Periodically throughput history, we have transitions in tine in which epochs change in the window of a few short years. In , I show that Trump was providentially preserved. I refrained from drawing conclusions beyond the obvious fact that God was not done with him yet. since then it has become apparent that Trump is the Herald of Galactus LOL!!!
This post is not intended to be pro or anti Trump. It is meant as an analysis of where and what Trump is historically. God providentially preserved him to herald a new era. But it might not be what most people think it is.
On a more serious tone, Trump is a herald of the American Apocalypse. By this I simply mean the next era of American history. America is at a crossroad that will yield one of four possibilities over the next several years. There are four main trajectories that American can go: the return of a reconstructed Christian ethos, the rise of the alt-Right, the rise of the alt-Left, and the rise of the bayonet left. These represent the possible cultural directions that a post Trump world will go, with the outcomes forged by events happening over the next four years.
Table of Contents
The return of a reconstructed Christian ethos
The continuance of the bayonet left
Return of a reconstructed Christian Ethos. This is referring to a return to the principles that made Western civilization great. This would not man a return to the problems in Western civilization but a reconstructed version informed about what went wrong the first time. A reconstructed Christian ethos would not mean a return to slavery or maltreatment of Indians, but would mean a more consistent return to the principles such as the understanding of humans as created in the image of God, and endowed with inalienable rights.
This is probably the least likely scenario. This requires enough people with a Judaeo-Christian Biblical world view to initiate a movement to repentance, facilitate a larger revival, and commence a reformation within the next four years. The fact that the 2024 election turned on repentance means the probability is greater than zero. There is a remnant willing to walk in repentance. Concerning revivals there are pockets of revival that could coalesce in to a larger revival. Reformation will be the hardest mission for the Church. The Church has largely borrowed from the various humanistic philosophies to build their narrative. The Church is fair at getting people into a personal relationship with Christ but not much – very little headway into a distinctly Christian narrative for conquering the public square. Without reformation there is no ethos.
The raw materials exist to build a reformation, and potential leaders exist to implement this, but systemic evil is so entrenched in the churches that it would be nigh impossible to adequately platform the people who could make this change. In American Churches Wokeism and the NAR consume almost all the platform space. Neither leads to a resurgence of a genuine Judaeo-Christian Biblical ethos, and both positively lead to one or more of the alternate ethos described in this post. Wokeism leads to the bayonet Left or the alt-Left. The NAR can lead to either the alt-Left or the alt-Right.
A Christian world order is marked by a cultural consensus that Christ is King, and God’s laws are the ultimate rule of the world, with his natural laws controlling how physical reality is constructed and His moral law prescribing how social constructs. Next to this idea is two ideas. One is that God rationally rules the world and that social constructs should follow God’s order. God’s order includes the concept of the sanctity of human life and gender complementarity, leading to a recognition of human rights and viewing the family and not the state as the fundamental social building block. This leads to ordered liberty, limited government, and private socialism, which that private individuals, nonprofits, and churches lead in operating and managing the social safety net by voluntarism rather than government through taxation and regulations.Â
The other three movements described here fit into the Hegelian Dialectic. The Hegelian Dialectic is a process of historical evolution described by Hegel in which a thesis is opposed by an antithesis, which merges into a synthesis. In Hegelian thought this process occurs recursively until god on earth reunites with god in heaven, which is standard Hermeticism. Absent the assumption of Hermeticism, there is no reason to warrant that history will actually flow this way. The Hegelian Dialectic cannot work on simple contradictions as A cannot be non-A in the same context. The Hegelian Dialectic can allow for conspirators to mashup of complex systems in predictable way in an environment of managed conflict where an elite has substantial concentration of power over vast resources. The alt-Right, alt-Left, and bayonet Left all presuppose the Hegelian Dialectic and are constructed using variations of the Hegelian Dialectic.Â
The rise of the alt-Right.This is referring to a movement that distinguished it self from Conservatism. There is some variations within this movement, with the most extreme members being full on racists and Neo-Nazis. The majority in this movement are what can be called alt-light. They reject the racist and Nazi elements but hold to adjacent philosophies. The three principles of the alt-right are anti-empathetic evolution, nationalism, and socialism. the alt-Right emerges out of the dialectic of Giovanni Gentile, the Father of Italian Fascism. Gentile denied that there was a subject-object distinction or that individual minds existed. Whereas the Hegelian dialectic was between the god in heaven and god on earth via the march of the state, Gentile blurred the distinction between the individual and the state. The Gentile Dialectic was between god as an Idea and that idea known through what he called “thinking in place” where the thoughts themselves were of no importance but thinking as pure act. Pure act is a concept borrowed from Aquinas which regards God as continuously acting eternally in one instant (there’s lots of problems with this, but that’s for another article.) Such thinking in place can only apprehend thinking as a process. This organic thinking leads to a view of history as God being thinking in place as pure action which is manifest in an organic state as god on earth and everything else merely constructs. Individuals and businesses are merely constructs and thoughts of the state.  This philosophy set the stage for Italian Fascism and can have several variants. This also influenced Nazism and Neonazism.
Implementations of Gentile’s Dialectic became different than Marxist Dialectics in several significant ways, with Gentile following Hegel more closely than Marx did. One difference is that Gentile’s dialectic was more nationalistic as it focused directly on the state as god on earth whereas Marx was focused on class identity. This means the Gentile Dialectic developed on national lines as it mashes up with Postmodernism. In China it mashed up with Maoism to create the current totalitarian state as it exists today. In America is mashed up with Postmodernism to create the alt-Right. The nation replaces the role of God in mainstream Conservatism. Make America Great Again to the Alt-Right does not mean a return to a Christian Ethos but to an ethos of America as god on earth. Alt-Right does not wish to “export democracy” as Neoconservatism would but to create an organic state which will make America great again. *If Neoconservatism is the analogue to Trotskyism on the right, then the alt-Right is the analogue to Leninism on the right.*Â In this narrative it becomes essential to fashion Trump as “God’s anointed” and anointed absolutely, meaning that (1) his actions are beyond question and (2) one’s own anointing depends on alignment with with “god’s anointed” rather than aligment with Christ. Does any of this sound familiar. This ethos of viewing political leaders as “God’s Anointed” is heavily promoted in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).
This is one of the most likely scenarios. right now alt-Righters and conservative Evangelicals are tethered together, and Neoconservatives are disaffected. Neoconservatives are simply too focused on internationalism to be comfortable with the current administration. There are several variables that might impact this possibility. Will the NAR continue to successfully puff politician as “God’s anointed” after Trump leaves the scene. Will the NAR move further towards a Gentilean conception of the state as god on earth. Will Neoconservatives leave the Republican Party towards the Democratic Party?. The answer to this last question will decide between the Alt-Right hegemony and an Al-Left Hegemony. The big winner religiously here is the NAR, as its doctrine of apostolic alignment fits perfectly with this more fascistic interpretation of Conservatism.Â
The rise of the alt-Left. This is the next stage in the evolution of Leftist ideology. The ideas of the philosophies of the Left are evolving. The Neo-Marxist dialectic, which extended Marxist analysis to cultural issues, became the backbone behind sever movements. Feminism, from at least the second wave, was Neo-Marxist; and the LGBTQ movement was Neo-Marxist from the beginning. All versions of Marxism are dialectical, meaning that whatever is comes into contact with outside forces as its antithesis and merges into a new synthesis. Unlike development in classical logic where the essence (but not form) of end is contained in the beginning, dialectical development can result in an end much different or even contradictory to the beginning. The alt-Left will move the Left in some rather bizarre ends.
Feminism began with the premise of advocating for women. By the Second Wave, Neo-Marxists began shaping the Feminist movement. By the Third Wave, they begin to introduce intersectionality and begin redefining gender is merely a social construct. This opens the door for men to be direct recipients of Feminism over the interests of women. If “woman” is just a construct, then the door is opened for biological women to be left behind and for men to become dominant. In other words, the Feminist dialectic has, is turning, Feminism into a tool to bring back the Patriarchy.
We see this in bathrooms and sports, two areas where biology is directly relevant, but dismissed in favor of “social constructs.” Biology is important in restrooms because restrooms exist to meet a biological need, and biology is important in sports because males have built in physical advantages over women. “A dad in Ecuador who is dealing with an acrimonious split from his wife legally changed his gender identity to help him win custody of his two daughters. ” He did nothing different from what he always had done but he identified differently to fit the feminist paradigm. The man still had sex with women as he always done, but pursued the court case as a woman.
If men receive benefits over women in obvious ways from feminism and that feminism is on a dialectical slippery slope, then it is not a far stretch to openly promote patriarchy by using arguments that it benefits women. All that is needed is to create a feminine need and shape that need in such a way that patriarchy is advantageous in solving it. Here comes Generation Z women with impossible expectations. Feminism is teaching women to demand nothing less than the top man without regard to the value they bring to the table. In fact applying any such analysis to women is construed to be misogyny. One study found than the median Gen Z woman has a set of non-negotiable requirement in a male that eliminate 99% of males. An example is of one woman who said that a man had to be 6′ 2″, be no older than 35, make over $250,000 a year, be athletic, and hold a college degree. It turns out less than one percent of men fall into this category.
The math here is disturbing. It is impossible to meet this need as constructed through monogamy, and numbers suggests that as many as 50% of Gen Z women and 80% of Gen Z men will never date. While this is not yet trending, its only a matter of time until someone suggest polygamy as an answer to this problem. Returning to the correspondence between median women and one per-center men, if polygamy is allowed, then more women could get access to the top men. A woman who is on track to be a cat owner might avoid it if top men can practice polygamy if she is willing to be fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and so on in the harem. If the man is wealthy enough, her socioeconomic standing will increase even if she must share her husband with half a dozen other women. polygamous households could create a new rich class as multiple women may very well add their incomes to the total income of the household.
I queried Duck AI concerning this as part of a thought experiment, by typing “If female is refined as a biologically agnostic construct, is there a path where Feminism could evolve into patriarchy?” Its answer:
The idea of feminism evolving into patriarchy, especially when considering “female” as a biologically agnostic construct, raises complex philosophical and sociological questions.
# Understanding Feminism and Patriarchy
Feminism fundamentally seeks to address and dismantle patriarchal systems that have historically marginalized women and other gender identities. It advocates for equality, rights, and social justice. In contrast, patriarchy is a social system where men hold primary power, leading to the oppression of women and non-binary individuals.
## The Concept of a Biologically Agnostic Construct
When “female” is viewed as a biologically agnostic construct, it suggests that gender identity and roles are not strictly tied to biological sex. This perspective allows for a broader understanding of gender, encompassing various identities beyond the binary framework.
## Potential Pathways for Evolution
1. **Misinterpretation of Feminism**: If feminism were to be misinterpreted or co-opted by individuals or groups who prioritize certain identities over others, it could inadvertently reinforce hierarchical structures, resembling patriarchal dynamics.
2. **Internal Conflicts**: Feminism is not monolithic; it encompasses various ideologies (e.g., liberal feminism, radical feminism, intersectional feminism). Conflicts between these ideologies could lead to divisions that might weaken the movement, allowing patriarchal values to resurface.
3. **Cultural Backlash**: In societies where feminist movements gain significant traction, there can be a backlash that seeks to re-establish patriarchal norms. This could manifest as a reactionary movement that undermines feminist gains.
4. **Commercialization and Tokenism**: If feminist ideals are commodified or used superficially (e.g., in marketing), it could dilute the movement’s core principles, leading to a scenario where the empowerment of women is more about profit than genuine equality.
## Conclusion
While feminism aims to dismantle patriarchy, the evolution of any social movement is complex and can be influenced by various factors. The potential for feminism to evolve into something that resembles patriarchy would likely stem from internal conflicts, misinterpretations, or societal backlash rather than a direct transformation of its core principles. The focus should remain on fostering inclusivity and understanding within feminist discourse to prevent any regression into patriarchal structures.
Number 1 is pertinent to a dialectical analysis, as dialectical movement involves precisely introducing other values that would prioritize certain identities over others. This would be exceedingly easy as that is what intersectional analysis does by default by trying to figure out which identity is the biggest victim who needs to by prioritized. This movement is till in its infancy, but let me paint a scenario in which it could mature. It returns back to the dating crisis. What happens if polygamy is promoted because it allows more women to benefit from sexual relationships. Feminism would then have a stake in promoting the welfare of the alpha male and could end up promoting policies that benefit alpha males, like making both divorce and marriage more difficult to allow a more stable home environment for alpha males. dowries could become legally mandatory.
The winner in polygamy is obviously the alpha male. What may surprise people is that the big loser is such systems is not women, but non alpha males. We see polygamy in the animal world, particularly among lions. The non alpha males have very low life expectancy as they are without a tribe. In human societies that are polygamous either the disenfranchised males became socially destructive or some form of authoritarianism was brought in to bring them under control. In Ancient Greece and Rome many such men were put to military service. In both ancient Greece and Ancient Rome homosexuality became an outlet for incel men.
The probability of this scenario is the most likely scenarios possible. This, or something similar, is the future of the Left. The big winner religiously here is Islam. Islam has been a co-belligerent wit the Democratic Party, and as the Left evolves in those directions Islam will both push this further and the success of this shift will make Islam more attractive to people in this particular orbit.Â
The continuance of the Bayonet Left. This is what happens if today’s Left takes over and uses the force of government to impose the current state of its ideology both against those who initially opposed their movement and also against those who would push it further down its evolutionary path. The Left is losing the culture badly, so the only pathways for this involve arbitrary power through the tools of government. The probability is greater than zero because the Left still has strong (but waning) institutional power in business, Hollywood, the media, and academia and supports restricting freedom of speech. It is entirely possible that that a Democratic victory in 2028 could result in an administration that would aggressively resort to cancel culture and speech codes to lock in their hegemony. The probability of this succeeding is low but significantly higher than returning to a reconstructed Christian ethos. This would involve permanently rigging the political system of America in a manner not unlike the scene in Canada and Europe. This is likely short lived if it happens. Without some cultural support, rule by the bayonet withers away, and the holder of the bayonet is seen as an evil hypocrite. The Woke Left is self-destructing by its nature in that the woke become the oppressors they decry. This is a big part of what happened in the Soviet Union, as people stopped believing in the soviet narrative decades before the Cold war pressure of President Reagan and Pope John Paul 2 crashed it.
Conclusions
How will most likely see a re-alignment of the left and right. A resurgence of a reconstructed Christian Ethos is nigh impossible at this stage. t would take a miracle to get a sizable portion of the Church to collectively repent, seek revival, and systematically reform thought and practice with in just a few years. It is not mathematically impossible and certainly not impossible with God, but she is simply too much on the wrong trajectory as much of the Church is on either a woke or NAR trajectory. It should be noted that a dialectical synthesis of the alt=Left with the alt-right produces a system that fits the descriptions of the final beast system and the Antichrist that worship the leader and the government as god on earth, fulfilling the prophecy in Second Thessalonians 2 where the Antichrist as the Man of Lawlessness “…opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” This is the one “…whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming(verse 8).”
Let us trust in the Lord during these times and not man. The elephant cannot save you and the donkey cannot save you, but salvation and deliverance is found only in the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world – Jesus Christ.