As mid-term elections approach in the United States, President Trump’s political future is at stake. In this essay, I argue that these elections are not only about Trump’s future but the future of reason and civilisation in a world where madness has seized the reins of power.
This is perhaps the first time in modern history where expressing support for the US president could get you fired from your job, or abruptly excluded from polite company. Ask any respectable middle-class person what they think of Trump and you are sure to hear negative feedback: how could anyone defend such an awful and odious creature? Trump is racist. Trump is a misogynist. Trump is fascist. Trump is nasty. Trump is bad. Trump is a danger. Trump is stupid. There aren’t enough synonyms for bad in the thesaurus of left-liberal Trumpophobia. Yet, in many respects, Trump is, thus far, probably one of the greatest presidents in modern US history. Since coming to power, the prospects of total war with Russia have diminished; North and South Korea have declared an end to their long war; NATO has been weakened, and the prospects of a final Assad victory in Syria look promising. Oh, I realise that liberals reading this may now be a little upset, perhaps even lachrymose; but intelligent liberals – and there are many – will nevertheless appreciate some contextualisation.
As president of the United States, Donald Trump sits at the top of the global ruling-class hierarchy; yet he is constantly threatened by the rank and file of his government. Trump is a king in an era when divine-right no longer exists. He is surrounded by a globalist Deep State determined to undermine any attempt to weaken the powers of global institutions- ironically institutions the United States created after the Second World War.
By now, most people realise that there is an enormous gap between what Trump says and what he ends up doing. Trump threatened to wipe North Korea off the map, then went further than any previous president down the road of peace. Trump even praised the DPRK’s leader Kim Jong Un, saying he was genuinely admired by his people! But of course, the liberal leftist will guffaw and say, “ How can one possibly praise such a regime as North Korea!?”
Explaining the fact that North Korea lost a quarter of its population during the US-led bombing in the 50s; that US sanctions have isolated and impoverished the country; that South Korea has consistently threatened the North over the years with US-backed military drills; that in spite of having to defend itself for 70 years against the most powerful empire in world history, the tiny Korean nation has managed to provide high-quality free housing, education and health care to its people – such facts are of no interest to middle-class leftists.
A wise man does not waste time explaining such things to a liberal for the liberal only sees the surface of things: North Korea doesn’t have RocknRoll, Hollywood and LGBT parades, so it’s obviously a tyranny! Trump was the first president to acknowledge that the US is partly responsible for escalating tension in the Korean peninsula. What is obsequiously lacking in the mainstream media discourse on Trump is any inkling of logical subtlety. Trump has been elected, pompous leftists say, because of the ignorance of the masses. It never occurs to them that it is the ignorance and stupidity of left-liberal pseudo- intellectuals which have been the fons et origo of right-wing populism’s Will-to-Power.
Trump is the bogeyman of the liberal leftist. He advocates policies that promote the Middle Class, yet it is precisely middle-class progressivist ideology which opposes him. There are several reasons for this: Middle-class progressivists are what Lenin referred to as the vacillating class; they want to be seen as supporting the worker but always get into bed with the capitalists. If they support any worker’s cause at all, they always make sure it’s financed by some philanthropic sugar-daddy oligarch.
Middle-class progressivism is simply degenerate vanity – all form and no content. The election of Trump has enabled the exposure of middle-class leftism to much-deserved ridicule. Middle-class leftism has become the burlesque of our era. Activists recently interviewed Bernie Sanders supporters and asked them if they agreed with his policy of exempting families who earn under $50,000 per annum from tax. They all agreed but were shocked to find out that the policy had been proposed by Trump! If you asked a middle-class leftist whether they would support a policy banning cars and forcing everyone to use public transport to ‘stop global warming’, they would probably agree, until you tell them that such policies would make our capitals like Pyongyang!
Leftwing and right-wing populism
So, how should we understand this new phenomenon of elected leaders with popular support but overwhelmed by government intrigue and the hostility and treachery of their rank and file? What is shows is that the global power dynamic has changed. Oligarchs may have financial power, enough to brainwash entire populations through the mass media; but they are losing political power as the mass discontent votes for the ‘far right’ or ‘alt-right’.
We have seen this phenomenon work in favour of the left in Latin America. Venezuela’s former President Hugo Chavez had massive popular support yet the oligarchy he opposed remained in power, with large sections of the mass media under their control. When I visited Venezuela in 2010, it was difficult to find pro-Chavez media amid the constant US-backed propaganda from CNN in Spanish and Columbian right-wing media. I met advisors and close collaborators of the Venezuelan president who lived among the people. It was clear to me that the government’s ideology had not acquired cultural hegemony. Something similar is happening with right-wing populism in the United States and some European countries, though there are important differences.
The US war against Venezuela has continued under Trump and shows no sign of abating. However, one of the problems in Latin America is the influence of left-liberal discourse from America and Europe. For example, Hugo Chavez was influenced by French climate change ideologue Hervé Kemp. He failed to realise that, far from being a threat to capitalists, the climate change agenda is being promoted by the most ruthless and greedy capitalists who have ever existed. If the global warmers have their way, we will pass from monopoly capitalism to world-state capitalism where C02, the basis of life itself, will be controlled, harvested and sold as a commodity by carbon speculators. People infected with CO2itis just never seem to get that!
Yet, unlike Trump, Venezuela’s incumbent Nicolas Maduro is astonishingly unaware of this. In his 2010 film, ‘Occupy Unmasked’ Trump’s chief ideologue Steve Bannon shows how petit-bourgeois anarchists, financed by oligarchs, promote social chaos in the United States – to the benefit of crony capitalists. Bannon correctly points out that many of these youth are well-meaning but hopelessly ignorant of how the world works. Many of them have connections with Venezuela. Bannon’s film is an excellent overview of the cultural, political and ideological crisis facing the United States and the entire Western world. You can be absolutely sure that the average anti-Trumpist leftist has never seen it and many anti-Trumpists would simply not have the intelligence to understand if they did watch it!
The preponderance of the societal left and their oligarch-funded agendas of human rights, gender theory and global warming, anti-racism and other forms of middle-class bienpensance has opened the door to reaction. We can see this clearly in Brazil. The rise of Bolsarano in the recent election is largely a result of the stupidity of liberal left ideology.
When the CIA was destabilising the country with mass protests in 2013, the liberal left ranted and raved about a ‘spontaneous uprising’ against ‘neoliberalism’, completely unaware of the danger posed by left-nationalism, albeit tame in the case of Brazil, to US interests in Latin America. My series of articles on the 2013 uprisings ‘Brazil’s Vinegar Revolution: Left in form, right in content’ published on Dissident Voice was the only analysis which described the confluence of class struggle and geopolitical agencies of globalisation. I predicted then that the idiocy of the left would open the door to the right. But I suggested the Empire would back more globalist candidates such as Marina Silva. She failed.
It is unclear if Bolsarano is really the candidate of the Empire. His homophobia and strong nationalist stance may not chime with globalist interests. His admiration for the right-wing thug and freemason General Pinochet, installed in Chile in the 1973 coup by the US government, Henry Kissinger in particular and the brutal US-backed military regime in Brazil does not bode well for Brazil’s future if he is elected president. However, we should not overlook the fact that both the Chilian and Brazilian dictatorships were overthrown with help from the US National Endowment for Democracy. Thugish and murderous regimes they most certainly were, but thuggery with a liberal democratic facade is far more propitious to imperial interests and worse again for the labouring masses.
Arte television subsequently made a documentary on the ousting of former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. They interviewed one of her supporters who said, “ The right-wing are white, heterosexual men!”. So the white heterosexual male is the reason millions of Brazilians live in poverty!
Journalist Glen Greenwald says that the corruption of left-wing governments is partly to blame for the rise of the populist right. No! From Eastern European colour revolutions to the Arab Spring, ‘anti-corruption’ has long been the tool with which oligarchs manipulate popular power to overthrow governments hostile to their interests.
Had the left actually investigated the imperialist motivations for the ‘anti-corruption’ campaign in Brazil from 2009 to today instead of cheering on CIA-backed ‘spontaneous uprisings’, they would have been doing the poor a service.
And if instead of denouncing Bolsarano’s ‘homophobia’, Glen Greenwald exposed the LGBT movement’s links to paedophiles and elite backing from hyper-capitalists such as Soros, reaction would have less breeding ground in Brazil. Glen Greenwald’s brand of smug, middle-class leftism is the reason why workers in Brazil are voting for Bolsarano. Who can blame them?
In any case, terms such as revolution and reaction are meaningless in an age where revolutions are sponsored by those in power and reaction is simply a symptom of popular frustration and resistance, often woefully articulated.
The New York Times and its French equivalent Le Monde are the belligerent harpies of some of the most heinous criminals of our era; they present child-raping, head-chopping mass murderers as ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘heroes’. They promote sexual degeneracy and every type of pseudo-science capitalism can invent. For those schooled in the classics of Marxism, such values represent the far right. Christians would call it the far wrong!
It is hardly surprising that these ideologues behave in such a smug fashion; they are absolutely convinced of their moral superiority, even though when challenged, they invariably fall back on the effete postmodern doxa that ‘ there is no truth’. As I’ve argued over the years, middle-class leftism is imperialism with a human face. It is, however, a far more degenerate form of imperialism than that of the past; and here it is time to break another taboo of leftist bien pensance!
When European powers scrambled for Africa, they did so on the basis of their own intellectual, moral and technological superiority. They did not hide the fact that they felt entitled to rule over African nations and many of the colonialists felt they were doing good, as they were spreading Christianity and that aspect of colonialism is most certainly true. Christian missionaries such as Charles de Foucauld and Archbishop Lefebvre dedicated much of their lives to spreading the Gospel in Africa. They preached love and charity while secular leftist colonialists such as Jules Ferry propagated hate and racism.
On this day, Catholics celebrate the life of St René Goupil, a French Jesuit missionary who was martyred in Canada by Iroquois savages; they tortured him to death. The Iroquois savages of our time are the middle-class, gender-confused, ecological nincompoops protesting against Donald Trump! Sancta Renate ora pro nobis!
It should be repeatedly and vehemently proclaimed that some of the most notable supporters of colonialism, were leftists, such as France’s Jules Ferry – the architect of the French education system. But I have never seen any protests to remove his name from public life.
No one criticised President Francois Hollande when he paid homage to the racist ideologue in 2012. But there was uproar when President Trump criticised violence on all sides when leftists attacked protestors against the removal of the statue of US Confederate leader Robert E Lee. Lee, unlike Ferry, Robert E Lee sympathised with the plight of black slaves and opposed slavery
Lee believed that black slaves were better off in America than in Africa where many had already been enslaved and were often treated with equal if not worse brutality. He also hoped that Providence would liberate them. He was arguably far more humane towards black people than Jules Ferry
But Jules Ferry’s racism is tolerated because Ferry was an anti-Catholic freemason; and, as former French Minister for Education Vincent Peillon has argued, secularism is the state religion of France and the Free Masons are its clergy.
Neocolonialism is far worse than colonialism. Colonialism built cities and infrastructure; and most importantly in the case of French and Spanish colonialism, spread Christianity among backward and barbaric cultures.
Neocolonialism bombs and invades developing countries in the name of human rights. Need I point out to the good reader, once again, that in 2011 France’s ‘left-wing’ leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon DEFENDED NATO’s carpet bombing of Libya while the ‘far-right’ candidate Marine Le Pen opposed it. Donald Trump was not among the cheerleaders of the war. Before his election, Donald Trump repeatedly opposed US military intervention in Syria. He admitted the US was arming terrorists and spreading chaos and destruction throughout the region. Trump’s position on foreign policy was clearly far to the left of belligerent neoconservative/liberal establishment. It is the reason why astute observers welcomed Trump’s election while idiots raved about the ‘rise of fascism’.
Today, middle-class progressives are perfectly happy to see any African country bombed into the stone age if word and image can depict its leader as a ‘brutal dictator’ who is ‘killing his own people’. The ‘left-wing’ of middle-class leftism has a tried and tested technique of hiding under the table during outrageous imperialist bombing campaigns, then defending their actions when the country is destroyed. For example, Le Monde Diplomatique published almost nothing during the 6-month bombing of Libya in 2011; not one article about the war propaganda and lies used to justify the destruction of Africa’s richest nation. A year later, Le Monde Diplomatique actually defended the bombing, claiming that democracy had come to Libya! The left-liberal rag constantly pokes fun at philosopher and Zionist activist Bernard Henri-Lévy; yet fails to praise him for his ‘good deeds’ in Libya and Syria!
Middle- class leftism is all about prestige. Leftists hate the working class because they do not have the same level of ‘culture’. Workers have no time for rhetoric about the ‘public sector’ and ‘neoliberalism’ and migrant rights, feminism and contemporary art. Workers want jobs, a country they can call their own and real families with real men and real women as parents and children who respect their parents.
What horrifies middle-class liberals is that Trump behaves in a fashion similar to their condescending view of workers. He says what he thinks and not what he should think. Now the New York Times fears Trump might strike a deal with Iran.
It says:‘For Mr Trump’s advisers, the biggest risk at the United Nations General Assembly this year is the reverse of what it was last year: not that he will be dangerously undiplomatic, but that he will be overly enthusiastic about engagement with wily adversaries.’
Leftist drive for war with Iran
Liberals fear Trump might make a lasting peace with Iran. They understand that Trumpism has far more in common, mutatis mutandis, with Khomenism than with left-liberalism. Trump’s support for Christian Supreme court judges; opposition to globalist education; reigning in (in an extremely limited form) LGBTP madness; defence of science and criticism of neo-conservative wars makes him the inveterate enemy of everything liberal leftists stand for.
The New York Times says Trump has strengthened ‘hardliners’ in Iran. They know that many so-called hardliners are supporters of populism and former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is as though the New York Times fears Trump is deliberately strengthening hardliners in Iran.
Ahmadinejad clearly understands the reasons why Americans voted for Trump and the common enemies of Trumpism and Iran. Ahmadinejad is currently under house arrest. The elites governing Iran hate him just as much as the elites governing the United States hate Trump.
It is now undeniable that Jewish power in America is what is driving Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward Iran. But Trump’s recent statements criticising the Iraq war ( a war for Israel)and his disappointment with American Jewish ingratitude for his pro-Israeli policies, indicate that a deal with Tehran may still be possible. As my recent documentary for Press TV ‘Culture of Resistance’ shows, many Iranian Jews support the Islamic Republic of Iran and would be prepared to fight on its behalf in a war against Israel. In the politics of the real, all is complex.
In his recent UN speech, the most significant lines went unreported by the media. Trump said, “ The US will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination”. Then, of course, Trump went on to threaten military intervention in Venezuela!
President Rohani is making a big mistake in refusing to meet with Trump. The Rohani leadership is too close to globalist interests and is hedging its bets on an alliance with Europe. Iran needs a strong populist leader like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deal with Trump. In my recent trip to Iran, I was joined by many former US government officials from the Department of Defense, CIA and the US diplomatic corps. None of them support the left. All of them preferred Trump to Clinton. That’s because they understand how imperialism operates. Leftists have never understood anything, apart from their feelings.
A significant section of Trump’s support comes from people who want peace, diplomacy and the rule of law. In fact, the vast majority of Americans do not support foreign wars waged on behalf of special interests. They want jobs and infrastructure and social hope and they are exactly the kind of people you will find all over Iran and other states Trump-the-Zionist calls “terrorist” states.
Donald Trump is a walking contradiction. He is not a particularly well-educated man. Although many of his policies are good, he remains ‘one of them’ and does have evil elites such as Henry Kissinger and Sheldon Adelson on his side. We should not become cheerleaders for Trump. But we should try to avoid the Scylla of liberal Trumpophobia just as much as the Charybdis of right-libertarian Trumpophilia. One should rather see Trumpism as the symptom of a rupture in the Washington Consensus, a radical rethinking of America’s role in the world among a section of its ruling class; a redirection, albeit tentative, which, I have argued, may be more propitious to the survival of Western civilisation and human freedom than its liberal alternative.
Here we have simply pointed out the reasons well-meaning people are supposed to abhor him. We are supposed to abhor all the good things he has done. In 2016 I participated in a workshop in Belgium with former Ethiopian diplomat Mohammed Hassan. We both agreed that Trump represented a major shift in US imperialism. Hassan believes Trump studied the writings of Professor Chalmers Johnson, a political scientist who argued that the US empire was destroying America. Chalmers held that America would suffer the fate of Rome if it did not roll back some of its imperialist excesses. Hassen lamented the fact that few people seem to have actually read what Trump and Chalmers wrote about the state of the US empire.
Right now, as the US mid-term elections approach, the greatest threat facing America is not Donald Trump; it is liberal leftism. I am happy to say that, apart from his reckless policy towards Iran, Trump has been a far better president that I predicted. However, if the Democrats win the November midterm elections, the impeachment of Trump could follow. The Democrats have elite-power on their side and in today’s world of fake news, fake morality and fake politics, that may be all that matters.
I couldn’t agree with your analysis more. I used to have common ground with the left with regard to the worker, imperialism and an anti-war stance, but has been abandoned by the left a long time ago. It was never about these things anyway. I believe Marxism, Post-Modernism and fundamentalism are just means to an end. that end being totalitarian control. Hence, we see the unholy alliance of the oligarchy and crony capitalists, neo-cons, fundamentalists and cultural Marxists. These are just tools. I remember your series on Brazil and the Vinegar Revolution very well. I thought I was alone in my thinking until I found your series. So, just writing to say that your analysis is very much appreciated.
« … he remains ‘one of them’ and does have evil elites such as Henry Kissinger and Sheldon Adelson on his side… »
Re: Kissinger: it has been said that Mr. K. — who is on the boards of hundreds of international corporations, and very much a representative of the deep state — has been a regular White House visitor over the years, paying deliberate and select calls to all sitting presidents after Nixon, « advising » them as necessary when they are going “off-track” from desired scenarios a little too much. Politesse is usually the tone adopted, but a threatening one has no doubt been employed as well. (Some may recall when both Reagan and Pope John Paul survived assassination attempts a few months apart in 1981.)
What to make of Trump vis-a-vis Kissinger, then? While he was definitely not the candidate the elites wanted, Trump has been “allowed” some freedom as long as he carried out certain objectives. Hence some erratic, sometimes contradictory viewpoints and performance have been witnessed.
Personally, I think Putin is very much in charge of things on the whole, and practically the only true statesman in the world at this time. He is definitely a master strategist, as one would expect from someone disciplined enough to have attained a high degree of accomplishment in martial arts. My sense is that Putin (as a Libra subject) cares deeply about the fate and success of his own nation but also would like to effect some diplomatic coups in his relations with others on the world stage. I think Putin is leading the world to peace and prosperity, which also involves a “co-operative” relationship with Trump.
What?, « leftist drive for war with Iran »???
Maybe neo-liberal interventionists. NOT real leftists.
I really enjoyed reading your article. I am so frustrated with the neo-liberals in the United States.
Do you check your comments at all, Gearóid?