The upcoming US presidential election on November 5th is of enormous importance, because its outcome will affect not only the United States and the West, but also the fate of all humanity. And this is because there is the threat of a nuclear conflict and the possibility of a Third World War with Russia against NATO.
The next occupant of the White House will determine whether humanity survives, so it is imperative that we thoroughly examine the major candidates in this election and understand their platforms and positions.
In recent months and years, Joe Biden has shown signs of cognitive impairment that may be related to age or underlying medical conditions, yet this seems insignificant given that it is merely a showcase for the entrenched political elites of the US Democratic Party.
The supporters of globalization
The Democratic administration of Kamala Harris will continue, because behind Kamala Harris is a unified group of globalists – a “world government” or “ruling strata” – made up of important figures of the US “deep state” and liberal elites of Europe and beyond.
Kamala Harris embraces a globalist ideology aimed at uniting humanity under
- the rule of liberal technocratic elites,
- the abolition of sovereign nation-states and
- the unification between different peoples and religions – a modern Tower of Babel.
On the other hand, many Christians (especially conservative voters of the Republican party) see this as a harbinger of the coming of the Antichrist.
Indeed, some of them are closer to science fiction. The proponents of globalization -like
- Yuval Harari,
- Klaus Schwab,
- Raymond Kurzweil and
- Maurice Strong,
they openly discuss the necessity of the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and neuroimplants capable of eliminating or regenerating brain cells (Transhumanism) (for more analysis about the Transhumanism and Woke culture please read the articles titled “Transhumanism: Why does he want to “Fix” man?” & “The Universal Prevalence of Neo-Liberalism through the “Language of the Left Parties” and their Woke Paranoia“).
Liberals vs. Conservatives
Most global elites hold liberal views to varying degrees. Globally, liberalism has permeated education, science, culture, information, economics, business, politics, and even technology. Kamala Haris serves as a focal point, where currents converge.
The US Democratic Party embodies the political expression of liberalism. Democrats are less focused on American interests and more on maintaining global American dominance, even if that means risking war with Russia and China, putting the US itself at risk.
American neoconservatives are also aligning themselves with the global agenda espoused by those close to Kamala Harris. They include ex-Trotskyists who are hostile to Russia and envision a world revolution after the complete triumph of Western capitalism. The neoconservatives are staunch supporters of a unipolar world and provide unwavering support to Israel despite the genocide in Gaza.
While some say they are Democrats, most are Republicans. They act as the polar opposite of Donald Trump. In a way, this is the fifth phalanx of Republicans: The Democrats and the Kamala Harris faction within the Republican Party.
America’s “deep state” functions as a custodian of a totalitarian goal.
The US Deep State
Finally, there is the “deep state”: elites outside the parties, including government officials, senior bureaucrats, and heads of the military and secret services. They serve as the custodians of the American state. Since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), two approaches have represented the traditional policies of the Democrats and Republicans.
1. The Democrats prioritize world domination and the global spread of liberalism,
2. while the Republicans prioritize the strengthening of the US as a superpower.
These are not conflicting agendas. Instead, they aim to achieve the same goal, just through different routes. The American deep state acts as the custodian of this one overall goal, allowing the occasional tilt of the balance between the two ways.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, neoconservatives dominated the Republican Party, and globalization was closely fused with Atlantic tendencies and right-wing hegemony, all in agreement for a unipolar world structure. Given the unipolar nature of globalization, there was little difference between the foreign policies of globalist Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican neoconservatives like George W. Bush. Today, the deep state continues to support this general direction. The Biden administration closely reflects the interests and values of the US upper class.
The priorities of each Democratic candidate for the American Presidency
The support for Biden and in general for every Democratic candidate for the American Presidency comes from the big financial institutions, the global media and business monopolies. Any mental and/or physical infirmities due to age mean that those who support him will use fair or foul means to keep him in power.
In a recent campaign speech, Biden appeared to prioritize freedom over democracy. This was no slip. It is a globalizing strategy. If maintaining power in a democratic manner becomes unfeasible, anti-democratic actions are rationalized under the guise of “freedom”.
This, in essence, describes a dictatorship, not a national one but an international, globalized version of it. The conflict with Russia can serve as a legal pretext. Biden could emulate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by canceling the election. Macron in France or Scholz in Germany might do the same.
Proponents of globalization in the West are studying scenarios for the immediate imposition of dictatorship and the undermining of democracy. For humanity, a Biden victory would be a disaster. The plan of the globalists, the “new Babylon”, will continue. Existing conflicts may escalate, new conflicts may be ignited. Kamala Harris embodies the eternal war without end and limits.
Trump and Trumpism (aligned with old-school conservatives)
Behind Donald Trump, there are completely different forces. He represents an alternative to Kamala Harris and globalization, diverging significantly from the policies of both his Democratic and Republican predecessors. Trump’s first term as president has been marked by constant scandals. The American establishment strongly opposed him, until he was replaced by Biden. Unlike Biden, Trump is charismatic, innovative and opinionated.
Despite his age, he is healthy, enthusiastic, active and energetic. While Biden works as part of a team, Trump is a solitary figure who embodies the American dream through his personal success. Known for his narcissism and self-centeredness, he is also an extremely capable and successful politician.
Ideologically, Trump aligns with classical or old-school American conservatives (not neoconservatives). The latter support the traditional isolationist approach historically embraced by Republicans, which is encapsulated in Trump’s slogan: America First. Notable supporters of this ideology are
- the philosopher-politician Patrick Buchanan and
- former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, a Tea Party activist;
Often devoted to Christianity, they defend traditional family-centered values and customs. Their foreign policy prioritizes US sovereignty. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is a typical example. They dislike and distrust US foreign intervention unless US security and interests are clearly threatened.
Trump aligns himself with old-school conservatives with isolationist views encapsulated in the “America First” slogan.
The message crosses the barriers
From an ideological standpoint, Trump and Kamal Harris are stark contrasts. Trump taunts globalist collective opponents with the nickname “the Swamp.” His own ideology is now called “Trumpism”. It gathers significant support from a large segment of Americans, especially in the “flyover zone” states between the east and west coasts of the US, where many are fans of conservative and traditional values.
US culture is individualistic, cultivating indifference to the opinions of others, including those in power. This often leads to skepticism toward the federal government, which, in the view of many Americans, should not have the power to limit freedoms. Trump’s direct appeal to these ordinary Americans—while ignoring the political, economic, and journalistic elites—was instrumental in his election as president in 2016.
In the Republican Party of 2024, there are traditional conservatives and new conservatives, which leads to division. The new conservatives are more aligned with Kamala Harris and the globalists, and Trumpism clashes with their fundamental principles. What unites them is the promotion of American greatness and the goal of strengthening its power in strategic, military, and economic fields (of course, by all means countering the rise of China).
The two faces of the Republicans
Over the decades, ex-Trotskyists created influential intellectual institutions (such as think tanks and research centers) and infiltrated established institutions through their agents. In contrast, traditional conservatives lack the necessary “intellectual industry” to direct the modern debate.
In the 1990s, Buchanan complained that new conservatives were running the Republican Party and marginalizing its traditional politicians. This tension continues under Trump. In his first term, Trump felt compelled to appoint neoconservatives, such as the zealous and aggressive John Bolton (who was tapped for National Security Adviser). Bolton undermined Trump’s policies whenever possible, then turned on Trump personally.
Trump appeared in court in Miami on 37 federal charges, including violations of the Espionage Act, making false statements and mishandling classified material after leaving office.
Elections matter a lot to Republicans. Politicians, including members of Congress, senators and state governments, recognize Trump’s popularity among voters and feel compelled to support him for pragmatic reasons. This underscores his influence in the Republican party. It represents a path to power not only for traditional conservatives but also for pragmatists seeking to win. New conservatives within the party will continue to be influential, but Trump is unlikely to risk severing ties with them.
Confronting Trump
The aforementioned “deep state” remains cold toward Trump. In their eyes, he is arrogant and has fringe views alongside more popular and traditional ideas. His problems with institutions like the Central Intelligence Agency are well documented, but while the deep state does not support Trump, it cannot ignore his popularity.
Trump could build an institutional base of support if he chose to, but his temperament does not favor it. He is spontaneous and impulsive, relying solely on his own strength. This resonates with voters who see him as a culturally familiar American archetype. If Trump wins in November, as most polls expect, the relationship between the White House and the deep state will surely change. Efforts will be made to establish systematic relations with him.
It is likely that Kamala Harris supporters will try to prevent a Trump victory at all costs. They may assassinate, imprison, riot, start political unrest, launch a coup, or escalate military conflicts abroad to cause a wider war, possibly a World War. Since the proponents of globalization have significant support from the deep state, anything is possible. If Trump wins, however, then he will have a profound impact on world politics. Countries around the world will suddenly have to adjust their policies accordingly.
Trump’s rejection of unipolarity will find support from supporters of multipolarity, such as Russia and China.
The multipolar era
Trump’s rejection of the unipolar world order and the globalization project will find support from supporters of multipolarity, such as Russia and China, not to mention inside the United States. Many of them want to get on the backs of the global liberal elite. With Trump as a catalyst, any new multipolar world would see the United States continue to play an important role, just not a dominant one. “Make America Great Again” would still apply, but in a different way.
Meanwhile, the conflicts perpetuated by the globalists will not simply end. Trump’s demand that Russia end the war in Ukraine would be practical but extremely difficult to implement. Trump’s support for Israel, both in Gaza and beyond, is expected to be as strong as Biden’s. Trump sees Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a right-wing political ally. Likewise, Trump’s approach to China is likely to be tough, especially with regard to Chinese companies operating in the US.
Pragmatism vs Dogmatism
The main difference between Trump and Biden lies in Trump’s prioritization of rational American national interests (known as realism). It is a practical approach based on evaluating relations based on the power and resources of another country. In contrast, that of Kamala Harris and the Democrats in general is dogmatic and uncompromising: those who do not bow to the god of US-led globalization face sanctions and possibly direct intervention, reflecting the liberal approach to international relations.
For Trump, a nuclear storm that will end humanity is not an acceptable price to pay under any circumstances. For Kamala Harris and the rules of the “new Babylon”, everything is on the table. What they would be willing to do remains unknown. While Trump is an experienced and bold player, his decisions are driven by rationality and cost-benefit analysis. Convincing him may be difficult, but negotiating with him remains possible. Not the same for Kamala Harris and her supporters, who are irrational actors.
The US election in November 2024 will ultimately determine whether humanity has a chance of survival. A Trump victory means he can have.
