Counter-Currents
3,729 words 
To understand the arch of Donald Trump’s political career so far, he should be seen as a Machiavellian and monarchical figure without any concrete political ideology or ideals beyond his own self-aggrandizement. Trump has switched party loyalty on many occasions, even spending most of the 2000s as a registered Democrat. In 2015, when he threw his hat in the ring for the 2016 election, he took up the cause of right-wing populism, not because he was a genuine believer in this cause, but because this was his most viable avenue to power.
In 2016, Trump was truly an outsider candidate with the entire establishment against him, including his own party. Though the odds were stacked against him, the populist energy he had built up, fuelled by dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the United States, was able to give him the victory. However, after his 2016 win, he had more or less achieved his own personal goal of becoming president. His presidency was a lot more in line with the establishment than his candidacy was. Despite this, they never forgave Trump for throwing a spanner in their works, albeit a much smaller one than expected.
This time period gave rise to the phenomenon of Trump Derangement Syndrome, the perpetual state of emotive rage which Donald Trump evoked in the left. This began during his campaign and continued throughout his presidency. While Trump was in the White House, the Great Awokening carried on unabated in the media, academic, and corporate worlds. The phenomenon of censorship via deplatforming from Big Tech platforms began just after Trump assumed office. The Great Awokening reached its crescendo in 2020 with the second round of BLM riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
Trump was forced out of office in the contentious 2020 election. Even though Trump’s actual results as a president were underwhelming, the Biden Administration took the opportunity to enact its revenge against the populist right after the snub of the 2016 election. This started with the extreme measures taken against the J6 protestors but continued throughout Biden’s presidency. They went so far as to attempt to jail Trump himself along with several of his allies. The Biden Administration was by far the “wokest” the US has ever seen. A large percentage of key positions were staffed by Jews, transsexuals, or diversity hires and they vastly expanded the enforcement of DEI policies.
Some of the Biden Administration’s more egregious misdeeds included allowing about triple the number of illegals in across the border, placing thousands of “refugees” in small towns in Middle America, the FBI monitoring parents protesting anti-white curriculum in their kids’ schools, FEMA deprioritizing houses with Trump flags for disaster relief aid, or the US Army releasing LGBT themed recruitment ads. America also saw severe economic woes during Biden’s Administration with inflation getting out of hand, the disastrous end to the Afghanistan War, new geopolitical conflicts break out in Ukraine and Israel, and increased threats from China.
The difference between Trump’s 2024 campaign and that of his 2016 and 2020 runs is not so much Trump himself. Again, Trump is not an ideologically driven man, but an ego-driven one. The difference is who decided to back Trump in the 2024 Election and what motivated them to do so. I’m going to attempt to classify various agendas within the American ruling class here and explore how they have come into conflict with each other. This isn’t exhaustive, but I will identify four different agendas here and how they are playing out.
The first is the anti-white agenda. This is what is usually referred to as the cause of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” by its supporters and as “wokeism” by its critics. Various elements of this agenda include mass non-white immigration to Western countries, the demonization of the white majorities, affirmative action, and the promotion of feminism, homosexuality, and transgenderism. The goal of this agenda the demographic replacement of people of European descent in the countries which they historically were the majority. This is the cause of groups like the NAACP, the SPLC, or the Open Society Foundation.
The second agenda is managerialism. This is the push to create an all-encompassing control grid through which all aspects of modern society can be administered. Managerialism entails the vast expansion of both state and non-state bureaucracies, ever-increasing regulation and taxation, and furtherance of reliance on complex centralized systems. The COVID pandemic response was the quintessential example of managerialism in action while Agenda 2030 and the sustainable development goals embody the embody the ambitions of the managerialist agenda. This is the primary objective of organizations like BlackRock, the WEF, or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The anti-white agenda known as wokeism and managerialism are not inherently linked. It’s possible to have a managerial system which isn’t woke, such as those which exist in countries like China. However, within the Western world, managerialism and wokeism are more or less unified due to the metanarratives which arose in the West simultaneously with the development of the managerial system. While they aren’t the same thing in theory, they can be understood as a unified force within the Western world. All of these managerial bodies such as BlackRock are all anti-white, and the anti-white agenda is enforced via the managerial bureaucracy. Something like ESG scores is an example of how these two agendas have been merged into one.
The third elite-driven agenda at play here is the Zionist lobby. The goal of this agenda is to garner support for the State of Israel and the Jewish community from the United States and other Western countries. This is the objective of an organization like AIPAC. There is a large overlap between the Zionist lobby and the anti-white agenda as pro-Israel Jewish organizations such as the ADL or AJC also promote leftist social causes. However, a large portion of organizations or individuals who are considered woke are not sympathetic to the State of Israel.
The last agenda of the elite I’ll cover here is the advancement of Big Tech. This one is self-explanatory. It’s the advancement of technology, driven by tech giants such as X, Google, Meta Platforms, or Amazon. Big Tech has had overlap with these other agendas. The tech industry wasn’t always particularly woke but became so following the Great Awokening, the industry plays a key role in the expansion of the managerial bureaucracy as was the case during COVID, and Jewish tech executives like Mark Zuckerberg and Sergey Brin hold sympathies for the State of Israel.
Woke managerialism, the unification of the anti-white and managerial agendas, is the main elite agenda of the establishment. This strand holds most of the power in the EU, Britain, or Canada. Though the Zionist lobby exerts itself outside of the United States too, it has far more influence on American politics since the epicentre of the power of the organized Jewish community is in the US. For example, some countries in Europe will often vote against Israel at the UN, while the United States never will under any circumstances. Likewise with Big Tech, these companies exert themselves around the world, but they are primarily headquartered in the United States meaning American politics are of the greatest interest to these companies.
Donald Trump’s first presidency failed to deliver on many of his 2016 campaign promises, but it showed segments of the elite class that he wasn’t as much of a threat to the system as many had worried at the time. In the years since he left office, several fissures have emerged within the ruling class, which got a portion of the elite to throw their support behind Donald Trump in 2024. Trump’s right-wing populist image is little more than a surface-level aesthetic and shouldn’t be understood to reflect the true nature of his second administration. His elite backers will influence him to a much greater degree than his populist voter base will.
The bulk of the establishment backed Kamala Harris in the 2024 campaign. She received far more funding, enjoyed far more support from the managerial bureaucracy, and received far more positive media coverage. However, Trump received significant support from both the Zionist lobby and Big Tech which was able to sway the election in his favor. While he wasn’t the establishment’s choice per se, I’ll go over several reasons which I can identify as to why significant portions of the elite class switched loyalties and backed Trump in 2024.
The first is general managerial failure. The course of action pursued for the two years of the COVID pandemic has largely been acknowledged as an unmitigated disaster. Those responsible are trying to brush the entire ordeal under the rug in hopes that it is just forgotten about. While Trump was still in office for the first portion of the pandemic, the blame has been mostly placed upon the managerial bureaucracy, both in the US and around the world, which Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are much more in sync with. The disastrous response to COVID has brought about a general wariness of managerial overreach, including in some elite circles.
An extension of managerial failure is the competence crisis. Woke managerialism by its very nature erodes competence because it forces institutions to deprioritize competence in favor of the promotion of “diversity”. If a company like Boeing places the goal of “diversity” above designing aircrafts, the quality of their aircrafts will inevitably suffer. If a government agency like FEMA prioritizes “diversity” over providing disaster relief, their disaster relief is inevitably going to be less effective. The practice of affirmative action has been undermining competence in American society since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but the Great Awokening saw a massive expansion of DEI programs in both the private and public sectors, especially after the Summer of Floyd in 2020.
There has been a pushback against woke managerialism in the past few years as it is severely hindering companies’ ability to operate effectively. This is perhaps most notable in Big Tech. The tech industry is reliant on a high degree of competence and innovation, meaning the policies of woke managerialism are a major threat to their operations. In 2023, Elon Musk’s company SpaceX was sued by the US Government for discriminating against refugees in hiring. The Biden Administration passed an executive order imposing regulations on AI, setting the standard that AI must “advance equity and civil right”. This resulted in AI art programs being incapable of drawing white people as that could be considered “racist” or AI chatbots suggesting that allowing a nuclear explosion to occur would be preferable to “misgendering” someone.
Beyond the decline in competence, woke managerialism also places a major strain on the infrastructure of society as huge amounts of resources are wasted in the fruitless pursuit of “equity”. The number of illegal immigrants entering the United States rose exponentially under the Biden Administration. Countless initiatives were launched with the goal of “equity” in mind, none of which actually achieved their goal, but all of which cost exuberant amounts of money. Again, this isn’t anything new but ramped up significantly in the past few years.
Also related to the practice of woke managerialism, another major reason for a portion of the elite throwing their support behind Trump in 2024 was fear of cancel culture. Again, this phenomenon of the firing and ostracization of those who blaspheme the doctrines of universalist egalitarianism has been going on for decades, but these witch hunts for racists, sexists, and homophobes reached fever pitch during the Great Awokening. The rise of social media made generating outrage at ideological infractions much easier, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of cancellations.
This isn’t something which only right-wingers have to fear either. Over the past decade, almost anyone could have found themselves the target of a woke lynch mob, including members of the elite class. For example, Brendan Eich, the co-founder and former CEO of Mozilla, was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had donated money to a campaign opposing gay marriage in California. The founder and CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, John Schnatter was forced out of the company he founded due to a single word he uttered out of context during a conference call. While the phenomenon of cancel culture might seem silly and trivial, this precedent is a major threat to the interests of anyone in the elite class who is not a dyed-in-the-wool true believer in wokeism. They have a lot to fear and a lot to lose.
The next issue which has caused divisions within the American ruling class is America’s geopolitical position. The United States took a major hit to its prestige following the defeat in and withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and saw two major geopolitical conflicts break out in Europe with the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 and the Middle East with the war in Gaza in 2023. While it remains the most powerful country militarily, the United States is no longer the unrivalled global hegemon, and other powers are beginning to exert themselves. The decline in American military might is again a product of the competence crisis spurred on by woke managerialism within the US military and the overall demoralization of American society which has caused recruitment to plummet.
Related to America’s geopolitical situation is the issues facing the Zionist lobby. Support for the State of Israel worldwide has sharply declined since October 2023. Within the United States, both the Democrat and Republican parties remain ardent supporters of Israel, but among the public, fewer and fewer Americans under the age of 60 support the US’s current relationship with the country. As WWII becomes a distant memory, the unconditional sympathy which the Jewish community has received in the United States is beginning to wane.
From the right, the Zionist lobby is facing the threat of the rising nationalist sentiment among younger right-wingers. The role of the organized Jewish community in the promotion of leftist values and the deleterious effect of America’s blank cheque to Israel has turned many on the right against the Zionist lobby. From the left, they are facing the threat of universalist egalitarian values being used to condemn the actions of Israel and an increasing non-white demographic who lump Israel and Jews into the category of “white oppressors”. While the organized Jewish community has been instrumental in pushing these anti-white narratives, they now finding those same narrative being applied to them.
Trump’s elite support in 2024 mainly came from Big Tech oligarchs or elements of the Zionist lobby which saw him as the safer bet. Trump most notably received a major endorsement from Elon Musk, and also received support from others of his ilk such as Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel. Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos did not formally endorse Trump, but rather announced that they wouldn’t endorse any candidate which was taken as an endorsement of Trump by the liberal establishment who they were previously onboard with.
The organized Jewish community and the Zionist lobby was not unified in their choice of candidate. Their candidate of choice was Harris, with her receiving a larger share of Jewish money, Jewish votes, and positive press coverage from Jewish-owned media. The organized Jewish community typically supports both woke managerialism and Zionism, despite some contradictions between the two. The majority of them supported Harris because they considered her the devoted to the first agenda and good enough on the second.
However, Trump received support from a contingent of right-wing Jews for whom securing support for the state of Israel is more important than pushing leftist social policy. They felt that Trump would be their best option for getting done what they want to get done in the Middle East as soon as possible, considering the generational decline in support for Israel on both the left and right. Many of Trump’s appointees are these Christian Zionist types who lean right on most social issues, but fanatically support the State of Israel and would give them the blank cheque which the Zionist lobby is after.
What does election of Donald Trump in 2024 have in common with the Thermidorian Reaction during the French Revolution or Destalinization in the Soviet Union? First and foremost, it must be understood that just like these two historical events, what’s happening in the United States now is NOT a counterrevolution. The elites who threw their support behind Trump are not fundamentally opposed to the current consensus in the West and their goal is not to undo the cultural revolution which took place in the 1960s. Trump doesn’t really have any ideology himself while many of those supporting him such as Robert F Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, Marc Andreessen, and Elon Musk were liberals just a few years ago.
Not only are most involved in this reaction former liberals, but many were also heavily complicit in the Great Awokening itself. Take someone like Mark Zuckerberg for example. Facebook was fully onboard with the massive wave of censorship which hit the internet in 2017 following Trump’s 2016 victory and colluded with the Biden Administration in 2021 to censor certain content related to COVID. While Zuckerberg wasn’t an ardent supporter of Trump, he has apologized for the flagrant partisanship of his platforms over the past few years and is now attempting to rebuild a relationship with the right. Jeff Bezos has taken similar actions with Amazon and the Washington Post, which he also owns.
Trump 2024 is a reaction to the most radical excesses of the ideas America embraced in the 1960s which have evolved into what is known as “wokeism” today and which is now the official ideology of the managerial bureaucracy. Much like how the Thermidorian Reaction put an end to the Reign of Terror and Destalinization ended the mass repression of the Stalin era, the goal of those who supported Trump in 2024 seems to be to put an end to the Great Awokening. Their goal isn’t to end the current consensus, but just to end its most radical phase which has played out over the past decade and bring back a degree of sanity.
Whether or not they will actually be able to pull this off remains to be seen. The demographic trends are still in favor of further radicalization to the left and most of the managerial bureaucracy is still staffed by true believers in universalist egalitarianism. The new Trump Administration and those associated with it are going to face significant pushback from within the system and if they aren’t ready to fight dirty, they aren’t going to win. However, if they are able to get their way, what can we expect to happen, both in the United States and in the broader West?
On the speech issue, I don’t expect there to be total freedom of speech on the internet, but I imagine that Big Tech will be less censorious than it was from 2017 to 2022. We’ve already seen an easing of censorship over the past few years since the end of COVID. This will not only impact the United States, but also other countries as these US-based tech platforms are the primary medium of speech around the world. I do not think we will be getting the internet of 2016 back by any stretch. There will still be a degree of censorship, but we might be past the peak. This can be seen with Elon Musk’s X platform. There certainly is censorship, but there’s notably less than there was three years ago.
I also imagine that cancel culture won’t disappear entirely but become less common. If these guys get what they want, you probably won’t see people getting cancelled over such minute things as single statement made years ago. I also imagine that anti-liberal views from the right might not result in instant cancellation as they did a few years ago, if expressed in an optical manner. In that regard, the uptight atmosphere around sensitive political issues of the past few years will probably be eased a little. I do, however, expect an increase in crackdowns on anti-Zionism from the left, especially within the university system.
On immigration, it is clear that Trump’s new administration intends to maintain replacement levels of legal immigration. They might take steps to at least reduce illegal immigration, but that remains to be seen. This isn’t because Trump or those around him are opposed to the Great Replacement, but because the exponential increase in immigration under Biden is dead weight on the system. We’ve already seen the governments of both Canada and the UK walk back on the incomparably high levels of immigration they’ve had since 2021, not because they’ve had a change of heart, but because the infrastructure of the countries can’t sustain such high numbers. The Trump administration won’t reverse demographic change, but rather admit immigrants who they consider more preferable.
We’ve already seen Corporate America roll back on wokeism. Companies like Boeing, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson have all scaled back on their DEI programs. The over-the-top woke messaging we saw from major corporations over the past decade is already being somewhat reduced. Woke managerialism won’t disappear from the corporate world as the laws which mandate it are still in place, but it might be enforced with considerably less zeal than it was at its peak in the late 2010s and early 2020s.
In terms of foreign policy, the United States will most likely continue to aid it’s aligned regimes abroad, but under the Trump administration, Israel is going to be the top priority. His administration is staffed with fanatical Zionists who will give Israel whatever they want. There’s also a chance that DEI within the military will be reduced. The US Military has seen a huge drop off in terms of recruitment, performance, and prestige due in large part to the anti-white woke policies which they have enacted. With America’s geopolitical standing being challenged, a greater emphasis will probably be placed on competence and less on ideology.
The goal of this alliance between the tech bros, Zionists, and Donald Trump is certainly not to end the universalist egalitarian liberal consensus of the past 60 years, but to rein in its excesses and bring back a degree of stability. Their goals are analogous to the Thermidorian Reaction during the French Revolution or Destalinization during the Soviet era in Russia. This leaves critics of the current consensus (nationalists, paleoconservatives, traditionalists, reactionaries, etc.) who want to see a much more fundamental change in Western society with a major question. Is this development a good thing or a bad thing?
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
21 comments
This was a nice series; a very valuable exercise in trying to do clear sense making to aid our cause.
What stands out to me is the objective reality that conventional politics do not provide the solution to achieving our end goal – a society of, for and by us where we are the sovereign and free to pursue our destiny connected to our Traditions, ancestors, heritage and resuming the pursuit of our destiny in connection with them.
I think whenever we speak we should speak for ourselves. The Regime pervades nearly every word, including the words we speak. The military is not being wokefied, it is being ethnically cleansed of White men. The corporate world is not woke it is anti-White and engaging in a pogrom of White men.
Framing is one of our most potent weapons. Whenever we speak, especially amongst ourselves, we must speak with absolute precision. As or more important than the clarity from this precision is the cultivation of courage. The crime being committed against us, is unprecedented in scale and the magnitude of its malevolence. We must not be afraid to utter the most precise descriptions of it. We must commit to being more and more precise. We must ultimately learn to be precise around our children without profanity as well. We have the power to frame it with precise language.
Outside of politics and policy in terms of the anti-White legal regime, (Civil Rights, AA, DEI, Woke), which we now have more precise language for is the giant wheel which will only increase in torque and spin. That wheel is the anti-White cultural genocide. By the Left’s and international law’s own definition, the erasure, demonization, iconoclasm and falsification of our history is cultural genocide – a precursor to genocide. This is non-controversial. We must call it what it is everytime. Woke is their word. Aside from being a word from the lexicon of the broken, chthonic pidgin of the lowest, whose idioms we must fully purge from our language, it is their word and it cloaks the real agenda and process in motion.
We have several weapons against this cultural genocide. One, the aforementioned purge of the chthonic pidgin from our vocabulary – all of it. A conquered people use the conquerors language. It was very recent that those we dominated aspired to speak Greek and Latin and do ballroom dancing. We must purge twerking, jiving, eubonics and any idiom not invented by us from our spoken and body language, and comport ourselves in all things as Hyperborean Kings and Queens.
We live in a time where the tools of production and distribution for art and entertainment are cheap and easy to acquire. We must first exercise the power of the off button and the will to use it. We must purge the poison of Regime pop culture from our radios, TVs, network cards … … Then we must do our own Great Replacement. We must find existing film, music, literature from our magnificent past and ingest its spiritually vitalizing water. Then we must create our own new works born of our purified spirit and soul. Finally, we must gather and imbibe of our edifying cultural creativity in fellowship with our kind.
We focus a lot on the politics of liberal democracy. We are right to. However, reading this series has hit home that other forces with the power are riding that mechanism to their own ends. It is their tool under their control. We have the power to cultivate ourselves and create our own environment to make a higher reality from the wellspring of our Occidental souls. Our energy, put to use toward these higher pursuits will grow powerful beyond anything we can imagine.
Nice series. Thank you.
This is an interesting take on dialectics. I’m wondering, though – is there any end in sight? Better yet, how best can we get the Wokesters, the NWO, the Zios, and the Silicon Valley Borg off our backs?
universalist egalitarian liberal consensus
Universalist egalitarian liberals are niether universalist, nor egalitarian, nor liberal. OK, maybe you could argue that they’re universalist, though I think “individualist” would be more accurate, and even there only when it comes to the pursuit of wealth. They don’t believe in traditional liberal values like free speech and democracy at all. The only human needs they care about or even acknowledge are of the basest kind: food, sex, and crass entertainment. Higher needs like identity, belonging, transcendence, intellectual expression, high artistic achievement, etc. are incomprehensible to them.
As I attempted but failed to point out on another thread, our enemies are not egalitarians. They are rank Social Darwinists who explicitly state that White people are pampered mediocrities who should and will be replaced by hardier stock from abroad. That the Left is no longer egalitarian in principle, and hasn’t been in practice for some time, is slowly beginning to dawn on people. The North American new right will be very slow to catch on, because egalitarianism is wrongly seen here as effeminate and inseparable from the Left. I think it is an Anglo tic, as men of the Continent seem to understand that standing up to predatory oligarchs, rather than sucking up to them while they punch down at women, is a masculine duty.
In any event, these quibbles aside, I found this to be one of the most helpful articles I have read in a very long time. It is all too easy to invent a unified, singular Enemy in our heads when in fact elite factions do exist and their interests don’t always coincide.
One thing that really shocks me is just how naive and hopeful I remain despite all my outward cynicism and mistrust. You would think I would no longer be capable of sincerely expecting anything good from White (or fellow White) elites. But after the H1B dustup, and worse, Musk’s betrayal on free speech, here I am, lying on my back again while Lucy holds the football and laughs at me. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that truly principled people, as one often finds in the dissident Right, are a very rare breed. We seriously need to let that sink in and proceed accordingly.
I’ve yet to see men of the continent act any differently from Anglos in any of this. Anglo hate is usually most intense from Germans and the French (in my experience), I would take a stab at you being German. As for the punching down at women thing, that’s a very odd but telling thing to put in there. It certainly tells a story in regards to your whole post. Take care of yourself, Lexi.
Torchy, I hope the New Year is treating you well.
I’ve yet to see men of the continent act any differently from Anglos in any of this. Anglo hate is usually most intense from Germans and the French (in my experience), I would take a stab at you being German.
I’m not German, torchy, I’m American. If I hate Anglos, I guess I hate all White men equally, because I regularly criticize continental European men for their foolish credulity concerning the line they’re fed about the Almighty White Evangelical voters running this country. In the lands of Nietzsche and Sartre, Christians, not women, are the favorite scapegoat.
One might have hoped that dissident right men would be a good influence on each other, but unfortunately it has worked out the opposite way. They indulge each other’s poor attitudes toward other Whites rather than push back against them.
In any event, you must understand that Rugged Individualism defines masculinity in America. Did not Musk himself say that “collectivism is the root of all evil”? Gosh, I guess if I were a greedy oligarch who feared working-class solidarity above all else, that’s probably what I would say. Anyway, there is a hatred of socialism here that leads to mistrust of women, as we are not unreasonably viewed as more sympathetic to it. Meanwhile, the perpetually-ridiculed and supposedly effeminate French put on their yellow vests and take the streets, at least when they’re not separating aristocratic heads from their shoulders en masse.
As for the punching down at women thing, that’s a very odd but telling thing to put in there.
What I find odd is the failure on the part of White men to think through the relationship between the WQ and the BQ. Well, technically there is no BQ, or at least it hasn’t been named as such. I find that telling. So what is the billionaire question? There are literally hundreds of White male billionaires in the world, and not a single one of them supports WN. Not even one. Let that sink in. Worse still, they actively conspire to repress it, as EM wishes to do with X. That is a very damning and painful truth, I know, but we have to face it all the same.
Now, WN go on all the time about how White women are to blame for low birth rates. Why they think this is utterly beyond me, and no one has explained this to me throughout the course of the several years I have been asking. My husband and I decided on the number and spacing of our children together as a couple. This is so for all of my girlfriends with whom I am intimate enough to be privy to this information. Nonetheless, MW implied the other day that Whites could have 19th century, double-digit Quebecois-level birthrates if only “our women would cooperate.”
Now, even if we suppose women are the ones deciding not to have children, it’s not clear to me with whom MW and his reactionary friends would like us to have all these kids. They routinely say themselves that our elites are destroying the prospects of young White men. Now, this is manifestly true. These tech jobs are the ones young men were promised would replace the offshored manufacturing jobs, and now they’re being told that these jobs are for Indians who are willing to work 80 hours a week, and probably for less pay. After all, they got their education in the old country for much cheaper, and it’s easier to get a mortgage when you don’t have gigantic student loans.
So now, I ask again, with whom are these women supposed to have this bumper crop of White children? Should they go to the sperm bank because they don’t need no man? From what I understand, this is generally frowned upon in the dissident right. Maybe they can go be EM’s 13th baby momma, since he wants to keep all the money to himself.
Maybe boosting the birth rate could be done by more intergenerational cooperation. Indians build truly monstrously sized homes on farm land housing multiple generations. That is unlikely to work for whites as we are more individualistic and there is also the biblical imperative for a man to leave his parents to take a wife (Genesis 2:24). The local Dutch Reformed used to be strictly primogenitor but some started to give the farm to the son with the most children. With the upcoming heavy increase in Boomer housing downsizing, maybe transfer of homes could be done to accomodate child-bearing. Maybe grandparents could live downstairs and the new family upstairs. Just a thought.
With the upcoming heavy increase in Boomer housing downsizing, maybe transfer of homes could be done to accomodate child-bearing.
Indeed, I suspect part of the rush to replace us has to do with imminent Boomer retirements and the revival of the White middle class that might entail. We should expect our children to need extended support and plan accordingly.
From what I understand, the “leave and cleave” provision is for the benefit of the bride – so she doesn’t become a servant of an overbearing mother-in-law. That is, a husband is required to make his wife queen of her own castle (as well as his heart) if he is able, but she is not required to insist upon it. It is her right to waive IYKWIM.
Of course, you are quite right that Whites are more individualistic, but I think this is something we need to work on. Communal living can be very joyful if one learns to embrace conflict resolution as a character-building challenge that is an essential part of life rather than a tedious chore that merely distracts from life.
@Lexi. “From what I understand, the “leave and cleave” provision is for the benefit of the bride – so she doesn’t become a servant of an overbearing mother-in-law.”
An acquaintance/friend of mine married a Turk (Muslim) in Turkey and stayed married to him for 16 years whereupon he divorced her for not producing any children. Apparently there was something wrong with her medically but she did not know it when she married.
Anyway, yes, she had to live with her mother in law and husband. Yipes. She cooked meals for the two of them, and while they ate, she had to stand nearby, quietly, during the meal to cater to them. If the husband was not around, then she just stood back, like a servant in a royal household, to serve the mother in law alone. And then she got to eat and clean up. This was in the 1980s.
I sense that some white identitarian men would like to see the same situation for us, based at least on the articles and comments I see on “our” websites.
That our enemies are not always egalitarians is a valuable insight. Of course, I’m not so sure that there isn’t still an egalitarian consensus among many of them, or at least many of the white ones. Normie conservatives and wokesters alike adamantly insist that we are “all the same,” often confusing propositions like “we are all the same in the eyes of God,” or “under the law” for being the same naturally. Some of the far left are so intellectually empty they believe in universal equality and the inferiority of whites according to their emotional needs.
But there is indeed an emerging consensus among some factions of our enemies–particularly the non-white ones–that we are indeed mediocre or inferior. There is a certain self-hating segment of whites on the the radical left. The H1-1B flap brought to the fore the supremacist attitudes of Indians. The physicality of blacks has long been used to denigrate whites as inferior. Our passive failure to defend ourselves and our interests is seen by the rest of the world as a sign of inferiority. We have been losing, and losers are looked down on. And of course, a certain tribe that is very aware of our natural strength has long been observing, exploring, publicizing, encouraging, and provoking our weaknesses so that we act and appear inferior. Certainly, that tribe is supremacist itself.
It may be that we should expect others to act as supremacists in their own right–that may be the natural way of all humanity. What is unnatural is the continued universal egalitarianism of our own people–and changing that may be the way the fight is won.
Of course, I’m not so sure that there isn’t still an egalitarian consensus among many of them, or at least many of the white ones.
Yes, there certainly is, but the kind of egalitarianism that prevails among the White masses is not the pernicious kind. We believe that all humans are equal, but that doesn’t mean we want them to take over our homelands.
The kind of egalitarianism that is destroying us is specifially the elite brand of egalitarianism. Their sort of “egalitarianism” is something more like equality of opportunity, even for foreigners, but equality of opportunity is practically indistinguishable from Social Darwinism, is it not?
Hence, you have EM calling is “unrepentant racists” for resisting HIB replacement. He is not an egalitarian, he is merely deploying egalitarianism as a weapon against the working class, and he is doing so disingenuously.
I’m going to have to disagree somewhat, although it is possible that I misunderstood your post.
Classical Liberalism does contain a great many positive virtues, although sometimes these get sketchy after Thomas Hobbes. I’m less partial towards John Locke, and I pretty much dislike JJ Rousseau and his Noble Savages. I think Alexander Hamilton, who was more partial to Hobbes, understood it best.
The fact is that Marxism purports to follow linearly from Classical Liberalism, and yes it does weirdly deify Egalitarianism. Cultural Bolshevism goes even farther and attempts to apply the leveling weapon of the class-struggle onto sex and race.
The Founding Fathers tended to revere the Classical and Enlightenment thinkers. However, when Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence he did not mean anything other than Equality Before the Law (or Equality Before God, for you Natural Law or Christian types).
Equality Before the Law means that justice is blind or impartial. So when a peasant is killed by a highwayman on the royal road ─ or the Mad Max version of it ─ it is the duty of the State to wreak vengeance the same as if the victim were a nobleman.
And if a State is unable to do that, then that civilization itself is on the edge, and blood feuds and anarchy follow. By the same token, if a nobleman kills a peasant on the king’s highway, he is no less culpable before the bar of justice than if the perpetrator and victim were reversed.
There is no way that Marse Jefferson ─ the Founder of the Democratic Party that Liberal plutocrats Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Morgentahu, Jr. unironically saw themselves as ideological heirs to, and also being agricultural romanticists such that they wished to apply their “medicine” to defeated Germany after WWII ─ would have ever officially condoned race-mixing, or what Mr. Lincoln claimed (perhaps disingenuously) that he was opposed to in the way of ever “making Voters or Jurors out of Negroes.” Yet here we are today, with full blown Marxist egalitarianism.
When the Cultural Bolshevists push their “woke” agendas, they wish to destroy Meritocracy. And the White Supremacy of the Founding Fathers has to go. The primary victims of this new regime are White people, of course. Nobody wants to play fair with them. And the new “meritocracy” is then defined so that Jews and Negroes are two-thirds or better of the ruling elites. Anything less is hierarchical racism or feudal slavery to use Marxist terminology.
I have never said anything negative about the 19th Amendment ─ that is not how we got to where we are ─ but the 15th and the 17th Amendments need to be blasted into space like Napoleonic grapeshot.
We also need to tweak the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright or GPS citizenship, and do whatever else is necessary to restore White supremacy and to create an effective ethnostate by law. That is what the Germans attempted with their 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws. World Jewry had already “declared war” two years earlier.
I will always support Christians in matter of their consciences, and I support their rights as long as they don’t try to create a theocracy somehow. Otherwise they have to be gassed along with the Commies and traitors.
Although I have little confidence in Christians getting us out of the quagmire that we face, White Christians can certainly help pull in the right direction ─ and I don’t think that they are responsible for getting us stuck where we are in any case.
Pluralism is explained by James Madison in Federalist No. 10 and he is not wrong. He says that Liberty is like fresh air and out of it a thousand sparks ignite, or flowers bloom (to borrow phrasing from Chairman Mao).
The problem with pluralism is that freedom-of-speech is great intellectually, but Democracy then tries to apply this to government. And what you end up with is a very resilient system that is, however, incapable or correcting strong systemic issues (like Slavery or Depressions). It is a system that is like a stage coach caught in the bog with all the horses hitched up to all sides and all pulling in different directions. The carriage goes nowhere, and the global businessman and financier hardly notices.
Gridlock works for Democracy-Capitalism and the global plutocracy because the confluence of global economic interests sets policy and can literally buy national governments or control international business interests greater than whole governments.
But this is not an Organic State or Nation by any means, just a more or less laissez-faire place to do business and maybe smoke weed.
The Founding Fathers never used the word Democracy. They thought that an ethnostate was indisputably normal, and never considered anything else for their Republic, so they could not even imagine the degeneracy that we face today.
Hitler understood that real Nations were founded organically upon their tribes and kindred race, and that petit-nationalist balkanization of these organic units was the first goal of Jewish Bolshevism in the destruction of White supremacy and Western Civilization. In Hitler’s mind, those who were Über-Bavarians, Über-Prussians, or Über-Austrians, etc. were just as much the enemy if they were not also Reich-Germans.
Hitler sought peace with the French, British, Poles, and even the Russians. Given Germany’s predicament with a World War on the horizon, he did not want to believe that pulling Teutonic influence and possible overreach from nations like the Baltics, which had ancient Hanseantic histories, would necessarily invite Bolshevik subjugation. Apparently Stalin was not so non-Kosher after all.
🙂
In regards to the roll back of DEI in the corporate sphere, it might be useful to take a look at it’s rebranding under “BRIDGE”. Same thing, just different name.
Though you may not think to find it in that realm of things, there is a vtuber by the name of Kirsche that’s been doing deep dives into the switheroo from DEI programs to BRIDGE, looking at names, ideas, companies. For those interested in that kind of deep dive thing, I’d highly recommend her videos on it.
It isn’t what Donald Trump will be doing for the next four years.
It’s what the Dissident Right will be doing.
This means upping the metapolitical game: memes, podcasts, cultural productions, conferences, social media “raids,” flash demonstrations, whatever.
A primary target audience should be critical opinion makers among aspiring elites, alienated conservatives, Silicon Valley folks, whatever remains of the anti-lockdown protesters, veterans (there is a growing anti-DEI movement out there), and especially within the Trump administration. Get these groups to influence policy.
The widespread hostile reaction to Musk’s H1-B proclamations can be exploited.
It would be great if the Dissident Right could organize openly, especially on the campuses. That stage is not yet here. Perhaps some initiative could be made to gain elite support for the formation of a White people’s civil liberties union or national student organization.
All this will require some intelligent discussion of strategy.
And implementing correct infowar tactics.
Let’s roll!
ProWhites have been putting together the most formidable challenge to zog and their Mordor hordes with change found in sofa cushions. The banana may be slightly green but it is ripening. As America the person, Al Bundy would say, “Let’s rock.”
The first is the anti-white agenda. This is what is usually referred to as the cause of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” by its supporters and as “wokeism” by its critics. Various elements of this agenda include mass non-white immigration to Western countries, the demonization of the white majorities, affirmative action, and the promotion of feminism, homosexuality, and transgenderism.
I’ve noticed that many older folks don’t realize how severe the ‘gender war’ is among GenZers.
I’m in my 20s and most of the people who have insulted me, argued with me, and tried to counter-signal me for my political views have been young White women. Quite often these women have dated non-Whites or have non-White friends and feel personally attacked by any form of pro-White politics. While I’ve met women who are open to what I have to say, they have been fewer in number than the percentage of anti-White Leftist Women.
The statistics for dating / romance are also worse than many GenXers, Boomers, etc. might realize.
60% of young men are single, many have been for years:
https://wou.edu/westernhowl/the-male-loneliness-epidemic/
Of those who do regularly date women, many have dated women who are heavily indoctrinated. Approximately 1/4th of White GenZ women identify as LGBTQ:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nearly-30-gen-z-women-identify-lgbtq-gallup-survey-finds-rcna143019
Most of these women are not genuine lesbians. They’re faux-bisexuals who are heavily wedded to Left wing social causes. Many young men have dated women like this (as someone who has, I would urge men reading this to be cautious about ‘fixing’ this type of woman as it is a roll of the dice) or are perma-single.
The dual influence of Feminism and Black culture on White dating norms is also very palpable and has even impacted what some women consider ‘acceptable’ forms of male sexuality. While this might sound a bit weird, a lot of young women now dislike ‘boob guys’ and only want to date ‘ass guys.’ This article by a Leftist deals with the ‘Boob guys are Right wing and should be avoided’ meme:
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/boob-guys-vs-butt-guys
Tbh I’ve known young women (all of whom were White) who believed this. Personally, I don’t see why twerking is empowering but a man being attracted to your chest is wrong.
I honestly don’t see how any White Identity movement can succeed until it addresses the weaponization of White women against White interests.
One important step is giving young women the rhetorical tools to be neutral. I wouldn’t expect most of those who silently sympathize to suddenly become open WNs, but having the language / arguments in place to not be a Woke Feminist and also not be a Bible Thumping Evangelical would be useful for those women who are genuinely open minded and curious.
I think big B and big B are both Negroid features, but I guess it’s all just in the eye of the beholder. I never understood what all those Darkies saw in the Kardashians or vice versa.
Anyway, Second Wave Feminism is cancer and it has become largely normalized like low-tar 100s. You’ve come a long way baby.
So today, empowerment Grrrl spills her milkshake ─ F the Patriarchy.
This crusade and culture of victimization is not about finding one’s voice, speaking truth to power, nor social justice; it’s basically just Judeo-Bolshevik class-warfare “by other means,” as von Clausewitz would have phrased it.
🙂
Scott,
I know you to be a reasonable person, and I very much appreciate your willingness to recognize the different “waves” of feminism. Of course, we have the numbers all wrong. First wave feminism happened during the Axial Age. The Church started second wave feminism with chivalry, etc. But let’s set that aside for now and go with the conventional narrative.
“First wave feminism” grew naturally out of women’s nurturing roles (social housekeeping), and our desire to not be beaten to a pulp, or even murdered, by drunk husbands (temperance). Many people see the reason of this, but then attack further iterations of feminism.
The problem with this is that “second wave feminism” was more or less an inevitable development following the massive demographic changes of the 20th century. Since the passage of the 19th Amendment, we have seen phenomenal reductions in infant mortality, combat deaths, and TB, the latter being arguably the most deadly infectious disease in human history. Women just don’t need to have as many children as in the past. That being the case, the question naturally arises as to what to do with all that excess labor power. Women live for like 80 years. That is a very long time. I’m not clear on what exactly DR men think we should be doing for all that time.
Of course, if we are subjected to a breeding contest with patriarchal cultures that carry on having very large families when life expectancy is high and there is no open frontier, we are going to lose, but in that case the problem is the breeding competition, not low birth rates. It seems to me that birthrates above, say, the Israeli norm of about three children per woman would be unsustainable over the long haul.
You might say that we need higher birthrates just now to compete with immigrants. Well, fair enough, but if we recognized the need to compete with immigrants, we wouldn’t be letting them in to begin with. They are both results of the same root cause: demoralization. The only country to buck the low birth rate trend is Israel, and they also have very restrictive immigration policies. They have not done this by attacking and repressing women. They have done it by fostering unity and collective pride.
My point here is not to defend second wave feminism. If there is something inherently toxic about it, I want to be aware of that. I just don’t see it. Of course, third wave feminism is something different entirely. It’s not really even feminism, it’s just anti-White racial politics rebranded as “intersectional feminism.”
I should also say that the academic feminism of the 60s and 70s was clearly toxic and misandrist, and if that is what you are talking about when you say “second wave feminism,” then I have no quarrel with you. If you mean it in terms of women’s lives in the real world, then that is a different matter.
Hi Lexi,
I basically agree with what you just said. Second Wave Feminism (if I have my waves correct) is almost entirely Jewess-led. It starts with the (Gentile) French Communist Simone de Beauvoire in the 1940s and peaks in the 1960s and 1970s. I am not saying that Feminists never made any decent points in their careers ─ I have taken many upper lever Women’s Studies courses as a History major (I graduated from both BYU-I and Idaho State and have taken many courses at other schools) but mostly WS was all about extending Marxist class-warfare to the sexes.
According to Wikipedia, the 2nd Wave ends with the Battles of the Sexes” in the early 1990s ─ about when prospective Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas allegedly said something about Black attorney Anita Hill’s Coke can and Joe Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee passed judgement on the atrocity. My view was that Justice Thomas surely did it ─ Darkies do what dey gots ta do ─ but that Anita Hill wasn’t in Junior High School either. And the Democrats would not have cared if Thomas was a Liberal Democrat.
And yes, the so-called “3rd Wave” deals mainly with Sistuhs o’ Culluh and extending Feminism to race as well as class and sex. Some of the definitions get a bit muddied but now the Wokification push is on Transgenderism and “Queer Identity,” whatever that means.
I am not opposed to First Wave Feminism, or the 19th Amendment, although I think the Temperance Movement and Prohibition (which were largely led by women) went a little too far.
For one thing, not all of the country had the same views on alcohol as many Protestants and the Latter-Day Saints. (My ancestors were Mormon pioneers and my extended family are 3/4 the LDS. I was raised that way but removed my name from the records when I was about thirty because freedon-of-conscience works both ways.)
For example, the Catholics regard wine and distilled spirits as a sacrament and not just demon rum. To Mormons, that seems like the Injuns and their spiritual peyote. Idaho is one of the few states which has not relaxed laws against weed. Utah is much more weed-friendly because it is home to a lot of non-Mormons, but also a lot of Gays and affluent hipster and Liberal Mormons.
Anyway, I agree with you about the birth rate. Let’s look at the LDS again because that is what I understand the best. Mormons could be considerted “patriarchal,” or at least they say so. Only men (all male members in good standing) are ordained to the lay priesthood (which was denied to Blacks of African descent until 1978) and like the ordained men (Elders) all the adult women are part of the “Relief Society,” which is an auxilliary of the church leadership.
So in reality, the LDS strongly believe that women should be well-educated for the sake of their families, and they should pursue careers and employment at least to the extent that they can provide for their family (with the help of the Church and its members) if something happens to their husband.
Although I can remember nine-children agricultural families when I was growing up, most LDS women today have somewhere between three and six kids. I have four sisters, all have three or four kids themselves. One works full-time as a software engineer and another one did so until she married the son of a U.S. Senator and then became a stay-at-home Mom. The other two don’t work but they do a lot of “extracurriculars,” like one was the coach of the High School drill team.
And I know for a fact that Mormons in good standing use birth control, although the Church used to warn against that. The pill will kill you and so forth. Nobody makes claims like that now. I think mostly LDS women have the number of kids that they want, and when they deliver the last one they sometimes get the snip. The LDS will never promote zero population growth because family formation is integral to the faith and eternal progression or Christian salvation as they teach it. The women are taugh that children are assets rather than personal liabilities, that latter of which is what Feminism(tm) teaches.
The LDS will probably be more inclusive regarding Gays in the future but not today. The real question is when this liberalism will be fully mainstreamed ─ in fifteen years or fifty. Since my view is that all faiths ultimately have “feet of iron and clay,” I tend to think sooner rather than later.
The LDS right now are divided evenly about open borders and nationalism. You can see this with former Senators Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake, both insufferable RINO cucks ─ versus Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce, a great man who started the modern immigration rebellion movement which President Obama and his toady courts duly defanged.
I could go on I guess, but I have to force myself to try to be less didactic and opinionated. I wish that I had all the answers but I certainly don’t.
🙂
I personally like women with curves, but Kim K never struck me as attractive.
Tbh I’ve thought about writing an article on how pop culture has promoted Black beauty norms to White women. There really is a constant outpouring of ‘big booty culture’ from Hollywood (Meghan Trainor’s song All About That Base, Kardashians, PAWG memes, ‘White Women are Evolving’ memes, etc.). This definitely impacts women. I have a pretty 20 year old middle class relative who was recently saying she feels like guys won’t want her because she has a small butt. And anyone who goes to the gym will have met women who try to copy the KimK look. Most of them aren’t consciously trying to copy Black women, they’re just doing what they’re told is attractive.
You’ve come a long way baby.
I think there was another Wilhelm who used to post here & you might have me mistaken for him as I’ve had these views for quite awhile.
So today, empowerment Grrrl spills her milkshake ─ F the Patriarchy.
To be honest, a lot of the ‘hoes’ who use Feminist arguments to justify promiscuity and complain about the patriarchy are less opposed to us than the Nerdy Wallflower types who become radicalized in college.
Wilhelm wrote:
Re: You’ve come a long way baby.
“I think there was another Wilhelm who used to post here & you might have me mistaken for him as I’ve had these views for quite awhile.”
Sorry, I was speaking rhetorically and not at you personally, in spite of the “you.”
“You’ve come a long way baby” is a Boomer generation reference that I hoped would be more clear. It refers to a cynical 1968 Virginia Slims cigarette marketing campaign directed towards “Liberated” women (LINK).
On cue, women were not wearing miniskirts and flowers in their hair any longer but frumpy pantsuits and writing news copy for crusty Minneapolis bosses with bald heads and stogies in their teeth who had to let the working ladies into the neighborhood bar. “You’ve come a long way baby.”
The Virginia Slims concept was the brainchild of Walter J. Landor, a Jew who founded a branding firm in the 1940s. Landor also worked on the Marlboro Man concept. Now they tend to use racecars with hipsters instead of COPD cowbodys. I remember when cigarette advertising was banned (1971) on television in the United States and I don’t miss it. But this did not regulate print media and the women’s glamor magazines ran with the empowered-woman theme. It is a common marketing ploy today but takes many different forms, and pretty much all movies and TV nowadaways. You go, girl.
Re: So today, empowerment Grrrl spills her milkshake ─ F the Patriarchy.
“To be honest, a lot of the ‘hoes’ who use Feminist arguments to justify promiscuity and complain about the patriarchy are less opposed to us than the Nerdy Wallflower types who become radicalized in college.”
Yes, I think that is a very insightful observation. I’ve been observing campus culture myself for over 25 years, and of course I remember my first experience as a college student at what is now called BYU-Idaho back in 1981 fresh out of the Army. I wish I could say that I had all of the answers. Young people are a lot more on board with us than we think they are, and we should never forget it.
🙂
“Is the 9 Thermidor-Glasnost American reaction good or bad?”
That depends on how close the regime is to collapse. The support of the regime elements for Trump. even the consent of the security state to permit his return, are attempts at a restoration.
All will turn on how feasible a civnat, pro Zionist restoration is under current circumstances. Rising white consciousness would seem to act against it, but young white men will not be able to lead us forward without young white women who many, as others have pointed out, are playing for the other team.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.