“The golden era of America begins now” – Donald Trump, who returns to the White home after 4 years of non-existence, signed the start of the office of president of the United States. It cannot be hidden that political shuffle in the United States has its ubiquitous impact on the full Western world, and even, well beyond that world, it goes. In addition, the fresh (old) president of the United States does not intend to slow down and, from the first day on, realizes his promises, causing, on the 1 hand, consternations accustomed to politics, warm water in the tap’s elites ruling Europe, and on the another hand, is simply a origin of the – uncontrollable – delight of the widely understood right-wing environments.
It cannot be denied that the 47th president of the United States introduces a kind of breath of freshness, which he himself has defined as the revolution of common sense’ – according to any commentators, this is to be a revolution forever breaking with the ideological, cultural and political primacy of the liberal left. However, the issue is not so clear, and making very far-reaching courts about the changes that Trumpism 2.0’s will bring can be disappointing. The presidency of Donald Trump needs to be seen from a much broader perspective, which can show us that an axiological breakthrough within the Western planet can rapidly lose its momentum if it does not adopt the right formula.
The broken edifice of socialism
The election of the fresh president of the United States has already brought changes. Importantly, they began to materialize by how president Trump took the presidential oath. This can be seen in relation to the proceedings of the alleged "Silicon Valley rulers", headed by Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta. Facebook decided to adopt a regulatory policy akin to the X portal Elona Muska – the control of content transmitted on social networks by "fact-checkers", i.e. by persons whose task was to remove entries that were on paper promotions, "hate" or misinformation, but in fact, it was a scuffle for right-wing, conservative or anti-system content. Social media, in the ranks of digital giants, has become a tool to guide political views, social trends, as well as the good news that has reached users, thus deciding what should be pumped up by algorithms and what should be erased from online awareness. Thus, large digital controllers favored the Democrats and their presidential candidates – Joe Biden or Kamali Harris – to which Mark Zuckerberg explicitly admitted. Moreover, a akin tool was utilized by twitter before Musk took over it. Both X and Facebook will now act likewise -fact-check’’ the thought police will be replaced by the anticipation of adding «community notes’ that will straighten out the possible untruth indicated in the entries in question.
Some have already announced that Trump has led to the death of ,woke’, which is simply a general word for the cultural, social and ideological policy of the contemporary liberal left. This is to be seen as a departure from the promotion of alleged transgenderism in the media, culture or even in the usage of social media. As Donald Trump stated, from now on the authoritative policy of the United States will be designation of only 2 sexes – female and male. Indeed, specified a change seems to be a breakthrough, as it changes the direction of the ideological changes that have been expressed in the expanding spread of harmful sex ideology in education, wellness care, media, politics or law,
A very loud event at the beginning of each U.S. President's word of office is the issuing of executive regulations that specify the policy of the fresh head of state in any way and are the implementation of the announced changes. For a political-media establishment, it is shocking that Trump, erstwhile issuing regulations, actually implements the electoral promises that people anticipate from him, and which gave him a decisive victory. Among them are many that are worth paying attention to from a counter-revolutionary perspective. As has already been mentioned, Trump's administration has departed from the ideologie of sex policy, introducing only male and female sex into all national documents, eliminating Biden's existing government in this area, banning backing from the sex national funds from disinvolvement besides in the army, or – most importantly – giving up support before the alleged "sex change" by chemical or surgical means. The reorientation of the American state's approach to the harmful ideology of Trans, which gives hope to defend people, especially children, from harm, is unsurprising.
The policy of alleged diversity, equality and inclusiveness (DEI), commonly practiced in American corporations, education and being part of their authoritative improvement strategies, besides comes from the centre of the political agenda. DEI – which is highly comprehensively described by Vivek Ramasway in his book Woke S. A – it was the origin of the belief in systemic discrimination against certain number groups, which had to be supported by corporations and governments. In this they tried to de facto forcefully implement the intersecration policy, not only by spreading ideological manipulations of ,,bigoterial’ and ,partriarchal’’ political strategy (which was abruptly fighting against this ,partriarchalism’’ began to blissfully support and finance), but besides by undermining de facto American history, culture and tradition. So far, the national government has besides participated. Trump stopped it. He besides gave the level to his parents on what should be passed on to their children in schools, stating in 1 regulation that "parents, not governments, play a fundamental function in the choice and direction of their children's upbringing and education".
Departing from Queer radicalism, highlighting the primacy of parental rights or ending support for left-wing NGOs and equal programs is simply a good direction of change brought by Trump without waiting for circumstantial reforms. Here you can see a very good preparation of the fresh administration, which has gained a wide intellectual background, allowing to actually implement certain concepts. The change actually came, and it doesn't seem to stop. Trump's win brought a certain reversal of negative trends, not only on the sides of parliaments and political cabinets, but besides where human minds are most affected – in culture, education or public debate. This is surely a good start, but it is not enough. Hybrid vokeism was not crushed by the politics of the fresh president. For now, a fragment of it has been moved. But will Trump be able – or will he want – to hit the core of revolutionary madness?
The Case of Life – Opportunism or Strategy?
One of the fundamental issues for conservatives and, more broadly, the defenders of natural order and fundamental rights, is the protection of unborn life. president Trump, as part of his first term, appointed 3 judges to the U.S. ultimate Court, who decided in 2022 to reverse the ruling Roe v Wade, which led to the complete legalization of abortion in the United States. Thanks to the changes in the SCOTUS jurisprudence line, the issue of abortion was reinstated by state legislation, in which any conservative states introduced regulations to safeguard the life of unborn to a greater or lesser extent. Donald Trump frequently emphasizes his merits in this area – abstrahing himself from what function he had in this – and unchanged during the run he reiterated that he felt that the issue of abortion should be subjected to states. During his first office he besides cut off the national backing of abortion, reactivation of the alleged policy. Mexico City. Here, however, we find any serious noise. It turned out that for the people around Trump, a reversal Roe there was an end to the fight – at least at political level – for the protection of the right to life, which was in clear contradiction with both the established position of the Republican organization and the expectations of pro-life environments that advocated the introduction of legal protection of life besides at national level.
It turned out that the issue of abortion became a burden for 45 U.S. Presidents. The abortion referendums held in respective states had an undeniable function in this respect. Roe, leading in the vast majority of cases to extremist liberalisation of abortion laws and entering abortion guarantees into state constitutions, which besides occurred in states considered conservative – Arizona, Ohio, Montana or Missouri. This trend – unfavourable to the pro-life movement – contributed to Trump and his closest supporters starting to retreat from a strong attitude on the protection of life. The president of the United States stated, among another things, that he wanted to search a compromise between the pro-life and pro-choice side,” he repeatedly rejected the anticipation of signing a national abortion ban (candidacy for Vice president J.D. Vance even stated that Trump would veto specified changes) and supported the widespread usage of early-porn pills, as well as the financing of extracorporeal fertilization treatments in-vitro. any commentators on the right effort to link the change in Trump's rhetoric, which he expressed during the full election run besides in pre-election debates, with the request to adapt to the political situation and change narratives, in order to win the election. The subject of abortion became a very powerfully exploited issue by the left, which through its aggressive propaganda, as in Poland and another Western countries, decided to convince the public that the ban on abortion leads to the death of women, their suffering and that Republicans are indifferent to this suffering. The strong radicalisation of the Democratic organization on this issue is evidenced by the fact that, at the National Convention of Democrats, abortion and vasectomy could have been carried out in the applicable "autocarriers". Democratic legislators besides introduced laws in their controlled states allowing abortion to be de facto born. In addition, abortion environments received generous financial support from government, left-wing liberal NGOs and private companies.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, were incapable to argue this communicative and even began to submit to it. An environment close to the fresh (old) president has become a peculiarly strong advocate of letting go. The most visible phenomenon is on the example of the work on the National Programme of the Republican organization of 2024, which was the consequence of the National GOP Convention in Milwaukee. Namely, the program, which non-stop for many years, contained a unequivocal declaration that advocated the side of unborn life, besides formulating a postulate to enter life protection into the U.S. Constitution, was brutally suppressed and removed. During the work on the program, pro-life activists who wanted to protest against specified alternatively than another content of the platform were not allowed to voice and their microphones were muted. While the work on the national programme has always been done in the spirit of discussion, amendment and debate, this time the proposals for amendments to the proposed programme have been ignored and the platform itself, with only 16 pages, has been accepted by most convention delegates. However, most importantly, Eric Trump, the boy of president Trump, said that the changes were made to adjust the platform to the views and beliefs of his father and his family, including Lara's wife, co-chair of the RNC.
As a consequence of the changes pushed through by Trump's advocates – despite voices of opposition, among others, erstwhile Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – for the first time in 30 years the GOP political program was deprived of a clear declaration on the side of life. And if in 2016, the Republican organization platform says: We affirm the sanctity of human life and confirm that an unborn kid has a fundamental right to life that cannot be violated. We support the amendment to the Constitution on human life and government to clarify that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment concerns children before birth. So in last year's organization program we can only read that After 51 years, thanks to us, this authority (as regards abortion) was handed over to the States and the People's vote. We will argue abortion at a late date, while supporting mothers and policies promoting prenatal care, access to birth control and in vitro fertilization (in vitro fertilization). This change became something that caused large concern for pro-lifters, including Lilie Rose, and declarations by any of them that they would not vote for Trump, thus showing their anger for ignoring and losing the pro-life case.
Interestingly, the main argument of supporters – frequently even unreflective supporters – of president Trump on the allegations of pro-lifters, was that they had no choice’ and that Kamala Harris was an even worse choice. Doesn't that look like something? Isn’t that a classical argument referring to “minor evil”? Looking at the issue of life protection more broadly, it may turn out that Donald Trump did so fundamental harm to the origin of life that even bringing about a reversal Roeis not compensation.
After taking over the presidency, Trump fulfilled any of the most crucial demands of the pro-life movement. Apart from the fact that he gave a speech to participants of the March for Life in Washington, D.C., which is evidently in the image movement, he signed a pardon for 23 pro-life activists being prosecuted by a national criminal apparatus, halted financing abortion abroad from national funds, repealed Joe Biden's pro-abortion legislation, or limited backing for abortion from national funds. However, doubts remain. They are peculiarly afraid with Trump's nomination for his fresh cabinet, where the wellness secretary candidate is Robert Kennedy Jr. – a politician who has been active with the Democratic organization for years and declared advocate of abortion on request. Especially outrageous to pro-life environments is that Kennedy is to become a wellness secretary, and so he will be straight liable for national wellness policies including with respect to the protection of life. During the Congressional hearings, Kennedy confirmed that he would implement the Trump's policy in this respect and that he believes that any abortion is simply a tragedy. However, the message of support for the 47th President's policy in this case is not very convincing, considering what approach Donald Trump himself has in this case.
Although, of course, the decisions of the president of the United States on life are crucial and will be of affirmative importance for the protection of unborn people, it should be borne in head that they are not due to any sincere convictions or determination, but to the request to meet the expectations of voters. At this point, however, there will be a voice of opposition saying that there is no another way, that there is no choice but to adapt to certain circumstances. However, this is not true, and the best example is the Florida politician Ron Desantis. In Florida, on the day of the presidential election, a referendum on amendments to the State Constitution was held, among which was Amendment 4, which included the right to abortion de facto without any restrictions in the Florida Constitution. Unfortunately, the polls were not beneficial for life defenders – most of them showed that the amendment would be adopted by a large majority, exceeding the 60% threshold required. In most cases mainstream politicians, including right-wing views, distanced themselves from the referendum run or the remaining passive. For example, the Republican Senators of Florida, or Donald Trump himself, who, let us remind, lives in Florida and took part in the referendum itself. 47 It was only after force that the president stated that he would vote against abortion liberalisation, stating that the Florida ban on abortion over six weeks was besides restrictive.
The politician of Florida took a completely different approach. DeSantis assumed leadership in the work on defeating the amendment, by launching a fresh PAC to fight it, carrying out an investigation into the alleged fraud utilized to collect signatures that put it on the ballot card, appealing to another Florida Republicans to vote against the amendment, or directing the State wellness Department to fight the amendment. In addition, Desantis's wife, Casey Desantis, took a very strong vote against the amendment (that's adequate correspondence with Melani Trump's position, which in her latest book explicitly advocated abortion). The efforts of the politician of Florida and pro-life activists have been successful. Despite the pessimistic polls, 57% of voters voted in favour of the amendment, thus failing to scope the required threshold needed to change the state constitution. This is simply a crucial victory, as abortion environments have directed far more resources to the referendum run than the pro-life movement. In addition, for the first time in 2 years since the repeal Roe the legal anticipation of depriving unborn people has not been extended. akin success was achieved in South Dakota and Nebraska.
This determination of pro-life activists and politician Desantis led to the failure of the abortion movement. It turns out that it is the clear declaration of politicians and their uncompromisingness that is key to stopping the ideological offensive of the liberal left, not of concessions. However, we can only require this from politicians who are truly ideologically shaped and with clear views, and specified a policy is not Donald Trump.
A quarter-contravolution is only the beginning
Conservative and national environments, including those operating in Poland, must quit the belief that Donald Trump's presidency will bring about a complete reversal of the ideological «walker» that has been passing through the western planet for many years. We must remember that democratic policy is guided by certain rules of the game, which president Trump has already partially broken, but we do not know how much further he will be able to go. As indicated above, the fresh reforms of the president of the United States bring many affirmative changes that prove that liberal-left ideology is not something that cannot be fought at the legal, political or social level. Donald Trump, however, will not bring us a complete counter-revolution that will break the demoliberal skeleton. His actions are not motivated first by sincere idealism – as I indicated in the following text – but besides by political or legal change is not sufficient. In this case, it can be a trailer for us of a favorable trend, which has stopped in a non-reflective way moving towards civilization's chaos. But trends alone are not enough. It may turn out that after the end of the word of office, whether Trump or another anti-systemic policy options, no permanent change will be made. A circumstantial model of shaping political power requires – after all – to adapt to certain expectations of voters who will not necessarily be curious in a complete departure from the constitutional-legal, "do business" of the liberal left, and erstwhile they return to power, the politicians will simply return to their earlier policies, making the "revolution of common sense" just a memory.
Trump's politics, or another politicians like him, brings them closer to determining what Plinio Corraa de Oliveira utilized in his book Revolution and Counterrevolution – this is the concept of semi-controvolutionist. According to Olivier: The spirit of the Revolution will proceed to be enthroned in the mentality of these half-controvolutionists.” In a nation where most are in specified a state of soul, the Revolution will not be suppressed until people change. In relation to these words, the president of the United States, but besides more broadly – another leaders of political formations ideally referring to conservatism, nationalism or patriotism – are not even semi-contro-contro-volutionists, but, in fact, the Quarter-contro-volutionists.” Their foundations are mostly defined by democratic-liberal dogmas, frequently accepting the already made achievements of the ideological revolution, against which opposition is not politically viable. Yes, the actions of specified politicians can bring good changes or opportunities for perfect activity, but they are frequently temporary, fragile. Especially erstwhile these contrrevolutionists’ usage a publically left-liberal language, calling at least the full protection of life a postulate ,,,mostly right-wing’. And without a change of language, permanent cultural thaw is not possible.
We can support Trump for his good changes, but we must not forget that further the United States and in general the full Western planet are in a state of cultural and moral disintegration, which he will not be able to change the opportunistic policies, advocacy of the demoliberal political and political order. Indeed, a permanent change can only come through the moral and cultural renewal of societies which no politician will perform. This can only be done by a truly strong social, cultural, wide-ranging civilization that will now usage the gust of fresh air’’, which will undoubtedly bring Trump’s presidency to build independent organisations, advance a culture of life and family, encourage politicians to stand firm on the side of the values of Latin Civilization. Democratic politicians who are uncompromisingly and unequivocally going to advocate a conservative and national policy can aid in this fight, but without strong ground that needs to grow bottom-up, they will not be able to act effectively. We will not do the cultural fight through politics, but through bottom-up work. The unreflective belief that political decision-makers and activists can do this will only bring disappointment, defeat and passiveness.
Pius XI wrote in the encyclical Quadrgesimo Annathat: Before the desired renewal of the social system, there must be a revival of the Christian spirit, to which so many people in economical life are mistrusted. Without this, all efforts will be futile, and the building of the strategy will be raised on the volatile sand, not on the rock. Donald Trump's presidency may not be the salvation of the Western world, but it is simply a kind of catharsis – a shock that undermines any of the so-far-considered unquestionable, demoliberal dogmas. This shock, purification is simply a good time to make a bottom-up activity in which everyone who believes in the future of the Latin Civilization and its most crucial values – the nation, religion, tradition, family, beauty will be involved. We must end with excessive optimism and usage – besides in Poland – the transition of the political spectrum to the right even a small bit, creating a space for changes that will last long after Donald Trump or another democratic politicians cease to execute their offices. They may become the echo of the future, but our civilization does not.
Photo AFP
