2020: Trump, business-first and the frog boiling in the American melting pot

In 2007, we published an article about the U.S. Republican Party. The article discussed how the party remained silent as corporations outsourced jobs and how, by the late 2000s, many employment opportunities had disappeared overseas. The article also discussed how Republican policies had helped to flood the U.S. labor market with impoverished migrants who, above all, drove down wages for Americans.

Ironically, the Republicans' strategy benefited the rival Democrats. The Democrats could reach out to impoverished migrants and victims of outsourcing with promises of support and comprehensive social welfare. But, after successive waves of immigration, the Democrats changed their strategy. They began fighting border wall proposals, openly defying deportation services (ICE) and advocating amnesty for illegal aliens.

Although antagonistic to the American worker, the Democrats' new strategy merged support for migrants with everything that could increase the migrant voting bloc's size, putting the Democrats in a position to reach a growing percentage of the U.S. population. The Democrats also pushed the idea that Republicans, driven by hatred, do not like migrants. Needless to say, the Republicans did not know how to respond. At first, they fought off the accusations and tried to appeal to migrants - Latinos, in particular - by campaigning in Spanish and meeting with "La Raza".

Unfortunately for the Republicans, neither action paid off. Aside from failing to unlock the migrant vote, the Republicans lost millions of white, non-Hispanic voters by 2012. The trigger may have been the cringe-worthy identity politics, or the Republican position on outsourcing and immigration. But the Democrats had been losing their hold on the same white, non-Hispanic demographic for many of the same reasons. In consequence, the Democrats and Republicans were struggling to retain those who had, until recently, accounted for up to 90% of the total U.S. population. Perhaps for that very same reason, voter participation in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election fell to 54.9%, the lowest for such an election in over a decade.

Against this backdrop, Donald Trump burst on the scene and announced his candidacy for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Running on the Republican ticket, he focused on bringing back outsourced jobs and curtailing the influx of cheap, imported labor. Trump also bashed NAFTA and proposed bandaging America's exploited southern border with a "big, beautiful border wall". In the end, the Republicans received two million more votes than they had in 2012 - and, ultimately, triumphed.

After Trump's victory, people began fantasizing about reforming the Republican Party under him. For such optimists, Trump symbolized not only a path to representation, but a new direction - a way to hold the demographic changes at bay that, thanks to the massive influx of cheap-labor immigration, were making the country poorer and would eventually put it in the hands of the Democrats for the very same reason.

I. "Trump will save us"

To be clear, as long as the Republican Party remains the vehicle through which the business-first lobby seeks to influence politics, the path to reform in and through the party will be tempestuous. The lobby is well-cemented in the party's infrastructure and can buy off and place candidates at will. This makes it difficult to pry the party from their grasp.

Because the profit-first lobby has a strong foothold in the Republican Party, there is an important conflict of interest to be aware of, too. Ideas from Trump's campaign, such as disincentivizing outsourcing through tariff implementation, deporting illegals and restricting the flow of cheap labor into the country, dip into the pockets of many profit-first lobbyists and their donors. Demonstrating the severity of this conflict, these lobbyists and donors care about little more than profits and want to focus on preserving the status quo in a way that business can prosper. Just look at all the examples of recent policy under their influence:

  • after years of Bible-thumping, the Republican Party began to defend gay marriage and transgenderism because society started virtue-signalling in that direction, changing the status quo;

  • instead of offering something comparable to the Democrats in terms of welfare to compete for the poor migrant vote, the Republicans merely paid lip service to migrant identity while raising up token representatives of the migrant community;

  • although "green" is in vogue, the Republican Party remains vehemently opposed to environmentalism;

  • the consistent feature of the Republican Party is complete repugnance towards command economy countries and restrictive red-tag governance and is inclined to leave people out in the cold despite the growing push for health-care socialism.

And so, we can clearly see the impetus that drives the soul of the Republican Party. We can also see how important it was to the profit-first lobby that Trump promised to dismantle the financial and environmental regulations from the Obama era and implement major tax cuts. In theory, because no Democrat would support such a thing and the profit-first lobby was depending on Trump to carry the day for the Republicans, Trump had a lot of leverage to hammer down his agenda and get the business-first lobby to concede on immigration restrictionism. But that is not what happened. After the Republicans used their control of Congress and Trump's support to initiate tax cuts and remove red tape from the Obama era, there was stonewalling within the Republican Party when it came to implementing immigration restrictionism.

I remember high-profile representatives of the profit-first variety scoffing at the idea of building a border wall. At one point, I heard a smug "no, we aren't building that"; I also witnessed his "buy American, hire American" imperative being reduced to little more than a letter-writing and cold-calling adventure from a back office, which got Washington D.C. switched on to American-made #2 pencils and achieved little more. I suspect the profit-first lobby had a good laugh about it.

All in all, my experience confirmed what I already feared to be true: that Trump's rhetoric about borders, immigration reform, walls and outsourcing were mere words in the view of the profit-first lobby - words to mobilize protest voters and the disenfranchised who had sat out the previous election. Like Christian and gun-enthusiast talking points, these ideas were probably conceived by the profit-first lobby as little more than a ploy to get voters voting again, especially once the math checked out and demonstrated that the strategy could work. This is what we are up against.

True, a number of walk-outs and resignations within the Republican Party could transform the way the party functions in the future. For example, Paul Ryan's departure could clear the way for the Republican Party to gradually be refitted with those who support the platform that got Trump elected - Republicans like Steve King or Kris Kobach. Notably, Kobach actually coordinated with the grassroots "We Build the Wall" project, to raise funds for Trump's border wall.

But to what degree is Trump even on board with his own platform? Regardless what was going on within Congress or the Republican Party, Trump could shape his legacy through his Cabinet appointees. But while Trump's out-the-gate entourage included several names with America-first sympathies, they did not persevere. In other respects, Trump nominated clear representatives of the Deep State "Swamp", like John Bolton. Bolton's influence spans back to the Bush years and Iraq War. One can only wonder: what was the motivation? It leads the mind to wonder whether Trump was really just a weapon for those he was supposed to be opposed to, and the means by which the profit-first lobbyists realized power could be attained.

Certain remarks from Trump, like "lowest black employment!" (1, 2), aid the suspicion as to what Trump really is about. Here, we see the same sort of lip-service to justify business-first, like trickle-down economics, that we could expect from any establishment Republican of the past.

But Trump's gravitation towards campaigning around "lowest black employment!" is troubling for another reason; it serves as a "I care about black people, too!" dog whistle, possibly to balance out every "I love white people, please vote for me" dog whistle, all to maximize support from potential voters. We need to understand that this sort of lip service and pandering is not a long-term commitment of policy. Rather, it is doing what is useful to do, at a certain point in time, to potentially win votes from a demographic that is important at a certain point in time. It does nothing to fight in the interests of that demographic.

Compare Trump's course of action to a decision to, for example, a tweet about the ironic "Black Lives Matter Less Than Migrants" campaign. The latter could have created a viral sensation that drove a stake into the Democratic Party and had it tearing itself apart over the Democrat solidarity we saw at pro-immigration rallies through the media. In turn, the Republicans would have been able to use their majority in Congress to pass all the immigration reform they wanted and reach out to the angry blacks whose eyes had been opened and now felt hostile to the Democrats. Instead, the Republicans watched Democratic Party rallies against border walls grow to great size and put immigration restrictionists in the hot seat using a flurry of insults. The Republicans cowered and did nothing. It was all too convenient, considering the fact that the profit-first wing of the Republican Party was not keen to limit immigration anyway, and preferred to simply blame the other side for obstructionism while keeping the immigration restrictionists and border wall supporters around as useful voters.

The tragedy is that it is actually in the long-term interests of profit-first Republicans to keep the number of economic-refugee immigrants down. Profit-first Republicans have much to lose by flooding the country with a poor, laboring class that is more inclined to vote for the Democrats. The reason is, coupled with the amnesty policies the Democrats want, these transformations would tip the demographics at the ballot box in favor of the Democrats permanently. Nowhere is this clearer than in border states like Texas; should Texas fall to the Democrats, it will become virtually impossible for the Republicans to ever win another presidential election. All the tax cuts and deregulation that Trump helped to usher in will quickly become a memory.

Sadly, immigration figures under Trump are not so different from the numbers under Democrats like Obama; in fact, Trump's immigration policies are largely the same, minus the Obama-era push for mass amnesty. So what we are really dealing with is not a question as to whether today's Americans are still the same metaphorical frog in a boiling pot that they were before 2016, but whether the intensity of that boil has even been reduced. We are still looking at 2024 as a prospective date at which time the Republicans will find it impossible to win a new presidential election due to the demographic changes.

II. "At least Trump has helped us raise awareness"

As we have examined, it is not clear that Trump is slowing the boil of the proverbial frog. But some will argue that Trump has nevertheless improved our chances of getting out of the boiling pot before it is too late. To some degree, this assessment is true, because Trump's campaign put the issues front and center without apology. This got people talking and removed the taboo of doing so. One key development may have been Trump's "not sending their best" speech, about how Mexico is allowing rapists, drug dealers and convicted criminals to cross the U.S. border and become America's problem. But that was all before Trump won the election and took office; how has Trump fared since becoming the President of the United States?

To have any hope of changing the future, we need dialogue and a fair playing-field to provoke discussion on social media. But those who supported Trump's platform are being banned and filtered out of the conversation by tech giants. While the Trump Administration has made it possible to report being censored, the effort to declare social media platforms public utilities, or do anything to actually prevent mass censorship, has hardly been treated as a priority. Progress has turned out to be little more than expressions like "we'll look into it". Unless this is enough to provoke change, Trump has quite a ways to go before he is an asset in the battle against big tech censorship, which has to be the number one battleground. When we are denied a voice, there is silence on the issues that matter. It is as simple as that.

With Trump, what we do have is a man who can post on Twitter with complete impunity, who could say nearly anything about anything and would never be terminated by the censors. The reason being, the termination of his account could possibly lead to his migration to a rival platform, which could help the rival platform grow exponentially. In this position of immunity, Trump has a tremendous power to influence conversation and has occasionally used this power to draw attention to the overall situation we face in America.

Trump's tweeting has also helped to highlight the dire situation in Europe; what he said about his love for Europe, and Europe losing everything positive that it once was, may have done more to justify the resistance to the European Union than anything since the post-2008 debt crisis and post-2015 migrant crisis.

If you are looking for other examples of Trump's influence, just think back to his explosive tweet about the integration situation in Sweden, which blew the lid off the issue. There is also Trump's commentary about the situation in South Africa, which raised awareness of anti-white racism. In the event of further developments in Europe or South Africa, it may be useful to continue to have Trump tweets. Of course, he could work in this capacity even outside of office - and perhaps even be more dedicated to it.

But Trump's successful reelection could have a further impact on Europe. With his continued presence in the White House comes a message: it is a message that the rest of the world sees as a symbol of the resistance against "globalism" - which is, in part, what got Trump into power. Countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Germany, France, Britain, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Ireland have used the energy and confidence that got Trump into office to mobilize their own in their fight against Brussels and for national sovereignty. In addition, the United States still is enough of a superpower and policy-influencer that changes in its political course can have a far-reaching effect in terms of accepted ideology. Notably, Trump is not likely to take action against the general pro-European resistance movements in the above-named countries. Of course, the resistance leaders in Europe wish Trump would take a more serious stance of support and do more than just post tweets. Trump would likely be a much more important asset if that were the case.

III. "Trump will get better"

It is true that Trump could become a "man of action" during a second term. He will certainly have a better idea as to how things run and may ask himself what he has to lose at his age, becoming the sort of candidate who is committed to fighting for what he thinks is best for the country. There are problems with such an analysis, however.

First, in spite of everything the 2016 Trump campaign might have suggested, Trump did not really bring a unique manifesto into the White House. Some detected this early, describing Trump as a "sponge", which is actually what worried those who despised his initial campaign the most. They worried that Trump would be influenced by his entourage, which initially included a number of America-first and white-reactionist personalities. But, as noted earlier, many of these early advisors disappeared. The most important disappearance was probably that of Steve Bannon, which led to the rise of Trump's Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a right-hand immigration (and Middle East policy) man.

With Kushner making the plans, it appears that green cards are going to be handed out in greater number if Trump is reelected, while legal immigration will continue as it has. In the end - to potentially garner votes from America-firsters and white reactionists - total immigration is expected to be dialed back 5 to 10% annually. Assuming this to be the case, based on a 5 to 10% reduction of the 2017 figure of 20.7 million newly naturalized citizens, we can expect 19.6 to 18 million newly-naturalized for each year Trump is President after 2020, if he is reelected. At that rate, the demographic transformation of the country would be complete long before Trump's term is over and the Republicans would be doomed to never win an election again.

To be sure, Trump could change his position. He also has the power to shuffle around his advisers. As cover, many of the core Never-Trumpers in Congress, key opponents within the Republican Party for the last several years, have disappeared. So have many of Trump's appointees who were antagonistic towards Trump's campaign platform. But Kushner is not going anywhere as long as her remains Trump's son-in-law. We need to understand that.

One positive point about a second Trump term is the strong likelihood that Trump gets to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. Again, old as Trump is, you would think his biggest motivation would be his passion for his views, and desire to act on them with his nomination. But again, what are Trump's views - especially of the demographic implosion? Even if we assume that Trump would know to nominate an immigration restrictionist, what are the chances that Congress would approve of that nomination?

IV. "Trump is better than the other guy"

As one online commentator, AntiDem, writes:

Unfortunately, based on what we know about the business-first lobby and the Republican Party, that 20%, which we can assume to include support for immigration, is what will make it impossible to ever see that 80% again, because migrant poor do not vote Republican. Looking at percentages, what matters is the following: Trump is nearly 100% of what those who use the Republican Party as the engine to carry out their profit-first interests want, and that model appears to give us a 0% chance of stopping where we are headed.

That said, one has to wonder what these profit-first lobbyists and financiers plan to do once the Republican party is no longer able to produce victories. With the demographic implosion, the party will be in a worse position to win than it was before figuring out that the Trumpist model-to-power made sense in the short-term. Perhaps the profit-first lobby believes their interests can simply be carried to the open-border and borderless business-first "centrist" Democrats, considering the "Squad" is actually a social-justice warrior candy shell of global-corporate power, dedicated to in-source and out-source at will.

But do current, high-profile Republican financiers like the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch have the same inclination to abandon ship, or is there actually something different about them? Notably, they are in their 70s or older so, again, we have the same variable of somebody who knows they will not be alive much longer and that this is their last chance to make a difference. As ideal as it may sound, perhaps their support for Trump is not because of a business-first mentality, but a passion for country and culture, and an understanding that America has gone astray and was better before. Perhaps the decision to go all-in on Trump was based on Trump's ability to convey these messages in his campaign, echoing the same sort of passion that may have led Koch's father to the John Birch Society. But, then again, the Kochs are one of the parties pushing for illegal immigrants to be naturalized.

And then you have the Trump family. Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., has all these grand visions of continuing his father's legacy and rising up through the Republican Party; is he not concerned about the future he is inheriting? How does his father really feel about the situation if he is interested in leaving behind a family dynasty? These are important points to consider.

V. "At this point, a faster boil is preferable"

For America, Trump's continued presence in the White House has a potentially-strong downside in that it offers a false sense of security, creating the illusion that a guy who is what Trump is envisioned to be can still be elected. Furthermore, there are those who still believe the Republican Party can still be reformed before it is too late, even as Trump and the Republican Party allow the frog to continue to boil towards the same foreseen outcome. Trump's re-election would help to perpetuate many misconceptions about the gravity of our situation.

America the melting pot in a non-conventional sense.

The question, then, is whether a harder, faster boil would actually be more beneficial. Surely, it would not be a centrist Democrat - it would have to be something harder and faster that would spread the wealth and put so many perks on the table for immigrants that a flood wave would ensue the likes of which we have never seen. It is my belief that the question of "worse is better" cannot be examined until the Democratic Party elite is unable to stop what the party is constantly promoting, but always considered too ambitious to put into practice.

In the meantime, let us consider what 'life after Trump' might look like.

I do not think social media censorship and cancel culture would be different, because the Trump White House has done so little to push back against censorship and cancel culture. So that is one thing to consider.

Trump himself would probably fall under the protocol for important public figures and, as such, continue to have free reign to write what he wants. If by chance Trump were to be banned, it would actually damage Twitter for years to come. People would see firsthand the bias that social media is allowed to perpetuate in this country. Likewise, Trump thumbing his nose at Twitter by relocating to a rival platform, like Gab, would be game-changing in terms of the brand's awareness and opening the playing field of competition.

Some might say that social media companies would be doing more to censor conservatives or dissenters if Trump were not in power. But pro-lifers, two-gender believers, whistleblowers, MGTOWs, pick-up artists, run-of-the-mill conservatives and all sorts of pro-white accounts have already been axed from YouTube, Twitter and other mainstream platforms; DuckDuckGo, Yahoo and numerous other search de-list or run algorithms to cut these people out of view. The only ones left to censor and silence are those who point out left-wing fallacies, oppose gun control, tell a bad story or two about women or post Christian quotes about traditional values. All of these groups, frequenting YouTube, Twitter and the like, are not coming across thought-provoking content from the Trumpist-nationalist right because it has all been removed or buried, and algorithms have been set up so that 99% of internet users are not going to find it even if it is there.

Come to think of it, perhaps it would actually be a blessing for those who supported Trump's platform if the mainstream social media companies unleashed a total, comprehensive purge; if everyone is booted, they might all end up on the alternative platforms, like Bitchute or Gab. Moreover, these social media refugees will come across things that, due to algorithms and censorship, they never would have run into had they been allowed to remain on YouTube and Twitter. Further, each time YouTube and Twitter broaden the span of their censor, the more users Gab and Bitchute have to scoop up, allowing their free-speech alternatives to become actual competition to YouTube and Twitter. A final point to consider is that, as far as red-pilling goes, nothing works faster than being banned and denied a voice in a way that seems intolerant, undemocratic and unjust. It is also a point for bonded experience. And so, in many ways and on many levels, it is beneficial if as many people as possible are banned from YouTube and Twitter. The Trumpist-nationalist right should perhaps even ;strive for this to happen - and as soon as possible, too.

We are in a race against the clock - and, as long as that is the case, a furious, boiling frog is advantageous to a slow, boiling frog. We need to be thinking forward and strategizing - now. We need to be plotting our course. And we need to start rallying around the issues that matter, or the betrayed demographic of the left - perhaps all at the same time.