Hail Trump, But Let’s Keep Our Heads

First of all, congratulations to our new President-elect, Donald J. Trump. We try not to get sucked into the democratic fever, but it was hard to ignore an obviously great man with the right kind of vision making a serious go of it against all the corruption and dysfunction that plagues us.

We wish Mr. Trump the very best of luck. May he strike with the ruthless ferocity of the lightning, and may he be guided by the clear and wise illumination of the sun. If he is the man many think he is, all decent folk can rejoice.

But let’s be realistic and appraise the magnitude of the challenge before him. If he just wishes to be a good president in the current system, I’m sure he’ll do a fine job and doesn’t need our help.

However, doing so will not halt the decline of America, and it will not truly Make America Great Again. If just being a good president is his game, there is no reason for us to get excited. We are interested because we have another vision of what a Trump dynasty might accomplish to make a serious, possibly decisive dent in the historical trend of the declining vitality of Western civilization. If he dares to make an attempt at that sort of greatness, then we have a very serious question on our hands of what will be necessary and how we can help.

So, let’s start with the diagnosis, which will tell us how deep the rot goes, and thus how deeply we must cut to purify our civilization. It is not just the current elites, though many are indeed corrupt and incompetent and they do hate us. It is not just the anti-Western Jews, though many of the worst perpetrators of civilizational decline are of that group. It’s not even the whole Protestant/Puritan/Progressive/politically-correct ideological axis centered on Harvard, though it has been the principle ideology of the forces of our decline. These things are all contributory, and will have to be dealt with, but they are symptoms generated by an underlying cancer.

The underlying cancer is the way power works in the West. Specifically, the false notions of division of power, checks and balances, liberalism, democracy, and limited government. This is counterintuitive, so we will have to explain it:

When we see government overreach, tyranny, and deliberate destruction of our way of life, it is easy to think that government power as such is bad, rather than to ask why it is doing those things. Let’s look at the why:

The elites need to go to war against the civilized structure of society – a truthful and inquisitive press, a powerful economy, big old families, a strong middle class, religion, efficient training-focused education, free association, marriage, strong virtuous culture, strong communities, law and order, carefully selective high-quality and culturally compatible immigration, and so on – because each of those things, in a democratic or divided-power system, becomes a power base for their enemies, or pockets of resistance to their rule, or on the other hand can be corrupted to become a power base for the elites. Thus, the structure of society is either damaged or weaponized, as we see. This produces more or less all the direct symptoms we want to fix.

We blame this on the U.S. political system itself, because the entire premise of that system is to prevent the elite from accumulating a decisive and unified lead in political power. To see why this is a problem, let’s examine its opposite: the absolute, unlimited, divine right monarchy, where instead of being divided, power is as much as possible consolidated in a single office, the Crown.

In such a system, has the Crown anything to fear from a strong society? Not at all. No one can vote, so they can’t organize a democratic challenge. They can’t own strategic weapons, so they can’t take on the royal military. They can’t conspire without the all-seeing eye of the Crown taking notice and shutting them down or co-opting them, because the Crown is quite simply better at its core competency, gaining and defending political power, compared to everyone else. If some large sub-empire like Microsoft or Silicon Valley or Harvard gets out of hand, the Crown can formally nationalize them and make sure they are coordinated and loyal. As long as the crown maintains a decisive lead in political power, and the expertise at such, and in an absolute monarchy it has no barrier to doing so, it can simply relax and let civilization flourish, and even invest in civilization, without losing sleep, and taking drastic measures, over its security.

So this is the king-pill: that power we shall always have with us, and that it is thus much better for everyone to kneel, hail, and do the King’s will than to wear ourselves out in endless political conflict at the expense of our civilization.

The democratic republican immediately asks, if monarchy is so great, why have all past monarchies been such a mess? The answer, of course, is those eras in history where power was truly consolidated and secure, and conflict thus eliminated, were of course the finest, but that is a discussion for another time and not primarily the subject of this essay.

The democratic republican’s second objection is: what do we do when we get a bad king?

Let’s hope we get a good one. But what is a king, what is his job, and what does it mean to be bad at it? The king’s primary job is to fill the power vacuum with a single will, so that factional elites do not have to weaponize and ruin the rest of society in order to struggle to accumulate power.

His secondary job is to turn that will towards the improvement of our race, the betterment of our civilization, and the glory of God. This is also a discussion for another time, but we’ll say for now that our primary obstacle to the accomplishment of the second job is our elite’s terribly destructive incompetence at the first, driven by the underlying handicap of democracy. Without democracy, they would either consolidate power and refocus on the problem of how to run a civilization, or they would find themselves replaced by someone who could. As an additional point, this does not mean handing absolute power over to elites who have gained a certain amount of power through navigating within a political system shaped by insecure power.

As for whether the King has the right vision for the future of Western civilization, we believe that Trump is good enough, and that this is a much easier problem to leave to future generations than how to rebuild civilization.

So. Democracy is cancer. Get rid of it, and we are left with the merely herculean task of flushing the crud out of our shiny new monarchy, and strengthening our empire. Fail to get rid of democracy and the crud will pile up ever faster than we can shovel it, because our elites will find that the crud is a necessary aid to democratic rule.

In considering the the endgame of Trump’s administration, we conclude that it must be the end of democracy and the coronation of the Trump dynasty as the royal family of the world-spanning Holy American Empire. We can support nothing less in good conscience.

But how do we get there from here?

First of all, Trump will need a very strong, sufficiently large, and ideologically conditioned organization to pull off any serious change in Washington. How much he can do, whether he merely paves the way for Restoration later, or does it himself now, depends on this.

We could go into the details, but we don’t believe he has the loyal manpower, the intellectual foundation, or the mandate to do a full push for singular executive power:

He’s got his family, Trump organization people, and some other men; he’s got the fanatic loyalty of as many far-right supporters as he can vet; he’s got a good base of useful, if not entirely trustworthy for close coordination, political allies throughout the system and outside it; and he’ll get a lot of cooperation from the police, military, gun-owning public, and the Russians, if need be.

But as far as we can tell, he doesn’t have the cabal of dozens of elite and loyal statesmen he would need to actually build a new government that didn’t inherit the structural problems of the old one. If he does, they don’t have the intellectual and ideological framework of royalist political structure, royalist domestic order, and royal imperialist foreign policy, worked out in enough detail to make the kind of transition we need.

And he can’t get this stuff at this stage. Ready or not, the rocket has left the pad, and it has only what’s on board. Notice that even Putin still hires mostly his old KGB buddies for key positions. Because you can’t trust a talented man who shows up after the critical milestones of your ascent. He might just be a disloyal opportunist. Even one of Trump’s most prominent open supporters, Peter Thiel, emphasizes this in his book “Zero to One”, suggesting that startups (and what is a new regime but a startup?), should hire as much as possible only from one’s trusted friend network. As far as elite officers go, Trump is stuck with people he already has good relationships with, or he will have to compromise on loyalty. He’s a good businessman, but he’s not magic.

So he’s got who he’s got, and it’s not enough for full Restoration. Short of a Reichstag fire and a human resources miracle, all he can shoot for is to purge some corruption, push things in the right direction, repair some damage, and buy time for a more complete Restoration in the future.

Given that he’s not going to be able to become absolute ruler of America, there are two major parts of his mandate as a merely democratic president:

  1. Make America Great Again. Basically, while he’s in office, he needs to do a good job. I have no doubt that he can do so, assuming he can manage to make deals with the bureaucracies. As much as possible within a democratic framework, Make America Great Again. Make some great trade deals, strengthen our international position, purge the corrupt, reboot the economy, stop crime and illegal immigration, and psychologically heal the deep social divisions produced by democratic politics. He doesn’t need our advice here.

  2. Unify, deradicalize, and secure a responsible long-term elite coalition. Thinking about the slightly longer game, if Trump merely kicks the beehive and leaves the leftist elite intact and radicalized, they’ll work overtime in the areas he doesn’t directly control, and once he leaves office, to continue to subvert America and Western civilization. Mitigating this will be really tricky without being able to get rid of democracy or fully purge the elite.

Here’s an intuition for that second issue: Trump has just proved that the left weren’t importing enough vote-slave immigrants, that they weren’t weaponizing education hard enough, that they need to be more underhanded in subverting the ability of the civilized forces of society to hijack political power.

We can see this on Facebook and Twitter: while we’re having fun “salt mining” and laughing at our (temporarily) defeated enemies, a lot of these leftists are being radicalized. This is bad. They will come back with vengeance when given the chance.

Their retaliation will just cause more chaos and division. That’s unacceptable. So we need to prevent that from happening. The non-obvious but necessary solution is that Trump needs to leave the presidency with the political elite unified, de-radicalized, and secure, rather than divided, hateful, or broken.

It’s the same reason we oppose democracy. A unified and secure elite, that is, one that can work together amicably, and has no immediate powerful enemies, can rule responsibly. But to actually rule responsibly, they have to be into ruling responsibly, not hatefully destroying things associated with previous enemies, which means you have to get rid of those people. Thus, unified, secure, and de-radicalized.

If the elite is left divided, factions will immediately re-radicalize and start smashing up the structure of society again in their struggle for dominance. If the elite is left insecure, in that they have not closed off avenues of challenge, some new counter-elite will spring up and oppose them, and we’ll be back to the divided and re-radicalized situation were in the first place.

So, how can Trump unify, secure, and de-radicalize the elite? Move left on key causes like economics and health care to take the wind out of their sails, rebuild the Republican Party, throw the Democrats into chaos, expose, purge, and destroy all the crooks and radicals, including non-governmental actors like the foundations and Soros, make magnanimous alliances with the rest of the elite, strategically change immigration policy, deconstruct leftist ideological propaganda and disable their propaganda organs and speech controls, build the wall, get the universities and media to play nice, sow dissent among the enemy, weaken democracy, and Make America Great Again for all Americans. We could go into infinite detail, but that’s not our job here.

Our point here is that the purpose of Trump’s presidency is not to go in there and piss people off, smash things up, stimulate the enemy’s immune system, and have fun. That just results in us getting genocided in 4-8 years when Trump is out and the commies are back in, madder than ever.

No, the point is to build and rearrange whatever is necessary to temporarily stop the decline caused by democratic incentives and ideology, to buy time to put together a real Restoration. And the only way to do that is to make the elite unified, secure, and de-radicalized, so that when Trump leaves office, there is no backlash.

Trump’s new government is now hiring people like us. For those of you who will get in on that, your mission is simple: purge the radicals, magnanimously unify the elite, and learn things and meet people who can be used for a real Restoration. Don’t expect to achieve full Restoration, and don’t just sow chaos and hate; that will only make things worse.

And that’s about all we can hope for with Trump. It’s been done before, after Lincoln and with FDR. I don’t know if Trump is that good, but maybe it can be done. Good luck to ye.

But whatever happens, it’s not going to be enough. Democracy and communism will not be defeated this time, and when Trump is done, if democracy still stands, all the worst of the modern world will come crawling back to us.

So let’s keep our heads, and keep this in mind: Trump will not end democracy and bring about the coming golden age. He won’t do so because no one was ready with a männerbund of a thousand virtuous statesmen with a full vision and plan. Therefore, if that’s going to happen, while Trump and company labor valiantly in the Potomac swamp, someone has to be building that intellectual and human infrastructure for the true Restoration in the future.

It is not immediate power we need for the long game, but wisdom, vision, virtue, and solidarity. We will not get these from Trump’s administration. These things can only be built without the distractions of power. The men of the Trump administration will be busy playing anti-communist whack-a-mole and thinking about a very different set of strategic considerations than a long-term Restoration-focused research team must be. Their work will be valuable I’m sure, but they will not have the time or attention to think about the long game.

So, the Hestia Society will continue its work in private. We will continue our research, continue to organize, and continue to network. Trump will be helpful, but our task is so much bigger than this. Get in touch if you want to help.

And, if we are patient and prudent, and we do a good job putting together our team and Restoration vision, in a decade or two, far more power will be available to us for our true task, which is not winning elections, but finally pulling America and mankind out of the Kali Yuga and into a new golden age.

So Hail Trump, but let’s keep our heads. There’s a lot of work to do.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. >We can see this on Facebook and Twitter: while we’re having fun “salt mining” and laughing at our (temporarily) defeated enemies, a lot of these leftists are being radicalized. This is bad. They will come back with vengeance when given the chance.

    I’m seeing actual introspection and from leftists (e.g., Freddie deBoer, the Discourse Lover), who realize that Tweeting about the extinction of white men is not a winning strategy, and who are sympathetic to the populist challenge to neoliberalism. I think they will become more reasonable

    The ones I see doubling down are liberals.

    Trump has sons, and a desire to leave his name forever imprinted on history motivates him, no doubt. I think he has some cryptomonarchial ambitions.

  2. I’m not sure I understand your argument here because of the word “elite” here. To borrow from Sovietology, are you referring to the apparatchik or the nomenklatura? No successful Restoration movement can allow the former nomenklatura to remain, it always requires their liquidation. The Normans killed the Saxon nobility and married their daughters. The Roundheads were exiled to North America by the Tory Restoration in 1660. If the Liberal elites (in this sense) stay in this country, it ensures perpetual war.

    If you meant the apparatchik, then ignore this comment. I acknowledge that society cannot be run without the compliance of upper-middle managers, bureaucrats, and the various technocrats.

    1. Some of them need to go. Many of them are merely cynical, rather than evil, and leaving them in place is less work and not much of a threat.

    2. Michael Rothblatt November 12, 2016 at 6:05 am

      >I acknowledge that society cannot be run without the compliance of upper-middle managers, bureaucrats, and the various technocrats.

      Emperor Yongle purged the bureaucrats together with the several degrees of their kinship… far better to replace the inimical bureaucracy with the grateful one.

  3. Trump is an intermediate step, any King of a western nation should meet a variety of criteria:

    1-Not be as intertwined with Jews as he and his family are.
    2-Have served in the military, preferably in a combat role.
    3-Have family history of military service without blemish.

    Also, any royalty will span generations. You can get a bad string of assholes. Some ability to negate this eventuality has to be built in. Some national level choice every 10 to 15 years maybe? Reduced democracy?

    1. Yeah, those points prevent unconditional support for Trump.

      We haven’t figured out the “bad ruler” problem except to note that a re-Restoration is always possible. I don’t think re-election does any good. Either the guy is powerful enough to rig/brainwash the election, or something is going horribly wrong.

      1. From a broader perspective, we are fundamentally dealing with a war of attrition through demographic displacement. This may slow down during Trump’s term, but will not cease. I am an Alt something or other, more likely a neo-reactionary, and our fight will not be over till we dominate our respective countries: USA, Canada, England, Germany, France, etc.
        Because we can’t rely on Trump to push hard enough in the area of demographic realignment, we need to continue hard at educating/recruiting and looking for any and all avenues to move forward.
        Practical organizations looking to solidify our overall position is urgently required: teaching/training individuals about who they are, how to take care of themselves health and financial wise, mental preparedness, and how to coordinate with commercial interests: directing consumerism, rolling out seminars and regular meetings to keep people developing into the healthy nation we were meant to be before cultural marxism erroded us to the point of near annihilation.
        I’m afraid our challenges will become far more physical over the coming years, we need all our intelligence, information, organizations and physical capacity to deal with the coming clash.

  4. Michael,

    This is an excellent and level-headed take, and echoes many of my own thoughts.

    Trump’s election is an event of world historic significance imo. But even if i’m wrong his election is still massively important to the new right and Hestia in particular. If for no other reason than that it means we’ll have at least 4 years without a boot on our necks, giving us significant breathing room with which to grow, network and build our capabilities.

    The Left is still highly dangerous, but I personally think their radicalization is good/inevitable. You’re going to have to do battle with them eventually, and the more extreme, violent and incoherent they are the better.

    The Neo-Liberal elites occupying institutions, who use the extreme Left to advance their agenda are the real threat. Thus we need to focus on subverting Leftist institutions. If we can’t subvert them then we should destroy them (academia, Media etc) and build our own, parallel version of them. Without their generals the Leftist hordes of degenerates will ultimately be easy pickings.

    The utter destruction of the extreme Left is a necessary prerequisite for any restoration, we need to build our capacity so that when the time comes this will be easily accomplished.

  5. If Trump *really* proves himself worthy (he has his work cut out for him, if he’s truly serious about making good on his boasts), I could see a democratic path to getting him appointed as dictator. This would involve a national plebiscite whose results would be deemed a direct expression of popular sovereignty (as defined under the existing canonical juridico-political theory of the State, namely the “social contract”) and as such trump (pun not intended) the existing written Constitution. In order to expedite the process, the hardcore blue states could be made into autonomous Socialist reservations in order to provide an easy and orderly exit for those not willing to get with the programme.

  6. You nrx and your kings! They don’t just want gold palaces, they want limitless money and your sons to go to war against other kings, per British history. Been there, moved on.

    1. Gold palaces are fantastically cheap in the grand scheme of things, compared to eg socialism, and war is an irrational waste of human capital. Shut up and kneel.

      1. > gold palaces

        I’m saying kings aren’t content with those. The rest of your comment can only be sarcastic – sure war is an irrational waste of human capital, but kings in European history loved them. George W Bush is a modern example, even.

        1. Michael Rothblatt November 13, 2016 at 9:47 am

          >George W Bush

          George Bush wasn’t a king, and neocons aren’t conservatives – they should be righly called neo-jacobins. Wars in the Middle Ages were a very civilized matter compared to the post-Enlightenment wars. It was the French Revolution that unleashed conscription and total war upon the world. Here’s what Guglielmo Ferrero says about kings and wars:

          “Before the French Revolution, wars scarcely affected the masses. They were fought out between sovereigns – the emperor, the kings, or the aristocratic republics which were still numerous in the eighteenth century – between ruling classes few in numbers, homogenous, cultured and refined. These classes could fight each other without excessive animosity; they could recognize that the enemy’s cause was as righteous as their own; they could wage was as a game, respecting its rules even when it would be more advantageous for the moment to break them; and admit defeat as soon as it became too dangerous to keep on. Today it is the people who fight, even when they have not the slightest wish to do so. Workers and peasants have to supply the rank and file, the middle classes the officers, the well-to-do and the rich the funds; the result is an enormous, heterogeneous, mobile and impressionable mass, torn by complex antagonisms of passions and interests. This mass cannot keep up the efforts of a war unless it is fired by some passion common to it all. A nation at war must therefore hate the enemy, which means that it must be convinced that it is defending the most righteous of causes against the most infamous aggression; that it represents innocent Good fighting against Evil armed with the most diabolical of long-premeditated designs. The danger which most dismayed the theorists of the eighteenth century then becomes a necessity. War of this kind makes it essential that each nation shall have a mystical conception of the exclusive righteousness of its own cause, a conception which is equally violent and bigoted in both belligerents. It is, moreover, so easy for men to convince themselves that they are right and others are in the wrong.”

  7. Fakefirst Fakelast November 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    Neoreaction and communism are nominally at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I actually think they have a lot in common. Both are what I’d call “vaporware ideologies”. They make a big promise about what will be achieved. For communism, it’s equality, collective ownership, and camaraderie in the absence of state coercion. And for neoreaction, it’s rational, non-malicious, unchallenged, centralized executive power with good succession. Both of these visions seem great to me–but neither movement has a very good plan for how its vision might be pulled off and sustained.

    England was the first to have an industrial revolution *because* the king’s power was limited. If it had been the kind of kleptocracy you are describing, the king would have “nationalized” any attempt at industry and the industrial revolution would not have happened. You guys don’t seem to grasp diminishing marginal utility for wealth. Like almost all humans, a king does not have linear utility for money. Once he’s wealthy enough to live in utter luxury he doesn’t have a strong incentive to maximize economic growth. This is why most non-democracies are kleptocracies. The past few decades have seen incredible economic growth in the developed world *because* their governments became less kleptocratic.

    At least neoreaction seems to be more of a “plan for forming a plan”… hopefully it will turn from vaporware to software at some point in the future.

    Is there a reason this link is not being sprayed all over the NRX-o-sphere? Trump has 4,000 positions to fill in just a few weeks: https://apply.ptt.gov/

    1. “They make a big promise about what will be achieved. For communism, it’s equality, collective ownership, and camaraderie in the absence of state coercion. And for neoreaction, it’s rational, non-malicious, unchallenged, centralized executive power with good succession.”

      A dictatorship of the proletariat and subsequent withering away of the state into peaceful anarchy is a rather long hop and skip away from a central executive. We’ve had numerous fairly secure and successful monarchies in the past, e.g., which isn’t to say they’re invincible or anything of the sort. I’m not quite following you on this train of thought.

      1. Fakefirst Fakelast November 12, 2016 at 9:05 pm

        It’s true that your thing is less of a pipe dream, and I think it’s worth researching. But I still see a lot of vapor. Monarchy is not fashionable now like it was then, and I don’t see a plan for solving this marketing problem. Without solving the marketing problem, the only way to achieve security is through suppression of dissent. Suppressing dissent makes the marketing problem worse and creates more dissent. The succession problem has never really had a good solution. If we had the sort of centralized authority you are talking about, we’d be talking about (arguably) the largest and most important institution in history. It would have the same dominion as the US government, but if it can casually nationalize industries, it’d be far more powerful. And yet we just don’t seem very good at creating and running large institutions. We barely know how to run large corporations despite the huge financial incentives to figure that problem out. It’s not even clear how well our existing management knowledge would generalize.

      2. Fakefirst Fakelast November 12, 2016 at 9:08 pm

        In my opinion, what’s needed is creativity. Almost no one is thinking about how to design and test entirely new institution types. I appreciate HS working on this problem. I am slightly worried that they are jumping the gun on a particular class of solutions without taking the time to thoroughly understand either the problem or the solution space. And their affinity for authoritarianism risks inhibiting the creative thinking that a project like this requires.

    2. I’m inclined to agree.

      The founding fathers of the United States were true heroes of their time who had immense experience and expertise in the workings of monarchies.

      They chose their form of government, the Constitutional Republic, with extreme care and forethought.

      It is naive and arrogant for anyone alive today to contemplate a monarchy. We simply do not have the requisite experience. We would be no different than the libertarian utopians of Silicon Valley, the leftist utopians of Washington DC, or the communist utopians of the USSR. Utopias do not exist, and never will, because mankind is fallen.

      What we need is a reboot of American legislation to some point prior to the 19th amendment. That was the turning point for America, which ushered the ultimate doom of the Republic.

      Neoreaction’s flirtation with monarchy is just another scapegoat for men who cannot admit that their one doom lies in the bosom of Eve alone. Women are the only poison which must be drained from the wound of civilization. When their naive and destructive influence is contained, the Mannerbund is invincible.

      History shows this. A constitutional republic with a strictly limited franchise is the only way forward. Only men who are net tax payers and/or have sufficient military service may vote. No women, no children, no beggars.

      1. Michael Rothblatt November 12, 2016 at 6:24 am

        The American Framers were bunch of Enlightenment utopians who constructed nonsensical system of government that failed to work as advertised from the very beginning (the evil tyrant Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion anyone?). IOW liberty that colonists possessed under the king was lost by the revolution, despite the fact that revolution was somehow supposed to be for freedom and muh Constitution a guarantee of freedom. Republics of the past that actually worked, like Most Serene Republic of Venice, had a class of hereditary nobility, and a chief executive for life.

    3. Alistair Hermann November 12, 2016 at 5:40 am

      “You guys don’t seem to grasp diminishing marginal utility for wealth.”

      You don’t seem to grasp the marginal utility of power.

    4. Michael Rothblatt November 12, 2016 at 6:07 am

      >The past few decades have seen incredible economic growth in the developed world *because* their governments became less kleptocratic.

      Nonsense. If anything the governments were becoming more kleptocratic, any and all economic growth (actual, not statistical tampering) was the consequence solely of technological progress.

    5. Realfirst Reallast November 12, 2016 at 1:00 pm

      England was the first to have an industrial revolution *because* the king’s power was limited. If it had been the kind of kleptocracy you are describing, the king would have “nationalized” any attempt at industry and the industrial revolution would not have happened.

      As one neo-reactionary slogan has it:

      Tired: Technological innovation is social progress.

      Wired: Technological innovation masks social decay.

      Inspired: Technological innovation *is* social decay.

      Your objection to the neo-reaction is predicated on the idea that, first, they are being sincere in their stated goals, and two, that it’s meant to be anything more than “vapor-ware.”

      HS-style neo-reaction is effective as a distraction from white identity politics. As conventional conservatism becomes increasingly discredited in the minds of its target market, neo-reaction provides a way to signal elitism against the unwashed whites. It’s “Never Trumpism” that simply creates a fantasy Trump – Trump-as-King – by rejecting actual Trumpism – populist, democratic civic nationalism.

      Consider that unified executive power has its really-existing implementation today; the revolt against “shareholder democracy” as exemplified by the CEO of Starbucks who answered the critics of his wasting corporate money and goodwill on SJW politics by saying “sell your shares.” Neo-reaction ignores that precisely because there is substance to it; it’s software, not vapor-ware.

      Of course you are correct, the first group of people to actually threaten the King’s power would be capitalists empowered by technological innovation – and a neo-reactionary King would simply nationalize like a Soviet Commissar.

      The mistake is taking neo-reaction at face value, as a consistent ideology. Once it moved from simple reaction against progressivism it just started to squirt squid ink. The purpose is to undercut white identity politics as “demotic.”

      HS pays extravagant lip service to Yarvin and Trump to hide the fact they basically oppose the substance of both.

      1. The idea that Trump is going to be able to implement the populist democratic civic nationalist programme without getting stymied by Congress and/or the Supremes, and without the next Democrat admin reversing everything he does manage to accomplish under these constraints, and before his Constitutionally-limited term of office expires, is as fantastical as anything the absolutists ever came up with.

  8. Fakefirst Fakelast November 11, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    Or let me put it this way. George Soros is probably the archetypical example of an elite who needs to “go to war against the civilized structure of society”. Do we have strong evidence he is actually motivated by what you say? Like, what if he is just nuts?

    1. He’s just nuts and evil. He’s one of the radicalized ones who would do what he does even without reason. He’s got to go. However, the reason people like him get so powerful is that the US system needs him. Notice how much he gets help from the more cynical US agencies. If the power coalition didn’t need him, him and his ilk would be purged and destroyed fast for their counter-civilization insanity.

  9. Fakefirst Fakelast November 11, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Reality has no obligation to respond well to simple solutions like “centralized executive power”.

    1. No, it doesn’t. On the other hand, reality tends to work in a logical way, not that we can always see the logic completely. Do you know of reasons why it wouldn’t work?

      1. Fakefirst Fakelast November 12, 2016 at 8:45 pm

        It creates a single point of failure.

  10. Speaking of democracy. Why is it that Switzerland manages to get along fine for so long with direct democracy?

    1. Michael Rothblatt November 12, 2016 at 7:05 am

      Who says things haven’t been getting worse in Switzerland? Oh, they very much are getting worse! That it’s comparatively better than many other countries you can chalk up to historical circumstances, and the quality of the people and their culture (that Switzerland didn’t turn into progressive hellhole yet, for that you can thank the rural German-speaking ultra-conservative part of the population; urbanite French-speakers are the equivalent of New England progressives, who, luckily don’t have the underclass with which to play HLvM with, so they can’t get the majority). Also, women got the right to vote in Switzerland very late, e.g. canton Appenzell Innerrhoden, the last canton to grant the female suffrage, granted women the right to vote in 1991.

    2. Because Switzerland is populated primarily by Swiss Germans.

      If there were ever a people who could be orderly without someone imposing order upon them, it’s the Swiss Germans.

      These are the people who have clock-making families stretching back generations.

      These are the people who square their own manure piles.

  11. Short response? Amen.

    Long response? The talent pool problem is utterly terrifying, and I’m glad someone else is quick to see it. Thiel can’t run everything, the Trump Organization has always been a barony but doesn’t exactly have a foreign policy wing, and for all the academic discussion of rightist entryism we do, I don’t think there are even a fraction of the necessary secret-but-verifiable heretics in the NGOs ready to step in. Trump will be a successful tribune, at least.

  12. Amazing conservative victory by and for the American people and Donald J. Trump, against the whole power and dirty methods of liberal establishment, against all odds. It is the best and the most important political victory against liberal power, ever. It is also our victory here in Europe, although the praise for it belongs to you alone. I am proud of you. Thank you.

    It is or can be more momentous and permanent victory than you think. I explain how. I use my homecountry Finland as the main example, but the most of principles of my argument can be expanded to the whole Europe.

    The liberal world system, liberal political consensus, and liberal trade and trade deals rest on American military power, American military alliance with and military protection of Europe. We are the most important trading partners with USA, the most important cultural, scientific and political interlocutors with USA, the most important political and military partners with USA, etc. Without present forms of USA or Europe there is no liberal world order, liberal consensus or liberal political and information bubbles.

    USA has taken in every way disproportionately large responbility of Europes protection. USA is a world police. Mostly because of this USA is dominant in the relations between USA and Europe, although Europe as a whole has more people than USA. Under USAs military umbrella, military protection and safety, European liberals have become less warrior-like, more soft and cowardly creatures; they can free ride on American peoples expense and invest a lot less on military; they can invest a lot more on utopian socialist programs and policies; they can speculate more and take much more seriously abstract, pacifist and utopian liberal theories, and transform them more to real life policies, laws and practices (including destructive immigration policies); etc.

    How European liberals repay Americas protection and sacrifices? Well, they have grown to be whiny, weak, demanding, entitled and deluded, and they think they are the most important people in the world. They repay by scolding and criticising USA; they blame USA of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious zealotry, etc; they demand that USA change to be more liberal, socialist and utopian; they accuse USA about human rights violations; they mock non-liberal people, religion and culture in the USA; etc. As these European liberals are the main international conversation partners of US elites, year after year after year, and form mostly with them the international liberal information bubble, they change the thinking, emotions, self-image, goals, interests and worldview of US elites to considerably worse positions. These bad tendencies exist of course inherently among US elites too and they form fertile ground for European liberal weeds to grow. And these bad influences go both directions and are mutually reinforcing. But still the European liberals are the necessary force which pushes United States and Europe over the edge and to the abyss. Politicized liberal US intellectuals have always looked up to European liberal intellectuals, and de facto followed their lead, and politicized European liberal intellectuals have felt them to be superior to their US counterparts, leaders in this relationship. Liberal information bubble have been so all encompassing, that the liberal thinking has slowly contaminated quite thoroughly conservative thinking too.

    Then comes Trump and wins US presidency. I am in no way implying that Trump is a psychopath or narcissist, but psychologically Trump resembles, from liberals point of view, a dominating narcissist or psychopath. He is dominating; easily angered; capricious; revengeful; unpredictable; straight talking; doesnt respect/breaks liberal morals and liberal political and personal borders; he is sensitive about his honor; he is determined and supremely self-confident; charismatic; small things may provoke his vicious and sustained attack; he is very competitive; he takes huge risks and will not give up even if the whole system is against him; he has uncanny instinctive ability to detect his opponents weaknessess and use them to his advantage or turn them maximally against his opponents; he is hierarchy -oriented and demands loyalty; he is not illusion oriented, he is rationality oriented and he sees easily through messy and complex realities; he solves messy and complex realities with sweeping, fast, brutal and effective strikes; etc.

    So what was the effect of Trump presidency among Finnish liberals?

    Finland has been to some extent in the gray area between Nato -membership and the influence of Russia, but Finland has cooperated maximally with Nato (including participating in Nato war exercises and making war equipment compatible with Nato war equipment) without actually joining Nato. Finland is de facto in the camp of Nato, but grudgingly takes into consideration the interests of the only possible attacker, Russia, and thus is reluctant to join Nato.

    Finnish politicians have felt that USA is the main guarantor of peace in Finland too, and Russia wouldnt dare to attack to Finland, as long as USA is around, and has stakes and interests in the European power status quo. They expect that USA would provide Finland military material and other military assistance, if Russia would attack. This has lulled Finnish liberals into wishful and utopian thinking, that peace is a sure thing despite some dark and threatening clouds in Russia; that Finland doesnt have to make hard choices like joining Nato; that Finns get along with fairly modest military expenditure and weak and cowardly liberal human rights and pacifist mindset; that Finland can unilaterally abandon cheap and effective landmines by joining Ottawa treaty; that Finns can concentrate on building liberal and socialist utopia here on earth, including toxic mass immigration; etc.

    To Finnish liberals Clinton represented continuation guarantee to their utopian goals and liberal society, so they propagated extensively, obsequiously and transparently for Clinton, and opposed vividly, vehemently and equally transparently, to the point of infantility, Trump, who they fear, but were certain that he would not be elected.

    When Trump was campaigning, he among other things said that USA has bad military deals with European nations, that USA has been exploited in military matters by European liberals, that European liberals dont do and give their proper share militarily (these are true), and he would negotiate new military deals with European liberals and he breaks up Nato, if necessary.

    When this is combined with mr. Trump assumed “unpredictability, dangerousness and recklesness” the effect is that Finnish liberals have been scared to witlesness. Their whole liberal utopia and system is collapsing around them. In essence Trump has said from the point of view of Finnish liberals, that if you dont do your share and if you dont make the necessary sacrificies, if you dont become necessary and if you dont please me, I will let Russia eat you. Finnish liberals are not in secure gray area any more, where they can build their toxic liberal utopia. Trump has expanded the spread of liberals choices, made the choices more extreme. On the other side is utter destruction, on the other side is the relieving fatherly care and protection of mr. Trump. This has tendency to reorient and change Finnish liberals thinking and emotions. Before they despised and opposed mr. Trump and America, now they sweat fearfully in television programs, and think how they could be useful to America and mr. Trump, and what might happen if they anger him. After all he is a businessman, so he would surely appreciate if we are useful to America and mr. Trump? Now the first priority of top Finnish liberal politicians, those weak and cowardly creatures, is to go to negotiate with mr. Trump with a hat in their hands and bowed heads, and beg him to maintain good relationship with our country, or create new good relationships. These kinds of attitudes toward America among Finnish liberals have never been seen or heard before.

    So now you can see why it would be important, that Trump keeps European liberals in uncertainty, threatens and extorts them (if necessary), is unpredictable and caprious, is easily angered by relatively small things, and does dangerous changes from the point of view of European liberals, if his anger and displeasure is aroused. Who knows, if some prominent European liberal gives contemptuous liberal lecture to mr. Trump or his political circle, it could lead to abolition of US military protection, and lead to throwing that country to wolves. Or at least harmful economic measures. Liberal bubble communication and reinforcing feedback loops across Atlantic pond starts to wither.

    If this combined in America with defunding of liberal intellectuals, large funding of conservative intellectuals, and various other discouragements of liberal communication (liberals do it now to conservatives), it could change our societies permanently to conservative direction, and leave a lasting legacy for Trump.

    You could write intelligent letters about these things to conservative intellectuals who are close to Trump, so that it makes it less likely that these opportunities are missed.

  13. … Trump has found liberals weak spots and achilles heels, use them well to your advantage for maximum and lasting change.

  14. Monarchy does not need to be saleable. It just happens time and again. The next king of the restoration won’t be the wise, trustworthy king envisioned by NRx. He will be a progressive tyrant, atheist, vicious, and corrupt to the core.

  15. Laguna Beach Fogey November 13, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Don’t be a pussy.

    This is no time for pulling punches, making peace, or being “nice” to the adversary.

    We won. Be relentless.

    No mercy. No quarter.

    Drive victory home.

    Total War.

  16. “we don’t believe he has the loyal manpower, the intellectual foundation, or the mandate to do a full push for singular executive power:”

    I don’t think America is about singular executive power.

    I think America is about an armed yeomanry who temporarily delegate elected representatives to provide minimal government.

    The American government has as much legitimacy as it does because the armed citizens voted it in. If the government tries to do blatantly un-Constitutional things, such as disarm the voters, it loses whatever legitimacy it might have once had.

    Small government works wonders.

Comments are closed.