[This entry has been revised and updated.]

I AM not a fan of Donald Trump, as readers of this site know. I am not a fan of the Trump-worshipping cult of Ann Coulter, David Duke and the Alt-Right. Truthfully, it repels me. I don’t think Trump will bring about some great American renaissance. Aside from his character, his casino/mafia connections, his very immoral personal life, his blistering attacks on other countries and peoples, his fanatical support for the terrorist state of Israel, his militarism, his choice of neocon advisors and his support for the totalitarian LGBT agenda, aside from the reality that our problems are systemic, I don’t trust him. I don’t trust that even his nationalism is genuine. He is in bed with an evil oligarchy. Will he make American great again? No, he won’t. It wasn’t great in the first place, and his solutions are band-aids at best. Will he effectively tackle the immigration problem? I am not convinced that he will. As for the economy, the $38 billion we are about to hand over to Israel would pay for a lot of college educations and create a lot of jobs. Where is Donald’s good business sense when you need it? We are a debt-ridden nation. We are enslaved to the Federal Reserve and its state-sponsored usury. He will not change that. A revolution against the American system, its cabal of controllers and its debt-based, predatory capitalism is in order.

What should we do with this election in the meantime? Which of these two shady characters is less likely to lead us to World War III and wreck the remaining semblance of order? It’s a tough question.

Donald Trump, I suppose, is the only hope for any kind of check on our headlong rush into arbitrary rule. I realize readers of this site would not vote for Hillary, but they might not vote at all. That was my inclination. This is a lukewarm endorsement of voting for Trump.

Hillary hates the little people as few rulers in history have hated roughly half of the people they govern. She believes they are bigots and religious fundamentalists. She believes almost any means are justified in wiping their influence off the face of the earth. She despises our love for our heritage (while not despising other peoples’ love for their heritages) and she deeply despises our belief in laws that protect family morality. She calls baby-killing a reproductive right. She is anti-woman to the core. She will continue to make America contemptible in the eyes of the world, as we murder other peoples with our high-tech weapons while forcing ideological smut and predatory capitalism on them. She truly believes she is the vanguard of an earthly utopia. That belief is the source of her preternatural powers. And that utopia is an earthly hell — for the young and vulnerable especially, for the immigrants also that come here with misplaced hopes and for not just American patriots but the patriots in countries the globalists want to bring in line. The New World Order is against humanity itself.

Trump may also continue to make us contemptible in the eyes of the world and eradicate our European heritage. You need not embrace Donald Trump, you need not invest any hopes in him, you need not consider him an ally, but bear in mind: He does not despise you the way she does.

Did you see that smile she wore in the debate?

It was identical — and I mean, identical — to the smile worn by Joe Biden in one of his vice-presidential debates. Throughout the whole thing he smiled like a Cheshire cat. He broke out into strange laughter when nothing funny was said. What did that smile and that laughter say?

It said, “These people are so ridiculous, what they believe in is so beneath us, we can only laugh at their attempts to defend themselves.”

Of course, it also spoke volumes about how little his beliefs could be defended rationally. Hillary believes any means are justified in bringing about the New World Order.

Angelo Codevilla writes in The Claremont Review:

Electing either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cannot change [the] trajectory [of America]. Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives.

He continues:

[I]n today’s America, those in power basically do what they please. Executive orders, phone calls, and the right judge mean a lot more than laws. They even trump state referenda. Over the past half-century, presidents have ruled not by enforcing laws but increasingly through agencies that write their own rules, interpret them, and punish unaccountably—the administrative state. As for the Supreme Court, the American people have seen it invent rights where there were none—e.g., abortion—while trammeling ones that had been the republic’s spine, such as the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. The Court taught Americans that the word “public” can mean “private” (Kelo v. City of New London), that “penalty” can mean “tax” (King v. Burwell), and that holding an opinion contrary to its own can only be due to an “irrational animus” (Obergefell v. Hodges).

Codevilla is worth quoting at length:

[S]ince the Kennedy reform of 1965, and with greater speed since 2009, the ruling class’s immigration policy has changed the regime by introducing some 60 million people—roughly a fifth of our population—from countries and traditions different from, if not hostile, to ours. Whereas earlier immigrants earned their way to prosperity, a disproportionate percentage of post-1965 arrivals have been encouraged to become dependents of the state. Equally important, the ruling class chose to reverse America’s historic practice of assimilating immigrants, emphasizing instead what divides them from other Americans. Whereas Lincoln spoke of binding immigrants by “the electric cord” of the founders’ principles, our ruling class treats these principles as hypocrisy. All this without votes or law; just power.

[….]

Fifty years ago, prayer in the schools was near universal, but no one was punished for not praying. Nowadays, countless people are arrested or fired for praying on school property. West Point’s commanding general reprimanded the football coach for his team’s thanksgiving prayer. Fifty years ago, bringing sexually explicit stuff into schools was treated as a crime, as was “procuring abortion.” Nowadays, schools contract with Planned Parenthood to teach sex, and will not tell parents when they take girls to PP facilities for abortions. Back then, many schools worked with the National Rifle Association to teach gun handling and marksmanship. Now students are arrested and expelled merely for pointing their finger and saying “bang.” In those benighted times, boys who ventured into the girls’ bathroom were expelled as perverts. Now, girls are suspended for objecting to boys coming into the girls’ room under pretense of transgenderism. The mainstreaming of pornography, the invention of abortion as the most inalienable of human rights and, most recently, the designation of opposition to homosexual marriage as a culpable psychosis—none of which is dictated by law enacted by elected officials—is enforced as if it had been. No surprise that America has experienced a drastic drop in the formation of families, with the rise of rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites equal to the rates among blacks that was recognized as disastrous a half-century ago, the near-disappearance of two-parent families among blacks, and the social dislocations attendant to all that.

Ever since the middle of the 20th century our ruling class, pursuing hazy concepts of world order without declarations of war, has sacrificed American lives first in Korea, then in Vietnam, and now throughout the Muslim world. By denigrating Americans who call for peace, or for wars unto victory over America’s enemies; by excusing or glorifying those who take our enemies’ side or who disrespect the American flag; our rulers have drawn down the American regime’s credit and eroded the people’s patriotism.

I don’t share Codevilla’s belief that the American founding was the height of civilization. We are, in fact, seeing the unfolding of its principles. (And I certainly don’t agree with his defamation of the German people.) I have big problems with knee-jerk Trump apologists, but I accept Codevilla’s basic premise that Trump could provide some kind of pause in this nightmarish descent into arbitrary rule.

I urge readers not to invest emotion or hopes in this election. I also urge them to consider deeply that if Hillary Clinton wins, it is not the end of the world. Anything can be turned to good by those who support the good. Nevertheless, I recommend that you vote for Donald Trump. Think of salvaging some scraps of representative government as your limited goal. You are not endorsing the system. You are just trying to make it, for the time being, less coercive than it is.

— Comments —

Guilain writes:

I would like to react to the conversation on the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

First I’d like to specify that I’ve not seen the debate (not one minute). I hope I can give my opinion nonetheless.

I’m surprised that every participant to the discussion on your site seems to think that the goal to achieve for Donald Trump was to provide hard-core right-wingers with an enjoyable spectacle.

Seeing Trump “killing” Clinton would have been exactly that, an enjoyable spectacle, but not sure it would have been a winning strategy to succeed in November. 

Scott Adams thinks that by losing the debate, Trump has won the election.

Laura writes:

Adams may be right.

By the way, I wouldn’t consider myself a “hard-core right winger” — for a couple of reasons. But that’s not important. What is important is that I was not looking for entertainment, and I don’t think other commenters were. Although I did not have great hopes, I was looking for a strong defense of certain principles and ideas.

A “Grateful Reader” writes:

Your mention of Hillary’s smile (and Biden’s) called to my mind Victor Hugo’s great praise of Voltaire, “Jesus wept; Voltaire smiled.” To my daughter’s mind the following quote arose from G. K. Chesterton’s Father Brown mystery The Worst Crime in the World:

“…There are two types of men who can laugh when they are alone. One might almost say the man who does it is either very good or very bad. You see, he is either confiding the joke to God or confiding it to the Devil. But anyhow, he has an inner life. Well, there really is a kind of man who confides the joke to the Devil. He does not mind if nobody sees the joke; if nobody can safely be allowed even to know the joke. The joke is enough in itself, if it is sufficiently sinister and malignant.”

Significantly, the titular worst crime in the world was patricide. The smiler/laugher disguised himself as his father after he had murdered him. Our current ruling elite has disguised itself as rightful heirs to our founding fathers’ ideals after they have murdered them.

Caryl Johnston writes:

I agree with your “You should vote for Trump” editorial. You are remarkably well balanced, subtle, and discerning. Thought you might enjoy the letter I wrote to Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch.

Keep fighting! You do it well.

Dear Mr. St. Clair,

I thought your summary of the debate was pretty good. The one thing you didn’t mention, and which nobody has mentioned, was Hillary Clinton’s smugness. Mr. Trump once alluded to her

“holier –than-thou” attitude. Mrs. Clinton would smile in a superior sort of way on Mr. Trump, who, though inept at times, came across as both sincere and maybe passionate.

A much more human candidate. But I think this imperial attitudinal superiority characterizes what Toynbee calls dominant elites. They no longer provide leadership, inspiration,

creativity, which characterizes “ruling elites.” They merely dominate.

Narcissism and self-righteousness are toxic. Aren’t they what is election is about? Both candidates have it to some degree, but in Mrs. Clinton’s case they seemed to have uprooted any possible manifestation of sincerity.

We have here not an election on issues so much as on discernment of the moral forces of souls. A “return of the repressed” indeed.

Please follow and like us: