Concerns over the coming administration

Letters from O'Brien #68

Dear Mr Smith,

The recent electoral victory for Trump has been hailed as both a success for the mainstream right, and a point of concern for both liberals (to put it mildly) and, it may surprise you, to patriots, as to what this term will deliver. While this is an ideological victory over the left, whether these four years will result in meaningful change is another question. With all my heart I hope it will bring sweeping changes. Nevertheless, I want to write this letter to make some speculations about the next four years.

I believe in Trump the individual, but I also realise that his administration is the linchpin to his ambitions and ultimate legacy. In 2016 it seems his administration let him down on numerous counts, and there’s every chance it could happen again. Realistically anything can happen but indulge me for a moment as we look at some of the administration nominations that may be problematic.

(By the time this letter is out, there will inevitably be new developments with staff and so forth, but I think we can see enough now to outline what will be relevant for the early stage of this coming presidency.)

2016 RETROSPECTIVE AND CAMPAIGN STAFF

I think it’s clear that Trumps 2024 campaign is nowhere close to the extreme levels of rhetoric in 2015-16. During his initial campaign almost a decade ago, Trump was singlehandedly leading an effort for the complete transformation of America. His issues were multifaceted; he was against ‘International finance’ and banking families. He was against all migration - legal and illegal – intensely and tenaciously, famously calling all Mexicans ‘rapists’, saying he would ‘ban Muslims’, and questioning why we only let in people from ‘shithole countries’ instead of ‘Denmark and Sweden’. He wanted a federal abortion ban. He wanted mass deportations. He called for many things that were otherwise relegated to the ‘fringe right’. Agree or disagree with these points, this is what he was running on. It was wild!

What’s crucial to understand is that he had no institutional support during that period. I remember it well, because few people I knew (many of whom are ironically Trump supporters today) liked him. Most people hated him. Admittedly he was full on. The left believed he was the second reincarnation of Hitler. The establishment GOP and conservative media collectively called for war against him, clearly because he was threatening to break the dialectical spell over politics.

Trump’s crucial points for nationalists during the 2016 period included the abortion ban, closing the borders, mass deportations, and the implementation of both harsh tariffs on imports, and the use of this revenue to nationalise the economy. These were crucial points for patriots and nationalist, and today they are more pressing than ever before. They also angered establishment conservatives, especially the ‘Milton Friedman’ free market types, who believed that anything other than the unrestricted Austrian style of economics was fascistic or communistic. So, to summarise, Trump during the initial phase of his political career was an unabashed radical, and he alone spearheaded the movement. His own party was against him, the elite on both sides were against him, and this attracted legitimate patriots and working-class Americans who were sick of mass migration, a poor economy, and the deterioration of American values.

Upon entering office, basically all his ambitions were placed in a gridlock. Most of this was ironically done by his own party, not the Democrats as is often claimed, maybe covid jabs hurt many people’s short-term memories. For example, the Trump abortion ban was immediately shut down in 2016 due to pressure from the ‘Christian Right’, namely the Southern Baptist Convention’s Religious Liberties Commission, who essentially complained that punishing women for having abortions was misogynistic, and that they don’t support such a move. Trump - believing this idea had no support - dropped the hard-line abortion stance. In 2017 and 2018, both the left and right rallied against his attempts - which were limited by having no real support in congress - to capture and deport migrants entering the southern border. This famously culminated in the nonstop stories of ‘kids in cages at the border’, published by both the left and right media apparatus. Fearing a drop in approval, Trump ordered this to stop.

But perhaps the most infamous (although conveniently forgotten) stab in the back for Trump was his own party’s refusal to allow his border wall plans to go ahead. They froze any finances towards a border wall. At one point Trump personally attempted to shut down the government until the funds were given (which is justified; disobedience to the president in such a context is treasonous), but to no avail. Finally, a minuscule fraction of the required finances was greenlit, only after the Republicans began sending billions to Israel following a series of rocket attacks (far more - by the way - than was given to Trump for his wall project). The amount given was so insignificant - I don’t remember the actual amount - that it only allowed for a tiny portion of a wall to be built; nothing close to the envisioned project.

This is all noteworthy as a preamble because the key issue during Trumps first term was his own party, including his staff in the White House. People like Jared Kushner worked their best to redirect energy away from nationalist ambitions, and many others tried equally hard to infiltrate the White House and create disarray. Trump finally noticed this in late 2019 and bought in an actual loyalist - the young John McEntee - who began ‘interrogating’ all staff, and firing off any who were not onboard with the original 2016 ideal. This was probably the first successful move during Trumps first term, but it came too late; by the time that McEntee’s purification was seeing results (late 2020), the first term was over. The election was stolen, and none of the republicans or conservative mainstream stood by Trump as he faced the ridicule of January 6^th.

Now let me just highlight some of the characters who stood against Trump’s original 2016 nationalist ambitions:

·      Vice President JD Vance (who said Trump was ‘like Hitler’),

·      The man who got Vance the job - Tucker Carlson (who said, "Trump is a demonic force, a destroyer" and other negative sentiments that were revealed in private text messages brought to light during the Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuit against Fox News),

·      Tech billionaire Peter Thiel (who backed Trump, but didn’t support his radical ideas),

·      Campaign manager Chris LaCavita (who was ‘never Trump’ up until last year),

·      Campaign manager and future Chief of Staff Susie Wiles (also ‘never Trump’),

·      Major backer Bill Ackman (who was a lifelong Democrat),

·      Ben Shapiro (who was avidly anti-Trump during his first term),

·      Mike Pompeo (a neocon who only backed Trump out of convenience),

·      Nikki Haley (who literally betrayed Trump in his first term),

And the list goes on, and on, and on…

Now look at the positions these people hold in Trumps campaign today. It is unreal. I mean people have the right to change their mind, but you have to wonder about the motivations behind that change of mind. The two campaign mangers - by the way - opposed attempts to appeal to white people (Susie Wiles said she wanted to appeal to ‘Enriques and Jamals’ instead of ‘Karens’), opposed the hiring of true patriots who align with Christian values (LaCavita disavowed McEntee’s Project 2025 and inferred that it was ‘a bag of shit’). Now these people are going to oversee hiring, and McEntee - who fixed the original campaign staff situation - is barred from getting anywhere close. It should be abundantly obvious what is going on here, yet the conservative media - like Shapiro and co. - are running cover for this regime-funded takeover.

So, what changed? Firstly, after January 6^th Trump had been under perpetual investigation and legal trouble. The result is that Trump today is - quite literally - indebted to the Republican Party. If he were to have lost the 2024 election, he would have been sapped of all his assets and sent to prison during the following four years. In this way he is quite literally a hostage to the establishment GOP regime, and this is crucial to understand going forward.

By the time of the 2024 campaign, Trump was suddenly surrounded by his old opponents, all of whom were now treating him as a compatriot. As many commentators have noted, two things appear to have changed which caused these opportunists to surround Trump; firstly, the response to the October 7^th attacks in Israel were not what many expected, with basically half the country aligning with the Palestinians thanks to an anti-colonialist strain of DEI being turned against Jews by the political left. Secondly, I think the bigger reason for this amassing of traitors was that Trump was clearly unstoppable online, and it was clear that unless he was appointed to lead the GOP, a Democratic candidate would win out against the pathetic Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley.

Realistically, I don’t believe the man of Trump - in 2024 - has the support of the GOP. In fact, as I highlighted after the first attempted assassination, I think his own party desires him dead and replaced by Vance. I believe his own party wants him to act as a subjugate, merely as the face of the movement, whilst traitors like Wiles staff the White House with the same political scum that made his first term hell.

BIG ISSUES AND THEIR REALITIES

With all that in mind, upon entering the White House next year, it is fair to say that the GOP and his White House staff will attempt to redirect energy away from critical issues and towards irrelevant problems that will probably work to the detriment of actual nationalists and patriots.

The biggest issues for Americans today are (in order of priority); demographic changes which will soon be irreversible if not stopped, the evaporation of the middle class due to offshoring of manufacturing and the monopolisation of the services industry, negative institutional control and the weaponization of the media, law and other judicial processes against actual Americans, and finally the real-world outcomes of leftist culture on American youth (dropping fertility rates, worsening outlook, increasing depressions and mental illnesses). These are the issues which are crucial to remember and fight for in the coming years.

One must note the mainstream conservative view on these issues. The largest media outlets and think tanks - like the Daily Wire, Fox News, the Manhattan Institute, Claremont, the National Conservatism crowd, and so on - are currently pushing the idea of ‘color-blind meritocracy’. They believe (since they are swayed by the Silicon Valley crowd who have suddenly begun supporting Trump) that demographics do not matter in America, so long as they have merit. They are pushing (for obvious reasons) the idea that Indian and Chinese immigrants should be welcomed because they work well in the tech and services industry. They are normalising alphabet sexuality stuff as being a conservative position. They are also advocating for lowered corporate tax rates (because… Milton Friedman and free market conservatism or something) rather than focusing on tariffs and nationalisation of industry. No care for the middle class, no care for white Americans, no care for traditional values, none of it is being pushed by these institutions on the right.

The other issues, namely the issue of foreign control from AIPAC donors and the like is probably beyond hope for the time being. The unofficial word in Washington is that Trump has promised his Israeli donors the West Bank during his coming term, and I doubt this will change. I don’t think the Israeli influence stuff will realistically be addressed during his term, since his donors are primarily pulling his attention toward that region, however I do think US intervention in an Iranian war can be avoided through sheer public refusal (neither left nor right support this at the moment). Getting Trump to reconsider Israeli lobbying in the US government would probably be the most difficult issue to bring to the table ironically, again since all his big donors are primarily Israelis or pro-Israel. At this point, the other issues are so bad that I care little about Trumps support for Israel, with some exceptions; war with Iran must be avoided. I think that the biggest issue by far is demographic replacement and mass migration, and there is no way people are going to get Trump to suddenly call out the Israel lobby.

So those are the major and one of the notable minor issues (which could go nuclear, literally) for the next four years. It is up to people to force these issues to become mainstream talking points. Why? Because mark my words, they will install a staff who will be against deportations, against the idea of demographic replacement, against traditional conservative values, and against undercutting the profits of International Silicon Valley corporations to help nationalise industry. You may not see it immediately but check the pulse in about 12 months. Susie Wiles and company will make sure the White House is controlled from top to bottom during the transition.

By the way, this has already been made evident with the decisions of the campaign staff in regard to policy proposals. The greatest example of this so far has been the rejection and disavowal of Project 2025. Headed by Trump loyalists from 2016, Project 2025’s ambitions aligned with Trumps original stated goals from his first presidency. The project is staffed by patriots, and the entire point of its existence was to secure the White House during the presidential transition by enacting a John McEntee-style filtering process when the new staff are selected. This would have guaranteed that only avowed loyalists entered positions in the White House. This project aligned with Trumps stated ambitions, yet the campaign - before Trump had even seen the proposals - vehemently disavowed the ideas. The campaign managers said it was ‘shit’, and later it was revealed that influencers (like the Turning Point USA crowd) were being paid to disavow Project 2025 and say that ‘Trump only stands for Agenda 47’. Eventually, Trump disavowed Project 2025 himself, after having been ‘shown it’, presumably by his team.

Now does this sound like Trump the ruthless businessman, who desires loyalty and success? No. This sounds like he was fed false information by his team - just like he was during his entire first term in office - to force an official rejection of Project 2025 and by extension the principles it was explicitly based on.

WHAT THEY WILL PRIORITISE

Once Trump is in office, I believe there will even be an immediate push to redirect energy away from any of the more radical ideas espoused during the 2024 campaign. Why? Because from day one, the primary concern of the GOP will be to secure the midterms in 2026. Note that the establishment GOP will not win any popularity contest in 2026 if Trump decides to start pushing proper nationalist policy. However, to counter this argument - which will inevitably come up next year - I would say that the GOP is already likely to lose out in 2026, since opposition has been mounting rapidly against the conservatives just in the past few months. Also, unless a hardcore stance on migration is taken, the GOP will demographically be shifting their own voting population to favour the left. The solution? Go all in on the original nationalist talking points; begin mass deportations (immigrants are the ones offsetting the vote in favour of the Democrats), begin the tariffs and nationalisation of industry, hit the cultural reset on the institutions. Think about what the left would do if they were in power and reverse the roles (and have done!); Trump should personally be arresting and shutting down his left-wing opposition and directly seizing control of the media, judiciary, and other cultural institutions. He should be using his newly found power against those who are attempting to control him.

This all probably sounds ridiculous, naive, or crazy, but what else is supposed to happen at this point? The country is on its last legs. This cannot be a half-and-half game, where Trump is forced by his staff to focus on menial non-issues to appeal to the populace in 2026 and 2028. Why? Because it’s a stupid play. Guess what; it’s not 2004, and they are going to lose from now on regardless, because public opinion will swing in favour of the (soon to be majority) foreign population, and they will all vote to the left. We are in a unique situation like never before; this is the last time Trump or the GOP as it currently exists will ever be able to win an election by popular mandate unless they compromise their entire message to appeal to foreigners. Last opportunity to clean house, drain the swamp, lest we see the country fall into complete tyranny.

This year Trump won in a landslide, but still had serious (and unexpected) pushback in some states, and this was entirely because of tens of millions of immigrants voting against him who were literally not in the country during the last election. Two of the only groups who had a majority preference for Trump were white men, and to my surprise white women.

CONSERVATIVE MEDIA, INTELLECTUALS, AND GASLIGHTING

The next major point that comes to mind is the role of the conservative institutional media, as well as the public intellectuals who are being pushed on behalf of the ‘2024 MAGA movement’. I think that one of the most dangerous outcomes for the average American is complacency during the coming four years; as noted, the campaign team will work against any nationalist prospects Trump has, and populist scrutiny will be required to change this.

It is obvious that there is a bid for intellectual sway over this current conservative movement. A lot of it is clearly coming from the establishment outlets like National Conservatism (Thiel, Hazony, Kristol, and their influencer puppets like Jack Posobiec and Eva Vlaadingerbroek), the Daily Wire crowd (well, probably just Shapiro and Klaven) and the Fox News network. This seems clear to many, but below the surface some of the intellectual energy of the movement is being directed by the remnants of the so called ‘neoreactionary right’, spearheaded by intellectuals like Curtis Yarvin but increasingly under the sway of a group of emerging journalists like Chris Rufo. I have noticed that a lot of these ‘trad right’ online voices have fallen for these intellectual movements; recently, for example, I saw that Carl Benjamin (who has a large following) and his friend Academic Agent appear to believe that Curtis Yarvin is somewhat legit, and that Chris Rufo is a based anti-left hero.

Here's the thing; Chris Rufo - who rose to prominence as the man behind the firing of Claudine Gay - is almost certainly an intellectual fraud, and part of a controlled network, yet he currently represents one of the ‘heroes’ of the 2024 conservative movement. For context, after October 7^th, pro Palestine marches took place on campuses across the country. Notably, Harvard president Claudine Gay refused to shut down the protests. In response, Zionist billionaire (and lifelong Democrat) Bill Ackman launched a campaign to shut down these protests, culminating in the ‘frat boy uprising’ for ‘America’ (the frat boys all later admitted to being Israeli dual citizens counter-protesting for Israel) and later in the firing of Claudine Gay after allegations of academic fraud came to light. Gay was posited as a black leftist DEI hire, and her firing was presented as a victory for ‘the right’ against ‘woke’. The man behind this was Chris Rufo and assisting him was Chris Brunet. Rufo was part of the Manhattan Institute, a ‘conservative think tank’ bankrolled by billionaire democrat Paul Singer. Manhattan Institutes primary concerns (being a conservative think tank and all); LGBTQ rights and lowering taxes on the one percent. That’s not even a joke, those are their two primary points of focus.

Now it was recently revealed by Rufo’s assistant Chris Brunet that the firing of Claudine Gay was not done as a move against DEI. After all, she has been replaced by someone who is even more pro-DEI. During the crusade against Gay, Brunet assisted Rufo in unearthing evidence that Gay was a fraud, yet the only evidence was that she had improperly formatted certain citations. Along the way, Brunet stumbled upon Bill Ackman’s wife’s own academic work, and discovered that entire segments of her work were directly copied-and-pasted from Wikipedia. Brunet was then informed that he was not to publish any of this damning evidence and focus only on Gay. Brunet later revealed that the entire crusade against Gay was done because she was not sufficiently pro-Israel, but that he and the others involved were barred from talking about this. Upon revealing this information, he was labelled as insane and mentally unwell by Rufo and his colleagues, yet no one denied his claims.

Now bringing this back to the core point; a lot of these ‘trad intellectuals’ are convinced that Rufo and company represent some legitimate conservative force. Rufo recently hired an anti-Trump onlyfans porn star as a journalist. How is that for conservative! He works for the Manhattan Institute, dedicated to ‘LGBT rights’ and lower corporate taxes. He believes in colorblind meritocracy. How is any of this conservative? In the same manner, these intellectuals who will have sway over the White House - like Curtis Yarvin - have some good points but are generally in favour of this 1990s liberalism blended with monarchical ideas. Yarvin promotes some ideas which sound good, but he also believes in this whole ‘LGBT rights’ abstraction, in colorblind meritocracy, and that Jews are the most intelligent people and are thus qualified to rule (he is Jewish himself, of course, and writes in a narcissistic manner, as if his intellect is infallible, while his opponents and critics are merely ‘low IQ’ plebs). This is all to say, these people are fighting for the intellectual authority over the current administration. Daily Wire was pushing Yarvin for a bit, now conservative media is pushing Rufo and his contemporaries. But so be it, perhaps this is too much of a tangent…

What people must be aware of is that the conservative media and cultural institutions represent one of the biggest oppositional forces standing in the way of real-world nationalist success. Beyond the more ‘radical’ guys I just mentioned, who have more outwardly traditional views (Yarvin wants a monarchy or something), a lot of the more mainstreamed guys being pushed as the voices of authority in the conservative movement are not even conservative. James Lindsay (to whom I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of his podcast) is an atheist libertarian who wants ‘1990s liberalism’ to come back and said that he would prefer ‘woke communists to win’ rather than having America run by the ‘trad right’. Dave Rubin is a gay liberal with a surrogate child who also wants 1990s liberalism. Bret and Eric Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk, and so on, all 1990s liberals who don’t care about conservative talking points.

And make no mistake, these intellectuals will have a sway over the administration if they are allowed to. When Trump (probably at the behest of his team) goes with Ben Shapiro to some Chabad Lubovitc gravesite to pay his respects or whatever, people should be questioning what is even going on. Like, what does that have to do with America at all? Ben Shapiro - who said he doesn’t “care about the browning of America” - may not hate America, but he is indifferent to its plight, so when Trump stands alongside him it sends a message. The message it sends is that the ideals of Shapiro (and his whole intellectual sphere) are in some way associated with the Trump campaign. And going forward into the next four years, the Trump staff will almost certainly push for these intellectuals to have sway over the movement. If this sounds unbelievable, during the first administration it was basically a free-for-all amongst the staff. Darren Beattie, Michael Anton, Yarvin, and friends. Their little group had some sway over the intellectual beliefs of the movement.

One can already see where they are trying to take this, exemplified by the National Conservatism Conference and its associated speakers. The National Conservatism crowd has arguably the biggest sway over the intellectual direction of the ‘populist right’ at the moment, which is contextually the biggest sub-movement under the MAGA tent. The National Conservatism talking points include colorblind meritocracy, 90s liberalism, low tax rates, Israeli funding, vague ever-changing libertarian morality, foreign interventionism, unrestricted free trade, and ‘hoorah nationalism’ in a purely abstract sense. Imagine James Lindsay as a think tank and that is basically the ideological worldview of NatCon. Now consider who is within their ranks; the movement includes tech billionaire Peter Thiel, Yoram Hazony, ‘based patriot’ (and fed) Jack Posobiec, ‘trad cath e-girl’ Eva Vlaardingerbroek, Douglas Murray, and world leaders like Viktor Orban, Giorgia Meloni, Suella Braverman, and Vance.

Note how some of these individuals (namely Orban and Meloni) have been artificially pushed as heroes of the populist right over the past few years, when in actuality neither have effectively combatted the social issues which they ran on; Meloni ran on immigration, yet more immigrants have entered under her administration than her predecessor by a huge margin, whilst Orban has neither fixed the immigrant crisis nor the fertility crisis. They both exist as purely rhetorical figures who produce no results and muddy the waters.

Now on the flip side, I have also noticed that as the ‘fringe right’ has become more popular, and as the rhetoric amongst actual young Americans has become more nationalistic, that figures have begun being pushed which are more rhetorically ‘radical’, but in practice are not. This cannot last, and I think a lot of people are seeing through this veneer. With enough effort, these attempts at controlling the frame will fail, but this of course requires effort and analysis from everyday people.

To bring things full circle, I believe that all this points in one direction; it is clearly the case that Trump is a powerful individual, but he is limited by those around him. As he admitted in his Joe Rogan interview, upon entering politics he had no idea who to call upon, and since then has relied solely on recommendations. There are those currently around Trump who will work to oppose him, and I have no doubt about that. As of writing this, the latest news is that Trump and Vance are discussing serious methods of enacting mass deportations, and I have no doubt that they desire this, but his team will jump on it as soon as possible to undermine it, or they’ll just straight up refuse to enact any order. I hope I’m seriously wrong. I’d like nothing more than for you to return to this letter in four years and say, “O’Brien, you are such an idiot, you got it so wrong!” – I’d be happy!

Remember in 2019 and 2020 Trump told his generals to pull troops out of Syria; the first time he did this, they lied to him about troop numbers and wiggled out of it. Upon realising he had been publicly lied to, an embarrassed and furious Trump got McEntee to order the generals to pull troops out. What was the general’s response to this? They literally just refused the order and did nothing. And now the latest word is that Brian Hook will be appointed to oversee the staffing of the State Department. Brian Hook is a neocon, who opposed Trump in his first term, and instead ran a group lobbying against Trumps non-interventionist policies. Hook believes that the US needs to force regime change in Iran and is against Trumps belief in trade restrictionism and non-interventionism. He wants Americans stationed all over the world in forever-wars. This person may soon be overseeing the State Department!

VICTORIES AND FAILURES

As I said at the start, by the time this letter is out, things likely will have changed, including personnel choices and such, but I think that my general analysis is sound. Disturbingly Trumps staff are almost all united in their Zionist beliefs at core, including the idea of unlimited Israeli support and possible war in the Middle East. This is not in America’s interests. Yet, the right-wing media are fawning over these people, while completely ignoring the likes of McEntee and company. However, this election also represents a victory on the social front. Specifically, it represents a victory over leftists, liberal women, and the entire ‘properly socialised’ world. I mean this in an ideological and social sense. Even though many of the personnel may be Zionists or big tech reps, so many of them are ‘autistic’, and most are men. I mean this as a compliment. Elon Musk, a literal autistic white person, is now part of the ruling class. Same with Vance; intelligent anti-social outcast. Trump has the classic masculine temperament which liberals, women, and so forth hate. Gun YouTuber Brandon Harera was highlighted by RFK Jr as a potential pick for head of the ATF.

This is a good thing, because these people represent the temperaments of most motivated young men; disenfranchised, anti-social, ‘autistic’, angry at social decay. Vance literally called single women cat ladies, which may sound tame today, but the fact that the VP is publicly shaming the standards of modern women is new. The ‘notable’ guys in the campaign (Vance, Musk, Trump, etc.) don’t care about social standards, they don’t consider the emotions or temperament of the opposition, they just don’t care. I don’t even need to get into the rhetoric which went viral immediately following the victory results, and how the left responded to the likes of Nick Fuentes’ ‘your body my choice’ rant, or Andrew Tate’s tweet about women now having to ‘make him a sandwich’. At one point on election night, a trend started with guys tweeting that Trump was going to ‘ban women’, then another trend with joking tweets about how ‘Project 2025’ would come into effect at midnight January 1, 2025, and would repeal all female rights. Obviously, these are jokes, but the fact that these quotes and trends blew up and were taken seriously by the left (yes, some even believed that ‘project 2025’ was a female-rights kill-code scheduled for January 1^st) and were immediately linked with Trump and the guys means everyone senses there is a slow but steady change occurring on the social front.

So, in some sense, even if things are bad on the geopolitical front, on the social front this is clearly a victory which will leave a lasting impact on the country. The insane response of women in this election has proven that these guys represent a real threat to the prevailing liberal narrative merely because they are in power and will soon be taking the reins.

WHAT CAN BE DONE

I think that going forward, the issues I listed earlier need to be continually monitored and action taken. It will be a fight. I think it may be harder than if a Democrat victory had occurred, specifically because the mainstream conservative media (Fox, Daily Wire, National Conseravatism, etc.) are all ‘supporting Trump’ while redirecting the conversation away from mass deportations, demographic replacement, nationalisation of industries, and so forth. It will be a battle to force conversations at the top level, which is possible through exerting pressure online.

Things are getting worse, and everyone can feel it. Ironically this works to the benefit of the nationalist movement; with enough disenfranchised people feeling the heat, attempts to force conversations at the state or federal level will have increasing populist support, and with this support comes the consideration of elections and thus a willingness to engage with the populace. This coming term will arguably be the last chance for America to correct its course. Soon immigrants will outnumber Americans if the current trends continue, and they will direct democratic outcomes in favour of the left forever. Now maybe I am too optimistic, but I think that despite the situation, serious good can be achieved in what is by far going to be the most important four years in American history.

I think there is hope. Americans have become split over the past two years more so than they were before. I think that young people are becoming increasingly nationalistic and traditional in their outlooks. These neocons and subverters who have managed to get into the Trump campaign - and the GOP itself – need to be weeded out. Exerting pressure and pushing back against lies and deceit may be what is necessary to nullify the effects of such staffers and force Trump to step up and begin a radical firing process as he did in 2020. (Remember, he used to be famous for “You’re FIRED!”). I think it can happen again, but this time sooner, with more tenacious resolve, and with a true all-or-nothing attitude. After all, the destiny of America hangs in the balance.