavery members went Republican while pro-slavery members joined the Democrats. But is there an issue such as slavery that defines the twenty-first century? At first glance not really. It would seem the Alt-Right is situated in such a position that no major issue will destroy it. However, this isn’t necessarily true. The Second American New Right, a composite of Alt Right and Alt Lite, is fracturing as we’ve seen at the recent free speech rally in Washington DC, as well as at other rallies around the country.
The Alt Lite seems hell-bent on not only distancing themselves from the Alt Right, but by eliminating it from public spaces. The reason though is clear: the Alt Lite isn’t a right wing movement at all. They’re really no different than liberals. In fact you’ll often hear them claiming that they are classical liberals or that they are defending “Western values” but without mentioning that those values are the product of the European people.
The division will come and is in my opinion, already here. The Alt Right is rooted philosophically in a rejection of Enlightenment values such as democracy, equality, universalism, and “human rights.” By contrast, the Alt Lite struggles to hold on to anything other than a pro-Trump vision for the future. The breakup of the New Right will come as soon as the Alt Lite realizes they must either side with the liberals or side with the Alt Right. Civic Nationalism, the proposition nation, and other comfortable compromises are untenable.
As the breakup comes the Alt Right must be prepared to address issues of interest to whites across geographic, economic, and the social spectrum. If we fail to create meaningful policies centered on keeping whites as the majority in America we will find ourselves confined to the dustbin of history. We will find ourselves defending Spanish language debates between the GOP candidate and the Democratic candidate. Or we will find ourselves looking for ways to repatriate to the few countries in Europe that are, for now, resisting demographic replacement.
The spate of resignations from the White House is an attempt to retreat and regroup, not a withdrawal. Obama did the same thing early in his presidency, as have many others, once the battlefield reveals itself and new demands must be met.
As the most recent departure, Sebastian Gorka has attracted the most derisive comments, but his exit shows the existence of factions in the White House and the necessity of settling these for the administration to function at all. Gorka has stated that the anti-MAGA factions have won, but as an administrative question, what matters is more that the entire staff can implement the will of its chief executive.
Any factional resignation in any organization calls to mind the point of that organization, which begins with a concept derived from safety. Safety is important, because in its civilizational context as measured over the last 40 years (or so), statistics revealed that the life expectancy correlation with GDP/capita is 61%.
This means that births must be in balance with deaths. We see this in nature where grass-eating animals balance with flesh-eating animals. These ecosystems are present in all organizations where there must be a number of balances, one of which is cooperation.
The term cooperation is closely associated with the context of consolidation of democracy. However, just like optimization is required with safety, so is optimization required with “cooperation”. Too little or too much cooperation increases death/mortality.
Taking the White House as just another organization, it is possible to say that a factional break-up of that organization is a good thing because it reduces too much cooperation. The factions will each move towards its own zone of authority, allowing each faction to be economically efficient.
Trump had the choice to have factions work in parallel or to force diversity upon his staff and to make warring factions work together. A White House where the factions are broken up will continue to operate at 80% efficiency, but forcing them to try to operate together reduces efficiency to 20%. Trump opted for greater efficiency with the knowledge that his staff are his employees, and whatever they think, are charged with carrying out his orders, and he prefers them to be more efficient than entrenched in factional warfare.
In the bigger picture, Trump is reorganizing for his own reasons. As a strong leader, he may want a hostile group to counterbalance his ideas, and by sending out discontents like Bannon and Gorka, he is able to spread criticism of his administration as being not extreme enough in pursuit of its goals, which gives him outside pressure that he can use to justify more radical acts.
On top of that, this is most likely a plain old reorganization. Trump needs a group that works together well just as he needs to keep the media distracted, and these departures keep the newspapers confused about his actual goals and operating methods. In addition, former staff like Gorka and Bannon are now cut free as evangelists for the Trump vision in their respective fields.
Media operates in the pocket between when an action occurs and when it is understood, and Trump benefits from introducing chaos and complexity so that actual understanding occurs after the media asserts its interpretation of events, which keeps everyone guessing. But in the meantime, his new streamlined team is more likely to operate at high efficiency.
The following is entirely conjecture, but I started writing to get as close to the elusive workings of the pattern order of nature as I can and to have a great time doing it, and so, sometimes one needs to fire up the pipe, inch closer to the fire and work solely with the little grey cells.
Steve Bannon, after apparently submitting his resignation two weeks ago, giving a controversial interview a week ago, being downgraded by Trump yesterday and leaving the White House today, is making a brilliant move that is going to result in more yuge winning for Donald Trump and his team. Bannon was not fired; he chose to walk into the Cursed Earth because he has another mission.
For those that can hear, Bannon himself says exactly what is happening, but like all statements from the proficient, this is an esoteric communication that needs some reflection to understand:
“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” Bannon said Friday, shortly after confirming his departure. “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”
Bannon says that he will return to the helm of Breitbart, the rambunctious right-wing media enterprise he ran until joining the Trump campaign as chief executive last August. At the time, the campaign was at its nadir, and Trump was trailing Hillary Clinton in the polls by double digits.
The Trump Presidency is now something else; Bannon is going to Breitbart. What the heck can this mean? First, it is clear he is correct about the Trump Presidency. They were able to run on a certain platform, unite people behind it, and make huge strides within the first year. But now, the game has changed; the President and his staff have seen new challenges that must be undertaken before he can accomplishing the remaining items on his agenda.
In other words, they succeeded at round one, and now, as with every great victory, they have uncovered a new series of challenges that were invisible back then. This leads us to the second part, which is that in the midst of a vast culture war, Bannon seems to be leaving the White House… to go back to Breitbart. He is going back into the culture side and leaving politics because he has done all that he can there.
Bannon has made a brilliant move in this respect. He has allowed himself to leave the White House under the impression that he was forced out and that he is disappointed with Trump, which sets him up to be a critic of the Presidency. That gives him two advantages: backhanded compliments, and he can agitate for Trump to go further to the Right, which makes the President appear to be responding to his constituency instead of acting of his own initiative entirely.
Backhanded compliments will be hysterical. The press does this all the time: “Well, I really don’t like this President guy, but you know he makes some good points when he talks about A, B, and C. Those really need us to look deeply into them, and his policies make sense. But otherwise, I don’t like the guy at all. Not one bit.”
While he is busy doing that, he can also take the pulpit and rant on about how Trump has failed in his mission and needs to get back to basics. From Breitbart, he can unleash a score of articles talking about how the President is not pushing hard enough for what he was elected to do, like bring back 1980s America, end immigration, exile the media to Morocco… Trump accomplished his initial promises, but the ideas behind them naturally lead to new challenges.
Instead of seeing a defection, what we are seeing here is two men separating so that they can attack a problem from different directions. At this point, Trump has uncovered the Leftist Establishment and, big surprise, it is too large to “drain the swamp” with straightforward activity. Instead, it has to be unmasked one node at a time, and its members revealed and sent packing. At the same time, the hostile media will both attack everything that Trump does with fanfare, and apparently miss the less dramatic but more important stuff he does quietly.
Remember, this is the man who deliberately mistyped the word “coffee” and had the press ranting about it for weeks. He is the master of media. He is Howard Stern plus Rush Limbaugh plus Dave Letterman. He knows how to be entertaining, and part of telling any good joke is that you have to misdirect your audience right before the punchline so that it hits them like a ton of bricks. Trump knows how to tackle these people, and so does Bannon.
Watch Breitbart zoom into the spot vacated by Fox News and expand to wider coverage of all sorts of news. My guess is that we will see a more reliable source of daily news which also hits harder on the political front, probably by looking less partisan and more critical of stupidity, sort of like The Onion if Sam Huntington were at the helm. While Trump baffles the press and subverts the Establishment from inside, Bannon will be outside attacking the press and keeping one step ahead of them, which will further ruin not just their reputation, but their utility. Why go to the press if they get the news twenty-four hours late?
“If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents — on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,” Bannon told Bloomberg News Friday in his first public comments after his departure was announced.
Bannon led the evening editorial meeting at Breitbart, where he resumed his role as executive chairman, the website said in a statement. A person who was on the call said Bannon called on the group to “hunker down” and work like never before to advance conservative causes.
According to a person close to Bannon, he met Wednesday with conservative billionaire Robert Mercer, co-chief executive of Renaissance Technologies and a major financial supporter of both Trump and Bannon’s efforts. The two mapped out a path ahead for Bannon’s post-White House career and discussed how Trump could get his agenda back on track.
Since day one in office, Trump has played the Bannon card, alternately blaming him for anything controversial and giving him credit for successes. Bannon has construct an aura of mystery around himself, revealing his apocalyptic fascinations as well as his highly strategic mind. My guess is that he is using that mind now, and he is not stepping away from the Trump effort, but stepping up to fulfill a new role that it needs.
As both Trump and Bannon are diligent but flexible strategists and planners, this means that Trump has his agenda set for the next couple terms, and is going to begin acting as he usually does, which is from the bottom up, removing the supports upon which his opposition depend, and then applying pressure indirectly while giving them an easy option that either fulfills his needs or sabotages them in order to create an opening for which he, conveniently, has a method of making things better.
Conservatives should take heart. Trump knew long before he got into office that he would have to deceive, misdirect, deflect, conceal, camouflage, downplay, distort and otherwise act through Odysseus-style canniness instead of trying to go in low and slow like a softball. Bannon and Trump have been engaged in what I would guess is several hours of think tank style strategizing since the election, and Trump has achieved more for conservatives in the last six months than the last two conservative presidents and the half-dozen before them.
Things are looking up. But for that to happen, first there has to be obscurity and myth, and from that, fire and steel.
Following the ideas of libertarians and their extreme wing in Neoreaction, Donald J. Trump views American government as a corporation. In his mind, all of us are shareholders and customers, and his goal is to increase value for us by maximizing the quality and efficiency of American government.
As in a business, this involves cutting out any non-essential functions and replacing certain others with outsourced services as a means of thinning down the government. This not only saves money directly, but in the long term by reducing the layers of command and making it easier for people to accomplish tasks at the level of detail, which in turn makes it easier to move quickly and decisively.
The American government faces an unstable future. With $20 trillion in debt, and no change in spending, the cycle of taxing more and being more in debt will continue. This has long-term consequences since a currency backed by debt is not as valuable as one backed by industry or other actual value.
Cutting the budget is an American pastime at this point, which tells us that it has never effectively done, mainly because of the over half of the budget that goes to social spending. This social spending may in fact be more than conventionally believed:
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics, argues in a new report that once you take these kinds of tax breaks into account, the U.S. actually devotes far more resources than many other countries to “social spending” — spending on pensions, health care, family support, unemployment, housing assistance, and similar benefits meant to help people out in hard times. And, compared with most advanced countries, the U.S. gets far less bang for its buck in terms of health outcomes and equality.
…The U.S. offers huge amounts of what Kirkegaard calls “tax breaks for social purposes,” including the Earned Income Tax Credit, tax-exempt pension contributions, and new tax breaks for Americans to buy health insurance. In contrast, many European governments give services or cash benefits directly to their citizens, but then take some of that money back by taxing those cash benefits, or the person’s spending more generally.
…Once you add in that private social spending and the effect of taxes, it changes the ranking entirely. Now the U.S. devotes more to social spending than Sweden, the U.K., Germany, and Denmark – actually, every other advanced country except France.
When we add up all of the programs supported by our government, entitlements approach greater than 60% of our budget, with 24% to Social Security, 25 percent to health programs, 10% to safety next programs and a few percentage points to other programs designed as entitlements or other benefits to citizens directly.
In addition, the more we are in debt, the less stable we are as an investment, which makes companies and other countries value our currency lower than it could be. The ease of acquiring government money, analogous to printing free money for people, drives down the value of any given dollar, so we can purchase less for our hard-earned cash. Consider that four decades ago, thirty-nine cents bought a hamburger.
This leaves the US with two grim choices, which Trump is brave enough to take on where no other American politicians will:
Default and lose currency value, or
Cut social programs and pay off the debt
Our present path leads to the first option. At some point, we will simply have borrowed too much. The experts will tell us that since our debt service is still under 10% of the budget, we are doing fine, but the real effects will be secondary. Our currency will lose value, we will lose prestige, and our government will be manipulated by foreign debtors.
At some point, that game — the tax-and-spend fantasy that government and voters have arm-in-arm indulged for the past eight decades — will come to an end. We will no longer have a top credit rating, and everything will become difficult, requiring government to at some point throw up its hands and recognize that it can never pay off $30 trillion in debt.
On the other hand, the experts tell us that if we cut social programs, the voters will revolt and overthrow the nation. Given that they have not done that for any of the previous outrages, this is unlikely. More likely is that they will be feeling the pains of our illness, as they did during the Obama years, and will recognize that revolt will not happen except among destitute teenage anarchists.
Congress will not hear of this. The Establishment Republicans make their money by putting on a show, a big charade, in which they claim to be tough on Democrats, big on defense, pro-Israel and good Christians, and in favor of your right to work hard, pray hard, be patriotic and swill watery beer after another mind-numbing eight hours of your unimportant job. Republicans ruin the good name of conservatism.
The Left, at least, are honest about their motivations. They want to enforce equality, which always requires taking from the thriving and giving to the underdog, which in turn makes government necessary as the sap who writes the check. Their goal is not totalitarianism, but total freedom, with subsidies of course. The more anarchic society is, the more they profit!
Because Congress, especially a Republican Congress, will not let go of its franchise that allows it to raid government money in exchange for defending business, Trump will be forced into a showdown. He let the Republicans think they won on Obamacare, but they are already nervous about the midterms coming up. He also let them show how empty their promises are by failing the repeal.
Taking an aggressive stance is the only way to win because if he does not force a shutdown, the Republican Congress will attempt to continue to fail and hope that Trump will take the blame. The media will back them up solidly. The Left will do so as well. This means that Trump will have to force a government shutdown unless a reasonable budget is adopted.
He can do this in the form of a bill that sets out a government spending plan to reduce the debt over the next decade, but this will also require cuts. At this point, his constituents are divided on social spending, but respond positively to more money in their pockets and cheaper health care, which he can engineer by removing restrictions. His budget bill could include that, as well.
Either way, it is likely that Trump will attack this problem head-on. Whether he passes a budget or not, he will be blamed while Republicans do nothing. However, a government shutdown will transfer more blame to Congress than the president, since they will be seen as obstructing the necessary task of balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Trump holds as number of “trump” cards here. He can de-fund programs. He has substantial controls over the paying of money, and can order the Treasury to stop paying debtors, which will force a default. In other words, the Republicans will not win here. They will either get with the Trump program, or fall on their swords by forcing such an extreme reaction that their franchise goes up in flames anyway.
For those on the Alt Right, a transition to minimal American government — funding military and infrastructure alone, and leaving everything else to the states — would be an optimal scenario. With the fall of entitlements, diversity also will fall, and with that, the economic model of the circular Ponzi scheme will fail. At that point, the US will politically fragment as it already has socially.
From that, great things can come. We can strip back government further and have states ruled by aristocracy. We can patch the Constitution to transition to monarchy. Even more, we can start driving out the collection of grifters and sociopaths who have ruled us since they bewitched the voters with promises of free government money, as democracy always does.
While most people have not realized it yet, profound changes have happened. Democracy no longer has the good name it once did. People are critical of the endless bureaucracy and ineptitude of our leaders and how they have transformed America and Europe through diversity. The Trump budget fight may kick off more of a conflict than the RINOs and cuckservatives could ever imagine.
Back when the internet had just opened up to commercial traffic, its first struggle emerged in the battle against spam. Spam, named for an old Monty Python skit, meant unwanted messages, most of which were commercial.
Spam is a type of short-term propaganda. A spammer wants you to see their message and act on it, but usually this is a personal act; sometimes it is not, as in the case of political spam or those endless implausible conspiracy theories of the sort that link water fluoridation, 9/11, and the Bermuda Triangle.
Although if you ask the average human about human problems, they will construct a narrative in which they are innocent and in order to maintain that, must be seen as victims of a more powerful force or a conspiracy, the truth is that every human failure is something we do to ourselves.
In that we see the problem of group activity: when humans act in a group, we make the individual choice to go along with the group but are commonly presupposed to not receive equal blame. Future legal and social conventions will change this, but for now, it is how people act selfishly and still blame others.
One of the many results of their actions is a type of spam. Wherever we go, people are claiming that whatever the group did is not their fault. This constant mental barrage of nonsense makes it hard to figure out what is happening, as is the case with the automotive “terrorism” that occurred in Charlottesville.
The Antifa protesters insist that this was an unprovoked attack, but this is just an attempt to escape blame for the fact that they attacked a car with bats, bottles, flagpoles, fists and rocks and caused a mentally unwell young man to panic and slam down on the accelerator. He was clearly out of control of his car because he collided with another car, wrecking his own prize vehicle, and it was this impact that caused most of the casualties.
Video emerged of Antifa protesters striking his car just before the crash, and the car was already dented and battered from previous encounters, but we never hear about this in the media. Instead we hear how this must have been a premeditated, deliberate attack. That of course does not explain how it ended in a car accident. He deliberately crashed his car into another?
Just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who blocked freeways being used by emergency vehicles, the Antifa crowd in Charlottesville attacked vehicles and then blamed someone else for the mess that Antifa caused. This is a typical Leftist behavior of deception and projection, symbolized by the old saying, “The Leftist cries out as he strikes you!”
This is the opposite of personal responsibility. It is evasion. It is lying. And it is how Leftists behave and have always behaved, in The Terror after the French Revolution, the murder of the Romanovs, the Berlin Wall and the Killing Fields. Their agenda is always the same: like a virus, they seek to assimilate everyone into their agenda, mainly by killing off any who decline to join the zombie march.
In other words, you are either with them, or you are an enemy of the state, and whatever they do to you — in their minds — is justified.
Leftists have one mental technique and it is that they like to break people. They destroy the independent construct of personality and replace it with obedience to Leftism. They do this through humiliation, perversity, temptation, sadism, gaslighting, group mockery, peer pressure, and other techniques designed to make other people into their slaves.
In Charlottesville, we see the Leftists colluding as usual. The Mayor and Governor are Leftists; the media are Leftists; Antifa are Leftists. It would be foolish and reckless not to assume that they are working together, and in fact, we saw signs of exactly that. The media has now picked up the narrative about the violence which they imply was caused by the Right, when the opposite is true.
The Left did this. They sacrificed one of their own so that they could concoct a grievance against the Alt Right, and use that to fire up the media circus which them emboldens their faithful to start vandalizing Confederate statues, banning Alt Right accounts from services like Discord and Reddit, and engaging in a media orgy of blame.
In the meantime, we have not heard any hard evidence about the driver. We know what his mother said, but she was not at the scene; we know what the police have said, but they are under no legal obligation to tell us the truth at a press conference. And of course the media has unleashed sentiments of the sort that a slightly more proficient Pravda would have reported.
What this reveals to us is that we cannot fight the narrative that the Left and its lapdog media advance; instead, we must fight them directly. They are not an opposition party with which we can reason and compromise. They are a virus which induces cancer and death in our population. There is only one solution for the Left, and it is to confiscate their passports and send them to the Third World.
In the meantime, the Alt Right has collapsed into internal debate: did we win, or lose? Should we keep the Nazis and Confederate flags? Do we apologize for anything? But, most importantly, we are asking: can we be a party of memes, or do we need to be a movement of ideas, even if those are cultural and not political?
TRS’s schtick is simply to be as childishly edgy as possible, in the belief that the day can be won by indulging in the adolescent compulsion to shock.
Having never paid too much attention to The Right Stuff, being less of a meme-man than a book reader, the veracity of the synopsis is beyond me. But the question is vital. Unrelenting edginess got the Right its testicles back, and gave us an entrance into the world of cultural debate because mockery is a powerful weapon. It opened the door. But if that is all we have, we become an internet entertainment movement instead of a cultural front.
He expands on this:
Who exactly was this rally for anyway? Was the purpose of it to bolster the spirits of hardcore white nationalists? To reach on-the-fence but mildly sympathetic normies? To scare the left? I don’t think a lick of thought was put into this incredibly crucial question. If you don’t know who you’re trying to reach or what you’re trying to say to them, your messaging will be awkward and tone-deaf, and will never have its desired effect. Here’s the bottom line: Normies were turned off by this; the left is jubilant, believing it won a great victory; and if this was all just intended to preach to the hardcore WN choir, it may have done that, but it makes the whole thing nothing but a big circle jerk.
As I wrote in the late 1990s and later in the 2000s, the goal is to convert natural leaders to at the least not opposing our ideas, if not outright adopting them:
The possibility of action confounds the modern person who does not want to engage in “activist” politics, or those which empower certain groups at the expense of the whole. How to change a society dedicated to distraction?
Among us, there are 2-5% of people in our society who are leaders in a practical sense. This means that whether they have an official title or not, they lead the community in business, spiritual, community, academic or social settings.
These are the people that your average person trusts. They trust information from these people more than from the government, their televisions, or casual friends. They respect the judgment abilities of these people.
Our goal is to inform these leaders of our values, get them to form consensus that these should be adopted, and then send them forth to implement these values in all that they do and to demand them from politicians.
This occurs in three steps:
Identify, brand and promote an ideology via the internet.
Bring the discussion of this ideology to mainstream media.
Unite the people who find it meaningful to aggressively push it to others.
In modern societies, having a large number of vocal supporters counts, but you do not need “most” of the population or anywhere near it. Successful revolutions are generally championed by 1-2% of a population. That’s all we need.
As we approach step III, it makes the most sense for us to find candidates to take local offices and show that our ideas can succeed, gaining more trust from the general population. Ours is not a revolution but a peaceful transition.
That is who we work to reach. We have already reached each other, and if we repeat that, we create another ideological echo chamber in a wasteland of wrecked ones. We must not make ourselves obsolete.
Now, here is a complicated idea: this includes the need to remove our fascination with Nazi-era symbols and methods. This is not because of “the optics” but because Nazism is both not extreme enough and too emotional. We need a plan to restore Western Civilization to greatness, and anything less is weak and defensive. We have made our point; we do not need to be defensive, or to coddle ourselves with familiar memes and edgy symbols, any longer. The time has come for us to mature and step forward as responsible leaders of a cultural and civilizational renewal.
The Charlottesville mayhem has concentrated minds on the continuing presence of the kook-right among us: angry young white men who assemble, brandishing flags of the Confederacy and Nazi Germany. Make no mistake: the weekend was their triumph, notwithstanding that most of them resemble cosplayers more than hard-bitten radicals. A movement which barely exists outside the Internet got a few hundred members together and garnered world attention
We call that “HitLARPing” around here, at least the Nazi part, but have no problem with the Confederate flags, which are a reminded that the USA has been drifting Leftward for two centuries and the last big Civil War failed to resolve the problem that our founding stock wants no part of Leftism, equality or diversity.
“I want everyone to have their culture, and I want to have mine,” he said.
For us to have our culture, we need our own nations, meaning those for each European tribe, and it makes sense that New World nations reflect the founding groups that made them, such as Western Europeans in the North America and Southern Europeans in South America. For us to enjoy that culture, we need to restore Western Civilization, and remove threats like pluralism, equality, tolerance, freedom, individualism, over-socialization, socialism and other threats to our social order.
That message is more extreme than anything Hitler advanced, and more ambitious, but as liberal democracy craters in a miasma of debt and dysfunction, it is clear that the time for this message is now. It must be both ambitious, and practical, and explain to the ordinary citizen how we will make life better on an everyday, mundane and material level as well as renewing our spirit, recreating social order and exploring the stars.
Others have observed that we need a forward-looking message that is not one of world domination, which was never our goal and is a motivation imputed to us by those who bemoan “colonialism,” or the 17th-19th century conquest of third world societies, and instead should look toward self-interest as a broader metaphor:
– The Crusades were about reclamation. The Nazis were, after a short time, about conquest. Effective ethnostates work. Colonial societies, not so much. The Crusades fit into a framework of white nationalism and the “14”, but not one of white supremacy and the “88”. The latter fits a Nazi framework, and it’s a disaster.
– While the martial aspect of the Alt Right is masturbatory–at least for now–the combative imagery is still important. Warfare in the 12th century lends itself much better to the virile virtues–strength, honor, courage, mastery–men are grasping for today than warfare in the 20th century does.
While it seems sensible to me to keep our outlook agnostic on Christianity, it is clear that conservatism includes the tenet of transcendentalism, or having some sense of a greater order than ourselves, and this naturally leads to metaphysics or at least religious symbolism. But the point is that we want ethnostates and a society of virtue, including realism (if you doubt that realism is a virtue, consider that the vast majority of any given group of humans hate and fear it).
At its core, this is a struggle between naturalistic values common to those who are in touch with the land, and the artificial human values created by cities, so it is not surprising that as in the Civil War, this division persists today between Right and Left:
Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House and the state legislatures in 32 states. But Democrats have a wild card: They still lead a majority of the country’s largest cities, often introducing policies that clash with the ideals espoused by the Republican Party.
The cities are, like peasant revolts, based on the ideal of equality, which means that there is no social hierarchy other than that of money, which proles adore because as natural lottery addicts, they believe that someday their Las Vegas trip will pay off or their mix-tape will drop, and suddenly they will be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.
Cities advocate for a human order where everyone is included regardless of their level of contribution or prior destructive acts. This appeals to those who are not of the high intellectual ability and moral character required to be an aristocrat, and all Leftist movements originate in this individualistic sentiment.
The problem with that urban and cosmopolitan mentality is that it is intolerant of anything but itself and, because it is based in the individual, it and its adherents take it personally when others fail to agree. In the West, the people who are able to get over their own egos and be realistic have been attempting to hold this surge in check for years, but sometime during the 1930s-1960s it took over in the West, and since then our civilization has fallen and for the most part, disintegrated. This means that we face an enemy that wants to eradicate us and will consider nothing us to be morally good enough:
So this is the moral calculus of Joe Biden, the Virginia attorney general, and the rest of the Left. It wouldn’t matter if every hand lifted by Unite the Right was in strict self-defense; the violence is their fault. Racially conscious whites deserve violence simply because of what they think.
…There is a clear pattern to these events that not one mainstream outlet has noted. There is confrontation only when anti-whites harass and try to stop pro-white events. The reverse never happens. Lefties and non-whites can mount the most brazenly anti-white events, unmolested and with full media approval. It would be hard to imagine a clearer example of this contract—and of the entrenched bigotry we face—than yesterday’s events.
Our initial goal is to defuse the city-versus-realists fracture by insisting, ironically, on some degree of pluralism or balkanization: we want our culture, too, and the ability not to have it destroyed by a government allied with the city people. The election of Donald J. Trump and the success of Brexit have been the first steps along these lines, but now, the Alt Right is pushing further.
This division is being recognized, and the beauty of Charlottesville was that it forced the warring sides — government/Leftists versus the Alt Right — into the open where they and their loyalties can be recognized:
But more important than the deaths of three people standing on the wrong side of history, the events of the day also completely confirm several Alt-Right narratives, demonstrating:
The racist Anti-White policing double standard: well-behaved White demonstrators are maced and attacked by police, while BLM and anarchist demonstrators are “given space to destroy.”
The collusion of the police and antifa in Leftist controlled states and college towns like Berkeley and now Virginia.
The fact that antifa are terrorist organizations that include severely mentally dysfunctional people who are inherently violent.
The fact that the Leftist media and fake news corporations do EVERYTHING to normalize and encourage this kind of violence.
So, all-in-all, August 12th will be remembered as a massive day for the Alt-Right, and an enormous victory that will spawn countless more victories in the future.
The one problem with the above is that it engages in what sounds at first like a small amount of DR3, which gives credence to our opposition by adopting their tactics. Conservatives do not believe in racism; they realize that a consequence of human autonomy is that most people prefer to be with people like them, which is a complex measurement of race, ethnicity, caste and values. But the bigger point is that Charlottesville illustrated that we are living under a Leftist government which, if not checked, will go Full Soviet and fade away just like that recent experiment in principled egalitarianism did.
As a result, Charlottesville opened further the door that election 2016 did and enables us to express our views. Most on the Alt Right are leery of trying to standardize views, and I share that sentiment, but the basic idea of nationalists who want a traditional social order is sound, although we can expand that into a full platform of principles that guide our future:
This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:
Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.
Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.
Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.
Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.
Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.
In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.
That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.
The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).
This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.
The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”
That in turn leads us to an important conclusion: we have rejected the order based in the material equality of individuals that has ruled us since The Enlightenment,™ but we need something positive to replace it. Atavisionary gives us a glimpse of what it would be like to have a society based in the pursuit of virtue and how this can shape our current quest:
I think something might be achieved by treating refusal to accept obvious and unkind truths as a spiritual problem rather than a “we need more facts” problem because we honestly already have a super-abundance of facts. We should directly address the psychological issue of refusing to confront and accept truth rather than scratch our heads about facts not seeming to ever get through to some people.
This is not a war of facts. It is a war of logic. Something is broken in the Western soul that causes us to refuse to accept reality and the need to maximize it through qualitative improvement. At the root of the Alt Right, we are seeking this renewal, and from that, all of our other desired changes can flow.
As illustrated by President Trump’s comments, this idea of virtue, honor and doing what is right resonates more with our intended audience than violence or historical symbols:
“I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said during a contentious back-and-forth with reporters in the lobby of his Midtown Manhattan building.
“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right,’ do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump asked. “What about the fact they came charging with clubs in hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do.”
He added: “You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. nobody wants to say it, but I will say it right now.”
…Trump said there were some “very bad people” on both sides, but that there was some who came out to protest the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue who were “fine people.”
“You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, to them, of a very, very important statue and a renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name,” Trump said.
Pressed by reporters, Trump raised Washington and Jefferson, arguing there could be a slippery slope.
“George Washington was a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington?” he said. “How about Thomas Jefferson, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson, do you like him? OK good. Are we going to take down the statues, because he was a major slave owner? Now are we going to take down his statue?”
We now know our path to victory. It consists of discovering what we believe, and its roots in wanting to do what is right more than what is personally convenient. It is a path of duty and sacrifice, of self-discipline and increased awareness, and it leads us into the future. Charlottesville had some bad fallout enabled by a media blitz, but it helped us to know ourselves, and with that, we can forge a renewed Alt Right which will push us closer to the restoration of Western Civilization.
As President Donald Trump flew off for August at his Jersey club, there came word that Special Counsel Robert Mueller III had impaneled a grand jury and subpoenas were going out to Trump family and campaign associates.
The jurors will be drawn from a pool of citizens in a city Hillary Clinton swept with 91 percent of the vote. Trump got 4 percent.
Whatever indictments Mueller wants, Mueller gets.
In other words, the Left has finalized its attack: they seek to remove Donald Trump through whatever means they can, none of which will be really legal but with a lapdog media, who will know? Instead this will be another shadowy incident where the people in power destroyed anything which came to change their comfortable parasitic relationship.
As Buchanan points out, democracy always ends this way. People in groups make terrible decisions, and so even if we did not take The Bell Curve at face value and realize that most people will always vote foolishly because they lack the biological ability to do the thinking necessary to make decisions about complex issues, we recognize that democracy will inevitably self-destruct.
Whatever is popular wins, and among humans, what is popular is that which is individualistic. We are not yeast; we are individuals. However, individualism occurs when the individual prioritizes himself over the order and hierarchy existing in society, and by replacing that, creates a mob. This mob can then be manipulated, which makes those who are born manipulators into its new rulers.
On this blog, we talk quite a bit about balkanization, or what happens when the “diverse” society separates into different groups by ethnicity, race, caste, religion and political alignment. Like Rome, we will not be shattered so much as fail to hold together.
As Will Durant, the writer of the excellent The Story of Philosophy, reminds us, “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” We destroy ourselves by being unable to cooperate toward a purpose, and so our only option is control or manipulate a herd, which produces corrupt leaders.
We The People are the problem because we agreed to all of this and, in the name of “everyone getting along” and “compromise,” we sacrifice any remaining purpose to the system itself. Our individual failings, including hubris or individualism, and our herd behaviors make us into an unruly mob, and that requires cynical manipulators to keep it in line, and not surprisingly, they are sociopathic.
And so the USA passes into oblivion. What do “Americans” have in common? Not much, and the most basic schism will be politics because the Left and Right want entirely different versions of the world. The Right wants social order, and the Left wants the individual to be King, which always results in an unruly mob, corrupt leaders and eventually, third world conditions.
When the manipulators, who by their nature as sociopaths are destroyers, win, it will signal the end of faith in democracy, Buchanan says:
The reaction will be one of bitterness, cynicism, despair, a sense that the fix is in, that no matter what we do, they will not let us win. If Trump is brought down, American democracy will take a pasting. It will be seen as a fraud. And the backlash will poison our politics to where only an attack from abroad, like 9/11, will reunite us.
However, as Samuel Huntington predicted, faith in democracy has already died, and people are just waiting to see if they can fix the problem without having to engage in conflict.
If Trump is prosecuted, much less brought down, the conditions for Civil War 2.0 will detonate. Our first Civil War never solved the fundamental conflict in America, which is those who want to live sanely versus those who want to make popularity rule us because that gives them the ability to live without standards, morals, culture or rules.
The North, in comparison to the South, and this is a relative measurement so the amount of difference is more important than how we see it from the present, was a Soviet empire of death. Cities filled with tenements, where people worked in mindless repetitive jobs, and the most important thing was to be accepting of equality, which back then meant ethnic equality with the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews and Poles.
The South exhibited the conditions of classic Indo-European culture: a social order with aristocracy and moral standards, a manor-based lifestyle where the best in society ruled officially or not, a strong code of honor and sense of purpose that allowed cooperation by the unequal. This offended the North, where everyone wanted to be “equal” more than they wanted to be good, right or realistic.
Since that time, we have replicated our classic civilization the best we could by fleeing to the suburbs and shutting out the horde. Then in the 1960s, that came under attack as the new Leftist popular wave supplanted the old Anglo-Saxon elite. The horde discovered that it could use “civil rights” to bash down any enclave and that no one would object for fear of being called racist.
That uneasy truce held while we had a common enemy in the Soviets, and while the fear of being too obviously Soviet kept the Left in check, but that condition no longer exists. As a result, the city people are coming for the suburbs just as they did in 1861. Under Clinton, Bush and Obama, they fundamentally changed America to be like a third-world country. Now they are going in for the kill.
As Buchanan asks, the question is, “What next?” One guess is that the dividing line will occur when people in service of government stop enforcing the decrees of government, allowing localities to balkanize and start keeping their wealth away from municipal, state and federal government coffers.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan revitalized America by stopping the Leftist surge that was destroying it from within. Donald Trump wanted to do the same, and for his troubles he has a gang styled after organized crime that wants to remove him so it can put its candidates back into power through the democratic force of the 53% of America who are tax-takers not tax-makers.
This places us at a crossroads where things are awfully bad. The Right wants to break away, but is unwilling to break away from structures like democracy and equality which have been shown to grow a bumper crop of neurotic, destructive Leftists in any nation. Their tendency is to hunker down, shout “work hard, pray hard” at Fox News on their screens, and then do nothing. But doing nothing is no longer an option.