Two paths diverge in a wood. On November 5th, America will decide which it travels by.

Some, like Christopher Caldwell, say America 1.0 ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It was here where the freedom of assembly was truly lost, and our path from experiment in liberty to experiment in race communism began.

Others, like Curtis Yarvin, will say America 1.0 ended with FDR. It was actually he who turned the government towards diet Communism.

Many still will say that the entire appellation is silly because of course America 1.0 ended with the Civil War

All perspectives are technically right, but in this video I offer a new one. American men still believe in the American system, even if we complain about it a lot. If Trump wins, which I predict he will, we take the blue pill. Democracy, for it’s flaws, will have worked. We’ll enter a decade long period of great prosperity, for America as a whole, but especially for those of us who have put skin in the game on nationalism and Trump. Based businesses will blow up, straight white dudes will get hired as fancy consultants, right wingers will get important TV deals. We’ll all get rich and get laid like never before. It’ll be a beautiful decade. Again, I think this is what will happen, and I think we’ll find out night of, because Trump will win in too large of a landslide to “fortify.”

But if Trump loses, something will happen to the psychology of the American male that has never happened before in the history of country—which is why I call it the real end of America 1.0. If Kamala Harris, deeply unpopular as a national Dem candidate and utterly incompetent as the literal border czar, and thus the overseer of the most pressing and present issue not just in American elections but every recent election in the Western world, is elected president via a freshly fortified voting system (an extreme form of democracy effectively amounting to a click-to-vote) that was overhauled after Trump won, ….well, just imagine if it were literally anything else? Let’s take boxing, if an underdog won and then the favorite had the rules of boxing changed so that he won every subsequent rematch…even if those rules would agreed upon and there was no cheating, how would fans of the sport react? Their trust would be destroyed. It would be obviously illegitimate. They would have no choice but to lobby to fix it, or to abandon boxing altogether.

In the political sense, this disenfranchisement will lead young men away from the distractions that have plagued us for nearly a century, which is to say towards the more natural statue of being politically engaged. The American male is perhaps the least political young male human in the history of the world. All prior generations for the past several centuries met in coffeeshops and pubs and dedicated their lives toward the formation of political parties and the participation in propaganda. Today’s male holds his nose up at these activities, and perhaps, until now, justifiably so…better to focus on starting companies, innovating products, and getting rich. But all that changes if Trump loses. It’s no coincidence that the UK is looking into banning “problematic drinking.” What they actually seek is to destroy the ability for young men to meet and plot and form political parties.

“Coffeehouse Culture” was the precursor, in many ways, to the Age of Enlightenment that gave birth to America in the first place.

“That mixture of news reading, discussion, sharing of ideas [was] absolutely crucial to the rapid spread of the coffeehouse during a period of rapid rise of knowledge,” Hawley explained. It was also the birthplace of periodical literature in England, whereby Hawley said “the coffeehouse was put on paper” in the form of essays. The periodicals Tatler and The Spectator were founded in 1709 and 1711, respectively, through collecting stories from the coffeeshops, which further forged them as the foremost place to learn the latest news.

—— However, some thought this open sharing of news and political ideas was a threat to the monarchy. In 1675, King Charles II’s ministers attempted to suppress and close down coffeehouses on the grounds of their “evil and dangerous effects”. The king feared that coffee may provoke instigation or the plotting of violence against the throne and ordered the “close of coffee-houses altogether”, although he later withdrew the ban two days before it was to be put into effect, Brian Cowan writes in The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the British Coffeehouse.

To be politically engaged is a less pleasant existence, to be sure. It’s the red pill path. But it will also be a necessary correction, and will revert us to a more natural, purposeful state of being. Young men are built for power, not for powerpoint. Truly, the young man is purposeless without a hand in the destiny of his civilization. If Kamala wins, the illusions that have kept him uninvolved are broken for good. It’s back to the coffeeshop we go.

Eric Weinstein masterfully discusses the potential of breaking the spell of “Magician’s Choice” here:

I talk about this and more in above episode!

The Carousel is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.carousel.blog/subscribe