Thread by @RichardBSpencer

This story embodies the entire Trump episode for me, its contradictions and "Trump vs. Trump" quality.

axios.com/off-the-rails-…

One of the most common defenses of Trump in the dissident sphere is that "he's got good instincts"—with that admission that he's out of his depth or constantly undermined by Jared, the media, Deep State, and GOP. But "Trump's heart," I was told, "was in the right place."

Here we have Exhibit A for such a defense. Trump tried to go full Ron Paul at the 11th hour—change the course of American history no less—but was prevented by his own incompetence and the Deep State dragging its feet.

This whole episode will likely become a kind of myth of the Trump presidency within right-wing circles—the proof that "our guy" was trying to save the country after all, but was tragically foiled by enemies within.

This view of Trump is reminiscent of Oliver Stone's surprisingly sympathetic portrait of Nixon. It's "the system"—the wild animal, war machine—that is guilty. Nixon, or Trump, is just trying to do what's right.

While there's a kernel of truth there ... I ultimately reject this type of apologia for Trumpism. "Well, gosh darn it, he tried didn't he? Let's give him a second chance!" It's ultimately the attitude of endless failure and attempts to justify losing through pathos.

Isn't it more plausible—more true to Trump's nature—that he wanted to remove troops around the world as a way of "rage quitting" the presidency and leaving his successor in an impossible position?

Did Trump even really believe that his orders would be implemented? Or was it simply a final "fuck you" or shitting of the bed? Those possibilities seem infinitely more likely than the notion that Trump had pure, paleo motives.

If Trump's order were miraculously implemented, what kind of foreign policy did he actually want in its place?

The little we know about Trump was that he viewed imperial commitments as protection rackets, which should produce rents. He fanatically supports Israel—which entails an imperial footprint—and he brought us closer to war with Iran than any president, including Dubya.

Trump seemed to use "isolationism"—not as an actual system or replacement of the American empire—but as a negotiating tactic, or a futile attempt to sabotage his political enemies.

More to the point—"Just mind your own business" is a ridiculous suggestion for a world empire. America *is* minding its business by stationing military around the world.

The "Dissident Right," "America First" movement, and even the supposedly "Anti-woke" or "populist" Left all impotently rage at "globalism." It's become a kind of entertainment, or form of purity signaling, for self-styled "dissidents."

The reality is that the fall of the American Empire, which is coming—sooner than we might think—will result in immediate chaos. This situation will be replaced by another imperial order—one that will have to engage in the same level of violence and hypocrisy as Washington.

There will never be a "multi-polar world" or peaceful "nationalism for all nations" or whatever fantasies are cooked up by the Right and Left. We live on a planet, and one system will be supreme. What that system will be is the question that needs to be addressed.

Trump—along with the MAGA movement—which yells "America First!" without any clue of what that might actually mean ("they've good instincts," you say) are precisely the type of people who *cannot* change the system or implement something to replace it.

As a footnote, look at what the Axios article says of Steve Bannon. His version of "Ron Paulian" foreign policy amounts to outsourcing the Afghan footprint to Blackwater. Whether this is smart—or a privatization scheme for which he would receive a kickback—I'll leave up to you.