Is Trump chaotic and is he really to blame for tensions with the EU and others? Let us explore the facts.
By Craig Martin White
In part one it was pointed out that President Trump and the elites all over the West and particularly in the European Union (EU) have fallen out of love, if they were ever in love. He wants the EU as a partner, not a vampire draining America of its wealth. Because of them, to a large degree, America is spending more on debt repayment interest that it is on defence itself. He and his officials know that this fiscal overreach is leading to America’s economic ruin and must be reined in urgently.
Almost every day the press and their websites contain tirades splattered against President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other officials of the United States administration.
They are blamed for everything imaginable and anything that many to go wrong in the world, they are already prognosticating that Trump will be to blame. It is almost like they want him to fail in every respect (domestic policy, foreign policy, the economy). Or maybe they are arranging his failure? One prominent Australian newspaper’s website alone contains three to six such articles practically every day! It is clear that they don’t believe in democracy and any challenge to their cherished world order. An order that has become corrupt and is decaying from within.
These elites have rewritten the playbook, and Trump and his administration refuse to play by the changed rules.
They promote a narrative of “chaos” coming from Trump and his team. By stating this narrative over and over again many are deceived. But the worst part is when they believe their own lies. Or perhaps they don’t understand the workings of Trump and as political analysts they should. Instead, they lead astray those they seek to exploit by spreading a perception of the man. As most people do not have the time or interest in deeply understanding politics and world affairs, they rely on how they perceive politicians and those creating these perceptions are very good at how they ply their trade.
For example, a Member of the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt accused Trump of being the “greatest threat” and that “Trump is Putin’s puppet, and he’s making it clear: NATO’s greatest threat isn’t abroad, it’s sitting in the White House.”
Lying and exaggerating are unbecoming to ruling classes, but that is in their DNA. It is almost as if they cannot help themselves. By this method, they create views which are not necessarily accurate.
Politics is, after all, largely about perceptions. One of these surround Trump’s call for acquiring Greenland as a United States Territory as if this was something new or terrible or imperialistic.
However, President Andrew Johnson (1865-69) who was the one able to purchase Alaska from Russia, even attempted to purchase Greenland. Seventy-seven years later, in 1946, President Truman proposed the purchase of Greenland from Denmark. Then in 1955, the Joint Chiefs of Staff encouraged President Eisenhower to pursue the acquisition of Greenland. Trump is merely following in their footsteps.
Why is he doing this? It is because he is fully aware of the China threat and does not want them gaining a foothold in Greenland. What could possibly be wrong with that?
At a recent lecture at the Lowy Institute I attended here in Sydney, the panel presented a ‘single point of view’ and one panel member in particular, was deeply unfavourable toward Trump, even alleging that he was going to abandon Asia and Australia to China, frightening the audience. Nothing can be further from the truth and in fact, China’s behaviours is causing him to shift focus to our region.
The elites comprising woke/left-liberals, neo-conservatives (not true conservatives, but warmongers who were originally on the far Left but accepted capitalism, while holding on to liberal social values), liberal internationalists, neo-Marxist and the Greens, possess common interests and common foes. This merging coalition is intensely powerful and will not let go of their power. As they try and reverse the tide of emerging history, the more frustrated and angrier they tend to become.
They are also wary of any bruising encounters with Trump or any of his team who have proven themselves to be battle-hardened (literally) or in other realms of life such as politics or business. The European weaklings are so emasculated that they can only beat their breasts and gnash their teeth in anguish at this time.
George Friedman, noted the following in an article “Trump’s Place in US Political Cycles” which appeared in Geopolitical Futures (18 November 2024):
“Presidents are elected by aligning with the pressures that already exist, and they govern in response to these pressures. Since the United States is a democracy that should not be surprising…
“A transitional president like Reagan, Roosevelt or Jackson tends to usher in shifts that are often despised by the establishment until they are successful. One does not need to have supported Trump’s election to see how it will play out.”
Has Trump 2.0 Learned Lessons from Trump 1.0?
The first version of Trump had him beset on all sides including false allegations, witch hunts, betrayals, attempts at impeachment and the Covid lock-down fiasco.
Let alone the close encounter with a would-be assassin’s bullet not long prior to his second term. His resilience has been ‘over and above’ the ordinary.
But Trump 2.0 is a lot wiser, brazen and immensely more powerful. “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”
Instead of moulding a team that is disparate in an attempt to be conciliatory toward the opposition, this time he is building one that is truly nationalistic and personally loyal. And with this being his final time he is permitted to hold the office, he seems to have adopted a “now or never” and “I don’t care what you think” approach which key members of his team such as James Vance, the Vice President and Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State have also subscribed to.
However, his unconventional approach continues. His use of hyperbole, floating idea ballons and even throwing grenades in the room persists.
Unlike Presidents Nixon and Reagan who were initially outsiders who worked their way through the establishment and created networks within various power groups, engaging the system, building alliances and understanding statecraft, Trump seemingly doesn’t understand statecraft and doesn’t care too much for it. And that may well be what is need nowadays when America is confronted with a room full of rowdy, ungrateful brats. Brats who bully others for not towing the line, even within their own ranks. Witnessing the undemocratic behaviours of the EU toward their own people is appalling to watch.
The recalcitrant brats in the EU after all, are the ones who have drifted away from their core European values and what ties them to America. Either due to incompetency or by deliberate design, President’s Obama and Biden pulled America far from its foundations and values, aligning with the far Left and semi-authoritarian leadership in Europe. Trump wants to undo all of this because continental Europe is slowly but surely drifting from America. Not the other way around.
In reality, Europe, if it did not drift from its and America’s roots, would have had little to fear from Trump’s Presidency. The blame for all the snarkiness in relating to Trump 2.0 lies squarely with them. It is they who have caused the backlash.
Thus, the President has more detractors than allies on the world stage, but still, there are some genuine allies who see what he is trying to do and give him moral support. One is Liz Truss who was ignominiously removed as Great Britain prime Minister: “We need a Trump style revolution. Everything that’s happening here saying there are two genders, dealing with the border, getting rid of net zero, and getting on with drill baby drill. That is what we need right now in Europe and it can’t come soon enough.”
And Europe, the centre or the world’s greatest grouping of sophisticated cultures, has its own civilisation which is under threat. It contains fissures within that civilisation that it must deal with and not pick a fight with Trump. All he is doing is attempting to have them look after themselves and solve their own problems without running like children to Daddy with a handout for more money. The brats need to learn a lesson, but they prefer to gang up on their superior.
Allow me to explain.
Civilisational fissures
Trump may not realise it, but one can only assume that his foreign policy specialists and advisors do: the world can be categorised in accordance civilisations and where those civilisations meet, is where we find many clashes and wars. And this will continue into the future.
Around 1996 or 1997 I came across a book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) in a bookstore and after browsing it, quickly recognised it as a “must” for the expansion of my knowledge in foreign relations and the impact that distinct civilisations have had and will have on world powers and their allies. I even wrote a short book review about it at that time.
These civilisational fissures may seem obvious to many in one sense, but it takes a political scientist or analyst to unpick the complexities and explain this to the ordinary man or woman.
Huntington’s book articulates several hypotheses regarding the significance of civilisational differences. It posits that these differences naturally results in growing awareness of civilisation-consciousness; and that conflicts between civilisations are likely to replace ideological and other forms of conflict as the primary mode of global discord.
Globalists simply cover their ears to these clear facts.
From in-depth research he could identify that there seemed to be the following civilisations: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic‐Orthodox, Latin American, and African – eight in all. It was his prediction, based on history and where the ‘fissures’ lay on the borders of these civilisations, that this is where terrible conflicts would arise.
The following map portrays Huntington’s eight civilizations as he understood it:
Map source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
The book was an outgrowth of an earlier paper which impressed Richard Nixon so much that he congratulated him in the form of a written note stating that Huntington “raised issues that no one else, in or out of government, has adequately addressed.”
Huntington suggests that international relations will continue to see the rise of other powers, which represent other civilisations and he argues that effective political, security, and economic international institutions are more likely to arise within civilisations rather than between them. Additionally, he asserts that conflicts involving groups from different civilisations will occur with greater frequency, duration, and intensity compared to those within the same civilisation (although one wonders if that is always the case). He identifies violent confrontations between groups from different civilisations as the most probable and perilous catalyst for escalation that could potentially lead to global warfare.
Of course, like any good political science work, it can and should be reviewed. It tasks one to have another look and this author ponders on smaller fissures that likely exist in places like South Africa. Or a union of outlying civilisations in Central Europe between Orthodox and Western. Such is the complexity of this world and the divisiveness of mankind. There are many such smaller fissures – mirroring the larger ones – in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.
Various media gave a nod at the book with a mere sideways glance while elites occupying the think-tanks where they meet to sip their lattes, dine lusciously and conjure up ways to influence governments, did not appreciate the wisdom contained therein.
Ukraine is one area where Trump must be careful not to get too involved in which can lead to entanglement and deeper engagement and lengthy, drawn-out conflicts. At this stage, he is following the example of Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Their philosophy was “peace through strength” which helped to keep America from wars to sometimes engage in smaller conflicts while avoiding major ones and disengaging from others (e.g. Vietnam). Consider also that the world is immeasurably more complex today than under Nixon. Trump has a lot more to contend with.
Even some religious folk become irritated toward Trump. Their arguments are largely erratic and devoid of depth. Their circular thinking is caught within its own trap lacking understanding within a proper global and historical framework. They are emotional.
Yet it is not about emotion; what is occurring is an attempt to improving the current world order and the post WW2 rules-based world system that the Leftist elites have hijacked and are gradually bending to their globalist ideology. It is about realism and keeping America untangled militarily from the conflicts of others. It is about ensuring American global leadership rather than letting it slip into global governance.
Whether the leftwing elites like it or not, the rise of China, India and BRICS are challenging the old order which has shown itself either treacherous, or incapable or downright incompetent in managing the situation. Some elites are delighted by the downhill slope of the West and rise of her rivals; while others seemed to be in a malaise, caught up by their own lack of comprehension to the inherent dangers all this pose. Perhaps they are blinded by their own conceit. Or perhaps this portion of the elites think that they can integrate rising powers into a world system – global governance instead of merely a rules-based order and liberal internationalism. They have taken it much further and Trump is not at all favourable with such an approach.
Even if the latter is achieved, it is destined to be brief. And why would this be the case? Huntington’s wisdom comes into play in such circumstances. The world’s major conflicts have occurred and will occur where there are ‘fissures’ between civilisations.
So, regardless of who is American President, it is surely becoming more and more obvious that the trans-Atlantic alliances and the current rules-based world order are coming undone and need testing and revision.
Trump’s “election has obviously rattled the self-satisfied globalist oligarchs, calling into question the viability of their worldview. In his inaugural speech, Trump challenged every trendy cause embraced by the Davos crowd. I wish I had been a fly on the wall to see the reaction at the WEF when Trump announced his intention to ‘Drill, baby, drill’ for oil. Or when he declared that ‘radical gender ideology’ will be banned in federal institutions, as there is ‘only male or female’.” (Frank Furedi, “Has Trump Killed Davos Man?” Spiked, 23 January 2025)
These institutions have played their part and fulfilled their roles, but have become old, corrupt, bureaucratic and now serve the ambitions of the globalist Left.
Nixon and Trump: an historical rhyme?
Call it a rhyming or similarities between those two men or a sort of political cycle, it is clear that something historical is happening that should cause us to pause for a moment and consider the world we are entering.
Imagine for a moment that you are Trump and endeavouring to extricate the United States from a conflict that was not initiated by your country and which you perceive as a significant burden on American resources. Recently, this was presented a considerable surprise to your allies. The objective is to encourage them to become less dependent on the America for their security needs. Additionally, the aim is to mitigate their competition with the manufacturing of your country. The overarching goal is to establish peace in the Middle East. Furthermore, you are attempting to create a rift between Russia and China, seeking to leverage this division to America’s benefit.
Congratulations! You are now Nixon 2.0, despised by academia and the media. You are now officially portrayed in a bad light, yet your soldier on in defiance of the elites as you follow in Nixon’s footsteps.
True, Nixon supported free trade, limited immigration, NATO, and opposed Russian expansionism. However, this perspective was established long before these policies became less favourable and shifted towards the Left. One cannot compare, for example, today’s NATO with that in existence 55-60 years ago.
Nixon aimed to create a “new majority” by bringing together traditional Republicans and culturally conservative Democrats. He demonstrated flexibility regarding domestic policy by making some compromises and at the same time appointed conservatives to the Supreme Cour. Under his administration, there was an increase in federal government spending and regulation across certain policy domains. For instance, welfare benefits were broadened, and significant new consumer safety regulations were implemented. To him this represented the will of the “great silent majority” of “forgotten Americans” – a distinct sort of populism.
When it came to foreign policy, Nixon emphasized a strategy of limited involvement and a pragmatic enhancement of America’s global standing. He significantly advanced diplomatic relations with China, yet simultaneously eased tensions with the Soviet Union, and managed a strategic withdrawal from Vietnam. All the while containing Soviet power while urging allies to take greater responsibility for their own defence which they didn’t.
He engaged in ongoing verbal confrontations with the Left concerning a broad spectrum of cultural and national security matters and damned the university professors as if they were demons – the enemies of the West and neo-Marxist to the core.
And, according to Nixon, the world could be divided – at that time in history – into five clear centres of economic power, though only two of those possessed real military power: United States, Soviet Union, Western Europe, Japan and China.
And what did Donald Trump do?
In many ways he transformed the Republican Party into a populist “worker’s party.” At the grassroots level, his coalition merges two primary groups into a populist-conservative alliance, imbued with some libertarianism. Overall, his policy stance is centre-right, not far-right at all. As such, it does not align with the particular interpretation of centre-right that was initially preferred by the Republican Party’s affluent urban postgraduate demographic. They have tilted toward the more globalist-left, moving away from the real centre-right position that was once occupied by the Nixonian and Reaganite right.
Despite their significant differences in background, personality, and expertise, there are notable similarities between Trump’s foreign policy instincts and those of Nixon’s administration as we have seen. Trump perceives that the United States has shouldered an excessive burden in terms of global leadership, both militarily and economically. His focus is on a specific interpretation of American autonomy, consolidation, and realism. Regarding Afghanistan, Trump had been vocal about his desire to end U.S. involvement. During 2017-2018, he intensified efforts to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban but sadly the Biden withdrawal was a complete failure leaving America red-faced and the world’s laughing-stock, particularly by her enemies.
After pondering over the Nixon-Trump similarities, I came across an amazing insight. An article was published in the New York Post, “Letters between Trump and Nixon reveal previously unknown relationship” by Emily Jacobs, 24 September 2020:
“In the earliest letter reviewed by the outlet ahead of the exhibit’s opening, dated June 1982, the current commander-in-chief lavishes praise on the former president.
“I think that you are one of this country’s great men, and it was an honor to spend an evening with you,” Trump wrote to Nixon after the two were spotted together at the 21 Club in Midtown Manhattan…
Speaking to TMZ’s Harvey Levin, he showed off one of the letters, dated December 1987, in which Nixon congratulated Trump for an appearance on a television show.
“I did not see the program, but Mrs. Nixon told me that you were great. As you can imagine, she is an expert on politics and she predicts whenever you decide to run for office you will be a winner,” the former president wrote.
“It was just amazing that he wrote it,” Trump said while showing off the letter, adding that it was not the only one.
He said that while he did not know Nixon well, “he would write me letters. It was very interesting. He always wanted me to run for office.”
Let us hope that he does not meet the same fate as Nixon.
Tread very carefully, please, Mr Trump, for there are many against you among the small, but influential ruling elites. They will plot and attempt to cause your downfall.
Postscript:
After finalising this article, I came across an excellent interview with Nadia Schadlow on “Lessons from Nixon for Trump’s New World Order” which you can listen to hear. It is important not only for the facts it contained, but the clarity and depth of thinking of an analyst. For me, she is revealing that Trump is ‘seizing the day’ and bending a trend in world order in a new direction. Using forcefulness which is working. It seems that Trump does appreciate that we live in a different world today compared to one just 20 years ago. And so do his strategists. She mentions that Trump is mirroring Nixon’s grand strategy: peace through strength; shared responsibilities with allies; negotiations. These strategies certainly appear to resonate with Trump. I have all of Nixon’s books and of them, I would recommend a read of The Real War.
Reagan too
Both Trump and Reagan were former Democrats who found that the drift of the party to the radical Left to be reprehensible. And both were the oldest President in the history of America until Biden.
Thanks to Reagan, the Cold War with the Soviet Union ended and a new dawn of liberal-internationalism with a rules-based order would be adopted across the globe.
This conclusion of the Cold War propelled the consensus surrounding Western values. The post-Cold War establishment via its various institutions intensified its conviction that the entire world ought to be reconstructed in this model, heralding what was termed the ‘end of history’ or a ‘new world order.’ The movement advocating for liberalism assumed a monumental responsibility to dismantle nations in pursuit of peace, prosperity, and freedom. Paradoxically, the very aims of the original Communists themselves, but via different vehicles!
But this did not fully emerge, much to the elite’s chagrin, although some leaders, such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, heralded a “post-national Canada.” Frustratingly to the elites, most nations are not in accord with such a globalist moment.
Reagan made it plain that he categorically believed in States’ rights to his followers. This obviously continuing the Nixon “southern strategy” and cementing the grand realignment of political forces which saw conservative southern Democrats to swing to the Republican Party.
Reagan, once in the Presidency, maintained this conservative approach by opposing affirmative action and busing initiatives while striving to preserve tax exemptions for racially segregated educational institutions. But that wasn’t because he was racist. It was because he believed in choice.
So it is with Trump: he too believes in States’ rights and choice, instead of an overly centralised system, run by a huge bureaucracy which has been hiding the “deep state” (an alignment of public servants and intelligence operatives in a war against nationhood and conservative values).
Writing in The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen noted that “Donald Trump may not have Ronald Reagan’s charm, but the two have much in common: when Trump is exposing fads, he’s helping the cause of freedom across the world” (“Trump carries Reagan’s torch for common sense”, 22 February 2025).
Instead of the frenzy and nonsense emanating from the mainstream media accusing him and the Republican Party from moving away from Reagan, in most areas he is clearly aligned with Reagan’s philosophy and is now extending it further.
But another area that interests this writer is President Calvin Coolidge (1923-29). It began to dawn on me in the mid-1980s that Reagan was rather similar, in many ways to Coolidge. The initial thought was that this was due to political cycles. But then I read (in Newsweek as I recall) how Reagan was enamoured by Coolidge and so it then appeared that Coolidge’s philosophy rubbed off on Reagan.
And this is probably true for Nixon and Reagan influencing and rubbing off on Trump. Tracing the roots of the doctrines of a leader helps one to grasp their world view and future destination which defies the churlish comments made about the supposed chasm between Reagan and Trump.
Evidence for the Trump-Reagan similarities manifests in various ways, both intentional and unintentional. Similar to Trump in later years, Reagan appointed individuals to significant administrative roles who were fundamentally antagonistic toward the very agencies they were meant to oversee. For instance, those that were appointed to oversee the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency also served to reform these agencies that conservatives found objectionable.
It is clear that both men were populists and used the “Make America Great Again” slogan. Reagan refused to condemn the White South African government, or apply sanctions against the nation in the face of media outrage against it. Trump is supporting Whites in South Africa and even offering American citizenship to persecuted White farmers. Further, he signed an Executive Order to address serious human rights violations in that country as it slips ever closer toward a typical African-style dictatorship and oppression.
And finally, with each having narrowly survived an attempted assassination, the similarities continue on.
All strange, but true and indicative of a political cycle that throws up occurrences such as these.
What can we make of all of this?
Silly comments that Trump is bringing about the end-time Beast power and as such, is a ‘baddie’ coupled with mirroring the mass hysteria whipped up in the media and various globalist think-tanks, is hardly demonstrating any in-depth analysis, deep pondering or understanding of what is really going on.
In a world where a dangerous dynamic is emerging and the world is slowly cleaving into rival power blocs, sometimes along civilisational fissures, now is not the time to be silly and contrarian to the extent of taking the side of the Left against the West!
If Trump does come undone like Nixon (and which almost occurred with Reagan), it is due to the relentless, non-stop harassment and persecution from the elites.
Let’s make sure that we are not part of that orgy. We should know better and realise that leaders are not perfect and will never match the criteria we create for them.
Finally, this writer is no admirer of Henry Kissinger, but as one of the most prominent world diplomats with expertise in so many areas of international affairs, it would behove us to take note of his utterances:
“I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses … he said. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.” (quoted in “Henry Kissinger: The World Is in a ‘Very, Very Grave Period’ and Trump Could Mark ‘End of an Era’” Newsweek online, 20 July 2018). [emphasis mine]
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of articles for World News and Prophecy Review.com by Craig White, researcher, publisher, writer and archivist. You can contact the author @ surfer11@iprimus.com.au
Craig’s website can be accessed here: FOS | Friends of Sabbath
Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platform by clicking on the share button below.