Exploring Carl Schmitt’s concept of the ‘constituent power’ and how it could be used in the United States.

This is the third part of a three-part series. Here for part 1, and here for part 2.

Welcome to the third part of my three-part series, where I discuss, outside of the speculative realm of alternate history and worldbuilding, how the political system of the United States could be changed as of right now, through ‘normal politics’, and with public opinion as it currently is.

Of course, when grounded in reality, there are a lot more limitations than when you’re just developing something in theory. As I’ve said repeatedly, 250 years of centralisation and manufactured consent for liberalism will not be undone overnight, so in order to ‘reverse-indoctrinate’ society, it will be necessary to use similar centralised and top-down methods.

One of Carl Schmitt’s lesser known ideas is the ‘constituent power’ (pouvoir constituant) that he discusses in ‘On Dictatorship’ (1). This is the idea that, whoever gets the opportunity to write a constitution gets the opportunity to define politics for a whole historical period, as they determine the ‘default’ and the rules by which the rules can be changed.

Jaime Guzman, an advisor to Augusto Pinochet, was a scholar of Carl Schmitt, and wrote the 1980 Chilean constitution in line with this idea of the ‘constituent power’. This has preserved the essence of Pinochet’s reforms, and even when the constitution looked to be replaced after the Estallido Social, the lack of ability for Chilean society to agree led to the same document staying in place, aka, the ‘default’. A great degree of power in politics is who can set the ‘default’.

In a Woke-infested America, what kind of measures would be needed to stem the tide, and more importantly, in an America where 75 million people voted for gay race communism in Kamala Harris, as Nathan Cofnas reminds us, enable us to impose and later manufacture consent for an anti-Woke consensus?

In this final article I will discuss how ‘states of exception’ happen and can result in the drafting of a new constitution (or forced amendments), times when this has happened in the United States, how this could happen under Trump, J.D Vance, or some future President advised by Kevin Roberts, and what these amendments passed under a ‘state of exception’ could look like to cripple Woke power.

Foreign Case Studies of the ‘Constituent Power’

For this, I’m going to look at nominally democratic nations which had their ‘Caesar’ figure declare a ‘state of exception’ and draft a new constitution when the old one was seen to have failed.

The best examples here are probably Charles de Gaulle’s founding of the French Fifth Republic, Hugo Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ in Venezuela, and Viktor Orban’s 2011 Constitution of Hungary.

France

In the case of Charles de Gaulle, it was the height of the Algerian War when the Fourth Republic, a parliamentary republic with a proportional representation electoral system, was failing to adequately respond. The 1958 coup was started by pro-Pied-noirs generals who were angry with the French government for not fighting effectively enough.

De Gaulle was unique as he was a ‘national hero’ for his leadership of the French Resistance in WWII, even when odds did not look promising. He therefore had a huge amount of political capital to draw off of. In the end, when the coup was launched, the French government of Rene Coty immediately surrendered and invited him to create a new constitution. Under this new constitution, which was approved by 83% of all voters in September 1958, his party won an overwhelming majority in the legislative elections in November.

De Gaulle was a true ‘Caesar’ figure, the Fifth Republic system entirely his design. He was able to draft a vision for the nation and make it happen, such was the prestige he enjoyed.

Eventually, as he negotiated an end to the Algerian War with the Evian Accords, his previous allies staged a coup against him in 1961, though this failed. He also, having designed the constitution to have an electoral college to elect the president, changed his mind, as he thought a direct election through a two-round system would have more legitimacy. He then unconstitutionally amended the constitution through only a simple referendum majority, when the constitution he made required a majority in both chambers of Parliament instead of forcing it through using Article 11.

However, there are many ways in which this scenario does not apply to America. America is not on the brink of civil war, Trump is extremely divisive as opposed to a universally revered figure like De Gaulle was at this time, and Trump is not a military man. In addition, De Gaulle was following the example of Napoleon and Napoleon III in creating new regimes through military coup, a French tradition, whereas America has no such tradition. If an American ‘Caesar’ is to come to power, it will not be through the military, but by an elected leader.

Charles de Gaulle’s example is instructive in one aspect however. Whilst it very narrowly lost, after which De Gaulle retired from French politics, the 1969 constitutional amendment referendum would have massively decentralised France and given the regions substantially more autonomy. This shows that having a Caesar figure, and having a decentralisation of power to subnational entities, are not mutually exclusive, countering the idea put forward by figures like Bertrand de Jouvenal that power always centralises unless there is a collapse (2).

Venezuela

Hugo Chavez, whilst a military leader, did not come to power via a military coup, but through election. Whilst he utterly destroyed his country, and so in terms of ideology and economics he is not somebody to emulate at all, he is useful to learn from as a ‘Caesar’ figure who was able to create for himself the ‘constituent power’.

Even though he’d tried a military coup in 1992 which he had gone to prison for, he was granted amnesty by Rafael Caldera, the main founder of the 1961 constitution which had served Venezuela well up until that point.

The economy was bad compared to in the past (though not the catastrophe that Chavismo would create by the 2010s), and Chavez was able to capitalise on popular opposition to elite rule by campaigning explicitly on a ‘Fifth Republic Movement’. A constituent assembly was his core electoral pledge, not socialism as it would be later.

After his election in 1998, he was able to supercede the provisions of the 1961 constitution as to how it should be amended by imposing a constituent assembly, with an electoral system chosen by himself. This would allow his party to have virtually all the seats, more than the two-thirds required to incorporate any constitutional provision.

Whilst initially supporting the idea of ‘popular sovereignty’ superseding constitutional restrictions on amendment, which required a minimum two-thirds majority of both chambers, the Supreme Court of Venezuela later wavered in how much power Chavez was giving himself. But by this point it was too late, and the Fifth Republic was proclaimed. It was an ultra-Presidential system which had long lists of rights so that it resembled a left-wing political manifesto, checks and balances were extremely few, and the few that did exist were able to be voided by the ultra-powerful figure of the President, especially after the 2002 coup attempt.

Chavez’s takeover does provide illustrative lessons on how to tame a ‘deep state’. The 2002 coup attempt happened because the bureaucracy of the nation was opposing what he wanted to do, in this case correctly sensing it would destroy the country, so Chavez used the opportunity of the 2002 coup attempt to purge them all and set up a Jacksonian-style spoils system.

The people he employed were completely unqualified, and as he was a socialist, that’s more of a problem as the state has far more responsibility, but this does show how the ‘accreditation cartel’ can be overcome.

In the US situation, which is not socialist and nor do we intend it to be, replacing ‘experts’ who disguise their policy preference under their accreditation can be replaced with much less qualified partisan loyalists with far less economic damage.

However, there are differences between America and Venezuela. In America, there has been ‘formally’ in place the same constitution from 1789 to the present, which is considered integral to American identity and therefore cannot be replaced outright, with all amendments needing to be through the formal amendment procedure of the current constitution. Meanwhile, Latin America has a tradition of frequently changing their constitutions. This is a source of instability, but it does make ‘Caesarism’ easier.

Hungary

An example of redrafting a constitution within the parameters of an existing constitution is Viktor Orban’s Hungary.

The 1949 constitution, used under the communist period, had been heavily amended in 1989, but was still technically the same constitution. Because of quirks in the Hungarian electoral system, in 2010 Fidesz was able to win an over two-thirds majority over dissatisfaction with the Ozod Speech, which was enough to pass constitutional amendments. The Hungarian Constitution of 2011 was drafted, which technically replaced the 1949 constitution, but this was entirely within the bounds of amendment of the 1949 constitution. The US could technically do something similar, with a ‘giant 28th amendment’ in effect redrafting the constitution as a provision would say that ‘all constitutional measures not included in this amendment, aside from equal state representation in the Senate which is unamendable, are null and void, though still keeping the historical continuity.

Of all the three scenarios listed; military coup, declaring a new constitution on a popular majority, and creating a new constitution using the framework of the current constitution, the latter option is the most likely to apply to America. However, due to the ultra-divided nature of American politics, and the lack of the ability for any one of the two main parties to gain a supermajority needed to change the constitution (America’s is notoriously difficult to change), means that its functioning will need to be ‘hijacked’, procedurally conforming to the amendment structure, but in actual fact, declaring a ‘state of exception’ to in-effect make members of state legislatures have no choice. Indeed, it has been done before with the Reconstruction Amendments.

Caesarism in America

As mentioned in part 1, I believe that America has really had three republics. The Articles of Confederation, the 1789 to 1860 constitution, and the 1870 to present constitution.

The Articles of Confederation was the only constitution that was formally abolished, and the amendment procedure was not adhered to in order to draft the 1789 constitution. This is due to George Washington, who had immense prestige for fighting the Revolutionary War, decided it needed to be scrapped. In this way, the move from the Articles of Confederation to the 1789 to 1860 constitution was essentially like the proclamation of the French Fifth Republic, a universally revered war hero coming out of retirement and using his immense political capital to implement his vision, though in his case it was not just his but the entirety of the Founding Fathers.

The Articles of Confederation were such a failure, with Shays Rebellion the last straw, and were barely more than 10 years old, that they had very little legitimacy. A figure like Washington could very easily sidestep it.

By 1860, the constitution had become a part of American identity, almost akin to the nation itself, a situation that does not exist in many other places. Replacing the constitution outright, back then and now, would be unthinkable.

Lincoln’s example is more instructive. The Civil War was a ‘state of exception’ in the fullest sense of the word. Whilst Andrew Jackson had ignored the Supreme Court in Worchester v Georgia (1832) over the Indian clearances, the suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in ‘ex parte merryman’ (later done post-hoc in the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act) was a deliberate violation of the original meaning of the constitution and not simply the Supreme Court’s power which had been distorting it.

The interpretation of the constitution was fought on the battlefield, a ‘might makes right’ contest. The ‘Reconstruction Amendments’ were passed under military occupied state governments.

Because the Reconstruction Amendments were ‘at gunpoint’, they can be said to create a different constitution, even though formally it is the same document, which continues the ‘national mythos’.

Hitler’s dictatorship was technically ‘legal’ as members of the Reichstag were forced, at gunpoint by the SS and SA, to sign the Enabling Act of 1933. In a sense, the Reconstruction Amendments were very similar, just on a longer timespan.

If the US constitution is to be redesigned to neuter Wokeism, due to the polarised nature of the US, a similar process would need to happen. State legislatures would need to be intimidated into signing, which would involve an equivalent of the SS/SA.

MAGA Dictatorship

Whilst Project 2025 is for the most part great, it still operates within the nominal constraints of the constitution. Heritage feels that, as the GOP controls the court, it will do as it says.

Kevin Roberts is an extremely underrated figure, being responsible for turning what we might call ‘Conservative Inc’ into a ‘Third New Right’ entity. He has also voiced support for the ‘Convention of States’ movement, which is all about trying to get a new constitutional convention and put amendments to the states without needing Congress.

However, rulings like Bostock v Clayton County suggest this confidence in the Supreme Court may be misplaced. As Jesse Merriam points out, a Neocon rot infected the Federalist Society from the late 1990s onwards, despite it still being far better than the alternative.

But with J.D Vance’s recent comments on the J6 rioters before Trump pardoned them all anyway, there is a crucial divide between people like J.D Vance, Kevin Roberts, and Ron DeSantis, and Trump. As radical as Project 2025 is, and unfortunately we’ll be getting an ‘abridged’ version (though still better than nothing), it still has an institutionalist view of politics. It may suggest purging the deep state, but it is still operating within constitutional norms, or at least constitutional norms that they expect this Supreme Court to establish.

But people like Trump and Matt Gaetz are, whilst maybe not as radical on the issues, have a far more revolutionary view of politics.

The problem with the Convention of States idea is that, in elections that liberals might call ‘free and fair’, Democrats would be able to thwart it, as they still control the Cathedral and therefore are guaranteed a large vote share. Kevin Roberts still operates in the realm of ‘normal politics’, the idea that you will be able to persuade people. But whilst you may be able to persuade ‘some’ people, in terms of cultural values, the indoctrination of certain groups is so deep, and the Cathedral’s cultural influence so wide, they will only ever vote Democrat.

Trump is a once in a generation type ‘Caesar’ figure who has complete, unconditional loyalty from a substantial portion of the population, and defying Trump is the kiss of death for a GOP politician’s career. But what he lacks is vision, he is unacceptably soft on various Woke issues like gay marriage, and is reliant on his team of advisors to channel his ‘anarchic spirit’ into something more concrete.

But if the January 6th Rioters are pardoned, they can be reorganised into a paramilitary organisation and can ‘become’ an agent of Trump’s will, with any prosecutions they may receive getting automatic pardon from Trump, essentially permission to act extra-legally under a ‘state of exception’.

Following

’s idea, there should be an app by which the J6 prisoners and any other members of the MAGA base can occupy numerous state capitol buildings. If the state legislators in blue states are surrounded by gunmen to vote to call a constitutional convention, just like Reichstag deputies were in 1933 Germany with the Enabling Act, then they will. Then, once it is formed, have the paramilitaries do the same thing in order to get it ratified. This is how Argentina’s constitution has been the same since 1853, despite numerous amendments by military junta governments.

Trump’s ‘institution breaking’ impulses need to be combined with the vision and attention to detail as somebody like Kevin Roberts. Trump has an enormous opportunity to have the ‘constituent power’, but it will involve him breaking institutional constraints and instead weaponizing his ‘charismatic authority’.

Those who are squeamish about such an authoritarian move should remember the time when the Cathedral was able to manipulate the Supreme Court into overturning 32 state referendums on gay marriage, and ensuring there was no backlash despite such a blatant attack on popular sovereignty. The Woke hold democracy in active contempt, and the power of top-down social shaming, ostracism, and humiliation through a coordinated strategy of cultural takeover is only a more feminine, though no less authoritarian, means of controlling society than pointing a gun to legislator’s heads.

Even if Project 2025 was implemented in full, it is still not enough. America is just one election away from a return to Wokeism, as the fanatical activists of the Democratic Party will prevent any moderation on cultural issues, and their control of the Cathedral will continue indoctrinating over half the country, and disproportionately the young (who are a ticking time bomb as older generations retire as

so frequently reminds us), in favour of it.

It is through the use of the ‘constituent power’ that anti-Wokeism can be ‘locked in’, like how Augusto Pinochet locked in neoliberalism in the 1980 constitution at the behest of Jaime Guzman. If it is not made use of, and the constitution is still formally adhered to, Wokeism will return with a vengeance, as no political party in a nation like the United States can hold onto power indefinitely, power will change hands.

The key is to establish a ‘New Labour Moment’ for the Democratic Party in regards to cultural issues, where, like New Labour under Blair accepted Thatcher’s neoliberal economic reforms, the Democratic Party is forced to accept anti-Woke measures, establishing an ‘anti-Woke uniparty’.

Given the fact that cultural issues are far less susceptible to compromise and pragmatism, this can only be accomplished if constitutional changes forbidding Wokeism are imposed through extra-legal means and a ‘state of exception’.

What Amendments to the Constitution Should Be Made?

I’m now going to focus on, separate from my previous article which created some hypothetical constitutional models, some constitutional changes to the constitution that could, through this ‘state of exception’ means, be implemented ‘right now’, in the realm of ‘real-life, normal, ordinary politics’.

A giant amendment, like the 14th amendment has some features of being, could be the most efficient way to do this. In effect, an entirely new constitution could be written, saying everything before the amendment that is amendable, and is not mentioned in this 28th amendment, is null and void.

Unlike the proposals made in the last two parts of these series, this constitution will need a large degree of federal mandates. Such is the degree of cultural rot and corruption that what would have been common sense to previous generations, having been socially engineered away from public opinion, must be reimposed by similar methods of social engineering.

Subsidiarity will still be a foundational principle, and in terms of economic powers they will be expanded from the current constitution.

But as the Woke cathedral has ‘indoctrinated away’ the ‘silent majority’, and to prevent the emergence of ‘Woke cultural enclaves’ that threaten the cultural health of the entire United States, it is necessary to make federal prohibitions on Wokeism, to ensure Woke activists are the perpetual ‘outgroup’ across all levels of American society, culture, and politics, so they may never again corrupt the Anglosphere.

It also must create self-perpetuating institutions, insulated from popular democracy, which is currently Woke, that can outlast any particular government, and ensure that rulings like those of the Warren Court are forever impossible. An example to emulate would be the Iranian Guardian Council.

Here are the constitutional changes that I believe Trump should mandate, though he himself likely lacks the political vision. Therefore, it may have to be done by a more ideologically-driven successor, even though his successor is unlikely to command the same degree of messianic loyalty. For the parts dealing with Presidential powers, I will refer to Trump.

Increased Presidential Powers and ‘State of Exception’:

The constitutional amendment should clarify that the President has the right to declare a ‘state of exception’, and have power that is beyond constitutional limits and has state power entirely concentrated in their hands. Typically, this would require a minimum two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and may be vetoed by a majority of state legislatures, but in the case of the current occupant of the office, it shall be automatic and last for as long as he is in the White House.

These powers would be used to establish a comprehensive ‘de-Wokeification’ of the federal government, state governments, local governments, universities, the judiciary and legal system, and the media. NGOs like the ACLU and HRC would be forcibly closed and have their assets seized. Millions would be fired from their jobs, tens of thousands imprisoned, and thousands, mostly related to transgender experimentation on children, and of course after a fair trial for ‘crimes against humanity’, given life imprisonment without parole or worse.

Whilst a future Democrat president could hypothetically use the ‘state of exception’, they would be highly unlikely to ever get the minimum ⅔ majority required to do so, especially with the various changes we will explore further down the line, nor could they be elected in the party’s current Woke form, the Democrats becoming a wing of the ‘anti-Woke uniparty’.

A line-item veto, and the ability to completely control the spending of the executive branch (impoundment) and hire and fire government employees (return of spoils system), would also be formally added to the constitution. As per ‘The Conservative Constitution’, the term in office would be increased to a non-renewable six year term, though the change in term limits means that they are ‘reset’ meaning Trump (or more likely Vance, given Trump’s age) can be re-elected for another six years.

Supreme Court Candidate Nominations:

To ensure that Woke justices can never be appointed, all federal judges must be certified by a judicial council, of which the Senate, the President, and 10% of state legislatures may select a nominee to go to a popular vote, but only out of the shortlist selected by the judicial council.

The judicial council, which will basically be an incorporated version of the Federalist Society, will be entirely made up of ‘married men of approved Christian denominations’ as per the constitution of the council, and will be self-appointing, with the ‘guardians’ voting on the replacements if one retires or dies.

To be considered to be appointed, the denomination a guardian belongs to, and thus himself, must subscribe to essentialist notions of universals and reject nominalism, as well as adhering to the heterosexual nature of marriage and the binary nature of the sexes.’ These are unchangeable provisions of the constitution of that specific judicial council.

It is the judicial council which is in charge of the certification of legal training across the United States, and in order to be appointed as a judge at any level, they must not have defied the council or its essentialist ideology.

All judges must be members of one of the approved denominations, taking a pledge to ‘interpret the constitution by its original public meaning, and not expansively find rights, only to be a neutral interpreter of the text, and only vote to strike down legislation which goes directly against the text of the constitution.’

Similarities to the ‘Three Branch Model’ I mentioned in the Previous Part:

I see no reason why the following, that I designed in my hypothetical ‘three branch model’, couldn’t be applied in real life;

• Supreme Court election
• Supreme Court powers
• Senate composition
• State conventions to veto executive orders and legislation
• Senate and state convention ability to override non-unanimous Supreme Court rulings
• Changes to 9th and 14th Amendments
• End to enumerated and unenumerated power divide

However, unlike in that model, where the unbrainwashed public could be trusted to elect sane justices, in America as it right now, candidates for the Supreme Court would in real life need to be vetted by a highly ideologically cohesive judicial council, for both Democrats and Republicans, creating an anti-Woke judicial uniparty.

Christianity as State Religion and Christian Rhetoric in Preamble

Given how easily American civic nationalism was able to be subverted by Wokeism, and the majority non-Anglo ethnicity of even White Americans, Christianity needs to return as a uniting focus.

A new preamble will be created acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and the Holy Trinity, and stating that the United States shall be a Christian nation.

It would guarantee religious tolerance, but would not permit blasphemy, or proselytisation away from Christianity towards atheism, knowing what the New Atheist movement unleashed.

Federal Ban on Gay Marriage

What should have been done in 1996, and would have been had legislators known just how conniving and machiavellian the gay rights movement would be in successfully manipulating the court into doing their bidding against all law, tradition, and precedent.

Unfortunately, given Trump’s softness on this issue, and appointing child trafficker Scott Bessent to be his Treasury Secretary, the chances of this happening under him are zero. Still, I believe it is something which needs to be done to eradicate the cancer of LGBT ideology thoroughly.

No-fault divorce for when the couple have biological children shall also be banned.

‘Across all US jurisdictions, marriage shall be between one biological male and one biological female. The institution of marriage shall be oriented towards the reproductive functioning, and the care and raising of biological children. This by definition may only be between one biological male and one biological female, the mother and the father of the children. This shall not be interpreted that all marriages will produce children, but the essentialist ‘universal’ of marriage shall. In all US jurisdictions, no-fault divorce shall not be permissible when the couple has biological children, and fault must be shown in order to dissolve the union ’.

Federal Ban on Transgenderism and Transgender Mutilation Procedures

Likewise, a constitutional amendment banning transgenderism across all US jurisdictions is required.

‘Across all US jurisdictions, biological sex will be recognised by chromosomes, XX for female and XY for male, unchangeable and determined at conception. It shall be recognised as biologically impossible for an individual to change their sex, and the law shall not recognise mystic, metaphysical, and paranormal concepts to the contrary. There is no distinction between biological sex and terms like ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’, they are to be synonymous in all legal circumstances.

Across all US jurisdictions, those who commit, promote, or assist mutilation on people on the basis of nonexistent notions of gender shall receive a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole.’

Federal Initiatives and Referendums on Topics Where the Public Agrees with Us

It shall be possible, through 5% of the previous election’s voters in at least half the states signing an initiative, to have a binding referendum on immigration, crime, and foreign policy, including wars and signature to international agreements, but no other issues. These referendums will be statutory and not constitutional, but they may only be amended through another referendum, which may be initiated by another initiative (after 8 years has elapsed), Congress or by the President.

State Constitution Requirements

All US states should have a standardised initiative and referendum function, with 8% across a majority of counties for a constitutional amendment, 5% across a majority of counties for a statutory referendum, and 3% across a majority of counties for an indirect initiative.

This of course will not include issues which are constitutionally banned at the federal level.

Reynolds v Sims (1964) would be repealed for state upper chambers, with all states who had the ‘little federal model’ prior to 1964 having it restored. All that did not have it would have each of their counties (borders decided by a ‘permanent gerrymander’) represented in their state Senates with an equal vote as mandated by federal constitution.

Each state Governor would be elected by a state-level electoral college instead of popular vote, which would have federal effects as Governors would appoint federal Senators.

All judges must be elected using the same system as the federal Supreme Court, with nominees needing to be vetted by the federal judicial council.

All of this would empower more conservative rural areas and populists, and disempower elite, smug, ‘no debate’ liberals and judges.

Free Association

Free association for groups based on biological sex, race, and other fixed characteristics will be constitutionally enshrined, repealing Title II and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and banning something similar being passed in the future.

Suffrage Changes

It will be explicitly stated that only US citizens may vote in elections at any level, ballots shall be pen and paper based and counted by hand, ID shall be required at polling stations, and mail-in voting restricted to groups with a legitimate reason, and must be received by polling day to be collected with the rest of the votes.

As J.D Vance has expressed support for doing, Demeny voting will be instituted for all federal, state, and local elections (married couples getting 3 votes if they combine their vote, and additional votes for each child they have). In addition, the 23rd amendment would be repealed, and in order to vote, one must pass a literacy and civics test, and additionally have either paid taxes, own property, or have served in the military or militia. These set of restrictions were partially inspired by

’s ‘Right-Wing Progressive Manifesto’.

Test Acts for Federal Office

All members of Congress, the President, and the executive branch must pledge to ‘follow natural law’, as defined by a minimum ⅔ majority of both chambers of Congress. If they do not, or push motions that go against it, a simple majority in their respective chamber may expel them.

Restrictions on First Amendment Against ‘Culturally Corrosive Ideologies that Corrupt the Fabric of the Nation’

‘Congress has the ability, by a minimum two-thirds majority in both chambers, to ban the distribution of certain ideologies and movements which are geared towards deconstructing the natural order or pose an existential threat to national and civilisational security.’

This basically means that the federal government can continue cracking down on Woke movements, to ensure it can never again poison society.

Conclusion

Trump’s first few days in office have been extremely impressive and a major white-pill, him doing many of the things Project 2025 advocated. I am cautiously optimistic.

However, so long as the Democrats remain subservient to Wokeism, as they look to continue being, shown by the outrage directed at Seth Moulton who called out transgender ideology and the Democratic Senators that voted for the Laken Riley Act, America is only one election away from a return to the Woke regime.

That is why, whilst Kevin Robert’s measures are a good start, they won’t be enough for Trump to do over the course of four years.

At the very least, J.D Vance needs to win in 2028 for any of Trump’s reforms to take effect and institutionalise themselves. There’s also the very real danger that Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas won’t retire during Trump’s second term, leading them to die unpredictably if a Democrat wins in 2028. This is why it is CRUCIAL that Vance wins, even if it involves an election that isn’t entirely free and fair, as Woke control of culture and the media makes no election free and fair.

Trump’s pardoning of the January 6th rioters is a good start, as it shows he is prepared to act extra-legally, as is his termination of birthright citizenship against the constitution.

But in order to truly ‘put the Woke away’ for good, explicitly revolutionary means will be required to lock-in anti-Woke policies, utilising the ‘constituent power’ so that even the Democrats are forced to abandon Wokeism. Extra-legal militias, formed by people like the J6 Patriots, need to be used to force legislators to do Trump, or some other President who succeeds him, to do his bidding at all levels of government.

Let us hope that Trump and Vance have the capacity to be the ‘Caesar’ figures history demands them to be.

Bibliography

Recommend The Anglofuturist to your readers

A magazine promoting ‘Sensible Centrism’ across the Anglosphere. Discusses aesthetics, media, philosophy, history, politics, and living.