Hat off to the crafter of this GIF; makes me smile every time.
What stood out for me in the 3rd Trump Clinton debate was The Donald’s projection of his economic plan. He made the point of saying his economic plan would take 10 years to fully bear fruit. This is a projection beyond even his potential 8 years in office. Dispelling the easy sardonic take on this projection as an easy way to make excuses if the plan fails, instead we should look at this as a fundamentally conservative approach to change. It is the sort of thing we are sorely missing in our rent-a-king democracies. The long view. And long-range planning is what we desperately need.
There are two important implications in Trump’s medium-range economic projection. One, as said, this is the essence of conservatism; slow careful change keeping the core of social norms and relationships intact. Of course we are in a time of extreme social decline and so we need intentional repair. It is difficult to ignore that some sort of reform is inevitable. But as reactionaries, traditionalists and conservatives we know these are restorative and not revolutionary. We in the Reactosphere live in many ironies. That we are NeoRactionaries or we envision Archeofuturism or dabble in Antiquated Innovations Is irony enough. Madness to Progs. But further we want to make social changes that will ultimately limit change. The Left decry this as stifling. Yet they have no proof that constant overthrow will lead to anything but more overthrow. This instability is nothing to base peaceful productive community on. So the limit of change in conservatism is not an end in itself, but the natural result of political, social and economic organization that fits a particular ethnic community.
We should not think there are only one or a few organizing principles that can achieve this health in community, but neither should we think they are infinite. We currently live under a system that is driven by the abstract unfounded notion of egalitarianism, along with some of its ugly cousins. So, clearly we are capable of organizing ourselves on folly to the extreme. There are many long range goals that we are not even able to discuss in our current-year national conversations. Many of these are areas that both Left and Right bemoan the corrupt and myopic vision of megacorp capitalism. Corruption may be the wrong word. International corporations are just doing what they must. The more general problem is a (((disconnected elite))).
Our agriculture needs a long-range reform effort. Farming should be done by people who have claim to the land they farm. They should love the land and the hard work they act on it to produce food and goods. Food should be produced regionally—locally as much as possible. Foods that cannot be grown in a region should be expensive luxuries. Like from when tea and oranges came all the way from china. The economic paradox of free expansion and consolidation needs to be resisted. It is a natural process of sorts, but one that ultimately is against nature, destroying the very communities that created it. When abstract (((financial))) concerns are included and the farmer is made a debt slave to endless innovations that do not arise from his own practice, the degradation of agriculture is complete.
I don’t know if Trump has an Agricultural reform plan. He should. Nothing could be more basic in making a nation great than a healthy relationship with the land. This is a shared concern of both the Organic Left and New Right. Imagine how a program, over slow conservative time, organizing farming around small and medium scale regional production would bring the better of our Leftist co-whites aboard the Trump train. And we need to admit there are a lot of very hard working and innovative small scale organic farmers who though, because of a pernicious hippie meme, are socially liberal. There are many young men and women who would love to get into large scale gardening and agriculture, but, due to parasitic speculation driving land prices up, will never be able to afford to. These latter turn their hearts to Marxist daydreaming of collectivism. And so adopt the resentment and loose behaviour that can’t produce the personal character that farming requires. They reject tradition because they see conservatives supporting megacorp food production. And this acquiescence to Big Ag™ is probably true of many who call themselves ‘Conservative’, but who really mean to say they are neoliberal. Yet these organic farmers are conservative at core. They intend to conserve land, to develop it slowly, to work hard, and to make a bit of money at it too. They take time to build soil rather than simply using drug-like nutritive products and chemicals on depleted earth. They have a religious dedication to their vocation, and in this case, manic dedication is a very good thing. They are not necessarily devoted to a lot of Marxist gobbly goop, they are devoted to producing abundant healthy food.
Some hippies, after the drug swoon of the national orgy wore off, went ‘back to the land’. Many failed, but some succeeded. Those that succeeded were intuitive reactionaries, taking on the role of the peasant gardener or farmer. This plainly requires hard work and diligence. There are no lazy or profligate farmers; not for long. These back-to-the-landers also had access to fairly cheep land available in the 70s.
I used to wonder if Trump could see the implications of his Nationalism. It means a fundamental reconsideration of social order. Though after watching his Gettysburg Address, I am of the mind that Trump is very aware of how big the project is. (Trump comes in at 10:02 mins)
There is so much in here, and this is not a commentary on this speech per se. But The Donald gives a fabulous account of both plan and principle for restoring the health of the Nation. First by keeping the boarder and then by freeing the lives within to find meaningful occupation and prosperity. (The Healthcare Savings Account plan seems on a surface glance a good example of a plan that promotes responsibility, choice and universality, but not necessarily equality.) Trump’s genuine admiration for working people’s ability to get ‘er done is refreshing. He even gave a shout out to vocational workers. Saying these are ‘marvelous people’; people who work with things in the world. Trump has made is fortune in the real. As someone who has made most of his dollars with his hands this is appreciated. I’m sure he has made some money in the speculative arena. I am sure his personal gain has led to some degradation of social capital. But he is a builder at heart. Who ever heard of a presidential candidate talking about the perils of Chinese ‘sheet rock’ in a campaign speech.
Yet even the ‘Nation’ is too removed an entity for healthy governance. This is certainly true of the large nations like the US, Canada or even Great Britain. The Libertarians have this right. Government should be small and for the keeping of borders in order to keep peace and justice, and that laws should be few. Only a shared moral code and ethnic disposition make this simplicity of governance possible. Ultimately the Nation needs to be divided into more manageable communities of scale. The US should in the future, if it survives. be structured as an empire of regional ethnic states. States rights then become national sovereignty. When we consider that the Roman empire covered only 2.2 million square miles at its peak in the 2nd century AD, while the US currently covers 3.8 million the oversize of the contemporary nation is obvious.
Some of the environmentalists, before Global Warming™, postulated regionalism. One proposed demarcation meant dividing communities by watershed. You would have to live in your own environmental decisions. Regions would be collected around larger sheds like rivers. It is kind of LARPY, but makes good commonsense. You should be politically responsible to those who have to drink from the river you pissed in upstream. It is a matter of perspective. If we look at the world as a magnificent garden we will tend to want to improve it with all our actions. If we look at it as a means of gain or something to be conquered only, we will not care for the earth for its own sake.
This does not mean we reject mega projects like dams, pipelines and bridges. These things are inspiring, and deeply satisfying to design and construct. I remember hearing the men of my Grandfather’s generation talk, with a spirit of humble pride, about the mega projects they had worked on . Meekness I suppose. These grand-scale projects fill our desire for greatness without the vain trinkets of celebrity or political manoeuvring or raw bloodshed. The greatness lies in a thing made, not in a political will enforced. Of course it takes tremendous political will to construct a hydroelectric dam, say. Land that will be flooded must be purchased. Protesters and lawsuits will need to be out-played. A budget will have to be justified in the House. But our insatiable desire to build will not be thwarted long. And Trump intends to set up conditions to free this creative force.
So much of what Trump is saying in these last days before the election should entice good people who have thrown their lot in with the Globalists on moral grounds to listen. But they are deafened by the media. This is too bad for there is yet far more potential for reform in Trump than there is rigid plan for rule. He seems intent of governing by creating conditions for prosperity to flourish. That is to foster happy productive existence, not mere gain. But our countries have been cared for for by the ruling elite for so long, though not very well, that most reform minded people merely want more care, more management to solve our problems. Like all dependents, our populations have become morally lazy and fear this freedom in responsibility and the socio-economic conditions that would make freedom and responsibility affordable, just on the love offering of our daily toil.