Amerika

Mainstream sources are still struggling with populism, which seems to me to be a libertarian take on returning to natural rights and American nativism. The populists are not Hitler II; they want to eliminate ideological forces running government so that government can focus on returning value to citizens for the taxes they pay.

Populism also admits the need for continuity, namely that if your country was founded by Anglo-Saxons, designed for Anglo-Saxons, and mostly perpetuated by Anglo-Saxons, you probably should admit that and keep this group in charge because of their demonstrated competence that benefits everyone regardless of race, creed, ethne, sex, gender, sexual preference, and weight.

Weight? Fatphobia is the new “racism” after all.

You only see movements like populism emerge when it becomes obvious that democracy has gone off the rails and civilization is in full decline. Otherwise, your average prole would rather vote for free stuff and watch the television rationalizing decline as progress.

People analogize civilization decline to the orchestra playing as the Titanic sank, but the reality is more prosaic: people must still survive in a dying society, so they ignore the decay and focus on happy things instead, allowing them to be oblivious up until the point of impact.

Of course, the point of impact is less like a Hollywood apocalypse and more like waking up from a three-day bender to find you are in Russia, Vietnam, Mexico, Brazil, or Italy.

Americans have watched the prosperous society of the 1980s give way to a politically-correct zombie zone where people are more concerned with ideology than results, and everything costs a ton of money and is shoddy, while our doddering government showers people in money yet cannot help its own citizens in natural disasters.

When the Clintons took over in the 1990s, they repurposed America toward 1960s ideals of social justice instead of function, and now the place is mostly dysfunctional. We are going out like the Soviets, who in the name of equality raised costs and lowered quality by pursuing ideology over reality.

Populism concerns itself with civilization decline and draws parallels to ancient Rome and Athens:

His immigration restrictionism, aside from being red meat to a dissatisfied working class looking for a scapegoat to blame for its stagnation, is probably best explained by fears of imperial decline.

Both of those died of excess, too, namely a stew of democracy, entitlements, and diversity just like is killing us.

Where the world is going ultimately will be mono-ethnicism, previously called ethno-nationalism, which means one ethnic group per nation. Only mono-ethnic societies have a chance to survive; poly-ethnic societies end up like Russia or Brazil, and Americans would prefer 1980s WASP America over that.

We are moving from ideology toward biology/genetics as the root of our politics:

Countries throughout the world recognize two fundamental doctrines of citizenship: jus soli (Right of Soil) and jus sanguinis (Right of Blood). Right of Soil recognizes citizenship based solely on where the person was born. Its origins are the feudal concept of loyalty to the lord and, ultimately, the sovereign being bound up with throughout the world recognize two fundamental doctrines of citizenship: jus soli (Right of Soil) and jus sanguinis (Right of Blood). Right of Soil recognizes citizenship based solely on where the person was born. Its origins are the feudal concept that loyalty to the lord and, ultimately, the sovereign being bound up with the land. Right of Blood recognizes citizenship based on the nationality of the child’s parents and traces its origins to Roman law.

Liberalism goes the opposite way; it aims toward individualism, or liberating the individual from social mores, aesthetics, conventions, morals, and functions. It is about the egotistical I being the new king, instead of having kings who kept us proles from becoming self-destructive.

Individualism causes people to become self-destructive because in order to be individualistic, they have to reject reality and adaptation to it, so they become anti-realistic and therefore, ironist contrarians who do the opposite of what is commonsense, logical, and realistic.

Trump is rolling back liberalism in favor of reality-based adaptation engineering:

Many of his actions resemble and are borrowed from other anti-liberal politicians, including Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

But a lot of what Trump is doing now, I would argue, is better understood as anti-liberal or anti-modern liberalism than antidemocratic.

Some policies that are part of modern liberalism and strongly supported by liberal politicians, including safety-net programs such as Social Security, are also beloved by voters. So Trump and anti-liberal conservative leaders across the world are generally reluctant to roll them back.

We all see the alternative; diverse societies become an extended racial shakedown where money is transferred from the productive to the unproductive, making everyone equally poorer:

SpaceX in a submission has told the regulator that it ought to rethink the rules requiring 30 per cent shareholding by “historically disadvantaged” groups.

SpaceX also advised that if the regulator persists in its requirement and in enforcing the limitations on ownership regulations, such would have the effect of excluding international investment by emerging technologies.

This shakedown is already happening in America through progressive taxes, which penalize the wealthy to subsidize the less successful:

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.9 percent average rate, nearly eight times higher than the 3.3 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.

The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.

This will only get worse over time until we lack enough money to get ourselves out of the hole of debt in which we are trapped, and at that point, permanent Carter-style economic malaise sets in.

Ninety percent or more of your fellow citizens cannot follow this simple train of logical thought.

They do not understand that the more money government gives away, the less that money is worth because there is more money in circulation that is spent without concern for consequences, and now, the level of income afforded by government is the new square zero at which people start out.

Leftists adore demand-based economics because this theory allows them to visualize giving away money as an economic boom, when in fact what they have done is created future wealth crashes but are enjoying borrowing against the strength of the economy before that happens.

Trump will switch us to supply-side economics, where the value of the economy is based on total productive output instead of how much the currency is sought in international markets, and this will involve two hard years just like the Carter-to-Reagan transition did:

“We have to reduce spending to live within our means,” Musk said. “That necessarily involves some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.”

On his social-media platform X, the former Twitter, the Tesla (TSLA) CEO went further and agreed with a supporter who predicted “an initial severe overreaction in the economy” and that “Markets will tumble.”

Two-thirds of the entire federal budget already goes toward Social Security, Medicare, debt interest, defense, and veterans. (Note that does not include Medicaid.)

While this sounds extreme, two years is about the time required for a major change of this nature in any system. It will take a year for the sheer number of changes to the money machine to take effect, and then another year for the economy to bounce back from a loss of value and take advantage of the new opportunities.

This will happen just in time because a Great Depression style crash is coming our way thanks to Bidenomics:

While there are five different measures of money supply, the two that tend to earn the most attention are M1 and M2. The former takes into account cash and coins in circulation, demand deposits in a checking account, and traveler’s checks. M1 is essentially money that can be spent by consumers on the spot.

Meanwhile, M2 factors in everything within M1 and adds in money market accounts, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit (CDs) below $100,000. This is still money consumers can spend, but it requires more effort to get to. It’s also the specific money supply measure that’s cause for concern on Wall Street.

Normally, the M2 chart slopes up and to the right. This is to say that as the U.S. economy has grown over time, money supply has also increased, which reflects the need for more cash in circulation to facilitate transactions. But in those exceptionally rare instances throughout history when M2 has endured notable declines, it’s spelled trouble for the U.S. economy and stock market.

Demand-based economics always ends this way: an initial burst of speculation, followed by periodic utterly destructive recessions. Biden spent himself to two years of good headlines, but now all he has to rely on is the stock market, which is driven more by speculation than by people actually building value. Warning signs are flashing red and yellow.

This is why Trump is first and foremost a libertarian. He is a moderate who wants to get us back to what works instead of pursuing these symbolic political victories like DEI/PC and grandstanding about democracy. He is trying to avoid a second Great Depression by making our economic system functional again for the first time since Reagan.

On top of that, he is acknowledging what we are seeing in Europe, Asia, and the Americas: diversity — of any ingredients, meaning independent of which races and ethnes are involved — has failed, leaving behind a legacy of failed economies, populations dying out, rape, violence, crime, filth, and disorder.

It is now clear to Americans that our path branches. One branch leads back to 1980s America when the WASPs were in power and everyone else was there as a guest worker, especially the Italians and Irish but also the Amerinds, Africans, Orientals, Indians, Hispanics, Arabs, Jews, and Slavs. They were never going to be of the founding group.

Current history students will have trouble understanding this, but America was made by people from one specific ethnic group: the ethnic Western Europeans (English, northern Germans, Scots, Dutch, Scandis, northern French). Irish, Africans, and Hispanics only contributed forced or low-cost labor. Amerinds contributed absolutely nothing.

The last functional model for America involved WASPs in power and no Keynesian entitlements and the demand-side economics to match. Going back to that is not radical; it is the logical thing to do given how hard diversity, socialism, and over-democratization have failed.

It is also the only way to avoid genocide for all of the ethnic and racial groups in the Americas. If we do not return to a founding ethnic group, all groups will be combined in a form of genocide by outbreeding, and this will make a new Brazil that will be just as impoverished as old Brazil.

Getting away from the third world system — bureaucracy, warlords, political machines, free stuff, sinecures — will enable us to continue functioning, but becoming a mono-ethnic society will save us from becoming Russia or Brazil. The American voters have finally seen this and become radicalized as a result.

Tags: democracy, jus sanguinis, liberal democracy, populism