Furthest Right

Why Did Trump Hold Back?

Image borrowed from an earlier piece.

Those who read here may be familiar with my predictions for the Trump attempt to un-steal the 2020 election, namely that he has three fronts (1) voting irregularities, (2) Bush v. Gore, and (3) legal consequences based on SIGINT captured on the night of the election.

Many people have noted how surreal things feel. It was as if after the sixth, Trump departed and has been doing his best to keep low-key and reveal no substantive plans. He seems like he may be distracting from something.

Perhaps when even the GOP deserted him on the sixth, he decided that he could not prevail, or that winning would be pointless. He could indict Biden and Obama, only to have the courts, Congress, or military grant them pardons. He could resume the presidency only to have all of these people sabotaging his orders again, and then take the blame for the ensuing recession.

He may have simply noted that a disaster averted becomes a threat unrecognized. He could do what every other conservative has done, and simply clean up for the Left and then hand them a brand new functional country to ruin.

Almost axiomatically, he still has the information on these people and the ability to use it, because they keep trying to destroy him. This is more than revenge; this is fear of what he might do. They want him destroyed so that he cannot reveal what is in his other hand, the one not waving his golfing and possible third party in their faces.

In my view, the final hours of the Trump presidency consisted of a recognition that while the Left is the threat, their gatekeepers on the Right are the obstacle. When he has no loyalty from his party, he will not get far, and so he needs to remove the GOP Establishment first.

The Left emanates fear when they attempt to RussiaGate Trump again, with how quickly they are locking the country down with executive orders, or even their plans to make mail-in voting fraud the permanent method of choosing leaders in this country.

Among them, the smarter ones have started to notice that a crisis is building. Trump spent his administration knowing that they were calling him Hitler, and consequently, avoiding doing Hitler-like things. He was, in the end, quite gentle.

Even more, despite being portrayed as the most far-Right candidate since George Lincoln Rockwell, Trump was in fact a JFK-Reagan style moderate, despite having identified our real enemy as the Chinese influence steadily buying up businesses, real estate, and loyalties across the land.

As even Ben Shapiro — not a Trump fan — wrote:

The dirty little secret of the Trump administration is that despite Trump’s personal abnormality, his agenda was well in line with past precedent, and with mainstream American opinions on everything from taxes to military policy. Trump did not radically shift American policy.

Trump got us away from the China-industry-bureaucracy complex and moved toward sensible governance. He wanted an end to the wars, to get us out of the service economy, and move toward self-sufficiency instead of trying to subsidize a world that increasingly hates us anyway.

This outraged the professionals in government, since they want to always expand their power and wealth. People who do not understand power always seek more of it instead of maximizing what they have, and as a result, their actual power always diminishes.

This has proven true of the Left, which took over the country leading the world and turned it into a third world banana republic backwater. Ruling that is far less impressive than ruling the country of the past that was widely appreciated, admired, and emulated. No one is going to do that now, not after election 2020.

Although technically it remains a democracy, that situation will not last with Joe, Barack, Kamala, and Hillary in control. They will follow the model (ironically) invented by Republicans: make diversity mandatory, and exclude anything but pro-diversity rules, wielding their power through the courts and media, in addition to endless executive orders.

Their captive opposition, which makes its money from chasing fruitless symbolic issues like abortion (which most of America, including conservatives, wants to stay legal) while doing nothing to stop the decline, remains in the way. Luckily they may be getting out of the way, since calls for a RINO party increase:

Prescriptively speaking, the best way to take power away from the tyranny of Republican primary voters and to give it back to the silent majority of American voters is the creation of a new center-right political party. A center-right party in America would be fiscally conservative, socially moderate and support the rule of law and democratic norms. Mitt Romney can help establish it.

They will call it the “compassionate conservative” party, no doubt, and talk about the same things the gang of nineteen discussed in the primary for 2016: defense, Jesus/Israel, big business, and personal liberty.

Most of the GOP wants to stay irrelevant. They will have good jobs and enough power as the loyal opposition, and it is always easier to rebel against authority than to take the risk of a new direction. Conservatives always valued business; they got a party of middle managers.

More importantly, however, they want to stay away from the Trump agenda, but that is an errand for fools. The Trump agenda has become permanent because he set forces in motion that cannot be stopped. Europe has withdrawn into its own defense covenant; the middle east has backed away from the Hizbollah model; American industry has awakened to the need to detach from China, and they now see domestic production as less risky.

Even more, the voting of Americans has permanently changed, not that it amounts to much when seven million fake ballots can appear at three in the morning. The GOP audience has defected; the center now belongs to Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Manchin, and the remaining cucks of the GOP. Everyone else is now a MAGA voter, and they will not deliver support to GOP or “compassionate conservative” Romney-style candidates.

With faith in government falling, America can no longer depend on conservatives to clean up so Leftists can rule again. The new conservative seeks to actively destroy American government and replace it with as little as possible, if not transition to a less democratic system of government, since it has been revealed to us that not just the voters but the professionals in media, industry, science, academia, and government act like fools when power is dangled in front of their noses.

Trump also revealed just how everything is broken. The everything is broken trope refers to how what we thought were the best methods produced the worst results. Meritocracy, regulation, rule of law, and entitlements simply produced an audience which takes advantage of those systems and rejects their ostensible goal in preserving and nurturing American civilization.

One cannot read this article enough because it describes how the very systems that we thought would produce good results instead create people who opt for careerism over efficacy, and as a result, create toxic dark organizations within every institution:

How was it, I then asked, that it took my husband and me—both children of doctors, both people with reporting and researching backgrounds, among the lucky who have health insurance, and with access through family and friends to what is billed as the best medical care in the country—years to figure this out, and that in the end we only did so basically by accident?

Norman looked at us sympathetically. “I don’t know how else to tell you this but bluntly,” he said. “There are still many good individuals involved in medicine, but the American medical system is profoundly broken. When you look at the rate of medical error—it’s now the third leading cause of death in the U.S.—the overmedication, creation of addiction, the quick-fix mentality, not funding the poor, quotas to admit from ERs, needless operations, the monetization of illness vs. health, the monetization of side effects, a peer review system run by journals paid for by Big Pharma, the destruction of the health of doctors and nurses themselves by administrators, who demand that they rush through 10-minute patient visits, when so often an hour or more is required, and which means that in order to be ‘successful,’ doctors must overlook complexity rather than search for it … Alana, the unique thing here isn’t that you fell down so many rabbit holes. What’s unique is that you found your way out at all.”

If the medical industry was comprehensively broken, as Norman said, and the media was irrevocably broken, as we knew it was … Was everything in America broken? Was education broken? Housing? Farming? Cities? Was religion broken?

Everything is broken.

Author Alana Newhouse describes the symptoms well, but misdiagnoses the cause. America succeeded, and then it decided to destroy culture and replace it with Systems. These operated for their own benefit, effectively cannibalizing the organic society and replacing it with a maze of rules.

That type of atomized and deracinated existence produces people who think only of themselves and exploit the rest of society for their interests. Success produced diversity, and diversity destroyed culture, at which point we became a giant open-air bazaar with no rule except to get your pile and get out as fast as possible.

Trump reacted to this by saying that we needed as a base minimum an American identity. We needed to produce everything we use and then some extra to sell. We needed to agree on some standards of what was real, eliminate excess, and then charge ahead toward greater heights.

That is a strategy for success, but much of America no longer wanted success. Tired of jobs made miserable by affirmative action, high taxes, and endless regulations, weakened by Leftist reforms like sexual liberation and lower social standards, people ceased to breed. That is the sign of a dying population: in the midst of plenty, it starts to fade away, because without culture — which requires one ethnicity to be the sole occupant of a nation — life has no meaning, no form, and no real point to it.

The more we do what is “correct,” the more our people die out from having fewer children:

More economically developed countries including most of Europe, the US, South Korea and Australia have lower fertility rates.

Half the world’s nations are still producing enough children to grow, but as more countries advance economically, more will have lower fertility rates.

In other words, our economies turned against us. Was this capitalism? No developed nation has a capitalist economy; all are market socialist, or free markets that are highly regulated and taxed to fund entitlements, which make up three-quarters of the American budget, as an example.

The more we try to do what is “correct” according to egalitarian reasoning, meaning that we support the weak on par with the strong, the more we drain the strong and build up the weak. This is a path to doom.

The old “solution,” immigration, has failed to stop the bleeding:

Western European countries have low fertility rates, below the replacement rate of 2.1. Germany: 1.4 (its total population is 81.9 million, of which 8.2% are foreigners). Holland: 1.8 (16.5 million, of which 4.4% are foreigners). Belgium: 1.8 (10.8 million, of which 9.8% are foreigners). Spain: 1.4 (46.1 million, of which 12.4% are foreigners). Italy: 1.4 (60.2 million, of which 7.1% are foreigners), the Pope’s views notwithstanding. Sweden, which provides deep support for parents, has a high TFR of 1.9 (9.4 million, of which 6.4% are foreigners), but that’s still below the replacement rate. Ireland and the U.K. also have high TFRs, at 2.1 and 1.9, respectively, but these rates are derived from non-European immigrant parents.

During the 21st century the U.S. could become the slowly aging leader of a rapidly aging world.

Happy populations replace themselves. Populations where the successful are burdened with carrying the rest destroy themselves. It turns out that nature was correct: we need to let the good rise, and the bad fall, and not moralize this with “equality” in order to make everyone feel good.

If people are that miserable, then our tax-and-spend anti-poverty socialist-style society is not succeeding. It is doing the opposite: failing. We are heading for the type of population crash that occurs when life becomes Utopian, which means when humans (or any other species) totally master nature to the point that they drown in an excess of unhealthy, purposeless, or insane people.

We can draw parallels to the death-trap that is mouse Utopia:

In the late 1960s, US scientist John B Calhoun created a ‘Mouse Utopia’ – an artificial environment which provided what he regarded as the perfect breeding conditions. To everyone’s amazement, and without any signs of disease or hardship; after a few months of rapid population growth, the mouse colony ceased to reproduce at all; and soon became extinct – every single mouse dying within three years.

Woodley’s hypothesis, which seems to be the only one to fit the facts (unlike Calhoun’s own explanation of ‘overcrowding’), is that it was exactly the utopian perfection of conditions which killed all the mice.

The idea is that mice depend upon a very high death rate (mostly from predation) to filter-out new and harmful genetic mutations which spontaneously arise each generation. When nearly all of each mouse generation survives and breeds, then the harmful mutations rapidly build-up to produce genetically unfit mice who lack desire to breed, and who neglect their young.

Equality is our rationalization of mutational meltdown. Instead of aiming for quality, we accept everyone, and this means that the defective thrive among us and gradually grind down everyone else with their tedious lack of understanding, insane behaviors, and parasitic dependency.

Natural selection goes the other way, by killing off parasites, forcing that role into separate species (vines, mosquitoes, fleas, viruses) so that the original species stays healthy. Nature perfects itself by throwing out the failed experiments and keeping the thriving ones.

Is this cruel? As Thomas Sowell says, everything in life is a trade-off, not an absolute. This is how economics works, by showing how decisions balance wants against costs. It is crueler to kill off an entire species than it is to lose some members.

Equality is the opposite of quality. In human groups, it serves as a positive altruistic ideology to rationalize bad results and make them seem to be good results. Rationalization occurs when people do not get what they wanted or intended, and accept what they got instead by mentally arguing that it was what they wanted all along. It is a form of cognitive dissonance which balances the desire against what is in the hand, and in most cases, people reduce the input for want in order to maximize the input for satisfaction. They opt for a happier state of mind over a happier reality, sort of like other human pitfall behaviors like drugs, drinking, gambling, obesity, consumption, hoarding, and promiscuity. Quantity over quality rules that type of thinking, since quality requires unique circumstances (causes) while quantity is an effect pretending to be a cause; you can always add more of something, and hope to recapture some magic moment when you had just enough, in the right circumstances, for it to be meaningful.

American voters reject Joe Biden and his “return to normal,” by which they meant the Obama and Clinton eras. Both of those were moribund presidencies that generated a lot of hype at first, but by their second term, had revealed the permanent low-grade economic malaise and social breakdown that their policies introduced.

If you want to live under a bureaucracy forever, grant your bureaucrats the charge of “making people equal.” They will layer you in rules, tax you into submission, and conduct many public struggle sessions so that everyone knows you either promote equality or get bashed into servility. This will produce a boring society, full of tedious obligations, in which no one really has fun, least of all the 53% who pay the taxes that keep the other 47% alive in the name of equality.

Trump realized that it was too soon for him to show his whip hand. America was not ready; America first needed to get to see that our path — the “arc of history” — leads to an Obama/Clinton style neo-Communist regime. They needed to see that we either get off of the Leftist path entirely, and reject egalitarian government wholly, or we end up with the Clinton pattern: at first, lots of excitement, then a permanent sluggishness and lack of hope as the rules, taxes, and ideological submission kick in.

For American society to save itself, it needs to reject civil rights and equality entirely. Even more, it needs to see the connection between ideology and real life, namely that the further we go into ideology, the more life becomes a process of boring red tape, obedience-based meritocracy, judgmental workplace environments, and a social atmosphere of sacrificing people who say the wrong thing so that we can browbeat the rest into obedient conformity and compliance.

As it stands now, we are not yet at that point. Most people use ideology to justify their lives through what Tom Wolfe calls the “fiction-absolute” or the notion that their lives as they are leading them represent the best possible option, a type of rationalization:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles.

The fiction-absolute explains how most people approach ideology: they rationalize their lives as good, and endorse whatever keeps that illusion afloat. If their view of themselves as absolute is challenged (we might even see this as a form of solipsism), they choose whatever enables them to deny it. This usually means chasing after symbols that make pleasant pictures in their heads, even if totally unrelated to reality.

Division of this nature explains why America has split into two camps, the denialists and the realists. Denialists want to pretend that not only is the system not failing, but it is the best possible system; realists, on the other hand, see that the results in the real world are not so good with this system, that everyone is living in a mental cloud formed of symbols and emotions, and that we need to fix this before we fall into third world decay.

At the core of realist belief rests the notion that we should look at history to see how well certain ideas work when applied in reality, then choose the results that we want based on how they turned out. Realists recognize that all ideas boil down to a few basic archetypes, and some work better than others if you want a high-trust first-world society.

Denialists, on the other hand, counter with moralization. In their view, even if everything is a dysfunctional smoking ruin, as long as it is an equal society, it is a good one. If that society ends up being impoverished, low-IQ, violent, criminal, corruption, neurotic, and incompetent, that matters not so long as it has achieved the highest moral goal as seen by egalitarians, namely advancing equality.

Right now, the denialist case consists of pro-diversity propaganda. We are good because we are diverse and pluralistic, they say, and the lack of a functional organic culture does not matter. Realists look at government, industry, and institutions and see situations where careerists rise by tackling problems that cannot be solved while avoiding necessary tasks, since the latter can be failed at and therefore damage the career of the careerists, while the former cannot.

This produces the type of incompetent, disorganized, lazy, and discompassionate results we see in parallel across corporations, government agencies, HOAs, organized religion, and even volunteer organizations. When everyone is doing their jobs simply to advance themselves, no one cares about quality.

For that reason, realists tend to trust in a couple things, mostly organic culture, meaning the commonsense norms and behaviors that arise in a group of similarly-situated people. When your group is homogeneous, you do not need endless debate, laws, rules, regulations, and taxes; your society functions independently from government since everyone knows where it must go to succeed and everyone can see what tasks must be undertaken to reach that point.

Societies at their origins are organic cultures. A group breaks away from others, preferring to live independently and raise its internal quality to partaking in the wealth of more populous areas. These people live for the transcendental ideal that conservatives keep banging on about: they want to achieve excellence, maximize their sanity and mental alertness, and produce a world of beauty instead of getting caught up in all the crazy nonsense that afflicts large groups.

Over time this decays, primarily through diversity. This starts with groups that are mostly similar to the founding group of the civilization, but different enough that they fragment unity and start “liberalizing” or eroding standards, principles, and ideals. Later the society expands to full ethnic and racial diversity, at which point no one can have any standards, so it is “every man for himself” and careerism takes over.

Diversity has a rich history in America of destroying everything good in America:

At the turn of the 20th century, our nation faced a series of changes that combined to be utterly destabilizing. The population was churning as immigrants poured in from poorer corners of Europe, and Southern Blacks began the Great Migration north. The nation was undergoing its first true economic transformation, with urban industry eclipsing rural agriculture, and electricity, oil and engines quickly changing what “work” meant. As corporations grew more powerful, the nationwide concentration of wealth spurred many to term the phrase “robber baron.” And the resulting tumult sparked a stampede of extremism.

The Left says that our problem is capitalism, but looking past that simplistic answer, we see that our crisis is careerism, which in turn arises from the lack of a cultural center, a sad state of affairs caused by diversity itself.

In the long term, we recognize that America as it was 1990-2016 cannot endure. Even more, we cannot “go back,” since eras in history are made by the convergence of a number of causes, and we cannot simply demand them to return without replicating all of those causes. Demographics is one of those causes.

The Clinton years loom large in our memory because they came on the wings of the Reagan revolution and the resulting collapse of Communism, vaulting America to a new position of importance as the one superpower remaining. We had lots of money and cheap stuff from China. People fondly want to return to those.

Similarly, the first Obama term showed us a repeat pattern: just as Clinton inherited the effects of the Reagan recovery, which took years beyond Reagan’s terms in order to fully manifest, the early Obama years rode the momentum of the Bush recovery from the Clinton years, which had become very dark and hopeless by the late 1990s. Democrats make a mess, then Republicans clean it up so that Democrats can do it all again.

If we want good years again, we have to look at all of the factors involved. Demographics will loom large. In the 1960s, we opened our borders to the third world and things immediately got grim, much as they did in the 1800s when we brought in the Irish. In both cases, we see the same situation: a rise in the dominance of the workplace as cultural standards are eased, followed by a few immensely rich people owning everything while everyone else works for most of their conscious hours and sees little reward for doing so.

Now, we can point out to people how bad things have gotten. Real wages have been stagnant since the mid-1960s, families shattered, jobs have become horrors, politics has polarized, industry has become predatory, and all of the things that are traditionally good about America have declined. Someone from before 1960, shown the society that we have now, would assume that the Communists took over and wrecked it. We live in a failed state dystopia.

We have a massive economic crash coming up, and the dual incompetence of Biden and Yellen will fight it with more fiat currency, which will just make it crash. Biden most likely receives orders from Xi, which means that he will posture about doing something about China and do nothing, at which point Xi will make moves that will cause war to break out in Asia. At that point, Biden will have to intervene, kicking off the mother of all pointless wars.

Even more, most Americans still want to patch up the old system, even Trump voters. They think that they can apply a few band-aids, remove a few arrows, and then have a healthy nation. Trump knows better: this system is thoroughly doomed. He just proved this when the courts, congress, media, and industry all uniformly rejected his evidence of the election theft and chose to advance their careers in the existing system instead.

No one believes that Trump had no evidence and went away in defeat. They fear him, which is why they censor him and publish so much propaganda against the Right. However, the same group is not yet ready for the future we are going to inherit.

Globalism and diversity have failed. This means that repatriations are on the table for America to survive; we cannot go back to being a multiracial democracy. Even more, meritocracy has failed; we can no longer rely on “education.” Our industry has failed, since when people go careerist, they stop caring about competence and good results. We need a hard reset, not repatching.

The world is not yet ready for that. For Trump to act as we hoped he would, actions of a seemingly authoritarian nature would have to be taken. So he waits. When society is again in a smoking ruin, people may decompensate from their rationalization and be ready for something functional instead. At that point, the indictments and court cases can come forth, but it is too early right now.

With this in mind, we have to face a somewhat grim future: things have to get worse in order for people to want them to get better enough that they will tolerate a dismantling of this system. Give Zhou Bai Deng six months, and the world will view America like the uncle who spent decades in an asylum and now lives in the basement. Misery will massively increase.

At that point, and only at that point, are Americans ready for a bounce. Those of us on the Right need to plan for that point, and stop trying to aim to be janitor for the Left. We are not here to fix this system, but to destroy it, and to replace it with something functional instead. Maybe that will be based on our Constitution, and maybe not, but it needs to address a realist goal: function for the good people, and yeeting of the bad.

We are going to be rejecting the modern system entirely. As Newhouse notes:

Starting in the second decade of the 1900s, certain Communists began seeing in modernism a potential advertisement for the values of a mass society of industrial workers laboring under the direction of a small group of engineers. In other words, this aesthetic—which whole swaths of the Western world were already in the process of quickly adopting—could also be the perfect delivery mechanism for their political ideology.

Capitalism and communism converge on the same model, which is not so much industrial as it is bureaucratic: treat everyone the same, as an atomized human unit, and enforce order from centralized command.

We have to look at more complex structures, such as those from tradition, instead, but this gets out of the mentality of writing laws to fix problems. People are not yet ready for what this entails. Maybe if they read more Amerika they will get there.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn