Good Intentions or the Maddest Folly?

Dissident Voices Helping Kamala Harris Win Could Not Be More Wrong

Author’s Note: this essay was originally published on Counter Currents.

There has been increasing chatter and murmurings in right-wing circles denouncing the candidacy of Donald Trump, advocating for either abstention from voting or even voting for Kamala Harris. This commentary runs the gambit, from commentators I actually like respect, such as the far-right commentator Devon Stack of Black Pilled, to more dubious figures, notably Nick Fuentes, whose number of personal shortcomings and bizarre mannerisms raise the question whether he is “black propaganda” (if he is not, he might as well be). All of this is incredibly misguided. To be sure, both the Trump presidency, his candidacy, and Trump as a person leave much to be desired. Both Trump as an individual as well as his campaign are shamelessly Judeophilic, as was his administration. This is reflected in both policy and his personal life. A recent campaign speech demonstrates this, as well as his pardoning a number of Jewish criminals, including commuting the sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, the mastermind of the Potsville kosher slaughterhouse debacle. There is perhaps no better example demonstrating this in both his professional and personal capacities than Ivanka Trump, given her marriage to Jared Kushner, as well as the scandalous manner in which Trump had appointed her and that husband of hers to handle affairs in his administration. Most recently, his campaign has been rightly criticized if not outright condemned for a number of other things, including pandering to black and other minority voters, even though that has proven to be a most ineffective and disgraceful tactic, while also ignoring the white vote in a few critical swing states, a gaffe that could very well cost him the presidency.  His repeated comments about wanting a great deal of “legal immigration,” ostensibly from elite Indians, Chinese, and even Southeast Asians, are also greatly troubling. 

These and others criticisms are entirely legitimate, but the suggestion or even insistence that those against the democrats and the left not vote for him, either by abstaining or voting for Harris, could not be more misguided.  One of the underlying currents of this sentiment is the idea of accelerationism, the idea that worse conditions are desirable because they are more likely to hasten a “black swan” event that could lead to outright revolt if not Civil War.   Those who advocate for such views probably took fiction like Red Dawn a little too seriously.  Very much for the worse, the United States government remains an entity that is just as powerful and is it pernicious, an entity that is not a lethal instrument, but wields a number of lethal instruments at its disposal once a political mandate and consolidation of power has been so secured. This is so particularly given the surveillance state that has arisen with the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, to say nothing of the increasing militarization of the police. Those inclined to such views often invoke either the Revolutionary War, or how the war machine of the American Empire has not fared well since World War II, unable to vanquish either the Viet Cong or the Taliban, consisting to some degree of rice patty farmers and goat herders while armed with AK-47s, improvised explosive devices, and sandals.  Such misguided comparisons fail to take into account how those adversaries hail from an alien culture that does not value human life the way our European tradition does, compounded by the deprivation imposed by poverty and hardship that most American can neither fathom nor tolerate.  The Revolutionary War is equally unconvincing. No one from that era or in other times passed could even dream of the machinations of either the modern surveillance state, or how utterly devastating modern weaponry is. The British Empire, quite obviously, did not have drones, or tactical nuclear weapons that could eviscerate a pesky stronghold if a particularly ruthless government were so inclined, or any modern weaponry that could obliterate any serious insurrection in an instant. The seat of power of the British Empire, namely the monarchy, was also across the Atlantic, not in the modern era of airline jets, but the Age of Sail. The British Empire also chose to sue for peace in large part because of greater entanglements with the French, not because the British Empire could not, with proper motivation, ultimately prevail in The Revolutionary War. Both comparisons fail because most Americans and indeed most whites in Europe and the West are far too comfortable to endure the sort of deprivation and hardship that the accelerationist model fails to account for accurately.

In considering this position, the role of SCOTUS as well as other administrative appointments cannot be stressed enough. Clarence Thomas, an extraordinary black man no less an outlier than a 6-1 foot woman, is 78 years old. Samuel Alito, who authored the seminal and brilliant Dobbs decision correctly overturning Roe v Wade, is 74 years old. These two justices might be able to serve another four years, but there is a strong likelihood they will not. And if they do, another four years of open border lunacy will push the deteriorating demographics beyond the breaking point, ensuring no Republican will ever win the White House Again. If Kamala Harris wins, these and other justices would have to remain alive and in service for at least eight or twelve years, or more.

 Americans are doggedly naïve in thinking that either the Constitution or the government protect so-called “rights” the way high school civics class implores.  Hardly inalienable at all, those rights are conferred only so long as there is not a political mandate and the practical ability to remove them by state action.  Left-wing circles and institutions of education that have, to put it mildly, succumbed to ideopolitical capture, have questioned the “First Amendment,” both as set of social norms valuing freedom of expression and as legal proscription against government censorship for some time, with a majority of millennials and zoomers either believing that the First Amendment does not protect so-called hate speech, or that it ought not to. The abominations that are Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson inform us of the odious sort of Supreme Court nominees Kamala Harris—or her handlers—would appoint if she should be elected. Tim Walz, the vice-presidential candidate, has explicitly stated that so-called “hate speech” and “misinformation” should not enjoy protection from government censorship.

These and other signs make it clear that SCOTUS controlled by a majority in the Sotomayor-Kegan-Jackson mold would very likely conjure an exception to First Amendment protections by judicial fiat, just as they conjured phantom constitutional rights to abortion, gay marriage, and other fits of judicial activism.

Keir Starmer’s crackdown on right-wing dissidents rightly revolting against some of the more pernicious auspices of the Great Replacement as well as the peculiarly hard stance against January 6 protestors reveal what will happen if Kamala Harris wins. It is not that Donald Trump is the American Caesar, the right-wing authoritarian who can save Europe and the West in the spirit of Franciso Franco or Augusto Pinochet, it is that electing Donald Trump “tips the ball” and prevents the Democrats from consolidating power beyond the point of no return. Of course, those of an accelerationist persuasion should realize that the United Kingdom does not have nearly the infrastructure to crack down on dissidents the way the United States can. Such a crackdown in the States would be far more severe, and devastating.

Ultimately, things may have progressed beyond the point of no return, regardless of what happens. Many of these problems needed to have been dealt with long before this author was even born, either in the 1930s and 40s, or even as late as the 1950s should McCarthyism have been correctly regarded as not going nearly far enough. There is also the strong likelihood that the fix is already in—what else could explain such brazen moves by the Democrats, nominating with Harris without a primary, choosing Walz as her running mate, among other outrages. That stated, if our civilization is to be rehabilitated, dissident elements must bide for time. As stated, a Trump Presidency prevents a further consolidation of power by the Democrats.  It also would offer a respite from the free-for-all on the border, whereby the Biden-Harris administration has let in tens of millions of third world black and brown people, which not only begets voter fraud in jurisdictions that issue driver licenses and state identification to illegals, which can then be used to register to vote, but imports “democrat larvae” by way of anchor babies.  The sentiment condemning Trump’s many shortcomings is laudable-the suggestion that it would be preferable for him to no to be elected could not be more ludicrous.

Trump has promised to instigate mass deportations if elected. He also promised “lock up” Hilary Clinton, then stated that was just campaign bluster.  Even if he were sincere, an irretrievably corrupt and dysfunctional legal system would tie him up for years, just as it did four to eight years ago on other matters.  But a pernicious state preoccupied thwarting Trump is infinitely better than a pernicious state facilitated by this empty vessel of a brown woman, an object of ridicule known as a Witzfigur in the German language; a woman who is no less a puppet than the geriatric, criminal politician who preceded her, a man so brazenly corrupt he rivals that of the Clintons.  Some may think that may not matter, but even staving off full consolidation of power for four years could be enough time to gain a critical mass of persons to come to that dark but essential epiphany on matters of race, democracy, and so much more.