The Decade of Truth, Reawakening the Old Trump, & the Future of White People in America

3,709 words

Most people in pro-white circles believe the youth are increasingly on our side, but web traffic data suggests their support relative to other age groups has plateaued. While the dissident right’s overall audience is younger on average than that of the mainstream right, the youngest audiences belong to mainstream rightists Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. They have proportionally more in the 18-24 demographic. By contrast, two dissident right sites appealing most to the youth, Counter-Currents and Nick Fuentes’ website, have about the same proportion of people in the 18-24 age group as the 25-34 age group when accounting for the different lengths of each span. Some of the difference may be because there are fewer whites in the 18-24 demographic than the 25-34 one, but some of it is because the dissident right’s influence appears to be plateauing age-wise.

Figure 1 Data from Similar Web, circa early 2023.

It’s also hard to find public white advocates under 25. I suspect white people born after the millennium may even be slightly less likely to be full-blown white nationalists than people ten years their senior. I also suspect that people in their 30s are the most likely to be white nationalists. The reason for this is that they were in their young and formative years politically from 2007 to 2016, when high speed Internet emerged as a medium less censored than it is today and less censored to an even greater extent than legacy media was before it. During this “Decade of Truth,” YouTube was less censored than X currently is. There were videos by Ryan Faulk detailing race difference in IQ, Julian Lee beseeching whites to love their people, and David Duke complaining about the “Zio” this and “Zio” that.

During the Decade of Truth, Facebook was about as censored as X is now, meaning a liberal Jew like Zuckerberg allowed as much truth as the Internet’s last bastion of free speech does now. Counter Currents had a Facebook page, and most major pro-white people were on Facebook. Now they’re all banned.

During the Decade of Truth, something closer to traditional white attitudes regarding race became common amongst a small subset of the population. This subset probably constitutes about 5% of right-leaning people under 50. I estimate that the most common age group of these individuals is 30s, with about 75% ranging from their 20s to 40s.

The average 20-year-old white kid having a 50-year-old parent not only missed out on the Decade of Truth by being too young, but their parent missed out on it by being too old and having become accustomed to getting their political views from television, commercial talk radio, and other legacy media sources. The average 20-year-old has only a sanitized Internet and their ignorant parents to give them guidance in politics.

Since the end of the Decade of Truth, self-help gurus have been colonizing the hearts of right-leaning youth on the Internet. They come in two varieties: Jordan Peterson’s reemergent neocons and Andrew Tate’s machismo hustlers. To maximize audience size and fit in with modern nostrums, they ignore the nature aspect of nature vs nurture and focus on the nurture part. Well, if you could call it that. More or less, they avoid race realism and embrace the idea that channeling the right success-driven mindset is a man’s highest duty.

At least Tate doesn’t simp for Israel, but Peterson is an obedient Shabbos who previously goaded Netanyahu to give the Palestinians hell. He also makes himself useful to ZOG by shilling for women’s rights in Iran, hypocritically ignoring worse conditions for women in places where the neocons don’t want to attack. The only time he’s ever invoked innate differences between ethnic groups was to cite the higher IQ of American Ashkenazi Jews to try to excuse them being more likely to occupy positions of power and influence in white societies. Peterson may be willing to question attempts to obfuscate gender differences, but he can’t muster up the courage to question Jewish power or brown invasion. Given how Jews proliferate in the field of psychology, perhaps he feels he owes them something for his success, but then again Kevin MacDonald has a background in psychology too and is one of the most prominent critics of Jewish influence in the world. We must wonder what it is MacDonald has that Peterson lacks. It’s probably being motivated more by altruism than personal gain because MacDonald has gotten nothing monetarily out of his stances so far as I know. Meanwhile, Peterson, a self-described capitalist with respect to his ventures, has made millions of dollars, and Jews won’t let him do that so easily if he starts telling the truth about the nature of the Jewish relationship with host populations. Fear of losing one’s livelihood isn’t unique to Peterson, as it keeps most Jew-wise people quiet about their knowledge, but Peterson goes beyond just keeping mum about Jews and shamelessly simps for Jewish power and for Israel, letting his ethnic interests be cuckolded by Jewish ones.

Jews are rewarding Peterson for being a good goy, as Ben Shapiro is making a video series called “Foundations of the West” featuring Peterson wandering about the ruins of various landmarks from classical antiquity as he opines about civilization. [1]

Looking at how Shapiro is promoting Peterson, we can observe a case study of how Jews promote high status whites who supplant white ethnocentric interests with Jewish ones. Knocking down the domino at the top influences the rest to fall. Jews instinctively placate the most socially powerful whites and let them do the rest of their work for them.

Peterson has knocked down the strawman of gender bending and become a “Captain Obvious” hero to whites in that regard while ignoring a more serious cause of their demise: demographic invasion.

For as pathetically philosemitic as he is, Peterson can always claim the moral high ground over Andrew Tate due to the latter being a cyber pimp who mercilessly scammed men out of their life savings using a coven of cam whores. Peterson is definitely better than Tate interpersonally, but Tate’s worldview is a little more honest. Tate may not be willing to condemn mass immigration, but at least he is willing to discuss the issue openly. He acknowledges that white nations are self-destructing because whites are not defending themselves from mass immigration, but he sees no reason why brown people shouldn’t take advantage of it. Of course, he can’t take up the mantle of “Europe for Europeans”, as it would invalidate his right as a mulatto to practice pimpery in Romania. Still, he does seem to display some fealty to the background of his white working class British mother, stating that the UK rioters (who mainly had that background) had a right to be angry over the state not protecting the little girls from the person who killed them. However, Tate didn’t cite the true reason for the riots, which was not just anger over one isolated incident but decades of violence and abuse from non-white invaders. Tate has complained about London becoming too “stabby,” but he doesn’t want to talk about how most of the knife wielding assailants are negroid because he has some of that ancestry. Despite his limitations in not wanting to offend either side of his family, Tate entertains more honest discussion of race than Peterson. Moreover, at least Tate doesn’t want little Jews like Ben Shapiro to make him fight a war for Israel, a sentiment all good white men should share.

While the modern sanitized Internet isn’t expanding white nationalism disproportionally among the youth, figures such as Tate and Peterson may be furthering race-blind rightism. According to Rasmussen, Americans in the 18-29 demographic are slightly more likely to support Trump than ages 30-64. This may benefit the Republican Party for the time being, but because of changing demographics, it won’t work in the long run, because even though Hispanics may vote for Trump at a rate of perhaps as high as 50%, I don’t think they’ll go past that threshold with him or any other white Republican because in polls, they’re typically indifferent between blacks and whites in terms of race relations, so we’d expect them to be as likely to join the Republican Party as the Democrat Party, as the former attracts most whites and the latter, most blacks.

Another reason why the Republican Party is probably doomed in the long run is that East Asians, South Asians, and blacks innately prefer the Democrat Party’s despotism and won’t become Republicans at higher rates, so as those groups increase relative to whites, the Republican Party will probably be relegated to control over high percentage white states. Finally, neocons will probably replace Trump at the top, unless some other non-neocon world historical figure replaces him, which doesn’t seem terribly likely to me. These neocons will lower the reputation of the GOP by supporting Israelis pushing Palestinians out of the West Bank to get the last bit of land they think God has promised them. This will anger voters so much as to permanently destroy the GOP as a party capable of winning the White House. Wiser Jews may caution against this as Americans under 40 already on the Net dislike Israel, and this sort of thing would increase their anger to a point where they may be willing to cut off foreign aid and perhaps even diplomatic support, but far be it from rapacious neocon zealots to practice prudence.

The only thing which might slow down the demise of the GOP is that the Democrat Party might split up due to the various ethnic groups and factions in it not getting along. The biggest fault line now is between pro-Israel Jewish megadonors and the pro-Palestine Democrat majority, but other fault lines may begin to form which break it up further. Jews will strive to keep it together though, because they want pro-Israel, pro-Jewish policies coming from all parties, and it’s easier to control two than more than two. The only problem is that increasingly more elite Democrat donors will be South Asian and East Asian, and they may not put up with Jewish power in the Democrat Party like whites have.

By the latter half of the 21^st century, white flight to Europe may become a thing. I’m already sick of how it seems like everyone under 30 in the US is brown. It’s as if 20 years ago, white women ceased having children, a timeline which corresponds to the start of the millennial generation’s fertility. This happened due to a combination of Affirmative Action boosting women’s careers, pink collar jobs similarly enhancing their conceit, and the desire among an increasing number of women to be single.

While Hispanics and Asians may maintain white culture to some extent, the same forces reducing white populations in number will probably eventually reduce theirs. The people who replace white-culture-upholding Hispanics and Asians are so mentally backward that once they get in charge they will return things to a pre-industrial norm, whereupon natural conditions may reinvigorate the fertility of Asians and whites and reverse the below-replacement-level norm of developed nations. Eerily enough, asking AI to predict what American cities will look like a thousand years from now results in images of rather Australoid-looking, frizzy-haired people mulling around hollowed-out skyscrapers as dust blows in the air from humans having desiccated the Earth. This would be the Democrat Party’s platform if they were honest. The Republican Party’s platform, in contrast, would proudly tout a quarter-century-long delay on this fate.

AI can only predict the future based on what already exists, and it can’t foresee innovations nimbler human minds can create, so that AI prediction is by no means destiny. Block chain technology can help bail out whites from their multiracial group think. What Bitcoin is doing for currency, a digital way of determining property rights which factors in a 23andMe sort of genetic litmus test for membership could one day set the framework for a parallel white society developing and separating from present-day mixed race ones. Using an ethnopluralist system as defined by Martin Lichtmesz to start with race segregated homeschool education, and then perhaps healthcare, would be a step toward secession.

This may become possible, because although in many ways people under 25 years old may be less racially aware, in some ways they’re more like pre-civil rights era whites, with some wanting to undo parts of the Civil Rights Act. Scaling back parts of that legislation that would inhibit a technologically driven ethnopluralism may be a step toward racial liberation. Perhaps something can alter the structure of globalism to make first world people immune from economic blackmail for practicing separatism, be it in an ethnopluralist system or a separate state.

Technological solutions are all well and good, but from an emotional standpoint, whites want a hero, and for many, Trump is the closest thing they have. However, a lot of his success is not because of his charisma or right-wing stances but because whites are sick of losing America and want to place a cult-like faith in some leader. In other words, demand for a hero has transformed a rather run of the mill reality TV star into a movement leader. It’s dangerous to idealize Trump though, because he has a dual nature, which is part good and part bad. He’s a real estate developer, and having a strong long-term tie to the land, makes him almost like a noble lord of the manor. However, he’s also part snake oil salesman, as the scam of Trump University shows us. He also is not a faithful person, as he snubbed the contractors who built the Wollman ice skating rink in Central Park when he had promised to give them credit. He’s part lord of the manner, part cold-hearted scammer.

In real estate, Trump didn’t flee from non-whites so much as draw whites to him. Rather than move operations to the suburbs to get good white tenants, Trump built glitzy hotels and apartment buildings in New York and other cities to attract rich clientele who were mainly white and Jewish. However, using wealth to separate oneself from brown people is a vain endeavor that is killing off the white race’s fertility because it takes them too long to save up money to move away from diversity. Saving up money for a house in an area with “good schools” or saving up for expensive private school tuition takes a while. Somebody born super rich like Trump can always cycle through younger wives attracted to his wealth later on in life, but the average white guy born into a middle class or poor background can’t, and his lone wife may be barren by the time he can afford to escape diversity. Using wealth to escape non-whites is kicking the can down the road and not dealing with the problem of racial invasion directly.

It’s a mistake to cast one’s reputation in with Trump because his cultural lore will not outlive him, and his legacy in government will not be significant, because he probably won’t deport any illegals, finish building the wall, or scale back legal immigration. He probably won’t do what ethnocentric whites want, but he also probably won’t do what ethnocentric Jews want: go to war for Israel. He just wants to posture to get votes from each crowd. All things considered, he is better than the average Republican president from the past half century, though, because he won’t go to war for Israel like the Bushes did, and he won’t do an amnesty for illegal aliens like Reagan did.[2] He’ll still be a subpar president because he won’t fix our problems, but subpar is better than bad. Most Republican congressmen want to go to war for Israel, and many probably would vote for amnesty if given the opportunity, so Trump by contrast is better than the average Republican.

Trump isn’t as good as his old 2016 self, however. It seems the sanitizing of the Internet after his victory in 2016, along with perhaps pressure from evil elites, have removed his populist soul and replaced it with a standard Reaganesque husk, but there are now signs his old self is shining through a little, thanks in part to the critiques of Keith Woods and both the critiques and activism of Nick Fuentes and his Groypers. These mentally nimble Zoomers are trying to awaken the Trump they knew in 2016, and I endorse their efforts.

We are at the mercy of Trump and the Republicans once he is elected, but for now we have leverage to at least get Trump to take the right positions on things. Pushing him to reduce immigration, deport illegals, and declare he wants to avoid war with Iran is the right thing to do, because we can use Trump to promote the views which benefit whites as long as he is at the mercy of our votes.

Having said this, I don’t endorse all of the changes Fuentes wants Trump to make to his campaign platform. Fuentes wants Trump to support Project 2025, which doesn’t seem cool to me. It allegedly promotes Christian nationalism, which to me seems like an oxymoron, given how Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Jesus Christ rejected the devil’s offering of temporal power and concerned himself with a spiritual world which transcended life and death. While Christianity may certainly inform public policy, Project 2025 seems like it is trying to do too much temporally with religion.

The seven major tenets of Project 2025 are vain because they presuppose that the sum of human intent may consist solely of formalized words on a page. The authors of it ignore the greater inborn tendency of non-whites toward corruption. Magic words won’t ward off banana republic tactics from brown people nor the tyranny of traitorous white elites enforcing the will of their Jewish masters.

What’s more, Project 2025’s precept of banning men from women’s sports presupposes anybody cares about women’s sports. Men are better at most sports than women, so why not just have men do those sports? Except in those endeavors in which women have equal ability such as gymnastics or figure skating, men should be the lone competitors.

Conserving late 20th century American cultural norms such as women’s sports is a waste of time. The sole effect of Project 2025 is to give the media something scary-sounding to attack in bad faith. It’s best for Trump to do as he is doing, which is to keep quiet about it, and Fuentes shouldn’t punish him for this. If Trump wins, he can always hire whomever Fuentes likes at Project 2025 without having to mention that undertaking. Fuentes and America First should stay focused on criticizing Trump for not opposing immigration and standing against Israeli bellicosity.

Nick Fuentes is a transitional figure whose views are a hybrid of the white nationalism from the Decade of Truth and religious nationalism which has since then become popular. Fuentes believes in maintaining America’s white majority status, which isn’t total white nationalism but isn’t a total forsaking of it either. Meanwhile, he embraces Christian Nationalism contra Zionism just as Andrew Tate and Sneako believe in Islam contra Zionism. This would be bad if he didn’t package it with maintaining white majority status, which is a vast improvement over what most people who aren’t white nationalists believe. Fuentes is valuable insofar as he introduces the youth to racial truths, but I hope he doesn’t get stuck appealing to a fixed generation based on a particular online subculture.

Nick Fuentes and his Groypers are good at finding opportunities on social media to get their message out, and now that Musk is in charge of Twitter, they have more chances to do that. I just hope they find the loopholes faster than Jews can shut them down.

Another Trump presidency would give pro-white people another four years of free speech to figure out how to red-pill more people, but Trump must show he’s not going to betray our trust by going to war in the Middle East or neglecting to build more of the border wall and deport at least some illegals. It’s better he make good promises and fail to deliver on them than fail even to promise to do the right thing. Trump must at the very least maintain what remains of his legacy, which are his 2016 campaign stances. AIPAC understands that words by themselves matter, because they feature candidates who pay lip service to Israel and call it “America’s Greatest Ally” even when those candidates don’t vote for everything Israel wants. Because words influence public opinion, pessimism over Trump delivering on his promises shouldn’t hinder people from demanding he make the right ones.

If Trump continues to cater to Boomercon cheerleaders from the mainstream right on X, he’ll get plenty of likes and reposts, but he’ll gain no votes from it. On the other hand, if he caters to the dissident right, he’ll actually get votes, because the people who need the most encouragement to vote are more likely to be poor, young, and “racist.”

The dissident right withholding votes from Trump can certainly be the difference in him winning or losing, since the dissident right constitutes around 3% of Trump voters in my estimation, a population size slightly more numerous than Jewish Trump voters, who constitute about 2% of his would-be voters and to whom he constantly panders with anti-Iran talk. If he wants to win, he’s got to stop pandering to them so much, and he’s got to start pandering to the group which is now threatening not to vote for him. The dissident right is relatively young and very active online, and it’s only a matter of time until most of them know about Nick Fuentes’ threat to withhold votes if Trump continues to deviate from his 2016 self.

Notes

[1] I advise Peterson’s fans to skip his “Foundations of the West” collaboration with Ben Shapiro and watch Kenneth Clark’s “Civilisation” instead, because Peterson’s expertise is in psychology and Clark has a background in art history which better enables him to describe the artefacts and works of art he features. It’s even better to read Clark’s book, where on page 2 he expresses a preference for the Apollo of the Belvedere sculpture from classical antiquity over an African tribal mask, describing the former as reflecting a spirit of confidence and discovery, and the latter as reflecting darkness and fear of harsh punishments for breaking a taboo.

[2] How I rank US Republican Presidents of the past century:

• Good: Eisenhower for Operation Wetback which was a campaign to deport illegal Mexicans, Coolidge for the 1924 Johnson-Reed act to limit immigration to America, Hoover for maintaining the Johnson-Reed Act.
• Subpar: Nixon, Ford, and Trump for failing to deport illegals and failing to reverse the 1965 Hart-Celler act which allowed non-whites into America. These presidents weren’t bad though because they didn’t do an amnesty or start an unnecessary war.
• Bad: H.W. Bush for NAFTA and the Persian Gulf war, W Bush for scamming America into the so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom and wanting to do an amnesty, Ronald Reagan for the 1986 amnesty. I’m hoping Bush and Reagan represent the nadir of Republican presidents, but it’s depressing how BoomerCons and even some of their young conservative staffers still idolize Reagan over all other former presidents.