The Case for Donald Trump, Part II
Ending the war in Ukraine and avoiding a nuclear WWIII is my top priority, and it should be yours, too.
Why vote for Trump in 2024?
As I mentioned in my previous article, we are faced with two bad choices for President. But I believe there is a small but vitally important difference between the Trump campaign and the Harris campaign. What’s more, this difference, though compartmentalised, is nonetheless significant enough to warrant a clear choice for Trump and the GOP over Harris and the Democrats.
It’s not just about the President
First, we must consider that a modern day American President is not in charge of much at all. Rather, the “Administration” that a President and his advisors put in place are the one who are tasked with creating and executing policy.
At least, that’s the way it is supposed to happen. In reality, much of what the government does in terms of policy — especially foreign policy — is in the hands of “the permanent state” or what some call the “deep state”. These are the career civil servants and agency power players that maintain a common and consistent US foreign policy throughout a succession of different Administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
I have written about this reality in my article, “How to Explain the Deep State to Someone Who Refuses to Believe It Exists”.
The reasons for preferring Trump over Harris mostly revolve around this concept of the “deep state” and the many dangers it poses — not just to American society, but the entire world.
Let’s talk about Israel-Palestine
First, however, I should acknowledge the fact that both Trump and Harris, as well as the Republicans and Democrats in general, are absolutely criminal in their unquestioning support for Israel.
In my article, “How RFK Jr. Made Me a Trumper”, I explained the concept of The Uniparty, and how the GOP and the Democrats are united in matters of economics and especially foreign policy. Israel is an extreme example of this unity.
AIPAC gives lavishly to Democratic politicians, whereas Republican politicians are at the mercy of the 30 million Christian Zionists and their massive lobbying power — as well as their votes. The result is that all US politicians, from both wings of the Uniparty, are falling over themselves in a headlong rush to prove that they are the most devoted — and now extreme — Zionists.
And if you are familiar with my work, you know that I am opposed to Israel and especially the undue influence that Israel exerts over the United States. These are issues about which I have written extensively.
And if you have followed my work, you must know that it was a huge tectonic shift for me to even consider voting for anyone who supports the Zionist entity and the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
And yet, here I am. Allow me to explain.
It’s all about Ukraine
You could say that I am a “ single issue voter”, and that issue is Ukraine. This is because Ukraine is about much more than simply Ukraine. For me, this issue is about the survival of the human race, and of human civilisation.
The neocons
In order to understand the incredible importance of the current conflict, you need to go back to the 1990’s and the ascendance of the “neoconservatives” — a group of policy gurus who ascribe to an almost cult-like belief in the absolute, unchallenged dominance of the United States in the world.
These neocons started infiltrating the corridors of power in Washington under the Clinton Administration. On a foreign policy level, the neocons were concentrated in two areas: (1) control of the world’s energy sources in the Middle East, and (2) control of the energy, mineral and other vast resources in the Russian Federation.
An excellent example of this emerging neocon ideology can be found in Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, who famously declared that the United States was “the indispensable nation”. Albright also defended the US sanctions on Iraq, which were designed to cause a regime change and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. When confronted with the fact that those sanctions caused the death of the 500,000 Iraqi children, Albright said, “we think the price is worth it”.
They exerted power and influence through think tanks and policy groups such as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which was a sort of all-star team of neocons that included William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and Dick Cheney.
These neocons believed that the United States should adopt a stance of “benevolent global hegemony” and exercise “total global dominance” throughout the entirety of the 21st century. Their cause was catapulted by the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror; their call for regime change in Iraq, for example, became a matter of policy and set an example going forward. Regime change became the order of the day, according to Reason Magazine:
“Neoconservatism — or at least an interventionist mindset contiguous with longstanding right-wing assumptions about the American prerogative to serve as a virtuous hyperpower — became the prevailing stance.”
Their manifesto, Rebuilding America’s Defenses was “devoted to matters of maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests”, according to Jochen Bölsche of Der Spiegel.
But here’s the thing: these neocons are still at it. Over the past 30 years, the neocon philosophy has become the dominant ideology in Washington — indeed, it has become the ONLY ideology in Washington. It is what has informed and shaped the foreign policy of every Administration since Clinton, and if left unchecked, it will continue to ensure that America is forever at war — until there is nothing left to fight over.
Democrats are the neocon party of war
The neocon ideology was born under Clinton and came of age under Buch/Cheney, but found its permanent home in the Democratic Party under Barack Obama.
The Democrats had long been striving to rid themselves of the “peacenik” caricature that had stained the party since the time of Vietnam and McGovern, culminating in John Kerry’s cynical announcement at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: “ I’m John Kerry, and I am reporting for duty” (complete with a salute).
Obama: Warmonger in Chief
Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, I believe mostly just for NOT being George W. Bush. But the prize committee had high hopes:
Among the reasons it gave, the Nobel Committee lauded Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.
This turned out to be a cruel joke, and the committee’s praise must have turned to ashes in their collective mouths when Obama proceeded to set the entire Middle East on fire.
Indeed, Obama was one of the most bloodthirsty, warlike Presidents in history. He bears the unique distinction of being the ONLY two-term President under whom America was at war for every single day of his Presidency. At one point, Obama was bombing seven (7) countries simultaneously (more than G.W. Bush). And of course he maintained and executed a personal “Kill List” for his fleet of killer drones.
Obama not only bombed more countries than Bush, he also dropped more bombs in total. Indeed, he dropped so many bombs on Syria that the US forces literally ran out of bombs to drop.
Obama was, in almost every way, the perfect neocon steward of the American Empire:. He was devoted to a Wall Street centred world economy that was maintained in steady turmoil through a succession of Orwellian Forever Wars.
Best of all, this dystopian empire was managed by a person who presented as a “sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” — as Joe Biden once described Obama.
Biden - the ultimate neocon
Many have opined that Obama chose Biden to calm the concerns of the racists who worried about a “black” Presidential agenda. That may have been partly true. But Obama’s choice of Biden really sent the proper message to the neocon deep state stakeholders that the war business would continue as usual.
Biden was the consummate neocon. He never met a war he didn’t like, especially the neocon wars of the Bush Administration. Indeed, Biden is credited with single-handedly rallying Democratic support for the AUMF (Authorisation to Use Military Force):
“What’s the central reason that Congress approved the war? Key Democrats like Biden crossed over and made a deal with Bush,” says Robert Naiman, with the anti-interventionist Just Foreign Policy group.
Even years later, when most people acknowledged Iraq was a mistake, Biden continued to defend it.
Biden’s bellicosity was so pronounced that the Republicans, at their 2020 convention, claimed that Trump was anti-war by comparison. Senator Rand Paul described Biden as someone “who consistently called for more war”. He continued:
“Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War, which President Trump has long called the worst geopolitical mistake of our generation…I fear Biden will choose war again. He supported war in Serbia, Syria, and Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our blood and treasure.”
Biden’s echos of neocons past
Biden’s own Presidency is replete with declarations of neocon dogma.
Now, in the midst of a stalemated war in Ukraine, a second brutal conflict unfolding in the Middle East, and paralyzing political dysfunction at home, President Biden has chosen to revive Albright’s swaggering claim. “We are,” he announced, quoting Albright approvingly in his recent address to the nation, “the indispensable nation.”
When asked whether the US can handle two wars at once, Biden was reflexively indignant, falling back on his neocon hubris:
“We’re the United States of America for God’s sake. The most powerful nation in the history of the world…We can take care of both of these and still maintain our overall international defence. We have the capacity to do this and we have an obligation to, we are the “essential nation” to paraphrase the former Secretary of State [Albright]”.
The Biden style neocons in charge in Washington really believe that the United States is exceptional, all powerful and has an obligation to remain the global hegemon.
In a world that is increasingly multipolar, their world view is extremely dangerous. And when it comes to Russia, they honestly still believe that it’s 1991.
Russia in the crosshairs
In my article, “Slaughtering Russia is U.S. Policy”, I describe how the neocon cabal in Washington has for years planned on the breakup of the Russian Federation, and how seizing Ukraine was the key to the downfall of Putin and the Russian government.
I further explained that such a downfall would leave the disparate parts of the Russian Federation to be “carved up” into digestible chunks that could be absorbed and exploited by Western interests such as BlackRock.
This plan to conquer and acquire the vast resources of Russia remains a primary goal of the neocons — one to which Biden and his cohorts remain dedicated, as do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Biden’s promises of more war
Biden closed out the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, by preparing his vassal allies for a “long conflict” with Russia:
“We will not waver. We will not waver. I mean that. Our commitment to Ukraine will not weaken. We will stand for liberty and freedom today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes.”
When an American President starts speaking of “liberty” and “freedom” then you know more war is on the way.
The looming neocon Armageddon
It is important to realise that neoconservatism, as it is practiced in America, is a powerful ideology. It has religious overtones, and is in many ways not dissimilar to the Zionist ideology of being “God’s Chosen People” or the Nazi ideology of being the “Master Race”.
Manifest Destiny — Redux
In America, this ideology started out as “Manifest Destiny”, the conviction that God had blessed the early American colonists with the great continent of North America, and that it was Americans’ God ordained “destiny” to conquer that territory and subjugate the peoples living in it.
I have written about the fact that the “unshakeable bond” that joins the United States and Israel is based in many ways on this common ideal of settler colonialism and superiority of culture.
But there is a dark side to this maximalist belief in one’s right to rule over others. When that rule is threatened; when the “indispensable nation” is faced with adversarial peers like Russia and China, what does that “God blessed” nation do?
In the case of Israel, they have the so-called “Samson Option” — a military scenario in which Israel, if faced with defeat in battle, will unleash its entire nuclear arsenal in a bid to “take all its enemies down with it”. In other words, a real-life Dr. Strangelove scenario.
So what do the US neocons have planned?
Biden’s plans for Armageddon
Biden and the neocons in charge of foreign policy are still living in the past, when the USA was the undisputed world hegemon. They refuse to allow a challenge from either Russia or China. And the question remains: what will the US do when it becomes clear that America is no longer the one “indispensable nation”?
In March 2024 Biden approved a revision of the United States strategic nuclear posture to contemplate a simultaneous engagement with Russia, China and North Korea. This order, according to The New York Times, arose out of the battlefield situation in Ukraine:
“…the emerging partnership between Russia and China, and the conventional arms North Korea and Iran are providing to Russia for the war in Ukraine have fundamentally changed Washington’s thinking.”
By “Washington”, the Times is referring to the deep state neocons who are actually calling the shots in the Biden White House.
I believe that the neocons running the show under the Democrats would engage in nuclear war rather than see the United States lose its position as the one lone “indispensable nation”.
Defeating the dangerous Democrats
By now it should be obvious that this odious neocon ideology has a firm grip on, and a solid home in, the Democratic Party. If our nation is to survive, indeed if the world is to survive, these deep state actors need to be excised from power.
Kamala Kameleon
As I explained in my article, “Kamala Kameleon 2024: Welcome to Obama 2.0”, Kamala Harris is the ultimate deep state candidate, an “empty vessel” who will carry whatever message, promote whatever policy her neocon handlers give to her. Her speech at the Democratic National Convention was replete with warmongering neocon platitudes:
“As Commander-in-Chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”
She spelled out her neocon orientation and her determination to pursue endless war in Ukraine:
“I helped mobilize a global response — over 50 countries — to defend against Putin’s aggression. And as President, I will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies.”
She mouthed the neocon view of America as the “indispensable nation” in the world:
“As President, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals. Because, in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand — and where the United States of America belongs…We are the heirs to the greatest democracy, in the history of the world.”
The solution: The GOP
The Republican Party is our last, best hope to accomplish the challenging task of defeating these neocons.
“Republicans come to the 2024 race as a party without a dominant foreign policy. The pre-Trump GOP establishment, with its neoconservative lean, has diminished…The party remains at a crossroads on this issue, and the 2024 presidential nominee may become its new navigator for years or generations to come.”
Enter Trump.
What a “Trumpist” foreign policy means
The new, “Trumpist” foreign policy adherents are described by George Mason University political scientist Colin Dueck as follows:
“They have no difficulty believing that a dangerous international environment requires a punitive attitude against numerous threats. At the same time, they recoil from global governance projects, multilateral pieties, and extended nation-building missions overseas.”
Moreover, Dueck says that this “New Guard” of GOP foreign policy strategists have — like Trump — a more “businesslike” attitude towards international relations:
“They back the idea that the U.S. stands at the head of an American-led order of partnerships overseas. They are open to working through international organizations…They tend to favour open trading arrangements with U.S. allies.”
Note the use of the words “partnerships” and “open trading arrangements”. This indicates a move away from the “vassal” status currently imposed by the US on its long-suffering European “allies” and a move towards open relationships as equals.
Trump’s view of NATO is indicative
Trump was widely criticised for his treatment of NATO allies in Europe, especially his demand that they “pay their fair share”. He felt that the US was “being taken advantage of”. Again, this is Trump being “transactional’ and wanting to drive a “good deal” for the US.
Indeed, before and during his time in office, Trump questioned the necessity of NATO, complained about US spending on the alliance, and criticised the underinvestment of many NATO members.
What Trump chose to ignore was the neocon framework in which the US shoulders the financial burden of NATO, but in which NATO members in Europe were then bound, like vassals, to do the bidding of their lord. Trump did not buy into this idea, preferring to deal with the NATO allies as equals — all national leaders who were looking after the best interests of their people, even if it meant taking advantage of American largesse in military spending in order to use their own money to finance lavish social welfare systems at home.
Most importantly, as Business Insider reported:
“Trump also wanted to restore relations between NATO and Russia, which other NATO members strongly opposed because of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its ongoing proxy conflict in Ukraine’s Donbass region.”
Significantly, Trump simply did not recognise Russia as a deadly adversary that needed to be isolated and defeated, but rather another Great Power with whom it would be better to “get along”.
The Plan: Let Trump … BE TRUMP
I believe that a nuclear WWIII can be averted if Donald Trump becomes President and is allowed to pursue a foreign policy of his own choosing. Here’s why.
Trump is a narcissist who calculates his positions and moves based on his own personal motives, preferences, likes and dislikes. He is the ultimate egoist who pursues agendas based on self-aggrandisement, always following a path that he knows — based on gut instinct — will make him more popular with his base, whether that be the cabal of his wealthy Zionist donors or the MAGA fans whose votes put him in the White House in the first place.
No room for ideology
The neocon ideology that permeates Washington demands that we place the United States in a unique category, a “beacon of light” that sets a moral example to the rest of the world, justifying the country’s God-given place as the world’s lone superpower, the global hegemon.
This ideology permeates every utterance made by a US President — except for Trump. Trump is many things, but he is certainly NOT an ideologue. He does not believe in anything but himself, which for our purposes, is a good thing.
As I mentioned above, Trump does not consider the leaders of allied or “friendly” nations to be vassals who must kneel before him and do as he says. He sees them as independent actors, sort of “celebrities”, powerful people in their own right, and Trump LOVES to be around powerful people.
Trump also exhibits respect and even admiration for leaders who are NOT “friendly” with America, such as Kim Jong Un and especially Vladimir Putin.
Respect for Putin
Trump famously caused a scandal when, in a 2017 interview with Bill O’Reilly, he said he “respected” Vladimir Putin:
“I respect a lot of people…He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing,” Trump said.
“But he’s a killer, though. Putin’s a killer”, O’Reilly said to Trump.
Trump shot back: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country’s so innocent?”
Trump continued: “take a look at what we’ve done, too. We’ve made a lot of mistakes” and he referenced the Iraq war.
I say again: Trump’s “respect” for Putin is a good thing. As I have written, the US and the West hate Russia ever since Putin replaced Yeltsin and kicked the Western “carpetbaggers” out.
Putin has rebuilt Russia and turned it into an economic challenger to the United States. For this, Putin has become a hero to the Russian people, but “public enemy number one” for the neocons in the West.
No “zero sum game”
Trump, however, does not see Russia’s success as a threat to the United States. In October 2017, he told Larry King:
“Look at Putin — what he’s doing with Russia — I mean, you know, what’s going on over there. I mean this guy has done — whether you like him or don’t like him — he’s doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.”
A plan for cooperation — not war — with Russia
On Dec. 17, 2015, Trump issued an official statement regarding Vladimir Putin, who had praised Trump as a “talented person”:
“It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond…I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.”
Trump’s recognition of a multipolar world
When he was President, Trump repeatedly invited Putin to visit the United States, and even extended an invitation for the Russian leader to attend a G7 meeting in Camp David in 2019.
As the host of the G7 event, Trump was also entitled to invite other leaders, which he did, saying he wanted India, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, as well as Russia to attend. “I don’t feel that as a G7 it properly represents what’s going on in the world. It’s a very outdated group of countries,” he said.
Trump will end the war in Ukraine
Trump has many very good, very personal reasons to end the war in Ukraine:
MAGA and America First: he has made it a part of his stump speech to halt the flow of weapons and money to Ukraine, and invest that money “back home”.
He can do what others cannot: Trump will leverage his “good personal relationship” with Putin, whom he openly admires, to achieve peace where others have failed. China, India, and others have all floated “peace plans”, none of which made any progress at all. Trump can portray himself as the hero, the peacemaker, by ending the war.
No love lost for Ukraine: Trump has had nothing but bad things to say about Ukraine, which he has called “one of the most corrupt countries in the world”. He will have no problem imposing a peace treaty on Ukraine that does not include any clawback of territory but instead recognises the reality on the ground. NOTE in the past, Trump has defended Russia’s annexation of Crimea, because “it’s what the Crimean people wanted”. He can use the same argument again.
Ukraine is a Biden pet project: It is no secret that Trump sees Ukraine as a corrupt playground in which the Biden family enriched themselves illegally. Moreover, his first impeachment was based on his trying to extract information from Ukrainian President Zelensky about the Bidens and their activities in Ukraine. Trump would therefore have no problem cutting off aid and demanding an immediate end to the war, regardless of what it might do to the “corrupt” Ukraine.
In short, a diminished Ukraine would not matter to Trump. Indeed, he might even get a better deal on building a luxury resort there!
The last point is indeed indicative. Unlike the ideological Biden and the neocons, Trump does not insist that the war can only end with the “defeat of Putin”. Rather, Trump would want to bring a swift end to the conflict so that everyone can get back to doing business — including himself.
The alternative is … death
There can be little doubt that if Kamala Harris and the Democrat deep state maintain power, the war in Europe will only continue to escalate. Multiple red lines have already been crossed. I am sure that more red lines will be crossed going forward, probably to include NATO troops “on the ground” to supplant the dwindling Ukrainian forces (indeed, this is already happening in an informal way).
There is no way that the neocons in the West will accept a Putin victory. If the Ukrainians lose on the battlefield, then the conflict will devolve into a sort of insurgency such as the US organised in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. I described such a scenario in my article, “Washington’s End Game for Ukraine is a New ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’”.
In this scenario, the neocons and the CIA and MI6 will try to duplicate the playbook that worked so well in the 80’s — a guerrilla war fuelled by high tech weaponry that will “bleed” the Russians until they give up, leading to a destabilisation of Russia and — as happened in 1989, an internal collapse and a regime change in Moscow.
As noted neocon Elliott Abrams wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations in a piece titled “The New Cold War”:
“And real resistance to Putin means backing a Ukrainian resistance and supplying it with the money and weapons it will need to bleed Putin. Facing a determined and effective Ukrainian insurgency is the best way Russians may come to conclude that Putin’s gamble has been a disaster — and turn against him”.
It’s madness. It will never work. IT WILL LEAD TO WWIII.
But you cannot argue logic with ideologues.
No — best to have Trump in the White House to put an end to the war once and for all and repair relations with Putin’s Russia.
#End.
If you liked this post, please consider leaving me a tip! Donations support my independent, ad-free writing.
===========================================================================
I agree completely.
Here’s the problem with “single issue” thinking. This isn’t a single issue world and the presidency isn’t single issue job like dog catcher or something.
Trump is not a peace president. He is also a warmonger.
Where the Sullivan-Blinken-Nuland axis behind the Biden-Harris facade want war with Russia and China…….Trump wants war with “Chyna” as he calls it and Iran too.
Guess what happens then? The U.S. is instantly at war with Iran, China and Russia too. Because none of them can afford to see the other fall - they know the U.S. would take them out next.
People will need to reject both the GOP and the Dems in order to stop the war madness.