Trump Goes For The Genocide Vote--Or Is It The Money? Or What?

Toward the end of just almost any presidential primary season we always get the reminder—a lot can happen/change between now and November. Of course, that’s always true, whether much changes or not, but in 2024 America it may be more true than most years. There’s the borders, crime, the economy, and the war factor—which could impact the economy majorly. While polls tell us that few Americans are thinking about our war on Russia, the war factor could be the biggest factor in the end. If I were a betting guy, I’d bet that Ukraine will come to a head by summer and that there will be a major blowup in the Middle East.

Regarding the war on Russia, the next administration will have a big problem on its hands. The sensible thing to do is to come to terms with Russia. That means, come up with a new security architecture. However, if we’re to believe the Russian intel services, that’s not what the Anglosphere Deep State has in mind. Their plan is to continue the war on Russia (via Andrei Martyanov):

Translation: MOSCOW, March 5 – RIA Novosti. The United States and Great Britain are participating in the training of special operations forces for subversive work against Russia, said the director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Naryshkin, in an exclusive interview for Solovyov Live, fragments of which were shown on the Rossiya 1 TV channel. “The Americans, especially the British, participated and are participating in the training of special operations forces and intelligence officers to conduct subversive work against our country,” he said. Thus, according to the head of the department, the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines were blown up by the Anglo-Saxons. As for the United States, they are creating a wide intelligence network both on the territory of Ukraine and in other countries, including those that border Russian territory, Naryshkin noted. “The fact that American intelligence services participated in the training and retraining of Ukrainian intelligence officers is an obvious fact,” Naryshkin added.

Presumably, if a President Trump tries to rein in the Deep State he’ll get impeached again. Either that or a real ding dong battle, the Deep State against the American constitutional order. So far Trump has confined himself mostly to what has become a standard riposte—We wouldn’t be in the fix we are in if I were still president. Appeals to the past or to make believe will only get him so far, especially if matters on the ground change materially. If Russia brings the war in Ukraine to something like a decisive end game, both Dems and GOPers will have to come up with a plan.

The same goes for the Middle East, which actually could turn out to be more dangerous for the US during the campaign. The betting is that an Israeli attack on Lebanon would precipitate a regional war, and that could lead to the closure of the Persian Gulf as well as the Red Sea—for starters. It would only get worse from there. That eventuality, rather than anything currently happening in Europe or East Asia, might be the most likely trigger for direct war with Russia, China, and various other players.

Right now, Trump is preparing for these contingencies by—at least arguably—embracing the genocide of the Palestinian people:

Trump breaks silence on Israel's military campaign in Gaza: 'Finish the problem' [backs Israel]
NBC ^ | Mar 5, 2024 | Vaughn Hillyard and Allan Smith

PALM BEACH, Fla. — Former President Donald Trump declared Tuesday that Israel must “finish the problem” in its war against Hamas, his most definitive position on the conflict since the terror group killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages on Oct. 7.

“You’ve got to finish the problem,” Trump said on Fox News on Tuesday when asked about the war. “You had a horrible invasion that took place that would have never happened if I was president.”

When asked on the program whether he supported a cease-fire in Gaza, Trump demurred, avoiding an explicit position on Israel’s military effort that has now also left ... people dead in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The likely 2024 Republican nominee has not provided his own position on U.S. or Israel's strategy throughout the five months of the war.

Though a stalwart defender of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration during his presidency, Trump has also attempted to strike an anti-war posture on the campaign trail in the last year, attempting to contrast himself from President Joe Biden and his remaining Republican rival, Nikki Haley.

“Frankly, they got soft,” Trump said on Tuesday about the Biden administration, claiming that the aggression by foreign adversaries would not have happened if he were still president.

“That should never have happened. Likewise, Russia would never have attacked Ukraine," he said.

While Tuesday’s comments offered the strongest signal yet from Trump of what direction Israel should take, he has yet to offer specific thoughts or proposals on how much the U.S. should be involved financially, how hostage negotiations should be handled, the plight of Gaza’s civilian population or whether leaders should pursue a one- or two-state solution to the conflict.

Right. As “definitive positions” go, that’s not terribly definitive. Nevertheless, it looks like a nod in support of genocide. There are several ways to look at this from a purely political standpoint. Trump’s base—older, more traditional GOPers and Christians—tend to be strongly pro-Israel, for now. Is he attempting to shore up a base that’s already as shored up as a base can be, judging from the polls? Is this a calculation that the Middle Eastern vote would never swing his way decisively—not enough to matter?

Most obviously, his words could be taken as a sort of dog whistle to Jewish voters who support the Zionist entity. But, in reality, would that be likely to swing any state with a significant Jewish population? California? New York? Illinois? I doubt it. Perhaps he’s going for the Jewish money, rather than Jewish votes. Color me skeptical that Trump supporting genocide against Palestinians will sway the big Jewish money in his direction to the degree that it would define the election outcome—those same people have too many other differences with Trump and, especially, with Trump’s presumptive base: Ragin’ Rural Whites/Goyishe Kops. Maybe the real bottom line is that this “definitive position” is simply a sort of place marker for the time being, a way of saying, once again: I told you so; it never woulda happened … while awaiting events. Playing it safe.

It’s all a disappointing switch from the brash Trump of 2016. Especially given that he’s also playing it safe in another major area that’s begging to be addressed: The Covid Regime. Trump simply doesn’t mention it, perhaps because—despite the Zhou regime’s undoubted excesses—Trump himself isn’t really in a position to say, Hey, never would happened if, er, … There is such a thing as playing things too safe.

Perhaps now is a good time to express my own view in a general way. I regard most electoral choices as choosing between two less than perfect alternatives. Depending on the choices, it can be a choice between the lesser of two evils (think: Obama/Romney/McCain, just for example)--on the assumption that the complications of our constitutional system make such a choice viable or justifiable. For that reason I’m generally opposed to a pure protest vote—one that would be too statistically insignificant to sway politics. That means I’m also, generally, opposed to voting for third parties—unless the third party in question might have a serious effect on later policies. For now, that leaves me with Trump v. Zhou. Trump, in his one term, showed me enough that I consider this choice a no-brainer. Like you readers, I’ll just have to watch how things develop.