Nick Fuentes: Trumpism Without Trump

February 16, 2021 Hunter Wallace Alt-Center, Conservatism, Politics, Populists 18

There is no such thing as Trumpism.

Donald Trump is a narcissist who lacks an ideological core and his inept administration was a disaster in all but one sense. Trump succeeded in resorting the electorate in a way that created a beachhead for populism. He brought new people into the Republican Party while pushing other people out. While Trump didn’t have any real beliefs, disaffected voters have had the same grievances for over 30 years. Donald Trump the man and the idea of Trump that folks have about him are two different things.

The GOP was essentially overrun by outsiders in 2016. We’re not done yet though. There are other disaffected clusters of voters out there adjacent to us who ought to look at what Donald Trump accomplished in 2016 and try do the same thing and push the party forward another 90 degrees. When the dust settles and Conservatism, Inc. is history, I can imagine a new coalition of Left Populists, Right Populists, nationalists, Christians and constitutionalists. We need a leader who ISN’T just going to talk about economic populism like Donald Trump. We don’t need another billionaire blowhard who is going to engage in the same old culture war bromides without really changing anything of substance.

Something like “New Deal conservatism” could end up replacing Reaganism. We have a Gilded Age level of income inequality and an economy which doesn’t work anymore for the working class which is creating social instability. We have a military that is overstretched. We have a population drenched in modernism, cosmopolitanism and wokeness which has led to massive social dysfunction. We have a deracinated and atomized population which has lost touch with its own history. We have chilling attacks on the Constitution and the culture of free speech by people who want to get rid of the Bill of Rights.

In my view, this could work. Decriminalizing whiteness by popping the bubble of political correctness would be like ending Prohibition on a vastly greater scale and putting some of the worst people in the country out of business. There needs to be a shift away from the modernist obsession with interior thoughts, attitudes, beliefs and values like “antiracism” and toward practical politics that makes a material difference in our lives. Immigration obviously needs to be restricted for both economic and social stability reasons. The distribution of wealth and investment in this country makes no sense. No one even among the “post-liberals” is seriously contemplating, say, getting rid of the Constitution. Left Populists, Right Populists and paleocons agree on foreign policy. There is no difference between Left Populists and Right Populists on the unfairness of the economic system, taxation, infrastructure and all kinds of other issues. Nationalism also hasn’t led to “fascism” in spite of years of liberal hysteria from the media.

This probably makes too much sense to be seriously considered right now: the Jewish legacy media establishment, libertarian billionaire donors and other vested interests will scream in abject terror. I don’t see how things can continue going the way that they have been going though. Conservatism, Inc. doesn’t have any appeal to 70% of Republican voters, but Donald Trump doesn’t have any appeal either outside of his base because he governed too much like a typical conservative Republican. Trumpism has been stuck for years hovering in the 40% to 45% range and isn’t strong enough by itself.

It makes more sense to build out from and strengthen the populist end of the Republican coalition (Trump lost Indies in 2020) and the way to do that is to 1.) dump political correctness and 2.) moderate the economic policy agenda. The exodus of the PMC suburbanites, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate donors after the 2020 election have removed the major obstacles to doing this.

Arthur Milikh of the Claremont Institute thinks a new conservatism must emerge.

Real Clear Policy:

“America is currently engaged in a regime-level struggle that will preserve or destroy the purpose that has defined it. On one side stands the American way of life, characterized by republican self-government and the habits of mind and character necessary to sustain it. On the other side stands identity politics, which demands the perpetual punishment and humiliation of so-called oppressor groups combined with the unquestioned rule of the so-called marginalized. These two regimes are in conflict and cannot coexist.

The regime of identity politics has already conquered nearly all of America’s major institutions and dominates the moral high ground. The universities and schools, Fortune 500 companies, much of the media and image-making industries, Big Tech, and the administrative state are put to use waging war on the American way of life. Many of these institutions attack, ban, and slander everything for which America stands, alleging that the rule of law is racist; that freedom of speech is white supremacist; that the family is misogynist and homophobic; and that anything short of open borders is xenophobic. The nation cannot survive this trajectory. …

Second, and most important, the Right needs to reclaim its mental and moral toughness, and that can come only from reviving its purpose — the preservation of the American way of life. The Right must be morally unflinching in refuting the Left’s ideologies. It must speak clearly and confidently about the effects of radical feminism, “antiracism,” and globalism. It must be prepared to protect its children, its property, and its standards from encroachments. And it must ground its efforts firmly in America’s central principle: equal protection under the law, without exception. This is the basis for forming a common good that the majority of Americans still desire. But achieving it will require that the Right reinvent its political party. Unless it does so, there will be no future political victories — and no country left to defend. Ultimately, this is much more than the cause of conservatism. It is the cause of America itself. 

The Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life in Washington, D.C. will be the home of this reinvigorated and restored conservatism.”

The question that most people are going to ask about any “new conservatism” is how is it any different from the old and familiar conservatism which they have known for the last 50 years.

Decriminalizing whiteness is one thing that is urgently needed:

If you look at the polls, you can see the absurdity of the current situation where there is nothing to gain by maintaining the old norms. The overwhelming majority of Trump voters now feel besieged, unable to express their political opinions and under attack from above by anti-White elites for being White due to political correctness. The same polls, however, do not show any hostility at all toward non-Whites which is never reported by the media. The hostility toward White people is coming from all the PMCs on television who are accusing them of systematic racism and oppressing minorities.

Conservative economic policy has led to absurd and unsustainable outcomes:

We’ve all seen the horrific charts.

At some point, this is going to change. Right now millions of people under the age of 50 can’t afford to be conservatives because of neoliberal economics. Socialism is rising because conservatives have no answer to soaring costs except pocket Constitutions and invoking “free market principles.”

What is so unreasonable about letting up on the political correctness, restricting immigration and changing economic policy to create a more equitable distribution of wealth? All of these suggestions would promote social stability and make political sense.

Donald Trump had four years in the White House and struck out.

About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

17 Comments

  1. I wouldn’t even give Trump that much credit for creating conditions suitable for populism. The trends he took advantage of were already in motion before he started his campaign in 2015. And he did just as much to hinder populism as he did to accelerate it.

    • This can’t be said enough. The alt-right started really surging in 2014 with the Gang of Eight Amnesty and Ferguson. That’s when the mass red pilling of normie conservatives really got going. Trump just rode the wave, he didn’t start it.

  2. It is impossible to reform the U.S. by voting in elections, but some countries with more intelligent electorates are still able to remove (temporarily) very bad regimes by voting. For example the U.S.-installed puppet president of Ecuador has been soundly rejected by the people. At just 8% approval rating he decided not to run again, but the U.S. supports a big banker candidate to take his place, and a fake indigenous rights candidate, against the obvious people’s choice: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/02/13/neither-lenin-nor-moreno/

  3. The way you can get stuff out of the US system is forming a lobby or pressure group.

    I think the GOP must be colonised by whites for whites. It has no other purpose after Mitch McConnell’s on air stroke.

  4. Fact is whether we like it or not, Hispanics are now a bigger voting block than the blacks and the minute Trump came down the escalator and gave the “Mexicans are Rapists” speech he became toxic to them. Turns out that as much as that hate that, and hate Conservatism INC. they also hate the BLM pro crime movement, woke white women preaching nonsense to them, and people like Newsome shutting down their small businesses. Their language itself, like a lot of European Languages unlike English, makes plenty of gender distinctions, how do you think they feel about the likes of Jen Psaki telling them to replace the masculine and feminine versions of their nouns with “LatinX”? If your forced to seek power in mass democracy as we are stuck with in this catastrophic relic of the Enlightenment, it’s not going to work by demonizing hispanics in a national campaign.

  5. All of this assumes Trump is going out to pasture quietly and won’t exploit his still high support as a springboard for starting Trump TV, or any off the other grifts guys like Bannon will be involved in to coopt and rein the base back in going into 2022.

    He has no incentive, and its unclear currently that he even has a mandate to fade into the woodwork.

    There is a vacuum of leadership for this nacent political coalition that you outline above. Currently Trump is in position well ahead of anybody else to grasp ahold of the reins.

    I see no reason to assume, based on the current facts on the ground, that Trump isn’t the only game in town. The only vehicle for this pre-existing and increasingly overt populist impulse.

    This is the fear I’ve had about this strategy of kicking Trump in the shins for the last two years and intentionally trying to blackpill his base so they don’t turn out, losing him the election, with no plan to fill the hole he has left.

    All of this risks seriously allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. A mistake that young people and amateurs always tend to make in matters of organization.

    The risk will pay off if someone with the resources and chops can stand up in the vacuum and take the oxygen from an embattled former president with high popularity, a tall order in itself.

    Otherwise, that vacuum gets filled economic hardships, legal persecution, and every other kind of interference that the oligarchy can manage to create for this group of people.

    Its easy to become busy with lifes hardships and go back to sleep. Its easy to crawl under a rock and withdraw from the world.

    It was easy to support Trump in 2016. Less so now.

    It won’t be easy for anybody to support him or anybody not approved by the managerial class again.

    You have done a good job outlining the issue, and framing a path forward. But that doesn’t get it done magically. The hard part is still to be done by real people.

    Ideas can look good in abstraction, and be totally impracticable in praxis.

    • A vote for Trump is a vote to exterminate several million Iranians to make (((Israel)) very happy…..But Iran will attack with missiles every US Military Base in the Middle East….The Iranians almost did this last year when Trump ordered the gruesome extermination of General Solemani…

      If US caries out another provocation against Iran……another gruesome one….Iran will make sure that a thousand silver coffins containing the remains of US Soldiers…first day of combat….are sent back to the US to crying mostly White Mothers in the US…..afterwhich, a tactical nuke will be dropped on Tehran murdering thousands of Iranians….afterwhich,….. the world will change instantly…..The Democrats will loose complete power in the US within hours……

      Donald Trump was…and still is…a filthy fucking cockroach….

  6. To nitpick and address some of Arthur Milikh’s “points”:

    Whinging about “identity politics” is a retreat and a reactionary cope. It’s Jordan Peterson shit. Meant to gatekeep. Not a forward step in the right direction.

    Also, symmetric racism does exist. People do perceive blacks as more violent than whites, and thus, there is disparity in prison sentencing, more profiling by cops, for Africans. That is what they’re talking about. Antiracists are correct in this sense. Where they’re wrong is that these perceptions are baseless privileges (in relation to less profiling, less likely to have violent confrontation with police). Men are profiled more than women, receiving harsher prison sentencing than women, and no one bats an eye. In fact, the disparity is larger than race. It isn’t because women have “unearned privileges.” I mean, you can call it a privilege. I’m fine with that. But the privilege is warranted. Men are perceived more violent because they are and society acts accordingly. Other racial groups are not profiled like Africans are in our white supremacy (Asians or Latinos). So women have privileges of not being profiled as much. Fine. And of course there is, and will become a more growing issue of consciously profiling in the other way to show how not racist you and the system are to please resent filled minorities and antiracist groups. It is still meaningless because people will still profile members of groups they find more dangerous. The only difference is more resources are spent on putting on a show there is no discrimination (like the TSA pulling old white women out of line in an airport) and provide equal numbers people pulled over, etc. The topic is far more complex and I could write a lot on it, but I’ll stop there.

    And by the way, the conservative who wrote that piece is committed to antiracism (hence antiracism is in quotes to signify not his rejection to the ideas but that he believes the other side isn’t antiracist but truly racist and have a false version of it). What he wants is a reactionary version of antiracism that is colorblind and individualism both stops racism and the newest version of it. Unfortunately for him (like all conservatives behind the curve), antiracism has evolved past colorblindness to institutionalized racism and systemic racism. Also his rejection of radical feminism and globalism isn’t defined. He talks about yearning for something different but there’s nothing different offered. He doesn’t even know what he’s talking about on some level. I can’t even take any conservative seriously on the subject of globalism if they cannot question, let alone, destroy their sacred cow of capitalism.

    “Many of these institutions attack, ban, and slander everything for which America stands, alleging that the rule of law is racist; that freedom of speech is white supremacist; that the family is misogynist and homophobic; and that anything short of open borders is xenophobic. The nation cannot survive this trajectory. …”

    This is basic bitch conservative grievance. Also, while pretending to be opposition, they are not actively being what is being leveled against it (and why they should be). This goes absolutely nowhere.

    It is xenophobic. The very notion of borders is xenophobia. You should be countering with that point and saying “yes. I’m xenophobic and you are a problem. Your mommy told you not to trust strangers and outsiders as well.” You should actively champion it. That is what your side is supposed to do (intelligently and effectively). There is validity to xenophilia, but that’s besides the point of this subject. You should be homophobic (there are vulgar ways that gays act and behave which critiquing them is homophobia). And there is validity to racism- problem with other groups (and goes beyond color of skin [which is a strawman] to ironically their content of character and being full of resentment of the majority). You’re supposed to be a counteracting force (if we are to go by the idea that different groups regulate each other to create an effective society…which I have issues with). You should also actually learn what your enemies truly think. They don’t believe freedom is speech itself is white supremacy. They believe that freedom of speech is used to push white supremacy. And in a way, they’re right. It depends on your definition of white supremacy (which is a whole topic in and of itself because different factions and people have different views of it). But if you actively championing with speech to limit migration to keep other groups out and maintain the majority, that can is is perceived as white supremacy by the opposition. To be a serious person you need to be able to objectively look at what the other side is saying with lucidity and not create delusionary straw mans for yourself (and your faction) to deflect in your echo chamber. You should be exploring all ideas and thoughts to better yourself as well as society collectively. You do no service not knowing what other side actually thinks- not creating your own version of it.

    He actively pleas for “change” but there is not much here except the same shit. The difference is he demands more fortitude when it comes to his side being called names, yet it will go nowhere due to not knowing why he is called such and what the actual response should be. And so the through colorblindness and individualism, he offers momentary refuge and temporary staving off an onslaught that will continue as long as it’s not actually confronted head on. And some tidbits about “big tech.” That’s it. Reading from conservatives is more than just annoying, it’s a waste of time.

  8. Like I wrote, America is a corpse crawling with maggots. The left are rooting for the maggots, and the right is cheering on the corpse. OD obviously falls in the latter category. It’s almost as if this blog has taken on a centrist ‘deradicalization’ posture.

    You cannot have successfull populist-socialist-nationalist government in a heterogeneous population. All the examples that came the closest were extremely homogeneous ethnostates that primarily shared similar values, history, and culture. The USA fails to check any of those boxes.

      • @Hunter Wallace

        “We can’t have nice things because other people would benefit from it. So we got to have conservatism where no one gets anything at all. Why?”

        This is literally how White Southerners have been kept under the yoke for 100 years.

        Exactly as Lee Atwater explained.

        Poor blacks get welfare. Poor whites are too proud to “accept” welfare.

        Rich Whites believe in free markets and don’t want government subsidies.

        Rich Jews have 10,000 lobbyists on Capitol Hill getting every single dollar of subsidies they possibly can.

        Don’t worry, White people can tell everyone how moral they are – what a moral victory they won – in the gulags.

    • November said “You cannot have successfull populist-socialist-nationalist government in a heterogeneous population”

      To correct you, you can if the majority population is high IQ and if the country’s an illiberal representative democracy rather than an open representative democracy. Example Singapore.

      Is Singapore an ideal nation state for you Hunter? It’s clean, safe, prosperous, deals with crime with an iron fist, maintains its ethnic Chinese majority, and doesn’t tolerate gun nuts like we do.

  9. NIck is an elderly dweeb trapped in a 23-year-old self hating gay body. He dress and looks old, pushes paleocon ideas that old people typically back, and his obsession with backing Trump seems to indicate his mind is senile too. He lost any shred of credibility he had with his Stop the Steal grifting. Does he even have an audience anymore and are any of them under 50?

  10. Ok so if I got this straight, the solution is to combine elements of nationalism, such as immigration restriction and constitutional preservation, with elements of social protection designed to promote a more equitable economic outcome…a kind of nationalism meets socialism. But to accomplish this will require breaking through the ceaseless countermessages of a powerful Jewish-controlled media complex, well-capitalized by a Jewish-dominated banking sector. Well it has been done before…

  12. This Beardson fella is fk’ed in the head he is insane. He recently threatened Brittany Venti a fairly well known egirl streamer with anal rape and then gave the most wickedest villainous laugh I ever heard in my life Isn’t he Nicks handler?

Comments are closed.