Ideology is a canard. The rulers of the American Empire pick and choose from various ideologies to divert attention from their actions and the subsequent consequences.
For instance, libertarians have won a stunning victory with the de-facto legalization of drugs in major American cities, the disastrous consequences of which are plain for all to see. Meanwhile the far more serious libertarian ideas about the Federal Reserve, or the Patriot Act, are dismissed out of hand by our supposedly serious rulers.
The same people remain in charge, things keep going in the same direction, meanwhile the political debate constantly fluctuates over this or that little detail, in a way that is almost meaningless. Various factions receive small victories to keep them happy, without ever displacing the system itself.
Any ideologies which accept the premises and fundamental worldview of the social-democratic managerial state are in turn accepted by said state: Libertarianism Inc, Conservative Inc, and now Populist Inc.
We are meant to pretend that history has ended, that there is no such thing as an alternative to liberal internationalism, that nobody could possibly disagree with the Washington consensus, and that the power politics intrinsic to human nature have ceased to matter, and in fact no longer exist. The utopia is here, the people running it have unimpeachable motivations and character, and you need to quit complaining.
If you don’t challenge the fundamental legitimacy of the system, you can be raucous and rowdy. Typically this involves trumpeting your loyalty to the first principles of modernity over and above the commitment of your opponents (the Democrats are the real racists!) There are boundaries erected, and within this arena you can be as partisan as you like. But stray outside, and hell rains down on you.
Even within this framework, there is far too much emphasis placed on the power of ideas. Mainstream ideologues believe that the people in charge don’t actually have to be kicked out and replaced, rather that they can be convinced of their specific interpretation of social-democracy (if only the Washington bureaucrats accepted school vouchers it would be problem solved!)
Of course this is incredibly advantageous for the top bureaucrats, as there is never any reason for them to get fired, or for their power and control to diminish. The system has been formed in this way for this reason.
And above the squabbling peasants is a very solid consensus, brutally enforced. It’s truly astonishing how the media has individualized the Epstein case to just him and Maxwell. To join the pinnacle of the elite, the real global decision makers, a person had to be filmed committing the crime of sex with an underage girl, so that if they ever truly opposed or exposed the system and those running it, they could be immediately and efficiently thrown under the bus.
In a more mundane sense, power is jealously guarded anytime there is a serious possibility of a peasant uprising. When Genrikh Yago- I mean, Merrick Garland said upon ascending office he would target ‘white supremacy’ only the truly credulous would take that at face value. He is clearly saying ‘I am in power, for the first time with Donald Trump there was a serious possibility of my being removed from power, I am thus going to crack down on my opponents, and justify it by declaring their existence as metaphysically evil.’
The real questions to ask politically are who, why, and for what incentives?
What, exactly, do we want society to look like? What outcomes do we want? Does this fit with what the current elite want, or do they have an entirely different vision and set of philosophical, moral, and theological premises?
All this relates to the Italian sociological school of elitism, and its American interpreters James Burnham and Sam Francis. The key idea here is that political power exists as a natural and permanent phenomenon of human society. Derived from this are historical questions of how political power can be obtained, and how it is wielded.
Answering the question of what we want society to look like is easy for good people, and constitutes common sense. The answer should be informed by Christian values. Once the conservative movement acknowledges this and starts focusing on ends rather than obsessing over the self-inflicted ideological restrictions constructed around means, we will begin to see positive results.
The conservative movement in America has been reticent to wield power, having confused this with questions of limited versus totalitarian government. This was the biggest mistake in American intellectual history, as if you don’t wield power, it doesn’t cease existing, rather the mantle is picked up by someone else. The Republicans refusing to use the government is exactly how we ended up with the Inflation Reduction Act and 80,000 new armed IRS agents, and all of the preceding horrors of the post-1960s slip-n-slide into hell.
Even on the radical side of things, the Sovereign Citizens and Posse Comitatus make some good points, but the idea that presenting a document written with just the right combination of words will somehow get the Federal Leviathan to leave you alone is simply absurd. And the idea that individual and terroristic violence will achieve anything other than playing into the regime’s hands is even crazier.
And we are talking not just about the government, but about a consolidated regime, where government, the uniparty, big tech, the media, and federal law enforcement all act in unison. Behind the regime is an all too cozy group of elites who grow up together, go to the same schools, marry one another, share the same values, and feel total contempt for regular Americans, and frankly regular everyone else the world over.
Francis is frequently criticized by mainstream conservatives for being too worldly, for having no ‘feeling’. This is largely false, as Francis’ writing evidences clear appreciation for family, community, race, and religion. Furthermore, many of his colleagues, such as Joe Sobran, had already written extensively on questions of theology and abstract philosophy. Since the conservative movement had an abundance of this kind of thought, and very little in the way of practical strategic planning, we can hardly blame Francis for focusing on pragmatic questions at the cost of seeming cynical.
However, there is some validity to this criticism, and this is where the importance of Nick Fuentes comes into play.
Nick has true religious conviction, true faith in Jesus Christ Himself, rather than sociological appreciation of Christianity as I would tentatively ascribe to Francis. This belief in transcendent values supplements Nick’s naturally abundant charisma and allows him to rally truly loyal supporters to his cause, motivated by greater concerns than purely material interests, and thus motivated to be more committed and more loyal. Faith is also why Nick has displayed greater staying power than others. At base, if comfort is all there is, why persevere in opposing the system? Yet if there is judgement after death, to even consider not persevering is to feel terror at the prospect. It is also important in establishing future governing legitimacy that the America First movement is motivated not solely by oppositional yet reciprocal self-interest against the current elite, but by faith, by as pure motivations as fallen men can muster. And certainly by a more elevated outlook than the current sociopathic elite possess.
So far, so conservative, at least inasmuch as the conservative movement isn’t faking its Christianity.
The departure from the status quo is that Nick synthesizes his transcendent values with a realistic Franciscan understanding of political power. He is serious about actually implementing paleoconservative governing principles, and he is serious about ascertaining the means to achieve this end.
This dovetails perfectly with the current dynamics surrounding Trump. President Trump possesses great political instincts, yet lacks political depth. This is understandable given his lifetime career in business and entertainment, wholly separate vocations.
Yet whether it is sound instinct, or a lesson learned, Trump is once again making serious moves, floating his plan to fire 50,000 deep state federal employees upon regaining the White House.
It is a foolish idea to abandon Trump. Despite a (deeply) flawed first term, Trump is the only one to have mobilized the necessarily large social base of Middle America into a consolidated and unified force, ready to oppose Washington DC. Today he is still the only one capable of mobilizing this force, and even if there were someone else capable, that would involve a messy and divisive struggle to supersede the Donald.
Whether people like it or not, Trump is the leader. One can either work with that as is, realistically, or throw a tantrum. The latter option achieves nothing.
Nick understands that, and while he has built a truly independent movement of thousands of competent, well-informed, young men to interact with whatever political dynamics prevail at any given moment, at this point in time political action entails deploying his organization behind Trump, ready to fill those 50,000 bureaucratic positions.
America will have government by Groyper. If the government is filled with bad people, as it has been for such a long time, the nation will suffer under bad government. If the government is filled with good, not perfect, but good, Christian men, the nation will be governed well, for the benefit of the common good, and subject to Christian morality.
As Francis said,
The mere “wish not to be dominated,” as the anti-Federalists, the Confederates, the agrarian populists, and, most recently, the grassroots adherents of the New Right wanted, has not sustained their independence and freedom or the integrity of their cultural institutions. If what remains of such forces are serious about resisting being swallowed by the new transnational colossus, they will have to recognize that they can do so only by dominating - that is, by becoming “nobles” themselves, by uniting in a new Middle American nationalism, and by putting aside the divisions and distractions that have turned them into the victims of fortune instead of her master. (From ‘New Nationalism’, quoted in Revolution from the Middle, p. 32)
I know of no better plan.