Will Trump Back Project 2025?
The warmongering democratic party think Trump will be even worse than them, are they correct?
I see the democratic party’s propaganda machine is all over this project:
Ironically, the warmongering democratic party that is fuelling two proxy wars involving nuclear powers thinks Trump is the biggest danger to the world! Here are some of their headlines:
You get the idea.
The Project, in its introduction, states these four things as its goals:
Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”
Sounds great. What’s not to like, right? Perhaps when I have time to read the 900+ pages I will be able to understand a little better how these goals are to be reached. As with all these big social engineering plans, the devil is usually in the details (and large-scale accelerated social engineering tends not to end well for the plebs, as we are currently witnessing).
However, ‘dismantling the administrative state’ sounds straightforward, and Trump did promise it before, right? Perhaps if he wins a second term he will keep his word and peacefully gut the deep-state blob, even if this alarms the opposition (as opposed to simply swapping one set of corrupt elites for another).
The military-industrial complex is at the root of that blob, America’s problems, and the world’s problems, and so I hope that this Project 25 organization is giving Trump some good advice; let’s read part of their ‘mandate’ and see what they want him to do to the military-industrial complex (besides firing a few people with gender dysphoria, which for some reason the plebs focus on and the elites know it):
I’ll just read Chapter 4, which connects directly to the military-industrial complex:
The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine…
…while modernizing and expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal
U.S. allies must also step up, with some joining the United States in taking on China in Asia while others take more of a lead in dealing with threats from Russia in Europe…
The reality is that achieving these goals will require more spending on defense, both by the United States and by its allies, as well as active support for reindustrialization and more support for allies’ productive capacity so that we can scale our freeworld efforts together.
Sustain support for Israel…
The United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal.
Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication…
Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level…
Okay, that sounds like democratic party neocon warmongering on steroids. Use the military-industrial complex to ‘deal with Russia’ and continue with the current support of Israel’s war (see ‘ethnic cleansing’).
But the most concerning bit to me is the expansion of the nuclear arsenal. Do people realize the extent of America’s current nuclear arsenal?
In May 2024, the US Department of Defense maintained an estimated stockpile of approximately 3,708 nuclear warheads for delivery by ballistic missiles and aircraft. Most of the warheads in the stockpile are not deployed but rather stored for potential upload onto missiles and aircraft as necessary. We estimate that approximately 1,770 warheads are currently deployed, of which roughly 1,370 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and another 300 at strategic bomber bases in the United States. An additional 100 tactical bombs are deployed at air bases in Europe. The remaining warheads—approximately 1,938—are in storage as a so-called “hedge” against technical or geopolitical surprises. Several hundred of those warheads are scheduled to be retired before 2030 (see Table 1).
This is not 1940s tech: most of these nuclear warheads are significantly more destructive than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 'Little Boy' at Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 15 kilotons of TNT. In 2024, the US W88 Warhead (deployed on Trident II SLBMs) has approximately 475 kilotons. The B83 Bomb (strategic bomber-delivered) has up to 1.2 megatons (1,200 kilotons), which means it is 80 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
And Project 2025 wants Trump to make more of these things?
Will Trump support the insanity of Project 2025, or will he be able to stand up to all his financial supporters and former hires who sponsored this plan?
I was hoping that Trump would be the kind of guy who, on 'Day One,' would get on a plane to Moscow and be back within 24 hours with a peace deal—or invite Putin over to Mar-a-Lago for a round of golf. Am I wrong? I don’t follow Trump closely, so perhaps my Trump-supporting readers can help me out. I did find this, which disturbed me:
"The president has made clear that we have a tried and true pactice here. We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion. If we have to, we will, but we sure would like to avoid it," Special Presidential Envoy Marshall Billingslea.
Surely, Trump’s envoy doesn’t seriously believe that sending the enemy into 'oblivion' wouldn’t also spell 'oblivion' for America and its allies? And then there’s the popular Trump supporter, Senator Lindsey Graham: He’s a nuke-'em warmonger straight out of 'Dr. Strangelove.' He thinks he can just blow everyone 'off the friggin map.' He enjoys a war with Russia because it profits America and costs only Ukrainian lives at this point. He also advocates using nuclear weapons in Gaza, apparently deeming several thousand dead children insufficient. He’s the kind of guy who will support the war crimes of one nation because he doesn’t want America to be convicted of war crimes. With friends like these...
Do these people honestly believe anyone can win a nuclear war? How many nukes does an enemy need to destroy its adversaries and decimate their populations? Not many—probably as little as 200-300, just a fraction of what the US already possesses. We could obliterate the 'West’s enemies' several times over, and the Russians could do the same to those living in the Anglo-American Empire—a stark result of the nuclear arms race. Let’s not forget that just one hundred of these bombs would create a nuclear winter and global famine that would end what’s left of human civilization after a nuclear war.
We should be working with 'enemies' to reduce nuclear arsenals, rather than entering a new nuclear arms race.
Incidentally, what exactly makes Russia the enemy of the ordinary American people? I can see why it might be viewed as the economic adversary of Western elites, who desire to monopolize global resources and are upset that their MIC-backed petrodollar is being challenged. But what benefit do the plebs get, besides being turned into cannon fodder or radiated toast?
How much has NATO (see ‘US satellite-puppet states’) expanded over the past few decades, compared to Russian expansion? Has Russia expanded at all, unless you count Crimea since the NATO expansion program? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has added 14 member countries, primarily from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet bloc, including the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. If I was Russia, I would feel threatened, wouldn’t you? America didn’t like a nuclear threat in Cuba, I get it. So why can’t the plebs see how NATO expansion up to the borders of Russia might be provocative, to say the least? Incidentally, there was a time when the American elites acknowledged that NATO expansion was a problem; Secretary of State, James Baker, to Russian President Gorbachev:
We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.
The elites think they can just go around chanting ‘Putin bad' (like they do ‘Orangeman bad’) and not give good evidence of why he is any worse for the world than Biden or Clinton or Bush or any other Western leader; however, fewer and fewer people are now buying the shallow and jingoistic and patronizing ‘America is bringing liberty’ to the world BS (see ‘colour revolution’, ‘banana republic’, ‘Victoria Nuland’, ‘CIA’, ‘wet workers’ and other dead giveaways).
Unfortunately for the elites’ propaganda machine, the Russians can’t be simply smeared as ‘dirty commies’ anymore, and they are not ‘dirty Islamists’, and they are not brown, and they are not ‘racist’; inconveniently, they are white and have a long Christian tradition. Shouldn’t that normally save them from the ‘Christendom Crusade’ people, to follow their logic? So what is being sold to the American people here exactly?
Even the narrative that the Chinese are ‘dirty commies’ doesn’t hold water; yes, the CCP elites sell to their people the fake story about communist ideals in order to keep control of things, but in reality, contemporary China is a fascist project (see ‘State-Corporate Tyranny’) just like America at this point.
Aren’t the fascists all supposed to stick together? Or, is that only when they have a common enemy? At this point, the only thing separating the East and West elites is an economic war, and it seems that if you can’t win that because you got lazy and chose the slave labour of Chinese manufacturing to make your elites rich, you now try to take the football away from the game (and in this case, you press its buttons to play with the metaphor darkly).
Some words of advice for Trump, because I know he must read my Substack, of course, in between rounds of golf:
On ‘Day One’, dump all the crazy fake Christian religious fanatics, Zionist moneymen (see ‘AIPAC’) and other warmongering lunatics if you dare, and hire people who know that nuclear war never ends well.
Keep that Project 2025 leader, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, under control and out of the White House; “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless—if the left allows it to be.” That’s not helpful. That very much sounds to me like someone who wishes that a bloody civil war would break out; rather than a ‘warning’, that kind of talk becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s a bit like his plan for poking the Russian bear with nuclear escalation, but without setting the whole world on fire, hopefully.
Read some Russian history generally or even just learn about the way they fought in the Second World War. These people have pride and believe in sacrifice. I wouldn’t piss them off, but then I’m not a lunatic like some Anglo-American Empire elites.
Further reading: