“Whenever an aura of destiny is wrapped about somebody, there’s probably a hyperstitional motor whirring in the background.”
Nick Land
“Always remember, ‘At times of acute crisis in the course of human affairs, a man will emerge. If he does not, it means the time is not yet ripe.’ (Wolf).”
Alan Clark’s Diaries.
In 1945, on a blazing April’s day, Wolf — Adolf Hitler for the uninitiated — put a Walther PPK to his head and pulled the trigger. The smell of burnt almonds and blood lingered in Heinz Linge’s nostrils, as Germania’s death agonies dragged on. What comes to mind when I imagine Der Feind Europas’s triumph is the party scene from Downfall. The Occident’s spleen puking up one final Jazzy serving of active nihilism. All bile and bronze and paranoid perversity, while child soldiers and the Charlemagne Division stood guard along the Spree.
Hitler’s final request was that his body be saved from the Soviets. Linge asked what he should fight for in the Führer’s absence, to which Hitler replied:
For the Coming Man.
***
The feeling of Fascism, captured in books like Runaway Horses is obfuscated by its allegedly “progressive” critics. What was always compelling about Fascism, about the “cult of the coup d’etat” contra conservatism, was its reification of “the future.” Its eugenic fixations, shared with many prewar “liberal” regimes, did not simply fetishise the continuation of ancient bloodlines but focused on their scientific improvement. The perservation of Heraclitean fire, Tomorrow Belongs to Me, et cetera. The completely contingent, self-consciously reactionary sanctification of human rights dogma postwar repressed that forgotten consensus.
Still, the sign of the swastika haunted the religious imaginary of the democratic world. The Reichsadler’s faded outline across from a McDonald’s sign, daring the postwar world’s Gods and Copybook Headings: Would You Like Another Visit?
***
The “Right” might have lost the Second World War, but its partisans did not slide from the stage of history. Examples are numerous — you may examine Kantbot’s work product for the secret history of the Fourth Reich post-fascists tried to create. My favorite passage from J’accuse explores this trajectory:
“In the late twentieth century, that global nadir of science and culture, these nationalist movements sought refuge from the forces of Woke by retreating to the Deep State, there to become targets of left-wing conspiracizing. Read Mae Brussell, or any account of Reinhard Gehlen, Kemalist intelligence officials, or White Russian ties to the OSS. The life of Boris Pash ties this whole article together into a neat bow. He fought the Reds in Russia, worked in the interwar Army with the likes of Van Deman and Moseley, ventured to Europe again in the tragic brother war, dodged hippies and VC freaks working for the deep state, then finally walked the streets of a liberated Moscow in the 90s, a Volga German grenadier standing triumphantly on the dessicated corpse of the Red Dragon.”1
Stanley Payne identified in generic Fascism “a philosophical principle of voluntarist activism unbounded by any philosophical determinism.”2 Fascists and anarchists have historically been unified by their bias for action, though said actions vary between street vandalism and geopolitical intrigue.
“The important thing which the leftist conspiracy researchers understand and which we too frequently miss is that European patriots continued to operate as actors on the stage of history after 1945, with demonstrably real consequences. This should muddy the placid reverse whig history which we too frequently use to understand our place in history. The leftist conspiracy narrative of a covert network of Fourth Reich operators and gangsters destroying social democracy and creating a neoliberal hell-world is not particularly implausible. Cold Warriors did, in fact, destroy the Soviet Union. The 30 Years War by Len Colodny and Schachtman is about the birth and development of neoconservatism… It's also about how the students of a Prussian monarchist defense intellectual derailed the globalist Rockefeller plot to establish detente with the Soviet Union, forcing the American government to persist in the hawkishness which played a role in its eventual demise.”3
From the Congo to Cuba and Caracas, men of the right were overrepresented in parapolitical conspiracies. From the World Anti-Communist League to the “Dark Rechtsstaaters” of Gehlen’s BND to the adventurers of MACV-SOG; each made their own way through a world order that found them morally repugnant. Their hidden petty fiefdoms provided for us a base of operations from which to strike at the postwar consensus. Sadly, under the wary eyes of Woke, prewar ties of dependence between de Jouvenel’s “high” and “low” social classes were severed. In an era of economic plenty, and the stage-managed concession of Europe’s near abroad, authentic rightism was ceded to the skinheads and schizophrenics. Decolonisation created scores of Rhodesian ronin, unloved mercenaries in a hostile world, all the noble keepers of a dying flame.
John Ganz’s recent book “The Year the Clock Broke” surveys the eccentrics activated after the Peace Dividend. Limiting himself to 1992, Ganz guides us through a genealogy connecting Huey Long and David Duke, Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan. The rise of Rush Limbaugh and Ross Perot is juxtaposted against the cults of John Gotti and Daryl Gates, and the ballad of Randy Weaver. The Waco Massacre and Oklahoma City Bombing would follow. Right-wingers are found to be the protagonists of the 1990s.
The final page of the book binds those threads together by introducing Donald Trump:
“Still technically without assets because of his bankruptcies, Trump was trying to get the world-famous architect Philip Johnson, pioneer of modernism and now age eighty-six, to redesign the facade of the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.
As a young man, under the influence of the American fascist Lawrence Dennis, Johnson had quit his job at the Museum of Modern Art and taken a road trip with a fellow Harvard grad down to Huey Long’s Louisiana. He told friends he was “leaving to be Huey Long’s minister of fine arts.” The New York Herald Tribune’s Joseph Alsop covered it with a bit of a smirk: “Two Quit Modern Art Museum for Sur-Realist Political Venture.” “All you need is faith, courage, and loyalty. If you have them, you’ll get things done,” the young Johnson told Alsop. “That’s the terrible thing today, why the Dillinger and Capone gangs are the only groups that have got courage. Beyond that nothing is needed, not even consistency. The only necessary consistency is consistency of feeling.”
Almost sixty years later, Johnson listened to Trump rant and rave in the limo drive on the way to Atlantic City. “You’d make a good mafioso,” Johnson said. “One of the greatest,” Donald replied.”
***
Which brings us to today.
Trump’s not going to lose. Legitimately, anyways. But if he is declared the loser, he will go away. He cannot put his thumb on the scale as was attempted on January 6th, as he is not the incumbent. The mainstream right and left are too interdependent for a 1860s-style Civil War to break out. There might be a few regrettable lone wolf attacks, but nothing like the Years of Lead (see how much Civil Society has atrophied since!). With all due respect to the Qfags in my audience, I’m not aware of patriots in the P2 Lodge guiding events from afar. Trump’s retirement means that American History will pause in the short term.
If he does “lose,” all of the boring debates we suffered through in 2021 will reignite, and an influx of Judeo-Catholic-Russian money will pollute the discourse. Debates between secessionists and unionists, antisemites and negrophobes, NazBols and Racist Liberals will churn on, as the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.
Twitter is simply a bad forum for intellectual discussions. It exists because it abridges one’s proximity to social capital. So you can spam oven memes at journalists. Instead of assembling credible historical research in one place and adjudicating historical or political disputes scientifically, we will get another 4 years of gay, tribal signaling between internet factions like the dim dull days of the 2010s. People will spend hundreds of hours screenshotting PDFs and sitting on that information.
With the vacation of talent from politics since the Cold War, it’s clear that the business world is “run by high agency dudes who want to build teams and make things,” and the “e-right is largely driven by loners, influencers sniping one another’s subscribers and engaging in antisocial fantasies.”4 Most of the new blogs spawned will go unread, and if we’re not careful a GOP purge will work this time.
Not to imply I’m heading for the proverbial “exit.” I like you guys, and don’t want to have no reason to hang out. Keep close with your friends, and find something to accomplish with them afterwards. Keep a clean nose, and watch the plain clothes — you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows and so on.
***
Subcultures like ours exist to morally educate listless young men. The defining characteristic of Generation Z is our autodidacticism, our lack of any responsible pedagogy.
Right now, most oldheads offer pessimism as they ruminate on a life of defeats, limiting their view to reversals in the political sphere. They are serving up a completely toxic substance for young men to imbibe. We must show our younger siblings that avenues for glory are still available for driven young men. The Sphere must remain upbeat and inspiring if it wants to preserve its positive role for western man’s collective unconscious.
A life of high-adventure and victory is still possible. You have to internalize that. The rest will take care of itself.
***
It’s been suggested that our “scene” should become a socio-cultural one. In many ways, this process is already underway. My instagram reels are a testament to the Alt-Right’s metapolitical victory going into the “tribal twenties.”5 Every gigachad I see on the corflutes of student politicians marks the ultimate victory of the “Nazi” metaphor. Art is the only major space where rightist sensibilities have made a dent so far in this century, outside of politics itself.
I always believed I’d hold my breath until the “sphere” produced good art beyond the standard political diatribe or procession of inside jokes. But perhaps I was wrong. Normal people don’t exist anymore. Life has been politicized, and political content has been fascistically aestheticised to make both bearable. What’s left is to turn your own life into a work of art, to earn yourself a riveting obituary.
“We can grasp the ethical *content* of this in Mishima; the writer who best described the things which must be done to turn yourself into a work of art and the psychological effects of doing so… If a character in a book realises they are in a character in a book that’s postmodernism; if a book is about a character writing the book in which they are a character, that is something else. The future of literature will externalise the stream of consciousness to include the public, created self; thereby restoring it to its native glamour. Postmodernism is the destruction of values, the future will portray the creation of values from the void.”6
Paglia recently pointed out that “the mythic grandeur of old Hollywood and its pantheon of celestial stars is already gone.” Politics is now a platform for performance art, for better or worse. The future of the novel is turning your life into a work of art, like Hitler or Mishima. Trump is obviously a pioneer in this respect, and to the extent that he has a genuine talent it is his machiavellian management of his own image, and the outrage-cycles he provokes.
Contemporaneously, our sphere might further resemble the social movements of the 1960s. If you want to be charitable, we get the hippie counterculture with worse women and music, but more honest values. if you want to be uncharitable, a gayer version of neoconservatism — with the casual racism turned up.
To paraphrase Talleyrand, he who was not part of the class of 2016 does not know the sweetness of life. The year which “shaped all the conquering arms against this elusive adversary called boredom.”
“The spirit of ‘16 is the unfolding of a burgeoning, right-revolutionary consciousness which seems poised to remake the world and take it back spiritually from the left. It is the possibility of smashing their idols, of redacting and retracting the belief in liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
To paraphrase Zero HP Lovecraft, the difference between the spirit of ‘68 and the spirit of ‘16 is the difference between Jefferson Airplane and Louis-Ferdinand Celine. The former, utopian, and the latter:
“Born of a willingness to confront the ugliness and the foul consequences of the spirit of ‘68. That’s why it trades principally in “hate facts.”7
Generation Identity’s manifesto is addressed to the 68ers in charge of Europe. The demographic dynamic there is young right-wingers engaged in a two-front war against their senile, socialist rulers and their imported clients.
“A youth that wants the one thing that the ideology of the ’68ers can’t give it: a future… Our generation is rising up to dethrone the ’68ers. This book is no simple manifesto. It is a declaration of war. A declaration of war against everything that makes Europe sick and drives it to ruin, against the false ideology of the ’68ers. This is us declaring war on you.”8
Conversely, the spirit of ‘68 captured “a moment in time when it must have felt to all parties right, left, and center as if a burgeoning left-revolutionary consciousness was unfolding, filling the world with possibility.”9 The vibe shift put wind in the sails of labor, feminists, black nationalists, homosexuals and so on. Vanguardist street violence was paired with a comparatively occluded “revolt of the elites”, and we won’t fully understand the CIA’s cybernetic skunkworks until we get an American Perestroika.
But the decade also had its more nihilistic side. Enjoy the music of the Manson family, and recall that William Luther Pierce got his start working with Youth for Wallace.
Thomas Fleming and Don Livingston were at Woodstock. Tucker Carlson and Anne Coulter dig the Grateful Dead.
At Chicago’s ‘68 Democratic Convention, Norman Mailer distinguished between the “socialists” and “existentialists” picketing the DNC.
“The socialists, you can be certain, believed in every variety of social and revolutionary idea but membership in the Socialist Party, which of course, being young people, they detested…
Emphasis, however, on the New Left is directed away from power struggles; the old Marxist splinter groups reduced all too many old radical admirals to command of leaking rowboats, or, to maintain our corporate metaphor of property, squires in command of chicken coops. The New Left was interested for the most part in altering society (and being conceivably altered themselves—they were nothing if not Romantic) by the activity of working for a new kind of life out in the ghettos, the campuses, and the anti-war movement. If one would still refer to them generically as socialists, it is because the product of their labor was finally, one must fear, ideological..
“They detested almost to a man the repressive, obsessive and finally —they were modern minds —the anally compulsive oppressions of Russian Communism (as much as they detested the anally retentive ideologies of the corporation).”10
Chicago today is like that11. And doesn’t it all remind you of a certain part of Twitter?
Costin Alamariu usefully distinguishes between three distinct tendencies. National-populist movements give voice to “genuine and unaddressed concerns of citizens regarding mass immigration, declining living standards, perpetual wars and failed interventions, loss of national identity, and loss of democratic governance.” An older “white supremacist” subculture subsists on society’s fringes, receiving media attention out of proportion with its size and impact. Finally, there is a socio-cultural, nihilistic, inegalitarian youth-rebellion, “remarkably broad-based among high-school students and others somewhat older.”
The movements are conflated in order to easily dismiss their contentions, but such simplifications mean the establishment will be “unable to deal not only with the political problems of our time, but to speak in any convincing way to the youth, or at least the most intellectually intense parts of the youth.”
The “radicalization” of youth is happening not because of neonazi indoctrination, nor because of Russian plots, but because of the inability of our intellectual establishment, right or left, to provide a fair and convincing education to young people.”12
In East Germany, teenage punks celebrated Kongo Müller, “whose name they sometimes bracketed with that of the Rolling Stones”. The incumbent Left remained “separate from the counterculture of rock music and rebellion.”13 These are my politics, and I suspect they are Eric Zemmour’s too.
We had a “sexual revolution,” but ugly people still exist and fewer people have sex now than ever before. Punk music fans in the age of Woke know by now that half of their favorite culture-bearers were basically fascists by contemporary standards.
This destroys the asinine delusion that leftists ever had a monopoly on sex drugs and rock and roll. We have total leftist cultural hegemony and everything is getting more gross and boring. As minorities renege on the libertine sexual/racial contract of the post-1960s, all you’re left with is the finger-wagging, quasi-communist moralism of a spiritually gerontocratic left. This is the context of 2016-era "classical liberalism" polemics. Unlike in the 1960s, this youth revolt is disintermediated (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia) and accelerated by the internet.
***
So it might be the 1960s again. But this time, the good guys didn’t die.
Kennedy’s martyrdom created a Camelot legend that animates libtards to this day. We all know that America proverbially “popped its cherry on the boat over,” long before “Jack got whacked at the optimum moment to assure his sainthood.”14 Our still-living captain makes mythmaking a little harder, but Trump still represents a species of Charismatic authority not seen since the Kennedys, and probably Mussolini before that. It is good that Trump shall be remembered as a fighter and not merely the hapless victim of unseen conspiracies.
All followed a model set out by the ancients. Populism is “probably older than democratic politics itself.” Trump or Boris Johnson were Caesarian in the simplest sense, “degenerate aristocrats” cutting through a web of stakeholders with direct appeals to “popular opinion.” In less neurotic times, the System could assimilate such appeals, and smarter regime-hands have tried. The retarded moralism of incipient “elites” suggests that won’t be true of the next generation. We are waiting for their ascent to strike.
“Of those who have had any success in centralising power in Parliament there are exactly three: Nigel Farage, Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson. Each of these people – infamously – proceeded on individual will and charisma, not big ideas. A gift for command, gravitas, organisation, a common touch. These are high virtues. And they are rare ones – just ask Ron DeSantis. There is no Bonapartism without a Bonaparte to hand.”15
Donald Trump’s personality and unique talents were essential for lighting the fire started in 2016. Barring Barron, his heir will have to be another outsider, and there’s no guarantee one will emerge anytime soon. In many ways, Trump was the last “national” celebrity, cultivating his image through the noughties in the backwoods with the Apprentice. His heir can’t be someone excreted “through WEF pipelines, the USA version of Komsomol.”16 It won’t be JD Vance, a Silicon Hillbilly forced on us by the National Conservatives as “the figure in which The Dark Enlightenment (Thiel/Musk/Moldbug) meets the long shadow of Sir Roger Scruton in the field of 'pro-natalism'”17.
No matter how the election goes, the Democrats will do well either in the next midterms or 2028. In power, they will try in vain to forestall Europe’s second springtime of nations. J’accuse’s forecast for the future will proceed on schedule.
“But there was a very bright and energetic group of younger people in Republican circles who were thinking hard about what had gone wrong, and what had to be done.”18
That is, unless a self-conscious caste of heritage Americans forge a working group out of off-white Mexicans or downscale Asians who too prefer Europe to a cycle of Cathay. Christian Zionism for Hyperborea.
The point of Trump was always to inspire the coming man for the coming moment. Not to imply that plans to exploit Schedule F aren’t still in motion. As I said way back in 2023, on Project 2025 (and my role in its downfall), we only have to get lucky once! The System’s antibodies still exist but not for long.
“Dismantling established checks and balances of the constitutional state, of civil society, and of scientific research and practice meant opening up immense, Mephistophelian possibilities that greatly influenced these young, radical college graduates.”19
Which brings me back to the message of this missive. The Western Thaw will continue for structural reasons. Our job is to cultivate the uncompromising generation. You must best your enemies with your own life, transforming it into a work of art whilst living to see Trump’s name on aircraft carriers.
***
If you do decide to continue following politics once the big man leaves the stage, you have two options. In my time, I’ve noticed that different New Right ideologies appeal to different sorts of people.
Ideologies with a religious gloss usually attract young conservatives, who feel passionately about restoring order and the breakdown of community. Most of these people were already in politics to begin with, and have “radicalised” out of a sense of self-preservation.
On the other hand, you have rarified rebel sons of the deep state, renouncing their immediate heritage and social context for a more beautiful philosophy. A friend credits these people’s volte-face to their aesthetic revulsion at the “human pollution” of the world.
For the next half-century, I see the first group hacking at the machine from within, getting politicians coffee until an eccentric submarnite tech billionaire comes out of nowhere to flip politics upside down. Just as Trump did when he came down the escalator, having read nothing in the five years prior but Ann Coulter’s “Adios America!”
Judge for yourself which of these currents matches your temperament and social position. As “the right” advances through culture, we will inevitably find our faction populated by adherents inside and out of politics, the same phenomenon refracted through different lenses.
“Often the esoteric path of infiltrating institutions and co-opting them is contrasted with the exoteric path of political campaigning and winning elections; the reality is, a serious movement has both. There were people who made a hobby of campaigning for Israel or abortion or eugenics or racial justice in public lectures, clubs, stands at caucuses etc. AND these things were secretly pursued in the corridors of power.”20
I suspect a significant minority of my audience are not political activists and networkers, and I wouldn’t even advise politics as a vocation for those people. Continue to improve yourself, as the postwar consensus slides into the abyss.
Those of you who remain in politics should read up on “professional revolutionists” like Lenin, Philippe Buonarroti or Dominic Cummings and their “secret, conspiratorial world – peopled by former Illuminés and future anarchists”
“These men regarded the fall of Robespierre, the death of Babeuf, and the triumph of the counterrevolution as temporary setbacks in a continuing struggle to achieve a perfect society—as battles lost in a war that could still be won. For them, the Revolution persisted long after the particular era which most historians would classify as revolutionary had come to an end. As the decades passed, the idea of this continuing Revolution became increasingly detached from any specific revolutionary event. The war had, in fact, been lost; but defeat was never conceded. Instead the révolution en permanence was declared.”21
This was how the most successful ‘68ers thought. They refused to take comrades’ regressions to the ideological mean for granted:
“The political activism of the 1960s did not merely evolve into the ’70s as youthful idealism into the “reality” of adulthood. There was a political fight. Sides were taken and there were victories and defeats.”22
Because of unique political dynamics present in the Anglosphere, you may have to present as a Denmark-style social moderate for remigration, with the “spirit of 2016 concealed within your breast.” Protecting the biological human capital of the western world shall be your most important short-term goal.
As the television age comes to a close, so too will its bankrupt policy consensus. J. Sorel at the Daily Sceptic explains how the world where Walter Cronkite could collapse the Vietnam War effort no longer exists.
“The heyday of TV and radio meant that the lunatic variety of Tom Sawyer’s America was pasteurised away and a free people could now be made to feel anything at all…
“The ideal technological conditions for actual totalitarianism probably existed from around 1950 to 2000 – the peak of TV’s influence. This never came to pass, though stories of distant American relatives prone and raving before Rachel Maddow now give a slight tincture of what might have been. As others have pointed out, you can at least do something else while listening to the radio, and with a computer you are an active user…
That the legacy network media is now so regularly conflated with ‘liberal norms’ shows that what’s being defended by people like Kamala Harris aren’t the old liberal freedoms, but rather those 20th century institutions originally created for mass mobilisation and total war: the broadcast media, an expanded bureaucracy and fixed international obligations. To people like Mrs. Harris success means the return of these ‘collective experiences’, where news anchors can once more move millions with a look. A return of the Cronkites, in which there will always be a little girl down the well to pull you away from real life.”
“Yalta World,” meaning our synthetic impression of the World Wars and their lessons, was created and propped up by the television, the idiot box, the “electric jew.” The internet handed back the remote, and shattered life into “innumerable subcultures, streaming services and mystery cults.”
The classic American high school set-piece, with its pre-assigned archetypes of jock, nerd, loner and cheerleader, has almost completely vanished: films like The Breakfast Club now seem to belong to a lost world.”23
Hence the weakness of “high-school sociology” for explaining our current situation, as intelligent zoomers have observed.
If the historical moment opened by 2016 closes with the short-term ascent of the emerging Democratic Majority and the tilting of the 7th Party System against our interests, we must remember the thrills and lessons of the last decade, as well as the hidden opportunities over the horizon. To avoid the sin of despair and to internalize a belief that everything remains possible.
***
The history of the Trump era is important to get right, and even many on the “far right” get it wrong. He was a sincere man who enlisted racism, uplifted with a more general attacks on stupid consensuses, to poke fun at libtards. On paper, Trump doesn’t present like another Hitler at all, but a Berlusconi, a happy warrior fit for the cybernetic, nihilistic 21st century.
With every choreographed gesture, he embodied Nietzsche’s understanding of genius:
“Great men, like great ages, are explosive material, in which a stupendous amount of power is accumulated; the first conditions of their existence are always historical and physiological; they are the outcome of the fact that for long ages energy has been collected, hoarded up, saved up and preserved for their use, and that no explosion has taken place. When, the tension in the bulk has become sufficiently excessive, the most fortuitous stimulus suffices in order to call “genius,” “great deeds,” and momentous fate into the world. What then is the good of all environment, historical periods, “Zeitgeist” and “public opinion”?
Nietzsche recognised Napoleon as embodying forces alien to revolutionary France. He was “the heir of a stronger, more lasting and older civilisation than that which in France was being smashed to atoms,” becoming “the only master there” — Il Duce among the anarchists!
“Great men are necessary, the age in which they appear is a matter of chance; the fact that they almost invariably master their age is accounted for simply by the fact that they are stronger, that they are older, and that power has been stored longer for them. The relation of a genius to his age is that which exists between strength and weakness and between maturity and youth: the age is relatively always very much younger, thinner, less mature, less resolute and more childish.”24
It’s pointless to pick over Trump’s “childhood traumas,” or the neuroses of the spoiled rich. That kind of analysis, which will be on offer in the upcoming biopic, might be welcomed by the pop-psychology-addled brains of most Americans. Like their 19th-century European forbearers, they treat the “theory of environment — a regular neuropathic notion” as “sacrosanct and almost scientific.” Nietzsche adds that the English only understand great men democratically (see: Trump as “populist”) or religiously (see Trump as "cult leader”).
I shouldn’t have to express why it’s a deadening worldview. Denying originality in favor of “the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight” — THE FORCES AND THE FACTORS — “denies the individual worth of the human personality, as well as identitarian foundations of individual identity like nationhood and race.”
“If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind.”25
You see this in jokes about how Hitler was the greatest artist in the 20th century, turning his own life into a work of art. As Nietzsche said, “the great man is an end.”
Transforming a rapacious real estate man into Robin Hood was always the point. Discrediting the institutions in favor of the great man. So he can serve as an inspiration to the coming man, as the hated hero that Gotham deserves.
That’s why it’s so self defeating to harm on about Trump’s “sincerity,” which is what most far-right arguments about his character devolve into. You should be thinking of how to leverage his impact, and how he can inspire the coming man with a morality both feline and alien.
“The genius—in work and in deed,—is necessarily a squanderer: the fact that he spends himself constitutes his greatness. The instinct of self-preservation is as it were suspended in him; the overpowering pressure of out-flowing energy in him forbids any such protection and prudence. People call this “self-sacrifice,” they praise his “heroism,” his indifference to his own well-being, his utter devotion to an idea, a great cause, a father-land: All misunderstandings.... He flows out, he flows over, he consumes himself, he does not spare himself,—and does all this with fateful necessity, irrevocably, involuntarily, just as a river involuntarily bursts its dams. But, owing to the fact that humanity has been much indebted to such explosives, it has endowed them with many things, for instance, with a kind of higher morality....
If Trump loses, or whenever he chooses to leave the stage, people will pick apart his legacy as Peter Gieyls beholding Napoleon. The Red Scare girls will remember him as a metrosexual, operatic Rockefeller Republican. For the animejugend, America’s Hitler. For the Groypers, a false prophet felled by Boomer Zionism. For Populist Inc, a genuine prophet portending a multiracial working-class coalition that will never come and so on. Kushner would like him to be Obama, Bannon would like him to be Jackson; Trump himself yearns for Reaganification.26
All are selfishly cherry-picking. None of them will be correct, Trump was all those things and more.
“This is indeed the sort of gratitude that humanity is capable of: it misunderstands its benefactors.”27
Stanley Payne, Fascism, Comparison and Definition
Luke Francois’s notes
C. Sandbatch
From John Higham’s superb Strangers in the Land
https://asylummagazine.ca/MESSIANIC-ONLINEISM-AND-THE-SPIRIT-OF-16
Markus Willinger, Generation Identity
https://asylummagazine.ca/MESSIANIC-ONLINEISM-AND-THE-SPIRIT-OF-16
Norman Mailer, Miami and the Siege of Chicago
Shoutout to the Thugshakers!
Costin Alamariu, Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy
Richard Vinen, The Long '68. Radical Protest and Its Enemies
James Ellroy, American Tabloid
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/15/whatever-you-think-of-boris-ejecting-from-parliament-the-man-responsible-for-the-governments-majority-is-a-victory-for-the-blob-over-democracy/
https://asylummagazine.ca/MESSIANIC-ONLINEISM-AND-THE-SPIRIT-OF-16
Mikka
Norman Stone, The Atlantic and its Enemies
Michael Wildt, An Uncompromising Generation
Elizabeth Eisenstein, The First Professional Revolutionist
An issue from Workers Vanguard, sourced from Malcolm Harris’s Palo Alto
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/07/the-bbc-is-a-relic-of-mass-mobilisation-and-total-war-sprawled-across-the-national-psyche-like-a-huge-rusting-battleship/
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
C’mon
To paraphrase Garry Wills, “Moynihan tries to cast Nixon as Disraeli; Kissinger would like him to be Metternich; Nixon himself yearns for Woodrowfication.”
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
You're completely talentless as a writer. This is a round-up of tangents, thrown together without a deeper thesis or any authorial voice. You are a voyeur masturbating in the bushes of the Sphere™.
Need a steady stream of whitepills from this account