One Of The Most Influential Writers On The Right

One of the most influential writers on the American right writes under a pseudonym (as America's Founders famously did in the Federalist Papers). On Trump's Liberation Day, he took his pseudonymity a step further and shared the essay below only with his mutuals on X. 

What prompted his essay was this post:

SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: POST WORLD WAR TWO INSTITUTIONS ARE 'NO LONGER FIT FOR OUR TIMES AND OUR ECONOMIC SITUATION'

— First Squawk (@FirstSquawk) April 2, 2025

X etiquette allows us to share what he wrote with you, provided we don't identify the writer, even by pseudonym. Before we get to his thought-provoking piece, a brief market note. 

A Bullish Bet On A Bearish ETF

Later today, we have a different kind of top names trade teed up. As regular readers know, since December of 2022, our weekly top ten names have averaged returns of 18.12% over the next six months, versus SPY’s average of 11.68%.

For most of those weekly top names cohorts, our top ten names have been all stocks. Our security selection system is agnostic though, and considers every security with options traded on it in the U.S., including ETFs, leveraged ETFs, and even leveraged inverse ETFs. For the first time in a long time, our top ten names last night included an inverse leveraged ETF.

Today's top names trade is going to be a bullish options bet on that bearish ETF. We're going to put leverage on top of leverage, and see if we can hit a home run when the market takes its next leg down. If you'd like a heads up when we place it, feel free to subscribe to our trading Substack/occasional email list below. 

And if you just want to limit your risk, you can download the Portfolio Armor optimal hedging app by aiming your iPhone camera at the QR code below (or by tapping here, if you're reading this on your phone). Our app can help you find the least expensive hedges given your risk tolerance and time frame.

Now on to our influential writer's thought-provoking piece. 

Authored by an influential, pseudonymous writer on the right. 

An Inflection Point In The American Empire

We are at an inflection point in the American empire. If we believe Curtis Yarvin, there have been three regimes in our nation’s history; that of Washington, that of Lincoln, and that of Roosevelt.

Admittedly, it’s early for us, but Trump-47 may be the beginning of a fourth regime. Most presidents, like most people, are boring, non-agentic maintainers of the status quo. Though we are told we can just do things, we also observe that most people—including most nominal leaders—won’t.

In this world-historical moment, all political formulae have dissolved, and ideology is in disarray. The most famous black American thinks he is a Nazi, most white nationalists are Mexican, and to be “liberal” in 2025 means to believe in a totalizing-authoritarian commitment to the claim that a man in a dress is a literal biological XX chromosome woman. Meanwhile, “conservatives” wish to upend every aspect of the prevailing social order and raze the federal government down to its foundations.

Liberalism as it was conceived and constituted after World War II, having grown sclerotic, was perfectly embodied in the person of Joseph Biden, a dementia patient being propped up into a facsimile of function by drugs and through the frenetic efforts of increasingly clueless, grown-up children, endlessly scratching their heads and wondering when an adult was going to come and restore order.

As Obama Staffer Ben Rhodes confessed, “When I first went to work in the West Wing, the most daunting thing was how small this place was. ... You walk in, it's three floors, and there's a few offices on each floor and that's it. And you're thinking, "Where are the other people who are going to make sure we get this right?" And then you realize that there are no other people; it's just you in those offices.”

The values you were raised on are now hollow, and most people are flailing to reconcile the slogans and affirmations of yesterday with what is now the case. Liberty has come to mean what you must not say, equality to mean who is above you, and democracy to mean rule by unelected “experts.” Appeals to these words inspire only cynicism, and it’s clear they have been poisoned for a generation if not for several.

We are sorely in need of values that we can believe unselfconsciously, because we humans are composed of stories running on monkeys, and the stories which have brought us here can take us no further.

Post-war consensus liberals (PWLCs), which is what all of us—even the most radical of us—are, tend to focus on the stories of the exclusion of the monkeys, and Anti-PWLCism tends to focus on the monkeys to the exclusion of the stories. For example, a common refrain of a story called PWCL is to blame third world dysfunction on culture, and to pretend that the body (the monkey, the hardware) doesn’t enter into it.

PWCLism is story chauvinism, it’s when the story running on the monkey has contempt for the monkey. The opposite tendency, which PWCL calls fascism, is monkey chauvinism, it’s when the monkey has contempt for the story. PWCL reciprocally identifies its defeated enemy with everything it hates, and everything it hates with its defeated enemy.

Transexuality, Bay Area Rationalism, Berkeleyan Idealism, Gnosticism, and Racial Equality are all examples of story chauvinism, of attempts by the story to completely divorce from the monkey.

Genocide, Primitivism, homesteading, nutritional supplements, Bryan Johnson, and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination are all examples of monkey chauvinism, of attempts by the monkey to completely divorce from the story.

Racism, although it is anathema to PWCLism, is not a form of monkey chauvinism, it is merely the claim that the monkey matters as much as the story. It’s the claim that not every story is compatible with every monkey, some monkeys make a better substrate for stories than others.

None of this should be controversial in the slightest, but the widespread denial of these plain truths leads to all manner of absurdities, most of all to the negrolatry of the PWLC, whose Holy Grail is to find an African woman who is psychologically and behaviorally and indistinguishable from an English man. To the PWCL, such a person would be god made flesh, because she is a radical vindication of his belief in the primacy of story over monkey.

When the ascendant political paradigm is story chauvinism, the populist counter culture reacts with monkey chauvinism. That’s why the new right styles itself as jocks shoving nerds into lockers. When the ascendant cultural paradigm is monkey chauvinism, the populist counter culture manifests as story chauvinism, and that’s why the 60s radical left styled themselves as intellectual and outcasts. You can see how they’re still carrying the psychological baggage and how it has become a liability for them as their intellect is increasingly shown to be bankrupt.

And yet, even self-identified nazis today are merely flavors of post-war consensus liberal, because their self identification exists entirely within the discursive universe delineated by post-war consensus liberalism.

When a contemporary person decides to be a “Nazi,” they are entirely dependent upon PWCLism to tell them what a Nazi is and what that means. When your mental tape loop is cribbed from a small subset of the catechism of your enemy, you aren’t a revolutionary or a reactionary or even a radical, you are a useful idiot. You are a piece of what you imagine you oppose.

Your DNA contains the genetic code of many deadly viruses that our species overcame in its evolutionary history. That’s what evolved immunity looks like, it means you cannibalize and integrate your antagonist into your being so completely that he can no longer hurt you, because he is now reduced to being a fraction of you. That’s what Nazi is is to PWCL, it’s a genetically stored blueprint which is complicit in being its own antibody.

This is also one of the keys to Donald Trump’s civilization-turning charisma: he is not a subset of PWCL but a superset of it. He is not contained within it, but it is a part of him, which is what people are noticing when they compare him to Clinton-era liberals.

To see this in practice, look how effortlessly and effectively Trump wields the rhetoric of PWCLism when he speaks about all Americans of every race or when he praises the gays or the Mexicans or whatever other element of the PWCL coalition.

Edginess is when you invert the rhetoric of the consensus out of an egoistic compulsion to be seen by your audience as their negation. Donald Trump is boorish at times but he is never edgy; he bends words to conform to his reality rather than trying to shoehorn reality into prisons made of words.

In contrast, edgy self-ID’ed Nazis and fascists are doing the exact same thing as liberals who loudly proclaim their love of brown immigrants: they are performing sympathy for the outgroup at the expense of the ingroup, identifying with the Other, only they have selected an Other in a confused way, misprioritizing right-wing concerns so that they can add 2 and 2 and get 5.

Many so-called fascists were vocal Harris supporters, because they’re story chauvinists, PWCLs in Nazi drag, theatre kids whose only moral directive is that they get to keep playing their favorite role in their favorite story.