The forces aligned against President Trump are many and varied. This much is clear, and even more, brought clear by the organs that guard state power, not the least of these being inherently pro-state, corporate media.
A recently revealed memo by Rich Higgins, a top official of the National Security Council, was very interesting on this count and was responsible for his firing. Penned in May under the title, Potus & Political Warfare, he offers a full array of Trump’s opposing forces, his intention seeming to be to leave nobody out.
His dominant theme is that cultural Marxism erodes the nation’s Judeo-Christian culture. He restricts cultural Marxism to relate to “programs and activities that arise out of Gramsci Marxism, Fabian Socialism and most directly from the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt strategy deconstructs societies through attacks on culture by imposing a dialectic that forces unresolvable contradictions under the rubric of critical theory. The result is induced nihilism, a belief in everything that is actually the belief in nothing.”
Those either benefited by, or captured by, the cultural Marxist meme include mainstream media, academia, the deep state, global corporatists & bankers, both leaderships in our two-party state, and Islamists. At the international level they are joined by the European Union, the UN, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization of Islamic Co-operation, and the International Muslim Brotherhood.
Higgins details the political warfare directed against Trump — “operating in a battle-space that reflects the left’s vision” — that are “structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses”. He goes further, concluding that “the defense of President Trump is the defense of America”.
Strangely, for this he was fired by NSC head, H.R. McMaster. The thinking is that, without directly naming him, Higgins placed McMaster as enabling this sinister cabal, and McMaster caught wise.
It’s easy to read Higgins’ memo as the ravings of a right-winger, but harder to deny the multitude of forces aligned against Trump. The common professional politician, the noble business titan, and the learned psychiatrist may all make the observation that Trump is unfit to be president.
This is an interesting word, unfit. Merriam-Webster offers three definitions:
1/ not adapted to a purpose (unsuitable)
2/ not qualified (incapable, incompetent)
3/ physically or mentally unsound
The psychiatrist will be centered on (c). The politician and the businessman will be centered on (b). All three will be quick to agree that (b) and (c), taken together, comprise a set of necessary conditions for the unfit label to be attached to Trump.
One can go further and say that all the unfit accusations we have heard so far from any source in any discipline are based predominantly on (b) and (c), and, if based on (a), the purpose would be left ambiguous and not rigorously defined.
Now, because there is no doubt that the deep state and the military-industrial-intelligence-security complex together with neoconservative elements are intent on bringing Trump down, what is it about his unfit condition that inspires their hostility?
We had eight years of George W. Bush. Cartoonists had a field day. He was the subject of great ridicule. The conditions of (b) and (c) for his being unfit were said to apply by many on the left, but he was not met with the hostile forces mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Trump in many ways exceeds Bush. He’s not only a fool but seems to relish it. No humility, no honesty, character flaws coming out of his ears. On (b) and (c) he is trump but the opposition to him is on a different level than was Bush.
A point can be made that it is within condition (a), not adapted to a purpose, that opposition to him is manifest. The purpose that he is not adapted to is the continuation of America’s drive for world hegemony to include enlargement of NATO and the continuing encirclement of our necessary enemies, Russia and China.
Once he signaled that Russia didn’t have to remain an enemy, and offered that Putin seemed like a decent fellow, he was deemed unfit by this establishment. They couldn’t care less about his personality. They were through that with Bush. What’s needed is obedience to method and this is where he differed from Bush.
Putin had a cute response to the Russian election interference slander. What is the United States, a banana republic that we can interfere with their election?
For the right or the wrong reasons, Trump tied his ship to Russia. The interests that want Russia brought down immediately went to work on bringing Trump down.
If someone has followed this reasoning, what is there to root for when the military-industrial-intelligence-security complex has its way, with or without Trump?