The light of MAGA must illuminate every corner of the globe
Bring forward that torch, Mr President
Trump’s genius revealed itself most keenly last year when he invited Zohran Mamdani to the White House and, in the words of the Lumpenpress, appeared to ‘fall in love’ with Mr performatively subcontinental. As Daily Mail Dad Sam Kriss put it on Tuesday:
“Trump is inviting Zohran Mamdani to the White House, gazing up in admiration at this handsome young socialist, wonderful guy, we all want the same things.”
Failing to grasp, of course, that by inviting your opponents to appear on camera with you, and praising them, you neutralise them. Trump invades a third-world country and our Millennial revolutionary is issuing the same ineffectual whingeing complaints as the rest of the Democrat establishment.
Mamdani could easily be mobilising millions of his Millenial women to protest in New York and DC right now, but he is not, he has already subordinated himself to the President in front of the world. You cannot giggle in front of the Cameras with somebody and then condemn them as a fascist dictator two months later.
If he really wanted to define himself against Trump, he should have refused to speak to him after he won the Mayoralty. But it is too late for that now. This is what happens when a dippy theatre kid tries to square up against a New York Business tycoon who has stared down the Mafia. He loses in ways that he cannot even begin to comprehend.
Trump has been playing the same game with the leader of my country, Keir Starmer. The ‘right’ on both sides of the Atlantic has been befuddled by how enthusiastically the President praised him despite their ideological differences. But the trick here is that Starmer has now defined himself politically as somebody who can get on with the President. Indeed, this is the only ‘success’ that Starmer’s allies claim for his first term in Parliament.
This narrative is so precious to Keir that he has completely enfeebled himself and is constitutionally incapable of criticising the President, allowing Trump to threaten European states and negotiate with Putin without any real pushback from the only other Anglophone nuclear power in the world. Starmer is Trump’s poodle, he is a weak man who will cave again and again as he is prodded. He will never set Britain on a Gaullist path as some on the Left are now calling for because ‘his Britain’ of human rights law and Climate madness is incapable of becoming strategically independent.
At the start of this century Britain was a net energy exporter. The city was roaring and European car manufacturers were driving American companies out of business at every section of the market. The British military was capable enough to set the international agenda in Kosovo and Libya, and even acted unilaterally in Sierra Leone. For a whole host of reasons including Net Zero madness and international migration Western Europe has enfeebled itself. Britain responded to the invasion of Ukraine by sanctioning Russia but still steadfastly refusing to increase resource extraction through fracking or the North Sea. Our political class is completely insane and detached from reality and has been since at least the mid 1990s. It was only a matter of time before an American President came along and decided to remake the world order by exploiting these weaknesses.
It is my view that, for a whole host of reasons, it is better for reformist minded Europeans to side with the United States as Donald Trump turns it into an imperialist state, instead of reflexively defending our own governments or those of other European countries on the basis of ‘patriotism’.
In this article I make two cases to two different but overlapping audiences. The first is directed at people across the political spectrum whose information diet is fairly canonical (Financial Times) etc. I explain to them, or you, why I believe the existential threat of China means that we should support American aggression as an agent of change.
The second section in this article makes is directed at the beating heart of the readership, and deals with some of the objections that nationalistically minded Europeans have towards American bellicosity and chauvinism. That argument has been put behind a protective paywall…
For the man on the Clapham Omnibus:
I write this assuming you believe that The Rise Of China is the main existential threat to civilisation. I believe it is one of the top three threats, and I believe this despite admiring Chinese civilisation greatly. I worry about the rise of China on the basis that it is a Han nationalist project – the Chinese are (understandably) anti-colonialists after all – and that if China achieves global dominance that will mean suffering, if not enslavement, for me and people who look like me.
I do not believe that China will content itself with being merely a ‘great power’, and I believe that the possibility of AGI makes all international competition a zero sum game. You may arrive at this conclusion for different reasons, you may be upset about the treatment of Falun Gong, the Uyghurs or the penetration of our security services by their spies, whatever the reason you recognise that a globally ascendent China could risk the doom of humanity and freedom. China effectively called the West’s bluff last year during the trade wars and proved that it had enough strategic leverage over us that they could set the terms of engagement. That should have been our Yinhe incident - when the US Navy successfully cowed the Chinese state in 1993 - which changes everything. The absolute imperative in every Western country should be regaining global dominance.
Given just how existential this threat is, almost any action which puts the West in a better strategic position relative to China can be justified. Many imbeciles on the left have spent the last few days talking about how Venezuelan oil cannot be processed by American refineries, so isn’t Trump such a dumb dumb for thinking he can take their oil. That is completely irrelevant. The point is that China’s access to this oil can now be cut off, that is the argument that Stephen Miller made when he said that America will now behave like a superpower. It is about strategic positioning, not cheaper oil for American consumers. The US can now withdraw it in the event of a global conflict, or simply cut their energy access as a negotiating tactic during the ongoing trade wars.
It is much, much better for all of us that the United States is behaving like a dynamic player instead of slowly surrendering its industrial base and international influence to China. That is the trend under Biden/Obama/Bush, inexorable shuffling towards Han dominance. Venezuela is a good start but there is much more to be done. Instead of whingeing about the Chinese gobbling up critical minerals, under Trump’s doctrine the US can now aggressively pursue its interests in Africa (the US bombing of terrorists in Nigeria at the end of last year presages this). It is time to let Erik Prince loose on the Sahel.
So far so good. Where we start entering really contentious ground is where we start talking about Europe and America’s approach to it. If China is an existential threat, then it is justified for a progressively minded government in the United States to use whatever means it has to awake it from its slumber in order to make the West more powerful as a collective force.
When countries like Britain, France or Germany fail to exploit not just their natural resources, but their human capital (through poisonous DEI) and flood their countries with third world immigration, they are weakening the international European cause against China. When they double-deal and lie about their intention to increase military spending in order to spend more money on housing international rapists in sleepy market towns, they are making the West collectively weaker. One of Trump’s main points of contention with Keir Starmer is the failure to draw sufficient oil out of the North Sea.
And Denmark is not, and cannot due to its size, making the most out of Greenland, and would be serving the West’s security interests better by allowing Donald Trump to buy the share of ownership that Denmark has in the island. Yes it is unpleasant to treat allies this way, but we can ill afford EU intransigence, the West must move quickly and if unilateral aggressive action is the means to get us lumbering into the right position, so be it.
But beyond Greenland, it is clearly in the American national interest to create colour revolutions in Western Europe, as much as that might upset the likes of David Baddiel and Rory Stewart to hear. This is a much more radical proposition than the Greenland annexation, and I find it slightly odd to see people crowing about this when they said nothing about Michael Anton’s National Security Strategy, or even supported it. MAGA is talking about intervening in our domestic politics to halt and then reverse demographic change, that is a wider ‘Rubicon’ to cross than non-violently seizing a massive empty hunk of Ice adjacent to Canada (and part of North America on the Risk board). Who will die for Nuuk?
Let me now address an objection that will no doubt be raised, the idea that it is unpatriotic or ‘anti-European’ to support Trump seizing territory from Denmark or cajoling the British government into behaving in a civilised fashion.
Now, onto the more boozy fare:
