How Trump Wins and Why the People Stand behind Him

INTRODUCTION: GLOBALISM VS NATIONALISM
One of the enduring mysteries of modern politics (to my mind at least) is why Trump, a jet-setting New Yorker not previously known for his moral rectitude, has captured the ardent loyalty of so many tradition-minded conservatives.

I think part of the reason is that we’re talking about something bigger than traditionalists and/or conservatives per se. We are living in an age in which the old political paradigms, indeed the normal political taxonomies, are no longer operative. Part of this is because the Republican Party has failed utterly to achieve most of its stated principles.

We are talking nothing less than a spectacular failure perpetrated by the GOP ever since the neoconservative takeover way back in the seventies. In almost every instance where it counts, the “conservatives” have failed to conserve anything of value. To put not too fine a point on it, moral anarchy reigns. So much so that even a self-described “pro-life conservative” such as Sen John McCain of Arizona is willing to defend the rights of hermaphrodites to serve in the military (whether to call zim “zur” or “hem” is still open to question). I’m sorry, but if this is conservatism, then count me out.

The list of conservative failures is a long one: the enshrinement of homosexuality as a virtue, the heroic adulation of single mothers, the wholesale rewriting of history, military adventurism in favor of muh democracy and so on. And don’t even get me started on the national debt! (Thank you W for Medicare Part D.) The only thing conservatives have been able to conserve is gun rights. Not a small thing I grant you but in the grand scheme of things, small beer. I’ll take it and treasure it in the same way that a prisoner is allowed his cigarettes but at the end of the day, he’s still a prisoner. It’s positively astounding how much liberty we’ve lost.

This bears repeating: it’s nothing less than startling to see how much America has changed within just a few decades. And not for the better.

The handwriting was on the wall: Obama’s third term –in the person of Hillary Clinton–was inevitable. All we could do was bend over, grab our ankles and hope for a kiss afterwards. But Trump upended this and the Rovian way of electoral Republican politics is blessedly over. Hence our gratitude to The Golden Don.

You could say the paradigm is basically nationalists versus globalists. Those who believe in localism, regionalism or some such territorial sovereignty and who are not ashamed of cultural peculiarities against those who view themselves as cosmopolites. Nationalists believe that those who live in fixed addresses can better manage their affairs than transnationalists who believe that all problems can be fixed by amorphous technocrats who helicopter in from whatever foreign bubble they live in at the right moment to “fix” things.

AMERICA 2016: DO OR DIE
Back in October of last year, I came across a powerful political essay called “The Flight 69 Election”. Its fundamental thesis was that the upcoming 2016 election was a do-or-die turning point in American history. The author (Publius Decius Mus) likened it to Flight 93 which was taken over by the passengers after it had been hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9/11. Tragically, the airliner crashed in Shanksville, PA, killing all on board.

The analogy for the author was thus: we may lose the Republic by electing Trump but we will surely lose the Republic if Hillary is elected, thereby cementing Obama’s destructive post-American legacy. Or as Butch Cassidy said to the Sundance Kid right before they were going to jump off of a cliff into the river below: “You can’t swim? Dammit! the fall will probably kill you!” For those of us on the right who viewed Trump as an unknown quantity, Butch’s logic made sense at the time.

In spite of everything that has transpired since November of last year, it still does. Many of us couldn’t swim but –miraculously–the fall didn’t kill us.

I think that this is the key which undergirds Trump’s unwavering support from the broad swath of the electorate that elected him and continues to stand behind him to this day. This includes people who didn’t support him in the primaries or didn’t much care for him in his previous entrepeneurial career.

That would include me. As I wrote earlier this year, my first choice was Gov Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Second was Gov Rick Perry of Texas. I very much admired Sen Ted Cruz of Texas and liked the way that Sen Marco Rubio got under Hillary’s skin. (My ideal choice was Sen Rand Paul but he’s too “out there” electorally speaking.) All fine men and in the ordinary political run of things they were acceptable. At best, we’d get a decent Supreme Court justice or two. But that’s all. The leftward trajectory would still proceed inexorably apace. And as the late Andrew Breitbart said, “politics is downstream of culture”.

On the other hand, Trump was a completely different political animal. I started gravitating towards him because of his America-first message and his disdain for the cuckservative norms. Truth be told, he had me by August of 2015 when he threw Jorge Ramos of Univision out of his press conference. That took major cojones; if nothing else it showed that he wasn’t going to play by the normal rules. Especially if those rules entailed Republicans always groveling before whatever the PC orthodoxy of the day dictated. (I’m looking at you Jeb!Bush!)

Now, don’t get me wrong. I know Trump is a pragmatist. I know that he has no fixed set of ideological principles. I get that. He saw an America-first/Fair Trade/anti-war opening in the GOP sometime in the late 00s and seized it. In fact, that’s what he’s doing now despite all the best efforts of the political Establishment to re-right the ship according to their traditional navigation system. Despite this and all the turmoil (most of it manufactured by the Fake News Industrial Complex), Trump is holding to the America-first principles that got him elected, much to the chagrin of the Establishment. Ordinarily, a newly-elected American president would start jettisoning his campaign promises right about now. So far, Trump hasn’t. (I’ll write about DACA soon.)

After all, look at what he’s accomplished so far. Conservatives are still ecstatic about the placement of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court as well as dozens of other solid conservatives sprinkled throughout the Federal judiciary. Taking the United States out of the TPP, the disastrous Paris Accords with their self-inflicted economic wounds as well as our impending exit from NAFTA have been widely applauded by all the right people. Consumer confidence is the highest it’s been and unemployment is at an historic sixteen year low. The stock market is at all-time highs and the Keystone pipeline has been approved. Housing starts are up and Federal regulations have been slashed, almost daily. The derailment of these regulations alone has jump-started this economy in ways that we haven’t seen in over a decade.

Now don’t get me wrong: it’d be nice if the Congress started legislating and placing these reforms in concrete but if all we’re left with is Trump acting unilaterally, I’ll take it.

TACTICAL RETREATS
Of course he’s had to make adjustments. But should that surprise us? Trump is first and foremost a businessman. He knows how to negotiate. Fortunately for him, that’s a device that allows his base to cut him some slack. We know he’s not going to be able to deliver on everything that he promised. It’s simply not possible. And anyway, no politician has ever gotten everything passed that he ran on. Trump isn’t the first and he won’t be the last.

Almost everything he’s accomplished so far (and there has been a lot) has been because of executive leadership. The rest has been because of negotiation. So far, in the international sphere, he has had to give in to the Deep State three times: once on Syria, then on the Russia sanctions and now on Afghanistan. But even here he’s pushed the Overton Window so far the right that the broad outlines of a Trump Doctrine, which is based on a Hobbesian realism, is coming into stark focus.

Make no mistake, the speech he gave on Afghanistan was a complete repudiation of Neoconservatism and all of its New World Order fantasies. The Bush-Clinton-Obama “Invade the World/Invite the World” delusion is dead for all practical purposes. More importantly, it’s dying pretty much everywhere else.

True, the Tomahawk missile strike in Syria last April was for many of us on the realist right, a demoralizing sucker punch. In retrospect however, it’s now clear that the Neocons overplayed their Democracy-at-all-costs hand badly. While Trump was lauded on CNN, the American populace (not just Trump’s base) was horrified. It became obvious in short order that the American people had no appetite for another unwinnable Middle Eastern conflict. Since then, Trump quietly (and wisely) ceded Syria to the Russians. To this day a cease-fire is holding and several hundred thousand Syrian refugees have begun returning to their homes. Interestingly enough, Bibi Netanyahu just returned from Moscow where I’m sure that Putin told him how the cow ate the cabbage.

Trump is playing a different game in Afghanistan. Clearly, his instincts to pull the plug on America’s longest war are correct. However it’s equally clear that the generals who are staffing his Administration disagree. According to inside sources, Trump’s entire Cabinet (with the exception of Atty Gen Jeff Sessions) were against a pull-out as well. Boxed into a corner, Trump went into negotiation with the generals at Camp David and the result was a half-a-loaf victory for both sides. I imagine that he washed his hands of the tactics that are going to be required to declare victory, essentially telling the Military Industrial Complex that “from this point forward, whatever the outcome, it’s on you”. In other words, he removed the leash that was around his neck and skillfully put it around their necks.

While disheartening to those of us who fervently want an America-first foreign policy, the outcome in Afghanistan (whatever it is) will bolster his political capital. If the military somehow pulls out a victory (however “victory” is defined), then he’ll be remembered as the Liberator of Afghanistan; the cleaner-up of Bush and Obama’s messes. If on the other hand things continue to go south, then he can say to the American people, “I’ve heard you loud and clear: enough is enough”. And then what will the MIC say? Their political capital will be completely spent by then.

But that’s in the long term –I’d say two or three years. For now, his speech regarding this change in Afghanistan policy won all the correct plaudits from the usual suspects. To be sure, McMaster in particular exacted a huge concession when he got Trump to drop the words “radical Islamic terrorism” from the speech. But then again, Trump clearly carried the day when it came to excising the dangerous neoconservative policy of “nation building” from our foreign policy. This is huge. And this is how negotiation works.

As for the Russia sanctions, this was clearly a major loss for Trump, of this there can be no doubt. The end-game for the Deep State of course is the dismemberment of Russia or failing that, some type of military conflict, preferably in the Ukraine. Unfortunately for them, the win against Trump is a Pyrrhic one. Why do I say this? First, because the sanctions will be undercut by our European allies in very short order. And second, because the EU will not allow their nations to be used for staging grounds for an actual military conflict with the Russian Federation. While the Deep State wants a war, there’s no upside for our European allies.

THE CULTURE WARS
It is in this regard that Trump is gambling it all and the reason (I believe) why Middle America will continue to stand behind him. First and foremost, he has made good on his pledge to secure the southern border. Illegal immigration is down to a trickle. This is paying significant dividends in increased wages for working men. The increase in income will not be forgotten in 2020. Already, the GDP for this quarter has been revised upwards to 3 percent. While not up to Reaganesque standards, it’s far better than what obtained under Obama.

Deportations of criminal illegals is also on the rise. His temporary travel bans have also been enforced. On all fronts, he’s doubled down on the immigration front. ICE is rounding up people and deporting them willy-nilly. While this causes the right-thinkers to get the vapors the average American worker (whether white, black or Hispanic) is not bothered in the least. It should be remembered after all that the great majority of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens affects the poor.

Recently however, he did two things which infuriated (again) all the right people. First, he enacted a general ban on transsexuals in the military and second, he pardoned Joe Arpaio, “America’s Sheriff”.

For now, I would like to concentrate only on the Transban. You wouldn’t know it from all the caterwauling in the Corporate Media, but the banning of transsexuals in the military is wildly popular among the rank and file, particularly those who serve in the fighting ranks.

Why you may ask? We are not talking merely about that intangible thing called unit cohesion, elan or esprit d’corps but about practicality –and expense. For those who undergo transition from male to female, a daily dose of very expensive hormones is necessary. And this does not include the actual plastic surgery which is involved. To provide this pharmaceutical regimen to those who desire it on a regular basis is extremely difficult. Worse, there is no way that these drugs can be consistently transported to combat units at present. And when they are not delivered, there’s physiological hell to pay for the individuals who “need” them.

Military service is especially stressful, more so for the combat units than for those servicemen who are “in the rear with the gear”. For warriors to not know how to calibrate their words or actions in the presence of the one or two men in their midst who are taking estrogens is yet another onerous burden. One that a conscientious officer should not be called upon to heap upon his men’s already overburdened shoulders.

CONCLUSION
Clearly, we are not living in normal times. In the pre-Trumpian era, the old paradigms of center-left/center-right made some sense, at least to the political class. One reason American civilization was so stable was because politics was usually played between the 40 yard lines. Thanks to the identity politics unleashed by the cultural Marxists however, those lines have been obliterated. Instead, they Establishment moved the cultural Overton Window so far to the left with the left scoring all the touchdowns. What was once unthinkable five, ten years ago is now dogmatic truth.

This cannot be stressed enough: the gains of boutique minorities came at the expense of the working class. Those of us who work hard and play by the rules (as Bill Clinton used to say so brilliantly) have not gained anything during the last few decades. Not just culturally but materially. Indeed, they have lost considerably. In short, the Great American Middle has come to the breaking point. Trump –or more specifically sovereign nationalist democracy–was for them the answer.

Trump, a billionaire Manhattanite of all people, saw this. In retrospect, this should have been obvious with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 and the retaking of the Congress in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 but it wasn’t to the cognoscenti. The not only refused to see it, they couldn’t see it. Clever businessman that he is, Trump was merely ahead of the curve.

While Rubio and Kasich were endlessly clucking about Friedman’s economic theories and pledging allegiance to Ellis Island treacle, Trump went full steam ahead and asked –nay, demanded–why don’t any of you care for the forgotten American worker? When Hillary had hijab-wearing women standing behind her at her rallies, he had truckers. One was an SJW freak show, the other was a monster truck rally.

Because he was a member of a minority, Obama could be forgiven for literally looking down his nose at Middle Americans. White guilt can take a minority politician pretty far. Hillary to her detriment couldn’t pull it off. When she called half of Trump’s supporters “a basket of deplorables” and “irredeemable”, we knew that we had no choice but to go to the monster truck rally, even if we’d never been to one before. Trump may have been peddling Pelagianism but Hillary was going the full John Knox and condemning a great many people to eternal perdition.

And because he has kept to his campaign promises and as long as the economy continues to improve, the American electorate will continue to follow his leadership.

After all, what other choice do we have? The Bush-Clinton past didn’t work for us then, what makes anyone think that it’ll work in the future?

Comments

  1. …Now, back to planet Earth. To listen to George pontificate, one would think, it’s “Morning in America” all over again. All this ink spilled, and not one word about the North Korean nuclear threat. Also, this article shows once again that George doesn’t know the first thing about economics. Isn’t it time to take off the rose colored glassed? This country is in very bad shape, and getting worse by the day. By the way, how is the repeal of Obamacare going along with the rebuilding of our crumbling infrastructure?
    Also, many of these alleged miracles that George waxes eloquent about actually started under Obama, such as the reduction of illegal aliens entering the US, and deportations, but let’s not allow that to get in the way of a good fantasy narrative. What planet do you come from again, George? Man, talk about naive and gullible! George, now I know what your problem is: you’re legally blind.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      Cyprian, I in no way think that it’s “morning again, in America”. Far from it.

      I’ve spilled prodigious ink since November explaining that Trump is an aberration and that we are probably just experiencing a last reprieve before things get really hoary. To be sure, I get more hopeful each time Trump pokes thumb in the collective eye of the Establishment –things like getting out of the Paris Accords, pardoning Joe Arpaio, enacting a ban on hermaphrodites in the military, etc–but with each spike in hope, there’s an equal dread that this time, the Establishment is going to do something rash.

      Having said that, I can see a scenario in which America experiences a renaissance, a “new birth of freedom” so to speak but too many things would have to fall into place for that to happen. First of all, there would have to be a massive, public repentance on the part of tens of millions of people. Second, people would have to be free to say to speak their minds. Third, the people would remove the secularist/gnostic scales from their eyes, that is to say that our present gnosticism would be called out and shamed. (Our present gnosticism being the delusion that there is no sexual identity.)

      For any future burst of revival to happen, things would have to go really sour overseas, particularly China. A massive influx of wealthy foreigners fleeing instability would bring in massive amounts of capital which would benefit the housing market. It would also bring in foreign ideas which are antithetical to the present feminist/sodomite ideology which has gripped our nation.

      Needless to say other things would have to fall into place at the right time in order for America to turn the corner from our present decay. It could happen, right now I’m just not seeing it. Hence my belief that Trump’s election was an aberration. I could be wrong.

      BTW, you’re wrong about the “increase in deportations under Obama”. I too, fell for that when it was first reported. This was based on Orwellian parameters however. DHS Chief Janet Napolitano merely redefined “deportation” to mean “stopping an alien at the border and turning him back”, which is nothing more than “catch and release”. There were precious few actual deportations as normally understood under Obama.

      That’s kind of like saying we’re safer now from violent crime than we were in the 60s because the murder rate is down. It is down but that’s primarily because we have far better emergency medicine which saves a greater number of lives than in the past. Example: in previous decades, someone like Steve Scalise would have died after being shot by that crazed Bernie supporter. Thanks to improvements in trauma medical care as well as multiple heroic surgeries, he was able to escape death.

      • Well, I was needling you a little bit, George. Sorry.

      • George Michalopulos says:

        Cyprian, while I’m no pollyanna, here’s another reason to be skeptical of doom and gloom. The other day, Jerry Pournelle died. He was known for his science fiction novels (e.g. The Mote in God’s Eye, etc.) as well as his speculative writing for Galaxy magazine. But he was also a futurist and an out-of-the-box thinker. His insights on shooting down missiles with other missiles was later realized as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/11/science-fiction-writer-jerry-pournelle-offered-fact-based-hope-future-glenn-reynolds-column/651515001/

        Anyway, he had a lot of hopeful insights for the future which he published during the 1970s. This was during a time in which Paul Ehrlich was preaching the end of civilization and his view was predominant.

        The point is we stand at an inflection point in history. If the demographic convulsion of the West is reversed and Christendom rediscovered, we could be seeing the dawn of a new golden age. A lot of other things would have to happen including the ending of privately-held central banking, the rediscovery of Classical Antiquity, etc.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says:

          Pournelle’s best SF books were his collaborations with Larry Niven, particularly Mote in God’s Eye, Inferno, and Footfall.

      • P. Antonio Arganda says:

        George, I’ve got the solution. Offer to give back Alaska to the Russians , if they will take the other 49 as part of the deal!

        • George Michalopulos says:

          LOL! Alaska, I can see. But why would they even went the lower 48?

          • P. Antonio Arganda says:

            Exactly my point. The Russians would consider it some kind of trick. (Justifiably given the fact that Russia was the sole European power to ally with the Union during the Civil War and pledged war with England/France if they intervened on behalf of the Confederacy) America has always turned on those who helped them.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Antonio, it’s sad isn’t it? Look at what we did to the Serbs in the 90s and how we turned on the Greeks in 74 over Cyprus. Both countries fought in both world wars on the side of the allies and our Best and Brightest use the “muh democracy” argument to come down on the side of the Musselmani.

              I have warned our Ukrainian friends to be equally careful in their estimation of the State Dept. If they think that we’re going to save them from Putin they may be in for a big surprise. Or worse, if they join NATO then the immigrant floodgates will be opened onto them. The Poles and Hungarians (God bless ’em) have caught on to that. Maybe they can learn a thing or two from them. (Not that the Poles and Hungarians have yet prevailed in this matter but we can always hope.)

              • Estonian Slovak says:

                We must remember, George, that should Ukraine collapse, both Poland and Hungary could potentially gain territory. Poland might get back some of her “Eastern lands”. It might be a better religious frontier at that, leaving predominantly Catholic Western Ukraine inside of Catholic Poland. Not that many Ukrainian Nationalists would buy into that.
                Hungary has felt that the region known as Subcarpathian Rus’ to be her lost land; indeed many Hungarians still inhabit that area. Some Rusyn activists who don’t want to be Ukrainians might actually accept that. It’s more likely that, Czechoslovakia being no more, that a union with Slovakia might occur. Then Romania has lost lands in Bukovina as well.
                Not saying this all will or should happen. Even if those states did get their chunks of Ukraine, it’s safe to say that the globalists would still manage to gin up ethnic strife, to underscore their need for one world government.

                • George Michalopulos says:

                  Thanks for fleshing that out ES. I knew it was complicated but not how complicated the irredentist claims were.

                  While all this may be sequential to the issue at hand, that issue being the ruination of Poland and Hungary (as well as Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro) caused by the acceptance of “western” values (i.e. unlimited Islamic and African invasion).

                  My advice to the head honchos of NATO who are war-gaming scenarios against the RF: be very careful of your new allies. As the rest of NATO is finding out, they “didn’t sign up for this”.

  2. Deep Blue Washington says:

    When the Democrats have clearly gone Marxist, it doesn’t really matter what Trump says or does…..at least he isn’t them.

  3. George Michalopulos says:
  4. What I’m seeing on the news and in the streets is bigger than Trump and Hillary, or Obama. The critical mass you are dealing with in America that is generating all of this reaction, is a white America looking at becoming a minority in their own country.

    Ta Nehisi Coates wrote this gem of a column in the Atlantic and it breathes with all the fire of racial retribution in its analysis of contemporary America:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

    “White Americans”, however you want to define them, are day by day slowly beginning to calculate that if they don’t do something their fate will be that of white Rhodesians or South Africans (Afrikaaners). It is not just “white supremacists” who are doing this math, but every white person who has any sense.

    It is one thing to have a black mayor of D.C. or even a black president of the United States. It is something entirely different for whites to be ruled by non-whites, whether African Americans or Latinos or some combination of the two. One does not need to be a genocidal Nazi or KKK member to appreciate the fact that wherever and whenever the reigns of power have been taken over by non-whites from whites, the results have been quite depressing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people_in_Zimbabwe

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaners#Post-apartheid_era

    It’s a bit reminiscent of Reconstruction, but without reprieve.

    Thus it is probably wise to be careful when using the term “white supremacist”. We may rightly ask what precisely constitutes “white supremacy” and what the alternative to white supremacy might be.

    • Michael Bauman says:

      Misha, at the rate it is going a “white supremacist” is anybody who is white. I have no fear of being governed by a man who is a black. However we should all be concerned about being governed by a black supremacist or any other rascist.

      • George Michalopulos says:

        If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a 1000 times: I would gladly swear allegiance to a president who was a mulattress/Jewess lesbian atheist who took seriously her oath of office and governed according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

        • George,

          The Left is starting to brand it as “Christian Nationalism” evidently:

          https://thinkprogress.org/christian-nationalism-religion-research-b8f9cdc16239/

          Not a far cry from my “Militant Christian Patriarchy”. Though the Left is still quick to point out that such an ideology gives a home to other more unseemly “white supremacist” groups.

          Interesting to watch the ebb and flow.

          • Michael Bauman says:

            Misha, to the left any expression of anything remotely resembling traditional Christianity is racist, homophobic, white supremacist, etc, etc, etc.

        • If Trump does not get the wall started,or get rid of Obama Care, and now might give amnesty to illegals. A mulattress/Jewess lesbian atheist who strictly follows the Constitution would be a great improvement over Trump. Most of us pinched our nose and gave this crude man a pass, because of his promises, and fresh alternate to the one party system, also known as the swamp. If he can’t deliver, better he not seek a second term, or resign, and allow a Pence Presidency. Perhaps Pence can motivate some movement out of the Republicans, and a couple Democrats.

          Second, Trump needs to get a handle on his cabinet picks. Resignations left and right does not represent the President’s judgement well to the world stage. Enough with all the monkey business, Mr. President, get moving on your main promises that got you elected!

          • George Michalopulos says:

            Dino, I’m gonna post my thoughts on DACA real soon. For now let it be said that while some on the Breitbart/nationalist Right (like myself) are Wall-absolutists and would rather he not do anything with the Dems, I have a strong feeling that the Dems are being played here.

            Let’s just say that this is a fluid situation and while it looks like Trump may cave, it’s more likely that the Dems are being set up for a fall.

            We’ll see. One thing I can say for sure is that if there is no Wall then Trump’s election will have been adjudged a failure. And let’s be honest, there’s no way Pence will be able to build one.

            Am I engaging in wishful thinking here? To an extent, yes. But also remember, Trump’s entire persona is that of a builder. Everything else in his life, i.e. casinos, board games, TV shows, etc., is nothing but fluff to keep his name in the news. What he cherishes above all else are the massive real estate holdings he has and the giant buildings on them which bear his name.

            • Yiorgo! One thing I know for sure! I am much more cynical than you. Especially after reading this post, and speed reading your long multi-angled essay, Dreaming about DACA or Divide and Conquer? Which I will no doubt comment on, after digesting it more. Hope your right! You my friend, are much more the dreamer than I, as well.

              “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.” -Isaiah 43:19

      • What I was trying to get across is that the problem is not when you have a black president. The problem arises when one little racial clique (white liberals) so mismanages their country demographically that they lose majority status as defined by their race (white). Then the prospect becomes very much like what happened in South Africa and Rhodesia; i.e., the growing non-white majority increasingly occupies elective office and the corridors of power. That is the inevitable drift of the demographics unless they change. But to change, liberal whites would have to change their ideology of minimal reproduction.

        Constitutions are almost meaningless, depending on who gets to interpret them. Power is exercised by coalitions. And coalitions have a basis. We are seeing the disintegration of the base of the coalition of “Constitutional Americans”. That is an ideology, not a tribe, not an interest group. The Constitution has no material interests, people do. And so the question becomes, “How do we sort the people?”

        This is a tragic myopia from which most American whites suffer. Having been brow beaten for generations regarding the supposed crimes of their ancestors, they feel unintitled to assert their interests as a block. The only whites who are even really capable of verbalizing the dynamic get stuck in Nazi/KKK mode – or get labelled as such – because consciousness of identity/esteem as “whites” has been so repressed by the liberal culture. It is something that could only be done to a race by itself; i.e., done to middle and lower class whites by upper class liberal whites. Shelby Steele writes about this pathology all the time.

        But its wearing thin and wearing off and I expect as American whites get a greater feel for being assertive and comfortable in their own skin, uninterested in critical feedback from non-whites or their liberal white patrons, the politics and the culture will begin to transform – possibly dramatically.

        Django has been unchained for quite a while already. If Mr. Djanglord is unchained . . . that is another matter entirely. Whites acting unabashedly in their own self interests as whites unconcerned and unvexed by any hint of self-consciousness regarding non-whites.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR46gQLyxuE

        • Tim R. Mortiss says:

          Hopefully as they do so they will stop shaving their heads, cut off the goatees, lose 50 pounds, and ditch the weird long shorts and the balloon untucked shirts, and dress like their fathers and grandfathers did. It’d be a start!

          • Tim,

            I loathe the skinheads, self-avowed Nazis, etc. The Klan, for me, is in a different category because of the history involved. The original Klan was simply a reaction to Reconstruction. The modern Klan is silly and sometimes dangerous because of the level of their hostility, their ignorance and their lack of sophistication.

            The Left is locked, loaded and hell-bent on inciting racial violence since they see the current political administration as illegitimate:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/opinion/dispatch-from-the-resistance.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-columnists&mtrref=www.realclearpolitics.com&gwh=D541E20E6B05A3249D723860B63C6164&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

            They have no shame and there is no bottom.

            As an Orthodox Christian who happens to be white and living in the Upper South/Midwest, I recall that the whole representation of the spectrum into Left-Right is, in itself, a defiance and rejection of monarchy:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum

            The first mistake is to reject monarchy. Everything else flows from that. Thus the mission, should we choose to accept it, is to reorient American politics towards monarchy insofar as that is possible. In pragmatic terms, given our Constitution and culture, this means a strengthened executive and a diminished role for the legislature and courts. Insofar as it can be managed, one of the major parties needs to be routed and the other reduced to “third party” status, ending the two-party system in favor of a dominant party model.

            Trump seems to be working on this. He’s playing them all against each other and it is very entertaining to behold. I’m sure it is much less fun if you happen to be among the principle players in the legislature or on the courts. Probably agonizing.

            Glad I’m not among them. I make no wagers on how far he succeeds. The time is ripe for such a revolution in American politics. But America is so evenly divided in spirit and blessed/cursed with its current racial configuration which complicates matters tremendously.

            He will probably have to make it seem like a new Centrism.

            • Jerry Wilson says:

              The mistake seems to be to insist on monarchy… I Samuel 10:19.

              • George Michalopulos says:

                Interesting point, Jerry. In my own thoughts on proper Christian governance, I can see an Israelite-type commonwealth as the ideal but –here’s the kicker–only if the people are themselves righteous.

                We Americans have been somewhat fortunate in this regard as our people were largely religious and restrained in their passions and the Constitution restrained moral anarchy. We may be at the end of that experiment however. Gay marriage for example, will be used as the cudgel to take down Christian confessions for example.

                • Jerry Wilson says:

                  Not a point… Scripture. There is no such thing as “proper Christian governance.” Our kingdom is not of this world, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can lay down our prejudices and pride and build it from within.

                  • George Michalopulos says:

                    Well, Jerry, while I do agree that our home is in the heavens that doesn’t mean that the proper governance of human beings is not pleasing to the Lord. The first governance –that of Adam’s dominion over the earth–was instituted by God Himself (as was marriage, the first sacrament). Whether we’re talking about monarchy or republicanism is secondary.

                  • Jerry,

                    Actually, there is such a thing. Christ taught us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven”. This assumes monarchy, as did the Church Fathers. They viewed democracy as “polyarchy”, corresponding to a polytheistic worldview (which is what we have today in our manifestations of interest group politics). They saw it as the road to anarchy.

                    So, yes, there is a Christian form of government. The form endorsed by the Church Fathers and practiced in the Christian Roman Empires centered at Rome, later at Constantinople and finally in Moscow, as well as other local Christian kingdoms (Serbia, Greece, Romania, etc.)

                    • V. Rev. Andrei Alexiev says:

                      I am a monarchist precisely because I’m a Christian. After all, we don’t proclaim ,”Blessed is the Republic,” or “Blessed is the Democracy” at the beginning of the liturgy.

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says:

                      I am a Christian, and I am not a monarchist. Not “precise” enough, perhaps….

                    • Jerry Wilson says:

                      Exactly – His Kingdom, not ours. And if you believe that there is any model of human-led monarchy that is His Kingdom, I have a bridge in Brooklyn going real cheap.
                      And if you think we are blessing an earthly kingdom in the introductory phrase of the Divine Liturgy I can’t help you.

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says:

                      I picture the poor Orthodox evangelist. His Protestant and Catholic brethren carry the Bible, and perhaps a few unremarkable catechisms and confessions. They preach Christ, and him crucified.

                      He has a heavy pack, though. In addition to Christ, he has to preach monarchy to the Yanks and others, and has to keep the number of Toll Houses straight to adequately inform the heathen. Maybe he can leave the Freemasons (i.e., the Shriners) alone, for the time being. And the Jews? Well, he’ll go down that path later, too.
                      Dissemble, that is to say; keep it for the initiates.

                      As they trod the upward path to conversion of the masses, he falls farther and farther back under his burden…..

                      Just my little fable, or parable….

                    • George Michalopulos says:

                      Mr Wilson, there are a couple of points that your response elides over.

                      First, “His Kingdom, not ours”. Well, if we’re in His Kingdom, then it is ours as well.

                      Second, “as above, so below”. God is King. He is also Father Jesus told us to “call no man ‘father’.” That’s a toughie. What did we all call the men who sired and raised us? I called mine “Father”. Was I disobeying Christ?

                      I think what Jesus was saying here is that there is only one true Father, the one in Heaven. All men who sire and raise children participate in His Fatherhood but only imperfectly. Same for all women who carry children in their wombs and raise them –they imitate the Theotokos.

                      The eternal kingship inures to the Triune God but in His mercy, He allows certain men to participate in this aspect of His energies for the betterment of creation.

                      I never thought I’d say this as a little-R republican who has imbibed the precepts of the Enlightenment, but it’s impossible to escape hierarchy on this side of death as well as the other side. As such, monarchy is inevitable. Might as well make it dynastic and constitutional. (Though not yet in America, Lord!)

              • Jerry,

                Israel under the Judges was essentially a nation led by “senators”, local chieftans. It did not work out because:

                “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” – Judges 21:25

                Much like the situation we have today. In effect, it turned out that the Israelites were too wicked to be ruled by a Senate/System-of-Judges. That was their rejection of God. God constructed a system entirely workable for decent people. But the people declined to be decent.

                Ever since, monarchy has been the divinely ordained method for governing God’s people. At this late stage of the game, what is optimal and what is practicable may be at odds.

                America probably would founder and act out, champing at the bit, against a true monarchy. The people just aren’t there yet, not by a long shot. But a dominant party system with a strong executive who is king-like is entirely doable, even within the American Constitutional framework.

                Recall, the person who got the second most votes in the electoral college was originally to be the Vice President (i.e., before the 12th Amendment). Partisanship is not inherent to our constitutional system, though it has accompanied it almost from the inception.

                • Jerry Wilson says:

                  George… how does “being in his kingdom” make it ours? And are we in His Kingdom or is His Kingdom within us? I find your analysis of what is happening within the Trinity — “the eternal kingship inures to the Triune God” — to merely be a rationale for your opinion. Your entitled to your monarchist theology, but it flies in the face of the word of the King of Kings, Who said: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

                  • George Michalopulos says:

                    Only in this way Jerry: hierarchy is inevitable. It cannot be escaped. I think all rational humans agree with this premise. Since we all do, we’re just quibbling about which hierarchy is most pleasing and in conformity with nature.

                    As a quasi-Jeffersonian, I have no problem whatsoever with democracy as practiced in ancient Athens. But we need to be aware that it was not egalitarian by any means. Still a hierarchy of free men at the top and slaves at the bottom.

                    • Jerry Wilson says:

                      You are certainly entitled to your experience, and if your experience of hierarchy has been of the vertical kind, who am to question your experience? I might suggest an excellent read: “Measures of Wisdom” by James Miller,where “hierarchy” is proposed as a means of participation – something sadly missing in the Church today. As for inevitablility, I think only death qualifies.

                    • George Michalopulos says:

                      Hierarchy does not mean dominance (or submission). As father to my children I served them because they could not raise themselves. I was head of the family yes –but lead in a kenotic manner. Thus did our Father in Heaven lead us into His kingdom. Not as dominator but as servant. And yes, He’s still at the top of the hierarchy.

                  • Jerry,

                    “My kingdom is not of this world.” was simply a statement of fact when He said it. Men had to change before kingdoms could change. When enough men had changed, Christianity took over Rome, West and East. The Eastern Empire survived much longer than the Western. And that Christian Eastern Empire was succeeded by the Third Rome. Yet monarchy has consistently been the preferred method of governance according to the Church Fathers and in Orthodox lands, all others being considered defective and leading to anarchy . . . as is our present system here in America.

                • V. Rev. Andrei Alexiev says:

                  Mr. Wilson: I never said that we are blessing an earthly kingdom at the start of the liturgy. I suggest you are making false accusations. My point concerning the church is that the church itself is NOT a democracy. I’ve tangled with enough laypeople who believe that it is.
                  To Tim Mortiss: Nowhere was it ever suggested that being a Monarchist is a prerequisite for being Orthodox. I’ve been a priest 40 years, I never made an issue of anyone’s politics. You don’t care for Monarchy, fine. I’m the descendent of Scottish Protestants on my mother’s side. I had an issue with monarchy before I joined the Orthodox Church. Even now, I’m not a party-line man. Actually, I’m a Ukrainian Monarchist so even among Monarchists and Ukrainians, I’m outside of the main stream. But I don’t preach these things to my flock. It’s one man’s opinion, which as your fellow American, I’m entitled to.
                  Actually, Tim, if you believe the people’s voice is higher than a monarch, you’ll have to admit the South was right is seceding. I don’t see how you can have it both ways, perhaps you as a lawyer, can provide me with an answer.
                  My spiritual father warns me against blogs like this because some of the discussions excite our passions. Maybe I should listen to him.

                  • George Michalopulos says:

                    I would hate to see you go, Fr, because your insights enlighten me. I especially like what you wrote about “the people’s voice being higher”. If true, then the South had every right to secede (as did the original 13 colonies).

                  • Jerry Wilson says:

                    Sorry to have given offense, but you said:
                    “I am a monarchist precisely because I’m a Christian. After all, we don’t proclaim ,”Blessed is the Republic,” or “Blessed is the Democracy” at the beginning of the liturgy.”
                    It seemed to me that it is precisely what you were saying. I stand corrected and am glad for it!

                    • V. Rev. Andrei Alexiev says:

                      Thank you for your apology. I realize now if I would have stated the whole beginning, “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages”, you would not have misunderstood.

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says:

                      I join Jerry’s remarks.
                      I found nothing offensive in your remarks, and mine can’t be interpreted as offensive, I don’t believe, nor even controversial. I expect there are many American Orthodox who are not monarchists.

                  • In the Gospels, the Kingdom of Heaven generally refers to theosis. Yet when Christ taught us to pray, He commended us to ask that God’s Kingdom come (i.e., theosis) and His will be done (the external Christian monarchy) on earth as it is in heaven.

                    • Joseph Lipper says:

                      Misha,

                      How would you equate “His will be done” with “the external Christian monarchy”…?

                      The concept of the divine right of kings has been enjoyed by nearly all monarchs, both Christian and pagan. Every “Christian” monarch has also proclaimed to be doing the will of God, including Tsar Peter the Great, Emperor Leo III, Constantine Copronymus, etc. So often there has been an obvious disconnect between the will of God and what the “Christian” monarch has actually done.

                    • Joseph,

                      We can be fairly certain that during the period between the Fall and the Second Coming, God would be quite pleased with Christian monarchs establishing the Law of God as the law of the land in their realms to the extent practicable.

                      “Before kingdoms can can change, men must change.” – John the Baptist, in the TV miniseries Jesus of Nazareth

                      Franco is often mischaracterized as a fascist (he was not a totalitarian, but a devout Catholic), but his rule as regent in place of the monarch is one example of such an arrangement. He had his faults, no doubt. However, Spain prospered toward the latter part of his rule after he got his economics figured out. Now, there were challenges to his rule. But blaming him for putting down republican revolutionaries is more or less tantamount to blaming him for being an effective monarch. Same with Assad in Syria, except that he is Alawi Shiite, not Christian.

                      Quit attempting regicide and the rex will quit slaughtering his adversaries.

      • Michael Bauman, Imagine a Louis Farrakhan/Al Sharpton Ticket/Presidency. Never would happen, but it would make for a interesting movie, directed and produced by the honorable Spike Lee. First step by by Sharpton burn the racist authored Constitution ,and destroy all statues of founding fathers. Second step by Farrakhan, round up all Jewish Americans, and descendants of slave owners, send the Jews to Israel, slave owners descendants to urban housing, in a housing exchange program with African Americans. Next give reparations, taken from the deported Jewish American’s assets, to the descendants of African Americans slaves.

        • Michael Bauman says:

          Dino, you have a dark and disturbed imagination. Even worse than mine.
          How about Alicia Garza and DeRay McKesson of black lives matter? Farrakhan and Sharpton are too old don’t you know and simply not activist enough.

          • I will take that as a compliment, MB!
            George, when will we hear the role of African Slave traders, now and then, or for that matter how many were killed, enslaved, and women abducted by The fraud Prophet Muhammad!

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Soon, I hope. That’s a tall order but one that is extremely enlightening.

              • “Sharia mandates proactive and perpetual war against Jews and Christians…the Islamic wars mandated by Sharia, like Imperialist and fascist wars, are not only unjust and illegitimate; they are a plague on the landscape of humanity.”-From Muslim: What You Need to Know about the World’s Fastest-Growing Religion- by Hank Hanegraaff

                New Orthodox Christian Hank Hanegraaff is not afraid to speak out, and write a book, without fear for his life, the truth about Muhammad, his evil deeds and his fake religion.

        • George Michalopulos says:

          And Louis Farrakhan as pope. His weekly homilies will talk about the role of Dutch and Portuguese Jews in the Transatlantic Slave Trade ad nauseam.

    • Tim R. Mortiss says:

      A matter to discuss with my Indian (East) priest. Or is he white even though dark brown?

      • Michael Bauman says:

        In today’s world, Timor, your priest simply by bring Orthodox is “white”. It is not actually based on race (a false premise invented by colonialists) so much as purity of ideology. The white lady who tried to be black is excoriated today but she is the vanguard IMO. Just as light skinned Negros passed as white if they could, so shall it be in the future if the current mindset continues.

        Of course it could become an aparthied with a reverse hierarchy.

  5. George, you are too simplistic here:

    “You could say the paradigm is basically nationalists versus globalists. Those who believe in localism, regionalism or some such territorial sovereignty and who are not ashamed of cultural peculiarities against those who view themselves as cosmopolites.”

    Nationalism is NOT the same as “localism, regionalism or some such territorial sovereignty.” In fact it stands directly opposed to these things. I’m speaking of ACTUAL nations, in history, not the ones retroactively imagined by nationalists who have images of the past with no connection to reality. Nationalism in the US wiped out the South in the Civil War. French wasn’t spoken by all Frenchmen until the late 19th century – how many of the regional languages and local customs survive today (and you can’t blame Muslims for that!)? Nationalism is but one stage on the road to globalization, enabled by technology, corporations like Wal-Mart, rapid travel, and powerful central states.

    The other place you go wrong is claiming that localisms are opposed to cosmopolitanism. Actually, localities – especially port cities – are FAR more tolerant and cosmopolitan than nations and nationalisms. Nationalism assumes a homogeneity that doesn’t actually exist, but nevertheless the ideology permits the central state to strive for it. Localities pay the price.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      Matt, you’re right, but when one is propagating an explanation for a new paradigm one sometimes has to make broad generalizations (as I did here). It’s messy I grant you and the devil is always in the details but where we stand now, it looks like nationalist vs globalists has greater explanatory power.

      Technically though, as a States’-rightist, you could say I’m not a “nationalist” in that I believe these United States are a confederation of several independent States held together by a Constitution and that they are jealous of the powers that inure to them as opposed to the Federal government.

  6. http://buchanan.org/blog/truly-imperils-free-society-127663

    http://nypost.com/2017/09/19/wiretaps-may-prove-trump-right-and-thats-absolutely-terrifying/

    It may get very interesting shortly. It seems as though there was a full court press by the Obama Administration and its intelligence services to surveille Trump, Inc. under FISA from the campaign into his presidency.

    Mueller’s investigation regarding Manafort seems to be turning up this stuff. If true, it is arguably treasonous.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says:

      Nixon got in trouble over this kind of behavior, why didn’t Obama and Clinton? Oh that’s right Obama was the “Anointed” leftistmessiah and Clinton his heir apparent. Got it. Makes sense to me…not!

      Peter A Papoutsis

  7. V. Rev. Andrei Alexiev says:

    Thank you for your apology. I realize now if I would have stated the whole beginning, “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages”, you would not have misunderstood.