For months, I have maintained that Trump would win the election comfortably with minimal controversy, that there would not be any great violence, or civil war, and that Trump would turn out to be a Ronald Reagan type unity candidate who will put the woke away
I agree, and I've been noticing the great political realignment that's been ongoing for the last year. It seems nary a soul or commentator sees it, which was a surprise to me. Trump and Vance are actually also the technocratic heads now: big tech has realigned to them as well, so MAGA is effectively the combo Zionist/technocrat platform now, which is a huge shift from what we've seen before. It's a hegemon that makes the democrats virtually obsolete. Perhaps this is that 4d chess we've heard so much about? It's check and mate in terms of a coalition and faction, MAGA takes set and match.
At the same time, this is not good news for the people, and this is what frustrates and saddens me. This isn't 2016 Trump, this is watered-down compromising Trump, and he's not going to deliver on the MAGA expectations. This isn't the 90s, American power and prosperity is all-but-broken. We are at the end of the empire, and even a best-case scenario from Trump is like swimming against the rip-tide. He can't and probably doesn't even want to avert the end of the empire: it's inevitable at this point, it's just delaying the inevitable as we move to the WEF technocratic dystopia in lock-step. Trump won't change that, and is quite on-board with it now. But he was the wise choice to fund the war-mongers, Zionists, and keep the deplorables complacent, so he is a good tool. Appreciated the piece, it was good and all too true
I think his rather weak delivery on his first term promises, along with authoring warpspeed genocide and the emergency authorizations for blanket violations of human rights in 2020 already proved it, that's what tipped my opinion of him. If they actually wanted him dead he wouldn't be here, they were all limp-wristed attempts at best
To understand today's western conflict we need to understand that Marx's major failing was confounding class with caste and every neo/post iberal attempt at division is an attempt at creating new castes in a society where social mobility has been reasonably fluid for centuries.
The Eastern Empires are caste based, and the Russian empire, born from the aristocrats who didn't defend constantinople, continued this caste based system and the results can be seen to this day in the mafia states of the Eastern Block. Islam and Judaism are also Caste systems, once islam becomes a majority religion, innovation and productivity stop because all believers are in the upper caste and they don't work. Judaism is the Brahamin caste and they manage through monopolies and lawfare, ultimately inhibiting innnovation.
The west unshackled iself from the restirctions of these religious organisations by controlling the church and making it the intercessor between peasant and king, creating a class system.
Marx, being of Jewish descent from the pale of settlement failed to understand that British Class system and believed that it operated like the Eastern Caste systems.
Our fight is class vs caste, and at the moment, two caste systems are fighting it out, Judaism and Islam.
our job will be to control both, give them a place in society to placate them and destroy their extremes
Why miss out Hinduism ? is it so impotent now ? vedic caste system was pretty fluid I'm told, until the British made it more rigidly defined ?? hard to know who to trust on that of course. Ethiopian caste system may well be a major player if they get large scale control of energy in that part of Africa also ?? they are very skilled at managing caste hierarchy, or they were.
Great reply, thanks, you have actually helped me to further develop my Idea
I haven't missed out on the other systems, it's just that the Vedic system is the most well known.
As for the British making it more rigid, I would not agree, but if it was true, that would be a result of the British philosophy adopting the Vedic and not British cultural influence imposing itself.
As you say, it's hard to know in whom you can trust, but what we do know is that the mughals used islam as their enforcers. Just like the ottomans.
Touching on the Ethiopian system is great, nicely done there, because it is an African nation that has no strong links to the Roman empire nor to Europe yet has a Christian church and Jewish settlements but also a castle system because the European influence was lacking.
As I said, I'm going to elucidate my points properly rather than half arse them and embarrass myself on comments written on my phone.
I'll keep you posted and you can see whether you agree
Cloning adds an interesting element to this. The work I was involved in was geared toward cloning of people with certain skills. I didnt realise for quite a while .
yes, there is a reason that Holly-wood hid the Star Troopers "humanity" behind faceless masks and white shells........its subliminal suggestion is only for the group of real people who comprehend the insidious nature of NPC's.
And, perhaps, water (the miraculous solvent and requirement of life) being in there as well, at least as a near second. Cities--in particular--require large power-generating capabilities to concentrate, treat and move water.
This was a thoroughly good analysis, AA. Where I might differ--but I do not know since I do not know you personally--is that I have long been a strategically fervent/reluctant Trump supporter despite knowing all of this. I do not wear red MAGA hats nor do I parrot bumper-sticker slogans, and I am fully versed on the Trump brand's flaws and absolutely objectionable positions (Gazan genocide.) Also, I never think of myself as "following" a candidate. I am not searching for a "leader." I look for candidate whose philosophy and policies happen to follow--or adequately intersect--with mine (not that I think that they read or listen to me, of course). Thus, there is little point in me being a joiner. That never works out for practical reasons anyway. Nonetheless, I do see that in a real world, it is important not to become so cynical that one completely retreats from all action. Back to the topic of Kamala. Like you, but using different terms, I suspected that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were poison pills for the down phase of this particular stage of the Big Schemes of the powerful. One must apprehend, as I believe you accurately do, that the Zionist (with both Marxist and Capitalist wargaming teams and "hot" agents)/Technoglobalist regime has largely achieved what they wanted to achieve with the tools and weapons of DEI and will no longer have much more use for the DEI zealots and certainly do not want these zealots thinking that they are the final, super-regnant "thing." ("Good job girls and Beta boys, now--here--take a basket of chips and go sit in the back, we'll call you up for the awards ceremony.") Since these contrived movements like DEI always wind up tied in ideological knots (e.g., Claudine Gay), they have to be assigned expiration dates. The reigning Garks dismantled and rearranged the cultural furniture that they wanted to "progress" in yet another step of their relentlessly cyclic, grand strategy of demolition and reconstruction. I suspect that part of the emotional anguish of the girls in the TikTok space blubbering about the Trump/Patriarchy win is that the given object of their 2-minutes of hate sessions (the white male who wants to date them, love them and have a family) has been naggingly revealed NOT to be their actual enemy. There is the creeping realization by these feminist operatives that they have been manipulated and used by their not-so-loyal "friends" in high places and that the new dawn of go-girl empowerment was, once again, another scam---one might even call it a kind of "rape." (When you think of yourself--à la Naomi Wolf (seemingly so at least)--as largely a walking-talking Vagina, there are not many interpretations describing one's negotiating position with the world. At least, to Naomi's credit, she has apparently discovered that there is an immune system as well, sorting out the business of self and non-self. There a nine more organ systems to go!) Forgive my digression. Thus, we need good analysis, dissident when need be and supporting tradition otherwise, and we need to make surgical strikes into the world of practice and interaction. It must be this way. The practical world depends upon the 100-IQs managed at a low-level by the 120-IQs. These are primarily economic groups---and they will resist and resent any higher view of their capacity for growth---ironically, they find being spoken to as equals as condescending. They need frank symbolisms and short slogans to encapsulate their understandings of how things work and their complaints. They need colorful hats. In their low-resolution ideation, they can be quite accurate and, in fact, are not as given to the bamboozlements to which many high-IQ individuals are susceptible. Thank you for your peeling off yet another layer, the Kamala layer, of the tear-inducing onion of reality. That we now will have to deal with the next layer, the Trumpian layer, should not cause dismay. We will work with the downsides of that layer as we suffered and worked with the onerous assault of the soon-passing regime of DEI.
On power vs ideology. I can't help but feel that ideology must play an important role. Revolt Against the Modern World is basically a metaphysics of ideology as it has generated into its present from. And Bowden said everything is ideological, even saying you believe in nothing is ideological. Perhaps it's simply a case that Machievellians can always play the Jouvenellian high- low move using ideology as needed and therefore dominate.
Necessarily, ideology is subordinate to power in the same way that a television must be plugged into a power source to function. Ideology is an expression of power used for coordination and communication. Saying that ideology is superior to power is like saying the painting is subordinate to the paint in the jar.
Certainly, no political power center has absolute flexibility when it comes to ideology. A land locked country is never going to develop an ideology that relies on international sea trade, an oligarchy that relies on tobacco exports is probably going to fail if it promotes anti-smoking ideology, and so on. But where power can be ideologically flexible, if it wants to thrive, it will be flexible (see Xiaoping, Deng).
If you think of ideology as a medium, then compare it with an effective monetary medium, it becomes easier to understand this. Using gold bars or dollars, I can buy earth-moving equipment, many laborers, as many professors as I might want, weapons, and many other things besides. While there are limits to the use of this medium, and excessive use of it in too concentrated a fashion leads to diminishing returns due to price changes, it's very reliable and very predictable in its utilities.
With ideology, how much can I get by using it by itself? If I say "workers of the world, unite" to dig me a big ditch on my property, I will only get so far. The result even with Svengali charisma may be fairly limited, perhaps like the gardeners of CHAZ digging me a little useless trench. With a few tens of thousands of dollars, I can have ditches dug to professional standards. The ideology first approach certainly puts the cart before the horse.
There is no way to return to 90s liberal values. This is not how revolution from bellow works. Revolution works like an avalanche and it ends when it settles in "the valley". America is a child and the ultimate outcome of the revolution from bellow.
There is no way to "fix" America. FED is fixing it and keeping it on live support for decades.
Two Americas will appear in the near future: one is soft-totalitarian post-human matriarchy, the other one is Mad Max America where libertarian postmodern cowboys will try to be "free".
One, Harris drastically outraised Trump, which looks like a victory of democracy over money. At a minimum, we're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. (Candidates need some money to win, but money doesn't guarantee victory.)
Two, due to hypermodernity, too many voters live in imaginative worlds and do not take what is given as given. For example, a lot of Democrats hyped themselves up that they were a resistance fighting to preserve democracy from a fascist takeover -- which is nonsense, as Trump is a sleazy reality TV star whose modus operandi is whoring himself out to Zionists. In the Information Age, everything becomes the public square. No one wants to say they are willing to mass murder the Iranians so that the wealthy can get tax cuts or so that catladies can have abortion rights. (If we're being honest with ourselves, if someone voted Harris, they were technically complicit in genocide in Gaza and Lebanon.) So, we end up with absurdities such as Harris voters lecturing everyone about fascism, shunning middle-of-the-road voters while running with Dick Cheney. And supposedly, Harris, in some super super super super super super super secret way, wasn't a hardcore Zionist but was being controlled by donors. I don't think this is evidence of a conspiracy; it is more like people not having the courage to be honest about their priorities (and the stated priorities of others) while living in a sewer of moralistic Anglo conformity.
Third, there is a bugman problem that is tied together with the untethered narrative building. Because people rely too heavily on analytics and theoretical models, they've lost the ability to think qualitatively and historically. For example, the Midwest, from the days of steamboats to the days of automobiles, is a product of activist government. This is true from when the Northwest Ordinance was enacted to the ethnic cleansing of Indians in various wars to Henry Clay convincing the region to embrace industrial policy. Tariffs were used to build out our infrastructure and university/research system. Appropriations bills over turnpikes, canals, and railroads determined whether cities like Racine and Sandusky became a Chicago or a Cleveland. Anyone familiar with this knows you don't run on free trade here. So, when Trump says that tariff is his favorite English word or that he's going to rig the government to benefit Americans, that resonates with Midwesterners in a way that isn't being captured by the numbers of some Ivy Leaguer consultant who has spent his entire life in a coastal suburb, who will then mutter dumb things like flyover racism, ignoring that the Midwest during the Civil War had a quarter of the Union's population but supplied half of its troops, that Obama won the entire Old Northwest, that there is a culture of literacy here, etc. etc.
"This argument is out there multiple times, so why am I writing this post?"
Thank you that you did, as reading is so much more efficient than video. (I honestly don't know who has time to watch videos...surely not any ambitious man between 18 and 75.)
I am very intrigued by your statement that "I also argued that the regime comprised two competing factions, one broadly committed to American power and Israel and the other generally committed to trans-national globalist governance," and I would love to hear more about that. I find it very hard to trace the real sources of power, as opposed to the stereotypes we're offered in both media and social media. If you have more to say about that, I encourage any future posts you might be thinking of writing about it, and I would appreciate a pointer to anything you've written about it in the past, please.
It's pretty brutal. If you're right that the three competing factions of the regime are Neocon/MIC (forever wars, rule by Israel), Techno-Globalist/WEF (perfect universal totalitarianism forever, minus energy and food), and Third-Worldist/Soros (mass immigration, western civilization destroyed, middle class eliminated, nowhere for whites to run), then there really is no lesser of the evils. All three options = total victory for Satan, God doesn't score a single point.
I predicted a Trump victory as soon as they raided Mar a Lago for his presidential files. Americans love an underdog. Leftist lawfare made Trump the ultimate underdog.
Add to this the support of the Zionists and Tech Billionaires and the weakness of the opposition made Trump an absolute lock.
I mean power is elusive and based on perception. Trump won an election in 2016 but then was at war with the deep state for 4 years essentially. What's to say that isn't the case again? Think you can't just compare to 2020, but also need to include 2016.
The regime swap was apparent from the moment that the resistance wasn't as potent as it was previously- sure, the useful idiots persisted, but there was no palpable "oomph" to the anti-Trump rethoric. The pro-Israel shift was so quick you would think neocons were back in charge (maybe they are).
At this stage it remains to be seen what the new administration will do and if MAGA won't split over the differences and clashes between expectations and practice.
Really good argument here, however I think Machiavelli is wrong and it’s not all about power that’s too simple of a way of viewing politics. I’m sticking with Plato and Polybius on this one. Woke vs liberal battle might be paused, but it’s not over until a truly post liberal option comes (a return to true religion)
I agree, and I've been noticing the great political realignment that's been ongoing for the last year. It seems nary a soul or commentator sees it, which was a surprise to me. Trump and Vance are actually also the technocratic heads now: big tech has realigned to them as well, so MAGA is effectively the combo Zionist/technocrat platform now, which is a huge shift from what we've seen before. It's a hegemon that makes the democrats virtually obsolete. Perhaps this is that 4d chess we've heard so much about? It's check and mate in terms of a coalition and faction, MAGA takes set and match.
At the same time, this is not good news for the people, and this is what frustrates and saddens me. This isn't 2016 Trump, this is watered-down compromising Trump, and he's not going to deliver on the MAGA expectations. This isn't the 90s, American power and prosperity is all-but-broken. We are at the end of the empire, and even a best-case scenario from Trump is like swimming against the rip-tide. He can't and probably doesn't even want to avert the end of the empire: it's inevitable at this point, it's just delaying the inevitable as we move to the WEF technocratic dystopia in lock-step. Trump won't change that, and is quite on-board with it now. But he was the wise choice to fund the war-mongers, Zionists, and keep the deplorables complacent, so he is a good tool. Appreciated the piece, it was good and all too true
if he had any second thoughts about actually fulfilling any populist promises, those vanished with a bullet through the ear
I think his rather weak delivery on his first term promises, along with authoring warpspeed genocide and the emergency authorizations for blanket violations of human rights in 2020 already proved it, that's what tipped my opinion of him. If they actually wanted him dead he wouldn't be here, they were all limp-wristed attempts at best
well it might have been a gesture, i will grant you that. or just a subtle reminder.
To understand today's western conflict we need to understand that Marx's major failing was confounding class with caste and every neo/post iberal attempt at division is an attempt at creating new castes in a society where social mobility has been reasonably fluid for centuries.
The Eastern Empires are caste based, and the Russian empire, born from the aristocrats who didn't defend constantinople, continued this caste based system and the results can be seen to this day in the mafia states of the Eastern Block. Islam and Judaism are also Caste systems, once islam becomes a majority religion, innovation and productivity stop because all believers are in the upper caste and they don't work. Judaism is the Brahamin caste and they manage through monopolies and lawfare, ultimately inhibiting innnovation.
The west unshackled iself from the restirctions of these religious organisations by controlling the church and making it the intercessor between peasant and king, creating a class system.
Marx, being of Jewish descent from the pale of settlement failed to understand that British Class system and believed that it operated like the Eastern Caste systems.
Our fight is class vs caste, and at the moment, two caste systems are fighting it out, Judaism and Islam.
our job will be to control both, give them a place in society to placate them and destroy their extremes
> Marx's major failing was confounding class with caste
Fascinating observation. If you have any links to read, expounding on this view, they would be much appreciated.
Check out the Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey.
Also, search Google for an explanation of the Indian caste system and compare it to the old testament.
Then you need to read about how the British empire did not conquer India, it was invited in by the genuinely oppressed castes.
I'll attempt to outline my idea properly in writing, until now, I haven't seen anyone do so in the way I interpret it
Why miss out Hinduism ? is it so impotent now ? vedic caste system was pretty fluid I'm told, until the British made it more rigidly defined ?? hard to know who to trust on that of course. Ethiopian caste system may well be a major player if they get large scale control of energy in that part of Africa also ?? they are very skilled at managing caste hierarchy, or they were.
Great reply, thanks, you have actually helped me to further develop my Idea
I haven't missed out on the other systems, it's just that the Vedic system is the most well known.
As for the British making it more rigid, I would not agree, but if it was true, that would be a result of the British philosophy adopting the Vedic and not British cultural influence imposing itself.
As you say, it's hard to know in whom you can trust, but what we do know is that the mughals used islam as their enforcers. Just like the ottomans.
Touching on the Ethiopian system is great, nicely done there, because it is an African nation that has no strong links to the Roman empire nor to Europe yet has a Christian church and Jewish settlements but also a castle system because the European influence was lacking.
As I said, I'm going to elucidate my points properly rather than half arse them and embarrass myself on comments written on my phone.
I'll keep you posted and you can see whether you agree
Cloning adds an interesting element to this. The work I was involved in was geared toward cloning of people with certain skills. I didnt realise for quite a while .
where did you learn this?
It is my own conclusion based on experience, observation and history, I don't believe anyone has elucidated it in this way.
I'll try and justify it over a few posts. Just need to get a bit of work finished first
yes, there is a reason that Holly-wood hid the Star Troopers "humanity" behind faceless masks and white shells........its subliminal suggestion is only for the group of real people who comprehend the insidious nature of NPC's.
Those that have Power are those that can guarantee Energy Security. No energy security and everything falls apart.
And, perhaps, water (the miraculous solvent and requirement of life) being in there as well, at least as a near second. Cities--in particular--require large power-generating capabilities to concentrate, treat and move water.
Agreed, not many political pundits like to discuss actual reality like EROI or Clean Drinking Water.
This was a thoroughly good analysis, AA. Where I might differ--but I do not know since I do not know you personally--is that I have long been a strategically fervent/reluctant Trump supporter despite knowing all of this. I do not wear red MAGA hats nor do I parrot bumper-sticker slogans, and I am fully versed on the Trump brand's flaws and absolutely objectionable positions (Gazan genocide.) Also, I never think of myself as "following" a candidate. I am not searching for a "leader." I look for candidate whose philosophy and policies happen to follow--or adequately intersect--with mine (not that I think that they read or listen to me, of course). Thus, there is little point in me being a joiner. That never works out for practical reasons anyway. Nonetheless, I do see that in a real world, it is important not to become so cynical that one completely retreats from all action. Back to the topic of Kamala. Like you, but using different terms, I suspected that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were poison pills for the down phase of this particular stage of the Big Schemes of the powerful. One must apprehend, as I believe you accurately do, that the Zionist (with both Marxist and Capitalist wargaming teams and "hot" agents)/Technoglobalist regime has largely achieved what they wanted to achieve with the tools and weapons of DEI and will no longer have much more use for the DEI zealots and certainly do not want these zealots thinking that they are the final, super-regnant "thing." ("Good job girls and Beta boys, now--here--take a basket of chips and go sit in the back, we'll call you up for the awards ceremony.") Since these contrived movements like DEI always wind up tied in ideological knots (e.g., Claudine Gay), they have to be assigned expiration dates. The reigning Garks dismantled and rearranged the cultural furniture that they wanted to "progress" in yet another step of their relentlessly cyclic, grand strategy of demolition and reconstruction. I suspect that part of the emotional anguish of the girls in the TikTok space blubbering about the Trump/Patriarchy win is that the given object of their 2-minutes of hate sessions (the white male who wants to date them, love them and have a family) has been naggingly revealed NOT to be their actual enemy. There is the creeping realization by these feminist operatives that they have been manipulated and used by their not-so-loyal "friends" in high places and that the new dawn of go-girl empowerment was, once again, another scam---one might even call it a kind of "rape." (When you think of yourself--à la Naomi Wolf (seemingly so at least)--as largely a walking-talking Vagina, there are not many interpretations describing one's negotiating position with the world. At least, to Naomi's credit, she has apparently discovered that there is an immune system as well, sorting out the business of self and non-self. There a nine more organ systems to go!) Forgive my digression. Thus, we need good analysis, dissident when need be and supporting tradition otherwise, and we need to make surgical strikes into the world of practice and interaction. It must be this way. The practical world depends upon the 100-IQs managed at a low-level by the 120-IQs. These are primarily economic groups---and they will resist and resent any higher view of their capacity for growth---ironically, they find being spoken to as equals as condescending. They need frank symbolisms and short slogans to encapsulate their understandings of how things work and their complaints. They need colorful hats. In their low-resolution ideation, they can be quite accurate and, in fact, are not as given to the bamboozlements to which many high-IQ individuals are susceptible. Thank you for your peeling off yet another layer, the Kamala layer, of the tear-inducing onion of reality. That we now will have to deal with the next layer, the Trumpian layer, should not cause dismay. We will work with the downsides of that layer as we suffered and worked with the onerous assault of the soon-passing regime of DEI.
Give this a SHARE
This is the most parsimonious accounting of current events that I've read.
On power vs ideology. I can't help but feel that ideology must play an important role. Revolt Against the Modern World is basically a metaphysics of ideology as it has generated into its present from. And Bowden said everything is ideological, even saying you believe in nothing is ideological. Perhaps it's simply a case that Machievellians can always play the Jouvenellian high- low move using ideology as needed and therefore dominate.
Necessarily, ideology is subordinate to power in the same way that a television must be plugged into a power source to function. Ideology is an expression of power used for coordination and communication. Saying that ideology is superior to power is like saying the painting is subordinate to the paint in the jar.
Certainly, no political power center has absolute flexibility when it comes to ideology. A land locked country is never going to develop an ideology that relies on international sea trade, an oligarchy that relies on tobacco exports is probably going to fail if it promotes anti-smoking ideology, and so on. But where power can be ideologically flexible, if it wants to thrive, it will be flexible (see Xiaoping, Deng).
The other place where ideology may matter more then money is in the circles that hold real, sovereign power.
Where the ideologies for the rest of people are chosen for "communication and coordination".
That is the ideology of who controls the money and holds actual sovereignty.
If you think of ideology as a medium, then compare it with an effective monetary medium, it becomes easier to understand this. Using gold bars or dollars, I can buy earth-moving equipment, many laborers, as many professors as I might want, weapons, and many other things besides. While there are limits to the use of this medium, and excessive use of it in too concentrated a fashion leads to diminishing returns due to price changes, it's very reliable and very predictable in its utilities.
With ideology, how much can I get by using it by itself? If I say "workers of the world, unite" to dig me a big ditch on my property, I will only get so far. The result even with Svengali charisma may be fairly limited, perhaps like the gardeners of CHAZ digging me a little useless trench. With a few tens of thousands of dollars, I can have ditches dug to professional standards. The ideology first approach certainly puts the cart before the horse.
There is no way to return to 90s liberal values. This is not how revolution from bellow works. Revolution works like an avalanche and it ends when it settles in "the valley". America is a child and the ultimate outcome of the revolution from bellow.
There is no way to "fix" America. FED is fixing it and keeping it on live support for decades.
Two Americas will appear in the near future: one is soft-totalitarian post-human matriarchy, the other one is Mad Max America where libertarian postmodern cowboys will try to be "free".
I don't believe "revolution from below" is actually possible.
What do you think about Mexican cartels that do what they want regardless of any “regime”?
Hi Neema, I have three criticisms.
One, Harris drastically outraised Trump, which looks like a victory of democracy over money. At a minimum, we're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. (Candidates need some money to win, but money doesn't guarantee victory.)
Two, due to hypermodernity, too many voters live in imaginative worlds and do not take what is given as given. For example, a lot of Democrats hyped themselves up that they were a resistance fighting to preserve democracy from a fascist takeover -- which is nonsense, as Trump is a sleazy reality TV star whose modus operandi is whoring himself out to Zionists. In the Information Age, everything becomes the public square. No one wants to say they are willing to mass murder the Iranians so that the wealthy can get tax cuts or so that catladies can have abortion rights. (If we're being honest with ourselves, if someone voted Harris, they were technically complicit in genocide in Gaza and Lebanon.) So, we end up with absurdities such as Harris voters lecturing everyone about fascism, shunning middle-of-the-road voters while running with Dick Cheney. And supposedly, Harris, in some super super super super super super super secret way, wasn't a hardcore Zionist but was being controlled by donors. I don't think this is evidence of a conspiracy; it is more like people not having the courage to be honest about their priorities (and the stated priorities of others) while living in a sewer of moralistic Anglo conformity.
Third, there is a bugman problem that is tied together with the untethered narrative building. Because people rely too heavily on analytics and theoretical models, they've lost the ability to think qualitatively and historically. For example, the Midwest, from the days of steamboats to the days of automobiles, is a product of activist government. This is true from when the Northwest Ordinance was enacted to the ethnic cleansing of Indians in various wars to Henry Clay convincing the region to embrace industrial policy. Tariffs were used to build out our infrastructure and university/research system. Appropriations bills over turnpikes, canals, and railroads determined whether cities like Racine and Sandusky became a Chicago or a Cleveland. Anyone familiar with this knows you don't run on free trade here. So, when Trump says that tariff is his favorite English word or that he's going to rig the government to benefit Americans, that resonates with Midwesterners in a way that isn't being captured by the numbers of some Ivy Leaguer consultant who has spent his entire life in a coastal suburb, who will then mutter dumb things like flyover racism, ignoring that the Midwest during the Civil War had a quarter of the Union's population but supplied half of its troops, that Obama won the entire Old Northwest, that there is a culture of literacy here, etc. etc.
"This argument is out there multiple times, so why am I writing this post?"
Thank you that you did, as reading is so much more efficient than video. (I honestly don't know who has time to watch videos...surely not any ambitious man between 18 and 75.)
I am very intrigued by your statement that "I also argued that the regime comprised two competing factions, one broadly committed to American power and Israel and the other generally committed to trans-national globalist governance," and I would love to hear more about that. I find it very hard to trace the real sources of power, as opposed to the stereotypes we're offered in both media and social media. If you have more to say about that, I encourage any future posts you might be thinking of writing about it, and I would appreciate a pointer to anything you've written about it in the past, please.
Update: I just found https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/the-octopus , which answers many of my questions.
It's pretty brutal. If you're right that the three competing factions of the regime are Neocon/MIC (forever wars, rule by Israel), Techno-Globalist/WEF (perfect universal totalitarianism forever, minus energy and food), and Third-Worldist/Soros (mass immigration, western civilization destroyed, middle class eliminated, nowhere for whites to run), then there really is no lesser of the evils. All three options = total victory for Satan, God doesn't score a single point.
I predicted a Trump victory as soon as they raided Mar a Lago for his presidential files. Americans love an underdog. Leftist lawfare made Trump the ultimate underdog.
Add to this the support of the Zionists and Tech Billionaires and the weakness of the opposition made Trump an absolute lock.
Good call
Trump wins. And for those of us on the real right, we lose.
Btw, the woke hasn’t been “put away” at all. Speaking of confirmation bias.
I mean power is elusive and based on perception. Trump won an election in 2016 but then was at war with the deep state for 4 years essentially. What's to say that isn't the case again? Think you can't just compare to 2020, but also need to include 2016.
The regime swap was apparent from the moment that the resistance wasn't as potent as it was previously- sure, the useful idiots persisted, but there was no palpable "oomph" to the anti-Trump rethoric. The pro-Israel shift was so quick you would think neocons were back in charge (maybe they are).
At this stage it remains to be seen what the new administration will do and if MAGA won't split over the differences and clashes between expectations and practice.
They are
What is your explanation of the one and a half assassination attempt?
Really good argument here, however I think Machiavelli is wrong and it’s not all about power that’s too simple of a way of viewing politics. I’m sticking with Plato and Polybius on this one. Woke vs liberal battle might be paused, but it’s not over until a truly post liberal option comes (a return to true religion)
I think some are arguing that one post liberal option has just emerged: Techno-populism
https://open.substack.com/pub/leohohmann/p/elon-musk-declares-new-world-order?r=riwj&utm_medium=ios