>The one gray lining to the silver cloud of Trump's victory is that the relatively comfortable times his second administration promises make the fundamental but necessary changes in political thought more difficult. Complacency and comfort are the enemy of all difficult human endeavors. And the new Trump administration offers both for conservatives everywhere.<
This is my primary response to the election. In Trump's first term, the right sat on its hands and did nothing for four years. Arguably more was done to push back against leftism during Biden's time in office than during Trump's. Is that going to be what happens again? I hope not, but my instinct is that's probably how things will go down. At the mass level, we still have a critical shortage of serious people. The average Trump voter is willing to check R at the ballot box but not willing to do much else. He will be content to return to his sportsball and beer while telling himself that everything is fine now.
Really fine insights. You summarize the last few election cycles accurately and more significantly succinctly. It is an unprecedented opportunity to take the moral high ground. Myself I am just having too much fun smoking weed, watching pornography and larping as Che Guevara.
First time reader (and second comment, lol), but this is one of the greatest essays I've ever read on substack. "Epic" is overused, but it's an apt description here. You cover the gamut, and well. Great piece of writing.
Great article. I'm quite the optimistic fellow because I know people... are not very smart or good. We are fickle, irrational, and prone to all sorts of fits and rages because of simple desires. That's why Trumo is here now, the pendulum has swung too far to let a normal personality as pres... we need a SUPER personality.
And that's why the 250th anneversary celebration is going to change everything more than anything.
This is a very good thorough article with some very good advice. I especially agree with you on "now is the time to sow" and not being *too* harsh on people in our immediate family and communities that have very left-leaning politics. But there's at least two points where I differ considerably...
"Looking to tamp down on the radicalism of the last decade, thinkers in this camp will use the victory in 2024 as a reason to return to the comforting Boomer-style conservatism of William F. Buckley and worship of the dead constitution."
I agree that Boomer-style conservatism in general is passe now. But I disagree with you on the US Constitution in particular. I used to think like you here... then I saw what's happened in Great Britain since the election of Keir Starmer. I also read about some of what's happening in Germany. The 1st Amendment really *is* making a difference. We see this simply by comparing current America to other countries that don't have anything quite so strong as the 1st Amendment. And it's possible that the 2nd Amendment is also making a big difference. British conservatives are in a far worse position right now than American conservatives are, and America's Constitution explains much of the difference.
"But human politics and human society don’t work like that. Civilizations don’t perish due to individual bad actors. They don’t even perish due to individual bad ideas. Rather, decline is characterized by an absence of masculine strength and spiritual ethos."
Isn't 1900s Europe alone a strong counterargument here? Europe had plenty of masculine strength and spiritual ethos in the early 1900s, was still on top of the world at that time. Then some bad actors with bad ideas brought about communism, fascism, and two world wars, utterly wrecking Europe, something that I think plays directly into Europe's current and ongoing spiritual malaise. I think it's good to have at least some masculine strength and spiritual ethos, but I very much think you downplay the importance of bad actors and bad ideas. Choosing the right leaders, buying into the right ideas, is critically important to a society being successful. Is it enough by itself? No, for the reasons you said. But it helps a lot. Likewise, choosing bad leaders promoting bad ideas will severely harm society. I'd highly recommend the youtube channel whatifalthist to you want to go deeper here, if you want to delve deeper into this. Here's one of his better videos: https://youtu.be/NW_AiXLdsxo
I’ve been wondering for a while if Trump is like an American Julian the Apostate in that he is desperately trying to rewind the clock and revive a culture that’s gone. Trump has always made the most sense to me when viewed as a 90s Democrat, who largely believes what Democrats believed back then. The animosity he provokes from modern Democrats highlights how far today’s Democrat party has drifted from its 90s iteration.
His rhetoric and policies feel like an attempt to recreate the stability, prosperity, and optimism of that era. I understand the appeal. Its the same thing that movie youtubers like the Critical Drinker seem to want. The 90s felt strong, confident, and unified, like America had everything figured out. But those conditions were unique to their time, and trying to bring them back now seems like a losing battle.
The 90s Democrat, especially a 90s New York Democrat, wasn’t just Clinton under Gingrich’s thumb. They supported abortion with a “safe, legal, and rare” approach that avoided extremes. Culturally, they were fine with LGBT issues, including gay marriage, though they approached them cautiously—a mindset reflected in popular media of the time, from Seinfeld to Friends.
They were mildly feminist, focusing on workplace equity and harassment, and firmly believed in deregulation and market-driven policies. On immigration, they supported border security (e.g., the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) while advocating for legal pathways for skilled immigrants.
Sound like anyone we know?
When you dig into Trump’s rhetoric, he often comes across as a nostalgic 90s Democrat, convinced modern Democrats veered too far into progressive policies during the 2000s and 2010s. It’s a testament to the Democrats' cultural dominance that what was mainstream Democratic policy in the 90s is now firmly within the Republican platform. The old joke, “What’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? Ten years,” is apt.
In all fairness, the most striking difference, however, is that Trump is staunchly protectionist, whereas 90s Democrats embraced globalist free trade.
Trump differentiates between equal tariff rates on both sides and "free trade" in which one country has much different rates than the other. Too many somehow equate free trade with simply the ability to trade with out incoming tariffs, but totally ignoring how the other country treats our exports going into their country.
In the 90's the main difference between the two parties was the uniform message the Democrats had in contrast to the more local-politics focus in even the senate.
I use to watch the 1 minute (about) speeches given in the house on C-span during the 90's. The Democrats almost always said nearly verbatim what the other Democrats said. The Republicans could not be predicted, everyone had a different focus point because every state had different challenges.. Sometimes a Republican would release some speaking time to someone else who had a similar concern, but that was rare.
In other words, even during the Clinton years the Democrats were being trained, "Want to gain power? Say what we tell you to say, no matter what is happening in your home state." Those who didn't follow lock step didn't get nationally provided funds. No wonder they went along with even the most extreme "progressive" goals. Anyone willing to disagree had been weeded out.
When I say "90s Democrat," I’m referring to the typical Democrat voter of the era—the cultural and social beliefs that defined them—not necessarily the exact Democrat politicians of the time.
Trump, as a consistent Democrat donor in the 90s, embodies much of that mindset. This helps explain his rhetoric and approach today—he’s effectively a 90s Democrat who believes modern progressivism has gone too far. Viewed through this lens, his platform, shaped by nostalgia and a reaction to cultural overreach, starts to make a lot more sense.
Interestingly, much of today’s popular dissident thought reflects a "return to the 90s" mentality. Look at the success of dissident YouTube film critics like The Critical Drinker: his content clearly longs for the irreverent and crass yet optimistic and patriotic films of the 80s and 90s. The same can be seen with gaming commentators, who often lament the shift in tone that came in the 2010s. It’s the idea that something fundamentally changed in those decades, and the solution is to recapture the spirit of the 90s.
I think Trump was able to channel this longing. That, combined with easily one of the worst Democratic candidates since Mondale, secured his victory.
Trump donated something (more to the probable winner) to everyone in NY NY, and some other NY races, of BOTH parties. As he said during the 2016 debates, he knew how the game was played. The typical voter in the 90's, both democrat & republican, had an over 90% agreement about what they wanted -- and a disagreement with their leaders, but the leaders of both parties didn't care.
Even among Republican leadership, when Reagan told his advisors people would laugh at the line "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.", those "expert advisors" didn't believe him and were astounded at the strength of the laughter. That joke resonated as much with Democrat rank & file as it did with Republican rank & file -- a fact that terrified Democrat leadership as it made party bosses less important & their constituents less controllable.
If your goal is power, especially if motivated by the Greater Good because you KNOW "lesser" people need your governance whether they want it or not, you need people believing the government is THE BEST possible help in their daily lives. (This also explains the war on churches we saw during COVID, where in many places even drive-in church, where people stayed in their cars, was not allowed, but liquor stores & Walmart stayed open)
Sadly, all in the uniparty believe government knows best. The R & D labels are just there for us peons.
I don’t have a girlfriend because I’m a loveshy stranger to women of the world, so I can’t relate to that title picture. In fact, I’m actually having trouble imagining it — not because I am some wordcel who can’t rotate a 3D model of a cow in my head, but because I’m just that stone cold in my inceldom. It would be like a blind man trying to imagine sight, or trying to imagine *seeing in* the fifth dimension (not seeing — seeing in)
"Everyone everywhere went full in on intersectionality and implemented “clown world” in every major institution, and what resulted was an America covered with crime, urine, and inflation."
Brilliant and thoughtful essay and, I might add, without any grammatical errors (the previous had so many that I could not hit *like*, sorry, but as a someone who writes for a living, I can't abide that).
You really crush this. Above all, I appreciate the call to treat one's enemies with a modicum of humility and understanding; in this election -- if in no others -- we must remember that to be on the morally righteous side of all of this is to have the humility of persons under a ruler for whom legitimacy is paramount. Gloating, bragging, or excoriation are alluring temptations indeed, but for all whom hold themselves to a higher standard -- among which I count myself one -- I think this philosophy is both optimal and powerful. It engenders goodwill and unveils a kind of magnanimity that transcends partisan politics, and unto which we must adopt a more virtuous way forward.
This election represents an epochal shift -- that's just undeniable. But what we choose to *do* with that shift shall define who we are; the dissidents among us must not rise in anger, but rather, a mutual understanding and dearth of hubris that belies a reality in which, we, much like Trump, have the mandate of Heaven.
Groundbreakingly thoughtful essay. It seems you've hit your streak again, and that's comforting, to say the least.
Excellent article. Just commenting to point out that "noblesse oblige" is a 19th century term that came after the aristocracy was dead and gone, during romantism. It sounds fancy, but the true purpose of aristocracy is not to serve the people, that is a revolutionaire inversion. The people should serve the aristocracy, because no human society works without hierarchy. All we ask for are just rulers, not these clowns running the show nowadays.
Think of the Samurai who would rather die than not serve a man of quality. To serve gives life meaning. It just so happens our "aristocracy" are a bunch of bourgeois retards who worship Satan, and therefore they need a bunch of justifications for why they are in charge when they really shouldn't. Noblesse Oblige was replaced by "meritocracy", or in the left cycles "being opressed".
Careful with using left wing language to describe right wing concepts. Ironically, the article tells us exactly about creating a new world and seizing the moment. We can't ever do that if we talk like our commie aquaintances.
>The one gray lining to the silver cloud of Trump's victory is that the relatively comfortable times his second administration promises make the fundamental but necessary changes in political thought more difficult. Complacency and comfort are the enemy of all difficult human endeavors. And the new Trump administration offers both for conservatives everywhere.<
This is my primary response to the election. In Trump's first term, the right sat on its hands and did nothing for four years. Arguably more was done to push back against leftism during Biden's time in office than during Trump's. Is that going to be what happens again? I hope not, but my instinct is that's probably how things will go down. At the mass level, we still have a critical shortage of serious people. The average Trump voter is willing to check R at the ballot box but not willing to do much else. He will be content to return to his sportsball and beer while telling himself that everything is fine now.
Really fine insights. You summarize the last few election cycles accurately and more significantly succinctly. It is an unprecedented opportunity to take the moral high ground. Myself I am just having too much fun smoking weed, watching pornography and larping as Che Guevara.
lol
First time reader (and second comment, lol), but this is one of the greatest essays I've ever read on substack. "Epic" is overused, but it's an apt description here. You cover the gamut, and well. Great piece of writing.
I loved the bit about the crown in the gutter, though I must say that as a Brit I’d prefer to take the sword from the stone.
Great article. I'm quite the optimistic fellow because I know people... are not very smart or good. We are fickle, irrational, and prone to all sorts of fits and rages because of simple desires. That's why Trumo is here now, the pendulum has swung too far to let a normal personality as pres... we need a SUPER personality.
And that's why the 250th anneversary celebration is going to change everything more than anything.
Stay tuned, the day orlf reckoning will come.
A truly great one, Dave. The best summation I’ve read yet, on, “What Just Happened?”. Bravo.
Bravo!
Great piece Dave, one of my fave ones of yours so far. <3
Cheers
Now it's time to work
This is a very good thorough article with some very good advice. I especially agree with you on "now is the time to sow" and not being *too* harsh on people in our immediate family and communities that have very left-leaning politics. But there's at least two points where I differ considerably...
"Looking to tamp down on the radicalism of the last decade, thinkers in this camp will use the victory in 2024 as a reason to return to the comforting Boomer-style conservatism of William F. Buckley and worship of the dead constitution."
I agree that Boomer-style conservatism in general is passe now. But I disagree with you on the US Constitution in particular. I used to think like you here... then I saw what's happened in Great Britain since the election of Keir Starmer. I also read about some of what's happening in Germany. The 1st Amendment really *is* making a difference. We see this simply by comparing current America to other countries that don't have anything quite so strong as the 1st Amendment. And it's possible that the 2nd Amendment is also making a big difference. British conservatives are in a far worse position right now than American conservatives are, and America's Constitution explains much of the difference.
"But human politics and human society don’t work like that. Civilizations don’t perish due to individual bad actors. They don’t even perish due to individual bad ideas. Rather, decline is characterized by an absence of masculine strength and spiritual ethos."
Isn't 1900s Europe alone a strong counterargument here? Europe had plenty of masculine strength and spiritual ethos in the early 1900s, was still on top of the world at that time. Then some bad actors with bad ideas brought about communism, fascism, and two world wars, utterly wrecking Europe, something that I think plays directly into Europe's current and ongoing spiritual malaise. I think it's good to have at least some masculine strength and spiritual ethos, but I very much think you downplay the importance of bad actors and bad ideas. Choosing the right leaders, buying into the right ideas, is critically important to a society being successful. Is it enough by itself? No, for the reasons you said. But it helps a lot. Likewise, choosing bad leaders promoting bad ideas will severely harm society. I'd highly recommend the youtube channel whatifalthist to you want to go deeper here, if you want to delve deeper into this. Here's one of his better videos: https://youtu.be/NW_AiXLdsxo
Good article, as always.
I’ve been wondering for a while if Trump is like an American Julian the Apostate in that he is desperately trying to rewind the clock and revive a culture that’s gone. Trump has always made the most sense to me when viewed as a 90s Democrat, who largely believes what Democrats believed back then. The animosity he provokes from modern Democrats highlights how far today’s Democrat party has drifted from its 90s iteration.
His rhetoric and policies feel like an attempt to recreate the stability, prosperity, and optimism of that era. I understand the appeal. Its the same thing that movie youtubers like the Critical Drinker seem to want. The 90s felt strong, confident, and unified, like America had everything figured out. But those conditions were unique to their time, and trying to bring them back now seems like a losing battle.
The 90's Democrat was Clinton controlled by the very Republican Newt Gingrich.
The 90s Democrat, especially a 90s New York Democrat, wasn’t just Clinton under Gingrich’s thumb. They supported abortion with a “safe, legal, and rare” approach that avoided extremes. Culturally, they were fine with LGBT issues, including gay marriage, though they approached them cautiously—a mindset reflected in popular media of the time, from Seinfeld to Friends.
They were mildly feminist, focusing on workplace equity and harassment, and firmly believed in deregulation and market-driven policies. On immigration, they supported border security (e.g., the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) while advocating for legal pathways for skilled immigrants.
Sound like anyone we know?
When you dig into Trump’s rhetoric, he often comes across as a nostalgic 90s Democrat, convinced modern Democrats veered too far into progressive policies during the 2000s and 2010s. It’s a testament to the Democrats' cultural dominance that what was mainstream Democratic policy in the 90s is now firmly within the Republican platform. The old joke, “What’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? Ten years,” is apt.
In all fairness, the most striking difference, however, is that Trump is staunchly protectionist, whereas 90s Democrats embraced globalist free trade.
Trump differentiates between equal tariff rates on both sides and "free trade" in which one country has much different rates than the other. Too many somehow equate free trade with simply the ability to trade with out incoming tariffs, but totally ignoring how the other country treats our exports going into their country.
In the 90's the main difference between the two parties was the uniform message the Democrats had in contrast to the more local-politics focus in even the senate.
I use to watch the 1 minute (about) speeches given in the house on C-span during the 90's. The Democrats almost always said nearly verbatim what the other Democrats said. The Republicans could not be predicted, everyone had a different focus point because every state had different challenges.. Sometimes a Republican would release some speaking time to someone else who had a similar concern, but that was rare.
In other words, even during the Clinton years the Democrats were being trained, "Want to gain power? Say what we tell you to say, no matter what is happening in your home state." Those who didn't follow lock step didn't get nationally provided funds. No wonder they went along with even the most extreme "progressive" goals. Anyone willing to disagree had been weeded out.
When I say "90s Democrat," I’m referring to the typical Democrat voter of the era—the cultural and social beliefs that defined them—not necessarily the exact Democrat politicians of the time.
Trump, as a consistent Democrat donor in the 90s, embodies much of that mindset. This helps explain his rhetoric and approach today—he’s effectively a 90s Democrat who believes modern progressivism has gone too far. Viewed through this lens, his platform, shaped by nostalgia and a reaction to cultural overreach, starts to make a lot more sense.
Interestingly, much of today’s popular dissident thought reflects a "return to the 90s" mentality. Look at the success of dissident YouTube film critics like The Critical Drinker: his content clearly longs for the irreverent and crass yet optimistic and patriotic films of the 80s and 90s. The same can be seen with gaming commentators, who often lament the shift in tone that came in the 2010s. It’s the idea that something fundamentally changed in those decades, and the solution is to recapture the spirit of the 90s.
I think Trump was able to channel this longing. That, combined with easily one of the worst Democratic candidates since Mondale, secured his victory.
Trump donated something (more to the probable winner) to everyone in NY NY, and some other NY races, of BOTH parties. As he said during the 2016 debates, he knew how the game was played. The typical voter in the 90's, both democrat & republican, had an over 90% agreement about what they wanted -- and a disagreement with their leaders, but the leaders of both parties didn't care.
Even among Republican leadership, when Reagan told his advisors people would laugh at the line "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.", those "expert advisors" didn't believe him and were astounded at the strength of the laughter. That joke resonated as much with Democrat rank & file as it did with Republican rank & file -- a fact that terrified Democrat leadership as it made party bosses less important & their constituents less controllable.
If your goal is power, especially if motivated by the Greater Good because you KNOW "lesser" people need your governance whether they want it or not, you need people believing the government is THE BEST possible help in their daily lives. (This also explains the war on churches we saw during COVID, where in many places even drive-in church, where people stayed in their cars, was not allowed, but liquor stores & Walmart stayed open)
Sadly, all in the uniparty believe government knows best. The R & D labels are just there for us peons.
Trump is articulating the path. It is up to Americans to fill it out and bring it into being.
I don’t have a girlfriend because I’m a loveshy stranger to women of the world, so I can’t relate to that title picture. In fact, I’m actually having trouble imagining it — not because I am some wordcel who can’t rotate a 3D model of a cow in my head, but because I’m just that stone cold in my inceldom. It would be like a blind man trying to imagine sight, or trying to imagine *seeing in* the fifth dimension (not seeing — seeing in)
"Everyone everywhere went full in on intersectionality and implemented “clown world” in every major institution, and what resulted was an America covered with crime, urine, and inflation."
This is good stuff. Well done.
Brilliant and thoughtful essay and, I might add, without any grammatical errors (the previous had so many that I could not hit *like*, sorry, but as a someone who writes for a living, I can't abide that).
You really crush this. Above all, I appreciate the call to treat one's enemies with a modicum of humility and understanding; in this election -- if in no others -- we must remember that to be on the morally righteous side of all of this is to have the humility of persons under a ruler for whom legitimacy is paramount. Gloating, bragging, or excoriation are alluring temptations indeed, but for all whom hold themselves to a higher standard -- among which I count myself one -- I think this philosophy is both optimal and powerful. It engenders goodwill and unveils a kind of magnanimity that transcends partisan politics, and unto which we must adopt a more virtuous way forward.
This election represents an epochal shift -- that's just undeniable. But what we choose to *do* with that shift shall define who we are; the dissidents among us must not rise in anger, but rather, a mutual understanding and dearth of hubris that belies a reality in which, we, much like Trump, have the mandate of Heaven.
Groundbreakingly thoughtful essay. It seems you've hit your streak again, and that's comforting, to say the least.
Excellent article. Just commenting to point out that "noblesse oblige" is a 19th century term that came after the aristocracy was dead and gone, during romantism. It sounds fancy, but the true purpose of aristocracy is not to serve the people, that is a revolutionaire inversion. The people should serve the aristocracy, because no human society works without hierarchy. All we ask for are just rulers, not these clowns running the show nowadays.
Think of the Samurai who would rather die than not serve a man of quality. To serve gives life meaning. It just so happens our "aristocracy" are a bunch of bourgeois retards who worship Satan, and therefore they need a bunch of justifications for why they are in charge when they really shouldn't. Noblesse Oblige was replaced by "meritocracy", or in the left cycles "being opressed".
Careful with using left wing language to describe right wing concepts. Ironically, the article tells us exactly about creating a new world and seizing the moment. We can't ever do that if we talk like our commie aquaintances.
signed, the ghost of Julius Evola.