What’s at stake in the US election?

Tue, Nov 8, 2016

United States


What’s at stake in the US election?

The outcome of the 2016 presidential election will show that the American political system – as we have known it – will apparently cease to exist.  Trump is nothing like those Republican pawns who, along with the puppets of the Democratic party, have spent the last 40 years erecting the facade of American democracy.  It really looks like he is ready to make good on the threat he made even prior to the Republican National Convention – to send millions of his supporters into the streets.

Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they are ready for action.  And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what is shaping America’s present reality.  Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation.  It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines finally take shape and find resolution.

The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln’s election so enraged the South that those states began agitating for secession.  Trump is today symbolic of a very real American tradition that during the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.

Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of “isolationism.”  Prior to WWII it was known as “non-interventionism.”  Afterward, that movement attempted to use Sen. Joseph McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold.  And in the 1960s it became the primary target of the “counter-cultural revolution.”

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon

Its last bastion was Richard Nixon, whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974.  And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current fight.

And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led to Nixon’s forced resignation under threat of impeachment.  But the liberal American media remains silent, as if nothing has happened.

By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment.  But before turning to the future that might await us, let’s take a quick glance at the history of conflict between revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.


Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of “expansionism” (we’ll call it that).  The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy.  Enemy number two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional “Americanism” was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.

The country’s cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as the “New York Intellectuals.” Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation’s literary life was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist magazine known as the Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and 1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.

The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants from the Frankfurt School, which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to liberal, they set out to design a “theory of totalitarianism” in addition to their concept of an “authoritarian personality” – both hostile to “democracy.”

Max Shachtman

Max Shachtman

The “New York Intellectuals” and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and Hannah Arendt, for example, was an authoritative representative of both sects.  This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience.  The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth International and godfather of the neocons, Max Shachtman, held a place of honor in the “family of intellectuals.”

The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology and sociology at that time.  The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of “national culture” and “national community” were meaningless).

Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.

The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism.  Did something look fishy in this?  But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all labeled “fascist.”  From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national identity was potentially a “fascist.”

Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail the seizure of America’s cultural, political, and mental landscape by these “liberal sects” in his brilliant book The Culture of Critique, writing:

“The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia. 

“The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.” 

It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.

Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated melting pot to “dilute” the “potentially fascist” descendants of European immigrants by making use of new ethno-cultural elements.

The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives from both wings of the expansionist “party” – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.

Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment.  In the same year the US Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment (drafted by Richard Perle), which emerged as a symbol of the country’s “new political agenda” – economic war against the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.

At that same time the “hippie generation” was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of Senator George McGovern’s campaign.  And that was when Bill Clinton’s smiling countenance first emerged on the US political horizon.

And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry “Scoop” Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.


«If there is any doubt about the power of your ideas, just look at the number of members of the Center that have been appointed to posts in this administration -especially in the Department of Defense- to dispel that doubt». Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, September 5, 2002

In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the Committee on the Present Danger, an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.

Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick) and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other “Christian” politicians with the intention of launching a “campaign to transform the world.”

This is where the neocons’  “nonpartisan ideology” originated.  And eventually today’s “inalterable US government” hatched from this egg. 

American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era.  In economics this was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital) and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of “holy war against the forces of evil.”  The Nixon-Kissinger tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.

The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the “neocon revolution.”  At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the “end of history.”


As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in economics) only expanded.  Through all manner of committees, foundations, “think tanks,” etc., the students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington power machine.  The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.

By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the US.  That’s why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move into the White House for the next eight years.  The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums of power and returned to their “influential committees.”  It is likely that this election was intended to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in “new packaging.”  For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton.  But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open …

donald_trump_rnc_h_2016What happened?  Why is this clique’s triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around?  Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear.  Probably because Trump’s “silent majority” suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. 

Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the “elite caste” occupying its native country.  And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world.  Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war.

How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end?  Will Trump manage to “drain the swamp of Washington, DC” as he has promised, or he will end up as the system’s next victim?  Very soon we can finally get an answer to these questions.

Print Friendly



, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post was written by:

- who has written 1361 posts on Oriental Review.

Contact the author

4 Comments For This Post

  1. Brian Says:

    “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” Mark Twain

    Aug 19, 2016 Electoral College and the National Archives

    Every four years the Office of the Federal Register — part of the National Archives and Records Administration — administers the Electoral College. The Office of the Federal Register informs the governments of the 50 states and the District of Columbia what is required to fulfill their duty under the Constitution to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. This video explains how the Electoral College works and the Office of the Federal Register’s role in collecting the documentation Congress needs to count the Electoral College.

  2. Peter DM Says:

    So should we take it that Andrey Fomin and the Oriental Review supports White Nationalism? Blud und Boden! Sieg Heil!

  3. Editorial Says:

    @Peter DM
    You have to reread the article then, drawing particular attention to the following phrase:
    “But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all labeled “fascist.” From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national identity was potentially a “fascist.”
    You’ve been falsely indoctinated on the matter. If you want to know what we think about “White Nationalism” and “Blut und Boden”, read also this:

  4. Rehmat Says:

    On Wednesday, commenting on Trump’s presidential victory, Iranian president Dr. Hassan Rouhani told members of his cabinet that it will have no affect on Iran’s behavior.

    “The outcome of the US elections has no impact on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s policies,” he said.

    The political commentators have interpreted the statement as Tehran’s continuous support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, Hizbullah and Hamas – and development of country’s missile defense stockpile.

    Israel and the Jewish-controlled media are hoping that president-elect Trump will undo the US-Iran nuclear agreement known as JCPOA which Trump promised to tear up during his campaign to please the Jewish Lobby.

    Trump’s top foreign policy adviser professor Walid Phares (Jew), who have been campaigning for a pro-Israel regime change in Tehran for decades, clarified Trump’s statement in July, saying that “Trump will look back at JCPOA in the institutional way. So he is not going to implement it as is, he is going to revise it after negotiating one on one with Iran or with other signatories of the agreement.”

    In response to candidate Trump’s rant, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei said: “We will not violate the JCPOA, but if the opposite side violate it – as US presidential candidates are currently threatening to tear up JCPOA, we will burn it.”

    In the opinion of many international legal experts the JCPOA was signed between the US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany, and Iran – and if Washington decides to withdraw from the deal – it would further isolate itself from the world community, as both Russia and China are not going to tow-in to Trump’s decision.

    On November 19, 2015, the State Department in in a letter to Congress confirmed my above opinion, saying: “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JPCOA reflects political commitments between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China) and the European Union. As you know, the United States has a long-standing practice of addressing sensitive problems in negotiations that culminate in political commitments.”

    On September 29, 2016, Israeli advocacy group, Brookings Institute, issued a report advising the new US president to maintain and reinforce JCPOA. The report was authored by no other than Dr. Robert J. Einhorn (Zionist Jew), former senior official at the US State Department, who was the major player in putting sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

    Israeli president Reuven Rivlin and prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Donald Trump, calling him a true friend of the state of Israel. Both also asked him to move the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem.

    On November 10, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (aka ‘America’s Rabbi’), the Israeli filth, claimed at Algemeiner news website that Donald Trump didn’t defeat Hillary Clinton but Barack Obama for throwing Israel under the bus on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is former guru of Michael Jackson, and dance-partner of Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Boteach has turned against Cory Booker after the later refused to meet Israel’s ambassador Ron Dermer and Elie Wiesel over JCPOA last year. Boteach is author of book Kosher Sex.

3 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Cosa c’è in gioco nelle elezioni degli Stati Uniti? | Aurora Says:

    […] Oriental Review 8 novembre 2016L’esito delle elezioni presidenziali del 2016 dimostrerà che il sistema politico degli USA, come lo conosciamo, cesserà di esistere. Trump non è una di quelle pedine repubblicane che, assieme ai burattini democratici, negli ultimi 40 anni hanno retto la facciata della democrazia statunitense. Sembra proprio sia pronto ad attuare la minaccia di prima della Convention nazionale repubblicana, inviare milioni di sostenitori per le strade. Oggi Trump rappresenta un completamente nuovo partito, costituito da metà dell’elettorato statunitense, pronto all’azione. E qualunque sia l’eventuale struttura politica del nuovo modello, plasma la realtà attuale degli Stati Uniti. Inoltre, non sembra una situazione isolata. Piuttosto sembra l’ultimo capitolo di una vecchia storia, dove trame contorte infine prendono forma e trovano una risoluzione. Le circostanze sempre più ricordano il 1860, quando l’elezione di Lincoln fece infuriare il Sud avviando l’agitazione per la secessione. Trump è oggi il simbolo della vera tradizione statunitense che nella guerra civile (1860-1865), per la prima volta si gettò a capofitto nel liberalismo rivoluzionario. Fino alla prima guerra mondiale, il tradizionale conservatorismo statunitense indossò la maschera dell'”isolazionismo”. Prima della Seconda Guerra Mondiale era noto come “non-interventismo”. In seguito, tale movimento tentò di utilizzare il senatore Joseph McCarthy per combattere la morsa sinistra-liberali. E negli anni ’60 divenne l’obiettivo principale della “rivoluzione contro-culturale”. Il suo ultimo bastione fu Richard Nixon, la cui caduta fu conseguenza dell’attacco senza precedenti della stampa liberale di sinistra nel 1974. E questo è forse l’esempio con cui confrontare Trump e la sua lotta attuale. Tra l’altro, i reati di Hillary Clinton, che non ha protetto i segreti di Stato ed è stata più volte colta a mentire sotto giuramento, superano il Watergate che portò alle dimissioni forzate di Nixon con la minaccia dell’impeachment. Ma i media liberal statunitensi sono silenziosi, come se nulla fosse accaduto. Da tutte le indicazioni, è chiaro che si è in un momento davvero epocale. Ma prima di passare al futuro che ci attende, diamo un rapido sguardo alla storia del conflitto tra liberalismo rivoluzionario e conservatorismo tradizionale bianco negli Stati Uniti. Subito dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale, un attacco su due fronti fu lanciato dal partito dell'”espansionismo” (lo chiameremo così). L’Unione Sovietica e il comunismo furono designati nemici numero uno. Nemico numero due (con meno clamore) fu il conservatorismo tradizionale statunitense. La guerra contro l'”americanismo” tradizionale fu condotta contemporaneamente da diverse frange intellettuali. La vita culturale e intellettuale del Paese era sotto il controllo assoluto del gruppo noto come “intellettuali di New York”. La critica letteraria, così come tutti gli altri aspetti della vita letteraria del Paese, era nelle mani di tale gruppetto di curatori letterari emersi dall’ambiente della rivista trotskista-comunista Partisan Review (PR). Nessuno poteva diventare uno scrittore professionista negli USA degli anni ’50 e ’60, senza essere accuratamente filtrato da tale setta. I principi fondamentali della filosofia politica e della sociologia statunitensi furono decisi dalla Scuola di Francoforte, nata tra le due guerre nella Germania di Weimar e che si recò negli Stati Uniti dopo che i nazisti presero il potere. Qui, passò dal comunismo al liberalismo, avviando la progettazione della “teoria del totalitarismo”, unita al concetto di “personalità autoritaria”, entrambi ostili alla “democrazia”. Gli “intellettuali di New York” e i rappresentanti della Scuola di Francoforte divennero amici, e Hannah Arendt, per esempio, fu un’autorevole rappresentante di entrambe le sette. Qui nacquero i futuri neocon (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot A. Cohen e Irving Kristol) acquisendovi esperienza. L’ex-capo della Quarta internazionale trotskista e padrino dei neocon, Max Shachtman, ha un posto d’onore nella “famiglia degli intellettuali”. La scuola antropologica di Franz Boas e il freudismo dominavano il mondo della psicologia e della sociologia al momento. L’approccio di Boas alla psicologia sosteneva che le differenze genetiche, nazionali, razziali e tra gli individui non hanno alcuna importanza (quindi concetti come “cultura nazionale” e “comunità nazionale” sono privi di significato). La psicoanalisi divenne di moda, tendendo principalmente a soppiantare le istituzioni ecclesiastiche tradizionali e a diventare una sorta di quasi-religione della classe media. Il denominatore comune che lega tali movimenti era l’antifascismo. Ma qui qualcosa sembrava puzzare? Il problema era che i valori tradizionali di nazione, Stato e famiglia erano tutti classificati “fascisti”. Da tale punto di vista, ogni cristiano bianco consapevole della propria identità culturale e nazionale è potenzialmente un “fascista”. Kevin MacDonald, professore di psicologia presso la California State University, analizzò in dettaglio il sequestro del quadro culturale, politico e mentale degli Stati Uniti per mano delle “sette liberali”, nel brillante libro “La cultura della Critica”, scrivendo: “Gli intellettuali di New York, per esempio, hanno sviluppato legami con le università d’élite, in particolare Harvard, Columbia, Chicago e Berkeley, mentre psicoanalisi e antropologia si radicarono nel mondo accademico. L’élite intellettuale e morale creata da tali movimenti dominò il discorso intellettuale nel periodo critico del secondo dopoguerra, portando alla rivoluzione controculturale degli anni ’60”. Fu tale ambiente intellettuale che generò la rivoluzione controculturale degli anni ’60. Cavalcando l’onda di tali sentimenti, la nuova legge sull’immigrazione e la nazionalità venne approvata nel 1965, incoraggiando tali fenomeni e favorendo l’integrazione degli immigrati nella società degli Stati Uniti. Gli architetti delle legge volevano utilizzare il melting pot per “diluire” i discendenti “potenzialmente fascisti” degli immigrati europei, facendo uso di nuovi elementi etno-culturali. La rivoluzione degli anni ’60 aprì la porta alla dirigenza politica statunitense ai rappresentanti di entrambe le ali del “partito” espansionista: neo-liberali e neo-conservatori. Assediato dalla stampa liberale di sinistra nel 1974, Richard Nixon si dimise per la minaccia d’impeachment. Nello stesso anno, il Congresso degli Stati Uniti approvò l’emendamento Jackson-Vanik (redatto da Richard Perle), simbolo della “nuova agenda politica” del Paese, la guerra economica contro l’Unione Sovietica con sanzioni e boicottaggi. Nello stesso tempo la “generazione hippie” aderì ai democratici dietro la campagna del senatore George McGovern. Fu allora che il volto sorridente di Bill Clinton apparve sull’orizzonte politico degli Stati Uniti. E i futuri neo-conservatori (allora discepoli del falco democratico Henry “Scoop” Jackson) iniziarono lentamente a volgersi verso i repubblicani. Nel 1976, Rumsfeld e colleghi neoconservatori resuscitarono la commissione sul pericolo presente, un club inter-partito per falchi politici il cui obiettivo era la guerra totale propagandistica contro l’URSS. Gli ex-trotzkisti e seguaci di Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz e Jeane Kirkpatrick) e i consiglieri del senatore Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner e Douglas Feith) si unirono a Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney e altri politici “cristiani” con l’intenzione di lanciare una “campagna per cambiare il mondo”. Così nacque “l’ideologia nonpartisan” dei neocon, generando il “governo inalterabile degli Stati Uniti”. La politica statunitense acquisì la forma attuale con Reagan. In economia lo si vide nel neoliberismo (la politica guidata dagli interessi del grande capitale finanziario) e in politica estera, la strategia nella tradizione di Nixon-Kissinger (“guerra santa contro le forze del male”, che vedeva Unione Sovietica e Cina normali Paesi con cui è essenziale trovare un terreno comune) fu interamente abbandonata. Il crollo dell’URSS fu il segnale dell’inizio della fase finale della “rivoluzione neocon”. A quel punto il loro protetto, Francis Fukuyama, annunciò la “fine della storia”. Col passare degli anni, l’influenza dei neo-conservatori (in politica) e dei neoliberisti (in economia) si ampliò. Attraverso ogni sorta di comitati, fondazioni, “gruppi di riflessione”, ecc, i seguaci di Milton Friedman e Leo Strauss (dei dipartimenti di economia e scienze politiche presso l’Università di Chicago) penetrò sempre più profondamente nella macchina del potere di Washington. L’apoteosi di tale espansione fu la presidenza di George W. Bush, durante cui i neocon, dopo aver sequestrato i principali strumenti di potere alla Casa Bianca, fecero precipitare il Paese nella follia della guerra in Medio Oriente. Alla fine della presidenza Bush, tale cricca era oggetto dell’odio universale negli Stati Uniti. Ecco perché l’ibrida innocua figura del democratico Barack Obama poté finire alla Casa Bianca per otto anni. I neocon furono dimessi dalle loro tribune al centro del potere e tornarono ai loro “comitati influenti”. E’ probabile che l’elezione abbia per scopo il ritorno trionfale del paradigma neo-conservatore e neoliberista con “una nuova confezione”. Per vari motivi fu deciso di assegnare tale ruolo a Hillary Clinton. Ma sembra che nel momento più critico la fragile confezione si sia lacerata… Cos’è successo? Perché il ritorno trionfale al potere di tale cricca sfocia in un enorme scandalo, questa volta? Probabilmente perché viviamo nell’epoca in cui ciò che era misterioso è improvvisamente diventato chiaro. Probabilmente perché la “maggioranza silenziosa” di Trump improvvisamente ha visto qualcuno che attendeva da molto tempo, un uomo pronto a difenderne gli interessi. Forse anche perché la classe media soffoca per la crescente esasperazione verso la “casta delle élite” che occupa il Paese natio. E, infine, è chiaro ai patrioti statunitensi più sobri delle forze dell’ordine che il ritorno al potere dei responsabili dell’attuale caos globale sarà una grave minaccia per Stati Uniti e resto del mondo. Perché, alla fine, tutti hanno dei figli e nessuno vuole una nuova guerra mondiale. Come sarà la nuova rivolta conservatrice contro l’estremismo delle élite? Trump riuscirà a “prosciugare la palude di Washington, DC” come ha promesso, o sarà la prossima vittima del sistema? Molto presto potremo avere una risposta a queste domande.Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio – SitoAurora […]

  2. Donald Trump Is Poised to Overturn Generations of Liberal-Neocon Rule - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site : Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site Says:

    […] Originally appeared at […]

  3. Trump’s Win — A Rebuke to the Elites Says:

    […] is possible “that this election [originally] was intended to facilitate the triumphant return of the […]

Leave a Reply