Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

It’s 2026, but for America and its subjects, it’s still the Dark Ages, with Trump as a leader who bears resemblance to the Belgian leader of the first crusade to the promised land of Israel: Godfrey of Bouillon, a very rich nobleman. He was proclaimed the first king of Jerusalem, or, as the city is called in Arabic, al-Quds. The foot soldiers, comparable to the current American army and civilians, were incited by monks, preachers, and the ruling noble elites to go and fight against the barbaric Muslims, who, so the story went, were so cruel and barbaric that they killed children and babies. Of course, this wasn’t true, and even then, it was already full-blown propaganda. Oil was not yet a factor, but other resources, “Lebensraum” (living space), and a fanatical Catholic (now Zionist Protestant Christians in the U.S.) religion in which practices such as torturing people were normal, and in which so-called witches and unbelievers were burned at the stake in front of castles and monasteries, were the reason.

Trump and his administration are the personification of this devilish cult called the Crusaders, or in Europe, the Knights Templar. These days, we should call them the Epstein cult, given the rape of girls and boys and the scurrilous killing of people in countries where they have no business. It’s frightening how similar they are to medieval Europeans.

Take, for example, the new U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, who is completely obsessed with the Crusades. Pete Hegseth’s tattoos represent the new “crusader” — or rather the new Epstein cult. He has the Jerusalem Cross tattooed on his chest: a large cross surrounded by four smaller crosses, originally a symbol of the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Crusades led by, among others, Godfried of Bouillon. Since the first attacks on Iran, numerous complaints have been received from U.S. military personnel (from an army organization). Members of all branches of the armed forces claim that high-ranking officers are linking the mission abroad to the fulfillment of Christian prophecy.

U.S. Commanders and generals have been ordered by Trump and Hegseth to indoctrinate their foot soldiers with medieval slogans: “The war with Iran is part of God’s plan and that President Donald Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran, to cause Armageddon, and to mark the return of Jesus to earth.” This return will, of course, take place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, where the long-awaited Mahdi of the Muslims will return, and the Messiah of the Jews is also expected there. In other words, the Mount of Olives will be a hive of activity.

For the average citizens, confronted in our so-called “modern” age with artificial intelligence by the American leader of the new crusade, Trump, they are simultaneously confronted with a crusade against Iran and Islam. Godfried Trump labels the people of Iran as infidels, barbarians who must be exterminated — the utter madness of a sect that, under the guise of MAGA, is leading humanity towards a new catastrophe.

But Americans and this current Crusader-Epstein cult know nothing of history, nothing at all about the Persian Empire which existed for centuries (under various rulers) when America was still inhabited by the Native Americans, the original inhabitants who were exterminated by the Europeans, whose descendants now rule America and never evolved into a “civilized” society.

Iran in 2026 is a nation with a rich history and culture that the Epstein-Crusader cult wants to destroy for what they consider their “brothers in faith”: Israel, a country that has existed since 1948. Of course, it was already inhabited by Jews 2,000 years ago or so, but not as it has evolved into so-called modern Israel. It is built not on the Western model of so-called democracy but rather on fascism and, of course, a kind of Epstein-Crusader mentality, where Arabs are compared to the Nazis in Germany and must be exterminated.

These modern-day Templars of America, like their European ancestors the Crusaders, are now guilty of many crimes, like the recent murder of schoolchildren in Minab. Even the UN education agency UNESCO states that the bombing of a primary school during the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran constitutes a serious violation of humanitarian law. The rockets reportedly destroyed a girls’ primary school in Minab, in southern Iran, killing approximately 150 girls and wounding nearly 100.

These crusaders also don’t value culture, simply because they are cultural barbarians. The historic Golestan Palace in Tehran, a UNESCO World Heritage site, was almost completely destroyed by Israeli and American airstrikes. The Golestan Palace, which served as the administrative center of the Qajar dynasty for many years (from the 18th century onwards), contains several historic halls known for their intricate architecture and decorative art. But these are, after all, crusader-barbarians who bomb everything, descendants of Europeans and Israelis traumatized by the Holocaust to the point of confusing Arabs with Nazis, as I said. Add to that their fanatical and ideological religion, and it’s a cocktail of catastrophe for all of humanity. ISIS was nothing compared to this. But ISIS was created and trained by the CIA and Mossad in Camp Bucca, Iraq, in 2003.

But by attacking Iran, they’ve made a mistake. They’re not the Arabs of the Gulf States; it’s a country in Western Asia with its ancient culture and beliefs. They haven’t been indoctrinated by the barbarians of America. Of course, some of them are, who emigrated after the Shah fell. In October 1971, the “last Shah” of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, organized what is often described as one of the most expensive and extravagant celebrations in history. The event was held to celebrate 2,500 years of the Persian Empire and to position the Shah as a major world leader. This extravagance, while the population lived in poverty, was one of the triggers for the revolution in 1979.

Arabs in the Gulf countries have little to no real culture; they were nomads who became rich thanks to America’s oil. This is different from the people of the Levant, who have a tapestry of cultures. These Gulf countries are now being attacked by Iran, not the countries themselves, but primarily the American bases and the assets of the head of the Crusaders, Godfried Trump.

Godfried Trump’s high-profile tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) in May 2025 was aimed at securing a reported $2 trillion in investment deals that are now under pressure from Iran’s attacks, as well as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. These fabricated countries receive all their water and food supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, oil is transported via the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S. and Europe—a clever tactic from Iran.

How will it end? America and its Western allies, the European countries, will likely lose in Iran, and this will ultimately mean the end of their final crusades to the promised land. Just as the Crusaders at the end of the 12th century were stopped by united Muslim armies led by Saladin (Ayyubid Sultanate), followed by the Mamluk Sultanate, which finally expelled them from the Holy Land in 1291. But who is the new Saladin of the Arab or Persian world? Saladin was a Kurd, but unfortunately, Kurds often play the role of traitors these days, so we should not look for him from that quarter, nor from an Arab leader. I assume a Persian scenario. Perhaps the new Saladin will arise from the Iranian people.

The statue of Saladin stands at the entrance of the Al-Hamidiyeh Souk close to the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, former Syria, which, tragically, has already fallen to the Crusader caliphate. It should teach the Arabs to stand on their own two feet; the domination has lasted too long.

Let the new Saladin rise from Iran and destroy the Crusader dream once and for all… but many lives will be lost—innocent civilians, presidents, and politicians. The struggle against these new crusaders will be very tough. The good news is that the American and European crusaders of 2026 have awakened and captivated at least 300 million Shiite Muslims worldwide. This amounts to approximately 10-15% of the total global Muslim population. They form the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, with significant numbers in Pakistan, India, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, and they are the new enemies of the Epstein-Templar empire.

Christianity is in decline in the West, particularly in Europe, where Sunni refugees form the majority of believers. Tragically, this is leading to the decline of Europe. In America, the predominantly white population is Protestant, with an extreme ideology. They are essentially Christian Zionists. For them, Israel is number one and America is number two. Therefore, the new crusade of the current Templar government, led by Godfried Trump, with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth a.k.a. Baldwin I of Jerusalem, is an unmitigated catastrophe, cursed with the ideology of the Hollywood film: “Kingdom of Heaven.”

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Unfortunately, President Trump listened to the neocons and Benjamin Netanyahu instead of his MAGA base and other voices of caution as he launched a surprise attack on Iran over the weekend. 

For the second time in nine months, the US Administration used negotiations with Iran as a cover to launch a pre-planned attack.

Last week’s talks produced “progress” according to all sides, with technical teams set to meet this week to work out the details. President Trump, however, suddenly announced that he was not happy with the talks because the Iranian side refused to say “the magic words” that they would not pursue nuclear weapons.

But Iran has been insisting for decades that they have no interest in producing a nuclear weapon and our own intelligence has confirmed that they are not doing so.

Shortly after President Trump’s announcement, the US and Israel launched their attack, killing Iran’s religious leader along with some 40 other political and military leaders in a “decapitation” strike.

It was supposed to be like the Venezuela operation. Quick and painless for the US. Kill the leadership and the long-suffering people would take to the streets and reclaim their country. It may make a good plot for a Hollywood movie, but in real life these regime change operations have never worked. Millions did take to the streets in Iran, but it was to mourn the slain Ayatollah and to reaffirm support for their government.

Just like we “rallied around the flag” after the attacks on 9/11.

Quickly, Iranian retaliation for the attacks began to take their toll on US assets and Israel. US soldiers have been killed and US fighter jets have been shot down. US bases in the region are either damaged or destroyed. Likewise, US embassies and consulates have come under attack, including by Iraqis likely still furious over the US destruction of their country 20 years ago.

And, with the Pentagon warning that the operation may go weeks instead of days, we are quickly running out of missiles.

Billions of dollars have already been spent on this unprovoked attack, and when the smoke clears – if it does – we may see hundreds of billions or maybe much more having been wasted on yet another Middle East war. Just what President Trump promised he would not do.

The neocon “cakewalk” crowd, including Lindsey Graham and others, have been proven wrong again. Tragically, more American servicemembers may die while the neocons blame someone else for the fiasco they helped launch.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the US/Israeli attack that “this combination of forces enables us to do what I have longed to do for 40 years…”

But the purpose of the US military is not to fulfill the decades-old wishes of foreign leaders. There is a good reason we have a Constitution that says only Congress can declare war.

Launching a military strike during negotiations will have lasting negative effects for the United States. Who would ever trust US diplomacy again if talks are used as a distraction for pre-planned attacks?

The Administration is doing its best to spin this unfolding disaster as all going according to plan, but what is the plan? No one knows. Do they know?

Here’s a plan: End this today. Return the destroyed US bases to the countries where they are located. And just come home. That is what a real “America first” movement looks like.

Original article:  ronpaulinstitute.org

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Europe is in shock after Trump illegally kidnapped Venezuela’s democratically elected president and his wife, attempted to buy Greenland, announced a blockade against Cuba, and, of course, initiated something that could spell the downfall of Uncle Sam itself: the planned attack on Iran. As I have written before, Europe labels Putin as the great geopolitical enemy, but now liberals in Europe, who believe they are pursuing democratic policies themselves, are condemning and fearing a new enemy: the MAGA America under Trump. Trump is being labelled a fascist, and comparisons are being made with Hitler in Germany in the 1930s.

One of the fiercest Atlanticists of Europe, Emmanuel Macron – president of France, yes, the same Emmanuel Macron who made a fool of himself at the World Economic Forum (WEF) where, wearing sunglasses (rumor has it Brigitte gave him a left-wing smackdown), he proclaimed the downfall of the European empire, which he called the rules-based order.

After Trump kidnapped Maduro and his wife, Emmanuel Macron called for a “peaceful” and “democratic” transition in Venezuela, “with the people only cheering” that the “Maduro dictatorship” has been toppled after the U.S. attack that led to the president’s arrest. This is dripping with schizophrenia. While his supporters condemn the attack, he defends Trump’s illegal, criminal act. Earlier the day before Macron’s statement, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot condemned the arrest of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. troops in an operation “contrary” to international law. This clearly shows schizophrenia and above all exposes the internal divisions within the French government.

Many politicians in European countries still consider themselves Atlanticist. These Atlanticists in Europe, especially politicians, advocate for strong cooperation between Europe and North America (the U.S. and Canada), with NATO playing a central role. They believe that European security and interests are inextricably linked to American ones. Countries like the Netherlands, France, the Baltic States, and the United Kingdom are often considered strong Atlanticists. This likely explains Macron’s reaction.

This also explains the behavior of former Dutch Prime Minister and current NATO chief Mark Rutte during his speech to the European Parliament, where he warned against the creation of a European army. His position as NATO chief also played a role, as he advocated cooperation with Trump’s pro-MAGA America. Of course, Mark Rutte, together with Macron, is by far the biggest supporter of Atlanticism on the European (mainland) continent.

European Union (EU) leader Ursula von der Leyen (German) is a fierce opponent of Putin and Trump, but she can’t really be called an Atlanticist; German politics is too rigid and inward-looking for that. She was a strong supporter of the open-door policy (the influx of millions of refugees in 2015) under Angela Merkel (CDU), who can hardly be called an Atlanticist at all. German politics is also a case of schizophrenia these days. Though not in Atlanticism, but rather in stupidity without a sense of reality.

In the past (before Trump’s second term), the cards were already stacked, and everyone in Europe and the U.S. knew the Atlantic alliance was strong – so strong, in fact, that most European countries blindly participated in American wars. Wars for oil, power, and money have accelerated since the end of World War II. They began with Vietnam (actually Korea) and will likely become the final theater of war for the U.S. and its western allies: Iran (if they are stupid enough to attack).

But there were some exceptions in the past. In France, former President Jacques Chirac protested the Atlanticists’ (U.S.) wars. He is seen more as a neo-Gaullist, who combined the traditional French emphasis on independence and a strong global position with pragmatism. In 2003, he dared to condemn the intervention in Iraq, an action that was illegal and, as we now know, began under false pretenses. Now, more than twenty years later, we know that these Western interventions have yielded nothing good, neither in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, nor Libya. Millions of refugees and deaths are the result.

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder can also be described as a “non-Atlanticist.” Although he cooperated with the U.S. as Chancellor (1998–2005) from the SPD, his foreign policy and post-term career were characterized by a strong focus on Russia and a critical stance toward the U.S. Along with Jacques Chirac, he also dared to say a resounding NO to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. This caused considerable tension in the transatlantic relationship with the U.S. These two statesmen caused a rift in Europe in 2003, and now, in 2026, Gerhard Schröder is seen as a “Putin whisperer,” just as Mark Rutte is the “Trump whisperer.” Europe’s schizophrenia is once again clearly evident here.

But under Trump, everything is different. The Atlantic ideology is dead, just as this administration has withdrawn from almost all existing international treaties, from the World Health Organization (WHO) to the Paris Climate Agreement. And let’s not forget (and this is very dangerous) the New START Treaty, which former U.S. President Obama and former Russian President Medvedev signed in Prague on April 8, 2010.

It’s actually a peak of schizophrenia in Europe and America combined. We can say that all the political doctrines and old treaties between the so-called twin nations of Europe and America no longer exist. After more than 80 years, they have come to an end due to political and diplomatic incompetence on both sides. Europe can’t keep up with the new situation created by the so-called new “world order,” which I would like to call America’s new colonialism due to their so-called MAGA policies. European politicians are confused; in a normal world, they would have to be temporarily hospitalized for psychiatric care; the same goes for the Americans, by the way.

On the one hand, they pride themselves on democratic norms and values, while their duality, their hatred of Russia and now also America, leads them to impose new totalitarian rules for their own people through the EU, fearing that negative influences or criticism will be bad for so-called democracy, while democracy, in essence, means “the will of the people.”

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which came into force in August 2025, is a key EU regulation designed to protect journalists and media pluralism, not to curtail press freedom, as it claims. The reality, of course, is quite the opposite: for the first time in EU history, European journalists have been placed on the sanctions list, the very journalists who should be protected by this law.

The Europeans still don’t grasp the reality that their friendship with America is over and it will likely be a very long time before any kind of good contact is re-established (except for Mark Rutte perhaps). They also don’t seem to understand that the European position is precarious. On one side, the enemy is America, and on the other, the enemy is Russia. They’re caught between two fires. But steeped in their hatred of Russia and clinging to the agenda of previous U.S. administrations, they continue to believe in their support for Ukraine. While it’s abundantly clear that the Ukrainian military shortage is causing significant losses on the battlefield and that Russia is on the winning side.

The Europeans pride themselves on values and norms and give “master classes” in diplomacy, as the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs proclaimed on X; “Diplomacy is no longer business as usual. Power politics is back, conflicts persist and international agreements are under pressure.” As if they had practiced diplomacy at all – in recent years there was no contact between Europe and Russia. Even during the Cold War there were contacts, so confused are European politicians right now.

Of course, EU-politicians mean diplomatic contact with America, not Russia, but now they claim that the so-called diplomacy with America is also dead. Then Europe is completely isolated, something these Atlanticists don’t fully understand yet.

European politicians are accustomed to lying and deceiving wherever they see fit – they call it diplomacy. They’ve come a long way in recent decades, but now a different wind is blowing from overseas and from the East. The colonial era, what they call the rules-based order, is definitely over, and Europeans are playing the “third wheel” in the current political landscape.

It would have been wise for Europe, even when America was still a superpower, to end the wars and regime changes, or at least act like Chirac and Schröder. Then America would have stood on its own two feet, and the situation might not have escalated so badly. Europe needs wise statesmen (and women) who want the best for their people, not belligerent, seditious, stupid, and poorly educated leaders.

It’s a hard lesson for Europe, and above all, a loss of face now that the “old” world is crumbling. They weren’t alert, they hadn’t paid attention, as they might tell their grandchildren. They didn’t realize that Europe was slowly retreating into its own cocoon, prosperity was disappearing, and, just like the declining Roman Empire, it was ruled by incapable politicians and leaders.

What remains of Europe is their subservience to Uncle Sam, despite Uncle Sam continuing to implement regime changes, commit criminal acts, kidnap presidents and rob countries of their wealth. After all, they will say, we were brothers and believed in Atlanticism.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Over the weekend, as a US carrier strike group made its way toward Iran, President Trump told Politico, “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.” This pro “regime change” statement came just days after the US and Israel-led covert operation to overthrow the Iranian government was finally defeated by Iranian authorities.

The US President is making it clear he is not giving up on “regime change” for Iran. Late last week the world held its breath expecting a US missile strike on Iran after Trump promised “help is on the way” to the US-backed insurrectionists. President Trump claimed that he called off the strikes at the last minute when he was told that Iran would hold off on executing the ringleaders of the revolt.

Ironically, Trump himself has ordered the execution of more than 100 individuals on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean without charges, trials, or convictions.

The renewed military threats on Iran come after the unprecedented fifth visit to DC this year by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was said to be arriving with a renewed demand for US military action against Iran. Add to this the recent US military operation to kidnap the President and first lady of Venezuela and take the country’s oil, as well as President Trump’s increasing demands for control over Greenland, and the aggressive militarism of this Administration is about the polar opposite of what was promised by Candidate Trump.

And the American people are taking notice.

Three recently released polls could spell disaster for Trump’s second term – and for Republicans in this year’s midterm elections.

According to a Quinnipiac University Poll released last week, seven in ten Americans oppose the US use of force against Iran, including a solid majority of Republican voters. Eighty percent of the very important independent voters oppose any US attack on Iran.

On President Trump’s renewed demand for control of Greenland – control he claimed he would get “the easy way or the hard way” – that same Quinnipiac poll shows that 86 percent of Americans surveyed oppose taking the territory by force. A majority of 55 percent of Americans polled do not even want President Trump to purchase the massive island.

An AP/NORC poll also released last week showed President Trump’s approval rating on foreign policy has shrunk to a new low in his presidency. According to the poll, “Forty-five percent of adults want the US to take a less active role in global affairs, up from 33 percent in September 2025.”

Americans are clearly more interested in getting our problems solved at home than acting as policeman for the world.

Perhaps even worse for President Trump and the Republicans, according to a newly-released Real Clear Politics poll, President Trump’s approval rating hits new second-term low of 42.1 percent.

Whatever praise President Trump may be receiving from his inner circle – which is increasingly neocon – and a small group of MAGA supporters, such aggressive operations overseas are rapidly losing him the support of the rest of the American people. And that includes Republicans.

Trump ran on “no new wars” and “no more regime change overseas.” These are very popular positions. Abandoning these positions has cost Trump dearly. We can hope that in the remaining three years President Trump will rediscover Candidate Trump’s positions and show his neocon advisors the door.

Original article:  ronpaulinstitute.org

Tuzhuxi

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Trump acaba de enviar tropas estadounidenses para bombardear Venezuela, alegando que han capturado a Maduro y que lo llevarán de vuelta a Estados Unidos para juzgarlo. La comunidad internacional está alborotada. El Congreso de Estados Unidos no sabía nada (no se le notificó con antelación). La escalada del conflicto tampoco cuenta con el apoyo de la opinión pública estadounidense. Pero nada de esto importa, porque Trump cree que todo está bajo su control.

1. La lógica de la «esfera de influencia» de Trump:

La lógica de Trump en el hemisferio occidental es la de las esferas de influencia: «Aquí puedo hacer lo que quiera». La implicación tácita es que lo que otros países hagan dentro de sus propias esferas de influencia no es asunto de Estados Unidos.

2. ¿Sigue existiendo el derecho internacional?

En opinión de Trump, el derecho internacional simplemente no existe. No reconoce el derecho internacional, ni cree en él; solo reconoce el poder y las esferas de influencia construidas sobre el poder. Si tienes fuerza, lucha; si no la tienes, cállate.

3. ¿Es Trump una figura de la «Doctrina Monroe»?

Tampoco es exacto calificar a Trump de practicante de la «Doctrina Monroe». La Doctrina Monroe sostenía que Europa no debía interferir en los asuntos de Estados Unidos, y que Estados Unidos tampoco debía interferir en los asuntos europeos, es decir, que cada continente se ocupara de sus propios asuntos. Trump, sin embargo, ve a Europa como el patio trasero de Estados Unidos y busca intervenir en la política interna europea. Por lo tanto, no es un defensor de la Doctrina Monroe, sino más bien del hegemonismo regional.

4. ¿Es esta la primera guerra de 2026?

No hay necesidad de apresurarse a llamar a esto la primera «guerra» de 2026. Desde el punto de vista estadounidense, bombardear un poco y capturar a una persona difícilmente puede considerarse una «guerra», al menos no en el discurso estadounidense. Por supuesto, la administración Trump lo enmarca como parte de la «guerra contra las drogas». Los estadounidenses lo ven como una situación permanente, muy similar a la «guerra contra el terrorismo». Se oponen a las guerras individuales con otros países, pero muestran una mayor tolerancia hacia este tipo de «campañas» perpetuas.

5. ¿Qué quiere la base de MAGA?

En materia de política exterior, las principales demandas de la base de MAGA se centran en una fuerte oposición a tres cosas. En primer lugar, se oponen a la participación de Estados Unidos en «guerras interminables» en el extranjero. En segundo lugar, se oponen a que Estados Unidos participe en cambios de régimen en otros países, porque esto no solo genera una enorme incertidumbre, sino que también distrae gravemente a los políticos de centrarse en el bienestar interno, que la gente común cree que debería ser la prioridad. En tercer lugar, se oponen a cualquier forma de reconstrucción nacional posguerra en otros países, porque esto requiere una inversión masiva de recursos en el extranjero y desvía recursos de las necesidades internas. Estas son las limitaciones vinculantes de Trump y, en esencia, los únicos temas que realmente le preocupan. A partir de esto, se derivan varios puntos.

Primero: cómo explica Trump «no librar guerras interminables».

Trump evitará iniciar lo que se considera una verdadera «guerra». Como se ha señalado anteriormente, según la concepción estadounidense, solo las invasiones con fuerzas terrestres y la ocupación territorial constituyen una verdadera «guerra». Bombardear los barcos de los narcotraficantes no cuenta como «guerra»; los ataques aéreos (contra los hutíes en Yemen, contra Siria, contra Irán) no cuentan como «guerra»; los asesinatos o las operaciones de captura de las fuerzas especiales tampoco cuentan como «guerra» (el asesinato de Soleimani en Irán no fue una guerra; entrar en Pakistán para matar a Bin Laden no fue una «guerra»; y la «detención» de Maduro tampoco sería una «guerra»).

Segundo: cómo explica Trump «no hacer un cambio de régimen».

Les dirá a los votantes que esto no cuenta como «cambio de régimen», al menos no en el sentido tradicional. El Gobierno sigue en gran medida en su sitio; los antiguos partidos y fuerzas políticas siguen ahí; el sistema político no ha cambiado. Sin embargo, el resultado es incluso mejor que un cambio de régimen. Al fin y al cabo, lo que Estados Unidos está haciendo ahora es diferente de los golpes de Estado liderados por la CIA después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial (cuando el enfoque típico de Estados Unidos en América Latina era derrocar a un Gobierno electo y apoyar a una junta militar).

Tercero: cómo explica Trump que «no se está construyendo una nación».

Este es el punto más fácil, porque Trump nunca tuvo absolutamente ningún interés en la construcción de la nación en Venezuela para empezar. Afirmaría claramente que no habrá «construcción de la nación» por parte de Estados Unidos en Venezuela después; como mucho, las empresas petroleras estadounidenses entrarían para perseguir algunos intereses comerciales.

6. Los objetivos pequeños, medianos y grandes de Trump.

¿Tiene Trump objetivos? Sí.

Su objetivo pequeño es sustituir a Maduro como individuo específico, porque Trump lo detesta personalmente. Se trata de un asunto entre Trump y Maduro, al igual que Trump choca personalmente con figuras como Lula o Modi. Detesta profundamente a Maduro.

Su objetivo mediano es respaldar a un político venezolano que sea amigo de Estados Unidos. Como mínimo, esto serviría de advertencia a los políticos hostiles a Estados Unidos, mostrándoles que el destino de Maduro es lo que les espera.

Su objetivo grande es afirmar la influencia de Estados Unidos sobre Venezuela, reduciendo o incluso cortando los lazos de este importante productor de petróleo con China y Rusia, poniendo así en práctica su visión del mundo basada en la esfera de influencia. Cabe señalar que Venezuela tiene las mayores reservas probadas de petróleo del mundo y es un estado clave en cuanto a recursos en el hemisferio occidental. Si Trump quiere controlar el hemisferio occidental, es obvio que no puede tolerar que una potencia rica en recursos en las inmediaciones de Estados Unidos mantenga estrechos vínculos con estados rivales.

7. ¿Qué pasará ahora con Trump y Estados Unidos?

Lo más probable es que se adopte un enfoque gradual y de esperar a ver qué pasa.

Observar cómo responde la política interna de Venezuela, si se suaviza o se mantiene firme, y luego decidir el siguiente paso.

Observar lo que dice la gente de todo el espectro político estadounidense, especialmente su base principal. Trump necesita explicar esto a su base y calmar sus preocupaciones.

Observar lo que dicen los aliados y lo que dice la comunidad internacional. En particular, observar si Europa se atreve a tomar una postura. Europa es profundamente hipócrita, esencialmente un grupo de actores inútiles. Lo más probable es que no digan nada. Su silencio solo confirmará la opinión de Trump sobre la incompetencia de Europa (como si se necesitara más confirmación) y le animará a actuar de forma aún más imprudente. Por supuesto, Europa no cambiaría el comportamiento de Trump de todos modos, pero si Europa permanece completamente en silencio o solo ofrece comentarios vacíos, se puede concluir que la comunidad internacional se ha derrumbado efectivamente.

También hay que estar atentos a lo que digan y puedan hacer los Estados rivales, por ejemplo, Rusia y China.

En general, si la respuesta es aceptable, Trump puede optar por intensificar la escalada; si la respuesta es muy negativa (lo que, a juzgar por la situación actual, no parece muy arriesgado), puede optar por reducirla. En resumen, todo depende de la reacción del público: avanzar o retroceder según sea necesario. (La lógica de una serie de televisión estadounidense).

8. Lo que realmente preocupa a Trump.

En realidad, a Trump solo le preocupa una cosa: la opinión de la base de MAGA.

Se espera que dedique gran parte de su energía a explicar que esto no constituye una «guerra», que los daños y los costes para Estados Unidos son mínimos, que los riesgos futuros son extremadamente bajos y que las ganancias son sustanciales. También argumentará repetidamente que este inteligente enfoque (el «arresto» de Maduro) ha hecho innecesaria una invasión mucho mayor, un cambio de régimen a gran escala y la limpieza posterior a la guerra, y que, por lo tanto, es un ejemplo clásico de «America First».

Si no hay más escalada, es muy posible que se asegure la aceptación de la base, al igual que toleraron a regañadientes el bombardeo de Trump a las instalaciones nucleares de Irán. En última instancia, el efecto que busca Trump es que este episodio beneficie, en lugar de perjudicar, a las elecciones de mitad de mandato.

9. Puntos conflictivos potenciales para el conflicto entre China y Estados Unidos

Al comenzar 2026, un punto conflictivo potencial para un conflicto entre China y Estados Unidos es, de hecho, América Latina. Trump considera que América Latina es la esfera de influencia de Estados Unidos, donde este país debe controlar todos los recursos e infraestructuras clave y apoyar a los gobiernos proestadounidenses, mientras que los Estados rivales no deben interferir.

Sin embargo, China mantiene estrechos vínculos comerciales y económicos con los principales países latinoamericanos, lo que podría convertirse en un punto de fricción en el futuro. De cara al futuro, los escenarios de confrontación directa entre China y Estados Unidos serán cada vez más limitados; los principales escenarios de conflicto serán estos terceros países.

Publicado originalmente por  The China Academy

Traducción:  Geopolítica rugiente

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Once considered the telltale sign of wealth and affluence, a six-figure income is no longer the milestone to keep pace with the high cost of inflation as more Americans struggle with just affording the necessities.

While the Trump administration boasts about the health of the economy, and the stock market roars to new highs, even high-income earners are reportedly feeling the financial pinch, according to the findings of the latest Harris poll. A whopping 64% of six-figure earners admit their income isn’t a landmark for accomplishment but actually the basic minimum for staying above water. In other words, a six-figure income is tantamount to survival, not success.

“Our data shows that even high earners are financially anxious—they’re living the illusion of affluence while privately juggling credit cards, debt, and survival strategies,” Libby Rodney, the Harris Poll’s chief strategy officer and futurist, said in a statement to Fortune magazine.

Shockingly, those Americans making $200,000 or more have been forced to commit the same financial shenanigans that are often associated with less wealthy segment of consumers. For example, 64% said they’ve used rewards points to pay for fundamentals, 50% have used “buy now, pay later” plans for purchases under $100, and 46% rely on credit cards to make ends meet.

The Harris Poll report also showed how those top earners are going out of their way to dodge everyday expenses: nearly 50% cancelled a social event so they wouldn’t have to spend extra money they didn’t have, 48% have pretended that their favorite delivery app wasn’t working to escape a payment, and 45% delayed medical treatment – like a trip to the dentist – because of the sheer cost.

And as is the case with the majority of Americans, the upper crust of income earners also says that food and other household necessities as well as housing and medical costs are the main expenses draining their wallets.

As yet more proof as to how overspent six-figure earners feel, they are also looking for additional methods to earn extra cash or save money, according to the Harris Poll.

To stay economically afloat, they are currently engaged in or considering side jobs (61%), hawking personal items (53%), missing meals (41%), renting out all or part of their home (41%), and last but not least resorting to debt consolidation or bankruptcy (38%).

“The illusion of wealth is exhausting: Many top earners say people assume they can afford it all, yet behind the image of success are quiet sacrifices: skipped purchases, delayed plans, and a fragile sense of security,” the report said.

Currently, fifty-seven percent of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling the economy, once viewed as one of the businessman-turned-president’s strong points. Thirty-six percent say the president is doing a good job on the economy, the lowest this poll has reported in both of his terms in office.

Americans are looking for candidates that they think will make their lives more affordable. Just consider that the democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the race to be mayor of New York City with promises to make housing, groceries and transportation more affordable. Virginia governor-elect Abigail Spanberger won on the promise to reduce rising electricity prices.

Make no mistake, how much cash-strapped Americans pay at the cash register is going to determine who they vote for in upcoming elections. For his part, Donald Trump recognized that affordability was a main issue for Republicans and increased his messaging on the subject while also reaching deals with drugmakers to lower prescription costs for consumers.

Trump faces a major challenge with the approaching midterm elections in November 2026 just around the corner where control of the U.S. Congress is on the line. Americans will vote for all 435 House of Representative seats and 35 Senate seats. Democrats see an opportunity to flip the House and seize control of Congress. The economy, as usual, is the battlefield.

Tax cuts from Trump’s One Beautiful Bill Act aren’t expected to hit American wallets until next year. And even Trump remains uncertain. He told the Wall Street Journal that he isn’t sure when people will start to feel the impact, or will his policies pay off politically. On paper, the economy looks solid, but clearly voters don’t feel it. Everyday prices remain high. So what’s the U.S. president’s plan? Pull every economic lever possible, including a proposed $2,000 “tariff dividend” for millions of households.

Last month, Trump rolled back tariffs on more than 200 food products over growing backlash over grocery prices. He hasn’t said what, if anything, comes next. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the government’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, the tariffs themselves aren’t likely to disappear entirely. Trump will spend most of next year campaigning hard and selling his economic agenda. But will voters feel relief in their wallets before they cast their ballots?

Segue nostro Telegram.

Nulla è paragonabile alla politica americana con i suoi drammi esagerati, che attirano l’attenzione del mondo, perché come potrebbe essere altrimenti, dato che, che la si ami o la si odi, è la storia scintillante e costellata di stelle del crollo del globalismo, e il grande riorientamento del Paese porta con sé tutte le sfumature del teatro, ogni storia umana di tradimento e distruzione. È impossibile distogliere lo sguardo quando la posta in gioco raggiunge ogni angolo del pianeta. Quindi, quando una deputata statunitense e beniamina del MAGA come Marjorie Taylor Greene rompe con il presidente Donald Trump e annuncia che si dimetterà dal Congresso, ci troviamo di fronte alla domanda: è questa la fine della carriera della Greene, la fine del MAGA, una guerra civile al suo interno o una solida opportunità per MTG di fare la sua mossa?

MTG potrebbe puntare alla politica nazionale o rivolgerà le sue ambizioni alle elezioni governative della Georgia? Trump oscillerà vagamente tra le forze populiste e oligarchiche solo per ritrovarsi emarginato in una manovra fallita per bilanciare gli interessi di classe contrastanti dove il piano economico America First non può funzionare? Trump alla fine si riconcilierà con MTG come ha fatto con Elon Musk o allontanerà gran parte della sua base?

La crisi politica che covava da tempo all’interno del MAGA intorno a Epstein, Israele e, successivamente, l’assassinio di Charlie Kirk aveva prefigurato l’annuncio di Greene, e così è arrivato come una conferma che il MAGA era irrimediabilmente diviso. I democratici stanno sicuramente valutando la possibilità di ottenere risultati positivi a metà mandato e di riconquistare la Camera, dato che il pessimismo sullo stato dell’economia rimane elevato.

Greene è stata sommersa sia da critiche che da sostegno, ma in ogni caso, “non esiste cattiva pubblicità”, o almeno così si dice. Ha ancora il controllo sulla sua narrativa e questo equivale a capitale politico. Si dice anche che nulla in politica sia casuale, e mentre Greene potrebbe essere fuori gioco, questa controversia potrebbe anche finire per essere un’opportunità per lei di cavalcare l’onda dell’influenza verso vette sempre più alte.

Le lotte politiche alla base della disputa tra MTG e Trump sono così in linea con la cosiddetta guerra civile MAGA che sarebbe strano sprecare questa opportunità. Ma cosa motiva MTG e cosa c’è dietro il conflitto che rende così instabili queste questioni politiche MAGA? Si tratta davvero di una guerra civile MAGA o piuttosto delle forze populiste MAGA che si scontrano con gli interessi corporativi e sionisti radicati che hanno dominato la politica repubblicana per decenni?

Il MAGA a cui MTG ha aderito era l’ondata populista insurrezionale che ha sfondato ovunque il terreno politico lo consentisse, e quell’apertura è avvenuta all’interno del Partito Repubblicano alcuni anni fa, nonostante gli sforzi incessanti della vecchia guardia per reprimere la rivolta e riportare il partito all’austerità di Wall Street e alla geopolitica neoconservatrice. Trump è considerato troppo moderato o compromettente con lo status quo stesso, la cui crisi di legittimità è stata la chiave del suo successo; ed è proprio qui che risiede tutta la tensione.

Ma Greene ha davvero chiuso con Trump o con il movimento nel suo complesso? MAGA è spesso erroneamente considerato un’etichetta generica per chiunque sostenga Trump, ma la realtà da tempo nota degli elettori di Trump non MAGA è diventata oggetto di un articolo e di un sondaggio di Politico del 28 novembre che mostra che “più della metà degli elettori di Trump dello scorso anno – il 55% – si definisce MAGA, ma un significativo 38% non lo fa”.

MAGA contro neoconservatori su vaccini, Israele, globalismo e UE

Dopo che Trump ha iniziato a rimodellare la politica repubblicana verso la fine degli anni 2010, molti repubblicani neoconservatori tradizionali che si erano opposti a lui hanno capito che combatterlo era una strategia perdente e hanno gradualmente iniziato a sostenerlo pubblicamente. Negli anni ’20 questo ha prodotto un mondo più ampio di influencer conservatori sui social media al di fuori di quello di MAGA, che è diventato “Conservative Inc.” o “Sometimes Trumpers”, combinando gli interessi dei grandi donatori, le reti AIPAC e un ecosistema di influencer sui social media, avvolti in una bandiera MAGA. Hanno temi di guerra culturale che si sovrappongono a parti dell’agenda interna del MAGA, ma minimizzano o individualizzano costantemente la crisi socioeconomica più profonda che ha schiacciato la classe operaia e la classe media americana, alla quale invece il MAGA presta molta attenzione, sovrapponendosi a un elettorato un tempo esclusivamente democratico, e quindi parte della sua potenza e del suo significato strategico.

Il neoconservatorismo è sopravvissuto solo imitando debolmente il MAGA, con i Never-Trumpers di lunga data che si sono ribattezzati Sometimes-Trumpers e ora professano ad alta voce la loro fedeltà come Always-Trumpers, anche se la loro politica rimane molto più vicina a Netanyahu o Nikki Haley, e guidata da opinionisti come Ben Shapiro. Trump sembra spesso soddisfare le loro narrazioni con le sue minacce bellicose rivolte all’Iran, Hamas, Venezuela o, più recentemente, alla Nigeria.

Ma ciò che fa alla fine spesso lascia i falchi della guerra delusi e scoraggiati. Il MAGA incarnato da MTG si allinea alle questioni della classe operaia sia in ambito sociale che economico e le considera inseparabili, perseguendo dazi, regole più severe in materia di immigrazione, reindustrializzazione, investimenti da parte dei partner in America e una posizione commerciale nazional-mercantilista. L’assistenza sanitaria e gli alloggi a prezzi accessibili rimangono questioni controverse con i democratici, che un tempo le consideravano di loro esclusiva competenza.

Trump sostiene enigmaticamente il MAGA, chiamato MAGA, ma se ne distingue anche, suggerendo che il MAGA fosse qualcosa che Trump ha scoperto o messo insieme da parti della maggioranza silenziosa.

Trump intrappolato tra il popolo e il potere

La tensione sottostante alla politica di Trump è semplicemente che il mandato populista per cui è stato eletto si scontra con la sua necessità di allineare il sostegno dell’oligarchia. Resta da vedere, o almeno così si discute, se Trump sia compromesso, abbia sempre agito in malafede o invece intenda adempiere al suo mandato elettorale e mantenere le promesse fondamentali del MAGA. Trump e il fenomeno MAGA sono stati oggetto di una persecuzione enorme e reale per molti anni, affrontando una caccia alle streghe sotto forma di azioni legali e politicizzazione del sistema giudiziario contro Trump durante il suo primo mandato e durante l’amministrazione Biden. I sostenitori di Trump sono stati ostacolati sui social media, censurati, diffamati e persino privati dei servizi bancari. Politicamente, Trump è sopravvissuto a questi attacchi grazie alla sua ampia base di sostegno e alla sua base che ha vissuto questi attacchi insieme a lui, e attraverso questo si è creato una sorta di legame.

Se Trump tradisse questo legame e si definisse come difensore del sistema della vecchia guardia in un senso pragmatico di accordi commerciali, lasciando indietro la sua base MAGA, i nostri opportunisti crassiani moderni e le forze ottimali attaccheranno Trump una volta che sarà isolato. Trump, quindi, per evitare questo, potrebbe essere spinto a sostenere la “sinistra nazionale” definendo la base MAGA su misure populiste.

Il MAGA fin dall’inizio è stato impegnato in una guerra su due fronti, contro la destra cristiana sionista e il conservatorismo economico di Wall Street. Ha perseguito questo conflitto non opponendosi al cristianesimo o all’economia in linea di principio, ma allontanandoli dagli obiettivi finali sionisti e globalisti. Sul fronte economico, il MAGA ha affrontato il programma filo-aziendale e anti-lavoratori dei neoconservatori, non con il vecchio stile della lotta di classe di sinistra, ma con un approccio transclassista che ha collegato il mondo degli affari e quello del lavoro ai risultati comuni per la nazione. L’altro fronte ha preso di mira il blocco cristiano sionista, che aveva sostenuto alcune questioni interne come l’aborto e la guerra culturale, ma le aveva legate a una visione sionista che imponeva le guerre infinite a cui il MAGA si oppone.

Trump spesso concilia queste posizioni del MAGA con gli interessi oligarchici verso la crescita economica nazionale, il che non presenta un problema intrinseco. Tuttavia, nel bilanciare questo tipo di New Deal, questa grande rinegoziazione del contratto sociale che solo il momento presente porta sul tavolo, ci sono conflitti sui dettagli, sugli impegni, sugli oneri che saranno sostenuti e da chi. Neanche la politica estera è immune da questa tensione. La retorica pro-Netanyahu di Trump e il suo sostegno alla censura sulla guerra a Gaza nelle università americane sono in forte contrasto con le opinioni fondamentali del MAGA. MTG rappresenta pubblicamente il polo MAGA e dimostra dove esso si sovrappone ad alcune opinioni populiste di sinistra dei Democratici, con The Guardian che riporta la sua dichiarazione congiunta con il socialista democratico Bernie Sanders che condanna il genocidio di Israele a Gaza.

Trump tende a mantenere le promesse alla fine, tirando fuori il coniglio dal cilindro, anche se non sempre, ma comunque il suo percorso a zig-zag produce sempre malcontento, disperazione e persino il temuto disimpegno. MTG svolge un ruolo nel mantenere la coerenza all’interno di questa narrativa conflittuale, quindi è logico che i partiti capaci fallirebbero se non la mettessero in pratica.

MTG mantiene la coesione del MAGA laddove Trump appare in conflitto

Trump si trova ora ad affrontare una sorta di dilemma cesariano durante il periodo del Primo Triumvirato, tirato da interessi contrastanti all’interno e all’esterno della coalizione transclassista, mentre cerca di gestire le crisi create dalla vecchia guardia repubblicana e democratica.

La vecchia guardia neoconservatrice si è appropriata dell’identità MAGA per riportare Trump verso la propria agenda. Se Trump abbia resistito, lo abbia permesso o abbia semplicemente lasciato che l’impressione persistesse è discutibile, ma molti americani MAGA della classe operaia e media che MTG ha allineato credono che le riforme stiano arrivando troppo lentamente e vedono il coinvolgimento di Trump con gli oligarchi tecnologici e i sionisti come la fonte o il sottoprodotto di tale problema.

Ciò che è significativo in tutto questo è che MTG dà alla delusione di MAGA nei confronti di Trump una certa coerenza, consistenza e una narrativa che riflette il malcontento della base, ma anche un senso di direzione e di scopo, che contrasta con la reale crisi dell’apatia degli elettori. MTG può mantenere coerente il sostegno a MAGA mentre Trump intreccia la sua “Arte dell’accordo” in modi che gli costano la sua base, almeno inizialmente.

Il marchio di MTG rimane forte e lei non è in declino politico. Quello che sembra un conflitto impulsivo, caos o lotte intestine è spesso un teatro politico progettato, parte di uno spettacolo più ampio che attira un pubblico sempre più vasto in una sorta di iper-realtà baudrillardiana dove mito e realtà si fondono, creando una narrativa che sembra completa di per sé, anche se confonde il confine tra verità e finzione.

Essendo in una posizione di forza con una visibilità e una portata in espansione, l’idea che possa decidere improvvisamente di abbandonare la politica semplicemente non ha senso. La questione che ha scatenato la controversia è ancora meno convincente, poiché, pur riflettendo problemi strutturali più ampi, difficilmente qualcuno è disposto a lottare fino alla morte per essa. La disputa verteva sui visti H-1B, sui quali si ritiene che Trump abbia fatto concessioni limitate per mantenere stabili le relazioni con la Cina e l’India, soddisfacendo al contempo i datori di lavoro dei settori chiave nazionali che dipendono dai costi di manodopera più bassi che questi specialisti stranieri sono disposti ad accettare. Il MAGA ha subito un duro colpo quando il team di Trump ha proposto un mutuo di 50 anni, apparentemente destinato a persone che non comprendono come funzionano effettivamente i calcoli dei tassi di interesse.

Newsweek ha riportato l’importanza di queste questioni alcune settimane fa in modo popolare, citando alcuni influenti sostenitori del MAGA: Matt Morse, creatore di contenuti e commentatore di “America First”, ha definito l’intervista “catastrofica per Trump”. Ha scritto su X: “Chiunque faccia parte della cerchia ristretta di Trump e gli abbia detto che abbiamo bisogno di più visti H-1B, mutui trentennali e 600.000 studenti cinesi deve essere LICENZIATO IMMEDIATAMENTE. AMERICA FIRST”.

Morse ha poi aggiunto: “Sono uno dei più importanti commentatori pro-Trump della nazione. Ogni mese ottengo decine di milioni di visualizzazioni parlando dell’agenda America First di Trump. E in questo momento sono assolutamente f****** oltre P***** OFF perché stasera, come giustificazione per i visti H-1B, Trump ha affermato che gli americani non ‘hanno talento’. Assolutamente irreale”.

Sembra un problema facile da risolvere se MTG e MAGA ne parlano e attirano abbastanza attenzione. È simbolico di una questione più ampia, ma offre comunque a Trump una facile via d’uscita sotto forma di un ordine esecutivo o qualcosa di simile.

Il fattore 2026

È corretto affermare che MTG sta agendo perché è in una posizione troppo favorevole per non farlo. L’apparizione di MTG il 4 novembre a The View, seguita dal ritiro dell’appoggio di Trump il 14 novembre e culminata con il voto quasi unanime della Camera sui file Epstein il 18 novembre (427-1), giocano tutti a favore della sua strategia. La narrazione superficiale appare abbastanza lineare, con MTG che lamenta pubblicamente la lentezza dei cambiamenti all’interno del movimento MAGA, critica il predominio dei truffatori ed esprime frustrazione per il fatto che la sua lealtà non sia stata ricambiata. La sua successiva retorica in risposta al ritiro di Trump sul rifiuto di essere una “moglie maltrattata” ha un peso emotivo che sembra autentico e fa appello a una certa fascia demografica femminile nello Stato della Georgia che potrebbe oscillare tra Democratici e Repubblicani.

Come potrebbe tutto questo avere senso se qualcuno riuscisse a elaborare una strategia vincente basata su questi fatti? MTG ha l’attenzione nazionale, ma potrebbe essere più efficace se rivolta alla Georgia.

La corsa alla carica di governatore della Georgia inizierà nel 2026, con Brian Kemp alla fine del suo mandato e il campo aperto. MTG rappresenta il 14° distretto della Georgia, un territorio profondamente repubblicano, ma la carica di governatore richiede di attrarre gli elettori della periferia di Atlanta che determinano l’esito delle elezioni. Il suo attuale posizionamento, che combina messaggi patriottici con le preoccupazioni economiche della classe operaia tipicamente associate alla sinistra, può essere calibrato per un pubblico statale? La questione diventa più intrigante se si considera che la democratica Stacey Abrams potrebbe candidarsi nuovamente, creando la necessità di un repubblicano populista in grado di parlare agli elettori indecisi e alle donne che Abrams conquisterà se il GOP commetterà l’errore di sostenere una figura conservatrice neoconservatrice come Kemp.

Biden ha vinto in Georgia nel 2020 con meno di 12.000 voti, che Trump contesta ancora oggi, e lo Stato rimane fondamentalmente indeciso, richiedendo ai repubblicani di attivare ed espandere la base, cosa che MTG senza dubbio fa. Kemp, sebbene sostenuto da Trump alcuni anni prima, si è unito all’alleanza anti-Trump nel 2020 con Pence e ha respinto gli appelli del presidente a contestare i risultati. Con MTG come governatrice, potrebbe contribuire a proteggere da procedure elettorali irregolari che potrebbero danneggiare la macchina di Trump nel 2028, chiunque sia il candidato.

Guardando alle elezioni di medio termine, vediamo che se MTG abbandona completamente la politica quando si dimetterà dalla Camera a gennaio, non avrà fatto nulla con il capitale politico che ha guadagnato, i suoi ottimi risultati e la sua recente esposizione alla base democratica che guarda The View.

L’unica macchia sul suo curriculum sarebbe quella di aver abbandonato i suoi elettori lasciando la politica. Questo sarebbe riscattabile solo se lo facesse per perseguire una carica più alta e avere un maggiore potere di realizzazione. Se perseguisse la carica di governatore della Georgia, le sue recenti mosse avrebbero più senso come posizionamento pre-campagna. Prendere le distanze da Trump dalla sinistra economica, pur mantenendo il messaggio America First, le consentirebbe di attrarre i residenti dei sobborghi scettici nei confronti di Trump senza alienare la base. Quando sarà il momento, Trump potrà riconciliarsi con MTG come ha fatto con Musk per il 2028.

Alla fine la domanda è se le forze che ora plasmano la politica americana possano essere guidate da coloro che ne sono al centro. MTG potrebbe giocare le sue carte o meno, Trump potrebbe ricalibrare o crollare, e MAGA potrebbe frammentarsi o continuare a essere una forza trainante nella base di Trump. Ciò che è chiaro è che la lotta per la direzione dell’America non è più astratta e Trump ha meno di un anno per impedire la sconfitta del suo partito. MTG ha un enorme capitale politico e, che sia per scelta o per necessità, Trump probabilmente finirà per investire su di lei. Qualunque cosa accadrà in seguito non sarà tranquilla e non passerà inosservata, perché questa è l’arte del teatro nella politica americana.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Nothing is like American politics with its over the top drama, drawing in the world’s attention, for how could it not, because love it or hate it, it is the gleaming star-spangled unfolding story of the collapse of globalism, and the country’s great reorientation carries all the shades of theater, every human story of betrayal and destruction. It is impossible to look away when the stakes reach every corner of the planet. So when a U.S. congresswoman and MAGA darling like Marjorie Taylor Greene breaks with President Donald Trump and announces she will resign from Congress, we confront the question: Is this the end Greene’s career, the end of MAGA, a civil war inside it, or a robust opportunity for MTG to make moves?

Could MTG be aiming at national politics, or will she turn her ambitions on Georgia’s gubernatorial elections? Will Trump nebulously vacillate between populist and oligarchic forces only to face being triangulated out in a failed gambit to balance contending class interests where an America First economic plan cannot deliver? Will Trump, in the end reconcile with MTG as he did with Elon Musk, or will he alienate a large part of his base?

The long brewing political crisis within MAGA surrounding Epstein, Israel, and later Charlie Kirk’s assassination had foreshadowed Greene’s announcement, and so it hit like confirmation that MAGA was irreparably divided. Democrats are surely eyeing the possibility of mid-term gains and a chance to retake the House, since pessimism with the state of the economy remains high. Greene has been flooded with both push-back and support but either way, “there is no such thing as bad publicity”, or so the saying goes. She still has control over her narrative and this equals political capital.

It is also said that nothing in politics is coincidental, and while Greene might just be out, this controversy could also wind up being an opportunity for her to ride the clout-wave to ever greater heights. The policy fights at the root of the MTG row with Trump so well align with the the so-called MAGA civil war that the opportunity here would be strange to squander. But what is motivating MTG and what is behind the conflict that makes these MAGA policy issues so volatile? Is this really a MAGA civil war or rather populist MAGA forces running up against the entrenched corporate and Zionist interests that have dominated Republican politics for decades?

The MAGA that MTG joined was the insurgent populist wave that broke through wherever the political terrain allowed, and that opening happened inside the Republican Party a few years ago, despite nonstop efforts by the old-guard to suppress the uprising and restore the party to Wall Street austerity and neoconservative geopolitics. Trump is seen as too moderate or compromising with the very status quo whose legitimacy crisis was the key to his own success; and therein lays the whole tension.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks alongside President Donald Trump at a campaign event in Rome, Georgia, on March 9, 2024. | Elijah Nouvelage/AFP via Getty Images

But is Greene truly finished with Trump or with the movement as a whole? MAGA is often wrongly treated as a catch-all label for anyone who supports Trump, but the long understood reality of non-MAGA Trump voters became the subject of a November 28th Politico piece and poll showing, “More than half of Trump’s voters last year — 55 percent — describe themselves as MAGA, but a critical 38 percent do not.”

MAGA vs. Neoconservatives on Vax, Israel, Globalism, and the EU

After Trump began reshaping Republican politics toward the end of the teens, many standard neocon Republicans who had opposed him realized that fighting him was a losing strategy and gradually shifted into public support. By the 20’s this produced a broader conservative social-media influencer world outside of MAGA’s own that became “Conservative Inc.” or the “Sometimes Trumpers,” combining big-business donor interests, AIPAC networks, and a social-media influencer ecosystem, wrapped in a MAGA banner. They have culture-war themes that overlap with parts of the MAGA domestic agenda, yet they consistently downplay or individualize the deeper socioeconomic crisis that has crushed the American working and middle class which MAGA on the other hand pays close attention to, overlapping with a once uniquely Democrat constituency, and therefore part of its potency and strategic significance.

Neoconservatism has only survived by performing a weak imitation of MAGA, with lifelong Never-Trumpers rebranding themselves as Sometimes-Trumpers and now loudly professing loyalty as Always-Trumpers, even though their politics remain far closer to Netanyahu or Nikki Haley, and guided by pundits like Ben Shapiro. Trump often appears to satiate their narratives with his saber rattling threats aimed at Iran, Hamas, Venezuela, or more recently Nigeria. But what he does in the end often leaves the war hawks deflated and let down.

MAGA as MTG embodies it aligns with working-class issues in both the social and economic spheres and sees them as inseparable, pursuing tariffs, tighter immigration rules, reindustrialization, investment from partners into America, and a national-mercantilist trade posture. Healthcare and affordable housing remain battleground issues with Democrats who once saw this as their sovereign domain. Trump enigmatically sustains MAGA, named MAGA, but is also distinct from it, suggesting MAGA was something that Trump either discovered or brought together from parts of the silent majority.

Trump Caught Between People and Power

The underlying tension beneath Trump’s politics is simply that the populist mandate he was elected to fulfill comes up against his own need to align support from among the oligarchy. Whether or not Trump is compromised, was always acting poor faith, or instead is going to fulfill his electoral mandate and deliver on core MAGA promises remains to be seen, or at least so the debate goes. Trump and the MAGA phenomenon were under tremendous and real persecution for many years, faced a witch hunt in the form law fare and the politicization of the justice system against Trump during his first term and during the Biden administration. Trump supporters were ostracized on social media, deplatformed, censored, doxed and even de-banked. Politically Trump survived these attacks thanks to his broad base of support and his base experiencing these attacks alongside him, and through this a sort of bond was created.

If Trump betrays this bond and becomes defined by protecting the system of the old-guard in some pragmatic deal-making sense, leaving his MAGA base behind, our modern day Crassian opportunists and Optimate forces will then attack Trump once he’s isolated. Trump then to avoid this may be pushed to support the ‘national left’ defining the MAGA base on populist measures.

MAGA from the start was engaged in a two-front war, against the Zionist Christian right and Wall Street business conservatism. They pursued this conflict not by opposing Christianity or business in principle, but by steering these away from Zionist and Globalist end goals. On the economic front MAGA confronted the pro-corporate and anti-worker program of the neocons, not with old-style class-struggle leftism, but with a trans-class approach that linked business and labor to the joint outcomes for the nation. The other front targeted the Zionist Christian bloc, which had supported some domestic issues like abortion and culture war matters, but tied those to a Zionist outlook that compelled the forever wars MAGA opposes.

Trump often straddles these MAGA positions with oligarchic interests towards national economic growth, which does not present an inherent problem. But in the balance of striking this New Deal of sorts, this great renegotiation of the social contract which only the present moment brings to the table, there are conflicts over the details, in the commitments, in the burdens that will be bore and by whom. Foreign policy is not immune from this tension either. Trump’s pro-Netanyahu rhetoric at times and endorsement of censorship on the war on Gaza at American universities strongly conflicted with core MAGA views. MTG represents the MAGA pole very publicly, and demonstrating where it overlaps with some populist-left Democrat views, with The Guardian covering her joint statement with democratic socialist Bernie Sanders condemning Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Trump does tend to deliver in the end, pulling the rabbit out of the hat, though not always, but nevertheless his zig-zagging course always produces discontent, despair, even the dreaded disengagement. MTG serves a role in maintaining coherency within this conflicted narrative, so it only makes sense that capable parties would be dropping the ball if they were not operationalizing it.

MTG maintains MAGA cohesiveness where Trump appears conflicted

Trump now faces something like a Caesarian conundrum during the period of the First Triumvirate, pulled by competing interests inside and outside the trans-class coalition, as he tries to manage crises that the old Republican and Democrat guard created.

The neocon old-guard appropriated the MAGA identity in order to steer Trump back toward their agenda. Whether Trump has resisted this, enabled it, or merely allowed the impression to persist is debatable, but many working and middle class MAGA Americans who MTG has aligned with believe reforms are arriving too slowly and see Trump’s entanglement with tech oligarchs and Zionists as either the source or the byproduct of that problem.

What’s huge in all of this is that MTG gives MAGA disappointment with Trump some coherence, consistency, and a narrative that reflects disaffection in the base, but also a sense of direction and purpose, which cuts against the real crisis of voter apathy. MTG can keep support for MAGA coherent while Trump weaves his ‘Art of the Deal’ in ways that cost him with his base, at least initially.

MTG’s brand remains strong, and she is not in political decline. What looks like impulsive conflict, chaos, or infighting is often political theater by design, part of a broader spectacle that pulls ever larger audiences into a kind of Baudrillardian hyper-reality where myth and fact blend together, creating a narrative that feels complete in its own right, even as it blurs the line between truth and fiction.

Being in a strong position with expanding visibility and reach, the idea that she would suddenly decide to quit politics simply does not make sense. The issue inspiring the row is even less convincing, since while it reflects broader structural problems it’s hardly anyone’s hill to die on. The dispute centered on H-1B visas, where Trump is thought to have made limited concessions in order to keep relations with China and India on stable footing, while also satisfying employers in key domestic sectors who depend on the lower labor costs that these foreign specialists are willing to accept. MAGA was simultaneously slapped in the face when Trump’s team floated a 50-year mortgage, seemingly for people who do not understand how interest-rate math actually works.

Newsweek reported on the centrality of these issues a few weeks ago in vox populi fashion, quoting some ostensible MAGA influencers: “Matt Morse, an “America First” content creator and commentator, called the interview “catastrophic for Trump”. He wrote on X: “Whoever’s in Trump’s inner-circle that’s been telling him that we need more H-1B visas, 50 year mortgages, and 600,000 Chinese students needs to be FIRED IMMEDIATELY. AMERICA FIRST.”

Morse later followed up: “I am one of the largest pro-Trump commentators in the nation. I get tens of millions of views every single month talking about Trump’s America First agenda. And right now, I’m absolutely f****** beyond P***** OFF that tonight, as a justification for H-1B visas, Trump said that Americans don’t ‘have talent.’ Absolutely unreal.”

This seems like an easy to resolve problem if MTG and MAGA make noise about it and it draws enough attention. It is symbolic of a larger issue but still offers Trump an easy out in the form of an Executive Order or similar.

The 2026 Factor

It’s fair to say that MTG is making moves because she’s too well positioned not to. MTG’s November 4th appearance on The View, followed by Trump’s withdrawal of endorsement on November 14th, and culminating with the House’s near-unanimous Epstein files vote on November 18th (427-1), all work very strongly for her strategy. The surface narrative appears straightforward enough with MTG publicly lamenting the slow pace of change within the MAGA movement, criticizing the dominance of grifters, and expressing frustration that her loyalty has gone unreciprocated. Her later rhetoric in response to Trump’s withdrawal about refusing to be a “battered wife” carries emotional weight that seems authentic and appeals to a certain female demographic in the state of Georgia that may swing Democrat or Republican.

How would all of this make sense if someone could make a winning game plan out of these facts? MTG has national attention, but most effectively it could be turned back on Georgia.

Georgia’s gubernatorial race opens in 2026, with Brian Kemp termed out and the field wide open. MTG represents Georgia’s 14th district, a deeply red territory, but a governorship requires appealing to suburban Atlanta voters who swing elections. Can her current positioning, combining patriotic messaging with working-class economic concerns typically associated with the left, be calibrated for a statewide audience? The question becomes more intriguing when we note that Democrat Stacey Abrams might run again, creating the need for a populist Republican who can speak to crossover voters and women who Abrams will pick up if the GOP instead errors and opts to back a neocon establishment conservative figure like Kemp.

Biden won Georgia in 2020 by fewer than 12,000 votes which Trump contests to this day, and the state remains fundamentally purple, requiring Republicans to activate and expand the base, which MTG no doubt does. Kemp, though endorsed by Trump a few years prior, joined the anti-Trump alliance in 2020 with Pence and pushed back against the president’s appeals to challenge the outcomes. With MTG as governor, she could help guard against irregular election procedures working against the Trump machine in 2028, whoever the candidate may be.

Looking toward the midterm elections we see that if MTG drops out of politics entirely when she resigns from the House in January, she has done nothing with the political capital she has earned, her strong record, and her recent exposure to the Democrat base that watches The View.

The only mar on her record would be that she abandoned constituents by quitting politics. This is only redeemable if she is doing so to pursue higher office and has greater power to deliver. If she pursues the Georgia governorship, her recent moves make more sense as pre-campaign positioning. Creating distance from Trump from the economic left, while maintaining the America First message, allows her to appeal to Trump-skeptical suburbanites without alienating the base. When the time comes, Trump can reconcile with MTG as he did with Musk when it comes to 2028.

In the end the question is whether the forces now shaping American politics can be steered by those at its center. MTG may play her cards or not, Trump may recalibrate or collapse, and MAGA may fracture or continue to be a driving force in Trump’s base. What is clear is that the struggle over America’s direction is no longer abstract, and Trump has less than a year to prevent his party from defeat. MTG has tremendous political capital and whether by design or eventuality, Trump will probably come to invest in it. Whatever comes next will not be quiet, and it will not be unseen, because this is the art of theater in American politics.

Follow Joaquin Flores on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Trump loyalist and CIA contractor Larry Ellison’s purchase of CNN appears imminent, and marks the latest venture into media for the world’s second-richest individual. But Ellison is not alone. Indeed, the world’s seven richest individuals are all now powerful media barons, controlling what the world sees, reads, and hears, marking a new chapter in oligarchical control over society and striking another blow at a free, independent press and diversity of opinion.

Media Monopoly

Paramount Skydance– an Ellison-owned company– is in pole position to purchase Warner Brothers Discovery, a conglomerate that controls gigantic film and television studios, streaming services like HBO Max and Discovery+, franchises like DC Comics, and TV networks such as HBO, TNT, Discovery Channel, TLC, Food Network, and CNN. This lead is largely due to Ellison’s proximity to President Trump, who will ultimately have to sign off on such a deal.

Ellison has already spoken to senior White House officials about axing CNN hosts and content that Trump is said to dislike, including anchors, Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar. It is this willingness to completely reorientate the network’s political direction that has made him the White House’s preferred purchaser of Warner Brothers Discovery. He is reportedly so wealthy that he can afford to pay in cash.

Ellison, whose net worth stands at a staggering $278 billion, has been on a media spending spree of late. Earlier this year, he provided the funds for Skydance to purchase Paramount Global, another gigantic conglomerate that controls such products as CBS, BET, MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Paramount Streaming, and Showtime.

Immediately upon being appointed CEO of CBS News, Larry’s son, David, began drastically reorientating the network’s political outlook, firing staff, pushing it to become pro-Trump, and appointing self-described “Zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss as its editor-in-chief.

The Ellison family, however, is far from finished. In September, President Trump signed an executive order approving a proposal to force through the sale of social media platform TikTok to an American consortium led by Ellison-owned tech company, Oracle.

Under the planned arrangement, Oracle will oversee the platform’s security and operations, giving the world’s second-richest man effective control over the platform that more than 60% of Americans under thirty years of age use for news and entertainment. Trump himself stated that he was extremely pleased that Oracle would be controlling the platform. “It’s owned by Americans, and very sophisticated Americans,” he said.

The Ellison family’s sudden venture into the realm of media and communications has shocked many, with senior media figures sounding the alarm. Longtime CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, warned that “we all have to be concerned about the consolidation of huge billionaires getting control of nearly all of the major news outlets.” “It is a particularly tough time for anybody working at CBS News,” he stated, citing pressure to change coverage to be more pro-Trump. “I think if [the Ellisons] were to buy CNN, it would change CNN forever, and it might be another very serious wound to CBS News,” he concluded.

Billionaire Capture

Rather is correct. No other period in history has seen such a rapid and overwhelming buy up of our means of communications by the billionaire class – a fact that raises tough questions about freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. Today, the world’s seven richest individuals are all major media barons, giving them extraordinary control over our media and public square, allowing them to set agendas, and suppress forms of speech they do not approve of. This includes criticisms of them and their holdings, the economic system we live under, and the actions of the United States and Israeli governments.

Sitting on a fortune of over $480 billion, Elon Musk is the wealthiest person in world history, and is projected to, within the next decade, become the planet’s first trillionaire. In 2022, Musk purchased Twitter, in a deal worth around $44 billion. The South-African born tech magnate quickly set about turning the platform into a vehicle for advancing his own far-right politics. In 2024, for example, he was a key figure in promoting an attempt to topple Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro, spreading misinformation about the country’s election, and even threatening Maduro with a future in the notorious Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

He has also very publicly rewritten his generative AI chatbot, Grok, on multiple occasions, so it would produce more conservative responses to users’ questions. One result of this was that Grok began to praise Adolf Hitler.

Musk overtook Jeff Bezos last year to become the world’s richest man. And like Musk, the Amazon founder and CEO has made several moves into the world of media. In 2013, he bought The Washington Post for $250 million, and quickly began exerting his influence on the newspaper, firing anti-establishment writers and hiring pro-war columnists. This came just months after he bought a minority stake in Business Insider (now rebranded to Insider).

One year later, in 2014, Amazon paid nearly a billion dollars to purchase Twitch, a streaming platform which hosts around 7 million monthly broadcasters. Amazon also owns a wide range of other media ventures, including movie studio MGM, audiobook platform, Audible, and movie database website, IMDB.

French billionaire, Bernard Arnault, meanwhile, has been buying up large swaths of his country’s media outlets. The chairman of luxury conglomerate, Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVMH) and the world’s seventh-richest man now sits on a media empire that includes daily newspapers such as Le Parisien and Les Echoes, magazines such as Paris Match and Challenges, as well as Radio Classique.

The remaining three individuals rounding out the top seven list all owe their wealth primarily to their media empires. Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are collectively worth over half a trillion dollars. Google has become the dominant force in today’s hi-tech economy, and is also a major player in social media, having bought YouTube in 2006 for $1.65 billion. Thirty-five percent of Americans use the video platform as a primary source of news.

Mark Zuckerberg, meanwhile, owes his $203 billion fortune to his social media and tech ventures, including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Like YouTube, Zuckerberg’s companies are major players in the modern news landscape, with 38%, 20% and 5% of Americans relying on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp for their news and views.

MAGA Mouthpieces

Many of these wealthy individuals have joined forces with President Trump, in an effort to support Republican policies and push a conservative worldview. Chief among these is the Ellison family, who quickly announced significant changes as CBS News, promising “unbiased” coverage and more “varied ideological perspectives”– widely understood as a shift towards right-wing, pro-Trump coverage.

Larry Ellison holds deeply conservative views, and became a top donor and fundraiser for the Republican Party, and a close Trump confident. Indeed, one Trump insider, noting his influence, went so far as to call Ellison as the “shadow President of the United States.”

Musk, of course, very publicly turned Twitter into a conservative-dominated platform, and was an unofficial member of Trump’s cabinet, becoming de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency.

Zuckerberg has also taken a number of steps to align his platforms with the MAGA movement, including firing his fact-checking team (widely associated with liberal politics) and prioritizing what he calls “free speech.” Content moderation teams, the Meta CEO said, would be moved from California to Texas, “where there is less concern about the bias of our teams.”

Zuckerberg replaced Meta’s president of global affairs, the former Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom, Nick Clegg, with prominent Republican Joel Kaplan, who was George W. Bush’s chief of staff. He also appointed Dana White, the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and a close Trump ally, to Meta’s board, despite his complete lack of relevant experience.

Many of these moves were likely made in response to Trump’s threat to imprison Zuckerberg “for the rest of his life” if he did anything to “cheat” him out of a 2024 presidential election victory. Zuckerberg subsequently met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and, alongside Bezos and other tech moguls, donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Bezos, meanwhile, pursued similar measures at The Washington Post, announcing that the newspaper would no longer publish opinions skeptical of capitalism. “We are going to be writing every day in support of defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” Bezos wrote, noting that readers wishing to see alternative viewpoints can find them on “the internet.”

The decision was widely seen as a major shakeup, and provoked public opposition from Post employees. “Massive encroachment by Jeff Bezos into The Washington Post’s opinion section today,” said the newspaper’s lead economics journalist Jeff Stein. “[It] makes clear dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.”

The move was quite the reversal for Bezos, who had once called Trump a “threat to democracy.” Yet, by January 2025, he was sitting with Zuckerberg, Musk, and Arnault in prominent positions behind Trump at his inauguration.

Considering his nationality, Arnault has a surprisingly close relationship with Trump. In 2019, the French billionaire opened a new Louis Vuitton factory in Alvarado, Texas, a move that some have suggested was an attempt to please the president. Trump attended the facility’s opening, calling Arnault an “artist” and a “visionary.”

Due to their relationship with the Trumps, the Arnault family have become unofficial intermediaries between the French and U.S. governments. They were hosted by the Trumps at Mar-a-Lago in 2023, and, during an escalating trade war earlier this year, Bernard visited the White House to dampen down tensions between the U.S. and France.

Pentagon Contractors

A key factor in the rise of many of the world’s top seven richest individuals is their proximity to the U.S. national security state, with many of their companies growing wealthy in part due to feeding from the trough of Pentagon contracts. Today’s wars and espionage rely as much on hi-tech computing equipment as tanks and guns, and in 2022, the Department of Defense awarded Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle a $9 billion cloud computing contract.

Bezos’ Amazon has long enjoyed a close relationship with the CIA, having signed a $600 million contract with the agency in 2014. Yet both Google and Musk’s aerospace company, SpaceX, have been intertwined with Langley since their inception.

The CIA bankrolled and oversaw Brin’s PhD research at Stanford University, work which would later form the basis of Google. As one investigation noted, “senior U.S. intelligence representatives including a CIA official oversaw the evolution of Google in this pre-launch phase, all the way until the company was ready to be officially founded.”

As late as 2005, In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist arm, was a major shareholder in Google. These shares were a result of Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, Inc., a CIA-backed surveillance firm whose software eventually became Google Earth. By 2007, the government was using enhanced versions of Google Earth to surveil and target enemies in Iraq and beyond, according to The Washington Post. By this time, the Post also notes, Google was partnering with Lockheed Martin to produce futuristic technology for the military. There also exists a revolving door of employment between Google and various branches of Federal government.

It would be no stretch, meanwhile, to state that Elon Musk owes his largesse in no small part to his intimate relationship with the CIA. In-Q-Tel chief Mike Griffin helped birth SpaceX, providing support and advice from the beginning, and even accompanied Musk to Russia in 2002, where the pair attempted to purchase cheap intercontinental ballistic missiles to start the company.

Griffin repeatedly championed Musk at the CIA, describing him as the “Henry Ford” of the space industry, and worthy of the government’s full support. Still, by 2008, SpaceX was in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and believing both SpaceX and Tesla Motors would be liquidated. But he was saved by an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract that Griffin had helped secure.

Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse. But its primary customers continue to be U.S. government agencies, such as the Air Force, Space Development Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. And recently, the Pentagon has recruited him to help it win a nuclear war. A new SpaceX spinoff company, Castelion, is working on building a network of armed satellites circling North America, designed to shoot down enemy nuclear missiles. A successful operation would give the United States an impervious shield, and allow it to act as it wants around the world, without threat of retaliation, effectively ending the era of mutually assured destruction, and plunging the planet into a dangerous new epoch.

Six of the seven members of Castelion’s leadership team and two of its four senior advisors are ex-Space X employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the CIA, including Griffin himself. Elon named his oldest child Griffin Musk. Another of his sons, X Æ A-12, is named after a CIA spy plane.

No billionaire, however, is more intimately connected to the CIA than Larry Ellison. Ellison began his career by working with the CIA on a database system called Project Oracle. In 1977, he would co-found tech giant Oracle (named after his previous project). The CIA was Oracle’s only customer for some time, before Ellison branched out and began to win contracts with other branches of the national security state, including Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and the NSA.

That close partnership continues to this day. In 2020, the company won a 15-year contract with the CIA and 16 other U.S. intelligence agencies worth tens of billions of dollars. And today, its upper ranks are filled with former CIA executives. One example of this is Leon Panetta, former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense, who sits on its board of directors.

Arming and Supporting Israel

Another key attribute that many of the world’s richest individuals share is their passionate support for Israel and its expansionist project.

Nowhere is this more evident than with Ellison, who has made it his life’s goal to advance the Jewish State’s interests, both at home and abroad. Ellison is an enthusiastic supporter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he vacationed with on his private island in Hawaii. So impressed was he with the embattled prime minister that he offered him a seat on Oracle’s board, replete with a yearly salary of $450,000.

Ellison is the largest single donor to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In 2017 alone, he pledged $16.6 million to build a new training facility for IDF soldiers, whom he described as defending “our home.” At a fundraiser, he explained that:

Through all of the perilous times since Israel’s founding, we have called on the brave men and women of the IDF to defend our home. In my mind, there is no greater honor than supporting some of the bravest people in the world, and I thank Friends of the IDF for allowing us to celebrate and support these soldiers year after year. We should do all we can to show these heroic soldiers that they are not alone.”

David Ellison is no less ardent a Zionist, and even met with a top Israeli general in order to aid a project spying on American citizens, according to an investigation by The Grayzone. The scheme was aimed at attacking American citizens participating in pro-Palestine activism in the face of Israel’s attack on Gaza. The documents also mention Brin’s name as a potential collaborator in the plan.

Oracle’s Israeli CEO, Safra Catz, is also a close friend of Netanyahu’s, and describes the corporation as on a “mission” to support Israel. Together, Catz and Ellison have enforced a strict pro-Israel stance across the company. In the wake of the October 2023 violence, Catz instructed that the words “Oracle stands with Israel” must be printed on company screens across the world in more than 180 countries.

Unsurprisingly, the support and collaboration with Israel has led to significant pushback among employees. Catz’s response to their concerns was blunt. “We are not flexible regarding our mission, and our commitment to Israel is second to none,” she said, adding:

This is a free world and I love my employees, and if they don’t agree with our mission to support the State of Israel, then maybe we aren’t the right company for them. Larry and I are publicly committed to Israel and devote personal time to the country, and no one should be surprised by that.”

It has been widely reported, even in the corporate media, that the Ellison family’s foray into the world of media was triggered by their desire to help Israel in its public relations battle, something Tel Aviv is keenly aware that they are losing. As Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League said, “We really have a TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem,” explaining that young people around the world are being exposed daily to videos of Israeli aggression, leading to a PR disaster.

Former congressman Mike Gallagher, a leader in the attempts to ban TikTok, explained how his bill had failed, but, after October 7, 2023, and the worldwide outrage at Israeli actions, it found new life on Capitol Hill, and was passed into law, forcing its imminent sale to a consortium led by Oracle.

This pro-Israel sea change has already occurred at CBS News, with the hiring of Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief. Weiss first came to public attention while still at college, founding an organization that attempted to have Muslim and Arab professors fired for their pro-Palestine views. As The Financial Times noted, “Weiss has won over Ellison partly by taking a pro-Israel stance, according to people familiar with the matter.” Last week, at the Jewish Leadership Conference, she stated that she sees her mission at CBS as “redraw[ing] the lines of what falls in the 40 yards of acceptable debate” in America by sidelining voices like Hassan Piker and Tucker Carlson, and elevate “charismatic” leaders like Alan Dershowitz, who represents “the vast majority of Americans.”

Zuckerberg’s platforms – Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp – have displayed a no less concerted bias in favor of Israel. As far back as 2016, Facebook was collaborating with the Israeli government on matters of censorship, with Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked revealing that the social media platform complied with 95% of her requests for pro-Palestine content to be removed.

The Facebook/Israel partnership was deepened in 2020 when the company appointed Emi Palmor, the former Director General of the Ministry of Justice of Israel and an ex-spy with IDF intelligence group Unit 8200, to its oversight board, a 21-person committee ultimately in charge of the political direction of the site.

Zuckerberg’s platforms have long shut down Palestinian voices on dubious “hate speech” grounds. However, the censorship was drastically increased after the October 7 attacks. Human Rights Watch released a report detailing the “systemic censorship of Palestinian content on Instagram and Facebook.” noting how they reviewed 1050 cases of censorship of Palestinian voices, including those documenting human rights abuses against themselves. 1049 of them, the study concluded, were entirely peaceful utterances of support for Palestine, and did not break any of Meta’s terms of service.

In 2023, Instagram also inserted the word “terrorist” into the bios of thousands of users who mentioned they were Palestinian. When challenged on this, they claimed it was an auto-translation bug.

Internally, Meta staff have complained about systematic suppression of their voices and the creation of a “hostile and unsafe work environment” for Palestinian and Muslim employees.

WhatsApp, meanwhile, is a battleground in more than one sense. The Israeli military is using Palestinians’ WhatsApp data in order to track and target tens of thousands of people in Gaza. It is unclear how or whether Meta is collaborating with the Israeli military in this endeavor. However, it has been suggested that some of the dozens of former Israeli spies now working in top jobs at Meta could be producing backdoors in the software, or simply passing the data onto their former colleagues. A 2022 MintPress investigation found hundreds of former Unit 8200 operatives working at Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft.

Zuckerberg himself is known to be a strong supporter of Israel, and has numerous familial connections to the state. After the October 2023 attacks, he released a statement denouncing Hamas and other resistance forces as “pure evil,” an action that earned him an official thank you from the State of Israel.

Musk has also put himself and his vehicles in the service of Israel. In November 2023, he traveled to Israel to meet with both Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog and offer his unqualified support to their attack on Gaza. Describing Hamas as “evil” and “revel[ing] in the joy of killing civilians,” Musk attempted to publicly whitewash Israeli violence, stating unequivocally that the IDF goes out of its way “to avoid killing civilians.” At the time of his visit, Israeli strikes had killed at least 20,000 people in four weeks of bombings.

Netanyahu has stated that Twitter is among Israel’s “most important weapons” in the war, and defended Musk from accusations of fascism, after he gave a Nazi salute at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

During his visit, Musk also signed a deal with the government of Israel, giving the latter effective control and oversight over Starlink communications portals operating in Israel and Gaza.

Google and Amazon, too, are key players facilitating the hi-tech genocide in Gaza. In 2021, the pair signed a $1.2 billion contract with the Israeli government to provide cloud computing and AI infrastructure to the IDF – technology that has been used to target the civilian population of the densely-populated strip. The deal has sparked a rebellion among employees, who organized sit-ins and other protests against their collaboration.

Many other Google employees, however, are intimately linked with the State of Israel. There are at least 99 former Unit 8200 spies working in key positions at the Silicon Valley giant. One prominent example is Gavriel Goidel, who was a longtime commander and head of learning at Unit 8200, before being hired by Google to become the company’s head of strategy and operations.

Google has also collaborated in disseminating Israeli government propaganda to tens of millions of Europeans, despite the content breaking its own terms of service.

Part of this may be down to the disposition of Brin himself. Normally avoiding the limelight and refraining from making political statements, the Russian-born magnate bitterly condemned the United Nations as “transparently antisemitic” after it released a report detailing his company’s participation in the Gaza genocide. “Throwing around the term genocide in relation to Gaza is deeply offensive to many Jewish people who have suffered actual genocides,” he added.

Arnault has remained quiet on Gaza. He has, however, invested heavily in Israel. Diamonds and other precious stones are a mainstay of the Israeli economy, and the Frenchman’s luxury brands disseminate the stones globally. Activists have called for Israeli diamonds to be labeled conflict minerals and boycotted by ethical consumers. He also invested in Israeli tech and security firm, Wiz, a company recently purchased by Google for $32 billion. Earlier this month, LVMH signed a $55 million deal with Israeli actress and former IDF soldier, Gal Gadot, making her the the face of their brand.

We are living in an era of unprecedented global inequality. Together, these seven individuals– Musk, Ellison, Page, Brin, Bezos, Zuckerberg and Arnault– control more wealth than the bottom 50% of humanity (over 4 billion people) combined. Sitting on heretofore unimaginable fortunes, they have begun buying up assets, including media outlets, at record pace.

For billionaires, the utility of capturing the press is threefold: firstly, it shields them and their class from press scrutiny and criticism. Second, it gives them a mouthpiece to push the public debate towards even more business-friendly laws and regulations. And third, they can use their outlets to champion any causes and promote any other agendas they have.

We have seen all three play out here, as, collectively, our press is rapidly moving towards more conservative, pro-Trump, pro-Israel positions, shutting out any dissenting voices from their ranks.

The effect on democracy, a free society, and the public’s right to a diversity of opinions has been highly deleterious. When it comes to media, we already suffered from an illusion of choice. However, the supercharged concentration of ownership of American and global media in the hands of just a handful of individuals has only exacerbated this problem. There once was a time that individuals looking for alternative viewpoints would simply go online to find them. But with censorship of dissenting opinions – particularly on Israel/Palestine – growing, this is becoming increasingly unviable.

In short, then, what the planet’s mega-rich capture of our media system shows is that billionaires are not only a serious drain on resources, but an existential threat to an open society and the free flow of information.

Original article: mintpressnews.com

Segue nostro Telegram.

Gli agenti dell’ICE di Trump fanno incursioni nelle città, il confine rimane chiuso, le sue decisioni alla corte hanno ribaltato la sentenza Roe e la Marina si concentra su Venezuela e Colombia, mentre il Dipartimento di Stato fa pressione su Europa, Asia e Medio Oriente. Nel frattempo, gli americani si trovano ad affrontare costi elevati per cibo e alloggi, una cronica sottoccupazione e una continua disperazione del mercato del lavoro. Titoli quotidiani come lo shutdown, l’assistenza sanitaria, Epstein, spesso distolgono l’attenzione, mentre la base di Trump mette in dubbio la sua vicinanza a Israele. I Democratici tradizionali e la sinistra vedono questi come segnali di autoritarismo del MAGA, invocando superficialmente il cesarismo di Gramsci, eppure il concetto aiuta comunque a inquadrare questo momento.

Dopo mesi di affermazioni sulla morte del MAGA, a soli dieci mesi dall’inizio della 47a amministrazione, Trump si muove su un filo sottile . La sua base populista si scontra sempre più non solo con l’opposizione visibile, ma anche con le figure crassiane all’interno della sua coalizione. Ha cercato di trattarle, adularle, guidarle, adescarle, punirle e convincerle a seguire la sua strada.

Riprendendo da ” Trump non è un re, ma è un Cesare? Il ritorno dei Populares” , vogliamo capire cos’è e cosa non è Trump come fenomeno, e cosa deve essere per avere successo. E per questo, bisogna prima capire Cesare. Per capire Cesare, bisogna comprendere la crisi che allora, come oggi, ha portato a uno scontro tra titani, le nostre élite, e come i meccanismi del cambiamento sociale operino funzionalmente, al di là delle narrazioni ideologiche.

Il cesarismo, o forse, nel senso dell’Ur-Fascismo di Eco, ciò che chiameremo “Ur-Cesarismo”, è necessariamente reazionario o regressivo, oppure potrebbe essere progressista o qualcos’altro? Il progetto Trump avrà successo o fallirà, e lungo quale percorso?

Il discorso marxista, strutturalista, post-strutturalista e della Scuola di Francoforte plasmano in larga misura il pensiero della sinistra, con diversi gradi di diligenza. In un certo senso, contrariamente a Gramsci, e piuttosto in linea con la trasvalutazione dei valori e la ridefinizione della sinistra da parte della nuova sinistra, la loro storiografia inquadra ogni leader forte o come uno stabilizzatore fascista del potere borghese o come un usurpatore pragmatico del potenziale rivoluzionario, e quantomeno come una figura sessista e razzista. Il presupposto di fondo è che un potere borghese equivalga a un altro, o che ci fosse in primo luogo un potenziale rivoluzionario da usurpare.

Questo quadro riduzionista, ereditato da una lettura volgare del concetto gramsciano di cesarismo, si basa su una fallacia del Nirvana, che considera qualcosa di tangibile come carente rispetto a un ideale privo di riferimenti storici. Si tratta di un grave errore che fraintende il potere popolare, i meccanismi della trasformazione sistemica e la natura umana stessa. Ciò che spesso viene trascurato è la visione di Gramsci di Cesare e Napoleone come una forma di Ur-Cesarismo progressista, poiché gran parte dell’attenzione popolare è rivolta alla forma reazionaria di cesarismo che egli etichetta come fascismo italiano e Mussolini.

Non cerchiamo analogie speculari, ma piuttosto una comprensione del cesarismo e di Trump attraverso un modello generale. Questo non predice che Trump verrà assassinato (sebbene ci sia stato almeno un tentativo molto serio), o che non sarà trascinato, in ultima analisi, nella direzione della visione del mondo e del fine ultimo degli Ottimati della vecchia guardia. In quest’ottica, è necessario considerare figure come Thiel, Musk e altri non come dei Populares in sé, ma piuttosto come figure opportuniste come Crasso durante il Primo Triumvirato. E per di più, tra questi oligarchi, potremmo ancora trovare un Pompeo e una guardia Ottimata all’interno del blocco storico, non semplicemente un opportunismo crassiano.

Il grande contributo del marxista Michael Parenti

Michael Parenti contribuisce in modo significativo a questa questione nel suo lavoro pionieristico su Giulio Cesare, in ” The Assassination Of Julius Caesar: A People’s History Of Ancient Rome “ (2003). Conclude, in accordo con Gramsci, che il Cesare storico non era una figura reazionaria , né un “dittatore” nella connotazione contemporanea del termine, ma piuttosto un autentico populista che promuoveva gli interessi materiali delle masse plebee e proletarie contro il potere radicato degli Ottimati; la fazione oligarchica che controllava il Senato romano e cercava di mantenere il monopolio su terra, ricchezza e potere politico nonostante il loro sistema avesse portato a conflitti, stagnazione e rovina. Gli Ottimati avevano fatto ciò nonostante Roma fosse diventata ingovernabile a causa delle loro orribili politiche e atteggiamenti, e stava portando alla distruzione certa dell’intera società romana.

Di straordinaria importanza qui è il metodo di attacco adottato da Cesare nella sua ascesa al potere . Influenzato e ispirato profondamente da Gaio Mario e dal suo sostegno alla causa dei Populares, Cesare era imparentato con Mario tramite un matrimonio familiare. Cesare mantenne il riserbo sulla sua affinità per i Populares e si inserì furtivamente nella politica senatoriale romana come parte del gruppo di potere degli Ottimati, solo per poi attuare il suo programma Populares, la reintroduzione della sua versione di una sorta di riforma mariana, e così via, attraverso le strutture di potere del gruppo degli Ottimati, dopo il suo consolidamento del potere.

Il parallelo con Trump, qui, non si manifesta attraverso i Democratici apparentemente “populisti”, ma attraverso il partito di potere degli Ottimati nella società americana, il Partito Repubblicano dominato da Wall Street, in un’epoca di “monopartito”, in cui gli stessi Ottimati controllavano anche i Democratici. L’analogia tra l’ascesa di Cesare e l’America contemporanea non è solo metaforica, ma profondamente strutturale. Gli Ottimati della nostra epoca sono l’oligarchia atlantista-globalista: la costellazione di interessi che abbraccia i tecnocrati della Silicon Valley, i finanzieri di Wall Street, il vettore transnazionale del complesso militare-industriale, il complesso industriale-delle ONG, l’apparato educativo-accademico e l’infrastruttura mediatica aziendale che ha prodotto il consenso per due decenni di guerre infinite, il consorzio commerciale neoliberista; il loro prodotto è l’immiserimento sistematico della classe operaia e media americana. In breve, questi sono la vecchia guardia della classe dominante, la parte politicamente più attiva della classe proprietaria.

Un’alleanza di oligarchi a favore e contro MAGA

Con i nostri Ottimati comprendiamo anche le strategie coordinate al loro interno: Soros, Zuckerberg, il World Economic Forum, l’Atlantic Council, le principali banche e istituzioni finanziarie, le grandi aziende tecnologiche, le grandi aziende farmaceutiche, il MIC, il minestrone alfabetico delle agenzie di intelligence che, tutte insieme, hanno collaborato con un’amministrazione americana permanente e non eletta, il “deep state”. Il loro progetto, perseguito con zelo missionario dalla fine della Guerra Fredda, è stato la costruzione di un ordine post-nazionale in cui la sovranità, sia popolare che territoriale, è subordinata agli imperativi dell’accumulazione di capitale globale verso i centri storico-coloniali occidentali, alla ricerca dell’egemonia su qualsiasi concorrente globale, alla neutralizzazione di qualsiasi ipotetico “pari”.

Contro questa radicata struttura di potere emerse il MAGA come Populares; non come un partito politico o un movimento monotematico nel senso tradizionale, ma come un blocco storico nel senso soreliano, un’alleanza che attraversa le tradizionali linee di classe per unire il capitale produttivo, le piccole e medie imprese, il lavoro organizzato e non organizzato, la base militare e ampie fasce della classe media espropriata contro l’oligarchia finanziarizzata e parassitaria che ha svuotato la capacità produttiva americana e trasferito la ricchezza verso l’alto su una scala mai vista dai tempi della Gilded Age e, in modo significativo, verso la periferia del loro impero oltre i confini nazionali.

I Populares non sono un movimento di classe omogeneo, ma una coalizione interclassista unita da una crisi comune e, soprattutto, dall’allineamento con una parte dell’élite oligarchica che ha rotto, sta rompendo o si sta rompendo dal sistema globalista, subordinandosi a un nuovo ordine nazionale per adattarsi alla multipolarità e, in tal modo, trasformandosi in una classe di magnati produttivi.

Proprio come i Populares includevano sia i plebei sia i patrizi di orientamento populista come Mario e infine lo stesso Cesare, il MAGA comprende sia le masse lavoratrici sia, nel senso del Triumvirato, Marco Licinio Crasso nelle forme di Elon Musk, Peter Thiel e altri; industriali e innovatori tecnologici i cui interessi, sia per genuina convinzione che per opportunismo calcolato, si allineano con la capacità produttiva nazionale e si oppongono al modello fallito del globalismo e dell’austerità neoliberista, alla sostituzione della popolazione e alla riduzione malthusiana , alla luce della crescente multipolarità.

L’incomprensione idealista di Trump da parte della sinistra

Cos’era la sinistra, cosa è diventata e cosa avrebbe dovuto diventare? Storicamente, la sinistra negli Stati Uniti tra la fine del XIX ^e la metà del XX ^secolo era una coalizione instabile di tendenze socialiste, progressiste, radical-liberali, anarchiche e comuniste, influenzate da fattori interni ed esteri. Quella vecchia sinistra sarebbe stata poi accusata di essere patriarcale/sessista, nazionalista/xenofoba e omofoba/binaria di genere dalla nuova sinistra. Questo è un aspetto fondamentale da comprendere per comprendere la situazione attuale con Trump e il cesarismo. Ciò che stiamo dimostrando è che la nuova sinistra è in gran parte incapace di spiegare se Trump sia progressista secondo la metrica della vecchia sinistra, regressivo o addirittura reazionario, e si è ritrovata a considerare il MAGA e Trump come fascista o autoritario in modo circolare.

Usiamo il maggio del 1968 come un indicatore fondamentale che segnala l’arrivo della nuova sinistra. La nuova sinistra ha diverse mobilitazioni, e oggi, nell’era digitale, ci sono “sinistre radicali” che non toccano affatto il vero tema del capitalismo in modo serio, se non con qualche riferimento occasionale o espediente retorico. Da qui l’attenzione su soggetti declassati e atomizzati che conosciamo come guerra culturale. La sinistra non è in grado di valutare Trump indipendentemente dagli strati che la nuova sinistra ha aggiunto alla propria definizione di “progressista”, e confonde i propri ideali di ciò che è possibile, dichiarando poi ciò che è possibile come reazione o regressione. Non analizzano il potere così come opera; lo misurano rispetto a un impossibile ideale di progresso della nuova sinistra, che peraltro impone il perseguimento di una realtà culturale atomizzante e antisociale; probabilmente lo scopo della filosofia postmoderna.

Allo stesso tempo, abbiamo da Gramsci (anche se in realtà Sorel) il blocco storico, o l’alleanza strategica, che spiega la traiettoria altrimenti confusa di Trump, e quella di Cesare prima di lui. Naturalmente, la narrazione ufficiale dei marxisti accademici e dei progressisti, che vengono opportunamente utilizzati dalle élite liberali per fornire una copertura di sinistra ai loro obiettivi globalisti, si concentra sul telos della trasformazione progressista così come è intesa dalla nuova sinistra. Per loro, il successo non si misura sulla stabilità della riorganizzazione imminente, ma sul suo egualitarismo o orizzontalità. Questa è la chiave per comprendere l’errore: possono considerarla un fallimento se fallisce secondo i parametri della nuova sinistra, pur continuando a stabilire progressi in termini di stabilità e ordine sulla base di riforme fruttuose per le moltitudini americane.

Il problema è che il cesarismo, o bonapartismo, non è fascismo . Pertanto, l'”Ur-fascismo” di Eco è eccessivamente generico. Era orientato verso una lettura del fascismo da parte della nuova sinistra. Piuttosto, il fascismo è un tipo di cesarismo, come afferma il marxista Gramsci, e quindi presenta alcuni tratti comuni con il cesarismo. Ma definire un fenomeno politico come fascista sulla base dei suoi tratti cesariani, come fa in parte Eco, sarebbe un errore logico, o un giudizio possibile solo se questi due concetti venissero confusi insieme. La nuova sinistra ha confuso tutte le norme finora esistenti nella categoria della reazione, avendo così spostato la finestra di Overton in una nuova posizione. Il fascismo, invece, proponiamo e in un certo senso in linea con Gramsci, può essere meglio compreso come una forma “cattiva” o “deviante” (kakós) di diversi tipi di cesarismo, incluso il “buono” (kalós), nel senso forse del Libro III della Politica di Aristotele , Capitolo 7. In un certo senso, ciò corrisponde alla concezione progressista e di sinistra di progressivo (buono), regressivo (austerità) e reazionario (restaurazionista).

Tuttavia, il bene di Aristotele e la sua versione della sinistra, con la sua influenza sul progressismo, non sono esattamente la stessa cosa. Si tratta di una questione più ampia: cosa sia il “bene” (forse non è né un’idea di Aristotele né della sinistra progressista) o anche quanto la società dovrebbe muoversi in quella direzione per trovarlo sufficiente o “abbastanza buono”. Quali priorità tra queste dovrebbero essere perseguite per prime? Perché le politiche woke della sinistra sono state abbracciate dalla classe dirigente proprio quelle che erano neutrali in termini di costi o addirittura redditizie? Anche qui stiamo tralasciando il fatto che queste politiche equivalevano a una repressione, a un nuovo elitarismo e a una forma di controllo sociale. E nel frattempo una parte della sinistra è in lite con i progressisti, chiedendosi se la redditività o la convenienza per la classe dirigente li escludano o meno come “progressisti” e piuttosto come “regressivi”.

Chi sono i veri “regressivi”?

Per la sinistra, il blocco egemonico trans-classista in cui si trova, che ruota attorno all’establishment politico del Partito Democratico in generale e alla sovrastruttura che lo sostiene, lavora principalmente per rafforzare una parte dell’oligarchia sulla base del suo sostegno a ideali o politiche “progressiste”, attraverso la sua posizione di guerra culturale. Ma per quasi quarant’anni la leadership progressista dei Democratici ha abbandonato la vecchia sinistra e i progressisti radicali e il loro impegno per i sindacati. La classe dei donatori democratici non lo permette.

Tutta questa reale relazione tradisce la loro critica al blocco egemonico trans-classista noto come MAGA, quando puntano il dito contro gli oligarchi Ottimati e Crassiani nella traballante serie di alleanze di Trump. I progressisti liberali permettono alla sinistra di attaccare Trump sulla base delle fondamenta sociali di questo blocco, ed è questo che intendono quando insistono nel “concentrarsi su Trump”. Perché concentrarsi sulla propria classe di donatori Ottimati significherebbe mordere la mano che nutre e far crollare la propria narrativa. Se la sinistra crede che Trump sia un fascista, allora vuole perseguire la tattica del fronte popolare e quindi accetta di abbandonare le “divisioni” nell’alleanza anti-Trump, come la richiesta di riforme progressiste. Se Trump è un “fascista”, allora tutte le forze antifasciste devono unirsi attorno a una borghesia liberale moderatamente democratica. Da qui un’ottima tattica per gli Ottimati contro Trump; per promuovere l’idea che Trump sia un fascista, ignorare che le loro stesse fondamenta sociali indicano la stessa cosa e quindi costringere ogni genuino populismo sindacale/economico nelle fila democratiche ad abbandonare la lotta indipendente per contrastare Trump elettoralmente con un fronte popolare.

E perseguendo esclusivamente riforme progressiste nell’ambito dell’atomizzazione e dell’astrazione postmoderna “woke”, mentre attaccano Trump, presentano la facciata di un’alleanza funzionale tra progressisti e sinistra, mentre in realtà affondano una politica economica regressiva che danneggia i lavoratori e la classe media.

Se la vecchia guardia e i Democratici riescono a nascondere un programma regressivo dietro una retorica progressista, Trump e il MAGA (Make America’s Good) riusciranno a promuovere un programma progressista attraverso una retorica a tratti reazionaria? La retorica reazionaria (romantica, idealista, patriottica e conservatrice) al servizio di fini progressisti è forse la quintessenza del populismo. Non è regressiva o reazionaria nella sostanza, ma solo nello stile. È una cornice reazionaria per la mobilitazione progressista o un populismo reazionario con obiettivi progressisti.

Considerazioni conclusive, verso il nostro prossimo lavoro

I progressisti e la sinistra ora etichettano Trump e il MAGA come “fascisti”, basandosi sul revisionismo della nuova sinistra che riformula tutti i cesarismi come regressivi, reazionari o quantomeno autoritari, ignorando le distinzioni tra Parenti e Gramsci. Si appoggiano alle critiche liberali del potere, definendo Trump autoritario con un termine vago, ed evitano un’analisi rigorosa fondata sul fascismo o sulla classe, oscillando invece tra gesti liberali e di sinistra. La nuova sinistra ha in parte sostituito le norme con la devianza e si comporta in gran parte come se lo avesse fatto pienamente. Di conseguenza, non possono considerare Napoleone o Cesare come progressisti, come facevano Parenti o Gramsci. Anche se il MAGA si adattasse a queste linee progressiste, sarebbe comunque considerato reazionario dalla nuova sinistra.

La nostra prossima puntata si chiederà: un progetto cesareo moderno come quello di Trump può essere autenticamente progressista, oppure è intrinsecamente regressivo o reazionario? Come opera il potere popolare all’interno della coalizione MAGA e quali vincoli impongono le forze istituzionali? Quali elementi del trumpismo sono pragmatici, quali ideologici e come interagiscono con la struttura politica più ampia? In che modo i modelli storici del cesarismo ci aiutano a comprendere le potenziali traiettorie del MAGA in tempo reale?