War with Russia and the assassination of Trump?

Letters from O'Brien #43

War with Russia and the assassination of Trump?

Listening to the rhetoric of Tucker Carlson recently and thought I’d weigh in – for what it’s worth. There were two claims of interest made by Carlson recently; firstly, the suggestion that Donald Trump could be assassinated, and secondly, that there will potentially be a hot war between Russia and the west before the next election. These are troubling predictions, but will they be possible?

ASSASSINATION

There has been talk of an impending assassination attempt for the better part of a year of former president Donald Trump. This much is obvious – so what of it? What is not so obvious is whether an assassination would benefit the socialist regime in power. The answer is - in my opinion - absolutely not.

As it currently stands – as far as I can see - Trump is the only truly populist candidate in the US, and I believe verified by data pertaining to his character (interview views, observable public support, collected data about voting preference, etc.). It appears that since the last election, his support has only grown.

As many have noted, the Republican Party - hoping to secure a non-populist leader - are currently pushing anyone but Trump, yet to no avail. These pseudo-conservatives include Ron DeSantis, who has openly been ousted as something like a ‘globalist collaborator’, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who has essentially appeared out of nowhere, and now features on the likes of Fox News and other conservative outlets. Despite this, the populist movement have (rather incredibly) already begun outing Ramaswamy as a fraud, given the hyper-artificial rise in popularity, contrasted with the incredibly low viewer base in contrast to Trump (the Carlson-Trump interview received 250 million views (at time of writing), whilst the average DeSantis or Ramaswamy interview often sits below 1 million).

On the other side of the aisle, the Democratic party has put forth no candidate for the next election, instead pushing Biden for a second term. Do they have a death wish? I am still trying to figure out why they would do such a thing, given the all-time low support for the president (roughly 20%), as even the socialist left view the current administration as essentially a reactionary regime. The one hope they may have had (Robert Kennedy Jr.) has been wilfully ostracised…

The writing is on the wall; mainstream support overwhelmingly rests on the side of Trump, and whilst pseudo-conservatives will be pushed as alternatives, this will not be able to fracture this majority. If an alternative victory occurs - either a Democratic victory or a Ramasway/DeSantis victory - then I believe it will be seen as the by-product of election fraud (which it would probably have to be) and will be rejected by the majority.

To many Americans, Donald Trump represents populist unity unbound by conventional political concepts, such as pure ideology (hence why such things as “MAGA communism” exist), and party loyalty (many voters are loyal to Trump alone, despite the Republican Party). While the first point essentially sounds like Elite Theory, the latter point is great to see, since it indicates that an increasing number of Americans see through the corrupted concept of political parties, which has perverted the idea of an American Republic.

It has already been shown - as predicted - that the arrest of Trump has boosted his steadily growing support, whilst destroying any remaining legitimacy surrounding the ruling regime. An assassination would take this to the next level. I believe that such an event would result in a refusal by the majority to come under any federal rule of law, refusing to pay taxes, and deciding to become autonomous – an enormous upheaval, but not what the current administration (if you can call it “administration”) are aiming for.

WAR WITH RUSSIA

Now with this in mind, Tuckers second prediction of a hot war with Russia, takes on a whole new perspective. It has already been shown that bipartisan support for the Ukraine war is at its end, with only a quarter of the population still willing to fund it. This is a foreign war. How then would one expect the entire population to rally behind what would be the largest ground war since World War 2? The simple answer; it is basically impossible for the regime to garner such universal support unless a miracle occurs. Without public support, such a war becomes far harder.

Since universal public support is out of the question, the regime would be forced to fall back onto those factions willing to support such action; the liberal left? These individuals - the liberal left - are not “let’s go to war” kind of folk. They don’t have the stomach for it, and on what moral foundation would they go to war?  The radical communists to their left see no interest in foreign wars, whilst those to their ideological right are fundamentally opposed to any regime action. As has been shown in Ukraine, the foreign volunteers from the liberal faction are not cut out for actual warfare.

The only other option - and perhaps the most troubling scenario - would be the forceful entry into a hot war using proxies such as Poland, Germany, and the Baltic states. This would allow the US to remain ‘hands off’, whilst simultaneously securing emergency powers and riding out what could be an indefinitely long war. This would require total uniformity, as well as loyalty to the American socialist regime in power. There is a potential that this could occur, but again the populations of such countries would need to be in support of fighting a war.

But now we need to consider the BRICS coalition. It was recently announced that a BRICS expansion - beginning in January next year - would see the addition of Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Argentina, and Ethiopia, with another two dozen countries across the Middle East and Asia having applied for membership. What does this mean? The decision of the Saudis and Iran (two nations who are openly hostile towards one another) to join BRICS shows that the strong middle eastern division now takes a back seat to a distrust of the west.

Thus, considering the BRICS nations, if a hot war were to break out, it could be presumed that the Saudis would force an OPEC blockade on oil exports to the west, and this would be echoed across the Middle East. It would likely also force nations in the east into a China-centric alliance (be it BRICS or some other pact). It is also likely that such a situation would compel India to pivot away from the western influence it retains and become more loyal to the Chinese-centric system.

Now such a move by Saudi Arabia cannot be underestimated; during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Saudis restricted oil exports to the west to support the Egyptian war against Israel. This led to massive fuel shortages across the US and forced the Israeli military into a ‘final stand’ after losing the Sinai Peninsula. Thus, the Saudis forced their adversaries into a position of vulnerability simply by limiting oil.

If a conflict were to occur, the global implications would likely fall in China’s - not Americas - favour. A global paradigm shift would see most of the world’s population orientate towards a Chinese-centric regime (India, Asia, Africa). This is because ambitions in Russia are not beneficial to the west, but I think rather needlessly destructive. Unlike regimes in the past, there is no need for such a war; there is no need for territorial expansion, the suppression of a regime threatening invasion of the US or spreading communism, and so forth. Internationally speaking, I cannot fathom how such a war would be portrayed as anything short of insanity. If a strong underlying justification existed (as perhaps there would have been against Stalinist Russia) then perhaps it would be a different story, but there is no underlying justification beyond the absurdity of Americanised political theatre.

POSSIBILITIES?

It feels to me that such radical moves by the US would result in a total empire collapse. I cannot foresee the US entering a hot war with Russia without public support, nor can I see an assassination occurring without massive consequences, since there will be no mystery as to who is responsible.

Yet despite this, one cannot doubt the willingness of the current regime to sacrifice anything and everything to retain maximum control. My predictions assume that a national leadership actually thinks before it acts. The illogical, aggressive, feminized nature of the administration may defy everything I have said and choose the path of complete destruction. I hold onto the hope that this will be unlikely, but only time will tell.