Featured Articles

Atrocity in Amsterdam: Notes on Gentile Anti-Semitism and Jewish Anti-Fragility

/9 Comments/in /by

“Ajax are the Spurs of Holland.” Millions of expert English-speakers will be baffled by that short sentence. It’s a linguistic iceberg, with the words as the tip of the berg riding on a submerged mass of implicit culture. If you’re baffled by it yourself, the sentence means that the soccer-club Ajax (EYE-acks) in Amsterdam are the Dutch equivalent of the soccer-club Tottenham (TOT-num) Hotspur in London. Thanks to their proximity to Jewish districts in those cities, both clubs have become strongly associated with Jews and with Israel. The largely gentile fans of Ajax call themselves Joden (Jews) and the largely gentile fans of Spurs call themselves “Yids.” Both sets of fans often wave Israeli flags at matches. Rival fans respond by hissing to mimic the infamous gas-chambers of the Holocaust.

Semito-sycophants deplore a pogrom

Now, it’s because Ajax are the Spurs of Holland that I easily guessed the full truth behind some recent news about violence against Israeli soccer-fans in Amsterdam. The fans had been cruelly and viciously attacked after a match between Ajax and an Israeli club called Maccabi Tel Aviv. Semito-sycophants — gentiles who suck up to Jews — have wailed in chorus with Jews about the violence. They’re all presenting it as yet another example of innocent Jews facing inexcusable anti-Semitism:

That’s the message of the mainstream: innocent Jews were cruelly and unjustifiably attacked by anti-Semitic thugs just because they attended a soccer match. In fact, the violence was yet another example of Jews being bitten on the arse by their own anti-White scheming. Yes, when I heard the news from Holland I immediately thought: “Natural allies!” That is, I couldn’t believe that Israel-supporting Ajax fans were responsible, so I assumed it was non-White Muslims in Amsterdam.

Jews are hyper-White oppressors

And I was right: it was indeed non-White Muslims attacking obnoxious Israelis (but I repeat myself). Many Jews have proclaimed down the decades that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” They’ve done it in Holland too: the trans-Dutch Jew Arnon Grünberg said that Joden en moslims, zowel geseculariseerd als niet geseculariseerd, zijn elkaars natuurlijke bondgenoten — “Jews and Muslims, both secularized and non-secularized, are natural allies together.” But against whom are Muslim and Jews natural allies? Against barbarous and bigoted Christian Whites, of course. That’s why Jews have worked so hard to open the borders, inflict the West with Muslims and other non-Whites, then portray the low-IQ, high-criminality invaders as gentle, culture-enriching victims of irrational White racism and hate. Jews saw those non-White invaders as “natural allies” in their war on the White West. But it hasn’t worked out like that. Muslims and other non-Whites see Jews not as a fellow oppressed minority, but as hyper-White oppressors, replete with unjustly earned wealth, privilege and power.

Jewish fantasy: a Black woman dutifully accepts Jewish propaganda about the Holocaust (image from the Holocaust Educational Trust)

Gentile reality: a Black woman contemptuously rejects Jewish propaganda about Gaza (blood-clart = “blood-cloth, menstrual rag” and is Jamaican slang for a despicable or contemptible person) (image from the Campaign against Antisemitism)

Even more shockingly to Jews, since the “pogrom” of 7 October 2023, Muslims in the West have sided with the rapists of Hamas rather than the rapees of Israel. Oy veh! Amsterdam is the latest example of this blowback, but you’ll search most of the mainstream coverage in vain for any mention of the attackers’ racial and religious identity. Take the Israel-and-Trotsky-loving libertarians at Spiked Online, who have been expertly programmed by their Jewish controller Frank Furedi to support unlimited immigration by Muslims and other non-Whites. Under the hyperbolic title of “A Pogrom in Amsterdam,” the Spiked writer Tim Black condemned the brutal anti-Semitism of “‘pro-Palestine’ thugs,” “men riding scooters,” and “masked men.”

Chilling indifference to Jewish suffering

But he didn’t mention the skin-color of the “thugs” or reveal what religion they follow. Like everyone else in the mainstream, he refused to admit that border-opening Jews like Frank Furedi are reaping what they’ve sown. Siam Goorwich, a writer at the Jewish Chronicle, wailed thus: “One of the elements I’ve found most chilling has been the reports of how the Israeli fans were abandoned by the local authorities. One victim is quoted as saying: ‘We were all alone. I saw people on the floor, the police didn’t do anything to help us, police cars just drove by and saw it happening and did nothing.’” Goorwich then goes on to reveal that, thanks to ethnic enrichment in Holland, lots of non-White Muslims have joined the Dutch police and don’t want to protect Jews from harm. But she doesn’t say which small but very powerful group in Holland has most warmly welcomed Muslim immigration and most loudly demanded that Muslims and other non-Whites be recruited into “the authorities,” despite their lower intelligence, lesser competence, and higher rates of corruption.

It’s her own group who’ve done all that, of course. Just as in America, Britain, France and the rest of the West, they first opened Holland’s borders to the Third World, then privileged and empowered the non-White invaders, then sat back and rubbed their hands in glee as their “natural allies” murdered, raped, robbed and generally blighted the native Whites. But now Jews are wailing in horror that the “natural allies” they’ve imported aren’t following the Semitic script. Muslims and other non-Whites weren’t supposed to attack their fellow oppressed minority of Jews. But they are. And Jews are once again claiming to be victims, as they’ve done so often and so loudly down the centuries.

Jews and Japanese knotweed

All this wailing by Jews and Semito-sycophants is an excellent example of what the Lebanese-Greek writer Nassim Taleb calls antifragility. Taleb invented the term “antifragile” to describe a highly valuable but under-appreciated quality: that of being able not merely to survive adversity but to benefit from adversity. Words like “tough” and “resilient” don’t capture the concept properly. If you’re tough, you survive despite adversity. If you’re antifragile, you flourish because of adversity. The notorious pest-plant Japanese knotweed is antifragile: the more gardeners try to dig it up and destroy it, the more widely they spread fragments of its self-sprouting roots.

Notorious pest-plant and noted anti-racist: Japanese knotweed and anti-White Jew Tim Wise

Jews are anti-fragile in a parallel way: they benefit from being victims and from portraying themselves as victims. Jewish culture centers on and sacralizes victimhood. Just look at the Holocaust museums in cities all over America and now beginning to sprout all over Europe too. They’re the latest manifestation of the cult of victimhood obvious in Judaism, which is replete with festivals commemorating the way innocent Jews faced inexcusable anti-Semitism.

And the way Jews triumphed over that unjustified hate by slaughtering wicked goyim. The so-called “pogrom” in Amsterdam will prove yet another example of Jewish anti-fragility. Jews will once again benefit from portraying themselves as innocent victims of inexcusable anti-Semitism. Yes, some writers in the mainstream media have admitted that some Israeli fans were provocative in Amsterdam, tearing down Palestinian flags and gloating about the IDF’s slaughter of Palestinians. But none of that could justify the violence visited on poor Jews later, could it? Or so the mainstream is saying. I don’t agree. I think Jews are responsible for importing Muslims into the West and are now reaping what they’ve sown. However, thanks to Jewish anti-fragility, Jews will once again benefit from their loud wails of perpetual victimhood.

Appendix: Jews proclaim their “natural alliance” with Muslims

A Pretender Appropriate for the Age: Donald Trump’s Ersatz Caesarism

/15 Comments/in /by

The Rubik’s Cube, like the chess board, can be counterintuitive to the noninitiated. A cube finished on one face seems closer to solution than one all mixed up, but cursory study of the many solution algorithms online teaches the opposite. With fixation on the facade, one misses more significant action elsewhere. Often, the creation of a good-looking face requires a contradictory mess of compromise at deeper levels, pushing the whole farther from solution. Solvers of Rubik’s Cubes, chess masters, and the politically initiated understand the difference between a situation’s superficial face and the substance behind it, allowing them to dazzle the naïve observer with prescient solutions or predictions of what comes next. It is precisely because most don’t understand the inner workings that things like Rubik’s Cubes are entertaining at all; when everyone knows the trick, there is no audience.

Enter Trump, a tall, blonde, brash businessman who doesn’t apologize for his masculinity, who triggers passionate hatred in all of the right people. A man with a fitting facade, perfect because it is unpolished in just the right places, for the White man’s president. Trump has already had a term in which he failed to deliver on his promises to his American supporters while over-delivering to Israel and even non-constituencies like the Black criminal class. But, like any cult of personality figure worth his salt, Trump inspires endless excuses for his failures, rivaled in number and convolution only by the many fantasies spun up by his unhinged opposition. Why does Trump resonate so, both positively and negatively, with the American and broader western public? Is it that he breaks the rules of engagement for presidential politics, speaking the truth for once on the big stage, or is he tapping into a deeper level of signs and symbols?

In the culture/civilization schema of Oswald Spengler, Western Civilization is at or near the period of Caesarism. What is Caesarism and what is a Caesar? In brief, Caesarism is a time when a great leader wrests power from a decadent political system through direct appeals to the people. The governing body previously interposing between head(s) of state and citizenry is stepped over. This transition is brought about through civil wars. A Caesar is the man who does this by achieving sufficient success and notoriety in a field fitting his culture to allow him to make such a power proposition to the populace. In the case of Rome, the so-called Optimates, champions of the Roman elite structure, were brought down by the so-called Populares, a loosely populist movement centered on issues like land reforms. The yeoman soldier, proud backbone of the Roman legions, was being asked to campaign for longer and longer periods, his farms laying fallow, while the proceeds of these campaigns went to a smaller and smaller clique of senatorial and equestrian elites. This grievance found voice first in the failed political career of the brothers Gracchi and the civil war of Gaius Marius against Optimates leader Sulla. It was ultimately consummated in the political personage of Julius Caesar, the nephew of Marius, who won his civil war against the new Optimates champion Pompey. Caesar’s smashing of the republican senatorial system survived his own assassination via Caesar Augustus and the succession of emperors.

When governing institutions passed a critical threshold of unresponsiveness to the people, the reaction of the people is a wish for destroying the instituions even at the cost of social upheaval. All segments of the American and wider Western public are dissatisfied with their so-called representative government and its policies. The American right, left, and center respond to polling in a manner consistent with the desire to crush their opponents and force their policy preferences. It is not an uncommon sentiment to wish for the destruction of such institutions, as the mainstream media, banking and finance, and Congress itself. Respect for the democratic process or following legal forms is now only a pretense for partisan desires rather than a principle unto itself. That Western Civilization resonates with Trump, and to a lesser extent with his global copycats, shows that it is ready for Caesarism. What’s more, this makes us also ripe for manipulation by a spun-up imposter, a Manchurian candidate with the facade of a populist but without the policy intentions. During Julius Caesar’s time, the patrician-born Clodius had himself adopted into a plebeian family, the equivalent of covering your Ivy league sweater with a Dickies work shirt, in order to help his political career eligibility for the tribunate. In other words, the public’s appetite for system resetting populism can be sensed by savvy players who will use it cynically.

Enter Trump, a businessman trained in the ways of the world by the homosexual Jewish legal heavyweight Roy Cohn, whose campaigns are largely funded by Jewish billionaires, who has several part-Jewish grandchildren, and who referred to himself as the king of Israel due to the favoritism he showed them in his first term. Not satisfied with the obligatory presidential visit to the wailing wall, Trump paid his respects with a visit to the grave of Jewish supremacist “rebbe” rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Does this sound like a man ready to fight a civil war on the side of the Populares against the Optimates, or like a well-placed ersatz Caesar meant to prevent the rise of the real thing? Is Trump cleverly biding his time, allowing himself to be stymied at every policy fork by lawfare and infiltration, before turning heel to the system at the age of 78 to fight a political war? Is it somehow beyond the ken of the Jews who dominate the media, banking, financial, academic, and entertainment sectors to sense that a fake rogue figure is now needed? The system, bankrupt of all legitimacy with the citizenry for decades, has been kept meta-stable up to now through stoking intense partisan hatreds that maintain some level of interest in the electoral show. As that strategy becomes less effective and the total loss of confidence in governance is sensed, these clever manipulators know full well how to give the people the look of the thing without the substance. I hearken back to the famous reaction of Jared Kushner to his first Donald Trump rally, viewing the masses of energized and angry Americans declaring hatred for the media and political system in general. How long did his ears tingle, did racial memories of the Pale of Settlement flash before his eyes, before he realized this movement itself could play the perfect spoiler to the realization of its own aims? Could this be why the Adelsons and others have given Trump’s campaigns hundreds of millions of dollars, or are they so stupid they don’t realize they’re laying fertilizer down around the growing tree that holds their nooses?

Political Caesarism is the marriage of populism with a great man of history, a rogue elite giving voice to the demands of the common. A Caesar is a leader credible with the people, who took wounds in battle and with skin in the game. Donald Trump is no Caesar. That he has the appearance of such is an indication of the corrupt confusion of pieces behind the facade. Donald Trump is not a system smasher, he is a necessary blunt stabilizer to counter a system driving off of a cliff. Donald Trump does not lead from the front lines, but skips out the back door after he picks a fight. Trump left his hoodwinked supporters to rot as political prisoners just as he left his business partners in prior decades holding the bag on failed ventures over and over again. The man has declared himself bankrupt on several occasions; believe him.

The danger to America and the broader west is not that either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be elected. The difference between their administrations will be largely aesthetic in nature. Perhaps a war with Iran is more likely under Trump, while the economy may do more poorly under Harris, but the reverse of both is perfectly possible. Economic, foreign, and immigration policy has largely been consistent across administrations, Democrat or Republican, for many decades, and for all of Trump’s bluster and Biden’s “return to normalcy,” theirs have been no exception to this trend. The danger is that the yearning in our people for a Caesar will be quelled and confused by this imposter, as viewing pornography tricks the brain into thinking one is fulfilling one’s reproductive directive. The West needs a true Caesar to knock over our decrepit and corrupt institutions, allowing progression through our next civilizational epoch. The chief obstacle to this, in a sort of Gresham’s Law of politics, is not the enemy itself but their ersatz Caesar golem.

Voting is a Waste of Time! Or Is It?

/12 Comments/in , /by

Reposted from Ambrose Kane’s Substack with permission.

Donald Trump’s massive win for the highest office in the land shocked much of the world. Not only did Trump earn a second term, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, but he won the popular vote as well, including securing both the Senate and House of Representatives (House to be determined, but likely) with republican majorities.

Record numbers of Americans showed up at the polling booths, and millions mailed their ballots in early. Seems to me that the greater number of Americans sensed just how important this election was, and that four more years of nation-destroying policies from the Biden administration could possibly be something that we might never recover from. For many Americans, the economy was their major concern; for others it was our open borders that allowed staggering numbers of unchecked immigration from the third world.

In the midst of all our nation’s social and economic woes, there were a plethora of black-pilled and fatalistic folks who urged us all to not vote, to not be part of a system that’s hopelessly ‘rigged’ where the final decision of all U.S. presidential elections is ‘fixed’. Voting, it’s argued, only provides the ‘illusion’ that one is making a choice, but in the end the final outcome is predetermined. But is that true in every election? Is that what the 2024 presidential election proved to be?

I can certainly understand why many Americans might feel this way, especially when one considers just how dishonest and internally corrupt the Democrat party is. The results of the 2020 presidential election raised more than enough concerns that a substantial amount of widespread voter fraud was involved to seat Joseph Biden in the Oval Office. There was every reason to think that an even greater level of voter fraud would occur in the 2024 presidential election since a lot more domestic and foreign policies were at stake, including the mess of on-going wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

For the past four years, the democrats had engaged in brazen lawfare against their political opponents, something we had never previously experienced in this country – at least not to the degree that was waged against Trump. The democrats had reason to believe that if the election were lost, they themselves might be facing similar retaliatory lawfare efforts. In the midst of all this, the mood of the country had become so ugly and divisive that it’s easy to see why people would throw up their hands and give up, declaring it’s all a charade and that no one could be trusted to provide an accurate voter count that genuinely reflected the will of the people.

But none of what the black-pilled folks predicted actually took place. Not even a little bit of it. Trump won so decisively that the mainstream media couldn’t do much more than sadly read the election results, blame Kamala’s weak campaign efforts, and cry bitterly over it. This is not to say that the democrats didn’t engage in any voter fraud, but only that it was not sizable enough to thwart a Trump election victory.

The 2024 presidential election of Donald Trump proved that voting works. It’s not that voting alone will accomplish all that we want, but it is one of numerous tools at our disposal to bring about the kind of country that we envision for ourselves and our posterity.

Refusing to vote for candidates that align more with our social and political views under the banner that ‘voting is futile’ only serves to create greater problems for our cause. Consider the following.

If millions of sane, politically conservative people throughout the U.S. suddenly declined to vote, what would this result in? Would the Democrats stop voting too just because we withheld our vote? Their inevitable landslide victory would surely be interpreted as a “mandate” to fulfill the entirety of their cultural Marxist agenda. That’s how they’d see it, and that’s precisely how it would be reported in the mainstream media. And once their candidates win by such a massive margin, what’s to stop them from creating legislation that would place all of us “dissenters,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” and MAGA folks into concentration camps? You think the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they knew they would face little political resistance or consequences? Think again.

And how would refusing to vote impact our Second Amendment rights? Democrats would make certain to pass laws that would completely eradicate such rights. It would turn every right-leaning gun owner into an enemy of the state. Gun confiscation, then, would not be only a possibility but an undeniable reality. Our people would fall prey to marauding groups of Black criminals, especially among those who are unable to escape our major cities.

If we all refused to vote, then should we also refuse to hold our elected representatives to account for how they vote on our behalf? Does anyone seriously believe that those in office will more faithfully represent their voter base when we abandon any effort to participate in the election process?

Perhaps the Democrats would sympathize with our plight? Get real. Our political opponents don’t play by the same set of rules, nor will they be inclined to have mercy on us when they literally view all conservative White Americans as “racist, Hitler-loving, White supremacists.” Yes, this is how incredibly stupid and evil Leftists are. There is no balance or nuance in their thinking. If anything, history has proven how easy it is to get seemingly “nice people” to engage in the worse kinds of atrocities.

Perhaps large numbers of Democrats would see our point in refusing to play the game of voting? Maybe then they will listen to our message and see the utter futility of it all? Nope, none of this would happen. They would not seriously ponder anything we’ve said nor any political protests we might engage in, no matter how empirically sound and data-driven our ideas. They would not come to their collective senses once we declared that we have abandoned the ‘voting charade’. They will only see themselves as winners and all of us as losers. And then comes their great payback in which they would seek to punish every one of us. They would not be persuaded by reason, nor would their wrath be assuaged.

Our non-voting, then, amounts to non-resistance in the public sphere, an admission of sorts that the Democrats have better ideas and better solutions to our nation’s problems. And that’s exactly how the media would spin it and how the average American simpleton would interpret our complete abdication of our voting rights.

Jewish elites, of course, would get everything they wanted as a result — even more than what they have now! By not voting and forming a political resistance, we will essentially hand them all they want from us. And they will make sure to ‘reward’ us nicely for it too. Whatever resistance we might have on social media now would be cut off as they’re certain to censor and de-platform all dissenters.

Have you noticed as well that those who mock voting as futile with expressions such as “vote harder” rarely if ever provide any practical alternatives? They are largely whiners and complainers offering little more than verbal tantrums. One wonders whose side they are on. Throwing up our hands and giving up is precisely what our enemies would want.

The enemies of Trump threw everything they could at him. Neither endless lawfare, constant threats of imprisonment, millions of dollars in government fines, and even two assassination attempts were sufficient in preventing him from winning the election. This occurred not because enough gullible citizens believed that voting was a waste of time, but because reasonable people were discerning enough to realize that they could destroy the Left’s political efforts by simply casting a vote for Trump.

Trump’s win proved that voting, despite the problems and messiness associated with it at times, is a necessary component to shaping the kind of country that we as racially aware White Americans are seeking. This is not to say that Trump will give us all that we may want, but even if we garner only half of that which serves our racial and cultural interests, it’s still far more than anything we would have ever obtained under a Harris administration. As Greg Johnson rightly puts it:

“Trump won’t give us a white homeland. That is our job. But Trump’s victory makes it easier for us to get what we want. Compared to Harris, Trump is far better on immigration. Both candidates offered legal immigration. But Harris also offered massive illegal immigration and amnesties. Trump offered a clampdown on illegal immigrants coming in and mass deportations of the ones already here. Trump will slow down the Great Replacement, which buys White Nationalists time. To win, we need time” (‘We Won: An Agenda for Trump’s Second Term,’ Counter Currents, November 7, 2024).

Under Trump, there’s a real possibility that the economy will significantly improve. None of this would ever take place under Harris. Neither Biden nor Harris had the foggiest notion of how to improve the economic lot of Americans, and I doubt they had any real concerns about it. They had four years to reverse course, and yet they did nothing other than to drive more Americans into poverty and homelessness.

Under Trump, there’s a greater likelihood that illegal immigrants will be returned to their countries of origin. Trump might indeed have learned a thing or two from his first administration, and may complete that “great big, beautiful wall” that he had promised. Had Kamala Harris won the election, she would have seen her victory as a mandate and continued a policy of open borders at great expense to the American people.

Free speech, particularly the speech of White racialists and political dissidents, has a greater chance of surviving with Trump in office. If Elon Musk ends up playing an important role in Trump’s cabinet, there is even more reason to think that our speech will be safeguarded.

Under Trump, no more unnecessary wars are a real possibility. Trump already knows just how wasteful and stupid funding the Ukraine war has been, and I’m inclined to think that he will not so easily go along with Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to force the U.S. into a proxy war against Iran. With informed and sobering influences as Tucker Carlson and a host of others who are tired of America’s warmongering, it seems unlikely that Trump will be so easily manipulated.
Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe

Thoughts on the Election

/5 Comments/in /by

I first titled this writing “Thoughts on the Presidential Election” but immediately realized I didn’t need the word “Presidential.”   What other election is there?   Come to think of it, that gets at the main point of this piece: to my way of thinking, this presidential election was far too big a show — to the extent that it obscured the rest of the political process.  Quick, name a bill going through Congress right now, or is Congress even in session?  Once they got shuffling, slurring, vaguely creepy Joe out the door, it was wall-to-wall Trump and Harris.

This article or essay, whatever it is, shares what this election cycle brought up for me and invites your best thinking about what I offer.  I started writing it on Friday, November 1st, a few days before the election, and completed all but the concluding section by the next day.  I then took a break to decide how I should finish it up, the part where I talk about you and me.   I completed what’s here on November 4th, so I don’t know how the election came out.

To start this off, the first thing that comes to mind is that the damn thing seemed to go on forever.  Remember Asa Hutchinson?   When was that?  Or maybe better, who was he?  I just recall the name.

Words come into my head about what went on, none of them positive: undignified, immature, something out of the WWE or Jerry Springer (remember him?).  “Who you calling garbage?”  “I am too a smart and strong woman!” “It’s Hulk Hogan everybody!”  I read somewhere that two billion dollars was spent by the two candidates.   Not million, billion.  For a governmental office.  Absurd.  Crazy.  A national obsession.  Somebody asked me what I was going to do over the weekend and I answered that I was going to write up something about the election, which I find . . . I searched for a word . . . “ridiculous” is what I came up with.

And it was these two?  Three hundred million-plus people in this country to choose from and the system generated two people I find singularly unimpressive—limited in capability, uninformed, simplistic, inarticulate, and Trump, outright sleazy. We’ve come from James Madison to this?  How’d that happen?  I was supposed to get behind one of these two?

At least, I thought to myself, in a few days it’ll be over.   But came bouncing right back, “Don’t kid yourself, Robert, it’ll won’t be over on Tuesday.  Right after the election, it’ll be, who runs next time?  “Vance, you think?  Walz is a joke, but how about The Rock?  Beyoncé?  Maybe Kelly Clarkson.  She’s lost a lot a weight, charming, nice smile.  She’s over the divorce.  Musk can’t do it because he was born in South Africa or someplace.”

This Election (it deserves to be in caps like the World Series) was but a marker in a continuous, never-ending process.  The Dodgers won the Series, but right away it was, “Soto is a free agent, the Yanks are in trouble if they don’t sign him for next year.”  The Elect a President show (imagine that in lights like the Celine Dion show at Caesar’s Palace in Vegas, or I guess she’s been sick) will go on to the point that the American political process will come down to picking between two people—a third choice? what do you mean Jill Stein?—to be in charge of the country for the next four years.  After this election, it’ll be: “What’s [Trump, Harris, whoever won] going to do about inflation [the border, abortion, Ukraine, Gaza, fluoride in the water, Easter egg baskets, etc., etc., etc.]?”

“You know what?” Kamala said this past week.  “We are here because we are fighting for a democracy.   Fighting for a democracy.  And understand the difference here, understand the difference here, moving forward, moving forward, understand the difference here.”  A central pitch in her campaign was that Trump is no less than a threat to American democracy.

Really?  We’re a democracy and it’s under threat?  A couple of years ago in an article, I wrote this about democracy:

As a matter of fact, we don’t have a democracy in this country.  Our form of government is a republic.  We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.  Within our republican political system, there are many departures from simple majority rule.  In the beginning, senators weren’t directly elected but rather chosen by state legislators and the President still isn’t (the Electoral College).  States with small populations like Wyoming have as many senators as New York and California.   The Supreme Court is appointed.  The President can veto legislation.

More than simply a republic, America is a constitutional republic.  The federal constitution puts a brake on what can legitimately be a matter of collective determination.  The Constitution sets up a separation of powers and checks and balances that prevent majorities in one branch of government—perhaps dominated by powerful factions (the old term for interest groups)—from wielding control.  The Constitution’s first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, spell out protections of individuals from the totality as represented by the federal government.  They give explicit acknowledgment of the view that individual citizens have inalienable rights — the term used in the Declaration of Independence. These are rights possessed by all humans and they can’t be taken away.  These rights are not up for a vote.

In the early years of this country, the distinction between a republic and a democracy was an important one.  John Adams declared, “There is no good government but what is republican.”1

 Over the course of this century, democracy has taken on the quality of an unquestioned religious law worth killing and dying for, but that wasn’t the case in this country’s early years.  In the article, I quoted a number of major figures from back then, including the aforementioned James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and the respected French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, all of whom were highly critical of democracy.   I noted that the writer James Fennimore Cooper saw democracies as tending

to press against their proper limits, to convert political equality into economic leveling, to insist that equal opportunity become mediocrity, [and] to invade every personal right and privacy; they set themselves above the law; they substitute mass opinion for justice.

I’m coming down on Harris here, but it needs to be said that the presidency in this constitutional republic doesn’t square with Trump’s pronouncements about “running the country”—as if being president is akin to playing the boss on a TV reality show.

Over the course of the campaign, it struck me that the people running for president were in effect applying for a job that didn’t have a posted job description.  Did you ever hear it come up that the president does this and doesn’t do that?  It’s after the fact now, but perhaps it will help up the line if I offer a job description here.  It’s what the U.S. Constitution says about the duties of the office of president.  It’s in Article II.

Before I do that, however, I’ll briefly refer to what’s in Articles I and III about the responsibilities of the legislative and judicial branches of government, because the presidency does not stand alone: its functions integrate, complement, these other two branches of government.  Article I says “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  Article III says “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”  The point: the president does not make laws or hand down court decisions.

I went through Article II and extracted what it says about what the president does:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

See what you make of it, but my reading of it is that according to the United States Constitution the president is not the leader of the country.  He (or she) doesn’t embody the country, represent it, speak for us all, or call the tune.  He’s not a dictator, philosopher king, or the Dalai Lama.   He needs the consent of others to do things.  Congress legislates.  The Judiciary adjudicates.  He suggests.  He executes.  He serves.

This past week, Harris said, “Hey guys.  Let’s talk for a moment about Gaza.  We all want this war to end and to get the hostages out, and I will work on it full-time when I am elected president.”  Trump has made it clear that if he got in, he’d get together with Putin and Netanyahu because, you know, he’s close personally with both of them and work out deals around Ukraine and the Middle East.  What I would  have liked to hear from a candidate is something to the effect, “If I’m elected president, I’m going to urge the people’s elected representatives in Congress to take on the issues in Ukraine and Gaza and Israel and Iran and debate them from the perspective of what this country’s policies and actions should be and I’ll implement whatever they decide.”  To me, that is how this country is supposed to work.

So why don’t we do it this way?  I don’t want to oversimplify matters, but I think you go a good distance toward understanding what’s going on if you see it as a power play.  Those currently engaged in pulling the props out from under the Founders (“Jefferson had a mistress!”) and this country’s political and social heritage (“Racism, sexism, oppression, and exploitation, repeat after me”) and referring to America as a democracy and making a huge to-do of the president know what they are doing.  It’s about them getting themselves and theirs dictating what goes on in this country and in the front row at the feeding trough.

If you can sell democracy—putting anything and everything up for a vote; constitutional restraints, including free speech, just get in the way—you take power away from individuals and give it over to the collective, or better, those who can control the collective by monopolizing the information and idea flow, throwing money around, and making people pay if they cross them.  And if you can sell the notion that it’s the president and his cronies who decide whether or not to blow up Iran, you just have to manage one person to get your way, and everybody is manageable.   Ironically given how they are pitched as putting the masses in charge of their fate, democracy and “the leader of us all” concept of the presidency (FDR was a good example) result in minority control, which in our time is a mix of moneyed big shots, the pseudo-educated, corporate and media elites, revengeful and exploitive ethnic and racial elements, managers and bureaucrats, intimidated and paid-off politicians, and bullshitters.

One last reference to the Constitution.  This is what it says in Article II about selecting a president:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . . The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.  . . . The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed.

It’s enough in this context to affirm that the Constitution doesn’t dictate a nation-wide, forever-and-a-day, phenomenally costly, attention-monopolizing, mediocrity-surfacing, and misleading (our political system is not a one-person operation) extravaganza complete with schoolyard insult-level discourse, dressed down business moguls jumping up in the air, and hokey Saturday Night Live appearances.

This presidential election was geared to get us to focus on Trump and Harris—attend to me, care about me, come to my rally, donate to my campaign, support me.  To finish up this writing, I want the frame of reference to be what’s going on with you and me.   Whatever you and I do about presidential elections or anything else politically is going to be among the finite number of actions that will comprise our lives between now and the oblivion and we need to keep that in mind.  Recently in a writing, I took a stab at articulating what I think our lives come down to: “I see our fundamental challenge in life is an individual one: to become the truest, wisest, most productive, most decent, most honorable, and happiest person you can manage in the finite time allotted you on this earth.  Sing your unique song and look out for yourself and yours, find someone to love who will love you back, wish everyone well and help them when you can, try not to harm anybody, even in small ways, be kind, and then die, and try to leave some good behind.”2

I’ve decided that my existence as a human being should be characterized by the highest quality possible to me and personal integrity.  With that as the standard, I couldn’t get with the presidential election hoopla and inflated conception of the presidency it promoted and neither candidate did it for me as a political figure or person, and these days I’m not into compromises and going with the lesser of two evils and I stayed out of it.  I didn’t vote.  Sorry, but I’m not sorry.

Though I don’t have a specific person in mind, I do have an image of somebody I could get behind as a presidential candidate in the future.   It’s someone like an American president a century ago who has been all but forgotten, Calvin Coolidge.3

Calvin Coolidge became president in 1923 upon the death of president Warren G. Harding and was elected to a full term in 1924.  He was a Republican, but that isn’t what draws me to him, he could have been a Democrat.  He declined to run for a second full term as president in 1928.  He was 56 years old and could have kept it going for another four years, but he thought he had completed his work, wasn’t personally ambitious, didn’t feel a need for the limelight, and didn’t view himself as indispensable.

The big reason we’ve heard so little about Calvin Coolidge is because the people who have done the public talking all of my life don’t like presidents like him.  They like top-down, activist presidents who make big things happen of the sort they personally favor, like wars, government control of people’s lives, and showy collectivist ideas: Abraham Lincoln (“Kill ‘em!”), Franklin Roosevelt (“Have I got a program for you”), John Kennedy (“We’re going to the moon!”).   That wasn’t Coolidge.

Coolidge was born in Plymouth, Vermont and grew up among Vermonters, whom he referred to in a writing late in life as “hardy and self-contained people.”  Coolidge was descended from a people with a history and a heritage they were proud of and he gained strength and direction from that in conducting his life.   He was quiet about it, but he cared deeply about others: his wife and two sons, his neighbors, his community, his state and nation.  From all reports, he was a civil and giving person.  No shadiness and scandals with Coolidge.

Coolidge was educated, an honors graduate of Amherst College where he was a successful debater; accomplished, a successful attorney and governor of Massachusetts; and literate, a serious student of philosophy, Hegel and such.   He was committed to racial justice, which included respect and concern for white people.  He was rooted in this constitutional republic and saw himself continuing the American story.  At its core, the American political system is an experiment in personal freedom and responsibility.  It is the opportunity and the challenge to individual human beings to make something worthwhile out of their lives in both the private and public spheres.  It cherishes the right of people to control their own destinies.  Calvin Coolidge sought to free people, not control them.  He didn’t hector people to be this way or that or try to manage their lives and he didn’t take kindly to anybody else doing it.   To him, America was about Americans and their lives, not him and his life.  He wasn’t trying to be the star of the movie, look at me.  He always rented the houses he lived in to keep costs down.

How did Coolidge do as president?  The American economy grew, wages rose, unemployment hovered around a low 3%, the national debt went down, tax rates fell, the budget was a surplus every year, and the federal government was smaller at the end of his six years than it was at the beginning.  Congress took control of immigration with the Immigration Act of 1924.  We didn’t send young people off somewhere to kill and be killed and we didn’t support anybody else doing it.  During Coolidge’s years, Congress endorsed by a vote of 85 to 1 the Kellogg-Brand Pact between the U.S. and France to outlaw war as a means of resolving disputes.  (Frank B. Kellogg was Coolidge’s Secretary of State and Aristide Briand was the French Minister of Foreign Affairs.)  Later, 47 additional countries signed on.  Not bad for a nobody-nothing president who’s been tossed down the memory hole of history by the presumed enlightened among us.

Perhaps a Coolidge type will contribute to taming things down politically and bringing us back to what we are supposed to be about as a country and get me off this couch I’m sitting on, at least to vote.

That’s me. Where are you with any and all of what I’ve brought up here?

Endnotes

  1. See, Robert S. Griffin, “The American Political System and White Racial Discourse,” The Occidental Observer, posted December 13, 2022.
  2. It’s in Robert S. Griffin, “Kinjies and Me,” The Occidental Observer, posted September 28, 2024.
  3. This description of Coolidge is drawn from Robert S. Griffin, “Where is Calvin Coolidge When We Need Him?” The Occidental Observer, posted March 30, 2019.

 

Brat’s All, Folks!: Trans-Westernism and Trump’s Triumph

/12 Comments/in /by

Kamala Harris is perfect. Yes, she’s perfect as an example of what I call a trans-American. Just as the transwoman Caitlin Jenner is a fake woman, so the trans-American Kamala Harris is a fake American. Only those who believe that reality is governed by words and willpower can accept that non-Whites like Harris are true Westerners or men like Jenner are true women. It’s leftists who hold that idiotic belief, because leftism is an ideology of dissolution and destruction, reversing the natural and healthy order of things. It’s reality that should govern words, not vice versa.

Natio naturâ nascitur

And reality did govern words when the word “nation” was born millennia ago in the Latin language. A nation is literally a brotherhood of birth, because the word comes from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Nations are born, not made, and are bonded by blood, not welded with words. But how many English-speakers recognize the shared root of “nation” and “natal”? Far too few. That’s part of why the propaganda-phrase “nation of immigrants” is so widely accepted, even though it’s a complete contradiction in terms. Nations arise by biology, not by geography. You can’t create a nation by mixing wildly diverse peoples on the same patch of land. No, you can only destroy an already existing nation like that. It should be no surprise, then, that the lying propaganda-phrase “nation of immigrants” was created by Jews like Israel Zangwill and Emma Lazarus. After all, Jews are the ultimate nation-wreckers. That’s why they’ve been the driving force in the government of the senile non-entity Joe Biden. The Jew Alejandro Mayorkas waged war on White America by opening the borders even as the Jew Merrick Garland waged war on White America through the law.

Anti-White Jews Merrick Garland and Alejandro Mayorkas

Because Mayorkas and Garland are Jewish, they cannot be genuine Americans. No, they’re trans-Americans and trans-Westerners, wearing fake identities as they work on the latest stage of that age-old Jewish project of wrecking the West. That’s why they’re united in believing that the “greatest threat” to America is precisely what created America and sustains America, namely, “white supremacy.” Like “nation of immigrants,” the phrase has to be translated from lying leftese into English. “Nation of immigrants” means “nation-wrecking by immigrants” and “white supremacy” means “White autonomy” or even simply “White existence.” For Jews like Mayorkas and Garland, it’s intolerable that Whites should have autonomy within and control over America.

Triumph and trauma

The same is true of Jews all over the West. Just as the anti-White Jew Merrick Garland is the attorney general in America, so the anti-White Jew Richard Hermer is the attorney general in Britain. It isn’t a coincidence that slippery lawyers from the same tiny minority occupy the same position on both sides of the Atlantic. Nor is it a coincidence that the actual British prime minister, slippery lawyer Keir Starmer, is married to a Jew just like the would-be president Kamala Harris, another slippery lawyer, whose husband is the trans-American Jew Douglass Emhoff, yet another slippery lawyer. All ambitious politicians in the West know that serving Jewish interests is the surest way to success, just as refusing to serve Jewish interests is the surest way to failure.

But Semito-sycophancy never guaranteed Kamala the top job in American politics. After all, Donald Trump is also a dedicated Semito-sycophant. He’s now triumphed in the presidential race and traumatized the left, who have seen their trans-American candidate crushed by a genuine fascist. He’s a genuine fascist in leftist eyes, at least, but that’s because he’s a genuine American. The White men who founded America would have seen Trump as uncouth and imperfect, but would nevertheless have recognized him as one of their own. Kamala Harris, by contrast, they would have instantly rejected as an absurd and alien imposter. And that’s exactly what she is. But her absurdity was no obstacle in an America that has been colonized by millions of other alien imposters. Her intellectual vacuity was no obstacle either. As the leftist Guardian sorrowfully reviewed the “Kamala Harris campaign in 10 events,” it lamented that a half-witted meme hadn’t propelled Harris to the supremacy that, in leftist eyes, she so richly deserved.

Kamala is brat

One of the surprise early themes of Harris’s campaign was triggered by the [non-White] British pop singer Charli xcx [sic], who tweeted, “kamala IS brat.” It became an instant meme in an early campaign that was defined by a wave of web-based humor over the summer. As Charli explained on TikTok, brat is “just like that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says some dumb things sometimes, who feels herself, but then also maybe has a breakdown, but kind of parties through it”. It was fun while it lasted. But by the end of the brutal campaign — as election day drew near — the joy of brat largely retreated from view. (“From joy to defeat: the Kamala Harris campaign in 10 events,” The Guardian, 6th November 2024)

I’m worried that my brain will start to dribble through my ears if I repeat that definition, but here it is again: brat is “just like that girl who is a little messy and likes to party and maybe says some dumb things sometimes, who feels herself, but then also maybe has a breakdown, but kind of parties through it.” Joy veh! Has America really sunk so low that “kamala IS brat” can be regarded as a potent endorsement of a candidate for the presidency? Well, yes, America has indeed sunk so low. But it’s not just because a formerly White nation has been subverted by trans-American Jews and flooded with non-White aliens. It’s also because another politics-subverting, nation-dissolving group is at work, namely, women. Of course, some women are intellectually serious, emotionally continent, and fully capable of maintaining the high standards created by White men in fields like politics and academia.

The conformist quintessence

But those serious women are raræ aves in a fatuous flock. In general, women believe in feelism, not realism. Just look at women in journalism or showbiz and their overwhelming support for the “brat” candidate. As I said in “Heroines of the Hive-Mind,” the right-wing American Ann Coulter is the witty, insightful, tough-minded exception to the rule of female punditry. The left-wing Briton Zoe Williams is the vapid, conformist, slush-brained quintessence of female punditry. Coulter mocked Kamala; Williams celebrated her. So did countless other female journalists and entertainers. For example, the billionaire Oprah Winfrey waddled on stage with Kamala. But the much bigger billionaire Elon Musk walked on stage with Trump. Musk and Winfrey are thesis and anti-thesis. And no Hegelian synthesis is possible. Musk is White, Winfrey is Black. Musk is male, Winfrey is female. He’s highly intelligent and a realist, she’s an airhead and a feelist. He made his money from engineering and electronics, she made hers from entertainment.

Africa-born and Western, America-born and Wakandan: Elon Musk and Oprah Winfrey (photos from Wikipedia)

Finally, Musk is a genuine Westerner, belongs in America, and enhances America by his presence. Winfrey is a fake Westerner who doesn’t belong in America, and harms America by her presence. But consider this irony: Musk was born in Africa and Winfrey was born in America. Yet it’s Musk who’s the true friend of the West, not Winfrey. Instead, Winfrey is the dedicated enemy of the West. That’s why she tried to collaborate with Kamala in the continued destruction of America, while Musk will now try to collaborate with Trump in the resurrection of America. Trump triumphed, Kamala crashed. Feelism didn’t triumph over realism. Meme-magic did not work. Kamala was brat and then went splat. But the war for the West is very far from over. We can say “Brat’s all, folks!” only of one absurd and illegitimate candidate for the presidency. As Kevin MacDonald has noted: Trump is far from perfect, but he’s the best currently on offer, and Kamala wouldn’t have just been worse, she would have been a total and complete disaster.

Eaten alive by angst

And Trump’s victory is excellent for the right’s morale just as it’s disastrous for the left’s. Feelings don’t govern reality, but they are very important in politics and war. That’s why it’s so good to see a trans-American Jewess announce in the Guardian that “The thought of a Trump presidency is eating me alive.” Jewess Francine Prose is “a former president of PEN American Center,” has twice won the Jewish Book Award, and wrote the introduction to an anthology called Beautiful as the Moon, Radiant as the Stars: Jewish Women in Yiddish Stories (2003). Those are not the adjectives I would apply to Prose herself or to Jewish women in general. As I’ve often pointed out, Jews and leftists wage war on beauty just as they wage war on Whites and the West.

Angst-eaten anti-White Jew Francine Prose (photo from Wikipedia)

In fact, it’s all the same war. Central to the unhinged hatred of leftists for Trump is their fear and loathing of his unabashed Whiteness. He’s a handsome blond man who has married beautiful White women and fathered attractive White children. He’s the antithesis to half-Black (with some White admixture), half-Indian Kamala Harris, who married an ugly Jew and has had no children at all. Leftist Jews like Francine Prose instinctively support ugliness-unleashing non-Whites like Harris against beauty-boosting Whites like Trump. But Prose supports non-Whites only from a safe distance. Her Trumpophobic article complains that the presidential campaign has intruded even into her “peaceful rural neighborhood.” In other words, she lives in an overwhelmingly White district far from Black crime and other forms of non-White enrichment. Prose is a typical leftist hypocrite. But she’s also a typical leftist neurotic: “During the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, my hair began falling out and one of my eyelids started twitching.”

Neurosis is natural for leftists

She was desperately worried about the “survival of democracy,” you see which she fully understands has been corrupted by her co-ethnics into a crusade of anti-White hate. Would Kamala of Color conquer or Toxic Trump triumph? Alas for trans-American Francine Prose, it was the latter. And now she’s being “eaten alive” by the thought of what is to come. So are millions of other neurotics on the left. After all, their neuroticism helps explain why they’re on the left. And why they hate the highly extrovert and unneurotic Donald J. Trump, who pumped his fist seconds after nearly having his head blown off.

Maybe the next leftist assassin will get lucky and finally kill the blond beast. If so, Trump will be dead but blond bestiality will survive. No matter what, the Judeo-leftist war on the White West will continue. But the defeat of Kamala Harris was a major reverse for Judeo-leftism. Now leftist neuroticism and doom-saying will compound that defeat. I don’t think that Trump will deliver on his promises of mass deportation, but he’s already worked wonders for the White cause.

The Trump Victory Is Huge!

/38 Comments/in /by

Predictable outrage in the leftist media:

The Atlantic: An aspiring fascist is the president-elect, again, of the United States. This is our political reality: Donald Trump is going to bring a claque of opportunists and kooks (led by the vice president–elect, a person who once compared Trump to Hitler) into government this winter, and even if senescence overtakes the president-elect, Trump’s minions will continue his assault on democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

So the people who want to change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College and gut the First and Second Amendment are worried that Trump will assault the Constitution. Of course, the left thinks that Trump will end free speech. Idiotic. And yet another example of leftists projecting their own authoritarian attitudes onto the right.

 The New York Times: To roughly half the country, Mr. Trump’s rise portends a dark turn for American democracy, whose future will now depend on a man who has openly talked about undermining the rule of law. Mr. Trump helped inspire an assault on the Capitol in 2021, has threatened to imprison political adversaries and was denounced as a fascist by former aides. But for his supporters, Mr. Trump’s provocations became selling points rather than pitfalls.

So dark. At least they didn’t do the usual leftist mantra calling J6 an insurrection—it would have been the only one in which the insurrectionists had no weapons.  And yeah, the Dems would never think of trying to imprison their political adversaries. It’s beautiful that Jack Smith will be axed and the political prosecutions and civil suits of Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Letitia James will end.

I’m sure NPR is doing the same. I listened the night before and they had a story on Trump’s extreme rhetoric, claiming Trump was threatening the execution of Liz Cheney (ridiculous). But never mentioning the Trump=fascist=Hitler attempt from the entire left media and Harris herself to instill fear in the electorate—not to mention the previous assassination attempts were attempts on Trump, not Harris, likely because of the left’s fear-mongering about what would happen in a second Trump presidency and calling Trump Hitler reincarnated. Hard to blame them Democrats for lack of emphasis on policy. They really didn’t have any other issue to run on except Orange Man bad. Harris saying she wouldn’t do anything different from the Biden disaster (featured in Trump ads) certainly didn’t help her cause.

Takeaways: It is to be hoped that blue state secession, perhaps starting with CalExit along with the rest of the West coast, would become a reality. It’s obvious that we can’t live together and the hatred on the left for the rest of America is palpable.  We can’t even talk to each other. Many families have been torn apart, including mine.  Divorce is the only non-violent solution. Red state exit was always problematic as long as the left saw a path to a permanent majority which they were on the verge of achieving. Now it’s out of reach for at least four years. And red states would welcome a blue-state exit. Such a development would lead to an even greater sort  where red states would see an influx of White people and blue states an influx of college-educated elites who have been propagandized to hate their country along with their dependent low-IQ, welfare-dependent clients.

Trump has got to be aware that he must do his best to get rid of the opposition in the deep state—the unelected bureaucrats who are almost all Democrats and who blocked his efforts in his first term. Trump is older and wiser now—he explicitly acknowledged that he didn’t know how things worked when he arrived in 2017. I have great hope that his appointments will be far better than last time (although I wish he would get over his grudge with Jeff Sessions). His first move should be to fire Christopher Wray who, despite being appointed by Trump, turned the FBI into a totally partisan agency thoroughly on the left. And say goodbye to the poisonous policies of Alexandro Mayorkas and Merrick Garland, chief architects of the worst aspects of the Biden administration. Freedom for the J6 protesters and sealing up the border would be great starts. And then let the promised mass deportations begin. A lot of self-deportation would happen if welfare for illegals was ended and a retroactive end to birthright citizenship (which has never been meaningfully litigated and would give the conservative SCOTUS majority a great chance to really make a difference).

And it’s over for Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State. This may not mean much in terms of policy because some of the names floated for State (Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo) would likely be just as bad, but I am sure that such appointments would get a lot of pushback from people like Tucker Carlson. And I am confident that Carlson will have a very large influence on Trump appointments. His run-ins with the ADL, his opposition to the Great Replacement, his calling out the ADL’s hypocrisy on immigration, and his rejection of important aspects of World War II mythology on which so much of Western mainstream ideology depends are huge pluses. There’s no question that the Ukraine war is now basically over. Zelenskyy will have to negotiate for a change. And quickly. Russia’s aim (and I think it’s their only aim) of controlling the Donbas will be achieved. It will strengthen Russia’s already strong embrace of traditional social and religious values and do the same in many other countries.

The first truly affirmative action presidency didn’t happen. Hillary was at least qualified, but Harris is a low-IQ woman who pretended to be Black and who slept her way into political power in a thoroughly blue state without any meaningful track record of accomplishment apart from her radical reputation. She is a creation of the liberal-left media who went from having no regard for her to suddenly promoting her as the savior of Western Civilization and all that is good. Maybe they should have stuck with the brain-dead Biden. If the Democrats had swept, there would have been four more years of no southern border; no free speech for people on the right and even possible prison sentences for social media posts, as the left has accomplished in the UK;  they would end the filibuster in the Senate, get rid of the Electoral College, and pack the Supreme Court; X would be confronting huge obstacles from the justice department (as they already are), increased advertiser boycotts, and apoplexy from the ADL; the gender insanity would get much worse, with the federal government mandating men in women’s sports, sex changes for children without parental consent, gender propaganda in schools, etc. The election is a much-deserved rebuke to people like Rachel Levine, the trans activist who advocated all the most extreme gender insanity.

Because the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world, Trump’s election will be a boost to the right in Europe which is already talking loudly about remigration. More than anything else, the West has to renounce the regime of multiculturalism and massive immigration which, if they continue, would completely destroy the people and culture of Europe. It’s no surprise that Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s nationalist and anti-immigration PM, was the first head of state to congratulate Trump even before his victory was official. “‘Good morning, Hungary! On the road to a beautiful victory,’ Orbán wrote on social media, captioning an image of himself watching CNN’s election coverage on television.”

And what comes after Trump could be even better. I know a lot of people on our side a cynical about J.D. Vance (and of Trump as well). But this GOP has come a long way from the days of G.W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney et al. and it’s hard to believe that that corrupt, traitorous party can come back. People like Liz Cheney and her war-mongering father might as well join the Democrats. They have no future in the GOP. And the supremely evil neocons like Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and Max Boot are gone forever. Thank god!

It’s a huge blow to the corrupt legacy media. The New York Times ran between 5-10 articles and op-eds every day hating on everything about Trump, including his family, and I am sure the same was true of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post,  The LA Times, etc. They have lost their credibility, spending their huge advantage in spreading propaganda on lies about Russia, Russia, Russia, the bullshit impeachments and prosecutions, the bogus J6 committee, the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines, and loving it when Trump was sued successfully by unhappy liberal women. A convicted felon is in the White House! Horrors! No one with any brain believes a thing they say related to politics.

A huge thanks to Elon Musk who campaigned with Trump and donated massively to him (Tesla’s stock is up over 14 percent as I write this, giving him yet more billions). And to Joe Rogan, who interviewed Trump and endorsed him. Both of these guys are former liberals who got woken up because of the extreme policies of the left—in the case of Musk I think it was when is son became his daughter and completely renounced him. Musk and Rogan have huge followings, especially among young men. Young White men likely voted much more for Trump this time around compared to last time. To the extent that they can overcome their college miseducation, they must see the writing on the wall and understand that getting the jobs and promotions they deserve will simply not happen with the left in charge. And when the culture shifts in the direction I expect it to, women will follow. It’s a law of nature: women are much more inclined to stay within the safety and protection of the herd.

But now is not the time for gloating and certainly not for complacency. It’s a time for doing all we can to pressure the Trump administration to do what they said they would do, starting with mass deportation. It won’t be easy. The formidable leftist legal establishment will put up all the roadblocks they can. And we will hear sob stories galore from the illegals—not to mention the liberals. I have to admit that watching what will be pathetic displays of weeping, anger, and sadness to be expected from the left will be heartwarming. As will be Hollywood celebrities threatening to leave the country. Please go!

But the last thing needed now is to think that this is a complete victory. We must be constantly critical of the backsliding that is so natural following a victory like this. We are a very long way from a real victory that would reestablish a White America. But it could happen eventually. This win may be a baby step. But it’s definitely a baby step in the right direction.

Counter-Currents Podcast: Greg Johnson, James Edwards, and Kevin MacDonald on the Election

/5 Comments/in /by

Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 613
Kevin MacDonald & James Edwards on the US Elections

Kevin MacDonald and James Edwards joined Greg Johnson on the most recent edition of Counter-Currents Radio to discuss the upcoming US presidential election, other current events, and, as always, your questions. It is now available to download or listen to online.

1:04 – Who is your pick for president this year? (Kevin MacDonald’s “Why I Voted for Trump,” Greg Johnson’s “Why I Voted for Vance-Trump” and “Trump: Without Illusions or Apologies, 2024,” and Richard Parker’s “Good Intentions or Maddest Folly?”
10:08 –  Why Greg is supporting Trump
16:00 – “You can’t let his happen!” Kevin’s thoughts on accelerationism
18:53 – James’ take on accelerationism
23:37 – Who would you like Trump to nominate as Attorney General?
27:56 – Question about Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Racoon
32:53 – Should we encourage young people in our movement to become lawyers?
39:02 – Unfair criticism of Trump and censorship
41:41 – Twitter censorship under Elon Musk
48:41 – Question on the aftermath of the election
50:55 – Greg Johnson’s “Amnesty Your Ancestors.”
55:26 – Will a Trump election make things like CalExit or national divorce more likely? (Greg Johnson’s “In Praise of Calexit.”)
1:04:05 – Question on the Biden administration making the use of force against protestors legal
1:18:25 – Could a Trump win be detrimental to our cause by making the left strengthen their resolve?
1: 23: 29 – Trump has destroyed the Republican party of Dick Cheney
1:28:39 – English YouTubers making videos about wanting to leave the United Kingdom
1:35:16 – Will a Harris victory trigger more backlash against “woke”?
1:40:05 – Will there be another attempt to steal the election?
1:53:30 – What is your gut instinct saying, a Trump win or a Harris win?
2:00:30 – Will “sexism” save us from a Harris presidency?

To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”

Audio Player