Civic Nationalism’s Last Gasp?

The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America
Victor Davis Hanson
Basic Books, 2021

Reviewed by Nelson Rosit

Is Victor Davis Hanson Donald Trump with a Ph.D. in classics? There are certain parallels between the author of The Dying Citizen and the forty-fifth president. While Professor Hanson uses the rubric “citizenship,” Mr. Trump uses the acronym MAGA to describe a renewed civic nationalism that might provide enough centripetal force to hold together this multi-ethnic entity called the United States for a while longer.

Hanson (b. 1953), grew up in the San Joaquin Valley and pursued an academic career. He is now a professor emeritus of classics at Fresno State and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative-leaning think tank. Hanson’s latest book is a cogent articulation of the present policy positions of the establishment Right. It can be used to gauge the policy departure from the McCain-Romney Republicanism of the recent past. The important question, however, is: Can “true citizenship”/MAGA/civic nationalism provide any utility for the cause of White America?

VDH realizes that the United States is in crisis. He terms 2020 a revolutionary year, and believes only shock therapy can save the country. His quick assessment of ailments includes growing economic inequality, open borders, the rise of tribalism, the increasing power of a bureaucratic Deep State, and expanding globalism, all of which threaten to undermine American society. Of course, such a diagnosis begs the question: What is the treatment regimen? No nostrum is prescribed.

In his Introduction Hanson makes some common-sense observations: Self-governance is not an easy task, and to have rights people must assume responsibilities. I think the Founders made the point succinctly when they stressed the need for civic virtue to make a representative republic succeed.

Being a classicist, Hanson gives the reader some ancient history. Athens is usually identified as the first democracy. “Consensual government did not appear until about twenty-seven hundred years ago, most prominently in Athens, twenty-five hundred years after the beginning of large urban settlement in the Near East” (6). At least with VDH you do not get theories such as the African origins of Greek civilization as found in Black Athena,[1] or the Iroquois League being the model for American federalism.

The first chapter deals largely with economics, and, from a conventional-Right perspective, Hanson is pretty solid in this area. A strong middle class is essential for political and social stability. Judging from the context of his remarks Hanson includes the more established blue-collar workers in this middle class. The present economic system features stagnant wages and a raising cost of living that squeezes the middle. Massive immigration at home and outsourcing abroad has contributed to economic insecurity, and Hanson believes this has played a role in the decline of marriage. The author notes that most economic experts—men such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers—state that high-paying production jobs are leaving America, and not coming back. Hanson does not buy that argument, and neither did former president Trump.

De-emphasizing Race

Chapters Two and Three discuss immigration and ethnicity (tribes), and here Hanson shows his respectable conservative stripes. He is against massive immigration, especially when many enter illegally, because it makes assimilation more difficult. Though he knows better, VDH still proclaims American exceptionalism and the magic dirt theory. He admits: “The few unusual countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes without imperial coercion have usually fared poorly” (106). The author does not identify those countries that have not “fared poorly,” but in any case, I would remove the modifier ‘usually’ from the above quote. I would also add that the American empire is definitely willing to use coercion to make its multi-ethnic state work. But if one has faith that the United States will be the exception the laws of history then you believe everything will work out in the end. The magic dirt corollary posits that when natives from dysfunctional societies such as Somalia and El Salvador reach the U.S., they will not replicate the cultural characteristics of their homelands, but will instead become model Americans. So far, all the data are against the magic dirt theory.

Due to the author’s belief in assimilation, he differentiates between multiracialism which he approves and multiculturalism which he opposes. A racialist would counter that culture is, in part, a racial construct. Large numbers of migrants who are genetically distant from the majority population make assimilation impossible. But VDH sees tribalism as “reactionary to the core” while clinging to his utopian hopes for these genetically distant migrants: the answer to growing tribalism in the United States is “true citizenship . . . that diminishes the power of ethnic identification and race” (112).

Hanson rightly criticizes the Left for trying to rewrite American history. Yet he indulges in the same practice to support his assimilationist project. He claims: “The United States has always cherished its universally applicable melting-pot ethos of e pluribus unum” (107). Of course, the U.S. has not always had a universalist ethos (e.g., the 1924 immigration restriction law), and the phrase e pluribus unum originally referred to uniting the several former colonies into one nation.

Later in the chapter VDH to “talks the talk” by castigating cultural Marxism and social justice warriors, but he misses the main point. He asks, “So why has twenty-first-century American race and gender victimization supplanted doctrinaire Marxist class oppression in the culture of resistance against established norms?” The reality is that it’s all about destroying White political and cultural hegemony, but Hanson, as a mainstream conservative, can’t accept that. He notes that “Today’s social justice warrior apparently would not wish to empathize with a West Virginia coal miner but prefers instead CNN anchor Don Lemon or billionaire rapper Jay-Z” (115)—implicitly referring to the White working class, but not discussing the obvious racial dynamic of a multi-racial left-liberal elite opposed to the White working class.  In fact, it is racial. Is the man being willfully blind? A little further on Hanson almost stumbles upon the answers his own question, but again the obvious conclusion eludes him. He notes that “old Marxism had once sought to transcend race” (117). Yes, it tried, but it failed to transcend race, and a similar fate will befall the author’s solution of “true citizenship,” because race is an essential human characteristic.

VDH realizes the purpose of the Left’s “assaults on traditional commemoration—from holidays to statues to eponymous street names—is to redefine the past as a way of recalibrating the future” (119)—George Orwell said it best in Nineteen-Eighty-Four: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” But he fails to note these assaults are part of the war on White America The denigration of traditional heroes is, in effect, a psyop against White America.

In keeping with his non-racial civic nationalism Hanson believes “the worst thing about identity politics as currently practiced by the left is that it has stimulated the rise of identity politics on the right” (125). Okay, the Right is always responding to developments on the Left. I would call this a law of political science: The Right is always reactive, though not necessary reactionary. So Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism, was reacting to the French Revolution, Mussolini was reacting to Lenin, and the January 6th rioters were reacting to the George Floyd riots of 2020. VDH claiming that White self-defense against attacks is worse than the attacks themselves! But race does not really exist, so what is the fuss about? Ignoring all the population genetic studies showing clear genetic clusters corresponding to traditional racial categories, he resorts to simply asserting that “it is difficult to agree upon a definition of what ‘white’ actually is, given that it is not necessarily aligned with superficial appearance” (127). I guess that if it cannot be defined to VDH’s satisfaction, it doesn’t actually exist.

The Deep State

Once Hanson gets away from the issue of race, he begins to make more sense, and in Chapter Four he deals with the Deep State. For decades mainstream political science textbooks have discussed the vast discretionary authority wielded by unelected, upper-level bureaucrats, not to mention the power of the military-industrial complex. However, when the Right began to criticize these entities as the Deep State, it was immediately labeled nothing but a conspiracy theory. Likewise, one can celebrate the growing ethnic diversity of America, but if it is termed “The Great Replacement,” it is a conspiratorial hoax. In his opposition to powerful centralized bureaucracy and other unelected institutions, I detect some libertarian leanings in his attitude toward government. My own view is that government is simply a vehicle; who is behind the wheel is what matters. There’s nothing inherently wrong with centralized government. Government is a vehicle that can take you where you want to go, or it can careen off a cliff.


Hanson is generally pro Trump in a nuanced way. In 2019 he published The Case for Trump in which he wrote that, although a flawed character, the president had a coherent agenda and had implemented much of it.[2] By 2019 almost everyone on the Dissident Right was very disappointed with Trump, some bitterly so. There were several reasons why Trump failed to meet expectations, and certainly opposition from the Deep State was one. In 2016–17 Trump, the tough guy New York real estate mogul, was a babe in the woods.

As a political novice who ran against both the Democrats and the GOP establishment Trump struggled to find talented and loyal administrators to fill top executive branch positions. His newly appointed National Security Advisor Ret. General Michael Flynn was the victim of a “government ambush” (171). The legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 election was questioned by the Russian Collusion Hoax. Robert Mueller put together “perhaps the most high-powered and experienced team of investigators even assembled by the Department of Justice” (174). After 22 months and 40 million dollars no Russian collusion with members of the Trump campaign was found.

After the failure of the Mueller investigation, impeachment was the next tactic used to hamstring the Trump presidency and render him un-reelectable.  During the Trump administration members of the executive branch exhibited “an unabashed audacity” in resisting the authority of the president. For example, former FBI Director James Comey wrote a book, A Higher Loyalty, which “publicized the deep state’s sanctimonious notion that violating laws and protocols in service of its own purported higher ethical agendas . . . was more than justified” (184).

The Constitution

Hanson shares with American conservatives a reverence for the U.S. Constitution. It is almost a fetish. I certainly hold the Founding Fathers in the highest esteem, but if the Constitution is our salvation, we would not be in the predicament we are in now. The Constitution is open to differing interpretations, and it can be and has been amended. Nevertheless, the document does act as an impediment to radical change from the Left. Hanson sums up the Left’s position: “[W]hy let old white men of a bygone age continue, from their graves, to impose their ossified values on a far more enlightened, ethnically and racial diverse, and knowledgeable twenty-first century nation?” (217).

According to Hanson several parts of the Constitution are vulnerable to being dismantled or circumvented. The Electoral College, an integral component of our federalist system, is one example, and the erosion of the First Amendment through “hate speech” restrictions is another. The technique used in the latter case is “freedom of speech, not reach.” The First Amendment prohibits government interference with free speech, but the Left believes that “the media, publishing, and especially Big Tech . . . have the right—and sometimes the responsibility—to apply codes of conduct and censorship in their own domains” (243). The Left also believes in the legitimacy of applying pressure on media companies to censor speech by government actor, as indicated in the recent revelations on the role of the FBI in getting Twitter and other media companies to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story, and the role of the Biden administration in getting Twitter to censor Covid-related opinions. Abridgment of the Second Amendment is also a concern of the author who believes that “the Founders in some sense saw the Second Amendment as the most important of the Bill of Rights” (251).

Another legal issue worrying Hanson is what he calls the new nullification, or what could simply be termed selective law enforcement. There are sanctuary cities that “seek to render elements of federal immigration law null and void” (254). Then there is the “de facto nullification” of giving rioters “space” for violent protests involving assaults, looting, and arson. The practice became official policy in April 2015 during the Freddie Gray riots in Baltimore when than mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake ordered city police to stand down in the face of mayhem. This approach became widespread in late spring and summer of 2020 during the Floyd riots when virtue-signaling mayors in cities such as Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle refused to enforce laws protecting lives and property. In the case of Minneapolis, the pronouncements of Mayor Jacob Frey actually helped to incite violence in his city.


Chapter Six deals with globalism. Here is, perhaps, one of the big changes that has occurred within the conventional Right since the McCain-Romney days. (Of course, Mitt Romney is still a Republican senator, so obviously the transformation was only partial). Under true citizenship/MAGA, the globalist policies of free trade, open borders, and offshoring have been replaced, at least in theory, with America First. Hanson defines globalism as simply “putting global concerns above national interests” (269). Globalism, championed by Western elites, dilutes VDH’s concept of true citizenship. Globalists are “post-citizens” who wish to transcend the boundaries of race, sex, and nationality. According to the author, organizing international relations around nation states is not ideal, but it “is the least pernicious system compared to the alternatives” (272).

It is not just that globalism has hurt the US with “lost jobs, investments, control over borders, and national cohesiveness,” it has resulted in “eroded indigenous customs and traditions the world over” (281). Hanson continues: “the global creed has destroyed the ancient idea of localism and regionalism as central to the human experience.” Globalists do not value the “unique traditions, ancestries, local histories—and differences” of particular locales (302).

The hubris of the globalists is particularly galling to VDH. They see themselves as the new elite whose education, training, and values entitle them to guide world affairs. Despite their lofty opinions of themselves, the author observes that the globalists of WHO failed completely to contain Covid-19. VDH considers NATO as part of, and perhaps a principal enforcer of, the globalist project. He quotes NATO’s first Secretary-General Lord Hastings Ismay who described the organization’s mission as “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down” (297). No mention of containing communism. The Great Replacement is one of the results of globalism. Hanson does not use the term, but he relates how Bill Kristol, the Jewish neo-conservative pundit, declared that there was “a need to replace an increasingly pathological American white working class” with immigrants (291).


The book ends with an epilogue obviously written sometime after the main text. Here Hanson again discusses Trump, along with the 2020 election, January 6th, and the Biden administration. Though generally supportive, VDH expresses mixed feelings about the former president who could be “an idealistic populist, a rank cynic, a canny pragmatist, neither, or a combination of the three” (324). Once more, Trump was a bit naive, he “under-appreciated” and at times “seemed oblivious” to the political forces arrayed against him (326). Being a political outsider, he had no cadre of experienced and knowledgeable people to fill key administrative positions. Plus his “mercurial persona” and “often off-putting behavior” made him difficult to work with.

Hanson expresses doubts regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Tens of millions of people voted by mail “with far less audit of signatures, addresses, and deadlines” than in the past. Voting by mail is “fraught with dangers of fraud and a general inability to authenticate voter eligibility and identification” (336).

As for the January 6th capitol protests, Hanson points to an obvious factor that the mainstream media and the political establishment refuse to acknowledge. By justifying the violence during the so-called “racial reckoning” of 2020, the Left created the climate for the assault on the capitol in January 2021. The protesters that day were poorly led, if indeed there was any real leadership at all. Some thought that violence was the way to be heard, that this was the way it is done now, this is how you do it. They did not realize that those rules only applied to the other side. As VDH puts it: “[T]he Left had for months contextualized the mayhem of Antifa and BLM and therefore should not have been surprised when others were emboldened to follow their violent example. The public was left with the general impression that, for political reasons, violence in the streets was being condoned and perpetrators not held to account for their illegal actions” (340).


So, having considered Hanson’s “true citizenship,” which I have equated with MAGA/civic nationalism, we return to the question posed at the start:  Is this movement an on ramp to explicit White advocacy? Or is it a dead end? As Yogi Berra opined: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future,” but I believe Trumpism will fade and will prove to be the last gasp for civic nationalism.

There are several reasons for this prediction: It will be difficult to have Trumpism without Trump, and his future is uncertain at best. For all his faults Trump is an authentic personality and seemed to have a unique ability to incite the Left. Meanwhile possible successors, such as Ron DeSantis, smack of opportunism. Of course, the Romney wing of the Republican Party never went away and they are working day and night to return to the pre-2016 business-as-usual approach. But the main reason that civic nationalism will fail to deliver is its refusal to face the reality of race and the importance of racial differences in human affairs.

Whatever happens, politics will not return to pre-2016 status quo ante. There are long-term trends, such as political and social polarization, that appear to be accelerating. Political violence, practiced by the Left since the “long hot summers” of the 1960s and more recently taken up by Antifa and BLM, has spread to elements of the political Right and could intensify. Due to selective law enforcement, however, violence, other than in self- defense, is likely to be counterproductive for the Right. Is there a role for the Republican Party to move a White agenda forward? As alluded to above, the neo-conservatives are working hard to regain full control of the party, and they hold the purse strings. But do they have the votes? American political parties are subject to change—a century ago, the Democrats were the White man’s party, and the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, received the Black vote. In any case, voting is without risk or cost and takes very little time or effort so any return on such a small investment is a plus.

In the final analysis electoral politics will only go so far in bringing about fundamental societal change. As Andrew Breitbart wrote: “Politics is downstream from culture.” People need to live the change they want. One encouraging trend sees White Americans moving to areas of the country that they find more politically and socially congenial, hopefully creating supportive networks. Liberal journalist Bill Bishop has termed this The Big Sort.[3] While others call it an ingathering.[4] This is where Hanson’s true citizenship might be most applicable, becoming civically engaged at the local level to build healthy White communities.

[1] Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Rutgers University Press, 1987.

[2] Victor Davis Hanson, The Case for Trump Basic Books, 2019.

[3] Bill Bishop, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart, Mariner Books (2009).

[4] See for example: Eric Paulson, “Nine Reasons for an Ingathering,The Occidental Observer (November 3, 2010).

46 replies
    • Birhan Dargey
      Birhan Dargey says:

      But Dr.VDH never uses the words WHITES/JEWS…The last time I heard his podcast he was praising Israel/TelAviv wonderful nightlife, cafes, malls, and its democracy…albeit all that minus the invisible Palestinians.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      I didn’t realize that. When T. Carlson invites him to make commentary on his nightly show, Hanson usually sounds quite sensible. Anyway, for further interesting reading, I found this (from 2008):

      – a bit of a duel between a retired general and VDH Hisself.

      From VDH: “In World War II we were forced into an alliance with a Stalinist state that had killed 30 million of its own to thwart an equally horrific Nazi state and erstwhile Soviet partner—with the understanding that as soon as we defeated Hitler we were faced with an even greater threat from an enabled Soviet Union and a newly Communist China. ”

      Poor USA! They were “forced” into an alliance with the Stalinists “with the understanding etc etc”. LOL. Hanson is an all around good guy, isn’t he – toujours on the side of the angels.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Hanson is an all around good guy, isn’t he?

        Yes, indeed. The fact that he’s never met a war he didn’t like is, by his lights, the fault of a sinful world. If only people were nicer, he wouldn’t be in favor of killing them.

        Apropos the Peloponnesian War, did you ever see The War That Never Ends? It was made in 1991, and it’s unlikely that you’ll ever see a more gripping semi-dramatization of Thucydides’s great work, especially in a duration of seventy-one minutes.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          Many thanks for telling me about The War That Never Ends. I am going to take a crack at it. I see it got an 8.3 rating on IMDB, which is pretty impressive for that particular bunch. It appears that this film is available only on youtube. It’s nowhere to be found on

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            The 1.7 group at IMDB that didn’t like the film probably objected to the austere mode of presentation. The filming was done on a bare soundstage. There are no fights, no raised voices; not even a shove. For the most part, the characters address the camera. The conceit is that, typically, a character is someone who is addressing an off-camera governing assembly (i.e., in Athens, Sparta, Corcyra, Corinth, or another city-state). In only a few scenes do individual characters directly interact. Thucydides, who serves appropriately as narrator, sits at a table and addresses all mankind yet unborn.

            Everyone is costumed nearly identically, in a style that resembles a drab version of a bellhop uniform from “Grand Hotel.” The only exception is Socrates, who is made to look like a bum with a head cold in dire need of a bath and a change of gown—in other words, much like the historical Socrates. The only props are a few tables.

            The “drama” in the presentation, which advances from the threat of war to its actuality, is confined to the lighting: each scene is more darkly lit than the one before. In the final scene Thucydides speaks in near darkness.

            The actors were drawn from Britain’s best of the time. You’ll recognize them all.

            No women, no blacks, no trannies. Just the facts, ma’am, as Joe Friday used to say.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            I just had a look at that film as well, well done Monsieur de Craon. Say what you like about some of his opinions, this is a man of taste.
            It’s wild to think, but that sort of standard was once normal on terrestrial British TV, they actually made programs designed for adults who felt respected just by watching. Changed days, UK TV has went off a cliff.
            The second guy shown in the film, the ‘Corcyran Representative’ – was played by an actor called John Bennet, who did a fantastic turn as the brash young architect in BBC’s ‘The Forsyte Saga’ from the 1960’s.
            They had the cheek to redo that show in the early 2000’s and it was a blasphemous horror show.
            I can’t even describe how graphic one scene was where a female character strove not to get pregnant after sleeping with her husband. It was insane, a cynic would say it was hardcore anti-natalist propaganda for the white audience. And this was twenty years ago!
            As I said, off the cliff.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            I am genuinely grateful, Emicho, for your kind comment about my taste. (I shan’t deny that I am rather fond of my opinions, too, whatever others may think of them. [wink])

            In return, I offer you my sincere wish for a joyous and blessed Christmas. I should be very pleased if the New Year finds us more often in agreement on all matters, whether grave or merry. When we cannot agree, I hope that we can at least disagree more amicably than we sometimes have in the past. I pledge to do my best in this regard.

      • Luke
        Luke says:

        ” When T. Carlson invites him to make commentary on his nightly show, Hanson usually sounds quite sensible.”

        I suspect that could be due to the fact that, just like Carlson, he has a make-up team who make sure to wipe off the residue leftover on his lips and from around his mouth from his most recent kneeling session in front of the open zipper of the Israeli Lobby.

        Victor David Hanson is an enemy of every racially conscious White American who are concerned about the survival and long term freedom prospects of White European Americans. Give VDH a breathanalyzer test to check for the presence of hebrew ejaculate and I guarantee that he would fail the test in a grand fashion.

        As would Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump.

  1. RockaBoatus
    RockaBoatus says:

    “Today’s social justice warrior apparently would not wish to empathize with a West Virginia coal miner but prefers instead CNN anchor Don Lemon or billionaire rapper Jay-Z” (115)—implicitly referring to the White working class, but not discussing the obvious racial dynamic of a multi-racial left-liberal elite opposed to the White working class. In fact, it is racial. Is the man being willfully blind?” – I think VDH understands quite well that at its core this is a racial issue. After all, he wrote a book about how Mexican illegal immigration is radically altering the racial and economic outcome of California (‘Mexifornia: A State of Becoming,’ 2003). I don’t believe the man is ignorant about a declining White demographic in America.

    However, were VDH to be explicit on racial matters (e.g., Blacks as dysfunctional, criminal and unfit for a modern civilized society) or even hint at a pro-White viewpoint, he would soon find himself an outcast among ‘respectable’ conservatives. He would lose whatever influence and respectability he now wields. Dinner parties, invitations to speak, and book signings would all end. He would be seen as a threat to the status-quo, a disrupter of the mushy middle. He would be marginalized and placed in the same camp as Marjorie Taylor Greene and other perceived ‘crazies’ among republicans. He might see his fan base, then, limited to the likes of Nick Fuentes and other ‘deplorables’ in society. I can’t believe he hasn’t considered what would happen to his ‘career’ were he to align with such characters.

    Although there has been an increasing tolerance among White conservatives to discuss racial matters over the past 7 years or so, it’s still very much taboo among ‘establishment’ or ‘gatekeeper’ conservatives. Anyone who wants to keep their employment doesn’t push the envelope too far. VDH has an estimated wealth of five million, so I doubt that financial reasons stand as his reason for not being more explicit about White racial and cultural interests.

    • Captainchaos
      Captainchaos says:

      Hanson is on ZOG’s payroll as the court intellectual of its controlled opposition. He is no less a traitor to his race than if he decided to breed his daughter with a nigger. You just got done writing an article about the importance of voting for ZOG’s controlled opposition. As far as I’m concerned that places you in the same boat as Hanson. Either you renounce ZOG and all its works and explicitly promote Red State secession or in effect you are a nigger-loving race traitor.

      • RockaBoatus
        RockaBoatus says:

        “You just got done writing an article about the importance of voting for ZOG’s controlled opposition.” – If that’s all you got from my recent article, you’re not reading it very closely nor the defeatist position you leave yourself in when you choose to disengage from resisting the Left. I’m not going to repeat the rational arguments I presented in why we should use all of the resources available to use, including voting.

        Perhaps you’re the one covertly working on behalf of ZOG since you want Whites to disengage and stop voting? That would surely be what the Jews want. See how this works?

        “Either you renounce ZOG and all its works and explicitly promote Red State secession or in effect you are a nigger-loving race traitor” – You’re obviously not reading my articles or just cherry-picking here and there without understanding the entirety of it.

        Even the way in which you express your disagreement with me shows you’re reactionary and emotional with little consideration in being careful with your words. Your purity spiraling will get you nowhere.

    • Birhan Dargey
      Birhan Dargey says:

      In my days of youthful idealism I became a member of the Young Campus Socialist Students. They assigned me to a collective with my political cadre, our early political/ideological formation included introduction to Marxism mainly Historical Materialism nd Dialectic Materialism, Labor Value theories. That gave us the simple rustic elements to fight for the rights of the poor peasants and the proletariat. Todays LEFT is absolutely concentrated in Sexual/gender/gay/lgbt/Rainbow agenda. I hear nothing about the 30hrs work week with fulltimepay, Univrsal Healthcare, Universal basic retirement income after 62yrs of age, free college etc. The LGBT has been like a nuclear demolition of the LEFT. The left supporting WARS in Ucraine, lockdowns, censorship, supporting and following the corporate funded agenda..what?????

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Perhaps it’s time for you to stop making excuses for rich white guys who don’t want to “be marginalized and placed in the same camp as Marjorie Taylor Greene and other perceived ‘crazies.'”

      Anyone who, like me, has been watching and listening to Hanson since he began to attract attention in the mid-nineties is aware that he “understands quite well that at its core this [i.e., the obvious dynamic of the left-liberal elite] is a racial issue.” So why, then, do you treat this wink-and-nudge remark as a big deal, when it’s nothing but the same old watch-me-as-I-seem-to-get-dangerously-close-to-the-third-rail carnival juggling act that he has been using to sell more books and get bigger audiences for nigh on thirty years? Since nothing and no one will get VDH to drop the veil and frankly declare himself an ally of his fellow white men and an opponent of the Great Replacement, it’s well past time to stop giving a damn about anything he says or writes.

      Besides, even if VDH were to drop the veil, what good would he do the white cause, no matter how loosely or unaggressively that “white cause” is characterized? VDH is a talking head with an audience that has never grown beyond the low three digits. That is why it is one thing (specifically, a useful thing) for Nelson Rosit to read and review VDH’s book, VDH being a representative specimen of the Gentile neocon careerist class that serves to give the (((identity))) of our enemies a certain amount of cover and concealment. It is quite another thing (specifically, not a useful thing) for you to talk as if there is or might ever be a set of circumstances where this mealy-mouthed careerist would do real Americans—people he scrupulously avoids in his private life—and their legitimate and all-too-beleagured interests any measurable quantum of good.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        “all-too-beleagured interests” should be “all-too-beleaguered interests” …

        Apologies for the spelling error. My eyesight is going; not my wits—yet.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        You’re on a roll. No one can do angry like C. Your final sentence – sinuous yet easy to follow, as usual – wrapped it up perfectly.

      • RockaBoatus
        RockaBoatus says:

        “Perhaps it’s time for you to stop making excuses for rich white guys who don’t want to “be marginalized and placed in the same camp as Marjorie Taylor Greene and other perceived ‘crazies.’” – Good grief, if that’s how you understood my comments you really do need to have your eyes checked.

        “It is quite another thing (specifically, not a useful thing) for you to talk as if there is or might ever be a set of circumstances where this mealy-mouthed careerist would do real Americans—people he scrupulously avoids in his private life—and their legitimate and all-too-beleagured interests any measurable quantum of good” – What? That entire sentence is a complete mess.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          One sees with the eyes, and one understands with the wits. Got it now, Rocky?

          The ability to read standard English is one of several things you ought to acquire before you produce yet another empty-generality-filled comment or article.

        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          No, the sentence you copy from de Craon is perfectly intelligible, although I agree with you that CaptainChaos is only sniping from the fringes. Our task is to persuade normal, moral whites that they are being “peacefully extirpated” – “canceled from the future” – and that they have a moral right to name their dispossessors and resist their displacement. Using CaptainChaos’s language and sentiments will not further that task.

          • ChilledBee
            ChilledBee says:

            “Using CaptainChaos’s language and sentiments will not further that task.”

            Couldn’t agree more. I have sent many people to this site who were trying to understand why the West is deteriorating rapidly and what the causes may be. The terms that CC uses will only alienate people and put them off frequenting this site.

    • Luke
      Luke says:

      I have one and only one dilemma that bounces back and forth in my mind, with regards to Victor Davis Hanson.

      That dilemma is which place in line, at the foot of the ladder that leads up to the wood chipper or guillotine should be reserved for this white race hating slab of truly disgusting, white race treasonous human garbage.

      First place? Second place? Surely he would not deserve to be in front of any member of the Bush or Clinton Families. Or any ,member of you-pick-any-JEWISH-politician. But, rest assured, VDH DOES have a place in that line at the bottom of the ladder that leads up to the wood chipper or guillotine.

      I look forward to the day when I might be a witness to this race treasonous slab of worthless human scum’s departure from this world, where he will most certainly be sent straight to HELL where he will he reunited with his daddy Satan.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Why are you so intemperate? VDH is one of the good guys, albeit not as good (courageous or insightful) as Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor. But surely you can’t think him on the same moral plane as Mitt Romney or John Kasich, let alone Joe Biden or Bernie sanders??

        • Luke
          Luke says:

          Leon – have you ever heard the expression that ‘close’ only counts when it comes to ‘hand grenades and horse shoes”?

          I apply this principle to VDH. He and the others you mention like to skate very close to the edge of racial realism – which must include an admission that the #1 enemy of White Europeans are jews – but, he soils his panties and won’t go anywhere near that all-important admission. That makes him an enemy and a collaborator who does his part in trying to conceal their primary role in working to destroy White Western Civilization that he rather lamely and impotently pretends that he cares about preserving.

          Imagine this analogy. You are a boxer and you find yourself inside a boxing ring about to fight your opponent. But, right before the bell rings to begin the fight – then umpire hauls out a pair of handcuffs and says that, according to the ‘rules’ of this boxing match, you, as a White man, must have your hands and fists restrained behind your back because you are not allowed to “punch” back against your opponent, who curiously has a huge and prodigiously hooked nose that could open any can of pork and beans that you could find in any major grocery store. In other words, you are in a fight with an enemy who can beat the living daylights out of you and all you are allowed to do is to run around the ring like a scared puppy in hopes that your hook nosed opponent won’t knock you out and win the boxing match.

          That describes Victor David Hanson, Jared Taylor, every other phony pro-White movement figure who refuses to mention the jewish war that is being waged on White Europeans worldwide.

  2. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    “This is where Hanson’s true citizenship might be most applicable, becoming civically engaged at the local level to build healthy White communities.” – If DaWhite residents wake up from our stupor….first.

  3. Sebastian X1/9
    Sebastian X1/9 says:

    So according to VDH, the “worst” thing about identity politics is not the Marxism or dead, raped, fired, marginalized whites but instead the right wing (white) reaction to it.

    There’s no audience for this book. He will go on Tucker, they will compare the Left to Nazis, and the book will be available free on Amazon by summer 2023 if you pay shipping.

    We’re better off trying to find a solution with the hard left than with people like VDH who deny physical reality.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “We’re better off trying to find a solution with the hard left than with people like VDH who deny physical reality” – Oh yeah, that would work out wonderfully! After all, there’s so much we could agree on and cooperate together with.

      Think about that statement of yours. Despite his cucked civic nationalism, VDH aligns with more of our social and political beliefs than those of the “hard Left” by miles. Those in the “hard Left” don’t merely see White racialists as people who are politically wrong or in error, but as despised ‘white supremacists’ who want to enslave and murder all minorities. They are viewed as no different than Hitler and the National Socialists. If they could, they would immediately place us all in re-education camps and, if that didn’t work, they’d gladly have us dispatched from this earth. VDH wouldn’t even come close to such ‘solutions’ nor has he ever hinted at it. Our chances are greater in working with those who hold many of the same values than with those who are diametrically opposed to everything we believe.

      Nuance and a reasoned perspective are missing from your comments.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        “Nuance and a reasoned perspective are missing from your comments.”

        Such is the case with most real white supremacists. I understand their rage, but they shouldn’t let it cloud their judgment, or pollute their morals.

  4. Captainchaos
    Captainchaos says:

    The author of this piece comes close but does not explicitly state a key point, so I’ll do it for him. Muh constitution is a cult of nostalgia for boomers intended to keep them passified and voting for ZOG’s controlled opposition. I’m really sick of this mealy mouthed horseshit. What’s the point of giving shekels to WN websites if all they do is praise Hitler to trick you into thinking they have balls and then turn around and tell you to vote Republican? Clearly there is no point, it is just another controlled opposition grift.

    If they don’t explicitly support Red State secession then don’t give them your shekels. You’d be better off just sending your money to Victor Davis Hanson.

    • Flo
      Flo says:

      As the late Joe Sobran liked to point out, the Constitution poses no threat whatsoever to our current form of government. It was written for a moral people, and that barnacle-encrusted tub left port decades ago.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “I’m really sick of this mealy mouthed horseshit” – Well, of course you are. We all need to be just like you and use epithets like “nigger” as well as denouncing anyone who isn’t as ideologically ‘pure’ as yourself as “ZOG’s controlled opposition.”

      Admittedly, we all can’t be as bold, brash, and self-righteous as yourself. You wear the “chaos” in your name well. We are all bettered by your superior wisdom and insight.

      • Captainchaos
        Captainchaos says:

        As it stands WN is little more than a grab bag of right- wing hobby horses. There is no unifying strategy or ideology to give it any teeth. I provide one, you don’t.

        You are the type who works best within assigned structures. However, as it pertains to creating new structures when the old ones have failed you are shit out of luck. But not to worry, I am performing the task for you.

        The trick is to engage with existing political structures in such a way that undermines them with the intent of replacing them with other political structures. Undermine and replace. There are your orders, soldier. I take it you’re smart enough to figure out the rest.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      I strongly support Red State Secession, and later white ethnosecession, but I also support the Constitution, which is far more useful to whites than it is to leftists, as the latter well understand. Without the 1st and 2nd Ams, white Americans would be in even worse shape.

  5. Dr. Doom
    Dr. Doom says:

    Culture is merely the “societal phenotype” of “racial genotype”. The globalists despise the freedom and honesty of White Men. They require a cesspit of corruption to continue their looting.
    The parasites are dependent on White Men to continue to produce. AI is inherently logical and must needs be anathema to the dysgenic backwards policies espoused by the enemy.
    These “Nazi AIs” are merely stating the obvious. Parasites cannot feed themselves and are therefore worthless expendable cretins.
    The globalists are doomed to failure. Their would be slaves are too stupid to feed themselves much less take care of parasites. Also, the “slave class” has racial animosity to the “parasite class”.
    This natural hostility will become obvious once the violent conflicts begin. The parasites will find no safe haven for themselves this time. They are DOOMED, as they SHOULD BE.
    The White Men would do well to jettison that fraud Trump and get a leader that is EXPLICITLY for White people without apology. This is doable and the Time Has Come for just this.
    “Tribalism” is so primitive. Nations are formed through blood not money.

  6. HamburgerToday
    HamburgerToday says:

    Hanson doesn’t like is actually functional political activity. For example, opposing ‘identity politics’ is irrelevant. It’s the only politics that matters in a multiracial-multicultural political environment. Hanson is 100% of non-White identity politics in the form of ‘civil rights’ I’ve never read a single work by the man where he calls for for the end of America’s anti-White civil rights regime. ‘Identity politics’ is only a problem for people like Hanson when Whites start embracing it.

    Another example of Hanson’s rejection of functional political activity is nullification. To put it plainly, nullification works. And it was part of the master plan of many of the Founders (including Jefferson, Madison and even Hamilton). States and counties have had success nullifying federal laws related to immigration, drugs, guns and identification. Again, Hanson frets and fumes at pro-non-White or ‘leftist’ applications of nullificationist policies but he really doesn’t like the idea of Whites taking up nullification because he knows it would be he end of his beloved ‘civil rights’ regime.

    Lastly, politics is not downstream from culture. The White Wing needs to learn that politics and culture are different aspects of the same phenomenon: racial solidarity. All cultural ideas favor one race (or racial alliance). All politics favor enforcement of the culture of one race (or racial alliance). There is no racially-neutral culture. There is no racially-neutral politics.

    Culture is the justification system for politics.

    Politics is the enforcement arm of culture.

    They’re not separate. They’re synergistic.

  7. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thanks for the well written review Nelson.

    I agree somewhat with VDH on assimilation. Having spent most of my life in the cities of the east coast of the U.S., I can attest that the children born here of immigrants, want very little to do with where they come from. They become Americans and except for still having a flavor for their ethnic cuisine, they assimilate into our culture, or what’s left of it anyway. They love especially, black popular culture.

    There is an exception, the Jews… The Jews never really assimilate.

    Guys like VDH, Hannity, O’Reilly, and the rest, they’re really not patriots, or on our side, they’re more like traitors. It doesn’t matter what credentials they have, or how successful they become, the facts are that the Jews are destroying our country right before our eyes and no on is doing anything to stop it.

    Soros is destroying our cities with rampant violent crime by paying off the DA’s in our cities to let violent Criminals go free. Alejandro Myorkas, a Sephardic Jew, and the head of Homeland Security, has our borders wide open. It is estimated that well over 10 million new illegal immigrants will be in the country by the time the Biden administration ends. Soros and Myorkas are breaking the law, why aren’t they being stopped from doing this? Everyone knows what’s going on.

    Truly frustrating.

  8. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    @kevin (comment not intended for publication!)

    Please forgive me my insults, Dear Helmut, you know, that was not meant seriously at all! Besides, you wouldn’t give a damn anyway, how others “judge” you. I had a lot too much of mulled wine hoisted in that night. By the way, the term “BOF” comes from the British youth language and was an expression of the grungy “punk movement” for the long-haired representatives of “progressive rock” in the late 70s.

    Just watched an interesting brand new multi-part documentary about Magellan. He was supposedly born on February 4 (in the sign of Aquarius), although this may be controversial, since little is known about his childhood, at least Spanish and English Wikipedia. It is interesting that the Spaniard Columbus acted on behalf of Italy, and the Portuguese Magellan on behalf of Spain (he was considered a “traitor”).

    Who owns the “New World”? | The adventurous voyage around the world of Magellan

    You have to activate the automatic translation. Unless you understand French like Jared Taylor:


    He makes Christopher Columbus’ dream come true and reaches India from the west: the Portuguese Ferdinand Magellan. This four-part documentary tells the story of the greatest seafaring achievement of all time.

    Part I

    About the challenges Magellan had to face. The story of the Odyssey begins with Europe’s quest to expand knowledge of the world …

    The Portuguese Ferdinand Magellan has the adventurous plan to sail west with a total of 237 men, to cross a land of unknown size and thus reach India. His goal is to find a passage through America in order to reach the riches of India this way. He also wants to gain control of the Indonesian archipelago of the Moluccas, whose spices are more valuable than gold. Under his command, five ships with a total of 237 crew members set sail from Seville in September 1519. It is the beginning of a voyage whose outcome he cannot foresee. Three eventful years later, 18 sick and exhausted sailors sail up the Rio Guadalquivir towards Seville on the last remaining ship named “Victoria”. Miraculously, the ship’s chronicler is among them: Italian Antonio Pigafetta had a book with him in which he had handwritten every day of the incredible voyage.

    Letters, reports and maps from the time shed light on this true story that changed the European view of the world forever. It is the tale of one of the greatest sea adventures of all time, the story of a breathtaking voyage of discovery to new shores, a new ocean, new peoples and a new world.

    The first part tells of the challenges faced by the navigator Magellan. The story of Magellan’s spectacular odyssey begins with Europe’s quest to expand its knowledge of the world and to discover and conquer the lands beyond the oceans. In the 15th century, Castile and Portugal in particular try to expand their zones of influence and launch the largest expeditions towards America and India. Their hegemonic efforts eventually lead to the Treaty of Tordesillas. This agreement, concluded on June 7, 1494, draws an imaginary boundary line across the Atlantic Ocean, dividing the world between the two kingdoms: Accordingly, the lands to the east of this meridian belong to Portugal, while those to the west belong to Castile.

    Part II

    This episode tells of a voyage in which terrible events alternate with challenges at sea. Magellan encounters violent storms and headwinds that slow down his ships. And during a mutiny, he must regain control of the fleet…

    After a three-month voyage, Ferdinand Magellan reaches Brazil, from where he continues south to explore the coast. Little by little, an unknown world, topography and nature opens up to the crew members. They also have encounters with indigenous peoples. Like an obsession, Magellan keeps his eye on his goal: He wants to find a passage through the continent to continue the journey on the unknown ocean that lies on the other side of the landmass. He wants to accomplish what Christopher Columbus failed to do. But the way will not be without dangers.

    This episode tells of a journey in which terrible events alternate with challenges at sea. Magellan encounters fierce storms and headwinds that slow down his ships and eventually trap him in the Antarctic winter for six months. In a mutiny instigated by his Spanish captains, he must regain control of the fleet and sentence those responsible to death – decisions that will prove momentous. Neither the navigational conditions nor the latent hostility of his officers, not even the death of several sailors and the loss of one of his ships can shake his faith in the existence of the eagerly hoped-for passage.

    Part III

    Magellan finally discovers a passage through the American continent. A first step is taken, but the way to the archipelago of the Moluccas, the coveted “Spice Islands,” is still far and risky.

    Magellan finally discovers a passage through the American continent. A first step has been taken, but the way to the archipelago of the Moluccas, the coveted “Spice Islands,” is still far and risky. The third episode of the four-part series describes the dangers Magellan encounters shortly before reaching the destination of his adventure voyage. Navigating with sailing ships across the Strait of Magellan, which he discovered and which connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, is already a ludicrous undertaking.

    On top of that, the “San Antonio” deserts: the largest ship in the fleet has loaded most of the provisions in its cargo holds. The joy at the sight of the vast sea, over which no European has ever sailed before, lasts only briefly. A seemingly endless crossing of the Pacific begins: for three months there is no land in sight, the crew on board is emaciated by hunger and disease. Little by little, more and more sailors die.

    Meanwhile, Magellan, plagued by doubts, inevitably approaches the imaginary boundary line established in the Treaty of Tordesillas. What if the archipelago rightfully belongs to Portugal and not to Castile, as he promised the Spanish crown?

    Part IX

    When the ships reach the Philippines, it becomes clear that Magellan must have been mistaken: The Spice Islands are in that part of the world that is under Portuguese rule. Several wrong decisions follow, which lead to the fact that captain as well as a large part of his crew will not return.

    When the ships reach the Philippines, it becomes clear that Magellan must have been mistaken: The Spice Islands are in that area of the world that is under Portuguese rule. Several wrong decisions and misfortunes follow, which lead to the fact that the captain as well as a majority of his crew will not return from his journey. Only after a long odyssey do the surviving men reach the Indonesian islands of the Moluccas and load their cargo holds with the spices. A captain is appointed on each ship, who chooses his own route back to Seville.

    The “Trinidad” tries an unconventional route, but is forced to turn back when she loses much of her crew in terrible storms in the Pacific. On their return voyage to the Moluccas, the crew is captured by the Portuguese. At the same time, despite miserable navigational conditions, Captain Elcano manages the unimaginable: he takes the “Victoria” across the Indian Ocean and along the African coast through waters that the Spanish are forbidden to sail.

    After a five-month struggle against the elements, the 18 survivors of the last ship set their feet on the ground of Seville on September 8, 1522. The fourth episode concludes Magellan’s voyage, which after three years went down in the history books as the first complete circumnavigation of the globe.

    • Cannot Recall screen name
      Cannot Recall screen name says:

      I have in hand a discharge paper from the US merchant marine, received Mar 24 1972 (Singapore) Uncle Bill had a “job” with the DEA and got me hired for 3 months.

      NEW YORK 10020

      ship’s name: S. S. San Antonio (T2 tanker under conract with US military)


      • Strange World
        Strange World says:

        @Cannot Recall screen name (funny nickname)

        Nice detail. Sounds at least like some kind of a semi-adventurous life that would be almost impossible to lead today. In the meantime, at least in civilian seafaring, hardly any whites are employed.

        Btw., normally, nature films are too lengthy (not to mention boring) for me, but this very lavish U.S. production about the world’s oldest natural park, Yellowstone, is worth the endurance:

        How restful for the tortured maltreated white “soul”: finally for a few hours for once no Negroes, no Jews, no perverts, no lunatics, and above all – no “politicians”! Only the merciless struggle for survival of the animal world in a rough untamed environment.

        Spotted an English-language version (apparently largely unnoticed so far). In the playlist is another three-part documentary worth watching called “America’s Mississipi” (since no “non-American Mississippi” exists, this title is an idiotic pleonasm).


  9. Ron Chapman
    Ron Chapman says:

    Victor Davis Hanson’s erudite views appear to be coloured by his scholarship, occupation and culture.
    He’s right about self-governance not being an easy task, and that to have rights people must assume responsibilities. What that means and how it can be accomplished is the real issue.

    Arguably the US, like the rest of the Western World, has been infiltrated and taken over by a parasite that has been eating away at Christian thought, spirit and governance since the Pharisees forced the Romans to crucify Christ Jesus.

    That parasite has used ethnocentric monopolistic trade and acquisition of wealth to create banking and other corporations used as mechanisms to control governance, religions, the military, the MSM, science and technology, academia, schooling, cultural institutions and virtually everything else. Today USans drown in a Khazarian Mafia (Ashkenazi) ideological soup from cradle to grave. THAT is the problem and it cannot be solved by tinkering at the edges or chipping away at some of the more obvious appearances of the disease.

    If humans here are to survive, the US and our world must eradicate the parasite. To do that they must clearly identify it and the primary mechanisms it uses to suck the life out of this planet and her inhabitants.

    Those mechanisms are control of fiat money creation and its usurious banking distribution combined with the faux creation of inanimate corporate personality given all the benefits of real flesh and blood humans and more. The legal albeit unlawful personification of corporations has enabled the parasites to own and control governments and virtually everything else on this planet while concealing the corporations’ Ashkenazi creators and manipulators from public awareness. They have used their wealth and corporate control to centralise national governments under their control and have almost managed to centralise global governance under their control using the UN and a multitude of globalist corporations.

    Some history:
    The problem for the US is that Ashkenazis, i.e. the Khazarian Mafia in their various guises, began subverting and deconstructing US culture and its sociopolitical polity from the inception of the US republic. In fact, arguably their influence in “America” began long before, with Columbus’ initiation of the slave trade in 1492.

    The Ashkenazis funded William III of Orange to become King William III of England in the second half of the 1680s whereat he licensed them to establish the Bank of England and to lend his kingdom money at interest (usury). Ashkenazi bankers subsequently influenced King George III to impose on the American colonies the use of gold in lieu of their interest free Colonial Scrip. That destroyed the colonies’ economies and caused the American War of Independence.

    After president Andrew Jackson failed to renew the charter of the usurious second US Central Bank in 1836 the bankers instigated the American Civil War to replace chattel slavery with free range serfdom (wage slavery) and to pave the way for elimination of the Constitutional US republic in 1871, surreptitiously replacing it with the US Government Corporation.

    The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) furthered the control of Ashkenazi corporations over the rights of USans with its decision undermining their rights and favouring the owners of corporations in the case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. in 1886, See: Supreme Court of the United States (via Findlaw), Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, decided May 10, 1886.

    The Santa Clara County decision enabled the bankers to begin surreptitiously tightening their grip on US industry and society long before they managed to impose the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) on the US in 1913. The effects of the Santa Clara County decision have been reinforced by other SCOTUS decisions over the years. See eg: CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    The rot really set in with the creation of the third US Central Bank, i.e. the Fed, in 1913. Using the Fed, the bankers continued to tighten their grip on US society by extending their private corporate control of usurious money emission to the US Government Corporation.

    Also, in 1913, to enable the US corporate government to pay interest on the monies it would subsequently borrow from the privately owned Fed, (instead of the US Government Corporation creating and emitting asset backed money itself) the bankers also forced the unlawful US Congress to introduce unlawful US national income taxation for the first time. That tax on personal income is based on the false premise that US citizens are dead, lost at sea, the premise first used in British Admiralty law at Westminster in 1666. See eg: Democracy, Deception, Deceit – they’re all the same

    The US federal income tax has risen from 1% p.a. paid only by wealthy individuals In 1914, to about 30% payable by all significant wage earners today.

    The Talmudists’ covert control of the US under the Rockefellers became covert Bolshevik, i.e. Khazarian Mafia control in the 1980s after the Bolsheviks were ousted from the Kremlin by a Russian Christian sect and fled to the US from the Soviet Union, killed the original Rockefeller brothers and substantially took over much of their US control apparatus. See eg: ff.

    Thereafter the Ashkenazi controlled cultural Marxists completed their Long March through US institutions until today they seemingly control the US and especially the big cities.

    The Good News:
    Arguably we are transitioning into a new era in which corrupted pseudo civic nationalism is getting a makeover. Trump has presaged that change in the US. It will be profound and require a fundamental rethink about life, the universe and everything.

    To effect that transition the US population (and all humans on this planet) will have to learn the true history of life here; rediscover its spiritual essence; junk all corrupted governance, economic, educational and cultural knowledge and arrangements and properly recreate them anew. The process will involve establishing genuine Christian moral and cultural norms and rational societal and governance mechanisms in lieu of atheistic materialism and cultural Marxism etc.

    Although not apparent, this is happening because President Trump and his supporters, including most of the US military, have surreptitiously assumed control of the main levers of US power and are steadily removing the Ashkenazi traitors and their minions and enablers from government along with their Woke and LGBTQ+ist cohorts in academia, schooling and cultural institutions, and the Deep Staters from all governmental bureaucracies and the MSM.

    When the Ashkenazis are removed the US and the rest of our world will need to embark upon a prolonged educational and organisational adjustment process that will include but not be limited to spiritual renewal and radical societal reconstruction and governmental reorganisation. Social and economic life will become decentralised and political power will be increasingly devolved to local levels where communities are able to take charge of their own affairs.

    Communities will vote upon the policies they wish to be implemented and elect local, district and regional councils to implement them, NOT to make policy decisions. Such changes will eliminate central parliaments and bureaucracies that currently make policy decisions and are subject to rampant corruption. Taxation to fund huge, useless and counterproductive parliamentary governance activities will no longer be necessary and so all unlawful income and other taxes will be abolished. Communities will vote locally and regionally on what they need in the way of infrastructure and services and provide the means to fund them. This will enable communities to properly audit and control the creation and operation of infrastructure and services projects. That will greatly reduce corruption and improve management. Communities will be responsible for outcomes and be unable to blame central authorities for policy implementation failures.

    Usurious money emission by privately owned, for profit, corporate banks instead of interest free money emission by national (i.e. community) treasuries is the main reason for poverty, scarcity and want in our world. Proper governance will eliminate that by requiring national (i.e. community) treasuries to create and emit asset backed interest free money and currency. That alone will create instant prosperity and rapidly eliminate poverty, scarcity and want.

    In addition, decentralisation of governance will return responsibility for most local infrastructure and services provision to local populations. That will eliminate much corruption and correctly saddle local populations with responsibility for management of their own affairs and acceptance of failures to adequately do so.

    It will also eliminate the need for the crippling, unlawful and bureaucratically ridiculous current taxation of almost everyone and everything. In particular income taxation will be eliminated because taxation of the fruits of sovereign human labour is cosmically unlawful, being contrary to divine natural law. That, in itself, will create almost instant prosperity.
    Why? Because those taxes have been largely funnelled off to covert Khazarian Mafia accounts and used for nefarious purposes. In addition huge quantities of wealth have been syphoned off to fund warfare and Black Projects not approved by general populations.

    The main obstacles to creation of this new sovereign, corruption free human world is ignorance and cognitive dissonance.

    Peace and Blessings,

  10. Kristopf
    Kristopf says:

    “…but I believe Trumpism will fade and will prove to be the last gasp for civic nationalism.”

    Regardless of how one feels about civil nationalism, this strikes me as rather unlikely. So long as our people have declining birth rates, and are far from being the majority of every locale, a number of right-leaning folks will try to build coalitions to push themselves past the finish line. Civic nationalism seems to be the somewhat recent means to do this. It worries me, in that, if we have Whites, and the left has nearly everyone else, the numbers do not seem hopeful. Others here far smarter than I probably see a more obvious solution to this. Perhaps a coalition could be formed around ethno-nationalism more broadly, allowing Whites to seek their own interests on their own terms, and empowering other groups to do so as well(?)

  11. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    “And why are you Aquarians so much smarter than all of us?”
    Higher Logos. A congenital “disability” of the absolute savvy.

  12. Swan
    Swan says:

    An interesting discussion. I think Rockaboatus has it right in the comments as I cannot see any other options. One major thing I disagree with in the article is that we can use violence in self defense. The boys rotting in prison for doing just that in Charlottesville thought the same thing.

Comments are closed.