1,430 words
I was recently asked if President Trump is at risk of a palace coup given the ongoing stock market massacre. Some very powerful people have indeed lost a lot of money. Boomers are fedposting about their 401Ks. But my answer is no, based on what Trump probably told the finance bro and tech bro crowds, along with what they should have perceived on their own.
In the off chance that Trump did not say what he should have, or that disgruntled elites do not perceive what I perceive, I will lay out my reasoning for why a palace coup is unlikely, which is also a polite way of explaining why they shouldn’t launch a coup. In fact, the elites should support the administration’s Little Leap Forward even if a large chunk of their wealth just evaporated.
Let’s begin with crass self-interest. I remember well how during the 2008 recession, the rich got richer because they had the spare capital to gobble up assets like vultures descending upon carrion. We never really recovered, and it was around this time that the America Dream of homeownership became a mirage. The current “correction” presents another opportunity for those with spare capital to seize assets.
This may not sound like my populist self, but the truth is that we have already been plundered so we have a lot less to lose than in 2008. A disproportionate amount of the stock market is held by champagne socialists or never-Trumpers. This is more of an issue of wolves eating other wolves than preying on the flock. Furthermore, those of us on the right who can afford to invest tend to diversify our assets with real estate, gold and other precious metals, or cryptocurrency rather than stocks. The finance bros like to talk about how crisis is opportunity, so they should walk the walk.
The elites shouldn’t be worried about the electoral consequences either. Some people are not going to be happy campers, such as liberal boomers who didn’t diversify their assets (gold and silver are to conservative boomers what cryptocurrency is to conservative zoomers), over-produced lumpen elites, and cokeheads who think they’re wolves of Wall Street. I assume Trump already factored in not needing their votes. Trump should continue to build his lead among young voters, many of whom do not have stocks and would stand to benefit from tariffs, and perhaps more importantly, may revel in revenge for the Covid lockdowns and being condescended to about working at Panda Express.
Additionally, because the stock market crash will disproportionately affect leftist donors, it will synergize well with DOGE’s USAID cuts. The electoral effects of Trump’s tariffs should be positive, or at least neutral.
Next, any serious elites worthy of the term should have already seen this coming and planned accordingly. The left is trying to gaslight people into thinking the tariffs came out of left field. But Trump has been talking about them a lot, both while in office and on the campaign trail. In fact, Trump lauded tariffs on the Oprah Winfrey show as far back as 1988. I don’t know what Trump says in private, but his public statements show a clear resolve to follow through on tariffs. Just listening to his public statements was the equivalent of insider trading. You’d think the wolves of Wall Street would have positioned themselves to make killings. Anyone who did not see this coming only has himself to blame. Welcome to the new normal of a managed decline on our terms.
Next, many of the right-wing elites are anti-China, while many of the left-wing elites are anti-Russia. This is a great opportunity to hit both China and Russia, so there’s something in this for everyone. (The notion that we can peel Russia away from China is as ludicrous as vice versa.) Time will tell how much the tariffs will affect each country, but they could do what billions of dollars in military hardware to Ukraine failed to do and end Russia’s invasion. And if a confrontation with China over Taiwan is inevitable, it would be wise to do a pre-emptive strike first. But due to technological stagnation, our weapon systems have become ineffective against Houthi pirates and thus will be even less effective against a resurgent Han Empire. In contrast, fifth generation warfare through economics is the perfect strategy to achieve America’s geopolitical aims because they are more effective than brute force, won’t cost eugenic lives, and will actually benefit our economy in the long run.
Another major reason why the elites won’t launch a palace coup is that after they eliminate Trump they would also have to decide what to do with J.D. Vance. This isn’t ancient Rome; there is a clear line of succession and instant global communication. I agree with the more sober minds on the dissident right that a civil war is unlikely, but eliminating Vance in addition to Trump might be enough to spark a civil war, or at least an extremely messy and hostile national divorce that would likely end in Red America and Blue America embargoing each other. Either scenario would easily surpass tariffs in economic damage.
If they only eliminate Trump but not Vance, they will have to contend with an unknown factor. Vance is probably smarter than Trump. He’s also “extremely online” and from a community that was devastated by globalization. He would also likely be extremely vengeful, out of both self-preservation and anger. Thus eliminating Trump but not Vance would only replace one populist Caesar with an even more effective and vengeful one.
No, it is best for the elites to deal with the problems they have than create even bigger ones.
The elites also seem to prioritize stability, probably in large part because it makes it easier to accurately price things. Stability was promised to them by the neoliberal Biden regime, but all they got was even more instability. Many of the establishment elites seem to have made their peace with the MAGA radicals. A de facto one-party Trump state would in the long-term be more stable because while every ideological stripe has suffered a crisis of competence, the neoliberals have suffered it the most.
Tariffs are a way to achieve more stability in the long-term by encouraging industry to return home. The Covid pandemic showed that global supply chains are inherently unstable and that the Chinese deep state is separate from and opposed to whatever deep state comes to rule in America. The Houthis have only further dispelled the myth that shipping stuff across the world to save a few bucks was ever a bright idea. The Roman Empire turned to manoralism and local production when its trade routes became unsafe during the Crisis of the Third Century. We should do the same.
Lastly, the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics mean that the elites don’t need globalism to make money. There will no longer be any need to ship consumer trash made by slave labor across the ocean, nor will there be any need to import brown people here. For decades, the interests of the tech bros and finance bros aligned with the liberal policy of open borders. But the liberals were driven by wholly irrational racial animus, and the tech/finance bros by less irrational greed. Their interests are now diverging due to AI. In fact, importing hordes of resentful brown people is against the rational self-interest of the elites because they vote not just liberal, but for the most radical liberals possible. “Eat the rich” and “hang them with the rope they sell us” are not metaphors any more than “kill the Boer” is.
No, I don’t like or trust many of the elites making peace with MAGA, but I do trust them to be self-interested.
There is another, more realistic danger than a palace coup, however. House Republicans could go rogue and ally with the Democrats in refusing to send Trump a budget to sign, or sending a budget that is patently unreasonable. This would be a double-edged sword. We need to fund ICE to raise their deportation numbers. But shutting the government down would also work in our favor because many of its functions are anti-white or anti-Republican such as redistribution schemes, the FBI, the salaries for federal judges, etc. If worse comes to worse, Republicans can create local solidarity networks for those dependent on government help. The damage to the left would be far greater than any damage to the right.
The Trump administration should double down on pursuing MAGA Juche Lite, and the elites should accept it as the new normal.
15 comments
I’ll skip all the boasting about being a contrarian investor and just say that I’m buying the dip!
Ha! All that money you supposedly made yesterday after the recent big dips you can make again after today’s 3,000 point dip: Dow drops nearly 3,000 points; worst day since ’87 : r/news
You might as well invest in lottery tickets. If you win, you can really boast.
—
Beau Albrecht: April 8, 2025 I’ll skip all the boasting about being a contrarian investor and just say that I’m buying the dip!
The Schadenfreude is premature:
.INX 5,363.36 (▲1.81%) S&P 500 | Google Finance
I managed to catch the trough before it began to recover that afternoon. It’s fun beating them at their own game!
Beau Albrecht: April 12, 2025 The Schadenfreude is premature:
—
I had to look that one up. WikiJews tell us:
Schadenfreude (/ˈʃɑːdənfrɔɪdə/; German, is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, pain, suffering, or humiliation of another.
That’s not me, Beau. I clicked on your Google link (.INX 5,363.36 (▲1.81%) S&P 500 | Google Finance) to find Wikijews again, telling us this:
[T]he ten largest companies on the list of S&P 500 companies accounted for approximately 35% of the market capitalization of the index and were, in order of highest to lowest weighting: Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon.com, Alphabet, Meta Platforms, Berkshire Hathaway, Broadcom, Tesla, and JPMorgan Chase...
—
I managed to catch the trough before it began to recover that afternoon. It’s fun beating them at their own game!
—
Congratulations on beating the big boys, Beau. Now, how are you going to put your windfall winnings to work for our people?
I tend to think the Wall Street big boys have their “game” rigged in their favor, like the “house” in Jew-owned Las Vegas casinos do. I don’t gamble with National Alliance funds nor with my own funds. NA is a real world business and must operate like one.
I could boast about how I spent thousands of dollars just yesterday building the Alliance and our little real-world community, but won’t. We simply persevere and do what we can with what we have. It was interesting for me to just discover this from ten years ago that tells what we had to put up with from anonymous critics on “Movement” Internet forums back then: Internet “Movement” Forums | National Vanguard
Where are those critics today? What have they built for our people?
…[Williams] has used his own money, his retirement savings for Christ’s sake, to try to get the Alliance going again. When he took over there was practically no membership. He has managed to turn that around and has made some impressive headway on it. All financed by him… – Fred Streed, current NA board member
That was ten years ago. The Alliance has been turned around since then and put back on the sound Piercean Path.
Gosh, I’ve never been quizzed about my finances in an online discussion before, but here goes!
My alimony and child support payments get the first shot at my income. I never thought Haitians had expensive tastes until I met Nini! Our oldest is already planning to major in African American Studies, so I’ll obviously have to fork over a lot of dough to an HBCU for Nanette’s education. In time, the same will go for our other three piccaninnies, of course. I like to travel, and I never miss the W6rld Ec6nomic F6rum summit in Davos. Admission costs $40K a pop, but Klaus Schwab is such a great guy with awesome ideas for the future global government that I never miss their events! My other favorite travel destination is Thailand, where I get to fraternize with the ladyboys for a couple of weeks at a time. Although HIV prevention pills cost a fortune here, at least you get a better deal on PReP over there. When I’m back home, I love to keep myself entertained at the chinky “massage parlor”, and also hang out with the very friendly colored ladies downtown. My hooker tab costs quite a bit, but I’m tasting the rainbow, oh yeah! So I don’t have too much discretionary money left over, and most of that goes to NBA and NFL tickets and memorabilia. As for political contributions, I do throw some coin to the Open Society Foundation, because George Soros is a really nice dude and means so well for all of us.
Anyway, joking aside, I do indeed support our cause financially, and pretty generously at that.
The prudent are in a position to rebalance their portfolios by selling gains from precious metals and prudently buying bargains made even more valuable by the sell off. Those bargains will be in essential physical world and digitial:physical world producing assets that are prime benefactors of the inevitable move to autarky.
Mr Zsutty should be made an advisor and/or lieutenant in the new regime. Every recent article is of exceptional quality of thought and presentation. Take a bow sir.
A disproportionate amount of the stock market is held by champagne socialists or never-Trumpers.
This is very intriguing, why do you say that?
I always thought that Whites are more into stocks because it is easy to lose money if you’re not smart enough.
Time will tell how much the tariffs will affect each country, but they could do what billions of dollars in military hardware to Ukraine failed to do and end Russia’s invasion.
Huh? As if sanctions were effective against Russia. Actually what Russia demonstrated is that having one’s economy fenced-off from the wider world can be quite beneficial for the development of home industries. The US, like Russia, is a continent-spanning country capable of a high degree of self reliance, but which has become dangerously reliant on China in recent decades. Tariffs will result in much higher prices and reduced exports abroad, the size of our economy will likely shrink, but there is at least now the hope of regaining national self-sufficiency and, with it, the dignity of our working classes (even if new plants are highly automated).
I am Russian, and I can assure you that there weren’t any substantial negative consequences of sanctions after the initial currency fluctuations (February – April of 2022). If you are not following the news, you won’t notice it at all, except for some pleasant events like the end of McDonald’s. If we had an actual Russian government, it would be an entirely positive thing.
And in case someone needs to bypass sanctions, it’s not that difficult, unless you are buying an aircraft carrier. You can import radiation-hardened ASICs and FPGAs, for example. Even chip manufacturers reliant on TSMC were unharmed.
A coup works perfectly if you have a senile puppet like President Biden and a compliant fool like Vice-President Harris to replace him. The Puppet-in-chief stood down because he was told to and his stupid replacement stepped into the role of saying what the people running the government wanted her to say. There was no need to change the job titles since no one cared anyway.
Trump and Vance are not like that, and there is not a team behind them that could issue a presidential stand-down by social media post and make it stick.
It’s all going to come to a screeching halt when the democrats retake the House and Senate. I will be happy if Trump will just finish the “wall.” 🤓
Trump is an ur-jackass. And David Zsutty clearly understands neither economics nor (American) politics.
Trump is destroying everything with his arrogant economic illiteracy: not just the stock market (in which countless millions of whites have direct, as well as indirect, stakes {didn’t Zsutty serve in the military? don’t count on your military pension when the rest of us taxpayers have been ruined by faux-“nationalist” stupidity}), but the US economy, which will now go into a completely needless recession; the conservative movement – especially its National Conservative / paleoconservative wings; the GOP (the House was probably gone next year anyway; now, that’s a certainty; the Senate and WH will be gone after ’28); the possibility of mass-deporting our 40-50 MILLION illegal aliens; the timeline of the realization of white minority status (which could have been delayed for 1-2 decades, but which has now been dramatically speeded up: I predict whites will be a formal minority after the 2030 Census, assuming illegal aliens are counted as “residents”, though maybe even without including them); the very possibility of a white American Ethnostate (after the coming far Left Democrat Federal trifecta in 2029, when they declare a mass-amnesty and “path to citizenship” for the 45million illegal aliens, how will an ethnostate actually be realized?); and probably any possibility of the resurrection of the West and preservation of the white race.
Let’s just admit it: whites as a race are too stupid to live. Therefore, in the pitiless algorithm of evolution, we won’t. Prove me wrong. Our people have had countless opportunities to save ourselves, and every time without exception we have chosen wrongly.
Imagine if the buffoon in the White House had simply followed the very successful REAGAN PLAYBOOK (oh no, am I offending anti-economists like Zsutty?), and otherwise had devoted all his energies to building the Wall (please SHOW ME THE WALL! oh, you can’t, can you – because the buffoon hasn’t built it yet; does he at least have the Congressional legislation authorizing the Wall signed into law? oh no, not that, either), and mass-deportations. He could have been remembered as one of the greatest presidents.
How many aliens have been deported, btw? Has it reach a whole thousand persons yet? At this rate, the Trump Admin might actually end up deporting TWENTY THOUSAND illegal aliens by January 2029. What an achievement! But at least the “new nationalists” will have succeeded in ruining people’s retirements, the overall economy, the GOP, the reputation of nationalism, and the possibility of saving the white race.
There you go again, thinking Austrian economics is “science.”
Not at all! I support ‘Austrian’ microeconomics and ecological macroeconomics. The Austrians are the premier school of thought opposing the application of the positivist methods of the natural sciences to the social “sciences”. This is the main element which distinguishes them from other schools of economic thought, whether Keynesians, neoclassicals or the also free marketist Chicago School of Milton Friedman.
That economics is not a hard science like physics should not be understood to mean, however, that it conveys no transcendent truths – that it is all mere rhetoric to justify one or another configuration of power and interest. If, eg, the money supply is dramatically expanded without any corresponding dramatic increase in production, there will be higher inflation. This is, as Mises liked to say, “praxeologically” certain. That conclusion necessarily follows from the premises: suddenly having more money chasing the same quantity of goods must increase prices. Mises built the entire structure of economic understanding on a handful of apodictically true premises (eg, man acts, resources are finite, time has a value, etc).
One does not have to be a free marketist, let alone a libertarian (I’m neither a libertarian nor a Libertarian (ie, party member)). I’m an Austrian School paleoconservative and white preservationist. There may be all kinds of extrinsic (non-market) justifications for deviating from laissez-faire capitalism (eg, it is in our long-term national security interest to de-link our economy from China’s – but doing so will be costly and will result in lower GDP short-term; or, I’d rather live in the all-white apartheid Ethnostate even if admitting high IQ nonwhites would increase native-white GDP). But one should at least understand that every move away from perfectly free markets leads to less total wealth.
And, of course, the real point of my comment was less that Trump is needlessly destroying American (and foreign) wealth than that his tariffs agenda a) distracts from the real issue, which is deporting the 40 million or more illegal aliens before a Democrat trifecta Federal Government can grant them mass-amnesty; and b) will be exceptionally politically harmful, both to the GOP and to the reputation of “nationalism” in the ignorant voter mass-mind. Trump has a golden opportunity at least to end the scourge and lethal threat of Camp-of-the-Saints level illegal immigration, and he’s blowing it.
Beau Albrecht: April 13, 2025 Gosh, I’ve never been quizzed about my finances in an online discussion before...
Anyway, joking aside, I do indeed support our cause financially, and pretty generously at that…
—
Good for you. I cannot address your joking, Beau. I commented on your stock speculation that you introduced, based partly on what I’ve been taught by my mentor, William Pierce.
What he taught me back in the 1990s, based on what he’d learned from the Adams boys — Henry and Brooks — may seem dated today with the mention of Bill Clinton and Tim McVeigh, but is worth repeating here, if not for you, possibly instructive for others who style themselves pro-White. See: WLP90: The Feminization of America | National Vanguard
…I must tell you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.
This came to mind most recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh’s statement to the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens will not respect the law.
But the spectators almost uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren’t even interested in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr. McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men.
Many other people besides me have come to similar conclusions, although not all of them have wanted to come right and out and say so, because that would be the height of Political Incorrectness, the height of “insensitivity.” As far back as the 1960s some perceptive commentators were remarking on the generally unmasculine character of the young men they encountered in our universities. Male university students even then tended to be too timid; too soft; too lacking in boldness, pride, and independence; too whiny in adversity; insufficiently willing to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.
We have always had both soft, dependent men and hard, proud men in our society, but the commentators were comparing the relative numbers of masculine and non-masculine men they saw in our universities in the 1960s with what they had seen in the 1930s and 1940s. The 1960s, of course, were a time when the whinier men were making extraordinary efforts to remain in the universities in order to avoid military service, while many of the more masculine men were off in Vietnam, but this isn’t enough to account for the change these commentators noticed.
Something written by the American historian Henry Adams back in 1913 was recently called to my attention. Adams wrote “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.” Now, Henry Adams was a man who had much more than a passing interest in such matters — he was a lifelong student of these things and also was a professor of history at Harvard back in the days when the professors at that university were expected to know what they were talking about — so we ought to pay some attention to his observation of the state of affairs in America in 1913. Incidentally, he was a member of one of America’s most distinguished families. He was a great-grandson of the founding father and second President of the country, John Adams, and a grandson of the sixth President, John Quincy Adams.
Henry’s brother, Brooks Adams, had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.
He saw spiritual man as having the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an economic advantage. The spirit of adventure and the current of idealism run strong in spiritual men; economic men, on the other hand, are materialists. And Brooks was referring only to European men, to White men. He was not even considering the Jews or Chinese.
Most of us are a mixture of the two types, and it’s difficult to find examples of purely spiritual or purely economic men. Michelangelo and Charles Lindbergh tended toward the type of spiritual man. Pick almost any prominent politician today — Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, say — and you have a good example of economic man. Which is not to say that all economic men are politicians, by any means: just that, since they are not likely to be distinguished in the arts, scholarship, or exploration, politics is where economic men are most likely to find fame. So what does this have to do with the feminization of our society and the preponderance of whiny young men at our universities today? Actually, these things are very closely interrelated. They also are related to the things which caught the attention of Henry Adams: the loss of our aesthetic sense, our warrior spirit, and our feeling for what is divine, along with our masculinity. When I say “loss,” I am using this word only in its relative sense. Our society still has masculine elements, masculine characteristics; it’s just that they are weaker now than they were 200 years ago. And 200 years ago there were some effeminate tendencies to be found; tendencies which today have become much more pronounced. It would be an error, I believe, to attribute this shift in balance solely to the machinations of feminists, homosexuals, or even Jews. They are responsible for the condition of our society today primarily in the sense that the pus in a ripe boil is to be blamed for the boil. The feminists, homosexuals and Jews characterize our society in large part today — they are symptoms of the pathology afflicting our society — but we must look deeper for the cause of our decay.
Let me repeat Henry Adams’ observation. He wrote: “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.” If he were writing today, he might note that the immortal lyrics of his contemporary, Tennyson, have given way in favor to the pretentious drivel of Maya Angelou; that the Western tradition in art, which had culminated in the 19th century in the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and John Constable, has been shoved aside in the 20th century by the trash-art of Picasso, Chagall, and Pollock; that the profession of arms, which was still a more or less honorable profession in the 19th century, a profession in which gentlemen and even scholars still could be found, has become at the end of the 20th century a vocation for bureaucrats and lickspittles, for men without honor or spirit; that worship, once taken seriously even by many intelligent and sophisticated men, is now the business of Christian democrats, with their egalitarian social gospel, and of vulgarians of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker stripe, with their television congregations of superstitious, amen-shouting dimwits.
Can we properly describe this change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams’ position now and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?
Actually, a great deal. In a very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic values — egalitarian values — are feminine values. It is also true that, in a very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible things at the expense of intangibles. It is not concerned with concepts such as honor, and very little with beauty, tradition, and roots. It is a way with a limited horizon, with the home and hearth very much in sight, but not distant frontiers. Reverence and awe for Nature’s majesty are unknown to the materialist. As spiritual man gives way to economic man, when one historical era merges into another — as idealism gives way to materialism — society gives a freer play to the feminine spirit while it restricts the masculine spirit. Words gain over deeds; action gives way to talk. Quantity is valued over quality. All of God’s children are loved equally. Pickaninnies are considered “cute” or even “adorable.” The role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her children will be supplied with whatever they need…
Read more at the link.
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.