What does Trump want?

Ever since Trump followed in the footsteps of Noriega’s kidnappers – that is, his predecessors – by kidnapping Maduro and murdering several dozen of his bodyguards, the media smear campaign against him – previously the most relentless and vile ever seen (except for the historic smear campaign against the newly founded Soviet Union!) – has become significantly more moderate. And after his completely unjustified attack on Iran, even the most servile creatures of his military bloc traveled to him to lick his boots and remain silent about his outrageous attack. (The conformist press in their home countries did have to grumble a bit about this and seek alibis from other EU satraps – a Spaniard is said to have been less servile – so as not to jeopardize the highest good, namely the belief in their so-called independence, without which the elections would become truly interesting; yet they remained vague and obsequious in describing the outrageous facts, even though, in this particular case, their otherwise loose-lipped, harsh, and hitherto machine-gun-like barrage of insults against Trump would finally have been appropriate.)

As repugnant as the mullah regime is – a regime to which European governments have, for decades, shown understanding and even “kissed their ass”, even in the face of its greatest atrocities – from stonings, rapes of female prisoners, acid attacks on unveiled women, all the way to serious and consequential calls for the murder of well-known EU citizens (let us not forget Khomeini’s successful jostling of Rudi Carell, which paved the way for his prompt call for the murder of Rushdie), to name but a few facts – the Iran the mullahs rule is no border neighbor of the U.S. that its enemies would have flooded with military hardware, such that a preemptive strike might indeed deserve understanding; quite the contrary. Nor did the Persian Revolution led by Khomeini require either foreign puppet masters or euros, in stark contrast to, say, the Maidan coup or the coup against Mossadegh.

He has thus drastically cast aside the “peace president” – as which Trump actually began and spent his first term in exemplary fashion – and joined the long line of his predecessors. The fact that he does not hide behind hypocrisy and all sorts of smokescreens, but instead unleashes the most repulsive imperialist rhetoric against his intended victims – rather than, for example, waving around a blackmailed UN or social studies clichés – may prevent disgust toward him, but it does not make him any better. “That’s not why we voted for him!” say quite a few spokespeople for the MAGA movement, and rightly so; and that’s not why we supported him either, we hereby state. But what then distinguishes Trump from his predecessors, what is the point of the bloc-wide uproar against him that they tirelessly stoke, and above all: what does he actually want?

Our previous assumption – before the invasion of Venezuela and the blockade of Cuba – was that his aim was to shake off the accusation of a lack of imperialism, which could cost him his far-right voter base, and Trump cannot rely on anything other than the notoriously fickle populace – he needs over 50% of the vote, in reality even more, to offset the election fraud that he cannot entirely prevent, at least in those states of his country that are firmly in the hands of his mortal enemies. He made them his enemies from the very beginning by using protective tariffs to thwart their export of capital to low-wage countries and by attempting to stop the influx of wage-depressing labor from the hopelessly overpopulated and impoverished Latin America – the latter with only moderate success so far. It is thus clear that he wants to prevent the impoverishment of his own people, and this fully explains the mortal enmity toward him of the mega-capital led by Soros, Gates, Rockefeller, etc. – which is owned almost exclusively by U.S. citizens or governed as their “foundations”; everything else is nonsense. But what does he have in store for other nations? Something different from the aforementioned SGR gang, or is it the same thing?

It has struck every person who rightly fears a US-imperialist Pangaea that Trump sought to halt the destruction of what remains of Russian sovereignty – in whose slipstream China was able to grow stronger and thus maintain itself to this day as the penultimate sovereign state outside the US (if we exclude North Korea, which can survive in its slipstream, besieged Cuba, and Iran, which is currently slated for conquest), and has so far been able to do so against the shrieking, fidgeting resistance of the SGR-aligned EU. But by conquering and destroying the still-sovereign Iran, he cuts off China in particular from its last major oil supplier and Russia from one of its rare military allies and drone suppliers. He is thus also striving for the vassal status of these last two states – which are capable of sustaining themselves and are not ruled by puppets of the SGR gang – so where, then, is Trump’s programmatic difference from his mortal enemies, who, by means of their global capital monopoly, also control all significant media outlets in the vast Western bloc and have thereby been able to determine all election results and, consequently, the laws and acts of state power?

Apart from curbing impoverishment in his own country and, most valuably, a serious commitment to freedom of speech and against the grossest excesses of the notorious lying media, e.g., the BBC, not much. It is noteworthy, however, that Trump’s new imperialist activity – and not just rhetoric – Greenland, which is supposedly so urgently in need of conquest, has long been just as firmly in U.S. hands as Iceland has been since the final months of World War II, thanks to Thule and various other military activities; so this saber-rattling can only serve to rally the fools and the ignorant within Trump’s far-right fringe – is once again jeopardizing his voter base among the people, for whatever he may gain or consolidate on the far right, he loses as a result on the far larger left. (Where does it come from, anyway?! Well, anyone whom the “lying press” hasn’t successfully turned into an idiot knows this: Workers don’t like to be impoverished, and whatever wages must be paid to them above the subsistence level as a result of their resistance is money that Mr. Soros & Co. lack for their own needs and their war chest, which is why workers – unlike civil servants and propagandists – always constitute the genuinely left-wing and thus also Trump’s decisive voter base.)

So why is Trump risking alienating the best – and certainly a significant portion – of his electorate through his imperialist aggressions? Is he hoping for compensatory gains among the electorate of his mortal enemies, who might celebrate him as a conqueror and plunderer who, for example, successfully seized oil belonging to others for his own state in the Roman style? – Since Trump has access to sufficient polling services and similar sources of information, this is unlikely. For anyone who earns a white-collar income while on the leash of the state apparatus – still dominated by the gigacapital of the SGR gang, which tirelessly throws a wrench in Trump’s works for the benefit of its masters and sponsors – has become so accustomed to his respective service that he will almost always remain loyal to his masters and thus to their political arm, the so-called “Democrats”. Even imperialist conquests, which can only inspire idiotic, moralfree nationalists, are of little concern to these people; they follow their masters, who, though imperialists, value their own property – and consequently their political power in their heartland – infinitely more than any conquest that does not take place under their own control, and then the old proverb applies: Ut dominus, ita servus (“As the master, so the servant”). Should Trump, improbably, not know this, he learns the result from his pollsters.

So what, then, is the reason for his imperialist rampage? Apparently, the neutralization of his mortal enemies. For they do not let up with their obstruction, e.g., through budget blockades, and this obstruction is becoming serious; wars against unpopular but weak states, which consequently cost little, can be used as an antidote. And it’s already having some effect: just as the press of the “capitalist camp” – there was no Western bloc yet – hunted down Stalin far less fanatically than Lenin, since the former had abandoned the revolution’s liberal goals as well as its geographical expansion and made the Soviet Union unattractive, so too does it now show a soft, chatty understanding of Trump’s wars of aggression, while it does not condemn the formally criticizable, yet merely desperate outburst of what remains of Russia against deadly encirclement – not enough, not monotonously enough, and not one-sidedly enough – with prayerful diligence, thereby living up to its nickname “lying press” in its actual reporting. But it did exactly the same with him right up until Trump’s raids on defenseless countries.

Certainly: the European heads of state from Mr. Soros’s test-tube (“Young Global Leaders”) have since moderated their outbursts against Trump and appear before his throne quite humbly and silently, torn between their unyielding loyalty to their transatlantic masters and creators – who demand of them constant taunting of Trump and the sacrifice of all their peoples’ hard-earned possessions in favor of the annihilation of the sovereignty of what remains of Russia, which is then to be swallowed up by them and not by a European power – and the obedience they simply owe to the current ruler of their “motherland” – even if he was hoisted into office by his people’s vote rather than positioned there by US capital – and who, at the same time, openly despises them for their servility, which they have, of course, acquired as creatures of his mortal enemies and in their service. Well, in antiquity there were similar situations, when pitiful vassal princes were caught between the emperor and the anti-emperor who had installed them, and the outcome was still uncertain.

Incidentally, a certain moderation in the uniform anti-Trump ranting could be observed precisely since Trump’s appearance in Davos – and not before – when he made it clear to the Europeans who is currently the Boss and how dearly the local creatures of the Soros foundations would come to pay for their continued stubborn obedience to his mortal enemies. Less well known in Europe is that he flew on to East Asia shortly thereafter, firstly to make a similar point to his state’s vassals there, and secondly to successfully coerce the Chinese government – in exchange for minor concessions on import duties on Chinese goods – into handing over to the U.S. the rare earth elements urgently needed for its industry, which it had previously guarded as carefully as Venezuela had guarded its oil, much to the annoyance of the U.S. powers that be; Europe can figure out where to get them. (Of course, they belong to the country in whose crust they are found, but from an imperialist perspective, that doesn’t matter.)

Nevertheless, the question remains whether Trump gains more than he loses by following in the footsteps of his predecessors, setting aside all moral judgments for the moment. For the international lackeys of US mega-capital – and thus the SGR gang – will without hesitation turn on him with all their fanaticism the moment he shows the slightest sign of weakness; by contrast, he has now disappointed, unsettled, or even turned against him the best part of his supporters and voters. And it is exclusively “the people” – that is, the mass of American wage earners and small producers – who enable him to survive and govern; apart from them, no one will protect him against the furious hatred of his enemies, who are determined to do anything, nor against obstruction, persecution, or election fraud, just as before.

Well then, this president – elected by his countrymen against all the “media” – wants to save them from misery and paternalism. But what about the rest of the world, of which not a single country has the slightest countermeasure against the US-nuclear weapons? (Even the remnants of Russia could, at most, heroically inflict one or two Hiroshimas on the U.S., while itself being completely contaminated by nuclear radiation and destroyed – possibly only its militarily relevant part through precision-guided “mini-nukes” developed for this purpose, so that the US could be able to occupy and possess the rest themselves without being contaminated.) Does his goal regarding this part of the world differ from that of his mortal enemies, the monopoly owners of the US?

In a few details, yes. The fact that Trump does not wish to hand over what remains of Russia to the aforementioned monopolists led by Soros and Gates as enslaved private property – which, following the Yugoslav model, might already be the case had election fraud succeeded for a second time in the U.S. – has earned him their hatred, inflamed to white heat, just as the Gracchi’s plan to distribute the state lands embezzled by the senators to Roman smallholders in accordance with the law did. For this step would, so to speak, have forced the Yankees too – through dirty, unfair competition – down to the lowest wage and thus living standards, which they were already hurtling toward under his predecessors, and that is precisely what Trump wants to prevent or reverse, which he has even succeeded in doing to some extent.

But equality among nations is just as absent from his agenda as it is from that of his predecessors and enemies, or from that of the now-so-vigorously-criticized former European colonialists. The only requirement is that the defenseless states – that is, all except the U.S. – be equal among themselves and be left in peace as long as they neither interfere with the U.S. nor refuse its demands. In other words: the tried-and-true divide-et-impera principle is being abandoned, and the rather worthless special favors for the degenerate and servile Europeans are being discontinued – they are thus no longer to be the Greeks of the Empire, who are allowed to look down on the equally subjugated Jews, just as Europeans now look down on the Russians. For since the Russians must now completely abandon their friendly states in order not to be torn to pieces by Europeans on Soros’s leash with U.S. military backing, in case they came up with the idea, quod erat demonstrandum, to defend Cuba or Venezuela, and furthermore to no longer pursue an anti-capitalist course in their own country, they could be kept at the European level rather than below it, unchallenged in their internal affairs, but naturally under U.S. tutelage in foreign and trade policy. This contradicts the principle of the SGR gang, which, first of all, does not grant its own people a life worthy of human dignity (if only because this would falsify the statement worldwide that “it must be so”), and secondly, is far-sighted enough to fear that equal treatment of peoples – or at least the absence of the appearance of unequal treatment – might, in the long run, allow them to find common ground and thereby pose a certain threat to imperialism. (For the same reason, the Romans and the Ottomans ensured arbitrary legal distinctions between the groups of their subjects; the Ottomans thereby achieved, for example, that the Christians of their empire – who were themselves treated very poorly – directed the bulk of their hatred toward the innocent Jews, who were treated at least as badly, but not toward the Ottoman beneficiaries of their special taxes.)

In short: Trump’s rule has indeed brought – and continues to bring – certain reliefs compared to the unrestricted rule of the owners of U.S. monopoly capital or their puppets in government offices, much as an absolute majority for the AfD would do here. (Think about it for a moment and do the math! No torn-down posters, no pogroms against campaign rallies, no state discrimination – where would that lead!) But the AfD’s or Trump’s undisturbed rule is, or would be, simply no substitute for the realization of our slogan:

Only a human population whose numbers are optimally proportionate to the planet’s resources can settle comfortably on it. How, reveal the other two keywords that even Trump and the AfD steer clear of.
 

P.S. On Trump’s attack on Iran, just this much: the worst thing about him is that he drives its inhabitants – most of whom are fed up with their mullahs – back to the side of those despicable leaders, and unfortunately not without reason. If only there had been a party in Persia equal to Lenin’s, instead of that weak caricature of it that caved in to religion and sexual repression! Then the country’s national sovereignty could have been achieved without the detour through the loathsome mullahs – though admittedly without decades of dripping “fair understanding” from the U.S. vassal states...