White Twilight

“Trumpism” is probably the least negative term applied to the Trump movement, or to the world view of the “deplorables”. What we hear more often are terms like fascism, Nazism, racism, sexism, hate, etc. – those terms that have become so ubiquitous that they have lost all meaning, and all one hears is a faint buzzing. While the level and vehemence of hostility and hatred toward Trump and his supporters remains unexplained (although I do have some theories), it is objectively true that Trump has a solid base among the electorate for his programs – and, perhaps, even more for his oft-expressed opinions on the media, economics, foreign affairs, politics, immigration, and whatever else strikes his fancy at the moment. He has, indeed, become the voice of the voiceless, having assumed that role at the very beginning of his campaign for the presidency, and since they have no other voice, they're sticking with Trump through thick and thin.

I mean, think about it – liberals and anti-Trump people in general can take comfort in the fact that they are part of what seems to be an overwhelming and vocal majority... a countless, deafening chorus which includes the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, academia, every political party except the Republicans, half the Republicans, and pretty much the entire population of the U.S. living within 100 miles of an ocean. Clearly, it takes no courage, much less independence of thought, to belong to this legion of demerit. The “deplorables”, on the other hand, are huddled in the interior... the heartland... flyover country.. and are constantly having to dodge and deal with incoming assaults from the coasts and from the federal government. Being relatively simple people, they can't understand why their desire to simply be left the hell alone is such a bad thing – why it puts them in every negative category the Establishment can come up with (the most recent being “transphobic”, but a new one will be along any minute, you may be certain). Paraphrasing George W. Bush, they can truly ask, “Why do they hate us?”

And what, by the way, is “Trumpism”, after all? It seems to have a lot to do with what, up until recently, were considered “conservative”, and not particularly controversial, values – respect for the flag and for the National Anthem, nationalism, patriotism (not the same thing, although Trump seems to think otherwise), a “muscular” foreign policy (AKA empire building), self-reliance, reduction in the size of government (or at least keeping it from getting any bigger), a certain preference for states' rights, a certain preference for local (town, city, county, etc.) autonomy, a tendency to deregulate... and so on; all the traditional earmarks of conservatism, in other words. The problem Trump had when he was clawing his way up the ladder during the primaries was that the Republican Party is no longer conservative in any meaningful sense; that pretty much went out the window after Reagan's time and was replaced by globalism, soft socialism, and – much to their shame – a shuffling, apologetic attitude vis-a-vis the Democrats/liberals/progressives when it came to “social programs”. (Saying, over and over again, that “we're almost as compassionate as our opponents” is no way to win elections, as I've pointed out before.)

So – once again, post-Reagan – a large portion of the electorate had to suffer through a cold night, and a kind of political exile, which Bushes I and II did nothing to alleviate, and much to aggravate. (What would you expect from people who put the fate of this country firmly into the hands of the globalists?)

But then along came Trump and his – some would say reactionary – message. And I imagine that any number of people were saying, or thinking – with great exasperation – that while they basically agreed with what he was saying, why did it have to be him saying it? This high-rolling real estate tycoon from New York City, with his NYC accent and manners... and that hair? Couldn't anyone else have taken up that challenge, and those positions? Well... there were plenty of opportunities, weren't there, over the years, and yet nobody did. No one wanted to rock the boat (even if it was sinking anyway)... globalism was the future, and there were no alternatives... patriotism was passe... and it was better to occupy the mushy middle than to take a firm stand on anything. Plus, occasionally members of the mushy middle wound up winning elections, because their opponents were too obviously radical in some way, making people uncomfortable and challenging them in ways they found distasteful. But Trump said, in effect, screw the mushy middle, it's time to shake things up, go big or go home, etc. – and lo and behold, enough people responded to his message to get him elected. He may not have taken over the Republican Party, but he certainly took over its ticket. And frankly, no one but Trump could have pulled it off – any of it – not getting nominated, not getting elected, not getting inaugurated, and not getting everything he's gotten done (albeit still a fraction of what he hoped) since. For the Republicans, he basically raised them from the dead – and received very little thanks for it. All they do now is try and figure out which “stance” – either pro- or anti-Trump – will make them most likely to win the mid-term election. A pathetic bunch. “Sad.”

But in any case the voiceless found a voice, and those who already had a voice are squandering it on screaming fits of hysteria. And as I said, the sheer energy behind that has yet to be satisfactorily explained; the mere fact that Trump is orange is not sufficient.

Which brings us up to the present day – and, as I said, Trump seems to have held on to his hard-core supporters... his base... through thick and thin. But the opposition has proven to be solid and tireless as well, which is a bit of a surprise; you'd think a few of them would have dropped out by now and gone back to being productive members of society, but that doesn't seem to be the case. George Soros' Antifa and Hillary's flying monkeys are out on the streets every day stirring up trouble... and the mainstream media, entertainment industry, and academia have grown thicker skins than ever; they are not only ready for the long war, they are already fighting it. In other words, there are no visible cracks in the facade, which means that it's not a facade at all, but the real thing. And – lest we forget – Robert Mueller and his minions continue to tirelessly toil away, looking for that magic kryptonite that will, at long last, render Trump weak and powerless (and, most importantly of all, silent). The Deep State chugs along, like the engines of a great ship, and woe betide anyone who gets in the way.

(Some might argue that the opposition has already won the long war, and all that remains is to police up the battlefield. But that would be to misunderstand the totalitarian mindset, which insists on total victory, total surrender, and the extermination (or at least enslavement) of all opposition. As long as there is anyone out there who persists in wrong thinking, the struggle must continue. “To learn more”, refer to the Orwell classic, “1984”.)

But if this is the status quo, the question is how long it can persist. Right now, we have a country in which half the populace is at knife points with the other half, and that is an extremely unstable situation, almost in the physical/chemical sense. Something's got to give, in other words – and the 2018 midterms are not the answer, no matter how they come out. The day after the election, the same groups will still be around, with the same attitudes, motivations, and methods as the day before. Oh sure, there might be some triumphalism floating around, but it won't change the basic situation. Lest we forget, the “deplorables” didn't come out of nowhere. They've always been there, and in fact there were proportionately more in the old days than there are now. True conservatism has never been fashionable, and yet it persists – as witness the Goldwater campaign and the Reagan years. It can be debated whether Trump is a true conservative, and yet his “rhetoric” – so-called by the opposition – seems totally in line with at least neoconservative values. If he says what he means and means what he says, and acts accordingly, he should be given credit for having a conservative administration, even if not for being a lifetime conservative himself.

But to get back to the upcoming elections, let's consider a scenario, with both short- and long-term implications. In the very short run, a power shift in Congress would open the floodgates for impeachment of Donald Trump, which has, up until now, been a talking point of the radical left, but shied away from by mainstream liberals, who are forever obsessing about “positioning” and “optics”, and invincibly ignorant when it comes to any issues of principle. As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, a successful impeachment would be meant to, among other things, teach the “deplorables”, and anyone who considers representing them, a damn good lesson – namely, don't mess with the Establishment, don't mess with the Regime, and don't mess with the Deep State, because if you do, this is what's going to happen. The goal is to put the “deplorables” in their place, and shut them up, and teach them that politics is a game for the elites and the sophisticates, not the peasantry.

As such, impeachment of Trump would be the equivalent of the show trials in Soviet Russia, which likewise taught everyone a damn good lesson – those who survived, that is. And please note that the Mueller investigation is part of this – a warm-up exercise, if you will. You can expect the Mueller witch hunt to seamlessly transition into impeachment hearings, if it should come to that. (And at least the Mueller enterprise is, supposedly, based on evidence, whereas impeachment would not be subject to that constraint.)

This would satisfy the opposition – well, as much as they can ever be satisfied, being addicted to revolution – but what would the effect on the “Trumpists”... the “deplorables”... be? Will they “go gentle into that good night”? My guess is not only no, but hell no. They have had a taste of visibility, and of power (or of what appears to be power). They have found a hero, and have raised him on high, only to see him defeated and brought low by evil forces. So they, or some of them at least, are likely to fight back. How, and to what degree, they fight back is a matter for speculation, but it would be a mistake for the opposition to expect them to simply retire from the battlefield and slip back into the hollow logs from whence they came.

And yet, theirs is a lost cause in the long run, no matter its merits of the moment. The reasons for this are many, and the one that comes most readily to mind is simple demographics. “White” people are already a minority in this country, or soon will be (depending on one's definition of “white”), and this change is only going to become more dramatic over time, because no amount of “native” reproduction (even if above replacement level) is going to make up for the uncontrolled invasion from the Third World which is already occurring, and would only become more acute post-Trump. (This isn't a value judgment, note – it's just hard, cold fact, and it's as inevitable as the barbarian invasions and takeover of the Roman Empire.)

So if the “formerly voiceless and soon to be voiceless again” are barely clinging to some level of power and influence now, once their hero has been dethroned and brought low (and perhaps jailed) they will feel like orphans again... and if realistic, will realize that their days as a political factor are numbered, and the the night is coming on. So will they fight on, to the last man if need be? As someone once said, the most dangerous enemy is one who has nothing left to lose.

And please note that there is nothing new about any of this; it should not come as a surprise. The battle lines were firmly drawn (or re-established) in the 1960s, and pressure has been building ever since. As the globalists, and globalist thinking, have taken over more of the American Establishment, the people Hillary Clinton described as “deplorables” have become more alienated – from popular culture first, then from the entertainment media, and most recently from the mainstream media. If it took Trump to break the ice, and stimulate this group to speak up and express themselves with courage and self-confidence, be assured that, once again, and despite of his many flaws, no one else could have done it, because if they could, they would have. (And if Trump hadn't come along the pressure would have continued to build, and a new, supersized Trump might well have emerged. This is why getting rid of Trump won't get rid of what the Establishment sees as the “problem”.)

It turns out that demographics is destiny after all. The elites of this world have been trying to do something about this for decades, with the help of globalist organizations like the United Nations. But whenever U.S. citizens or E.U. citizens look to the south, all they see is a population tsunami – from Central America for us, and Africa/the Near East/South Asia for Europe. And if there's anything “inevitable” in world affairs, it would seem to be this. (Trumpists could take comfort in the idea that they are not alone in the age-old demographic struggles.) And notice that the elites, having pretty much given up on Third World “population control”, are now embracing the mass migration phenomenon because they know it will destroy the old order (of nations with defendable borders) and also add to the reliable (i.e., liberal/globalist) voting population and constitute a new source of wage-slave labor. Another way of putting this is that, whereas the traditional model was one in which the “First World” exploited the “Third World” economically, we are now moving into an era in which the “First World” is becoming part of the “Third World”, and so it too can be exploited economically by the ruling elite. The ruling elite is no longer tied to nations, national identity, or any form of nationalism or patriotism, but is truly international, globalist, and interested only in creating a world-wide totalitarian slave state, and confiscating the resources of the (former) First World is a key part of this program. This is no secret, and is certainly not a “conspiracy theory” since it's happening in plain sight, and the globalists are bragging about it.

So what we may be seeing is the early stage of “white twilight” – not only here but in Europe as well. It kind of reminds me of the now-classic five stages of death and dying made famous by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross:

1. Denial – “Surely the white race isn't doomed, or even on the decline! After all, haven't we colonized the world, and aren't we still in control of a large portion of it? And aren't we dominant in areas like industry, trade, transportation, finance, technology, etc.? Surely the doomsayers must be wrong. Sure, there may be countless black and brown hordes clamoring to move into our countries, and mounting what amount to invasions on a daily basis – but surely we can stem, and roll back, that tide, and reassert our dominance and superiority!” (We are firmly in this stage at this point in history – and yes, this is a big part of what's on the minds of the Trump loyalists.)
2. Anger – “If the white race is declining and on the defensive, it's not our fault, but the fault of our traitorous politicians, globalists, totalitarians, and bankers. And it's also the fault of the coastal elites and the mainstream media.” (We are well into this stage as well. This has more of a conspiracy “vibe” than Stage 1, obviously. They are distinct but overlapping.)
3. Bargaining – No sign of this as yet. People are either on the opposition/resistance side or the cheerful acceptance side – although the latter could be seen as bargaining in a sense, in that that cheerful acceptance is predicated on the premise (perhaps unconscious) that “I can be totally in favor of anything that I don't expect to hurt me personally.” Which brings to mind the old saying, “A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.” Another way of seeing it is that many people who fancy themselves members of the ruling elite may be in for a rude awakening, once the criteria for that designation have shifted upward and they are left grubbing about like any of the people they formerly despised and looked down upon.
4. Depression – Nope. Not in any quarter. All sides have been awakened, all are fully armed and ready to fight. And this is unlikely to change. Passivity is passe, in other words.
5. Acceptance – Totally true (with the above caveat) of liberals and progressives, totally untrue of conservatives/traditionalists/nationalists. Well, when half the populace happily welcomes revolution and the other half resists it with all its strength... I recall that the period just after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is called a civil war, and it went on for quite a while.

So we see how a model intended to apply to individuals can, with very little trouble, be applied to a nation or society as well. It can, in fact, be applied to pretty much any “living system”, just as another classic model, that of Expansion/Consolidation/Decay can. (American society is definitely in the “decay” stage; the question is no longer “whether” but how this is to be manifested, and how long it will last – because after decay a society becomes “history”.)

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's all well and good for academicians to sit about in faculty lounges in their tweeds, puffing on pipes (well – maybe out on the sidewalk), and ruminating on how historic trends impact the small and insignificant (i.e., the vast majority) of the human race. But again, for the individual, whether they are the least bit interested in “the big picture” or not, there are stresses involved – economic and social certainly, and political if their concerns extend to politics (which everyone's do these days). But the biggest source of stress – and the greatest casualty – may boil down to intangibles – those ideas, concepts, notions, and images embodied in what is called patriotism, and which I'll also call the sense of place and time, and the sense of meaning and significance that is rooted in that awareness.

I've often felt that, despite all the frenetic flag-waving and celebration of national holidays we indulge in, the United States, and “America”, are abstractions – constructs designed to foster some sort of loyalty or willingness to make sacrifices, with relatively little in the way of rewards other than the feeling of being a “good citizen”, whatever that means. It's much easier to find genuine loyalty to a region of the country, or to a state, county, city, town, or even neighborhood – and this is a completely natural thing because it's an essential part of the makeup of the human species to prefer the familiar and the here-and-now to some abstraction. Abstractions have to be “sold” – they have to be marketed through propaganda campaigns – whereas loyalty to one's group and to one's native place – to “blood and soil”, if you will – is natural and, despite the best efforts of the globalists and their collaborators in the media and politics, is something that survives and remains vigorous, even or especially when under attack.

So in a sense, maybe “whiteness” is also too big a concept. Maybe there are too many shades of white for it to have any meaning. And, please note, many of the great wars of history have been fought between white people. The odd thing about our time, of course, is that any form of national, ethnic, or religious pride is acceptable except white and/or Christian pride, especially when combined with patriotism. The nostrils of all Democrats/liberals/progressives flare when they see tapes of a Trump rally. Non-white, non-Christian pride is embraced because it represents “diversity”, and also provides an easy avenue for the divide-and-conquer strategy of the globalists, whereas white and/or Christian pride represents nothing but hate, fascism, Nazism, racism, etc. etc. – you know the drill. (Note that whereas “nationalism” is frowned upon by the elite, “white nationalism” is roundly condemned – although no one bothers to define either term.)

So yes, the white race is under attack and under siege; can there be any doubt? And any attempt to defend it in its own right is dismissed as hopelessly atavistic. One response to these attacks is to point out all the fine things white people have achieved over the millennia, starting with ancient Greece. “Western Civilization” is cited with the full expectation that it will be a conversation stopper. All well and good, but since when has merit or worth of any sort, either real or alleged, necessarily driven the forces of history? If that were the case, the barbarians would have stopped, frozen in their tracks, before the walls of Rome, unable to take one step farther because they were in complete awe of the achievements of the Empire. But, as it happened, they couldn't have cared less, any more than the Third World hordes converging on the United States or Europe care. They don't respect or value American achievements any more than cows appreciate scenery; if anything, they see Uncle Sam as the oppressor (“Yankee go home” and all that).  Even if they care about their own culture, they either find it impossible to stay home in order to defend it, or they prefer to leave everything behind and take their chances in a foreign land.  So they pull up stakes and become rootless, and thus valueless except in the most rudimentary, survival-oriented way.  But even that cannot remain the status quo forever; the Goths did eventually build cathedrals, after all. As has been pointed out, invading armies eventually settled down and became farmers. Perhaps the same thing – or the equivalent – will happen in this case.

Plus, it seems a bit odd for conservatives to be constantly criticizing “identity politics” when the alternative is the continued dominance of the white race. Aren't we an “identity” as well? And wouldn't it, in fact, be preferable, in these times of turmoil, to concentrate more on individual virtues than on the merits (real or alleged) of a given racial or ethnic group? And what, after all, is the predominant social unit, down through the history of the human race? No matter what other structures are superimposed over time, the basic unit has always and everywhere been the family. And if you're going to pick a battle – or a war – the most consequential one, the survival of the family, should be your first choice, it seems to me. Once that survival is assured, one can always move on to other things – but without it, those other things will have no foundation and will soon decay and crumble to dust, as we are seeing all across the landscape in our time.