What is the real threat to Trumps presidency?

Letters from O'Brien #55

Dear Mr Smith,

As the presidential election draws near, and the drama surrounding Trump’s criminal charges continue to escalate, all eyes are on what will happen next. Some see a dialectical battle between the Democrats and the Republicans, most now see it as a battle between Trump and the regime, but few realise that at this point the biggest threat to a second term for Trump is his own team…

In recent months I have written you letters detailing the infiltration and subversion of American ‘conservatism’ since the end of World War 2. Today this topic is more relevant than ever. I want to briefly detail why Trumps victory is ‘inevitable’, and why this is not necessarily a win for true patriots…

DECEIT FROM WITHIN

Let me begin by re-emphasising what should be common knowledge at this point; Trump’s popularity undoubtedly flows from his own personal ambition and rhetoric. He represents the American patriot, with an America-First attitude, and best of all with the demeanour of someone not constrained by any party or group. This is why, for the past three election cycles, the regime has been so fervently against a Trump leadership. In 2016, everyone (and by ‘everyone’, I mean the institutions) from the left to the Straussian right (Shapiro and co.) vehemently pushed back against the idea of a Trump victory. In 2020, it was the same, albeit with arguably more vocal support. This year it may be different.

If one looks beyond the institutional power and institution-backed opinions on the left and right, they will see mass mobilisation of the American working man unlike either of the two previous election years. Beyond a large of portion of women, and willingly blind liberals, no one is really assuming a second term for the Democrats. What’s more, the nations ‘power’ is behind Trump, metaphorically and in some sense literally, and poling has made this apparent. The signs are clear; nothing but an absolute Trump victory will be taken seriously by the American public, regardless of what attempts conservative and liberal media use to control the narrative. People have ‘noticed’ enough to be fed up with any other outcome.

ENEMIES WITHIN

One may remember that there was considerable rhetoric coming from Trump and his team in 2015 and 2016. This included massive overhauls to US immigration policy, a border wall, a better (anti-neocon) geopolitical outlook, and generally repositioning of America back towards a Christian nation. Of course, no one expected all of this to happen in four years, but no one realised how little would be achieved. Many blamed these shortcomings on Trump, yet it was his own cabinet who worked against him at every point.

Remember when Trump requested funds for a border wall? This was stalled by his own party for ages, and then finally a small fraction of the initial budget was handed over, providing barely enough for a few kilometres of ‘proper’ border protection. This was not done by democrats. This was not done by liberals or communists. This was done by Republicans within the administration. This is just one example of many other times that his own people worked to stall his efforts. I would argue that the Republican Party is under more foreign influence then the democrats.

I had written to you previously regarding the rather suspicious similarities between all three American post-war ideological movements - the New Left (Marcusian Critical Theory), Liberalism and Libertarianism (Karl Poppers ‘tolerant society’), and the post-war right (Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol) - and how all three ‘mainstream’ positions have similar undertones, including but not limited to a dislike for ‘traditional conservatism’, a belief in multiculturalism, a lack of belief in a unified American culture, and a disdain for Christianity as the leading religion in the country.

Now consider the fact that throughout Trumps first presidency, basically any America-first policy was stalled, obfuscated, or pushed to the side immediately by conservatives around him.

Many who surround Trump today are still clearly Straussian in political orientation and outlook. Obvious examples include Nikki Haley (who is positioning herself to be in the cabinet) and Lindsay Graham. But there are also others who one may not expect. JD Vance comes to mind, who is a serious contender for VP. Vance has strong ties with Peter Thiel - who himself was kickstarted by William and Irving Kristol in the 1980s. The Kristols were students of Strauss.

The regime understands that the only way to hold onto influence is to subvert the movement from within, and this is exactly what is happening yet again (although it is arguably worse this time). Conservative mainstream and ‘alt-mainstream’ outlets appear to be on board with this. Increasingly we are seeing Fox push Bill Ackmann as some sort of patriot. Bill Ackman was previously a massive donor to the Democratic Party. He is now ‘potentially’ going to back Trump, just like how he suddenly converted to conservatism when pro-Palestine protests took over major universities, using the claim that ‘DEI needs to be stopped’. After the firing of Harvard’s liberal president Claudine Gay, Ackman then backed the appointment of Alan Garber in her place. Garber is also pro-DEI, yet conveniently he is against the pro-Palestine movement. Ackman then jumped back to being a liberal after this, yet here we are once again.

Now with the latter example, I am not suggesting that one should wish for a liberal to stay in power at a university, but what I am suggesting is that Ackman and co are not American patriots, and what played out on university campuses a while back was explicitly not about America. Recall that the ‘frat boy uprising’ (or whatever people called it) turned out to be a Jewish fraternity turning out to ‘defend our country of Israel’ as one of the protestors said in an interview with Fox News, standing off against pro-Palestine liberal protestors who view the Gaza situation as ‘brown people being oppressed by imperialistic whites’. It is a good example of how foreign, external issues are turned into ‘American issues’ by the media in recent years. A dialectic is usually set up in which one must choose between the ‘American patriots’ like Ackman (who are not America first) or their enemies. This even happened a few months ago with Bill Maher when he criticised liberals; conservative media held him up as some patriot, despite him being explicitly anti-conservative, disdainful of Christianity, and not America-first.

This is not the first time ‘conservatism’ has been weaponised by Straussians to distract from meaningful change in American politics. In the 1960s Nixon’s administration was at odds with Straussian conservatives who disliked the fact that Henry Kissinger was working towards peace with Russia and better relations with China and the East. This hampered Nixon and Kissinger’s ability to bring about sufficient change, which conveniently ended with the Watergate scandal. In the 1970s the neocons entered power, with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld dragging America back into a dialectic standoff against Russia. By the ‘return to conservatism’ in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was surrounded by Straussian neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, who exhausted huge amounts of time and effort undermining whatever international ties Nixon and Kissinger had made. Neocons like Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, and Jeane Kirkpatrick managed to convince Reagan to position America back towards a dialectical defensive stance against the east, despite signs that any direct threat from communism was basically over.

THE SITUATION TODAY

All this plays into what is currently happening, and what one will see happen in the coming months. Already we see shameless individuals like Nikki Haley repositioning to make it into the Trump administration, and those around Trump will encourage this. Haley was in Trump’s administration the first time, before running against him, speaking harshly against him, his character, and his ambition, yet now she is supposedly a patriot? The contradictions are too obvious.

Despite what many have said, Vivek Ramashwamy was arguably the best pick for VP, yet this will almost certainly happen. Vivek did indeed receive funding for a start-up years ago from Thiel and Ackman, but his rhetoric suggests no obvious allegiance to the Straussian worldview. Despite being Indian he was the only candidate to call out white replacement, the corruption of the Republican Party, foreign influence, and so forth. What happened to him? From what one can gather, he was positioned as some sort of competitor to Trump and his personality, and thus fell out of favour with Trump. Despite what people say, he would have arguably been the best candidate out of the mainstream picks.

If nothing is addressed, and some Thiel-backed plant like Vance gets the VP pick, then America will have a rerun of 2017. Under a Straussian like Vance, the White House will be staffed by people antithetical to the patriotic American portion, and these people will be installed to push the same old agendas, while also obfuscating or stalling any real change in America. The fact that someone like Nikki Haley is even on the cards is proof of this; her own campaign was explicitly against America-first policy, instead promoting a neocon worldview of foreign intervention, foreign lobbying, appeasement, and ultimately a refusal to support Americans. By far the biggest social issue in America today is immigration, to such an extent that deportation is necessary. Will some Straussian approve of that? Of course not.

Now I have noticed that this has caused a battle over direction in the dissident right; most believe they should still vote for Trump, however others - most vocally, Nick Fuentes - are suggesting that people withhold their votes rather than risk electing the likes of a Nikki Haley into the White House. I think this is a massive waste of time. There is no alternative which would fare better. What’s more, the energy is behind Trump. So, then what?

I believe the answer is clear; people must be educated. This comes through online discourse, ideally creating momentum (thus the importance of platforms like Substack!). People must become aware and speak the truth. If this is happening on enough fronts, average citizens will grow in their understanding, and thus certain topics will be ‘normalised’ in conversation. This is important, because once enough people are talking about relevant issues, the Overton window will inevitably shift, and this forces conversations, which in turn highlight the contradictions held by politicians, decision makers, and intellectuals. Once average people see these contradictions - Nikki Haley for example - the more likely it is that these anti-western politicians will lose credibility and eventually lose influence. The responsibility comes down to those who are in the know sharing their understanding.

It is possible that this will force change in a Republican White House. The populist moment is larger than ever, and day by day the understanding of the average citizen increases. People are already distrustful of the governmental system. It is possible then that increased energy, in the right direction, will force change at the highest level of government. We have seen this multiple times over the past four years through mass refusal, coordinated online conversations and normalisation of topics, and the raw desire for truth. Additionally, I think well informed and talented people must keep on moving into the political sphere, while retaining an uncompromising patriotic attitude. This is realistically the only way change will be achieved in the medium term. This means people aiming for higher level positions, as well as people ‘on the ground’ pushing the same rhetoric and resolve; America as a Christian nation, prioritising its own people, refusing foreign influence. Thus, if enough people are informed and keep on speaking the truth, the truth will prevail.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien