

This is the typical American political compass:


![[Group 1.png]]


The X-axis is Social Values and the Y-axis is Fiscal Values, and each of them can be conservative or liberal. Therefore, there are four different positions which we can take. These four positions are represented by the four numbered squares. They are:

1. **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal**
2. **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative**
3. **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative**
4. **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal**

Now:

What do we know about each of these positions?

1: **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal**
This is the traditional Democrat position. These people are typically in favor of “socially liberal” aspects of society like gay marriage and modern art, and they are also in favor of “economically liberal” policies like free healthcare.

2: **Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative**
This is the Libertarian position. These people are traditionally advocates of “small government” and “individual rights.” They support socially liberal policies because they don’t want to use government for social purposes, and they support tax cuts because they don’t want to use it for economic purposes either.

3: **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative**: This is the traditional (pre-Trump) Republican position. It is the Mike Pence, George Bush, Koch Brothers position. It is in favor of “socially conservative” policies like banning abortion, and also “fiscally conservative” policies of small government and free trade. Therefore, we will label #1 as "Republican."

4: **Socially Conservative, Fiscally Liberal**: So far, the other three ideologies are pretty simple. But what is this one? How many people in America identify as "socially conservative, fiscally liberal?" That is rare. Apparently, this ideology has no name. It is an entire quadrant of our political compass that is rarely seen or heard. It seems to bear some resemblance to Trump - who spends money using the government, institutes tariffs, and also supports socially conservative policies. But is it new? Why is it only happening now, and not any time in the past 60 years?

All of these are important questions, which we will come back to later.

As for now, here is the updated version of the compass:


![[Group 2.png]]

So, now that we have mostly mapped the different ideologies, we should examine the real question: 

Why is America so unstable?

Most people in 2025 can see how the Democrats contribute to instability. After all, many liberals and Democrats don't even like America. They certainly don't like America's founders. They seem to enjoy pointing out past American failures like slavery, and import large numbers of illegal immigrants into the country.

All these things create political instability. They always would, in any country through history.

The real question, though, is how America reached this point. How did we arrive at a time when statues of the Founding Fathers are being defaced and torn down?

Every nation has its discontents. Every nation has its enemies. If we really want to know why America is falling, we shouldn't look at those. Instead, we should look towards the people who are supposed to stop them: the Conservatives. The "Right Wing." In the Postwar era, this is typically the Republicans.

For the past 80 years, Republicans have generally fallen into category #1: Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative. This means that:

1. Republicans are known to be more in favor of traditional Western culture
2. Republicans are in favor of capitalism, as opposed to socialism or communism

Most people in America consider both of these things to be "patriotic." That is why Republicans are considered "right-wing," "conservative," and so on. It is also the reason why Republicans have historically supported less immigration than Democrats. It is the reason why Trump ran as a Republican, even though he doesn't exactly represent either of these values himself.

To understand Trump and our current situation, we have to ask: why didn't conservatism work?

Clearly, Republicans have not conserved anything. They have let in vast amounts of immigrants, and have shipped countless jobs overseas. Through this, they have overseen the destruction of vast swathes of towns and communities across America. American culture is vastly more modernist, less religious, and less Western than in 1960. Additionally, more than a third of the people in America here have no pre-1960 ancestry.

Why have "conservatives" supported immigration and outsourcing, even though they are not good for the citizens? Generally, the answer is money. Since 2016 immigration and free trade were pillars of the Republican platform. The "conservatism" of Republicans has clearly been focused on GDP, not on culture or people. Because of this, the international capitalism of the Republicans has destroyed vastly more American culture than it has saved.





Now, people are beginning to realize this. They are putting their hope in Trump and Vance; hoping someone will fight for them again. And someone will. But there is a hidden cost.

This four-part political compass represents options of government for a people. As far as I am concerned, most of the people who came to America after 1960 have little to do with me or my culture. The entire point is that we are shrinking; we have been since 1945. The reason is that we have no nation. We have been driving on autopilot for 60 years, and now it is beginning to actually hurt us.

As people continue to wake up to the current situation, there is only one question that matters: will America once again be a nation, or will it officially become an empire?

So far, there is no decision. Nobody knows the answer. Trump and Vance sit on the fence, because it does not benefit them to make a choice. But the real political conflict, the coming one, will be along these lines.

People think Trump, Vance, Megan Kelley, Peter Thiel are nationalists. They aren't. They are Empirists.

They are in the game of power, for the sake of power. They are not trying to create a cohesive organism; they are trying to create a system that can rule over as much territory and as many people as possible.

Once this system is created; once it is solidified; many problems will be solved. Immigrants will be sent back. Peace will be restored on the streets. But the cost will be that Americans - real Americans - no longer have a nation. We will be cocooned in what is called America, which is really just the administrative seat of the Empire, enjoying ourselves and gradually shrinking into the void as a people while others take the reins.








What do the Republicans represent? They represent Empire; power for powers' sake. They represent individualism, humanism, multiracialism, and globalism.

Republicans, not Democrats, are the bearers of the Enlightenment. They are the lovers of multiculturalism. They are the ones who are focused on seeing the Enlightenment go as high and as far as it can go. The Democrats are merely a concoction of minorities and discontents; of people who would like to lead a nation and people who can't exist without one.

In this sense, the Democrat party ends up being the more self-sufficient one. If the Democrats had their way, America and its empire would come crashing down. America would balkanize into multiple nations, each with its own responsibilities and more specific identity than "American."

This is probably what will happen anyway. But not yet.

Republicans represent a passing of the torch; a peaceful bargain to give away American land and responsibility to other races. This is what Rome did with the Ilyrians, Spanish, North Africans, and, most of all, the Germans. And, for a time, it worked.

After the Republic fell, the Roman Empire survived for a long time. It had Gallic, Thracian, North African, Balkan, and Spanish emperors. Much of that time was troubled and chaotic, but Rome still survived.

Finally, in Rome, the Germans gained enough power and energy that peaceful assimilation turned into violent conquest. Most people don't know that the Germans settled peacefully in Rome for generations; in fact, it was *legal* Germans who began the riots that destroyed the Western Empire. 

So yes, assimilation can happen for a time. But just like an organ transplant, it always shortens the lifespan.

It also degrades social bonds. It creates a fractured state in which citizens are often forced to rely on regional powers, and a cutthroat government which is held together by nothing but personal ambition of individual rulers.







How do we square this? Is something off?

Yes, something is very off.

The problem is that Communism and Socialism have been lumped together as "government action" - but this does not make sense. Even before Capitalism, in the Middle Ages, governments routinely took actions in the economy. This continued with leaders like Bismarck in the 19th century. Nobody called Bismarck a socialist, though - he was the imperial ruler of Germany.

Today, if I were to say that we should have an imperial rule by a royal family, people would think I am insanely right-wing. However, if I were to say that I want to increase government spending on social policies for the poor, people would immediately put me on the left. How does that make sense?

Is this horseshoe theory? No. it is simply a lack of understanding.





Most people say that Republicans are Democrats going the speed limit, and that is not actually true. Republicans are not Democrats going the speed limit; they are the foundation that allows the Democrats to be what they are. Republicans are the *source* of the American Empire, just as they were in 1865.

Republicans are passionate about conserving legal immigration and economic growth. They are passionate about "individualism."

What are Democrats for the past 80 years?

1. Just like Republicans, but socially liberal
2. Against international corporatism, but in favor of even more immigration than Republicans







Now, let us consider the Libertarian definition of government for a second.

Government is an entity which has a monopoly on force.

Therefore, if you are socially conservative and fiscally liberal, what does that say?

It says that you are a part of a biological entity, a nation, and this nation uses force to support its members. 

How much force do your people have behind you?

How much force supports people like you?

And, as we now know, the answer for the past 80 years has been none.

That is what the Republicans and Democrats have in common: they will not act in favor of the American people.

The lack of "America First" politicians is not new. It did not start with Obama, or Bill Clinton, or any other modern president. It started with Hitler.

Since Hitler's loss, our "Left" and "Right" have agreed on one thing: we will not put force behind our people. Our "Right," which we have typically considered the nationalistic side, is actually the Left. It is the side which demands we do not put America first. It is the side which demands individualism, outsourcing, and international cooperation. The "Left" is just the boogeyman that allows the "Right" to keep going.

Do you get it yet?

In America, "Conservatives" are conserving our collective pacifism. "Conservatives" are supporting constraints on our freedom of association. "Conservatives" are supporting legal immigration. 

Democrats are simply pushing to do it faster. 

If you want to understand why our politics is confusing, forget about the Democrats. Since the beginning of time, every nation has had malcontents and foreigners that want to bring it down. That isn't new or surprising.

If you want to understand why America is in chaos, if you want to understand why the Democrats always get their way in the end, you have to ask the simple question. And you have to ask it to the *Conservatives*:

Why don't we ever fight back?

For 60 years, the Conservatives have been telling us why not. 

They have been telling us about Hitler. They have been celebrating his defeat.

Since then, not a single important politician has occupied that fourth quadrant on the compass.

Not a single politician has been socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

Since then, our people have had no force to back our interests.

So, we have been shrinking ever since.