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 6^th 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.

Trump

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.

Globalism

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).

Epilogue

The book ends with an epilogue obviously written sometime after the main text. Here Hanson again discusses Trump, along with the 2020 election, January 6^th, 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 6^th 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).

Conclusion 

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).

Does Clown World issue secret (and separate) awards for Jewiest Jew and Polymorphousest Pervert? If so, then I think one man may well have been bagging both awards for years: the polymorphous Israeli pervert Jonathan Yaniv (born 1986/7), who came to the fascinated and disgusted attention of millions of people around the world when he sued female beauticians in Canada for refusing to wax his testicles.

Transgender splendor

I’m sorry: that should be “her testicles.” Indeed, it should be “her lesbian testicles.” Yaniv claimed to be transgender and in mainstream modern leftism that claim instantly converted him into a completely authentic woman, despite the male genitalia he still possessed. It also lifted him to the top of the leftist tree. Although leftists say they believe in equality, in fact they operate a strict hierarchy of victimhood that grants victim-groups, like Blacks or gays or women, special privilege and power over villain-groups, like Whites or straights or men. As I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts,” under normal circumstances Black lesbians are as far above straight White men in the leftist hierarchy as a bar-headed goose flying over Mt Everest, at 29,000 feet above sea-level, is above a sea-cucumber grubbing in the slime at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, at 36,000 feet below sea-level. But some straight White male perverts came up with a clever way of subverting the leftist hierarchy and turning leftism against itself. These perverts have a sexual fetish known as autogynephilia, in which they fantasize about being women, wearing women’s clothes, and entering all-female spaces like dressing-rooms and toilets.

“Who is Jessica Yaniv Simpson?” A fascinating question answered at MeowMix.org

But if they’d been honest and told leftists that they were straight White men with a sexual fetish, they would have sunk even lower in the leftist hierarchy. Instead, the perverts cleverly aligned themselves with the sanctified lesbian-and-gay community. They weren’t straight White men with a fetish, not at all. No, they were a persecuted and misunderstood sexual minority – the most persecuted and misunderstood of all. Et voilà! By calling themselves “transgender,” the straight White men were able to leap above Black lesbians in the leftist hierarchy. In Britain, a Black-Jewish lesbian feminist called Linda Bellos (born 1950) didn’t get rapt attention when she pointed out what the straight White male perverts were up to. She didn’t get instant obedience when she said that they shouldn’t be allowed to invade female territory. On the contrary, she was called a bigot and a hater for denying that these straight White men were both fully authentic women and fully authentic lesbians. As I said at the Occidental Observer back in 2019:

[Bellos] isn’t superior to all stale pale males. Some of them are armed with a superpower that allows them to bound above Bellos in the victimhood hierarchy. Astonishingly, they’ve managed to brand Bellos as a hater from whom they need protection. Just let that sink in: some stale pale males have successfully claimed to be the victims of an elderly Black-Jewish lesbian. In 2017 they got Bellos banned from making a speech to a feminist society at Cambridge University, one of England’s biggest cult-centres of minority worship. Even more impressively, they set the police on her the following year: she was “interviewed under caution” after being accused of committing a hate-crime against them. (“Power to the Perverts,” The Occidental Observer, 6th March 2019)

Bellos is a TERF, a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, and in mainstream leftism that’s a very bad thing to be. The TERF wars are about territory and who can legitimately maintain borders against whom. Whites can’t maintain literal or cultural borders against Blacks, because Whites are lower in the leftist hierarchy than Blacks. And so Blacks can take any White role in acting, but Whites are now banned from taking any Black role. Similarly, women can take on male roles, but men are banned from taking female roles – unless those men claim to be “transgender.” However, by denying that men can become women, lesbian TERFs like Bellos haven’t embraced biological realism. They’re still leftists and they still believe in hierarchy, not in reality. They just want to keep lesbians like themselves higher in the hierarchy than straight men and don’t want to accept such concepts as “the female penis” and “lesbian testicles.” Alas for Bellos, boring lesbians like her aren’t entertaining like exhibitionist trannies, as I pointed out in “Dykes Are Dull.” That’s part of why trannies have been winning the TERF wars.

A persecuted and misunderstood trans-lesbian

But Jonathan Yaniv didn’t win his legal war on the female cosmeticians who refused to wax his “lesbian testicles.” Instead, he was utterly defeated (see the Wikipedia article for “Jessica Yaniv”). After that, you might have expected him to retire instantly and entirely from public life, particularly when you look at what was exposed to a world-wide audience about his polymorphous perversions. From pedophilia to tampon-fetishism, Yaniv could keep a large team of psychiatrists busy for years trying to turn him from a predatory pervert into a productive member of society. But I don’t think the psychiatrists would ever succeed. Yaniv doesn’t seem capable of embarrassment or self-reform. “Shame” isn’t a concept that he recognizes. No matter how badly he misbehaves and no matter how many court-cases he loses, he still sees himself as the victim and fights on against the bigots and haters who refuse to accept that he is a persecuted and misunderstood trans-lesbian with “special needs.” He’s now had “bottom surgery,” lost his lesbian testicles, and is working for a “Gender Studies Masters” at Simon Fraster University (SFU) in Canada. There’s an entire website, MeowMix.org, dedicated to recording his misbehavior, cataloguing his perversions, and predicting his eventual incarceration. Yaniv plows on regardless, a “proud lesbian” in a cruel world.

But amid all the commentary on and condemnation of Yaniv, one central and highly significant fact has generally been overlooked. Yaniv is an Israeli Jew. He looks like a Jew and has what sounds like an Israeli accent. MeowMix.org claims that “Yaniv was raised Jewish,” says that “the whole family emigrated from Israel”, and has documented how his mother, Miriam Yaniv (née Miriam Altman, born 1954), tried to destroy proof of her Jewish ancestry on an “Israeli family history site.” Like his mother, he has a Jewish forename and, like the Israel singer Idan Yaniv (born 1986), he has a Hebrew surname that means “he will prosper.” Yaniv also behaves like a quintessential Jewish stereotype, with a mixture of brazen perversity, unblushing shamelessness, and self-righteous aggression. Indeed, Yaniv seems to provide a paradigmatic example of three of the most important background traits for Jewish activism identified by Kevin MacDonald: intelligence, aggressiveness, and psychological intensity. But the most common claim about Yaniv’s race is that he is “white.” This would normally be called Jewish erasure, because ignorant people are erasing someone’s precious and unique Jewish identity. In Yaniv’s case, other Jews have not been anxious to claim him as one of their own. It’s another example of Jews as Schrödinger’s Tribe, switching between a Jewish identity and a generic White identity according to whatever best suits Jewish interests.

White standards don’t apply

Plainly, it doesn’t suit Jewish interests for Jonathan Yaniv to be identified as a Jew. However, it does suit the interests of truth and science. Most or even all of the commentary on Yaniv loses its salience when he is correctly recognized as a Jew. By White standards, his psychology is indeed warped and his behavior is indeed obnoxious. But White standards don’t apply to him, because he isn’t White. Yaniv’s White critics, like the Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy, have tried to shame or ridicule him as though he were susceptible to genetically mediated techniques of social control developed by Whites amongst themselves. But he isn’t susceptible, because he isn’t White. He’s not simply Jewish but Israeli Jewish, the product of a majority-Jewish culture where White standards don’t apply. For example, why is Yaniv shameless? Well, you can’t embarrass an Israeli.

And why is Yaniv such a polymorphous pervert? That is surely related to the higher rate of psychopathology found among Ashkenazi Jews, as described by the Danish researcher Emil O. W. Kirkegaard in a recent paper called “A theory of Ashkenazi genius: intelligence and mental illness.” Kirkegaard argues that the contributions of Ashkenazim to cognitively demanding fields are even greater than one would expect from their higher average IQ. The extra factor, in his opinion, is the higher rate of Ashkenazi psychopathology, which facilitates their ability to generate new ideas and make unexpected connections. Meanwhile, their higher intelligence mitigates the severity of the symptoms and behavior they exhibit, and allows them to remain productive. It’s an interesting theory, but, as is characteristic of Kirkegaard, it assumes a more positive view of Jewish contributions to intellectual life than I think is warranted by the facts. Marx, Freud and Boas surely count as “Jewish geniuses,” but they have harmed the cause of true science rather than advanced it.

Other Jewish geniuses have been central to the creation and promotion of the translunatic cult, as described by Scott Howard in The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020). Jonathan Yaniv is not a genius, but he has been diagnosed with “depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.” And the outsize disruption he has caused, as a single Jewish individual in a gentile society, is a clear example of how the West would be better off without Jews and their genius. We don’t live in a more beautiful and truthful world thanks to Jews. On the contrary, we live in a much uglier and much more mendacious one. In his uniquely repulsive way, the Jewish trans-pedo and tampon-fetishist Jonathan Yaniv is just as much proof of that as the Jewish Marx, Freud and Boas.

Our once great nation seems to be coming apart right before our eyes. Americans are perhaps more divided on social and political matters than at any other time throughout its history. Not only are we experiencing a recession and a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Ukraine that’s costing taxpayers billions each month, but crime throughout the country has skyrocketed (at least in every Blue state and major city). Anti-White rhetoric in the public sphere is not only viewed as perfectly tolerable, but it’s increasing as well. Jewish activist groups such as the ADL are on the constant warpath to stamp out even the slightest whiff of any perceived “anti-Semitism.”

The federal government lies openly to the American people, and a complicit media makes certain to obfuscate any information that might place the Biden administration in a poor light—right now they’re gearing up to intimidate witnesses who might shed light on the Biden family influence pedaling scams. Gay marriage, Transgender acceptance, Critical Race Theory and drag queen story hour are unashamedly promoted by our public-school systems. District Attorney Office’s throughout many U.S. states are intentionally lenient in terms of sentencing Black and Hispanic criminals as a means of eradicating “systemic racism” from the justice system. This not only perverts justice, but it exacerbates the nation’s widespread crime problem since offenders are continuously released back into the same communities they’ve victimized.

The 2020 presidential election was fraught with fraud, and the recent mid-term elections seemed to have had its fair share as well. All of this and more has led some to decry that the entire system is “rigged,” and that voting is “useless.” Whether it’s Democrats or Republicans, the entire Congress is corrupt (save a select few members). Congressional treason becomes even more evident when one realizes that commitment to Israel’s security is their top priority, including giving billions annually to the nation for their military defense. Putting “America first” is evidently the farthest thought from our Congress.

Claiming that America’s two-party political system is nothing more than a “uniparty” seems at times to have some validity. Both Democrats and Republicans, for example, support illegal immigration, although for different reasons. The Democrats see illegals as their new and growing voter base, whereas Republicans see them as cheap labor for corporations and small businesses. Everyone seems to win except the average White American whose country is slipping away right before them.

Republicans and Democrats largely agree that racial ‘diversity’ is a good thing for the country. Both parties also support “gay and LGBTQ+ rights.” Both Republicans and Democrats maintain unwavering support for Israel and are committed to stamping out every vestige of “anti-Semitism.”

None of this is good for Heritage Americans who wish to maintain an authentic connection to the vision of their nation’s Founders.

Along with these discouraging realities comes the chorus to abandon voting altogether, to disengage from the corrupt political system, especially when one recalls the level of obeisance Trump gave to Jews and Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis, if ever elected to the highest office in the land, will prove to be no better than Trump in this regard. Neither will Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia. GOP leadership has a long record of not providing their party with a true reformer, a fighter who’s willing to get dirty with the Democrats. The closest we’ve had was Donald Trump, and he was despised from the very outset by establishment Republicans. He managed, unfortunately, to also discredit his own efforts by appointing persons to his administration that undermined him at every step. Trump also failed to stay on target and to fulfill his campaign promises.

One writer, Richard Solomon, has expressed in clear terms the futility of voting and playing the Republican-versus-Democrat election charade:

What makes voting such a destructive psyop is that we’re in a never-ending election cycle. A lot of people exert much of their emotional energy on the Red vs. Blue puppet show. I think it would be psychologically healthier to accept that voting in a dictatorship is as much a waste of time as fitting Janet Yellen with a chastity belt. I understand why some cling to the “we live in a democracy” fantasy. Reality can be harsher than sandpaper underwear. (“Breaking the Voting Psyop Addiction,” The Unz Review, November 23, 2022)

It’s hard not to empathize with Solomon’s article; he makes some valid points. It’s easy to get so disgusted with the current situation of the country and just throw up one’s hands and give up. I seriously doubt, however, that such an approach will prove fruitful in the end. Oh sure, it sounds good in theory. As Joseph Stalin once said, “It’s not the vote that counts, but who counts the votes.” Of what value, then, is voting in such a corrupt and rigged system? If you try to engage the system by voting or accept its validity, you only prove what a gullible sheep you are, right? But what it amounts to is nothing more than an emotional temper tantrum declaring that it’s all pointless, that the situation is hopeless and there’s not anything we can do about it.

Reading through Solomon’s article one finds no remedy or alternative to not voting. Perhaps he will provide one in a later article, but I couldn’t find anything that might give us some direction on these matters. Yet that seems to be the crux of the problem when declaring that voting is futile — namely, the absence of plausible alternatives and solutions. If dissidents on the right were to stop voting, then what? What would be our next course of action if any?

Even if one is convinced that voting is foolish, deeper and more practical questions still need to be addressed. If millions of sane, politically conservative people throughout the U.S. suddenly declined to vote, what would this lead to? 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 (Is diversity really a strength?). 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 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.

You think the next pandemic is going to be harder for our elites to implement when they know full well that more than half the country has given up their voting responsibilities? They will proudly declare that we have surrendered and have discovered the wisdom of submitting to their great plans for all Americans.

Perhaps someone’s going to suggest that all of us non-voters will unite and fight off the government. Oh sure, that’s going to be a marvelous success! And a whole lot of our people will be killed as a result. Why should we expect that a military conflict with the federal government would prove successful when half of the American population can’t even agree on what constitutes a marriage or gender. Most Americans have been dumbed down too badly to even understand what we’re trying to say to them. Racially conscious Whites are also too busy with constant infighting among themselves, so the likelihood of them uniting in any significant way is slim at best. Most Whites are unwilling and unprepared to fight government tyranny with arms despite what some “second amendment patriots” claim. They’re much too comfortable and well-fed.

Granted, the Republicans are nothing to praise, but by them filling seats in both the House and Senate, we at least maintain a congressional gridlock until the situation improves. And there are good reasons to believe things might improve.

There has been a growing resistance to the old guard within the Republican Party, and some headway has been made in reforming or at least improving it. Granted, it’s not where I want it to be, but to simply throw up our hands and declare “Don’t Vote!” will place us on a pathway full of even greater troubles than we’re currently experiencing. The Democrats will make sure to exploit every ounce of it too.

Despite his many faults, Trump at least awakened millions concerning the Washington Swamp, illegal immigration, and even made statements opposed to our current high levels of legal immigration based on nothing but family connections and a desire to come to the US. Racial issues that Republicans refused to even entertain just seven years ago, are now openly discussed. Whites in America are becoming more politically informed, and a growing number of them have a great distrust in their government. There is talk openly of secession by White Americans, an idea that was laughable a decade earlier. A growing number of patriotic Americans speak freely about how evil their government is. They are also disgusted by increasing levels of Black crime throughout the nation. Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and ‘woke’ ideology are reviled by these same patriotic Americans. More Whites are becoming “red-pilled” on race and politics. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter may well prove to be a watershed moment.

The woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 12, 2022

All of this is working well for us despite setbacks now and then.

Conservative and evangelical Christians are also opposed to ‘woke’ propaganda. The only ‘Christians’ who support such ideas are liberal Christians and, contrary to what many think, their numbers are dwindling. Their churches are largely empty. Those “Bible-believing” Christians, on the other hand, would agree with many things we believe, much more so than the average liberal Democrat. Thus, rather than viewing them as enemies with all the accompanying epithets (e.g., “Christ-cucks”), we would be wise to view them as potential allies in resisting the Leftist matrix that has been imposed on all of us. This doesn’t mean we have to agree with their religious views (especially those pertaining to Israel), but simply an acknowledgement that there is more socially and politically that unites us than divides us.

It’s important to also recall that it’s not Christians who are calling for atheists or race-realists to be de-platformed and censored. Christians are not brutally attacking those who differ from them on social or political issues. No, this is what the Left does. Whatever one may think of evangelical, Protestant, or Orthodox Christians, they are not leading the charge to take away freedom of expression nor to persecute political dissidents.

Another thing to consider is how swiftly the Democrats have worked to destroy and make unlivable much of the country. They are their own worst enemies, and in some respects, they are driving many Americans to our camp. Democrats don’t seem to be able to temper their insanity — it’s on a feed-forward cycle that gets ever more insane. This will inevitably result in our favor. Americans can put up with a lot, but take away their comforts, their freedoms, tax them at even higher rates than currently, or endlessly propagandize their children to be freaks and degenerates — an ideological agenda that Democrats are unwilling to part with — and there is going to be hell to pay. Most people just want to be left alone. They want societal peace and stability — the very thing that the Democrat Party can never give them. Eventually, our national insanity will subside once enough people are forced to see what a cesspool a Democrat-run nation amounts to.

What about all the voter fraud on the part of Democrats? What use is there in voting when there are so many ways to manipulate and cheat the system? This is not easy to answer, and I don’t pretend to know how to fix the system. In person voting with a valid ID would be a great idea that would be pilloried as “Jim Crow 2.0” by the left. I’m certain that problems associated with voter fraud will not be rectified any time soon. Yet should any of that compel us to abandon all hope and stop voting? Of course not.

Part of the answer, it seems to me, is to push for greater accountability among those who oversee the process, including scrutiny over how the votes are tabulated. This places a mandate on conservative voters to make certain their elected officials are both hearing and doing something about any potential voter fraud. It’s simply an issue we will have to continuously address and ferret out.

Some have suggested that non-woke Americans break from the GOP and create a third party that would more align with our political beliefs. As enticing as such an idea may be, I doubt it would work. It would only serve to deeply divide Republicans and guarantee Democrat victories in every race. As flawed as the GOP may be, it seems better to work within the Republican party in reforming it.

With due respect to those who would differ with me on the matter of voting, I seriously doubt that a complete abandonment of our voting rights is the answer to our problems. Throwing up our hands and refusing to participate sounds good in theory when one is deeply frustrated, but it will hardly do any useful service to our people and future generations of White Americans.