It matches (from a liberal perspective) much of what we have discussed on this website in regards to political and metapolitical best-practices, and how to defeat the ruling axis of the radical progressives in the media/intelligentsia/universities/entertainment industry/government, and the multinational corporate elite whose bidding they (both wittingly and unwittingly) serve.
We’re not even two weeks into the Trump presidency. Has your head exploded yet? If so, you’re right where Donald Trump and our shadow ruler, Steve Bannon, want you to be.
The onslaught of executive orders and threatening talk, while entirely in keeping with what Trump promised during the campaign, have left Americans of many political leanings feeling overwhelmed and fearful of what may come next.
The confusion and chaos generated at the bureaucratic and individual level by Trump’s most spectacular executive order — his ban of individuals from selected predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States — came in part from its sudden announcement. From enforcers to the public, many were thrown off guard.
Welcome to the shock event, designed precisely to jar the political system and civil society, causing a disorientation and disruption among the public and the political class that aids the leader in consolidating his power.
Those who still refuse to take Trump seriously cite his incompetence for the rough start in office. Yet this blitzkrieg was intentional. “Get used to it. @POTUS is a man of action and impact … Shock to the system. And he’s just getting started” his counselor Kellyanne Conway tweeted Saturday.
As Conway implies, these first days of the Trump administration could be considered a prologue to a bigger drama, and one that reflects the thinking of Trump and Bannon alike. From their actions and pronouncements, we cannot exclude an intention to carry out a type of coup.
Many may raise their eyebrows at my use of this word, which brings to mind military juntas in faraway countries who use violence and the element of surprise to gain power. Our situation is different. Trump gained power legally but this week has provided many indications that his inner circle intends to shock or strike at the system, using the resulting spaces of chaos and flux to create a kind of government within the government: one beholden only to the chief executive.
“Strike at the enemy at a time and place or in a manner for which he is unprepared,” reads one US Air Force formulation of the old military doctrine of surprise. Trump has long been an advocate of this tactic and complained various times during the campaign that our armed forces were far too transparent about their planned operations.
Yet Bannon is the mastermind of this takeover strategy as it’s been adapted to the domestic realm. Well-versed in military tactics and the history of the radical left and right, Bannon has repeatedly talked about “destroying the state” in the name of securing power for “an insurgent, center-right populist movement that is virulently anti-establishment.”
Besieging your targets until nothing makes any sense — giving them no time to absorb or recover from attacks — is a time-tested strategy in the history of war and authoritarian takeovers. One might cite what’s gone on in Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
It’s now being employed at the pinnacle of American democracy. It’s particularly useful in situations where the leader is vulnerable due to possible investigations, blackmails or other circumstances that close off gradualist approaches to implementing an agenda. With all the emergencies going on, who is bothered at the moment about those Trump tax returns, or even his ties to Russia?
Dr. Ben-Ghiat may not know or use the lingo, but she is basically discussing an OODA-Loop cognizant governing style that takes full advantage of John Boyd style-tactics. It could also accurately be called a “4th Generation Warfare” response to governance. Knowing as they do that their opponents are basically the brainwashed and/or paid shills of rich oligarchs like George Soros- non-state players in some regards now that they have lost the executive branch- the Trump administration understands that they must succeed both politically and culturally, since- as Bannon well-knows coming up through Andrew Breitbart’s organization- “Politics is downstream of culture”, and since, as we know from William S. Lind, the ‘moral-strategic box’ of war is the most important within a 4GW paradigm.
Whatever she calls it however, Ben-Ghiat soon pivots, and analyzes it as both a symptom and a precursor of the kind of fascism individuals like her love to discuss (and which, to judge from her website, is one of her chief objects of scholarship as an academic):
This strategy requires a two-pronged approach. First, the creation of a small group of loyal insiders, who take orders directly from the leader’s inner circle and are tasked with creating chains of authority that bypass those of the existing federal government and party bureaucracies. I was disturbed, but not surprised, when Conway said two days after the inauguration that “it’s really time for (Trump) to put in his own security and intelligence community.”
Second is the unleashing of the political purges that authoritarians so love. Some purges are punitive (say the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates because she defied Trump’s immigration order) and some pre-emptive (the expulsion of senior State Department staff) but the effect is to cleanse the government of troublemakers and leave a power vacuum to be filled with loyalists — or not filled at all, for added disruption of the state bureaucracy.
Trump campaigned on a platform of unifying the nation, but by striking at the state he and Bannon intend to turn us against each other.
Their blitzkrieg not only throws us off balance but forces us to take sides. Do I work for Trump or leave the government? Do I issue a statement that my company disapproves of the travel ban? What will my shareholders and stakeholders think? It’s no accident that the World War II language of resistance and collaboration has come back into circulation — these are the situations authoritarians create to divide us, making it easier for them to restrict our freedoms.
Trump and Bannon are in this for the long run. Trump has already filed paperwork for a 2020 candidacy. Our focus, in the middle of this storm, is to keep our feet on the ground and our eyes on the prize: the defense of American democracy.
The question this raises in my mind is this- if Trump is indeed effecting a ‘coup’, then just what kind of coup is it?
Furthermore, what do I- as an archetypal ‘far-right’ (to liberals) Trump supporter- most ideally want America to be? If Trump really had the power to stage a coup and reorder the shape of this country, what would my ideal version of it look like? This latter question is actually one I am grappling with as one aspect of my next book (although the book will be a little more focused on Europe than America).
I am not entirely sure what my answer would be yet, but it would have to be in two parts.
First is what I would want it to look like if people like Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat had never succeeded in re-ordering Western society to such a marked degree.
Judging from the picture on her website, the good doctor is a young-ish looking, pretty blonde lady. I don’t believe she’s old enough to be a Baby-Boomer. Yet it was the people in the Baby-Boomer generation who both changed forever the course of Western history, and trailblazed the obscene ideology Ben-Ghiat now subscribes to, as a second or third generation member of its ranks.
It was they who embraced a radical, fundamentalist religion of Cultural-Marxism and white self-hatred. A religion that taught them that all their ancestors had fought for for thousands of years was wrong, and that they- a bunch of twenty-somethings with zero life experience, who had been born into the greatest wealth in world history- somehow had the wisdom to see this.
These individuals recklessly and nihilistically sought to overturn all established cultural mores. They sought to to corrupt or eliminate concepts such as gender, shame, biology, morality, God, and a whole host of other ideas. They decided that white people were inherently evil. That men were inherently predatory.
They flooded Europe with tens of millions of Muslim immigrants, until today Sweden has the second highest per capita rape rate on earth, and the 18-29 year old demographic in it and many other Western European countries is on the cusp of being majority Muslim (anticipating the entire society doing the same by about 15-20 years).
It would take too long to catalog all their evils in this post, but suffice it to say they have forever altered the course of history for North America and Western Europe.
What this means is this- had they never arisen- and had their evils never been done- my ‘ideal’ America would be different. It would a democratic, multi-racial, ‘civic nationalist’ one in which political power is completely disbursed (as the founders intended), and the various groups within society get along, and consider themselves (as much as possible) to be one shared honor group. Basically, it would a more modernized version of 1940’s.
This reality is now impossible though, precisely because of the actions of people like Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat. They have brainwashed generations of children into believing that America is inherently bad, that patriotism is bad, that if you are born black you are an eternal victim, that if you are born white you are inherently evil, that gender doesn’t exist, and that it is healthy for ten year olds to undergo hormone therapy and cut off their sexual organs. In short, they have created an insane wasteland of degeneracy, confusion, and Asabiya-depletion in which virtually no one considers America to be one single shared honor group, and in which we produce fewer children than we need to keep an even population.
In Europe we have something similar, only instead of a hodgepodge of various immigrant groups, we have societies that are becoming Islamized at a faster and faster pace as mass Muslim-immigration continues. This is also a problem,since I think a ‘diverse’ North America was only palatable to many European-Americans if Europe was still a homogenous ‘homeland’ across the Atlantic. I know this is certainly my perspective on the matter.
This gives rise to two scenarios
And these are the two that I can’t pick between. They both relate to America, and what the future could look like.
The first is that Trump does stage a ‘coup’ as the article says. Or, rather, that he is successful as president and is able- in large measure, to change the reality on the ground in America. He stamps out the excesses of Progressivism, curtails the propaganda of the ‘fake news’ media, curtails the degenerate influence of Hollywood, bans pornography, quits fighting wars for Israel, deals with the university system, halts all further immigration, (peacefully) repatriates Muslim immigrants, and does something with the 11 million+ illegal immigrants here other than giving them voting rights (preferably positive incentives to return to Mexico).
This new America would basically be a somewhat half-salvaged version of the one I would have preferred from the start (had Europe not been murdered I mean). Hopefully after long enough black and Hispanic and white Americans could- in the absence of liberalism, begin to view themselves as a single shared honor group. Birthrates could return to replacement levels in the absence of radical feminism and cultural degeneracy, and America would survive and thrive to the greatest extent possible.
The second scenario is that America splits up into numerous concomitant parts. Calexit becomes reality and California secedes. Black people are given ‘five states in the south’ to have as their own (something I would probably support in this reality). The Mountain West or Appalachians or some such area are given to white people. Hispanics are given New Mexico and parts of Arizona. Perhaps other parts of what were the United States remain ‘diverse’.
The other added benefit of this scenario is that it likely only arises as a result of much destabilization, which means amygdala-stimulation and K-Selection for average ‘moderns’ and Progressives. This would be highly valuable in the changes it would catalyze. Individuals like Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat only believe the things they do because they have never been exposed to reality. Their liberal-privilege has afforded them lives utterly unlike any that humans lived for 99.9% of our species’ existence. If they were to suddenly trade places with an 11 year old white girl from a poor family in Rotherham, or a random European parachuted into Somalia, or anyone from 500, 1000, or 1500 years ago, they would realize just how tenuous Western civilization is, and that it was built on the backs of everything they now despise (patriarchy, violence, masculinity, capitalism, Volkishness, tribalness, Mannerbundism, shame, decorum, restraint, chastity, separate gender roles, etc).
Conclusion And Question
The question of which scenario is better is still unclear to me however.
As a result, I would highly welcome the thoughts of my well-respected brethren who read this site, and who similarly long to preserve our culture and heritage. The question is hypothetical- at this point. Yet I think it is an important one to ask.
1) Rather have a Trump-led, authoritarian, civic-nationalist America in which Progressivism has been at least partially defeated and the country remains ‘unified’?
2) A future America in which the nation has been at least partially divided, and that the various groups within it each possess their own respective slice?