Uncool Capital is the water we swim in on the right. It shapes the priorities of right wing parties irrespective of branding: establishmentarian, populist, nationalist. Three elements define the functioning of Uncool Capital: (a) mobilization of status anxious legacy social formations no longer recognized or fully supported by the socio-economic centres of gravity, (b) a tendency toward direct intervention in the apparatus of government, and (c ), instances of illegality or activity in the grey zone of financial propriety. Phenomenally, it presents itself to a liberal sensibility as a declassee, quasi-criminal assault on the institutional guarantors of social stability. The reporting from Mother Jones, The Intercept and similar media fronts propped up by rival concentrations of money track the machinations of Uncool Capital from within the discourse of trendy, metropolitan ideologies. Yet nationalists and populists devote minimal attention to the prime mover behind the outcomes of right-wing politics. That is no accident.

I. Uncool Capital Defined

[I]n my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is the dangerous concer- — and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead…

You know, his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He warned us then about, and I quote, “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power,” end of quote.

Six day lec- — six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the p- — potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.

Here, the former mouthpiece of ‘woke capital’, Joe Biden, outlines the essential objectives of Uncool Capital. It ‘abuses’ the processes beloved by centrists. In threatening the stability of a pluralist society dependent on equalized inclusion into quantifiable matrices of exchange, it attracts the designation ‘extreme.’ Uncool Capital resists naturalization, institutionalization, proceduralization, and routinization. Only to the extent woke capital exerts a moderating effect will it accept indirect rule through a carefully calibrated structural advantage.

Uncool Capital’s frustrations with the dominant competition modality mirror the dissatisfaction of a potential electoral base losing in their own fields. The signature move of Uncool Capital is to convert a sense of loss into political capital. It preys upon identity clusters drifting toward the periphery - Whites, conservative Christians, men, small business owners, ‘straights’, skilled contractors in the trades, and downwardly mobile young men who intuit an incremental disenfranchisement at the hands of activist movements responding to the impacts of new modernizations. “You're fed up and so are we. Time to bust out the chainsaw.” The advancement of openly oligarchic rule coupled with patterns of social organization tied to the past imparts a distinctly ‘uncool’ quality to these demarches from the perspective of capital’s progressive wing.

An early error I made in conceptualizing Uncool Capital was associating it with frowned upon activities. Killing (Raytheon), poisoning (Coca-Cola), polluting (Monsanto), scamming (MLMs, crypto), and inflicting suffering on animals (BigAg) correlated with reactionary endorsement of direct oligarchical rule. But the case of Elon Musk complicated the matter. During the Obama years, he was inextricably bound up with the image, mores, and Californiaform politics of left leaning America. Liberals proudly bought Teslas in a bid to save the planet. Sometime after Biden took office, he became alienated from the Democrat establishment, despite making the same products. Re-usable rockets, global comms, and EVs are some combination of cool and woke within the US political imaginary. Why would Musk abandon a secure base of legitimacy for red America?

The answer is fairly obvious: sectors of capital respond to the objective constraints of the competition landscape they co-constitute through mutually conditioning maneuvers. A decision to manufacture consent from the declasse masses (in service of instrumentalizing governance) is unrelated to the nature of the industries in the last instance. Instead, the calculation concerns which pathway confers a relative advantage in leverage from circumstance to circumstance. The debt crisis and productive stagnation reaching systemic proportions may have prompted Musk to pursue a hands-on attempt at reform while simultaneously insulating his companies from deflationary shocks with generous government contracts.

Subjective identification soon endeared Elon’s products to the new audience. For conservatives, Teslas have come to exemplify American engineering excellence; not fake, gay, unmanly cars conveying soy liberals to vaccination stations. Conversely, Rheinmetall has transformed in the liberal German mind from an unmentionable industry reminiscent of Nazi militarism to a pillar of a free, democratic Ukraine, and by extension, the European Union. Rheinmetall’s stock price - up by multiples since the 2022 full-scale invasion - would tank if the Russia-friendly AfD manages to form a government.

It would be remiss of me omit the third potential attribute of Uncool Capital: it’s quasi-criminal and actually criminal inclination. The crypto industry operates in the penumbra of legality. BTC, USDT, ETH, and BNB regularly transact money laundering for cartels and human trafficking, and it’s almost certain intelligence agencies like the CIA avail themselves of USDT for funding disreputable groups in locations diverse as Burma and Syria. Thiel-aligned patronage networks running interference against an emerging “one nation under blackmail” consensus in the Epstein case rely upon infusions of wealth (likely percolated through an obfuscating layer of meme coins, NFTs, substack subscriptions, and liscence to farm the For You Page).

Strictly speaking, financial impropriety is by no means exclusive to Uncool Capital. Enron and the Dot-Com Bubble were not tied to a party-political banner. The Clintons and Obamas receive inordinate payments for appearances and speeches, and “renewable energy” intiatives have expropriated billions from taxpayers only to destabilize the balance of the energy grid. What differentiates Uncool Capital is a blatant disregard for the rules of the road - witness Trump’s endless pardons of convicted frausters. There is neither the substance nor appearance of integrity. It suggests a push for a new normal of open looting as elites lose faith in the current iteration of the system. The same phenomenon occured in in the transition from the USSR to the Russian Federation. Populism and looting go hand-in-hand. Both impulses belongs to the liquidation phase of a political order. The loss of coherence drives public discontent expressed in the rise of demagogic politicians like Trump and Farage. Conterminously, it disrupts the mechanisms through which a measure of restraint was imposed on the ruling class. Thus, the praxis of Uncool Capital resolves into a psychological warfare against its own base; not persuasion, but concerted attempt to fabricate forms of subjectivity constitutionally incapable of reasoning and organizing to protect their interests. Not all divisions of Uncool Capital are criminal adjacent, but Uncool Capital will always lubruicate its political operations with quasi-criminal functionaries. Nobody else will do their bidding.

II. Uncool Capital and the Pattern of Retrenchment

Protect me from what I want
Protect me from what I want
Protect me from what I want
Protect me, protect me.

In the mass democracy, the ruling class vest administration in the much-maligned “PMC” who possess a cosmopolitain orientation condusive to the skillsets required to run complex societies. The ideological grammar of the PMC, arising from their experience of Durkheim’s “organic solidarity” in urbanized modernity, can be compatabalized with the expansion of quantatively defined flows across a flattened planet. It come as a surprise to rightwingers “civilization destroying” liberals are the preferred fuctionaries of applied governance, but the right-winger is fixated on the symptoms of decline, not the totality of what’s happening and why. Riots for racial justice, tranny storyhour, and conscious or unconscious reaction against the browning of the West dominate his mental horizon. These are problems for him, for Chud; they are peripheral obstacles at best to the extraction, expansion, and concentration of value. The long distance calculus of the ruling class wants governance which can stabilize the proccess of creative destruction. Liberals have the moral drive to address harm on a universal scale and the aptitude to implement the corresponding rafts of policy.

Set against the regime of governance fronted by the educated cohorts of urban populations are the impulses of legacy social formations. This grouping exhibits a pattern of retrenchment in response to a lived sense of diminishment within the symbolic and material order. They fall back - retrench - on the confort of a past ideologically mediated by conservative Christianity, libertarian ideology, latent racial anxiety, the crisis of masculinity, and awareness of their villified status as emblems of a prior societal organization. Without access to the primary institutions of modern society, they cling to those which remain within their ambit as the solution: the nuclear family, church, small business, NASCAR, and football in Europe.

What turns retrenchment into a pattern is the state of defensive immediacy pervading the psycho-social disposition. The image is that of a tom cat disturbed from his favourite haunt crouched backward in fear and confusion spitting and hissing as his threat detection axis ramps up into overdrive. The modality of expression within retrenched formations hinges on the degree to which their prviate lives can buffer the decline in their public prospects. Thus we see the difference between the far-right neo-pagan Hiterlist and the church-going “family values” Ned Flanders is one of modality, the positional role within the overall structuring is the same. The alt-right was comprised of downwardly mobile, disaffected, middle-class White males. Without the oedipalizing shield of family, religion, and business/employment reconciling the legacy subject to the macro political direction, he lashes out only to demand a substitute standard of conformity. That is the paradox of Sam Francis’ “middle-American radical.”

As a result, the retrenched right identifies upwards searching for a saviour from the “liberal elites”, or when in a hyper-activated state of mind, Jews. In other words, they want to find a top down solution, a potent Father who will resolve the chaos and banish the persecuting objects. All it takes to win their trust is for the corporation, politician, or party behind a populist campaign to present themselves in those symbolic terms. Trump’s genius lies in his ability to speak and act in this pre-conceptual, primal grammar. The dynamics of hierarchial identification explain the curious case of the “Nazi” Republican endemic to the post-2015 era. The liberal is convinced a national socialist lurks beneath the RETHUGLICAN MAGA voter. And indeed, sometimes there is a spinning swastica. But scratch the Nazi, and another Republican appears wholly invested in a champion thoroughly integrated into the same interests behind centre-right parties since WWII.

The hitherto ascendent consensus proscribed direct appeals to these febrile sentiments of legacy social formations. Elite factions inclined to such a strategy were held in abeyance by the so-called progressive wing of power-wealth. However, in an era of polycrisis and the increased independence of capital from popular contraints, Uncool Capital, much like the Ring of Power, peceives its time has come. The competition landscape has shifted and the advantage lies with privately directed wealth pursuing its own ends by exploiting the schizmogenesis (identity-related negative polarization) of chuds against the spatial order of a world made flat. Automative technology and the allocation of labour has reached a stage where the liberal bureaucrat is the new nigger. If the blacks became expired farm equipment in an industrializing economy, the liberal professional is expendable when talent is consolidated in the private sector and the private sector, supercharged by AI-enabled data-aggregation, exerts positive control over the institutions of the public sector.

Uncool Capital courts legacy social formations precisely because they are incapable of participating in governance. They are readily exploitable thanks to the pattern of retrenchment and will not require concessions, unlike liberals. What is their message to young, rightwing White men? Become an HVAC repairman, reproduce the labour pool, vote Red, and fuck off. And if you insist on playing politics, do so within the world of the dream, the phantasmagoria produced by shills our algos boost on platforms we own and control. The libidinal capture is highly refined, but what makes it all possible is the retrenched state of the target audiene.

III. Considerations

Tens years into the Trump era, mobilization of populist energy has done little to address the catastrophic trajectory of Western societies. Political rhetoric changed in order to instrumentalize legacy social formations toward ends diamatrically opposed to their interests. A decisive break with the exploitable consciousness of the pattern of retrenchment has to occur. I have proposed the notion of Aspirant Elites Going Their Own Way (AEGTOW). We have to get “out from under” the impress of these dynamics, which, as we have seen, are reactive rather than radical, even in their most ideologically extreme forms. That’s a topic deserving of a dedicated elaboration, but I will conclude with a preliminary sketch of an exit plan.

We find ourselves dominated by our own “based and redpilled” responses. It does not mean the underlying concerns are wrong. Our objective interests are real. But in order to secure those interests, the relationship to the substrate from which they arise must change. We must make practical moves to steer RW consciousness away from the pattern of retrenchment. Such a project includes things like the observer effect and expanding temporal depth (previous iterations of the right and what went wrong); in general becoming aware of right-wing psychology from the right, and adjusting accordingly. But it also means fencing off the first fragile inklings of a self-aware right from regression to the mean. It will not be possible to entertain or pander to The Retrenched in their state of immediacy. Their intrusion into self-aware circuits will comromise the zone of proximal development, the space where those who have mastered the new habitus act as scaffolding for promising entrants learning the ropes. In sum, we must study the concrete preconditions to attaining independence from the psychic prosthesis fit on us by the agents of Uncool Capital.

Two weeks following the NSDAP’s invasion of the Soviet Union of June of 1941, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan1 had withstood a third vote of confidence from the Churchillian faction within the Tory party allied to Soviet sympathetic members of Labour. McMillian’s political cache had dropped to precipitous lows after taking over as Conservative leader upon Chamberlin’s death in November 1940 - Churchill had accused him of promoting “peace for our time, war for our children, and more war for our grandchildren.” Yet Macmillan’s support was wider and deeper than many of his opponents suspected within the Unity Government. By maintaining the policy of “peace for our time”, he had garnered tacit support from the British Union of Fascists, while his Keynesian and industrialist leanings mollified the moderate MPs among the Labour Party. Macmillan had held onto power by the skin of his teeth. His messaging repeatedly emphasized the fragility of the British position in what he called the “great game of the titans”, the machinations of the United States, the Soviet Union, and National Socialist Germany.

As Hitler launched his crusade against Bolshevism,2 Macmillan struck back at his detractors in a Commons Speech later known as the “The Shield, the Dove, and the Sword” address. It depicted the figure of Britannica confronting “the tumult at hand.” In it, he pointed to the enormous buildup of matériel by the British Army in the South of England, the tripling of the Royal Air Force since 1939, and the growing power of the Royal Navy, now deployed to Malta, Crete, Cyprus, Iceland, Gibraltar, Portugal, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and the Suez. The RAF concentrated bomber squadrons in the Mediterranean, Levant, and Middle East to threaten, if necessary, Soviet or German controlled oil fields. These military installations encircling Europe, buttressed by the Royal Navy’s control over sea lanes, was Britain’s “argument of last resort.”3

But a shield was not enough. Macmillan warned Britain could no longer treat Europe as the determinative site of competition. Playing the balancer for the continent wasn’t realistic. Britain’s decline from 19th century preeminence behooved it to balance between its three principal competitors. The United States, and to a lesser extent Japan, obliged a reconceptualization of British statecraft. If the US could intervene in British affairs in Europe, and Japan intervene in China and the Pacific, then Britain could no longer maintain the “splendid independence” of great power status by winning continental conflicts. The dove no longer represented “peace for our time”, but one which waged “peace for Britain while the world wages war.” It is only since the release of the Halifax Communiques in 2002 that historians have accessed what “waging peace” meant behind the curtain of official neutrality. In July 1941, the vast British intelligence network in America had detected the preparations by the Judeo-communist sympathetic faction within the New Deal Regime for entry into the European conflict. Halifax relayed these findings back to London, and was dispatched forthwith to the Oval Office with a blunt warning. Britain would regard any US intervention in Europe as an act of war, and would align with Germany and Japan against the United States. Conterminously, Britain opened new lines of communication with Japan, agreeing to supply embargoed goods in exchange for “aligned neutrality” with Britain. This had strengthened the hand of the Anglophile faction within Japan associated with the navy, which was modelled after Britain’s own. In real terms, the “dove” was the “shield of the shield.” It preserved Britain’s threat of uncommitted military potential, and bought it space for technological and numerical growth.4

Yet the shield and the dove were intermediate strategic assets, or more accurately, intermediate solutions before the third leg of the triad arrived. Britannica must “find within herself once again the will of the naval-industrial state.” “The Saxon”, Macmillan reminded his audience, meant “the people of the knife.” The greatest knife of all was the Royal Navy’s control over sea lanes facilitated by the the vast chain of bases strung across the British Empire, not least the homeports of the Dominion Navies, the fleets of which had also grown by up to 30% by 1941. It was at this conceptual juncture the delicate line Macmillan tread became most apparent. He condemned the the “siren song of Jingoism to which British boys marched to their deaths in the Great War.” “Never again”, he averred, “must a British cabinet mistake martial array for the essence of strength.” In the last instance, “the sword” was those systems from which military power itself derived. Britain would win the long game by revolutionizing its economic organization. The enabling factor would lie in the empire itself, reconceived not as dominion but a system on a planetary chessboard.

By the new years of 1941, the first private loans underwritten by the Treasury were issued to Australia, South Africa, and Canada for the construction of factories in each Dominion. Public private fusion provided a Keynesianism stimulus through wage increase. The imperial system could provide cheap commodities and cheap energy, introducing concrete value to match the influx of Pounds Sterling. Increased consumer spending in the Dominions sent a demand signal for high value-added products from the Home Isle, which in turn, reconcentrated in London’s financial markets. Production focused on military build-up and infrastructure development to give the tax base and local capital markets time to prepare for absorbing more manufactured goods.

Oswald Mosely was sent abroad to appeal to the “common destiny of the British race.” In order to politically integrate the increased importance of the Dominions, Parliament passed the “New Acts of Union (1943), the most significant renovation of Parliament since the Scottish and English Parliaments combined in 1707. Westminster would receive a new “middle house”, the Imperial Chamber elected by voters on the British Isles and and Dominions: South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.5 The Imperial Minister (IM) ran His Majesty’s Imperial Government, the majority IMPs of which controlled the War Office, Foreign Office, Indian Office (appointed), Treasury, and Trade Ministry. The lower house governed local affairs, as did the Dominion Governments.

So it was that Macmillan became the first Imperial Prime Minister, a man whom fate shaped for its own devices. By the time Soviet-German War ground to a stalemate in Moscow in in the winter of 1944, real British GDP growth experienced an annual, consecutive growth of 8%. Intensive investment in science and technology produced the first frontline squadron of Gloster Meteor jets and the atom bomb by new years of 1944, one year before America and Germany. A British nuclear demonstration over Russia’s remote tundra forced the peace of the Lisbon Conference in 1945 along the Kursk Demarcation Line (KDL).6 The USSR, resupplied by the United States7, posed a source of permanent insecurity to the Reich’s eastern frontier.8 Concerned by the frozen conflict to his East, hemmed in to the West by the Royal Navy, and and contained in Eurasia and the Caucasus by British control over Iraq, Iran, Suez, and the Levant; Hitler was forced to sign favorable trade terms for his European Empire with Britain. The United States remained powerful in the Western Hemisphere, but dared not venture to exert its influence past European Russia.

The British Empire occupied the role of a global balancing power, courted by all, but answerable to none. Westminster, revived and reconstituted, turned its attention to the “factors of American primacy.” It is at this point we must turn to the biopolitical program of the Macmillan era, the so-called “selective breeding” miracle that expanded by Empire’s Anglo-Saxon population to 130 million by 1970, and raised the average IQ by 3 points per generation.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

There’s a certain kind of person who always shows up late to the fight, screaming about purity and principles just as we’re finally winning. These people obsess over donor lists, foreign policy optics, or whatever else they can scrape together to justify their cowardice. They claim to care about America First, but every time momentum shifts our way, they try to steer it off a cliff. This isn’t a mistake—it’s sabotage. And it’s time we stop falling for it.

You’ve heard their objections. “Trump took money from billionaires.” “The Israel lobby has too much sway.” “Zelensky’s on TV too much.” None of it matters, and I’m going to explain why. These aren't real critiques—they're panic from people who fear the direction things are headed. But the reality is simple: power is shifting. The discourse is changing. And we’re not going to throw away our shot because a few nervous wrecks got cold feet. Let’s clear this up.

Personnel Are Not Policy

One of the most persistent lies in modern right-wing discourse is the fantasy that “personnel is policy.” No. Personnel is personnel. Policy is policy. If that sounds too blunt for you, you’re not ready for power.

This cope comes up every time Trump names someone to a position that isn’t a carbon copy of whoever’s trending on X that week. “Oh no, he appointed so-and-so! Doesn’t he know she wrote a bad op-ed once?” These people think we’re still living in the Reagan Library. News flash: we’re in a live-fire zone. The president sets the tone, the mission, the outcomes — and everyone under him is either a tool or an obstacle. If they’re a tool, use them. If they’re an obstacle, break them. That’s it.

Trump already showed us what matters. In 2016 he surrounded himself with snakes, spies, and saboteurs — and still changed the trajectory of the world. Now, with a purified base and no more illusions, he’ll do it again. But this time, he’s not playing nice. The people who cry about bad hires are the same ones who would have rejected every general, every businessman, every outsider who helped Trump win the first time around. They think you need a blood test to qualify for loyalty. I don’t care if someone used to be a Democrat — Trump was a Democrat. What matters is: are they useful now?

If a person can get the job done, good. If they get in the way, they’re gone. That’s how power works. That’s how Trump works. And it’s how we should think too. Stop pretending that staffing is a referendum on morality. Stop acting like we’re building a church. We’re building a war machine. We’re not looking for apostles — we’re looking for killers who will follow orders.

You don’t have to like the people Trump appoints. You don’t have to pretend they’re your friends. You just have to understand one thing: Trump is the policy. Everyone else is disposable. Which brings to a brief digression (I apologize).

Zelensky for National Security Advisor

Zelensky should be Trump’s National Security Advisor. I’m not joking. People think it’s clever to call him a clown, a puppet, a joke — but they’re missing the point. Zelensky isn’t a clown. He’s a wartime leader who served the regime perfectly. He mobilized his population, consolidated power, censored the press, outlawed opposition parties, crushed dissent, and got everything he wanted from the West. He had no real leverage and no real allies, yet he turned Ukraine into the centerpiece of global liberal foreign policy for years. And what did he get in return? Tens of billions of dollars and a personal cult that reached every corner of the civilized world. That’s not a joke. That’s power.

Now imagine what a man like that could do for us.

The Right has a long, embarrassing habit of rewarding weakness and rejecting strength. Zelensky knows how to operate. He’s disciplined, he’s effective, and most importantly, he wins for the people he serves. We don’t need someone who agrees with us on every podcast-tier cultural talking point. We need someone who knows how to wield the machine and isn’t afraid to make people uncomfortable doing it. Trump fights for the soul of the nation — Zelensky knows how to shut the door behind him once the fight is won.

You want to save America? Stop crying about what people used to be. Start recruiting the people who know how to win. Zelensky already proved he’s willing to do whatever it takes for the people he serves. All we need to do is make sure he’s serving the right ones.

Oligarch Donors? Who Cares?

Let’s cut the nonsense. The “Trump’s donors are oligarchs” talking point is nothing but a distraction for the weak-minded. I’m not here to moralize over where Trump gets his campaign cash. This isn’t a kindergarten for do-gooders; it’s the real world. If you’re crying about donors, then you’ve missed the point of America First — entirely.

Trump is in this to win. Period. The people who are seriously worried about who is writing checks for him are the same ones who would have stabbed him in the back in 2016 if they had their way. They would have thrown him under the bus at the slightest hint of a scandal. Let’s get something straight: money talks. Always has, always will. If it takes a handful of oligarchs to bankroll the 2024 comeback, so be it. The enemy is coming for us — the left, the corporate media, the globalist cabals — and you’re going to tell me we shouldn’t use every tool at our disposal because a couple of billionaires are footing the bill? Get real.

The real fight here isn’t about who is funding the war; it’s about who controls the outcome. And if Trump needs to take cash from oligarchs to fight back against the liberal establishment, then I say “fine.” The ends justify the means, and the means are simple: Trump must win. If Trump needs a few powerful elites to keep the gears of the machine moving, who cares? When he wins, we get to dictate the terms. Not the oligarchs.

Oligarchs? They might have their hands in the pockets of a thousand causes, but you know what? Trump can do more with their money than any of these other establishment hacks ever could. Every dollar they give him is a weapon to break down the walls of the Deep State. They’re not pulling his strings — Trump’s using them as a tool, just like he always has. He’s always played the game. You’re not in charge of how he wins — just that he does.

And let’s not forget: the real power lies with the people, not these donors. The donors don’t control Trump, but Trump controls the base. And the base is the only thing that matters. Every day, we see more and more people waking up to the fact that the political game in America is rigged, but Trump is still the only one who can make the establishment shake in its boots. Who funds him is secondary to the fact that his movement is unstoppable — because it’s rooted in what’s best for America, not what’s best for the elites.

This isn’t about playing nice or pretending the oligarchs are the good guys. It’s about getting our country back. The oligarchs, the elites, they might have their own agendas. But when Trump gets into office, those agendas won’t matter. He doesn’t need their permission to do what’s right for America. And in the end, they’ll bend to his will — not the other way around.

So stop worrying about who’s writing the checks and start focusing on the fact that Trump is the only one who can stand in the way of the globalist machine.

“Muh Israel Lobby”

If you’re still clutching your pearls over the fact that Trump has received big donations from the likes of Miriam Adelson or Bill Ackman, then you’ve missed the entire point of what America First stands for. This isn’t about who is cutting the checks — it’s about the results of the check. And the reality is, Trump has always been a transactional player. He takes the money, and when he’s in office, he uses it to further the interests of America — not the donors.

First of all, let’s clear up the obvious: The America First agenda is about America first. Period. If a few billionaires, who may happen to have ties to foreign governments or interests, want to help fund Trump’s campaign to keep America safe and strong, then who cares? This isn’t a purity contest. Trump is the one in charge, not the donors. Just like every other player in Washington, he knows how to leverage the system to his advantage, not theirs. And that’s the genius of it.

Miriam Adelson and Bill Ackman — both of whom have made large contributions to Trump — are no different from any other political donors. They’re trying to push their agenda, yes. But Trump’s agenda is bigger. We all know that Trump isn’t someone who lets anyone pull his strings. His success has always been about playing the game better than anyone else, and the Israel Lobby is no different. If they want to give money to ensure a stronger relationship with Israel, fine. Trump is the one who gets to decide the terms of that relationship — and trust me, when Trump calls the shots, it’s always about putting America's interests at the forefront.

Now, I can already hear the critiques — “But these donors have an agenda! They want to control Trump!” Listen, if you believe that, you don’t understand Trump. The man is no one's puppet. He doesn’t owe these donors anything more than a transaction — they give him money, he uses it to push America First. When it comes down to it, Trump’s foreign policy is shaped by America’s interests, not the interests of his donors. And we saw that when he was president: aggressive trade wars with China, cutting unnecessary foreign aid, and ensuring that American jobs came first. His policies didn’t suddenly shift because of these donors — they shifted because he was in charge, making the decisions that benefited America.

And let’s be real for a second: most of the elites who complain about Trump’s donors are the same people who want to see America capitulate to foreign interests, who would happily sell this country out to China or the EU if it meant maintaining their comfortable positions. Trump? He’s the only one standing between America and that future. If a few oligarchs from the Israel Lobby want to throw money at his campaign, they’re doing it to secure their own interests — but Trump is the one who’ll be steering the ship when it comes to making deals. Don’t be naive enough to think he’s going to let anyone run the show.

In the end, a true America First patriot isn’t worried about where the money comes from. The concern is what happens when Trump gets into office. We’ve seen it: when Trump is in control, America comes first every time. No foreign donor, lobbyist, or oligarch gets to change that. This is about results, and the results are clear: Trump is the only one who can keep America on top, no matter who writes the checks.

So drop the whining about who’s funding Trump and focus on what he can do for America. That’s what really matters.

Abandon All Illusions Ye Who Enter Here

The moment we’re in now isn’t about some pie-in-the-sky, cookie-cutter policy proposals. It’s about shifting the discourse. It’s about changing the conversation and making it our conversation. You can pass all the laws you want, make all the promises you want, but if the ideological foundation isn’t rooted in America First nationalism, it’s all meaningless. It’s the fight for the narrative, the battle for what’s acceptable to say and what’s not, that defines this moment. This is where the real power lies. The rest—the so-called "policy outcomes"—are secondary, distractions that can be molded and adapted once the culture of resistance to globalism has taken root.

Trump isn’t just a president, he’s a symbol of a seismic shift in how we talk about this country, what it means to be American, and what we should expect from the government. The deeper transformation is in the minds of the people—that’s what we need to focus on. Policies, proposals, and grandiose speeches are just the tools. The real fight is about dominating the national dialogue, about making sure that any future talk around the table begins with “America First.” Only once we’ve redefined what’s acceptable to even consider can we start worrying about the nitty-gritty policy details. This is the foundation, and it’s the most important thing right now. If we don’t win here, we lose it all, no matter what laws we pass.

The response from organized Zionism across right-wing leaning media followed with a vengeance. AG Hamilton, an American Jew who writes pseudonymously for National Review, took to his 179k follower account to denounce a “particular writer” (Brunet) for “antisemitism,” insisting he was projecting deep personal troubles onto “former colleagues and an entire religious group.” David Reaboi (also Jewish and a registered foreign agent with deep ties to Hungary and Qatar) struck a similar note, casting Brunet’s allegations as evidence of “psychic collapse” and a “mind virus.” Brunet’s detractors ranged into The Sphere, the ostensible hard edge of the right, with IM-1776 founder Mark Granza (an Italian national based out of Hungary) warning he was heading into a “dark place.” But this should come as no surprise. IM-1776 was fiscally sponsored by the Claremont Institute (by Granza’s own admission). Claremont and the Manhattan Institute share the funding of one Paul Singer, a Jewish billionaire hedge fund manager. Rufo has publicly endorsed the activities of IM-1776.

These various activist and media organs operate as an ensemble, each persevering within a brand sector, but always deconflicting fire, never acting at cross-purposes. On the mainstream side, Rufo browbeats his audience with the substitution of an abstract morality, the supposed “moral clarity” of Israel’s self-defence, for American interests. Challenged on his contradictory support for the Jewish State’s parochial wars when espousing (ahistoric) colourblind meritocracy, he fled to the Soros-funded COMPACT magazine to lament the relaxed constraints on free expression on Musk’s X facilitating “racialism” and “anti-Semitism.” It was a thinly veiled call for censorship. So much for the marketplace of ideas. Meanwhile, on the based dissident side, IM-1776 invites a “fashy” reader to fuse his self-concept with an Israel portrayed as an illiberal, “Nietzschean” dismissal of brown, Islamic, Communist Untermensch par excellence. Two pitches, one preference cascade.

What of Brunet? He himself is a rather curious case. His Canadian extraction recalls the pundits Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media sourced from a slim bank of young rightists frustrated by a left-trending country. He has admitted to being the victim of a (Jewish) fertility doctor who scrambled sperm — possibly his own — treating Brunet’s parents. It’s eminently plausible a level of anxiety inheres in his self-concept which drives a negative affectivity (neuroticism), perhaps explaining why he gravitated toward antagonistic activist journalism, and why his public presentation is riven by an erratic, impulsive style. There’s a temperament one comes to recognize in the White faces of Populist Inc, a discomfort with the self artificially balanced by excessive investment in a prefabricated cause.

As we begin to unravel the dynamics of the situation, dispassionately weighing the nature and affiliations of each actor, the insignificance of their particular cases becomes apparent. What presses to the fore is the pattern of personality formations and shaping circumstances — what decisions flow from the dispositions selected for by the determining factors of the field they inhabit? Agents behave according to institutional compatibility and alignment, true for both Granza and Burnet. No system is foolproof, however, and occasionally a cog refuses his role in the gearing. “Surely”, we think, “this must reflect the spark of individual dissent, the chaos of the human will.” If only that were true. I’m going to tell you something you don’t want to hear. I’m going to show where it’s dark, but have no fear.

Brunet was caught up in a constellated activist formation, not a singular instance of subversive pressure, but an entire regime of cognitive-discursive control (“cognitive warfare” the Chinese call it) enforced by mutually reinforcing elements. By dispersing operations into specialized components — by sector, by function, by name recognition — a totalizing uniformity of direction is achieved in spite of, and in reality, because of, superficial differences. For the cadres who never see “the big picture”, positional calculations are those of the blissful NPC. The tyranny of the given, once accepted, is no tyranny, but liberation from the burden of independence. But for those who reject the programming, life takes on a sinister, claustrophobic hue. Brunet’s neuroticism may explain why he wouldn’t settle for their constraining parameters of thought and action. Either way, he woke up in a nightmare world of routinized, nested exploitation stretching from horizon to horizon. Naive Patriots, like himself, were instrumentalized in service of modifying the behavior of the host nation for extractive purposes. Not only was he a victim of this parasitism, he was unwittingly complicit in it.

The sociology of domination conditions the form that the opposition assumes. A truly hegemonic apparatus hems in optionality, narrows the field of possibility to the saved and the damned. In other words, the roles are not of the players’ choosing, they are pre-ordained tracks which induce the very instability or incoherence which is then blamed for the defectors’ “irrational” break with the institutional consensus. The dissident of today’s world comports a resistance in very different circumstances to that of classical revolutionaries. Paul Revere could return from his midnight ride to the serried ranks of the Anglo stem-family, and an industrial empire in the silversmith and engraving business. Brunet has a Substack. And yet the locus of criticism is directed at his cathartic agitation, not the vast array of Zionist malfeasance that precipitated it! It’s sick.

Thus, Brunet’s errors in execution and ideological impurity deserve a degree of forbearance. Brunet has declared himself “groyper [groidper]-curious” and broached the schizo-coded “Red Heifer” meme, all the while endorsing miscegenation and framing his objection to Israel in the rights language of the post-war consensus. On the one hand, he’s creating an association between himself and the ineffectual machinations of Fuentes, and on the other, he joins Chris Rufo acclaiming a deviance which dilutes the ethnic and racial integrity of the West, and softens up our group consciousness for the very subversion he has denounced. 

Notwithstanding his shortcomings, Brunet delivered an opening salvo against the primary inhibitor of nationalist mobilization in the Anglosphere: the veto power of the right-presenting Jewish diaspora (for more on their primacy, see my previous ‘stack on the real stakes of Trump 2024). Rufo and the Manhattan Institute are far from done, but the sounds of “shots fired” sets a precedent of confrontation, and for that I hail Burnet twice, but not thrice.

The Big Accounts are basking in their Trump Victory arc. There’s a natural temptation to settle for involution masquerading as growth. They do not wish to broach the difficult matter of what follows after Trump’s final term — if in fact there is one. Rather than architecting new structures from the conceptual, aspirational, and rhetorical clearing opened up by Trump, we are currently on a recuperated1 trajectory set by the coordinates of the mass soyciety coal-ition. We are not doing today what will enable us to do more tomorrow. Brunet may yet awaken us from our dogmatic slumber. Trump is not an end, but a means, a fulcrum for gaining purchase against hostile structuation.2

Have you ever wondered why the “groidper’s” accusations never peter out? It’s not because of a lack of counter-semitic or anti-Israel rhetoric across the scene. The answer is a glaring omission to gatekeep interlopers acting at the behest of long-standing nemeses. When Elon removed the homo-jeet throttling, we escaped from containment and attained a more central, if modest, role in information diffusion. Against this new backdrop, our inveighing against opponents is no longer purely theoretical. The enforced demilitarized zone is gone — we are directly adjacent to the marchlands of entrenched ethnic lobbies. A reasonable man measures positional integrity through the ownership of space, and Observes where compromised actors operate within our digital archipelago unimpeded. 

Rufo first garnered attention in The Sphere for launching World War T, a culture war issue the GOP could use to distract from Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. When he ousted Claudine Gay, the reception was rapturous — and understandably so. What American isn’t plagued by uppity ‘boons? But every scalp he collects (more accurately, the scalps the Young White Men in his employ collect for him) bolsters his legend and shores up his popularity, which makes him all the more effective at punching right. 

Trade Offer: we get vicarious enjoyment from Rufo targeting non-structural facets of the left’s system. Mr. Rufo gets a bully pulpit to police the bounds of our habitation and protect the structural enemy within the RW spectrum. If he can destroy a left aligned node, he can ruin any on the right like Brunet deemed insufficiently deferential to Jewish and Zionist precedence in American (and British) life. We don’t control the swivel of his guns because we didn’t hire him — Paul Singer did. Rule of thumb: the Rufo’s of the world only punch left to punch right (as indeed does Nigel Farage). Why someone punches left matters.  

So let us understand the situation. “ZOG” doesn’t capture the full extent of the subversion. Israel, the supposed end goal, is almost an afterthought. Barach Kogan (an Israeli “alt-right” Jew, probably brown) once complained DC “occupied” the Israeli government, and he was more right than he knew. We are faced with "ZG1” and “ZG1a”: Zionist Government 1 (America) and Zionist Government 1a (Israel), a full-fledged system domiciled in America of which the flagged entity, “Israel”, is an epiphenomenon. 

Either we begin a war of choice against the behemoth the Fates have spun in our course, or choose to fade into historical irrelevance. Blood (the motivated organization of spirit) can overcome money. That’s why our enemies monitor ideological developments so closely on the right — if the situation were hopeless, the influence ops wouldn’t be necessary. Yes, they may possess the commanding institutional heights, but they are afraid of the immunological response that only the right, with its instinct for biology, can muster. 

I said in the previous stack that “an unequivocal embrace of the new distinguishes us from the mainstream right.” It’s time to get hungry for real victories, to close with the immediate obstacles killing incipient momentum. “What if… the sky was relit?” Conceiving of the opposition to the Keyedstaat in abstract denominators is always easy: globohomo, GNC, “managerialism”, “the regime.” Narrowed antagonisms have consequences — for both parties. As a maturing force ten years into the Trump era, we must demonstrate our independence in deeper waters by designating friends and enemies in concrete terms. Unlike Trump or Stephen Miller,  RUFO ET. AL. insinuate Eichenwaldian tentacles into our scene, juice off our engagement, then pivot to counter-signalling and canceling. 

For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself… Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong. - Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

There is no skipping the rocky adolescence of the 21st century radical right. The shielding willows above the rivulets where the first frogs matriculated on the net of the before times have passed out of reach — forever. We cannot afford the narcissistic fusion fantasy of “fitting in”, or more precisely, kidding ourselves that a boutique set of conceptual filters (“TND”, “longhouse” etc.) necessarily precludes an accommodation with the normalgroid status quo. Most assuredly, we have to employ calculated, smart tactics, avoiding head-on firefights with the enemy. But we can harry him from hill and ravine of narrative climbs, intercept his indoctrination of rising generations, and eventually gather the resources to change the incentive structure for aspiring talent in journalism, local GOP politics, and the staffers of populist politicians. Money talks, Zionism walks. Everywhere little micro-fascisms can be cultivated, each searching for the next, concatenating to macro, resonating in a giant black hole capable of swallowing the best laid plans of the semitico-cuckservative entente.3 

Rationalizations for avoiding the coming conflict spring readily to group transactive memory. Transactive memory constitutes the knowledge exchange circuits of a defined population, which consists of individual understandings linked to meta-memories tracking the whereabouts of specific expertise, and how to operationalize them in concert. The operating assumption among the commentariat of the radical right are those of Sam Francis’ middle-American radical, the disenchanted rearguard of the polity no longer content with merely moderating the advance of race communism. These intuitions are fine as catalysts, welcome in fact, but they cannot serve as a permanent strategic compass. The default presumptions of the middle class are projected onto the designs of the various elites, each element of which is accustomed to a much deeper field of optionality.

The well-off Trump voter conceives of his wealth as a means of lifestyle: the boat, the McMansion, the Camaro, the two vacations p/a. Soros, Koch, Omidyar understand capital is power, a fluid measure of power differentials indexed to relative potential impact. A correlative of this greater potential for mobilization is the consciousness of strategic depth, of room for error, for a politics of maneuvre. If Section 8 housing threatens to “equitably” liquidate Ned Flanders’ neighborhood, he has few, if any good choices at his disposal. Either he endures rapid declines in a viable family environment, or takes the capital loss and works the overtime (or sends the wife out to work) to afford a new mortgage in a n-frei exurb. His political instincts mirror the reactivity attending socio-economic precarity. “A move” is interpreted along a single dimension, and considered the decisive settlement of a problem set. 

When Ackman floats an “anti-woke” balloon, the middle-American poster regards Ackman as decisively moving in favour of his preferred politics, “coming round” if you will to “common sense” after an “elite flight of fancy.” Alas, he has not been Lobe-bombed; he is proceeding from a position of strength — and it’s a position he knowingly used to fund DEI candidates, open borders, and the de rigor slew of think-tanks and lobbyists (and sometimes journowhores) who serve as Praetorian Guards in an informationized economy. The approach of a man heading an empire within an empire contrasts markedly with the patterns of survival and lifestyle in the middle of the bell curve. Theda Skocpol showed decades ago that the competitive advantage of organized politico-civic pressure groups threatened the conceptual assumptions of “one they/them, one vote.” Ackman, Singer, the Wilks brothers, Thiel, and Musk have the advantage of strategic depth. They’re the oligarchical equivalent of Russia. They can lose “Kurk Oblast” without blinking. Their citadels promote responses which seize the initiative since they can afford to sustain damage while making preparations. The pluralist politics of the mass democracy, a recrudescence of the old imperial technique of “divide and rule”, buffer their ascendency in the hierarchy. Each subaltern faction expends resources jockeying with peers. The oligarchs, and sometimes other centres of power in the polyarchy, pick the temporary winners.

Ackman takes stock of the state of play and sits back to figure out how to have his cake and keep his precious Ns (as I saw the expression abridged recently). He’s got what the PUAs used to call abundance mindset, i.e., several plausible ways he can fuck you and your peer opponents (pro-Palestinian shitlibs and browns). One way involves mutual neutralization by propping up a rough parity of forces . The Iran-Iraq war was a military version benefiting Israel — two sworn enemies grinding each other into politico-military heat death within the regional security complex. Whatever aid either received (from the West or the Soviet Union) brought forth an emergent instrumentalization. The plutocratic class are not “seeing the light.” They are repositioning pawns, and the layout of the pawns, once completed, equates to an instrumentalizing paradigm. Instead of structuring, we are getting structured.

The NRx/Generative Anthropology formula of “becoming worthy” of a patron is a related exercise in wishful thinking. The left did achieve a victory along these lines through the combination of the campus social milieu and large-scale ideological inculcation (“The_Raped”). Millions of trigglypuffs and bikecucks were molded for George Floyd worship and steadily transferred to the hiring pools of corporate America. This, more than “capitalist class warfare” accounts for “woke” sentiments in business culture. But we lack a deep well of human capital for the time being. We are not the tail that wags the dog. Our order of battle requires an economy of force, zeroing in on vulnerable chokepoints in the enemy’s centralized, top-down organization. I could imagine a Brunet exit from Zio-world calibrated to achieve a much greater fallout were the right preparations made.

We are not a force that can substantially influence the electorate, let alone the established elites, through mass messaging (although doing this where possible without cucking is still worthwhile, such as Captive Dreamer’s Haitian story that broke containment4). Nor are we negotiating on the floors of parliament with our mainstream-right counterparties, bargaining over the details of a binding resolution that will End Wokeness and replace it with something new. As such, we gain little on the mass influence front by moderating our stance toward compromised operatives, and lose a great deal by confusing the rising generational elite in our orbit — the very segment where our potential impact is greatest and most consequential.

Taking stock of our limitations should not plunge us into a world of omnipresent occult forces, the paranoid style in which Alex Jones externalizes the disquiet of his discombobulated audience. We can step forward in the Kingdom of Darkness and say NO; negate the negation, find within ourselves the will of an uncompromising generation. Speaking with the up and coming cohort of young guns, I’m struck by the strength they draw from reality contact. Their cognitive style is a potent combination of the idealistic and practical, an equilibrium of the extreme for the post-populist moment. They are our first priority. Only the diffusion of well-resourced young men into Western power verticals will ease the constraints preventing the articulation of populist agendas. 

So I entertain no illusions we can “defeat” the Manhattan Institute by xosting angrily into the void (as Brunet seems to think, sadly). Rather, our object revolves around shoring up political identities - conceptual “builds” - formed completely independently of the enticements the kosher right employs to discharge right-wing energy (including the most radical versions) in a neutralized form. The standards of positional integrity enacted today will inform the willingness of a future elite to choose conflict over accommodation tomorrow.  “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much.” The bracing effect of real enemies in the here and now imposes the need to be strong in preparation for the showdown to come. 

Besides, what we have said does not concern any nation in particular, nor even the present time. It concerns the time when things will become serious, globally, not merely for the interests of the bourgeois, capitalist world, but for those men who know and, at that point, will still be able to gather together into an unshakeable bloc. - Evola, “The Decline of Heroism” in Metaphysics of War [italicization added]

I do not know if Schwab thinks the moon landings were faked or if 'space isn't real.' It's not germane. He operates at a higher level of this discourse than helios and other 'esoteric' vendors of 'final redpills.' They are lesser coalers farming engagement from a digitally mounted dramatology. Both poster and audience are 'in on it', as it were; on reflex they slip into the frame of the 'conspiratorial whisper.'. A vigorous pantomime is highly stimulating, and stimulation is the sine qua non of the attention economy. It's a kind of undiluted mindrape that I have seen rot the mind of more than one Sensitive Young Man. "The archons are conspiring with the chthonic forces of profane scientism to enter the world through the Hadron [Hades] Collider, and furthermore-". 

Some claims might be locally true, or true by way of the 'stopped clock' principle, but they are always pared with a pseudo-explanatory framework which confers no agency, and which induces mildly schizophrenic thought-forms. No thanks, I'm White. 

Schwab may indulge in such ploys from time to time as marketing flourishes - he is a 34k account after all. But they are not the central elements of his by now extensive oeuvre. I haven't read every piece, nor do I plan on becoming his paypig. Yes, if the herd want to find out what the Kabbalistic Jews are up to, they will find a rather "gnostic" paywall in the way. There is an exquisite pleasure in knowing what others are said not to know. It doesn't invalidate what he says; I will deal with your Arguments, fren. I shall flesh out the irony of exclusive insights into exclusivist visions over the course of this piece. 

Schwab has subtitled his blog with the heading 'Counter-History, High Strangeness, Fortean Research.' They are labels associated with inexplicable phenomena and "ufology." In more prosaic terms, he is interested an anthropology of elites relating to the plastic power to shape, synthesize, and define the parameters of the received world. Further, he can be characterized as a counter-hegemonic in orientation. There's an intimation it's all a little spooky. Schwab does not approve of elites and their schemes anymore than mainstream anthropologists approve of "appropriation" or "erasure" of whatever primitives they are currently deriving their authenticity fix from. 

Post after post deals with an endless rabbit-warren of connections between "evil agents" and their profane ideas; a veritable bad infinity. He has a dizzying array of milieus to sift through: theosophy, kabbalah , cybernetics, Rosicrucianism, Masons, intelligence agencies and so on. 

Schwab's output and behaver fits the description Randall Collins provides (Interaction of Rituals Chains, p. 359) of the idiosyncratic autodidact (italics mine): 

Persons both at the very center of intellectual networks, and those in firm positions as modest followers, may well be introverts, in the sense of spending much time in solitary bookish pursuits; but both the stars and the followers are highly socialized by the intellectual community. They are for the most part neither alienated nor rebellious nor idiosyncratic introverts." Truly idiosyncratic intellectuals are found in other network locations. These include many persons on the outer margins of intellectual networks, especially autodidacts, operating far from the regular transmission networks of the field's cultural capital, assembling a checkered combination of teachings remote from the current centers of intellectual advance. The autodidact chooses his or her own readings, more or less accidentally according to what comes along, and this can lead to a combination of intellectual positions from widely ranging fields and historical epochs. Their ideas are often genuinely idiosyncratic, although many of them are simply followers of positions that had their heydays in previous centuries (modern-day occultists are typically of this sort). A person who builds an intellectual identity upon this kind of random access to cultural capital is unlikely to meet much success in the stratified networks that make up the intellectual world; and this experience may make them not only idiosyncratic but alienated-individualistic and proud of it, sometimes belligerently so. This kind of intellectual introvert may be combined with other types, depending on the social conditions that come into play. He or she may become a solitary cultist, satisfied with one's own idiosyncrasy; or by bordering on mobilized political movements, become a terrorist or serial killer. 

I'm not in the business of deboonking. The figures he places under the microscope propound roughly globalist ideals, and may inhabit, or did inhabit, influential positions. Hungarian professor and "systems-theorist" Ervin László is one example. He wants to change the world with 'conscious evolution.' You guessed it - that would NOT be with borders and the inalienable right to say the N-word. He "helped to promote the repackaged Rosicrucianism his fellow transhumanists call “conscious evolution” with his ‘The Consciousness Revolution’. László describes an assemblage of NGOs promoting sustainable development, using the Internet." 

Schwab soon gets out of his depth. If you are going to talk about Jewish mysticism, it might be worth mentioning it was interpolated by Hellenic notions of a more real world beyond the earth-bound horizons of first century Judaism. These same world feelings gave rise to Aristotle and Plato, whose ideas are subsequently unified with the Christological reception of the Apostle Paul's messianic interpretation by the Roman Church. 

Schwab splits things into that which is simple, organic, and of God (the Christian one, so far as I can tell) on the one hand; and the artificial, complex, globalist, and "wicked" on the other. He commences a scattershot auditing of history, sorting items into one of two columns. Yoel Roth goes in the naughty box. OK. So does Durkheim. The RAND Corporation is there as well. Evola is cited approvingly despite idealizing a fashy version of initiatic orders and being a sex magik enjoyer (imagine if details leaked about Soros practicing weird rituals). Instances of Christianity, or more specifically, a truly transcendent order of things, find favour. And who is to say where Sir Thomas More, with his rather grim, but eminently Catholic conception of Utopia, ends up? 

Schwab might be right about particular "facts." Nor can I say he is wrong (or right) because of his conception of capital T Transcendence. Whether it is true or not has no bearing on what counts in the here and now: an actionable vision in view of what is before us. His 'takes' lack integrity. They do not lead to an integral understanding. They're not so much dishonest as debilitating. The material coalesces  from the disparate eddies Collins mentions above, all of which defy coherence. I don't agree knowledge is wholly "socially produced", but it does require a stabilized personality base. Few can impose an effective sense making discipline on themselves without external pressure to do so. Hence, while the academy may be ideologically distorted, the vast majority are still not strong enough, in themselves, to truly operate outside it.  

We have been ushered into a world in which a myriad manipulations define history and the present. It's really Schwab's brain. Smothered, enervated, subjugated, we struggle to achieve a minimal cognitive mapping beneath the crushing weight of the alchemical, the gnostic, the techno-cybernetic-dystopian hellscape. The best we can do is register our vanquished status with a transcendent guarantor. "This too shall pass"...perhaps. 

To adopt such a conceptual horizon is gay and unworkable. It entails a refusal to reckon with the always-already undulating dynamics of life. There was never a time when the force field in which man finds himself allocated virginal reality, unsullied by the will. Man's plastic powers do not stand apart from nature. Nor does complexity, from which man emerged. Conspiracy is the idea of breathing together. The breath is spirit. You can feel it. Man, as a spiritual being, conspires. Hypostasizing scheming, plotting, planning into a web of specific acts and outcomes exacts a stultifying toll. It necessitates the counter-hegemonic stance: ressentiment. "We, the peasants," are corralled by Big Ooga Booga. Wake up. 

Incessantly outlining a patchwork of evil agents returns us to the irony of revealing 'wrong revelation.' A paralyzing analytic mode makes you the sucker. The current ruling stratum act on their base, anti-hierarchical antagonism. The retarded, degenerate ideas tallied by Schwab are an epiphenomenon of this momentum. While ideological notions may also incite in their turn, the cycle always begins with psycho-dynamic movement. 

In sum, there is a lot more at stake than mere ideas or facts when investing a discourse or literary account. The fundament of who you are is engaged through the evaluative presuppositions, the undiscussable frame between you and the author.  

"Evaluations, in essence, are not values but ways of being, modes of existence of those who judge and evaluate, serving as principles for the values on the basis of which they judge. This is why we always have the beliefs, feelings, and thoughts that we deserve given our way of being or our form of life."- Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy

Alaric the Barbarian delivers a pro-fraternity perspective in an article entitled ‘Aesthetic Violence.’ Recent pro-Palestinian protests by the left occasioned counter-protests from campus fraternities. Some counter-protestors were pro-Zionist Jews. Many were White. They protected the Stars and Stripes. One White student from Ole Miss racially engaged a black, pro-Palestinian woman. He was promptly expelled from the fraternity. Meanwhile, Fox News promoted Jewish students from Chapel Hill who stated they were there to defend Israel.

The radical right formed a range of opinions from those facts they deemed to to be correct. Questions arose regarding who defended the flag, which “frat bros” were pro-Zionist Jews, whether “feds” were involved, and whether the Fox News narrative accurately captured the sentiments of all the frat bros, or if they were simply pro-Trump and pro-America. Alaric, on the other hand, wishes to deal with what played out at the level of what he calls “organizational logic.” I shall attempt to set forth his case as comprehensively as I can in order to offer a finely attuned constructive criticism.

Alaric devotes most of his effort to mapping out the respective disposition of forces. It will be key to establishing insight into organizational dynamics.

Left-wing students, however brown, fat, female, or hysterical, pose an implicit threat of violence. They seek to dominate institutional and social space. Once there, they link Israel to the settler-colonial oppression of White Western Civilization. It seems then, we ought to take them seriously. The boomer “snowflake” rhetoric has to go.

Behind the sit-ins and tantrums lurk the Usual Suspects. The Tides Foundation and Soros funnel dollars into the public facing front, Students for Justice for Palestine. It’s the very same NGO-oligarch ensemble to whom the Democrats outsourced the BLM color revolution against Trump.

In this current scenario, the Democratic establishment finds itself at odds with the extended regime of liberal governance. Leveraging the institutional fracture to right wing advantage, as suggested by Rufo, has faced opposition from a "third-worldist fringe" within the right, notably represented by Fuentes and his "groyper" movement. While Zionists appeal to patriotism and anti-Islam sentiments, the groypers cite the recent Anti-Semitism Awareness Act as evidence of ongoing Zionist misdeeds. They are prepared to ally with the third world if only to rescind Zionist capture of American sovereignty.

The salient aspect of aesthetic violence lies not in the ideological codification of a demonstration, but rather in understanding the "organizational logic" that propels it. “The decisive element governing whether it is possible to impose one’s will upon the political opposition in the public square,” avers Alaric, “isn’t the direct use of violence, but belief and morale.” The left shows they have agency, that they are the strong horse, and the right is not. The spectacle they cultivate amounts to phantasmagoric brinkmanship. The right loses its nerve, backs down, and adopts the paranoid stance any form of right-wing activism is a “psy-op” run by “feds.”

At this juncture young White men - chads - entered stage right. Defying conservative expectations, they exuded strength through joy. Instead of the usual rounds of carousing, shitlords beat back spiteful mutants and looked good doing so. The boys correctly intuited the continuity of sentiment behind lockdowns, BLM, and anti-Israel activism. Despite Fox News endeavoring to cast a glowing Star of David on their exploits, these bands of brothers confronted the uniform substrate of leftism itself.

By delving beyond the world of mere appearance, a thorough-going analysis uncovers the elemental levers of political conflict. The lens of “organizational logic” translates the criteria for endorsing a right-wing actor from ideological affinity to questions of mobilization. What’s the smart way to do it? What enhances morale? How can aesthetic violence, as opposed to actual violence, wrong-foot the left? Rather than prioritizing who stood for what on the right, and in what context, emphasis shifts to who mobilized effectively and how. Whatever guise the left adopts, he who strikes it strikes true. Stripped of “wordcel” embellishment, the left's primary motivation becomes evident: anti-Whiteness.

So end Alaric’s contentions. I find myself ushered along a broad and easy path, one well lined with Arguments, but missing pivotal considerations if the right is to make real progress. Alaric overlooks the distinct priorities of mainstream MAGA and the radical right. Who is his message intended for? MAGA, the GOP, Populist Inc, and Fox News require no persuasion; they embrace it already. So, is it the groyper third-worldists who should pay attention? If so, what about those of us who oppose Zionism not out of love for the Palestinian but due to its malignant distortion of Western sovereignty? While the "organizational logic" thesis intentionally blurs the line between mainstream and radical right, the failure to acknowledge the most coherent radical right position is worth noting.

Emphasizing organizational logic inevitably leads to the collapse of factional distinctions. Under the rubric of “aesthetic violence”, what counts is dealing a significant blow to the left. The technique’s efficacy justifies the radical right accepting the actions, effects, and motivations of the parties employing it.

As a standpoint, it does not strike me as especially vital. Standard-issue conservatives of whatever stripe are retarded. They have little to no grasp of the “real conditions of their existence.” It took a centrist liberal from New York to convert their residual political instinct into something to be reckoned with. Without Trump, they would be solely fixated on China, abortion, the unconventional conservatism of TERFism, and, of course, Israel.

“Aesthetic violence” updates the playbook with young White men placed front and centre. Assigned an exigent ‘right-wing’ label, they are cast in the role of capital R Reaction, notwithstanding their political naivety and inexperience. As we shall see, they unwittingly fell into the tyranny of the given.

There’s a basic distinction in sociology between agents and structure. Structure shapes the navigation of agents, and the cumulative decisions of agents sediment into structure. Societies, then, have a small-c conservative tendency. Agents tend to follow existing pathways, and that, in turn, shores up the extant socio-political infrastructure. Agents who effect change consciously act in ways which produce new structures.

Successful political undertakings combine positive emotional energy with structural transformation. The concert of the two inspires a virtuous cycle. Emotional energy sustains a struggle for structural renovation. New political forms serve as shared emblems for further mobilization. Without emotional energy, structural shifts will prove out of reach. Absent structural thinking, emotional energy will burn off into the ether of vibes, spectacle, and prefigurative role-playing (like the wholesome chungus ruralite LARP).

It’s the deficit in structural thinking which leaves Alaric’s analysis less wrong than it is unbalanced. Organizational dynamics configure resources (personal, money, morale, media, expertise) into coherent political articulations (“power concedes nothing without a demand”). But the resources from which they draw inhere in persistent structures: a polyarchy of institutions and networks whose concerted actions determine the distribution of sociopolitical power at scale. While it is true efficient organization on the right is a legitimate pursuit, the various right wings worth counting are subject to a dire asymmetry in organizational potential. We lack strategic depth. We cannot hope to match the left blow for blow. Only when the capacity to generate roughly equal amounts of organizational force arrives does domination of public space become relevant (e.g., the street battles of the Weimar Republic).

The frats set out from a structurally cucked position in two respects. They did not “advance” from a position of strength. I will not sign on to single young White man getting his life ruined because it was deemed “aesthetic” on X. Not one. Most importantly, whatever immediate injury they dealt to the left, the wider rippling effect reinforced Zionist control over the right. The counter-demonstrations slotted into one of two pre-set positions. These pathways automatically arise from ethnonarcissistic conflicts embedded in the pluralistic organization of modern America. When competing groups gain lodgment within the legal and institutional order of a polity according to their cultural refraction of bare life, the mass democratic state finds a natural function reintegrating the society of societies into the “societal community.” Right-wing energy is uselessly expended within the strictures of the status quo. The activist left of so-called “identity politics” and the managerial left exist in productive tension. Neither intra-ethnic spats nor the frictions between function-related priorities on the left present an advantageous opening for a right-wing intervention - radical or mainstream.1

High levels of emotional energy matter when they enable political participants to take the road “less traveled by.” If the pattern holds over the medium term, new structures coalesce to compete with legacy structures. Trump truly was a harbinger of the world to come. Avoiding culture war diversions, he focused on foundational, that is, structure-impacting policies: immigration, deindustrialization, infrastructure, imperial overreach. Whatever concessions he had to make to the old structures (Zionism, corporate tax cuts, a light response to BLM) were worth entry into a transitional phase, into what some call ‘realignment.’

Stephen Miller, Trump’s right-hand super-Jew, worked studiously in the background of the administration to master the dark arts of wrangling a hostile bureaucracy. He successfully wielded the administrative state against a slew of migration vectors, all the while remaining a committed Zionist. Although an exception rather than the rule among right wing Jews, his genuine dual loyalties (i.e., he delivered on domestic, right-wing objectives) contributed to a non-trivial change in the status quo, on balance. Nevertheless, most right-wing Jews only have a purely circumstantial right wing alignment. As an ascendant partner in a coalition, they have a strong incentive to follow the cues of the structural status quo. It currently gives them whatever stuff they want (bombs, Golan Heights, IMEC Corridor, diplomatic cover) while also securing the conditions for getting whatever they want (inter alia, pluralism, a normative centrality for American Jewry/the Holocaust, and an interventionist foreign policy defined by “values” and “alliances” rather than interests). Instead of eventually turning the tables on them, we will be left squabbling over the crumbs which fall from the Passover feast.

In mountaineering, it’s said that a follower thinks about the task at hand, while a leader thinks about the challenge to come. Similarly, while the base may evaluate policy in terms of its first-order effects upon the domain it concerns, the vanguard must always also consider the second-order question of how it could set us up to compete better in the next round. Of course, our central policy planks should pass muster according to both criteria.

The White frat boys’ demarche gifted the libtard educational establishment and media an opportunity to make an example of the slightest deviation from bi-partisan negrolotry. Libtards and their cuckservative jannies demonstrated they remain firmly in charge of acceptable political expression on the right. Meanwhile, Trump avoided getting mired in a losing position while mostly ignoring the student protests (which likely scare moderates in his direction). He puts the onus on Israel to finish the genocide while bashing Netanyahu, reminding voters that he's not keen on expending American blood on conflicts that don't actually affect Americans. Trump offers something for everyone. “Reactionaries” turn a win (the enemy is engaged in fratricidal conflict) into a loss, in the form of a counter-protest that redounds to a negative value add.

Republicans in Congress naturally double down by adopting a prone position and offering their bowed heads as footstools for the Zionist lobby.  This conservative impulse can't be stopped, so Trump doesn't try (or complain about it).  He just goes along in the mildest way. In grasping the art of the possible, he can think three moves ahead.

Our strategic calculus is simple. Does a figure, event, or undertaking foster new, right-enabling structures at the expense of the old? If so, we lend our support and infuse it with motivational energy.

The (non-Jewish) frat bros hearts are in the right place. But in the long run, it does young White men no good if we, who ought to know better, endorse their de-facto instrumentalization by hostile forces.

It comes down to sequencing. Without setting the right wing house in order first, nationalist transformations will elude our grasp. President Donald John Trump himself put the principle best. “I often say the biggest problem comes from within. It's these sick, radical people.” Zionist Jews practice a settler-colonialism admirable in the abstract, but dependent on the practical negation of Anglospheric sovereignties. Their lobby will always cripple nativist turns in policy before they can take flight. Their elites understand pluralist institutional dynamics and cultural norms underwrite their staying power. Seething Palestinians (and anti-Zionist Jews) are just the cost of doing business (i.e., pluralism). A Zionist inflected politics would rather deal with blowback from its own agitated golem than risk an open contest with the awakened Saxon — better to reign in Beige World than serve in Based World. Anti-third worldism implies domestic anti-Zionism.

The boomer inertia backstopping this political equation has run its course. Zionist stock has experienced a precipitous decline across younger demographics and brown electoral silos. Chuck Schumer’s liberal Zionism is on life support. Zionist Jews are anxiously sidling rightward, seeking refuge from the forces they helped unleash. What they will find is a hard bargain and hearts closed to pity.

A true America First agenda will seek to systematically dismantle a spoils system which serves as the underlying structure of bureaucratized ethnic patronage (alongside the Civil Rights Act and DIE). Jews and blacks occupy the two foremost substructural facets, drain the most blood and treasure, and diverge the most acutely with the civic norms of Huntington’s Anglo-Protestant backbone. On the right, the Zionist Jew carve out has swelled to such cancerous proportions it modulates the totality of rightist institutions. Young Americans for Liberty and Turning Point USA are not conservative youth organizations who happen to defend Israel as part of their brief. Inculcating a pro-Israeli stance in young Republicans is their one and only mission. Everything else is camouflage.

Calibrating our political thinking along structural lines clarifies the role of the radical right in realignment. As a vanguard, an unequivocal embrace of the new distinguishes us from the mainstream right. It presupposes the integrity of internal messaging. Ultimate loyalties, real ideological commitments, and the designation of friends and enemies in concrete terms must always shine through polemical storms and theoretical abstraction. Nothing in such an imperative entails the joyless dogmatism of harping the “party line.” There’s no need to abandon biting polemics, or to express oneself against the dictates of prudence in an optically challenged manner One could simply state “[In] practice we face severe opposition from Jewish organizations in the West and Jewish leadership in the West. It hardly matters to me if Israelis are “based nationalists” in their own country (they are not).” With a second Trump administration in the offing, one might add that “any networks associated with pro-Zionist figures or funding count as one of the most significant obstacles to getting what we want from a ruling right-wing. Should you have the opportunity, neutralize them politically." I will leave the polemical formulation to the reader’s imagination. Either way, the positive identification of the actually existing representatives of friends and foe encourages an atmosphere of certainty and trust.

When everyone has a clear sense of the radical right’s positional integrity, we can turn a unity of focus to the matter of building bridges with the populist right. “Populist” is shorthand for “looking for leadership.” We lead not by endorsing reactive posturing, and still less by engaging in it ourselves (C’ville). Rather, we assess which possible structural changes improve the competition landscape for our purposes. Next comes the manufacture of palatable justifications (inside the current Overton window) for our preferred policies. In contrast to internal messaging, external messaging traffics in expedient rationalization. Once the effect of a policy kicks in, we rinse and repeat, each time ratcheting the center of socio-political acceptability further to the right.

Take, for instance, dealing with the issue of illegal biomass. Which strategy is more structural? Which sounds more effective? (1) We encourage “MAGA chads” to protest against sanctuary cities. (2) Our embedded personal and messaging press for E-Verify at the local, state, and federal level. Key MAGA nodes absorb the notion self-deportation follows from strictly policing participation in the labor market. We also bring to their attention the huge levels of corruption in wholesome “Red States” by Big Agri. One is exciting, one is not. One elicits a dopamine hit, the other is hard work. One reckons with the boring reality of the administrative state, the other romanticizes the politics of spectacle.

Radical right-wing politics requires a more sophisticated approach to strategy. We must hold in mind several truths simultaneously. I previously discussed the "Jewish Civil War" in a thread, advocating for leveraging the internal divisions within Jewry to negotiate advantageous terms with Zionists.2 It drew the ire of the Fuentes faction, who accused me of enabling Zionist influence within the right. Once again, the right-wing struggles accounting for the multidimensional nature of politics. Dealing with Zionists necessitates establishing a baseline of integrity on the right while also managing purity spirals threatening the phasing out of Zionist influence. My friends and I advocate for a sharply delineated third way, distinct from both the "groidper" movement and “structural” Zionism. Anglo-Saxonism is our one core commitment.

Subscribe now