2,112 words 
The left is entering a time of realignment. Donald Trump’s landslide victory over Kamala Harris is a major alarm call that something is wrong with the formula progressive elites have used to reliably sell their package to voters for decades. And it’s not just the US. Throughout the Western world, there is a rising tide of populism. The rise of Le Pen’s National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany, and the sudden emergence of Reform in the UK and the potential for a Nigel Farage-led government in the next decade are all inducing anxiety in the liberal establishment.
This is far from the nadir of the left, of course: regardless of whatever setbacks the political left faces now, the attitudes of young people are still far to the left of their parents and grandparents. But it may be the end of a certain kind of leftist, symbolised by the comprehensively defeated Harris in the US and Justin Trudeau in Canada, who resigned to save his party an even more comprehensive defeat. In the UK, it is Keir Starmer, who managed a historic 49-point drop in approval just three months after leading Labour to a landslide victory.
Starmer was labelled “Mr. Rules” earlier in his career. A former barrister and chief of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, he represents well the kind of loyal servant of neoliberalism that values above all the international rules based order and its expression through a vast matrix of human rights law, leftist bureaucracies and NGO’s (Harris is also a former prosecutor). It’s the cultural bolshevism of the 1960s counter-culture in a more apolitical, technocratic form. Progressives like this embraced the radical leftism of millennials and zoomers raised on Tumblr and passionate about pronouns; they oversaw the establishment left’s embrace of all the tenets of wokeism, antiwhiteism and DEI policies, all while maintaining the Third Way economic consensus of the 90s.
Many of these politicians are trying to adapt and get the stench of wokeness off them: both Trudeau and Starmer gave speeches last year telling their countries that mass-immigration had become out of control. Even Harris tried hard to center her campaign on a more digestible populist message and avoided “the deplorables” messaging of Hillary Clinton.
Another aspect of this golden-age of consensus progressivism was its complete support from the super-rich. Post-hippy new rich philanthropists — many of them also cultural figures like Richard Branson — championed liberal humanitarian causes and liberalism itself. While in an earlier phase of the cultural revolution, famous rockstars and actors may have taken an adversarial stance to the stuffy conservative establishment, activist-philanthropists like Bono and Bob Geldof joined hands with Bush and Blair to promise progressive reform rather than revolution. Nothing represents this period of liberal boomer dominance better than when in 2005 Geldof organised Live 8, bringing together a thousand musicians to pressure the G8 conference with such idealistic goals as easing trade restrictions on African countries and forgiving portions of their debt.
Even though the super-rich may be split on party loyalty, they all basically shared the same set of beliefs and faith in rules-based progressivism. But now, with the emergence of “Little Tech” and the revolt of powerful billionaires like Elon Musk against the progressive agenda — specifically wokeism and DEI policies — this feeling of consensus is changing.
In the past, billionaire patrons of the Republican Party kept a low profile. Big time philanthropists like Bill Gates worked to keep their messaging as bipartisan and apolitical as possible. During the Biden administration, some of the super-rich have shown more willingness to attack the pillars of the progressive agenda on libertarian grounds, and a willingness to use their wealth to do something about it. This really activates a certain portion of the left that still like the idea of being the representatives of the salt of the earth working masses against the greed of oligarchs and their political puppets. It’s that portion of the left we’ll be hearing a lot more from in the coming years.
What is the Chud Left?
When Trump took office in 2017, it was the beginning of “The Resistance”. This was the left under the leadership of the woke left: shrieking social justice warriors, antifa riots, celebrity-led Twitter hashtags, pussy hats, hysteria over Trump’s supposed support for neonazis. In 2025, Trump’s inauguration was an altogether more sombre affair for the left. In this time of soul-searching, some voices have suggested the left take a much different approach to the Trump presidency: enter the Chud Left.
The Chud Left is populist progressivism defined by its rejection of special interests and a post-woke posture. The Chud Left resents the Woke Left for pivoting the left away from its core issues like healthcare, workers rights and wealth inequality to hyperfocus on intersectional identity issues, something the Chud Left views as reflecting the luxury-belief concerns of an elitist leadership out of touch with the struggles of workers.
The Chud Left blames the Woke Left for the disastrous 2024 election performance and the lack of tangible progress made on leftist economic issues since Occupy Wall Street — a highlight for the Chud Left after which wokeism became the dominant force in leftist politics. This is not to say that the Chud Left doesn’t support all the same rights as the Woke Left on principle, but they will defend transgenders and other minorities on libertarian grounds that are palatable to the majority center without special catering to all their minority grievances.
While much of the left responded to the second Trump victory by blaming disinformation or the callousness of voters, some voices have emerged from the Chud Left and used this as an opportunity to challenge Woke Left dominance.
Chief among them has been The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian. Their own evolution represents well the path much of the left will follow on messaging. In 2016, they were in tears over the fascist Trump takeover. Now, having seen the failure of The Resistance first-hand, they guest on popular debate channels to downplay leftist hysteria over Trump. They seek common ground with their conservative opponents and frame Trump’s win as an expression of general anti-establishment sentiment that is healthy but misdirected. And rather than attacking Trump or his supporters, they save all their ire for the decrepit Democrat establishment that allowed this to happen and the oligarchs that are still fleecing the public with the aid of both parties.
Anna Kasparian’s hard turn against the Woke Left came when she shared a story of being sexually assaulted by a homeless man and faced a barrage of criticism from the woke for stigmatising her “unhoused neighbours” and promoting racist tropes despite never mentioning the man’s race. Dealing with crime and keeping women safe should be a popular platform for the left, but once again the elitist signaling of the woke was preventing any outreach on this issue.
Another significant moment in the emergence of the Chud Left was the Teamsters Union President Sean O’Brien speaking at the Republican National Convention, where he denounced the Biden administration for hurting his workers’ interests through illegal immigration. O’Brien: a brawny Irish union leader and lifelong Democrat, seems like an ideal type of the Chud Left.
While the Woke Left was typically willing to set aside its criticisms of party leadership to focus on the more grievous threat of conservative fascism, it is characteristic of the Chud Left to focus most of its criticism on its own side. O’Brien being willing to finally abandon the Democrat Party altogether when he was most needed will set the trend for the emerging kingmakers in the Chud Left coalition. As expressed by an exasperated voice of the Woke Left, Unions under the leadership of chuds like O’Brien will:
Throw concerns about climate change, and immigrant rights, and LGBTQ rights out the window if it means that members can benefit from some trade policies and job creation programs.
But the best representative of the Chud Left is John Fetterman, a 6’8, tattooed Senator whose entire demeanour exudes a working class contempt for professional politics — Fetterman most recently made headlines for showing up to Trump’s inauguration in a hoodie and gym shorts.
When Fetterman secured a surprise electoral victory in 2022, many on the left saw it as a signal that a class-based politics could win back Trump voters to the left, as Fetterman ran a campaign of economic populism. When Trump won again, Fetterman was complimentary of his voters, paid a visit to Trump at his home of Mar-a-Lago, and shot down the Woke Left’s use of the term “fascist” to describe the incoming president because: “Fascism – that’s not a word that regular people, you know, use.”
Chud Leftists like Fetterman are suddenly finding themselves atop a wave generated by a number of factors. The core of it is the electorate’s rejection of the DEI Democrats for another Trump term. The second is the hostility of Jewish elites — who hold great power within the Democrat Party — to the Woke Left since October 7, 2023. Finally, the populist voters of the Chud Left are of far greater importance to leftist parties than other voting demographics, and this is especially true in the US. The Democrats lost all swing states to Trump, and these are disproportionately regions where moderate voters with populist economic concerns dictate voting patterns.
There is also a broader, intangible “vibe shift” where people across the political spectrum are tired of the professional politics of old. Ours is an age that craves authenticity, something Trump tapped into well with his accessibility to dudebro podcasters and his stint in McDonald’s. The left has also become more misanthropic and cynical of the American-led world order that delivered so much for them: if the system is so rotten then its lifetime servants, bureaucrats and reformers aren’t worthy of much respect either.
In a recent piece for Unherd, Aris Roussinous wrote about this shift away from their mode of politics:
There are few more vivid illustrations of the ongoing “vibe shift” away from the post-Cold War norms of Western governance and towards the Right-wing restoration of national sovereignty than the 2001 romcom Bridget Jones’s Diary. In the film, the main love interest — the idealised image of the perfect man, summoned up from the depths of the New Labour unconscious — is a human rights lawyer, who may or may not be based on Keir Starmer. Indeed, in a crucial plot point, said love interest secures the affection of the heroine and the adulation of the tabloid press for halting the Government’s removal of an asylum seeker. As these narratives go, Starmer must ruefully observe, it’s a relic of a vanished world.
The left’s ideal type in the 2000s was a human rights lawyer who was passionate about helping asylum seekers. Today, it’s the murderer of a health insurance CEO.
The left will find new energy and unity around hating the rich, and now at last in the midst of a new Gilded Age and the emergence of the “broligarchy” around Donald Trump they have the enemy they always wanted — obscenely rich dorky capitalists buying control of government while trampling on worker’s rights.
Speaking as a nationalist, should we be optimistic about the rise of the Chud Left? It’s one sign that the consensus politics of the early 2000s is on the decline, and that opens up a lot of possibilities. If the left moves away from wokeism and antiwhiteism and focuses more on economic populism, that can create competition between the left and right for a growing share of populist voters who can afford to demand more with more on offer from establishment politics. We’ve already seen neocons lose out to natcons in the fight over the direction of conservatism. The left may be facing its own version of this process, and if it comes up with a popular package based around economic populism it will weaken the neocon influence over the right even further.
The more concerning aspect of this would be the masses tolerating diversity and mass-immigration if they are placated enough with soft populism and a left establishment that is less explicitly hostile to them. In general though, I don’t think it’s smart to take an accelerationist stance. We should treat the emergence of the Chud Left as part of a broader retreat by the left to more defensible ground, and use this as motivation to push even harder. Insofar as this moves us nearer a future where all political factions must appeal to white interests to survive, we should view it as modest progress.
This article first appeared on Keith Woods’ Substack. It has been republished here with permission. Buy Woods’ book Nationalism: The Politics of Identity, on sale now.
28 comments
The page says there are 2112 words, but beyond the first paragraph they must be in extremely fine print.
There appears to be a coding error with the page. When I refresh the page, the entire article appears momentarily, then disappears.
is Greg employing Pajeets behind our backs? (Just kidding)!
I think the whole thing is available from Keith Woods’ site: https://keithwoods.pub/p/chudleft
Farage is a supporter of legal immigration of all kinds. Didn’t you see that video where he scorns “racists”; told them you can get out, we don’t want you.
Farage is a self-promoting buffoon without any real ideological convictions. UK Reform’s only actual value is to knock Labour and the Tories out of the box in addition to moving the UK psychologically more towards populism.
There’s a great wordless meme that shows, on the left, Fetterman dressed like a slob at the inauguration, and on the right wearing a suit and tie while Netanyahu addresses Congress.
I don’t think the left is capable of the kind of analytical introspection this article demonstrates. Although Fetterman does seem rather nimble. That Young Turk guy is a complete jerk. Jared Taylor had to terminate his interview with him (circa 2017) because of his rudeness. The white South used to vote Democrat until Reagan and Pat Buchanan stole them away with a stupid “values,” religious right, campaign.
It pains me to say this, but on a recent show of Piers Morgan post-election, I actually couldn’t disagree with most of what Cenk Uygur was saying, as dumb as he is and as hostile as he’s been to people like us in the past. That’s how much things have moved.
I don’t know much is just trying to stay afloat for these types, to stay looking relevant as opposed to them looking ridiculous which is a possibility, but the words about the insanity of the Democrats, their abandonment of non-elites and non-elite issues, about lobbyists, about big money I couldn’t really disagree with as words.
Everyone’s looking at the same bankrupt hollow shell and how its failed. We just have to be the ones that take control when it collapses.
That’s an amazing turnaround. And the worst of the holdouts are looking ridiculous. Tucker interviewed Lydia Brimelow last fall, so so our ideas are coming into direct contact with mainstream figures.
That’s right. They are. And I shouldn’t use the term ‘collapse’. Waiting for ‘The Collapse’ is an unproductive idea. But a collapse of trust has already happened. It may be we get ahead by other means, persuading elites round to our way, that seems to be what’s happened through Musk, who can then persuade other wealthy types. Exposure is everything.
Very good article. Yes.
Anyone who’s listened to Bernie Sanders talk knows there’s now a strong consensus on some of the major structural problems that are crushing everything else. This consolidation of wealth and the massive shift of capital to the 0.01% that’s happened over the last four decades, is not just some abstract Marxist idea, it’s a real factor in a lot of our troubles as nationalists and has actually driven and facilitated much of the center/left extremism against us.
As the agreement to keep this monster going at any conceivable price starts to topple, the Bernie left – the Chud left, would certainly like a different outcome to ours to emerge from the ruins. There will be a battle over which way the future – the post-wealth-singularity will go, and in the long haul we need to make sure it goes in our direction.
When the rise of the Chud non-liberal left is expected. Why can’t it also be the rise of the anti-Zionist racially awakened left? I’m all for this option.
Right back to NatSoc. Hey, it worked once.
Ultimately it’s about pro-Whites versus antiwhites.
It’s not about “right and “left” The respectable right as we know it is a bunch of Zionist, pro-plutocrat antiwhites. The “left” is a fraud that pushes feminism, puberty blockers, and White genocide. The modern, Hollywood “left” hates the White working class and loves anything that will lead to a future without White children.
If, on some of your feelings or policy preferences, you are inclined to the old school left, be the pro-White left, and put the pro-White part first.
Unlike the fake, made-up postures of the pro-Jew / antiwhite “right” and “left,” pro-White values are based on something real that will last. All the images and postures will go the way of Star Wars and Marvel movie heroes, but White genes will still matter.
It’s a positive development that they’re starting to question cultural Marxism at last. We haven’t had sensible leftists in ages.
The Marxist Universities are already battening down the hatches in the Attic Annex over these “Anxious Times” (Trump’s Inauguration). And now more than ever they need to be marched out of the institutions that they once vowed to appropriate.
🙂
Speaking as a nationalist, should we be optimistic about the rise of the Chud Left? No, cause I see them as rino-like, a variant of wokeism that’s just fed up with losing by strategies of cloying negrophilia and other universal insufferableness. Anti-White genocide luv is a sick staple of their diet credos and until they sincerely quit that habit they are not our friends, just enemy ideology calling a different play design to recapture lost votes. Their minor shifting from dei to other appeasements by fumigating the room of the last 15 year stink are not sincere. Woke-to-chud isn’t libertarian-paleocon-to-proWhite like an abused puppy who slowly warms up to his new kind owners. And what exactly qualifies one as a leftist today besides voting blue? I always thought it was disproven equalitarianism by leveling that no one, least of all ‘equality now!’ Sarah Lawrence sign girl believes in. To most people, left = liberal and related to ‘green’ things. Pre-9/11 before liberal became a slander jab it kinda meant a ‘live and let live’ blasé attitude towards hardliner traditionalist concerns with reins on absolute permissiveness like drug use (but not advocating hellscape doomzones in SF, Kensington, Eastside Vancouver, nor zog’s goon squads policing your private stash), you-do-you indifference towards atheism and private same-sex before it morphed into a pro-pedovore rainbow dictakership or else. No leftist/liberal badge wearer I know of has the creative intelligence or spine to go beyond the democrat perimeter of acceptable opinion on the yiddish plantation. ‘Freedom and liberty’ for the elephant shit party. ‘Freedom fighters and liberation’ for the donkey shit party. Different color versions of the same jewish establishment pokemon rigged game. Today, the ProWhite liberal is like the fascist negro intellectual or the Hitlerian zionist. Do they even exist? In one of Greg’s essays he writes of how there used to be such a thing as a proWhite left. I believe Jack London was one of its more prominent names. It’s not enough to be anti-zionist or ‘all lives matter’ (they don’t, and no democrat would dare go there cuz racist and so we’re spinning our wheels in the mud). If they are not anti-homosexual (I concur) but see a masculinist Mannerbund replacing ‘gay’, warming up to Auslander Raus, and see other Whites as their true community instead of rainbows and colored people whose similarities are entertainment interests like WWE and gaming, then what exactly is leftish that remains about them? Haven’t they become just a milder starter kit White Nationalist by default if chudbrains throws out the opinions of what makes him a good goy global me?
It has been more than the last 15 years. The only thing Blue-collar Left about Jimmy Carter and Slick Willie was a few boilerplate talking points when they wanted some White votes.
🙂
I wasn’t alive during carter but I don’t remember hearing about White privilege, supremacy, colonization or endless blather about systemic this and structural that even under boy george bush and darth cheney circa katrina, 9/11, a financial crash, and middle east quagmires. If those happened today under trump I can only imagine the whinging.
Yeah, Carter’s big crusade was global Human Rights, which included the usual soft-on-Communism anti-White Colonial rhetoric, and adorning the face of the Ugly American. That kind of backfired when the beardy weirdies captured the embassy in Teheran, and Carter did nothing much but grin.
Nixon and Kissinger went to Peking in 1972 to give Chairman Mao a happy ending and leave a mint on the pillow. But Carter formally recognized Red China in 1979 to get those “billion consumers” that we were going to sell our wares to, only to have the factories relocate shop along with American jobs. Now we buy the junk on big box store wages and credit card debt.
Yeah, the mainstream Democraps have definitely internalized the message full throttle. Clinton mainly cared about playing his wacky sax in Negro churches, gun-control, and Globalism for gearing up that giant sucking sound.
The Clintonista version of Labor was less tone-deaf than the GOP, by far, but it was also more anti-White than traditional worker’s rights and lunchpail interests ever were. Collective Bargaining & Organizing, which I have had experience with in my day, now defines itself by DEI instead.
And how can Labor negotiate for better wages and benefits anyway when the plant just closed down to move to India where the wages are less? In Neoliberal free-trade business school, the only thing of importance is lowering the cost of labor. One way to do that is to screw Whitey. Win/Win from their point of view.
🙂
“Anti-White genocide luv is a sick staple of their diet credos and until they sincerely quit that habit they are not our friends, just enemy ideology calling a different play design to recapture lost votes.”
Also, the plutocrats and the woke mega-corporations that both the “right” and the “left” love do not become good just because they change the labels of their antiwhite and anti-male hiring practices and their antiwhite and anti-male financial bonus systems.
I can do the heel turn to babyface too, and newly identify as anti-racist after realizing the error of my evil White ways journey back to hope from hate. That’s easy. And the masses will believe whatever sounds nice cause they’re too dumbed down. Onward we go. Not everyone survives the Oregon trail.
Yeah. So far the anti-white discrimination continues, just more quietly. I don’t know if that’s better or worse than them doing it openly. It makes it harder to oppose, but it also indicates a shift in our direction.
Rightist populism should be rooted in anti-immigrationism (good for native workers, as well as whites); advocacy of either Federal Reserve Board abolition and a return to a 100% gold dollar (the ultimate “people’s control”), or at least elimination of the “dual mandate”, so the Fed would focus solely on price stability (inflation is not the friend of working people); crime control and punishment (in which “plain folks”, especially working class whites, are ALWAYS to the Right of elites and judges); gun rights; anti-DEI and anti-affirmative action; anti-trannys; reducing welfare fraud and abuse of food stamps (I would abolish both, but then I’m a Hard Rightist, not a populist); and changes in tax laws to make it more difficult for corporations to downsize here and relocate overseas, esp. China.
But national populism must be very careful that its economic populism is genuinely populist, and not socialist – and this not only because socialism is inherently evil and immiserative, but because in practice it always ends up heavily benefitting connected elites, leftist bureaucrats, and nonwhites. Rightist populism should be directed at racial and cultural issues first, and wrt economic ones, it should focus on removing welfare “scroungers” and other types of deadbeats, rather than promising freebies, as the Left does.
The fundamental flaw of ‘the Right’ is the assumption that there is some set of ‘eternal’ and ‘objective’ principles that actually matter.
From a White Nationalist perpsective, I suggest there are no such ‘principles’ other than that of racial loyalty.
Until Whites preservation and happiness is the priority, there will be no lasting sustainable benefits for Whites.
If this means the end-result is a racially-loyal ‘socialism’ then so be it. That was the posture of Jack London, so this is nothing new.
I don’t like the term “Socialism” and rarely use it. I have always preferred Progressive but haven’t used that term to describe myself since the Clinton Administration.
I don’t mind “National Socialism,” although I usually prefer “Nazi,” because that directly addresses the primary problem with Socialism, i.e., Marxism. Both Capitalism and Communism are rootless Internationalist ideologies ─ that attempt to render Culture and Race moot, and are usually subservient to Zionism.
I also can’t agree with the usual hard-money or Libertarian objections to a Central Bank. I am no fan of the so-called “Creature from Jekyl Island,” but the need for a modern economy for a Central Bank is no less than it was in 1913 or 1789. There simply has to be a way to make it operate in the National interest with appropriate supervision and control.
William Jennings Bryan was a Populist who became President Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State for his first term. Wilson had been a Southern-born Ivy League intellectual and “progessive” Democrat who tacked a neutral foreign policy course in his first term with Secretary Bryan on board.
Despite campaigning for staying out of the Great War, that policy changed imediately in the second term with Bryan gone.
William Jennings Bryan received the most Electoral votes for President than anyone without ever being elected. He was an attorney and orator and also a Creationist Bible-thumping Christian who argued against Evolution during the famous 1925 Scopes “monkey trial,” only to have a fatal heart attack which led to a mistrial. Scopes was being prosecuted in Tennessee for having taught modern Science over the Bible in public school. Well, these rustic Faith-based ideas were perhaps less harmless in the 19th century when nearly everyone was a sod-buster who read from a coal-oil lantern, but teaching religion as Science in school is certainly not harmless in the modern world today.
Some epistemological nihilists do not believe in a spherical Earth and heliocentrism even with the Midnight Sun shining in their faces. There are many whose only Truth can be found only in the New Testament and someone’s opinion of it, and are still doing this.
I will note that the Biology department at Brigham Young University has never not taught Darwin’s natural selection. I don’t have a problem when the Faithful stay in their own epistemological lanes. Mormons believed in worlds beyond the view of our telescopes long before Edwin Hubble proved that nebulae were actually other galaxies far, far, away.
The technologist Philo T. Farnsworth, the inventor of all-electronic television, was a Mormon from Rigby, Idaho who while a High School student in the early 1920s saw rows being plowed into farm fields before him and imagined a way of sequentializing information to transmit analog pixels by wireless radio onto a cathode-ray screen. Now it is lots more than the word of God or video of men landing on the Moon that is transmitted to screens carried in everyone’s pockets.
So, without wanting to get too sidetracked, here, I respect the integrity of William Jennings Bryan even though I think he was wrong on the Scopes case. In 1896, the Presidential candidate and orator opined against being crucified upon a Cross of Gold.
What in the tarnation does that mean?
It means that the Populist/Progressive view is that if you fix your currency to the supply of gold, it will always be deflated because the supply of gold from mining is just never enough to expand capital enough other than to keep it functionally depressed.
The history of the United States economy is one of boom and bust cycles. This was somwhat manageable while continental expansion was in play until at least 1890.
But the modern normal is more like the 1929 stock market depression ─ or even a decade or more earlier, where the progeny of fecund rural families were increasingly forced to move to the big city to find work. If Gold were as abundant as a base metal like lead, this deflation and inelasticism of the money supply would not be an issue, but then we would not likely use it as a currency either. The problem is not fiat money nor central banks, but sometimes there has been a problem with bankers.
The Bimetallists like Bryan in 1896 wanted both silver and gold to anchor the money supply, as silver was mined in greater supply and even increased. This did not sit well with the big bankers because if the money supply tends to increase, the inflation and devaluation of their capital and stocks will also eat into their notes made to farmers, who will more easily pay off their debts with their inflated wages.
The FED in 1913 sought to address this lack of financial elasticity to mitigate both inflation and depression ─ but until many changes were made, the Federal Reserve really did not have the central banking gravitas to do it proactively enough to prevent the major crash in 1929 and the cascading worldwide Depression that followed.
Contrary to popular belief, President Roosevelt was not a Keynesian spender. The Hyde Park plutocrat was a Jeffersonian bean counter and unironic agricultural romanticist who intensely disliked unbalanced budgets and taxing rich people to feed the poor.New Dael gGovernment jobs programs were costly and comparatively stingy. What Roosevelt really wanted with the new “alphabet soup” agencies, as Democrat New York Governor Al Smith snidely called them, was because as President FDR wanted to massively expand Federal reach.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal therefore did not adequately address the U.S. unemployment situation, and with the Supreme Court by 1937 losing faith in vogue social experiments like the National Industrial Recovery Act, these programs were now increasingly being ruled Unconstitutional. The only “cure” for systemic unemployment that was not “socialistic” was simply going to World War, which is exactly what FDR covertly did.
And again, contrary to popular belief, the Germans did not resort to war in 1939 to end unemployment and the Depression; they had done this long before by forcing the Reichsbank to act in the German national interest first, which was not something that New York or London plutocrats were known for as it violates some of the first principles of global free-market Capitalism.
Hitler eventually fired the Reichsbank President and financial genius Hjalmar Schacht because he was not willing to go far enough ─ but this did not stop Schacht from being put on the dock at Nuremberg (though acquitted) for the war-crime of helping Hitler to end unemployment, revitalize the German economy, and to rearm Germany to its former status as a major superpower.
One of the few successes to come out of the New Deal was the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which allowed legitimate collective bargaining to operate without being dominated by Red (Communist) Labor Fronts. Notably, the Supreme Court left the “Magna Charta of Labor,” as it is called, intact.
The subsequent Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 unhelpfully weakened American labor organizing in my opinion by allowing open shops which undermines employee bargaining power by creating a divided negotiating front. But the fact is that during the postwar economic expansion, the working class of the United States was for the first time enjoying a seat at the fine dining table until the Stagflation of the early 1970s that I grew up with.
Senator Robert A. Taft, son of the former President, was a great Republican who courageously condemed the Nuremberg Trials. But Taft’s namesake legislation was flawed, just as William Jennings Bryan was a great Democrat and orator on foreign policy and economics but not so much an advocate for real science.
If the economy cannot grow because it is limited somehow by the financial system, say by the supply of Gold, then by nature the capital and property-owning “haves” will compound their advantages, and the “have-nots” will never be able to fairly negotiate anything but ever-lowering wages and benefits such as healthcare and pensions. And small business and farms ─ forget about it ─ they will also be starved of capital. This situation may suit the monied elites, but it will not produce a productive society in the long run.
The GOP has always been retarded towards the White working class, who are their base, and the Democrats have rarely been much better. Many if not most American workers simply have no healthcare, which is one of the major reasons they are vulnerable to street opioids like fentanyl when King Coal goes from boom to bust in West Virginia and hopefully will one day be ended altogether. At least Food Stamps are one of the Gub’mint Gibbs that directly benefits White people.
My ancestors were all Western Pioneers (3/4ths LDS). One was descended from Welsh miners and was born in Montana and married a Mormon farm girl from Idaho. He injured his hand in a (probably minor) accident with an excavator trolley while working on the American Falls dam in Idaho in 1924. This was before modern antibiotics, and soon the doctors were wanting to amputate his arm to save his life from gangrene. Hard to work the mines or provide for a family in construction with one arm. He was sick from blood poisoning and either had an accident while fishing on the Snake River or committed suicide. My grandmother (born 1911) who became a Registered Nurse, witnessed what happened to her Papa but never gave us a straight answer about it.
The GOP has always been clueless about White working-class issues even though these people are their mainstay, even in the South. Sometimes professionals like doctors or lawyers or high wage-earning “labor aristocrats” fair a little better, but not everybody can make it big selling insurance or Amway.
My Dad, from a line of Colorado prospectors and Utah pioneers became an aerospace and nuclear engineer after the culture shock of the Soviet Sputnik launch in 1957. He worked on the guidance system for Thiokol’s Minuteman Missile. His salary was pretty good, at least Middle Class, but he never had any real job security that I can remember ─ and the longest that he held a job until he went into contract work such as the Space Shuttle solid-rocket booster redesign in the 1980s, was until the government’s next fiscal year. It was systemic structural employment like when a small town has its entire plant shut down.
Usually engineers for government contractors like Lockheed or Thiokol, who were not senior management in the 1960s and 1970s, were simply let go every year ─ pretty much all of them too. So suddenly everybody hit the labor market and was trying to sell off their home and get something for it. Or else, some of the degreed hired help were kept longer but still cut loose before they could be vested for a pension. This greatly affected my formative outlook on the American economic system. I am not a free-market fetishist.
I have never thought that the United States was not going to collapse economically someday, but not because the nation itself was White supreemist, nor because what Reagan called Big Government is inherently unstable. The System has simply been riddled with so much Great Society race-mixing and systemic soft Liberal ideological rot that the Democracy-Capitalist system itself has been unable to purge cardinal mistakes so far. This kind of system is good at making minor course corrections to enhance stability but not if the errors are compounding.
The Titanic was doomed long before the watch saw the iceberg in the darkness ahead. But with more imagination, and certainly more lifeboats on board, a safer course could have easily been pursued.
We started honing towards the iceberg in the 1940s and many spotted it in the 1960s and sounded the alarm. But even today we don’t hear it. We can still right the ship, and a true collapse may never come in the way that we might imagine.
We might have to think outside of the box a bit. So far all we have done is give rhetoric to the Great Society lifeboats while rearranging the chairs on the deck. It is not a question of Hard Money vs. Socialism, whatever is meant by that.
🙂
[T]he hostility of Jewish elites — who hold great power within the Democrat Party — to the Woke Left since October 7, 2023.
This is critical to understand. The ‘Left’ and the (non-racial) ‘Right’ are jewish constructs, held together by jewish money and jewish influence.
That has not changed.
The entire ‘Trump Effect’ is one group of jews having a struggle with a different group of jews regarding the best way to maintain jewish power.
The jews are supporting people like Uygar and Kasparian because they’re both crypto-philosemites and will do the bidding of their paymasters when the time come to betray whoever follows them to the jews.
The jews supporting people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk (and everyone else of ‘libertarian’ leanings) do so because they find them useful to create the conditions necessary to dispossess Whites via mass legal immigration. H1B is only the surface.
Since Trump, nothing could be more obvious than that the jews are in conflict about the speed and methods of dispossession of Whites and the maintenance of jewish supremacy in ‘the West’.
What White people want or need is irrelevant to them. It’s always about whether policies are ‘good for the jews’.
The role of Whites in this struggle is to be terrain, not participants.
Trump’s politics is creating a fertile field that jews can harvest, not a new day for Whites or the White working class.
I do partially agree. White advocacy is essential ─ and there is also a serious “Jewish Problem” that crucially affects this.
🙂
Comments are closed.
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.