Back in December I offered an official statement on the Trump candidacy, in which I made an outcome judgment, that being the best outcome possible for the radical right would be a very close election in which Donald Trump was cheated out of the presidency through fraud or some other questionable means. So long as some question surrounded the result of a Hillary victory, I felt that these circumstances would present the most gain to us. If people on the right felt disenfranchised, lost faith in both the Republican Party as well as democracy itself, further political radicalization could occur at a much faster rate. The one-party state, which represents the reality of Liberal society, would be exposed, leading to a bubbling well of frustration and disillusionment.
I still hold this to be true. None of the cause-effect calculations have changed. However, in the aggregate, I am now very confident that an outright Trump victory would in fact be a better end result, and here is the reason:
Before, Trump’s statements concerning the Bush war record, his approach to Russia, as well as US actions in Syria and Libya, all of these could be considered as very clever maneuvers that distinguished him from the positions of the party’s neocon wing. This wing was of course surprised to find out the voting base in many states had shifted away from their colonialist warmongering and towards Trump’s more realist positions.
Just for clarity, here are a few of the potential president’s positions as they pertain to big international issues:
“Personally I’ve been looking at the different players, and I’ve been watching Assad, and I’ve been pretty good at this stuff over the years, ‘cause deals are people. And I’m looking at Assad and saying, ‘Maybe he’s better than the kind of people that we’re supposed to be backing.’ Because we don’t even know who we’re backing.”
“I’d be willing to bet I would have a great relationship with Putin. It’s about leadership.”
ON IRAQ & LIBYA
“People are getting their heads chopped off. They’re being drowned. Right now it’s far worse than ever under Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi.”
“N.A.T.O. is obsolete and must be changed to additionally focus on terrorism as well as some of the things it is currently focused on! We pay a disproportionate share of the cost of N.A.T.O. Why? It is time to renegotiate, and the time is now!”
It seems to be becoming more clear as Trump remains adamant on these points, that far from a mere electioneering tactic, he does in fact believe in geopolitical multipolarity, hence why he has been endorsed by leading figures in Russia and Hungary, two states that stick in the craw of the proverbial ‘New World Order’, i.e – globalist powers. Meanwhile he has been spitefully criticized by the globalist agent and murderer of the French people, François Hollande.
The benefits of an American president finally willing to respect the natural boundaries of America’s geographic authority are enormous. If the administration turns its focus towards the myriad domestic problems currently facing the country, as well as construction of a border wall to stem the invasion by Mexicans and Central Americans, the world would be given relief from its destructive machinations which are propogated through a string of embassy contacts and ironically named NGOs. Subversive cultural agendas are forwarded through this neocolonial apparatus which has been a staple of the American outlook for successive presidencies of both parties. The United States routinely interferes in the politics of supposedly sovereign nations to aid not necessarily those who will be of geopolitical use to the United States, but those who will ideologically find ‘liberal principles’ appealing. Putting an end to this, even if only in part, is a very large reward that comes part and parcel with a Trump victory.
you have to go back
Thus, I no longer consider the aim to be the almost-election of Donald Trump, but the actual election of Donald Trump. He’s not the Ronald Reagan that Conservatives want, he’s not Adolf Hitler that Fascists want, and God knows he isn’t the Klemens von Metternich that I want. He is only the epitome of pragmatic industriousness combined with a flair for the dramatic and the offensive. That’s fine. That’s all we need him to be. For the next president to take his ‘tanks’ off the lawn of Europe and the rest of the old world, and instead put them on Mexico’s lawn, is a blessing of untold value.
I am skeptical about how much Trump would change the domestic situation in America, in keeping with my previous observations about the outcomes of democratic processes, but if a Trumpian viewpoint is applied to the next US State Department, the geopolitical situation might begin to change quite rapidly, to Liberalism’s detriment.
We cannot yet predict the outcome of this election, nor can any of what has been said above be taken as set in stone, but I can tentatively advise that it is desirable for the Reactionary cause that Donald Trump be the next president of the United States.