Could be an interesting and fun excercise here to create for these, in addition to the very nice symbols a sort of given moto, especially now that it is done.
Christian Caesarism - In Hoc Signo Vinces
Parallelism - Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
Classical Neoreactionaries - By Reason, Through Force
Fusionists - Freedom Isn't Free
Techno-optimists - Per Ardua ad Astra
Catholic New-Dealers - New Deal, Old Church
Populist Christian Democracts - One Church, One People
While much of the article is substantive and informative, support for Trump goes far beyond being a mere personality cult.
I first became interested in Trump in 2015 because he was the only one among potential candidates who was making an issue of border security, and of jobs lost to overseas production. His support for Israel; desire to reduce the Federal bureaucracy's overreach; opposition to abortion and the transgender agenda (which was actualized in federal policies where he had executive control); levying tariffs to protect American industry (which did have a positive effect) - he had many sound policies which he made every effort to carry out.
In 2024 he is the only viable candidate espousing common sense policies on these and other issues. He would have been more successful than he was while in office if he had not been the object of non-stop hatred and lies by the mass-media (some of which I suspect had Chinese money behind it) and if he had stronger support from Republicans in Congress, and if the Democrats had not declared him the enemy and refused to cooperate sincerely with him.
Also in 2015-2016 he made fools out of all of the experts and had / has much more political savvy than people give him credit for.
Trump's background was in business, where he was the CEO, the boss, he did not have to worry about nuances - politics is a very different matter. I did think Trump doing a sort of semi dance to the song YMCA was inappropriate, as well as getting into too many spats which Lincoln would have ignored, and calling Biden a psycho does not help and is not necessary.
I did love the 'we will root out the radical left thugs that live like vermin in the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible, legally or illegally, to destroy America, and to destroy the American dream.'
Nobody else could have put those that celebrate the mutilation of children in better words. Here, he sounded like a statesman.
I'm a fan of STJ , it has influenced me and many in Europe. I think there is an Atlantic divide on neo-paganism. The american right is very Christian, and "paganism" there tends to be woke. Europe on the other hand has abandoned Christianity several generations ago, and nascent neo-paganism is more traditionalist, Nietzschean and less larpy.
Of course there is a more extreme example who has a considerable cult of followers, Varg Vikernes. There are others like him.
So I read through this series, and the categories of it and frankly I'm disappointed. Nowhere is the elephant in the room mentioned.
Woke is the ruling ideology because it serves the interest of Global American Empire.
But nowhere is the root issue of empire even mentioned, despite being vigorously debated on the right. Conservative Inc, is a cuck to woke because they are a bunch of imperialists, while the nationalists are sidelined because they are against the empire (empire being the opposite of nation).
Instead the whole survey of the right is a insular American affair like the issue of imperial rule wasn't the determining political factor, and the key issue of all political discourse. What to do about the empire?
Maintain it as the Conservative Inc wants, as per their raytheon patrons, like the MIC adjacent PayPal mafia?
Abandon it, as per Maga and the libertarians?
Forcibly fight is it, as many European nationalists?
It wasn't strictly American. Some are cross-Anglosphere, some are nation specific, and I specify if they are nation-specific.
I don't consider it the 'elephant in the room', and I think Conservatism Inc being a cuck to Woke has extremely little to do with foreign policy. Because as I'm writing from a British perspective, the divides in approach to American foreign policy doesn't really apply to non-Americans.
I might do, at some point in the future, a discussion of different foreign policy approaches. Israel/Palestine is a huge divide especially. But foreign policy isn't an issue that especially interests me.
Empire is a key question also to the British establishment. The City of London is a key node in the Western empire and British foreign policy is entirely wrapped up in empire.
British domestic policy, the war on labor by migration, the off shoring to China to focus the economy on fire etc. All of that is also determined by empire.
"There is a divide between the more Woke-inclined members of the movement like J.K Rowling, Kathleen Stock, and Helen Joyce, who still believe in using preferred pronouns as a ‘courtesy’"
At the risk of being a tiresome pedant, Helen Joyce does not (any more) believe in using preferred pronouns, at least according to her response to Richard Dawkins here: https://youtu.be/hu72Lu5FqE4?si=titYBObAbBk5ACPv&t=1431
That they have. I’m glad to see Louise Perry included in terf-to-rightosphere pipeline; she’s been one of my favorite podcasters in this space lately.
Also I am amused that your symbol for the race realists is just the Aporia Magazine logo, rather than, say, Steve Sailer’s golf course avatar or a human phylogeny tree. Matt Archer really seems to have come out of nowhere to become the greatest talent coordinator of the HBD space.
My problem with him, is he has a hard time focusing on what's long-term important as opposed to what's popular on social media.
For example, he had four years to do something about the persistent problem of election fraud and aside from a token commission which he ultimately hung out to dry, he did nothing.
He also waited to address the problem of wokeness until nearly the end of his term, and then only under the influence of Chris Rufo.
Trump has his flaws, and less social media would have helped. He could have put up his own presidential website and put up comments on issues of the day once or twice a week in a more dignified manner. I don't think calling Biden a "psycho" helps either. All Trump has to do is keep stating directly and forcefully what the issues are and what Biden's policies have been.
It may be that the establishment is now too far gone for one man to change. Maybe no one can fix it now, who knows? I am not looking for Trump to save the nation, though his reelection would be a step in the right direction.
But, we should not forget Trump’s strengths and virtues. He was and is right about four of the most basic polices affecting the security of the nation: domestic energy production (which includes rejecting the global warming scam); rebuilding of American industry which has been overwhelmed by unfair foreign competition; the China threat; and building the border wall.
He was very successful in the first two, and made real progress on the border issue in the face of fierce opposition from the Democrats, and lack of support from many Republicans, as well as relentless, non-stop lies and hate from the poisonous media – and this last was a big factor. I personally know people who actually believe what they get from the national news and are completely ignorant of Trump’s accomplishments (such as reopened factories) for which the media gave him zero credit.
Trump was also right about the Middle East in many ways, especially in cutting off aid to the Palestinians (who took US money and gave back nothing in return); right about reducing as much federal funding for abortion as much as he could; and right about reducing governmental overreach. His fundamental instincts are basically sound.
I think his biggest error was in underestimating the hostility of the Democratic Party and the bureaucracy. In a normal system of give and take, Trump could have done very well and gone down in history as a great president. But the venomous hatred directed against him 24/7 by the mass media, and the persistent attempts by the bureaucracy and the Democratic opposition to destroy him, or to at least block his every move, had never before been seen in American history. Trump did not expect that, but I don’t think anyone else did either. I am certain there is Chinese money fueling the fire of blind and fanatic Trump hatred, but also a smoothly running economy is the last thing the leftists want. Their goal is the collapse of capitalism and scrapping the Constitution, and Trump is the most effective obstacle to all their dearest dreams of power and change - so they use the standard and obvious leftist tactic of demonization, slander, vilification and the most outrageous and ridiculous lies.
About Trump’s failure to oppose election fraud, David Horowitz has an excellent overview of the issue in the first chapter of his book "Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last." He says that “Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, clearly stipulates that the rules governing the elections are the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the states. Thus, electoral 'reforms' passed by the Supreme Courts of some key states, without the approval of the legislature or the signature of the governor, were blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.
Bad is this was, what made it worse was the Republican majorities in the legislatures in five of the six battleground states refused to enforce the constitutional provision which would have prevented obviously fraudulent practices (including the elimination of signature requirements and signature matching) and the constant influx of late ballots to be accepted as late as Friday (the official cutoff time had previously been election day at 8PM (Horowitz is talking about Pennsylvania here). Do you know how much easier it is to steal an election when you are able to continually find late and missing ballots for several days afterward (unauthenticated ballots at that)?
Horowitz wrote that when it became clear the Democrats were diligently working months before the vote to change election laws in key states, Trump predicted they were going to cheat – but what could he do when the Republicans in the key states did not support him? He definitely should have made more noise about it, and pointed out the illegality of it, and stirred up some local support in key states, or at least established the facts beforehand, but the state Republicans should have been leading the charge there.
Then Horowitz describes what you may know already, that because of the blatant illegality and unconstitutionality of the Democratic fraud in key states (and a shift of only three states would have given Trump the victory), a suit was brought to the Supreme Court by the state of Texas. It was backed by 126 of 196 Republicans in the House, and 19 Republican states filed motions of supports. In spite of the clear and abundant evidence of blatant fraud and cheating, the Supreme Court refused to hear the suit. I attribute this to liberals on the court who had a strong determination to keep Trump out of office by fair means or foul, and cowardice on the part of the allegedly conservative justices (the decision was 5-2). The Court refused to hear it because Texas had a “lack of standing.”
Of course the same people who said Trump was a Russian agent also called the suit crazy and ridiculous, but there is the undeniable fact of the illegality of the electoral process.
About the election commission, I assume you mean the Carter-Baker Commission, that made a lot of common sense recommendations for reform in 2005, but I suspect that maybe Bush and certainly Obama did nothing to implement them. Maybe Trump should have pursued that more aggressively, but certainly the state Republicans should have been in the forefront.
About the problem of wokeness, I have often thought that Trump did not do a very effective job of presenting the issues clearly. He was no Churchill and lacks an oratorical gift, but could he change the mass media or universities and the entire national educational system that has been poisoning the minds of an entire nation for years, from grade school through university?
PS About election fraud, Horowitz also states that "in a Pennsylvania Senate hearing three weeks after the election, there was sworn testimony that in one ballot dump, Biden received roughly 500,000 votes - or 99.4% of those cast, while Trump received only 3,200 or 0.6 percent of the ballots submitted." 500,000 votes, 99.4 % for Biden. Hmmm. And Biden won the state of Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes.
Could be an interesting and fun excercise here to create for these, in addition to the very nice symbols a sort of given moto, especially now that it is done.
Christian Caesarism - In Hoc Signo Vinces
Parallelism - Sic Transit Gloria Mundi
Classical Neoreactionaries - By Reason, Through Force
Fusionists - Freedom Isn't Free
Techno-optimists - Per Ardua ad Astra
Catholic New-Dealers - New Deal, Old Church
Populist Christian Democracts - One Church, One People
High Integralists - Una Sancta, Una Americana
Protestant Nationalists - the City on the Hill
Race Realists - Eyes Wide Open
I love these. I'm going to adopt them actually.
I’ve got one more article and two more factions actually, but yes, after this, at last, this very successful series will be done.
While much of the article is substantive and informative, support for Trump goes far beyond being a mere personality cult.
I first became interested in Trump in 2015 because he was the only one among potential candidates who was making an issue of border security, and of jobs lost to overseas production. His support for Israel; desire to reduce the Federal bureaucracy's overreach; opposition to abortion and the transgender agenda (which was actualized in federal policies where he had executive control); levying tariffs to protect American industry (which did have a positive effect) - he had many sound policies which he made every effort to carry out.
In 2024 he is the only viable candidate espousing common sense policies on these and other issues. He would have been more successful than he was while in office if he had not been the object of non-stop hatred and lies by the mass-media (some of which I suspect had Chinese money behind it) and if he had stronger support from Republicans in Congress, and if the Democrats had not declared him the enemy and refused to cooperate sincerely with him.
Also in 2015-2016 he made fools out of all of the experts and had / has much more political savvy than people give him credit for.
I support Trump for 2024, despite previously being sceptical of him and being on Team DeSantis. Project 2025 sounds amazing.
I just don't think everything he says should be taken as gospel.
I agree some people place too much hope in Trump. It may be that the situation is too far gone for anyone to reverse - I hope not!
I don't blame people for having hope in Trump, I want to have faith in him too, but I don't believe absolutely everything he says.
He is funny though, sometimes in a 'laugh at' kind of a way, but funny nonetheless.
Trump's background was in business, where he was the CEO, the boss, he did not have to worry about nuances - politics is a very different matter. I did think Trump doing a sort of semi dance to the song YMCA was inappropriate, as well as getting into too many spats which Lincoln would have ignored, and calling Biden a psycho does not help and is not necessary.
'Crooked Joe Biden and his radical left lunatics' made me laugh.
I did love the 'we will root out the radical left thugs that live like vermin in the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible, legally or illegally, to destroy America, and to destroy the American dream.'
Nobody else could have put those that celebrate the mutilation of children in better words. Here, he sounded like a statesman.
Just noticed that this is missing the right-neo-pagans.
Are they an actual significant faction?
Aren’t they just BAP and Nietzschean critics of Christianity?
Well the ones I was thinking of pre-date BAP and don't generally talk about Nietzsche although the occasionally mention Evola. Example:
https://survivethejive.blogspot.com
How influential are they though?
I'm a fan of STJ , it has influenced me and many in Europe. I think there is an Atlantic divide on neo-paganism. The american right is very Christian, and "paganism" there tends to be woke. Europe on the other hand has abandoned Christianity several generations ago, and nascent neo-paganism is more traditionalist, Nietzschean and less larpy.
Of course there is a more extreme example who has a considerable cult of followers, Varg Vikernes. There are others like him.
Interesting perspective.
Even as a Brit I must say I'm more familiar with the American movements than the European ones.
I'm not sure where the British movement is placed, it's kind of the bridge between Europe and the United States.
No idea.
So I read through this series, and the categories of it and frankly I'm disappointed. Nowhere is the elephant in the room mentioned.
Woke is the ruling ideology because it serves the interest of Global American Empire.
But nowhere is the root issue of empire even mentioned, despite being vigorously debated on the right. Conservative Inc, is a cuck to woke because they are a bunch of imperialists, while the nationalists are sidelined because they are against the empire (empire being the opposite of nation).
Instead the whole survey of the right is a insular American affair like the issue of imperial rule wasn't the determining political factor, and the key issue of all political discourse. What to do about the empire?
Maintain it as the Conservative Inc wants, as per their raytheon patrons, like the MIC adjacent PayPal mafia?
Abandon it, as per Maga and the libertarians?
Forcibly fight is it, as many European nationalists?
It wasn't strictly American. Some are cross-Anglosphere, some are nation specific, and I specify if they are nation-specific.
I don't consider it the 'elephant in the room', and I think Conservatism Inc being a cuck to Woke has extremely little to do with foreign policy. Because as I'm writing from a British perspective, the divides in approach to American foreign policy doesn't really apply to non-Americans.
I might do, at some point in the future, a discussion of different foreign policy approaches. Israel/Palestine is a huge divide especially. But foreign policy isn't an issue that especially interests me.
Empire is a key question also to the British establishment. The City of London is a key node in the Western empire and British foreign policy is entirely wrapped up in empire.
British domestic policy, the war on labor by migration, the off shoring to China to focus the economy on fire etc. All of that is also determined by empire.
"There is a divide between the more Woke-inclined members of the movement like J.K Rowling, Kathleen Stock, and Helen Joyce, who still believe in using preferred pronouns as a ‘courtesy’"
At the risk of being a tiresome pedant, Helen Joyce does not (any more) believe in using preferred pronouns, at least according to her response to Richard Dawkins here: https://youtu.be/hu72Lu5FqE4?si=titYBObAbBk5ACPv&t=1431
Okay, thanks for letting me know.
Good on her. I don’t discount the important work the TERFs have done on transgenderism by the way.
That they have. I’m glad to see Louise Perry included in terf-to-rightosphere pipeline; she’s been one of my favorite podcasters in this space lately.
Also I am amused that your symbol for the race realists is just the Aporia Magazine logo, rather than, say, Steve Sailer’s golf course avatar or a human phylogeny tree. Matt Archer really seems to have come out of nowhere to become the greatest talent coordinator of the HBD space.
It was both Aporia and American Renaissance. Seemed the most obvious logo.
Ah, so it is. I hadn't previously twigged thet they's both chosen the same symbol.
He could be more presidential, and is not as articulate as he should be.
My problem with him, is he has a hard time focusing on what's long-term important as opposed to what's popular on social media.
For example, he had four years to do something about the persistent problem of election fraud and aside from a token commission which he ultimately hung out to dry, he did nothing.
He also waited to address the problem of wokeness until nearly the end of his term, and then only under the influence of Chris Rufo.
Trump has his flaws, and less social media would have helped. He could have put up his own presidential website and put up comments on issues of the day once or twice a week in a more dignified manner. I don't think calling Biden a "psycho" helps either. All Trump has to do is keep stating directly and forcefully what the issues are and what Biden's policies have been.
It may be that the establishment is now too far gone for one man to change. Maybe no one can fix it now, who knows? I am not looking for Trump to save the nation, though his reelection would be a step in the right direction.
But, we should not forget Trump’s strengths and virtues. He was and is right about four of the most basic polices affecting the security of the nation: domestic energy production (which includes rejecting the global warming scam); rebuilding of American industry which has been overwhelmed by unfair foreign competition; the China threat; and building the border wall.
He was very successful in the first two, and made real progress on the border issue in the face of fierce opposition from the Democrats, and lack of support from many Republicans, as well as relentless, non-stop lies and hate from the poisonous media – and this last was a big factor. I personally know people who actually believe what they get from the national news and are completely ignorant of Trump’s accomplishments (such as reopened factories) for which the media gave him zero credit.
Trump was also right about the Middle East in many ways, especially in cutting off aid to the Palestinians (who took US money and gave back nothing in return); right about reducing as much federal funding for abortion as much as he could; and right about reducing governmental overreach. His fundamental instincts are basically sound.
I think his biggest error was in underestimating the hostility of the Democratic Party and the bureaucracy. In a normal system of give and take, Trump could have done very well and gone down in history as a great president. But the venomous hatred directed against him 24/7 by the mass media, and the persistent attempts by the bureaucracy and the Democratic opposition to destroy him, or to at least block his every move, had never before been seen in American history. Trump did not expect that, but I don’t think anyone else did either. I am certain there is Chinese money fueling the fire of blind and fanatic Trump hatred, but also a smoothly running economy is the last thing the leftists want. Their goal is the collapse of capitalism and scrapping the Constitution, and Trump is the most effective obstacle to all their dearest dreams of power and change - so they use the standard and obvious leftist tactic of demonization, slander, vilification and the most outrageous and ridiculous lies.
About Trump’s failure to oppose election fraud, David Horowitz has an excellent overview of the issue in the first chapter of his book "Final Battle: The Next Election Could Be the Last." He says that “Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, clearly stipulates that the rules governing the elections are the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the states. Thus, electoral 'reforms' passed by the Supreme Courts of some key states, without the approval of the legislature or the signature of the governor, were blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.
Bad is this was, what made it worse was the Republican majorities in the legislatures in five of the six battleground states refused to enforce the constitutional provision which would have prevented obviously fraudulent practices (including the elimination of signature requirements and signature matching) and the constant influx of late ballots to be accepted as late as Friday (the official cutoff time had previously been election day at 8PM (Horowitz is talking about Pennsylvania here). Do you know how much easier it is to steal an election when you are able to continually find late and missing ballots for several days afterward (unauthenticated ballots at that)?
Horowitz wrote that when it became clear the Democrats were diligently working months before the vote to change election laws in key states, Trump predicted they were going to cheat – but what could he do when the Republicans in the key states did not support him? He definitely should have made more noise about it, and pointed out the illegality of it, and stirred up some local support in key states, or at least established the facts beforehand, but the state Republicans should have been leading the charge there.
Then Horowitz describes what you may know already, that because of the blatant illegality and unconstitutionality of the Democratic fraud in key states (and a shift of only three states would have given Trump the victory), a suit was brought to the Supreme Court by the state of Texas. It was backed by 126 of 196 Republicans in the House, and 19 Republican states filed motions of supports. In spite of the clear and abundant evidence of blatant fraud and cheating, the Supreme Court refused to hear the suit. I attribute this to liberals on the court who had a strong determination to keep Trump out of office by fair means or foul, and cowardice on the part of the allegedly conservative justices (the decision was 5-2). The Court refused to hear it because Texas had a “lack of standing.”
Of course the same people who said Trump was a Russian agent also called the suit crazy and ridiculous, but there is the undeniable fact of the illegality of the electoral process.
About the election commission, I assume you mean the Carter-Baker Commission, that made a lot of common sense recommendations for reform in 2005, but I suspect that maybe Bush and certainly Obama did nothing to implement them. Maybe Trump should have pursued that more aggressively, but certainly the state Republicans should have been in the forefront.
About the problem of wokeness, I have often thought that Trump did not do a very effective job of presenting the issues clearly. He was no Churchill and lacks an oratorical gift, but could he change the mass media or universities and the entire national educational system that has been poisoning the minds of an entire nation for years, from grade school through university?
PS About election fraud, Horowitz also states that "in a Pennsylvania Senate hearing three weeks after the election, there was sworn testimony that in one ballot dump, Biden received roughly 500,000 votes - or 99.4% of those cast, while Trump received only 3,200 or 0.6 percent of the ballots submitted." 500,000 votes, 99.4 % for Biden. Hmmm. And Biden won the state of Pennsylvania by 81,000 votes.