With every conceivable advantage, Hillary Clinton lost the American presidential election to a self-destructive anti-politician openly opposed by his own party. Across the pond in Europe, the world’s most powerful capitalist cabal was brought to its knees by a British anti-politician armed only with a mad grin and publicly consumed cigarettes and pints. In the aftermath of these historical upheavals, the question invariably arises: which anti-politician will shock the Western world next and where? And how will the proponents of unrestricted diversity deal with the rapidly rising anti-globalist revolts?

The left and its globalist acolytes frame the rise of Trump and the shock of Brexit as patently fascistic phenomena, while in fact the state of affairs has been shifting in the opposite direction the last half a century, as the post-modernists of the 1960’s successfully eroded ideas of nationhood and Western identity to a stump. Consequently, Trump and Brexit are simply reactions to the anti-national sentiments that produced a political climate in which conservatism is considered radical, national identity is framed as an illusion if not just racist, and a globalist technocracy should map out the future for the human species.

The left is however right in pointing out that Trump represents a conflict in Western gender dynamics. But crucially, the leftists view gender dynamics not as a practical exercise in finding the proper balance; they see masculine virtues as inherently oppressive. It is completely lost on the left that both genders can manifest themselves in pathological archetypes, and the West may very well be experiencing the first example of a society dominated by a warped interpretation of maternal virtues. While Trump may espouse certain tyrannical dispositions, his electoral victory is the product of a society irrationally obsessed with the deconstruction of borders of all kinds, and when the left champions a world of border-less nation states, border-less gender identities, and border-less victim-hood, a severe backlash of comical proportions should come as no surprise. Put in another way, the fanatical poles of society will mirror each other in intensity, in time hollowing out any inclination towards compromise. Hillary’s mindless inclusion and ruthlessly unprincipled penchant for social harmony paved the way for a presidency dripping with almost every male vice imaginable.   

 

And in Germany an iron chancellor is yet again in the business of nation-scale demographic tinkering. However, in this latest installment of German lack of proportionality, the chancellor prolongs a cross-generational historical atonement for Nazi sins by inviting millions of Muslim refugees and migrants to settle in Europe. Now for the first time, Germany has hands on experience with the random stray truck syndrome and spontaneous human combustion in crowded areas. Up until now Merkel’s solution to the brooding cultural divide in her country has been to demand of the German people kindness, openness, and to embrace multiculturalism as the guiding moral principle of our time, just as Hillary’s solution to illegal immigration in the US is tolerance. From these policies it is clear that Western culture has taken a U-turn on the expected inherent qualities of leadership.

Formerly, hysterical masculinity was a favorable trait in leaders, often leading to exclusion, aggression, and a certain sardonic wallowing in the hard choices of large scale human organisation, and the West has successfully developed in its systems a somewhat sensible balance between the tyrant and the wise king. Now, by contrast, the unconscious symbolic values of Western leaders promote inclusion, tolerance, and a Utopian rejection of the tribal nature of mankind, and no balance between the feral ferocity of the protective mother and the blind agreeableness of open borders has been struck. These new matriarchs in disguise may seem far less bellicose than the kings and emperors of late, but the protective instinct bestowed upon the family unit can symbolically be conferred upon the leftist dogma of imposed diversity. The emotional debacle of racial activism unfolding across North American campuses is a clear testament to this.

These policies are not only dangerously misguided but also serve to illustrate that the left has politicized most aspects of public life to a degree where no field of human endeavor is too narrow for social justice policies, where all identity groups should organise themselves in opposition to the white patriarchy, and society consists only of the oppressors and the oppressed. Thus, the sudden appeal of hyper-masculine anti-politicians should be seen in light of these tendencies. Men may still hold considerable wealth and power, but moral discussions in the West have increasingly been suffused with an underlying assumption that Western value systems are oppressive or simply racist, nimbly equated with the white patriarchy from the viewpoint of any social group that wishes to bandwagon against historical if not actual tyranny.

It should also be noted that multiculturalism and diversity have slim chances in democracies. In multicultural Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, for example, a fierce dictatorship laid to rest any religious or ethnic strife boiling within. But in Yugoslavia, the post-Soviet democratic elections were simply the precursor to tribal bloodshed between Bosnian Muslims, Orthodox Serbs, and Catholic Croats. In the case of the Soviet Union, the tens of millions of Russians exiled outside the borders of the Motherland after 1991 continue to be a source of international crises most notably in Ukraine, the Baltics, and Caucasus. Our new unwitting matriarchy is blind to these disturbing historical facts and the dangers of a planned utopia in which democracy and diversity form a volatile cocktail when different identity groups are encouraged to form voting blocks to check each other’s power. The liberal ethos of “diversity is our strength”, religiously chanted by Trudeau, Clinton and Merkel, is at best naively pathetic, at worst a mad catastrophe in the making.

To take just a few examples, it remains highly debatable whether the Russian ethnic minority in East Ukraine celebrate their fashionable diverse status as Trudeau views it. Or whether the Kurds in Turkey think cultural differences strengthens societal cohesion. Indeed, the concept of the nation state was designed as a departure from imperial and princely rule that cared little for differences in language and ethnicity within states. The idea of the nation state has been the most durable paradigm of international relations as the alternative, sadly, has proven to be empires of different varieties, caliphates, kingdoms, and, just recently, an attempt at a global structure of governance manifested as a supranational technocracy. The diplomats at Westphalia in 1648 understood that supra-nationality spearheaded by a glorious and overly abstract vision of history and governance is dangerously unstable. Analogous to the fracture of the Holy Roman Empire in its doomed conceptualization of universal jurisdiction, the desperate denial of the EU bureaucrats is beginning to resemble imperial arrogance.

As the historical facts convey, it is a flagrantly unproven hypothesis that diversity is a strength within nation states, and the obsessive infallibility of the almighty moral arbiters from the left has now been rejected by millions of Americans and Brexiters. They are genuinely distrustful of Clinton and her aim to substitute the nation state with a forced Utopian globalism coupled with a promise of social justice for all. Such guarantees should sound familiar. Moreover, the campaigns of Trump and Farage were by no means anti-elite; Trump’s wealth is his most favorite talking point. Rather, they are particularly anti-globalist. It is a striking fact that cultural Marxism has festered in the political institutions of the West for so long that the Rust Belt working class recently voted for a New York billionaire braggart and middle-class Brits voted alongside a former London commodity trader. This has for long been not a battle for the distribution of income or an intellectual exchange of ideas concerning the means of production, but a battle for the soul of Western civilization. In other words, the left-right ideological spectrum is thoroughly obsolete in terms of defining people’s ideological adherence.

Culture, or more precisely identity, is currently at the heart of the West’s internal ideological struggle.

Along these new battle-lines, the post-modernists argue that the West lost its claim to an identity through its past colonial sins. Given this logic, the madness of the current political drama unfolding in the US and Western Europe is simply a kickback against the untenable assumption that non-Western cultures should be celebrated and cherished, while Western identity should dismantle itself quietly in the meantime.

By insisting that race and gender should define political affiliations, the left has brought down the full force of the until recently dormant patriarchy upon the Western political system. It is a beast of their own making, because denying someone an identity will only result in its aggressive reaffirmation.

Denying that the nation state exists as a template for human organisation will only result in nationalism. And imposing a post-masculine paradigm of strict political correctness will make a Trumpist patriarchy the dominant movement for social change. Lastly and most dangerously, the ideological purity of the post-modernists is predicated on the most ghastly of revolutionary thinking: Utopia has already arrived, it simply needs to be purged of the remnants of conservative impulses.

In this way, the benevolent vehicles for social justice dictating the undoing of male virtues view the History of Mankind as a future aspiration forged by idealism, not a source of ancestral knowledge used to temper the fickle impulses of youth. An attempt to transcend the flawed nature of the human condition by toppling the value systems and hierarchies of your own culture is profoundly unwise, as this intellectual arrogance has morphed into a murderous nihilism countless times before in the 20th century. But the birthing troubles of our new matriarchal intelligentsia have manifested themselves in irreparable internal contradictions: When Islamists, feminists, globalists, soulless technocrats, and racists like Lena Dunham attempt to share a political platform, the implosion of hypocrisy will bring about an uncalled for renaissance of the very same patriarchy that the West has spent millennia to learn to contain. Ironically, the post-modernists are tearing down the only civilization that experimented with considerable constraints on patriarchal dominance, and now the clock has been set back several decades if not centuries.