What Is America’s Best Case Scenario?

What Is America’s Best Case Scenario?
February 3, 2017 Admin

Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat just published a very insightful essay for CNN.

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.

From cnn.com:

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.

Progressivism turned Sweden from Tolkienist utopia into hell in a period of 40 years.

Progressivism turned Sweden from Tolkienist utopia into hell in a period of 40 years.

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.

The Significance

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).

usa 2

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.

Would you:

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?

Comments (21)

  1. Manny J. 11 months ago

    I don’t think any scenario where the state splits along ethnic lines is feasible. Too much military hardware, too many nuclear weapons, and none of the perspective non-white populations could be trusted with them. Either Trump’s implicitly white civic nationalism gathers momentum and a progressive backlash becomes impossible, or the US and Europe are going dark.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Hey Manny appreciate your comment- it brings up some things I hadn’t really considered which is very welcome.

      In the second scenario we would end up with anywhere from 3 on up different countries next to each other. One would be all black, one all white, and then others could be mixed, Hispanic, or any number of things. Judging form the example I gave in another comment of India and Pakistan, its possible that some of the countries would be at each others’ throats something horrible. Plus you are quite correct that we have nuclear weapons and other factors that complicate everything.

      All of that indeed makes it difficult to visualize, but then again, stranger things have happened. And I will say this- I definitely CAN envision a Calexit. In this crazy atmosphere with Trump as President and with Liberals going even crazier than normal, I can see a number of very strange things happening. The Californians might very well like to leave the US, and I could see Trump endorsing it, as it would further consolidate his power by eliminating all those electoral and popular votes 🙂 From there… who knows what else could happen.

      I could definitely see things going dark too, but I hope that’s not the case!

  2. dashui 11 months ago

    Wait a minute, you are not talking about giving Mississippi to the Republic of new Africa are u?

    I discovered Bannon once interviewed Howe, of Strauss and Howe 4th turning generation theory.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Hey Dashui-

      Yep, I would be fine giving them five states in the south. I certainly don’t believe in slavery reparations or anything like that, but I think giving them their own country would be a good thing to do, were America to break up. One could make the argument that they have plenty of ‘homelands’ in Africa they could move to, but after 250 years in this country I’d say they are somewhat distinct at this point. I got the idea from some of the BLM protestors. Most are just whining and busting up store fronts and unwittingly doing the bidding of the Soros-contingent, but a few are rejecting that perpetual victimhood narrative and approaching it from more of a will to power perspective, and wanting their own independent nation. As an Identitarian I respect that and want all distinct people’s to have the right to their own blood and soil homelands, so I would be okay giving them something like that, and then doing the same for European-Americans as well (probably a much larger swath, since they are such a larger share of the overall population). It sounds crazy at this time, but its no different than Israel/Indian reservations/Pakistan and India splitting up, etc.

      Major kudos on the Bannon/Straus+Howe interview! That sounds like gold and I am going to look it up right now!


      • Robert Lee 11 months ago

        American blacks already have their own country: Liberia. They can go there.

        • Andrew D 10 months ago

          Ideally the US would return to a constutional republic. If you look at the electorate though it’s obviousy not up to the task. I feel something yuuuge needs to happen for that kind of Freedom to ever be possible to maintain, unless we greatly restricted voting rights or there is a great war.

          • Author
            Admin 10 months ago

            Hey Andrew D- What would that look like in comparison to current setup? More power for the states or?

            What do you think of Calexit and getting rid of those nutjobs?

            Hear about them taking down the Robert E Lee statue down in Dixie this week? Horrible stuff isn’t it…


          • Andrew D 10 months ago

            It will probably take a serious culling or a great war for things to finally correct themselves. As long as Women and welfare recipients are allowed suffrage I highly doubt any kind of legislation or democratic process can save us.
            As far as Calexit that would be awesome but we would have to build a bigger wall after that. That would actually be great because then I could apply for a job in southern Oregon buiding that wall.
            Them taking down Robert E. Lee does not surprise me at all because there is a war on Masculinity, Christianity, Chivalry, tradition, bravery and honor, and I can think of no man who more embodies those qualities than our late general.

        • Author
          Admin 11 months ago

          Hey Dashui fantastic article. I think I copied about 60% of it into my ‘quotes’ document for my new book. I was amazed how closely Bannon’s thoughts on things mirrored my own. He is obviously much more of a civic nationalist than an Identitarian like I am, but in terms of the Strauss/Howe stuff, it was eerily similar. It seems he has not expressed clearly what he sees as the catalyst for the ‘Fourth Turning'(crisis) though, and I think the author of the article sort of implied (correctly) that whatever Bannon ends up thinking that catalyst (or enemy) is will have a huge impact on the course of Trump’s administration.

          If you- Steve Bannon, or the Trump administration I mean- view the financial crisis that began in 2008 as the major ‘crisis’ that is to be overcome through bravery, hard work, and resurgent asabiya, then that is pretty simple and most of your focus is on economics. If you view Islam as the crisis, that opens a BIG barrel of apples. And if you view Liberalism or the Liberal elites themselves as the crisis, or enemy, that opens an interesting one too 🙂 My thoughts are somewhere between the last two (maybe the combination of them).

          Fascinating times to live in. This article made me even more hopeful for Trump’s administration!

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Perhaps it could be called the Constitutional Republic of African Citizen Kangz, or C.R.A.C.K. (just kidding 🙂 )

  3. Robert Lee 11 months ago

    Number 2, definitely, although the blacks can find some other place to ruin: Africa, perhaps. This country isn’t supposed to be the Mafia where you’re in for life. If the country breaks up, that’s the states asserting their sovereignty, and I care more about that than unity.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      I laughed out loud at the mafia analogy 🙂

  4. gris bosque 11 months ago

    I’m not sure what will happen,
    but I am seeing both scenarios happen at the same time, like the analogy of a societal collapse being like a theater play with two different scripts being acted out at the same time.

    I think the liberals are appearing more insane by the day, and it’s only a matter of time until they are infiltrated by the FBI and taken out.
    For their attempts at social disruption. Also I believe at the midterms the dike will burst on their denial. they are proving their own insanity, stupidity, and unreliability by the day, and look to be set to continue for the next two years. I think they will attempt to isolate themselves in Calipornia and the North east enclaves via states rights….

    they seem to mimic rightist positions….. and repurpose them.

    I don’t think the”deplorables” and the blacks will have issues if Trump energizes and transforms black communities….. this has never been a race thing except in the minds of Liberals… If the blacks see the transformation, they will leave the Democratic Party like it was diseased Camels…..

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Hey gris bosque thanks for the comment. What does gris bosque mean by the way? It piqued my curiosity-

      I certainly hope you are right and the Trump administration does infiltrate the more radical and violent liberal groups. You may very well have already heard this but Hungary and one or two other Eastern European countries are in the process of trying to ban all Soros-affiliated organizations. I think such an outcome in America would be wonderful too and I hope if Trump is successfully in amassing more power that he follows in those footsteps.

      I also do think black folks in America are natural Republicans in that they tend to be more religious and more socially conservative. Many reasons its logical they have stayed Democrat though too.

      Certainly I am 100% opposed to multiculturalism like it is in Europe, but I think the case of black people in America its a little different since they were brought there originally as slaves. With that said I would be equally happy with either scenario I think.

      • gris bosque 11 months ago

        I agree about the black communitie’s natural conservatism. And think they and traditional Democrats have been misled by the Feminist take over of the the DNC and other institutions.

        One point I would like to make, is that there is a natural rate of cultural and genetic merging on the edges of groups. this is not bad as it prevents genetic inbreeding and happens slowly enough to be adaptive. Its the unaturally accelerratedand forced merging causing the problems. So i think the real issue isn’t as much about race or culture as it is about time.

        But that race and cultures do very much have their time and place.

        its an overview.

      • gris bosque 11 months ago

        the Gris Bosque thing is my pen name/user name, its Spanish for Gray Forest, just whimsy… I’ve lived 100% immersed in Latin culture the last 20 plus years, so I know a bit about multiculturalism when you are the only white guy! we treat them way way better than they treat us in the latin wilds…. And in fact I’m now working towards moving back to the states, burnt out on living in a low trust society, and things are getting better in the US for the indigenous whites…. The Liberals are basically the modern expression of decadence, as what collapsed Rome, Greece, etc. they had the feminists, homosexuals, bread and circus socialism. so the divide or watershed is if the liberalism is stopped, and the culture shifts to steady state from empire building.

        The homosexuality has its root in the mouse utopia experiments, biological overshoot.
        the next hurdle will be stopping the vanity of the elite as per in the University of Maryland Collapse study…

        Then of course the elephant in the room is nukes, we need to survive about 30 years to get past them on the enlightenment spectrum. every day we don’t nuke each other is a good day!

  5. Rick 11 months ago

    I would opt for scenario number 2. The only scenario in which multiple ethnic groups seem to tolerate each other is when there is an extremely powerful and oppressive state. *See Yugoslavia, USSR, Sudan, Iraq etc.. and who wants to live under that.
    Once the boot comes off the throat then it’s separation and/or civil war.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Hey Rick that is a very good point. And perhaps the ‘shopping mall’ scenario too, which is what I would say the U.S. has been in. Everyone gets along in the shopping mall, which is what the U.S.- flush with cash and consumerism, has been. But once the lights go off, or the cash runs out, things quickly go south :/

  6. Rick 11 months ago

    Yes the shopping mall is an apt analogy, people now (particularly in North America) are atomized now, it’s possible to go days without really interacting with someone, and I think this has allowed places like Canada to continue on so long down the Multi Cultural spiral. Fewer interactions mean fewer points of friction. European countries have a much stronger social fabric, they go to pubs more often belong to clubs and have fewer strip malls vs town centres. So I really don’t think scenario 1 can work there without an absolute dictator.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Yes, agreed. I think a strong authoritarian President like Trump could corral a multi-racial America into stronger asabiya (societal cohesion and shared purpose) if we he managed to defeat liberalism enough, but I don’t think the same would be possible in Europe, where the combination of native Europeans and Muslims creates a situation that is not just multiracial but also multicultural. Multiracial countries are next to impossible to get united, multicultural is even harder/impossible, and if one of the cultures is Islamic I would say it is even more impossible. Modern liberalism has just ushered in another period destined to show these eternal truths, which will be a good object lesson for anyone able to look back on it a hundred years hence (hopefully our descendants).

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *