The Case for Trump: Communication

As we get closer to the election, I am going to spell out my reasoning and explain why I think it is in our interest to vote for Donald Trump.

The number one reason is that Trump is red pilling the “conservative base.” From the beginning, Trump’s campaign has been driven by nationalist and populist themes, which he has used to challenge conservative orthodoxy. He’s been the leader of a nationalist and populist insurgency. While he is not a White Nationalist by any stretch of the imagination, Trump’s brand is essentially “Nationalism Lite.”

Trump has millions of conservatives drinking “Nationalism Lite.” Turn on the Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham Show. Visit Breitbart or the Drudge Report. Take a look at how much Free Republic has changed over the last few years. They’re all drinking “Nationalism Lite” now. Thanks to Trump’s impact, they have all shifted into what used to be our neighborhood on the internet. They cover all the stories which I used to write about.

This shift from drinking Mitt Romney’s milk to drinking Trump’s “Nationalism Lite” has been a major step forward for our movement. Getting our people to see and analyze events through the nationalist paradigm is the toughest challenge. Once you get that far down the road, it is only a few leaps from Pat Buchanan-style nationalism and Trump’s “Nationalism Lite” to full blown racial or ethnic nationalism.

As I said yesterday, when you drill down to our core beliefs we are fundamentally populists and nationalists. Trump is turning millions of people into populists and nationalists. He’s moving them closer to our positions across the board on a range of issues. It’s like being French and understanding someone who speaks Italian instead of, say, Japanese or Arabic. We can understand and communicate with each other now.

If Hillary wins in November, I am certain that our people will become angrier and more alienated. That has been the trend through the last eight years of Obama’s presidency. Trump is taking that anger and alienation and getting his people to see events through a nationalist as opposed to a conservative lens. When they do that, (((Shapiro))), (((Levin))), (((Weinstein))) & Co. just don’t look the same. Instead of being seen as champions of the Tea Party, they are perceived as being something else entirely.

Just as I went from drinking Pat Buchanan’s “Nationalism Lite” in 2001 to where I am today, many of Trump’s followers will undoubtedly go looking for the stronger stuff. Most of us who are here now got here via Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or someone else who deviated from conservative orthodoxy and opened our eyes to nationalism. Buchanan and Paul never got through the primaries, but their wake had a huge impact.

Either way, we are going to have plenty of material to work with after November. If Hillary wins, it is raw anger and alienation, which can just as easily be coopted like the Tea Party. If Trump wins, it is newly minted populists and nationalists looking for the next step on their journey. The latter is preferable to the former.

8 Comments

  1. One thing is certain. A lot of people in US government are sociopaths or sycophants(maybe they should be called psychophants). Sociopaths have no qualms about anything. And sycophants are so into their career and promotion that they just go along with the powers that be.

    From the Ukraine Crisis and Libya/Syria, I learned how vile, vicious, dirty, and lowdown people in US government can be. And the Western Media. So, if these people had the kind of power that Hitler or Stalin had, they would stop at nothing to push their ruthless demented agenda. And US agents have a freer reign to pull dirty shit OUTSIDE the US with non-US citizens.

    But when it comes to Americans, it is too risky for US government to have them killed(esp 1000s of them) just to push some agenda.

    However, in the War on Terror, we’ve seen how the line between US citizen and foreigner is getting blurred.

    There was a time when an American Citizen mostly referred to white Americans(and also to black Americans)with roots in American history. So, there was a clear distinction between American and non-American.

    But with massive immigration and rising Diversity, the meaning of ‘American’, ‘citizen’ , and ‘foreigner’ isn’t as clear anymore. (Even the meaning of ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ isn’t clear anymore. PC says referring to any person as ‘illegal’ is dehumanizing’. We live in a nation that has trouble telling the difference between ‘man’ and ‘woman’, between true marriage and ‘gay marriage’.)

    When ‘American’ meant white American with considerable roots in American land and history, the idea of US government killing US citizens would have sounded appalling.

    And when it came to US blacks, the mantra is their rights must be respected with Miranda rights. Richard Daley got hell for saying ‘shoot to kill, shoot to maim’. So, even when blacks burn, loot, and kill, their rights must be respected and there must be due process. But in overseas ventures, if people get out of line, US military can just mow down entire peoples like in Serbia and Somalia. (And Americans sure don’t care about all those dead Palestinians killed by Zionists and Yemenis killed by Saudis as allies of US.) But with so many US citizens now being non-white newcomers with shallow roots(and who move back and forth between the West and non-West), Americans are more willing to accept the ‘right’ of US government to kill US citizens if they are engaged in terrorism or suspected of such. These ‘US citizens’ are seen as foreign terrorists who just happened to have acquired US citizenship without genuine love of country.

    The dangerous implication of this logic is as follows: Killing foreign terrorists is a must. No need for due process and rule of law. Just kill the scumbag. If a Muslim US citizen is abroad and aiding terrorists, he too is a terrorist and should be killed on the spot. It violates due process, but since terrorists deserved to die, priority deems that he must killed too and due process must take the backseat. Such logic establishes that US citizen can be killed without due process for terror. It sets the template that US government doesn’t need due process to kill an American citizen. And if terror is used as the justification today, what will be invoked to kill US citizens in the future? And if Muslim US citizens are killed today, might it lead to the killing of white US citizens as well? Maybe for ‘hate crimes’? With US government turning global than national, white American patriots in the future might be seen the way foreign terrorists are seen today. Today, terrorists abroad must killed for resisting US hegemony. Tomorrow, patriotic white ‘haters’ may have to be killed by US government for resisting Inclusive Globalist Hegemony.

    This is the problem of mass immigration and diversity. Notice how terrorist attack happens, and then the attacker is mentioned as a ‘Norwegian’ or ‘Frenchman’ or ‘German’ or ‘Briton’ when he is clearly an Arab or Muslim or some such. When Norwegians were all white, the idea of killing a Norwegian without due process would have been horrific. But with ‘Norwegians’ committing acts of terror and EU turning into a militarized zone, the authorities are more prone to gun down suspects terrorists on the spot without due process… even if they person is legally a ‘European’. But if ‘Europeans’ could be killed without due process today for terror, might not real Europeans be killed without due process over some other excuse in the future?

    Even up to the early 90s, the term ‘American’ immediately invoked the image of White American with some roots in American history. But with massive immigration and promotion of Diversity, it is no longer so. Say ‘American’ today, and people see Diversity. So, American can mean some Muslim who’s been in the US for just several yrs and got citizenship. He or she is deemed just as ‘American’ as Americans with ancestry going back to Mayflower. And with easy and cheap air travel, this ‘American’ might travel back and forth often between US and his native country. And with cellphone and internet, he could be communicating with people back home and even be plotting with them to pull some bad shit in the US. It could be terror or some fraud scheme like those pulled by Nigerians or Pakistanis. And all those Chinese with their birth tourism. They come here pregnant to have ‘American’ kids who are entitled to all the goodies.

    If the meaning of ‘American’ becomes so vague, and there is no longer any clear distinction between us and them, between whites and non-whites, then things may indeed get scarier for Americans.

    Traditionally, Americans haven’t cared what the US government does overseas as long as it respects the Rights of US citizens. So, if US military mowed down 1000s of Somalis like in BLACKHAWK DOWN, no big deal. But if one Negro is killed under funny circumstances in the US, it is a very big deal.

    But as ‘us and them’ becomes blurred, ‘they’ are ‘us’ and ‘we’ are ‘they’. And if US government can attack and kill ‘them’ by the bushel, and if ‘they’ and ‘us’ can no longer be told apart, it means US government may kill ‘us’ as ‘them’.

    Indeed, this is related to the White Death phenom. US government no longer sees white American working class as True Americans with roots in the US. People whose ancestors built this nation. Instead, they are seen much like white people once used to regard American Indians. People who need to be pushed aside to make for the New Americans. So, ‘they’ become the new ‘us’. This makes US more ‘inclusive’, but Americans nevertheless still don’t care when US is killing bushels of foreigners abroad.

    I mean there never was a Iraqi Lives Matter when all those bombs were being dropped on Iraq. There never was a Libyan Lives Matter when US was turning Libyan cities to rubble. So, this invite/invade stuff is leading to some schizo-americanism.

    ————————-

    • “US government no longer sees white American working class as True Americans with roots in the US. People whose ancestors built this nation. Instead, they are seen much like white people once used to regard American Indians. People who need to be pushed aside to make for the New Americans.”

      That is a brilliant insight.

      • Deeper than that. Citizenship is cheap. See Khan’s bread n butter business. Visas for his coreligionists.

        The government spends treasure getting Arab/Persian “US citizens” out of Iranian gaols. It’s humiliating.

        • I’m thinking those guys were spies working for us. No way do we not have an extensive espionage effort against Iran, how do you think the Stuxnet virus got into their enrichment plants? Certainly some are going to get caught and while I do think the authorities over there are quite paranoid (perhaps rightly) and innocents get caught up in their counter intelligence sweeps, certainly not all of them were just on vacation, etc. If true then we do owe it to get our assets back to show we look after those who work for us, especially after the drunken old ladies hacked servers could have put a lot of our spies at risk.

  2. Trump’s paradigm is alt-center citizenism and civic nationalism. While it’s not alt-right by itself (per my proposed definition of alt-right), and while it’s definitely not racial or ethno nationalism, it is way preferable to the incumbent cosmopolitan universalist abstract ideologies of both the left and right.

    Trump’s paradigm has also exposed a new heretofore unknown schism in the general American rightist voting universe. In a typical Republican Presidential year, the establishment favored horse would win Massachusetts, and a true conservative would win Alabama. Turns out that we got the wrong messages about the Republican voting electorates in both states, only because the only options were RINO establishment types and true conservatives. Once Trump came along with alt-center citizenism and civic nationalism, it gave a lot of apathetic white people outside the South a reason to turn out, and it gave white people in the South a better option. This is why Trump won both Massachusetts and Alabama.

    No, the new division that Trump exposed is between the hardened East, both Union and Confederate, and naive Midwestern and Intermountain Western congenial.

Comments are closed.