On the Utility of Attacking the Post-War Consensus

A response to Raw Egg Nationalist and some others

Recently,

Darryl Cooper

appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Youtube channel to discuss the myths surrounding World War Two—specifically surrounding Winston Churchill’s status as the “savior of the West”. In this discussion, Darryl Cooper went so far as to call Churchill “the main villain of World War Two.” This obviously made quite a few people angry, mostly on the left but some on the mainstream “right” as well. Many misunderstood Cooper’s remarks, believing him to be making the claim that the West was responsible for Hitler’s extermination campaigns or even his totalitarianism, a claim which Cooper both never made and refutes here. At its core, the argument can best be summarized as “World War Two is a civilizational myth and that comes with issues.” Regardless of what the claim itself even was, attacking the Post-War Consensus, (PWC), is always dangerous territory to engage in and it’s bound to get you some flak. This all should come as no shock.

What I was surprised to see, however, were statements from several individuals both here and on “X” about the utility of launching such an attack at all, particularly with it being election season and Tucker Carlson being tied to J.D. Vance for parts of the campaign.

Raw Egg Nationalist

wrote this essay on the subject, making the claim that this will both tie the Trump campaign to a perception of “fascism” as well as provide our common enemies with ammunition to promote the claim that fascism actually is on the rise while finger-pointing at any examples of World War Two revisionism entering the mainstream. BAP also tweeted on the uselessness of promoting an alternative vision if it keeps the same moral framework, I.E. a sort of “Axis good guy because Dresden worse than Hiroshima” mentality. I respect both of these authors so while it’s worthwhile to address both of these claims, I’ll mainly be focusing on REN’s “election cycle distraction” claim here.

What is the goal of this election

I don’t ask what the goal is for Donald Trump, that answer is obvious—to win. What I mean is, what is the goal for those who think like myself, the men who are thinking beyond the next four years. For me, the main goal of this election is to delay the return of the regime’s censorship apparatus. We already know they want to ban Twitter, and we can all remember what the internet was like before Musk’s “X”. Admittedly, it was more fun in a lot of ways because to be in this “sphere” you had to be smart enough to fly under the radar rather than just spamming slurs into the void, but when it comes to mass attention you do need a little bit of the obnoxious. A return to the censored internet is not good news for us, it means more of the information we want spread will be secluded off in some corner. Substack itself is likely on the chopping block in some manner, particularly if the United States does end up adopting the same sorts of legal measures as the E.U. has with regard to social media.

Fundamentally for me, this election cycle is about buying time. Donald Trump, despite his many positives, is just not all around my guy. Neither is Vance. However, they will be useful in stemming the tide until we are better prepared and organized for the return of the Kamalites. More importantly, the generation reaching adulthood within the next four years is much more heavily aligned with our interests, particularly the young men. This is largely because of the “efforts” of internet trolls, demonstrating that, in fact, rejecting the Longhouse is perfectly reasonable behavior, not characteristic of some sort of personality disorder. A Trump presidency is much more likely than a Harris one to allow this sort of online behavior, as we all know. And I do like some of Trump’s stances: despite his retarded claim of immigration as necessary to combat AI, he is at least against the cat-munchers and wants to force them all to come over legally, (which is only good because it’s slower). Despite his ban on bump-stocks, he’s a lot less likely than Harris to de-bank me for owning a rifle at all. Hopefully he sticks to his guns on defunding the Department of Education. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ll be voting for him despite his flaws.

However, Donald Trump’s election is not the end-all-be-all for me. He’s nowhere near radical enough, nor do I think he’s opening the door for a new resurgence of right-wing populism within the Republican Party itself. However, he already has opened the door for right-wing populism outside of the Republican Party, and this is a tool that we cannot be afraid to use, especially if we might only have it for another six months. This brings me to my next point…

The goal of historical revisionism

What does rewriting the World War Two mythos actually accomplish for us? If the goal isn’t to bring back Hitler, why defend any of Hitler’s actions. More to the point of what’s happening right now, what does attacking the actions of Liberalism during the war actually gain for us.

Well, the answer depends a little bit on your philosophy. If you are incapable of pattern detection a “right-wing liberal/progressive”, then you obviously don’t stand to gain very much from attacking one of the founding myths of modern liberalism. If, however, you are anti-liberal like me, then there is purpose here. Liberalism is primarily able to maintain the “mandate of heaven” due to its claim as the most moral position. Regardless of how you attack the effectiveness of its policies, liberals will always tell you that their ability to represent the interests of the people tops any claims of “disorder” or “chaos”. Despite the silly little mistake of Marxism, liberals in the current year are totally aware of the benefits of the free market, and simply wish to regulate it to the benefit of all. Liberals are the only ones who understand that we’re really all global citizens and there’s no such thing as a border anyways. Etc. Etc.

This myth of the morally superior liberal is rooted in two conflicts: The American Revolution and World War Two. The American Revolution is becoming moot since modern liberals claim the founding fathers were all just evil slave owners anyways; most history professors now teach about a war rooted in fiscal policy rather than the “Rights of Man”. The French Revolution’s “eating of its own” is too well known to use that conflict, although in some ways it still idolized. World War Two, however, is pretty defensible ground. “The Nazis were bad. Japan was bad. Stalin was a necessary ally, and he’s better than the Nazis because racism and antisemitism are the ultimate sin. And we, obviously, are incredibly good. The goodest. If we did a war crime, it was because racists must die, and the Nazis were racist. We had to flatten Europe because it was occupied by Nazis, and the Europeans would rather be bombed into the stone age than racist.”—Something to that effect. Now, most people I see try and fight these claims begin from the standpoint of “The Nazis weren’t so bad”. Zoomer Historian is often an example of this. This is a stupid way to fight, because to a liberal it’s the same as defending Satan, or perhaps worse since Satan is good, actually. However, Mr. Cooper attacked from the angle of “we weren’t completely pure”, and this has much more potential.

(I feel it’s necessary to mention here that I do not believe Darryl Cooper would endorse this essay, nor even the idea of attacking liberalism per-say. I think his efforts were intended exclusively to attack the myth itself—it just so happens that we agree on this one subject.)

If liberalism wasn’t the “good” faction in World War Two, then when did it become the “good” faction. When did it stop being the “good” faction? When did America stop being the land of the good and wholesome? When does it start? You’re already seeing this begin. “America is an idea” has become such a mainstream ideology that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have used the phrase. This is because they have made America the country indefensible by constantly declaring its racism and colonialism—America the Idea is the only thing they can stand on. By making America the Idea’s first war a bad one, you topple America the Idea to being with. It becomes very difficult to indoctrinate kids in school about America the Idea’s heroism when its first war was a power grab. Do we use Vietnam now? GWOT? America the Idea has been pushed to begin declaring the Civil Rights era as its founding; you’ve seen this develop. This is a positive trend; rather than the right-wing being pushed to find new hills to die on, the regime has become engaged in rapid and obvious historical revisionism. This is a much larger positive than any election unless it is a final one.

A final note on elections

Elections themselves often serve as the distraction in U.S. politics. This one is no different. We have to think further ahead than a Trump presidency. Whether your goal is the death of liberalism, the end of the Longhouse, the ceasing of poisons in our food and water, (a subject REN himself does great work exposing), or all three, Donald Trump won’t be accomplishing them. Yes, I believe we should do our best to help him do so, but we must be prepared when he doesn’t.

This is not a black-pill—we’re winning, just not in that way. Even if Trump was “our guy”, it’s important to remember the following:

The 2024 election is not the end, whether we win it or lose it. But if we lose, (whether fair or otherwise), the internet will be a censored place once more in no time. We must use the time we have on a relatively unfiltered internet to spread important information, and attacking the Post War Consensus is qualified to take this status.