In the study of politics, two schools of thought converge: the school of stability and the school of change. The former emphasizes dominant political ideas that shape weak or strong leaders, while the latter highlights the role of a charismatic and strong political figure who drives social changes. In reality, these forces interact to shape a country’s political future. Over one hundred days into Donald Trump’s presidency, evidence supports the “strongman” theory of change. However, it’s uncertain whether Trump would have made it to the White House in a more stable America. The post-World War II Liberal order, like its defunct communist twin in the Soviet Union, has already run its course.

Donald Trump has emerged as a key figure in US and global politics, not because he caused the current wave of domestic and international disorder, but because he is a product himself of a disorder that has shaped the United States and the entire West since 1945. He has reignited the dormant divide between Left and Right, a deadly hallmark of the 20th century, while throwing modern right-wing parties and nationalist movements in Europe and the US into disarray. Unlike his post–World War II predecessors, who pursued hyper-moralizing world-improving policies, Trump’s approach to foreign affairs is the complete opposite. He is dismantling the post–World War II order not through ideological conviction but through his pragmatic, common-sense perspective of a businessman. History shows that often a simple, down-to-earth individual—akin to an everyday “Joe Six-Pack” or the German “deutscher Michel”—can grasp political realities more clearly than self-proclaimed experts, advisors, academics, and professors, many of whom are caught in a cycle of wishful thinking and self-deception.

Showcase of the Soviet style Show Trials

To his credit, Donald Trump has survived a relentless barrage of judicial travesty, presented in the Liberal dogma as the “rule of law.” This system, revered for decades in the United States and its vassals in the European Union as sacrosanct Holy Writ is coming to an end.  Secretary Marco Rubio unknowingly admitted that efforts to ban the German right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party only reveal the Liberal order as a form of “disguised tyranny”. Even the recent judicial charade against Trump, is not new—it has thrived in liberal democracies since 1945. Unlike the overt repression in the former communist East, the Western lawfare operates through more refined means, such as biased court verdicts, usually preceded by academic self-censorship and media fake news. While the Liberal system appears more palatable for the masses, its long-term results are often worse than in communism.

Trump has survived a gauntlet of challenges, dozens of politically motivated felony charges, two impeachments, and even two assassination attempts. Whatever one may think of his hubris, his psychological resilience under such pressure highlights the strength of his character. By way of contrast, many dissidents in the former Soviet bloc would often break down under the weight of a single charge and start ratting out their accomplices in order to secure a reduced prison sentence or escape further psychological torment. It remains to be seen how many of Trump’s trusted servants will cover his back or turn tail when clouds soon begin to gather over the US and EU.

The judiciary under Clinton, Obama, and Biden had more than a passing resemblance to the defunct Soviet judiciary once championed by the NKVD strongman Lavrentiy Beria and Chief Prosecutor Andrey Vyshinsky. In some respects, Biden’s weaponizing of the judiciary was even worse than in the Soviet Union. Unlike the Soviet courts, politically driven prosecutions in America continue to be marked by a strong anti-White bias, which was best visible in the treatment of the January 6 Capitol protestors, many of whom were victims of trumped-up charges. The Clinton-Obama-Biden triumvirate, seconded by its loyal vassals in the EU, managed to reenact a parody of communist utopia, albeit under a different legal denomination. Instead of gulags and firing squads, the judicial tools in the Liberal West consist of deplatforming free thinkers and renaming of free speech into “hate speech”. One must recall that US policies like DEI and affirmative action, which Trump is trying to roll back, were already tested many times in the multiethnic Soviet Union and the former communist East Europe. The results were predictable: hatred of all against all, mutual ethnic resentments, and ultimately, the collapse of the system.

The Casbah Left, The Caviar Left and Free Speech on Campus

Leftist critics of Donald Trump rely on flawed arguments. They criticize the Trump administration’s stance against eroding free speech in the EU while condemning Trump’s orders for mass ICE arrests of foreign students suspected of supporting Hamas or expressing anti-Israel sentiments. Trump and his DOJ may have a point. The full story behind these detained students—their motives, backgrounds, and reasons for studying in the US rather than in China or Africa—remains unclear.

To start with, most of those apprehended or detained students come from Third World countries where free speech is severely limited or nonexistent. How would the Turkish female student at Tufts University, now facing deportation, respond if asked to advocate for a Kurdish state or a public commemoration of  the Armenian genocide in Turkey? How many of these students, now detained by US authorities, would actively champion minority rights in their home countries—such as the rights of Palestinians in Jordan, Berbers in Algeria, or Moors in Morocco? In their homelands, in their local casbahs, local caids dismiss concepts like plea bargains, while dissidents frequently vanish into memory hole.

Many of these non-White international students in the US do not hide their hatred of White “giaours” while perpetually claiming to be victims of a White racists and the allegedly oppressive Western system. Yet, they prefer to pursue education in “racist” America and Europe rather than seek opportunities in ostensibly less oppressive, antifascist and decolonized and greener pastures of their homelands. This contradiction raises questions about the sincerity of their pro-Palestinian activism and their true motives for coming to the US.

May-day Call: For Fear of the Jews

There’s no need to pontificate about Bible verses, such as John 7:13, or recount Joe Sobran’s tragic betrayal by his conservative peers. It would be naïve, however, to assume that Donald Trump is ignorant of the Jewish lobby’s influence. Neither can one hope he could any time soon abandon the delicate balance of mutual love-hate rhetoric toward Jews if he wants to remain alive and kicking. His support for Israel serves as a strategic counterweight, enabling him to crack down more freely on the Left. One might speculate whether Trump has struck a Faustian bargain with neoconservatives or Jewish-influenced leftist organizations, such as the ADL or SPLC, to secure a free hand in dismantling the Communist-inspired DEI policies in the US.

Far more significant is the historic collapse of the Left in the West—their collapse is affecting key Jewish intellectual figures who birthed those Communist-inspired movements a century ago. Alongside numerous rainbow LGBTQ+ advocates, including violent Antifa factions, the Left in the West is now turning against their former Jewish founders and mentors. Their rejection of Jewish intellectual lordship is not merely a symbolic gesture akin to a mythical Oedipal parricidal rebellion; it is unfolding in real time, with a clear intent this time around to denounce Israel as a “right-wing, colonial, fascist state.”

President Trump would be advised to disregard Leftist campus protests against Israel. It is more of a passing media show than an act of serious pollical dissent. It does however drive a wedge between the non-white “Kasbah Left” and – what the French call – the Jewish “Caviar Left.” Given Trump’s unpredictable governing style, it’s not far-fetched to imagine him parting company with the Jewish lobby down the line. On the flip side, the crocodile tears a few right-wingers and White nationalists shed for Palestinians feel like a flimsy camouflage for their anti-Jewish sentiments. Why are some Whites so obsessed with the Palestinian cause, anyway? Shouldn’t they leave their compassion to Muslim Arab leaders to sort out for their own kin? Arab nations, especially those in the Maghreb, Middle East, and the Gulf and those with diplomatic ties to Israel and the US (Morrocco, Egypt), could shake up the global order if they wanted to. Yet, beyond empty rhetoric, they’ve done little to nothing for their Palestinian kin in Gaza.

Fear of Jewish opprobrium paralyzes Western politicians. They like to lament the deaths of Ukrainian children killed by Russian drones, but they stay silent about the far higher tally of Palestinian children killed weekly by Israeli forces in Gaza. Israel, however, has a solid legal and historical argument for its behavior in the Middle East. The dead in Gaza align with the post-World War II order, forged on far bloodier killing fields. Often called “Liberation Day,” May-day 8, 1945 unleashed a wave of antifascist revenge killings of opponents renamed by the Allies into “fascist and antisemitic war criminals.” The Israeli military in Gaza can now safely seek for a similar legal excuse from American and British victors, who in 1945 enabled mass killings of disarmed enemy and civilians in Soviet-occupied Central and Eastern Europe. The Gaza dead are merely a logical extension of those late May 1945 events.

World War II never truly ended; it merely slipped into an interregnum that’s now drawing to a close.

I had experienced something a few months ago that caught me off-guard. It was a black-pilling moment; not just one black-pilling moment, but two. I don’t get those all too often anymore since I had been black pilled for a half of a decade and red-pilled much longer.

It began when my wife, children and I took a short vacation to Omaha, Nebraska. We decided to save money and stay in a hotel right in the middle of the downtown area. I am fully aware of the unfortunate state of American cities however being a Kansas-boy (and having the mentality that the Midwest is still populated by mostly whites), I didn’t expect what I saw when we arrived. The block on which my hotel stood was something you would see in videos that show the current conditions of Nicaragua or Venezuela. There were no whites to be found (excect for hotel staff and guests), decaying buildings, loads of graffiti, and plenty of homeless. To top it off, across from my hotel there was a large pro-homosexual mural of two men kissing each other and next to it another mural of a topless black woman breast feeding a black baby. It was horrific!

Immediately, I was stricken to the core. After more investigation of the area, I realized just how satanic Omaha’s inner city was. It was a confusing mix of the libertine wealthy and the pleasure-seeking poor. In one section, you’d find what was surrounding my hotel—a cesspool of decadence and degradation. However, drive a bit further and you’d find giant corporate buildings, white collar pedestrians, nice eating establishments, and 5-star hotels. Then go a few more blocks and there would be a Third World wasteland again.

I found it disgusting—a mix of corporate materialism and cupidity with the low impulse control and hedonism of non-White neighborhoods. I should have anticipated it though. I am fully aware of the state of metropolitan areas in America—homelessness, drugs, crime, moral and physical decay—especially after the accelerationist event that was COVID. But I was hopeful and a bit naive. I dumbly still have this pre-1990s conception of the people and places of the Midwest. Kansans are known for their hospitality, humility and decency. And Nebraskans—they are ‘good ole’ farm boys, like all Midwesterners. It’s Omaha, Nebraska for God’s sake! That is where the Wizard of Oz is from. No one expects to go there and see Tyrone tweaking on some street corner or José blasting his stereo down Main Street in his El Camino.

The next black-pilling moment (and most sobering) came on the last day of our trip. My family and I went to the Lewis and Clark Museum on the banks of the Missouri river. Outside there was a hiking path which led to a walking bridge spanning the river. The building which houses the museum was, of course, a cold and “modern-looking” government building but it was clean and well-maintained. It was staffed entirely by White people.

I noticed two things when I was there: 1.) there was hardly anyone patronizing the free museum despite there being a lot of people on the hiking path; and 2/) those walking the path were mostly non-White. The Black, Hispanic, and Pageet walkers who were enjoying the free paved path and bridge (all paid for by White tax payers), cared not about the history of the area nor did they care about the sacrifice of Lewis and Clark and of the thousands of settlers who built that city.

Then it struck me. All across the United States, we have government institutions, established long ago, whose sole purpose is to preserve and promote the history of this country. And it’s no secret that 99.999 percent of American history is White European history—stories, artifacts and buildings of settlers who sacrificed wealth, blood and life to establish this country. However, considering the rapidly declining percentage of the White population (and concomitantly, the rising percentage of the non-White population), why would these institutions have a future? Pedro, Tyrone, Muhammad, and Wong have no vested interest in keeping the stories of our people alive. Do you think these non-White immigrants care about Sherman’s March through the south, Paul Revere’s ride, William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech or Joshua Chamberlain’s heroic stand at Gettysburg? This goes for Western Europe too. Their history is also in jeopardy thanks to the millions of Arabs flooding into their country.

In a few years, I believe we will start seeing a noticeable change in how history is treated in the United States. We’ve seen leftists in recent years attempt and sometimes succeed in changing the narrative of history but I think within the decade, our history will begin to be erased permanently. Think about it—who is maintaining our historical institutions now, at least here in America? It is not the financially struggling millennials. It’s not the gay Zoomers. It’s the Boomers. They are the remaining stewards. Who donates or pays taxes to the preservation of our history and to keep these places staffed with individuals who will protect artifacts and locations? Boomers. Who will complain or petition if the government, local or federal, begins to substantially cut funding to these places? Boomers. Who are the curators, presidents and even founders of these historical institutions? Boomers. When the Boomer generation dies off, who will be the stewards of our stories?

The non-Whites and the ruling class that  is hostile to Whites. Will they pour thousands upon thousands of dollars in maintaining our history? Of course not. The new curators will want to expunge American history to make way for the new demographics. Non-whites are only interested in their own kind and the hostile, substantially Jewish ruling class have no use for White history. They have the incentive to discontinue its perpetuation to further demoralize the only demographic of people who can compete with them. Not only will our stories as a people be wiped from the history books and internet, artifacts destroyed and any evidence of it demolished but it will be erased from the zeitgeist—our collective consciousness. Our children and their children will not know about the Mayflower, the war for independence or the Jackson’s victory over the British in New Orleans.

I think by the 2030s, the rapid change will begin. In America and Europe, five years from now, places we once knew will be unrecognizable and every year forthwith, the decline will be exponentially worse. The dam that holds back the surge of non-White violence against Whites will be gone. Monuments will be torn down. Grand cathedrals and statues left to rot and decay. Thus is the fate of all crumbling empires.

I admit, this is will be a small defeat in the overall war against our people. Naturally, if we had to choose the preservation of some artifacts over the future survival of our people, we would all choose the latter. I don’t think this is a trivial issue though. A people’s stories are what makes them. Imbedded in them are the virtues and morals on which our nations were founded and inspiration for the youth to emulate their progenitors. Our stories shape our children and determine our destiny. Take my words into consideration and begin buying books (physical copies especially) pertaining to not only history but all things European. We must pass on the knowledge and narrative of Europeans to the next generation. If we don’t, we are a lost group—a demographic sure to go extinct.