Trumpery and Knavery

An occasional scrapbook, wherein I shall collect and reflect on some of the more egregious abuses of this appalling United States Government.

Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2: My Facebook post of 4 March 2025

Exhibit 3: Musk’s X Rant of 5 June 2025

Surprise, surprise! These Musk tweets have now been deleted but screenshots of the two I originally posted here are below:

…And the two tweets below have also been deleted, so I’ve also replaced the links to them with screenshots.

Exhibit 4: United States National Security Strategy

In November 1925, the United States Government published its ‘National Security Strategy’.

Second in the list of the USA’s overall priorities is (my emphasis):

‘We want to protect this country, its people, its territory, its economy, and its way of life from military attack and hostile foreign influence, whether espionage, predatory trade practices, drug and human trafficking, destructive propaganda and influence operations, cultural subversion, or any other threat to our nation.‘

The subsequent wish-list sets out the USA’s five core foreign policy interests, which include (my emphasis once more):

‘We want to support our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe, while restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.’

A third list, of basic principles that the US Government will adopt within its strategy, includes:

• A ‘predisposition to non-interventionism‘ which ‘should set a high bar for what constitutes a justified intervention’.
• ‘We seek good relations with the nations of the world…without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.’
• Efforts to protect the USA’s sovereignty, including: ‘attempts by foreign powers or entities to censor our discourse or curtail our citizens’ free speech rights, lobbying and influence operations that seek to steer our policies...’

Then the priorities above are restated in a completely different set of extended bullet points.

The second, which relates to ‘The Protection of Core Rights and Liberties’, includes:

‘…the rights of free speech, freedom of religion and of conscience, and the right to choose and steer our common government are core rights that must never be infringed. Regarding countries that share, or say they share, these principles, the United States will advocate strongly that they be upheld in letter and spirit. We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.‘

The second part of the Strategy considers various ‘regions’ of the world.

There is an extended preamble which applies to the entire ‘Western Hemisphere’ and describes how the USA proposes to enlist countries as ‘regional champions’ and expand the network of countries with which it has strong relations, wanting other nations to ‘see us as their partner of first choice‘.

Following a section dedicated to ‘Asia’, there is one focused on ‘Promoting European Greatness’. It highlights European economic decline before entering into a diatribe:

‘But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and
sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.

Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.’

Following a series of observations about the war in Ukraine, there is acknowledgement that:

‘…Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States...American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed
gives cause for great optimism.

Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.

America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent—and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.‘

A series of bullet point priorities includes:

‘Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.’

Careful analysis of this document leads one, inescapably, to its glaring internal contradictions. Two in particular are highlighted here:

First, how the United States Government can reconcile its ‘predisposition to non-interventionism’, and avoidance of ‘imposing democratic or other social change’ on European countries, with an expressed desire to ‘stand up for’ European ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history’ and, in particular, to engage in ‘cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations’.

It seems that the USA is reserving the right to engage in such interventions where it judges that its actions are consistent with European countries’ traditions and histories, and that this will prevent ‘civilizational erasure’ and somehow restore those countries’ national identities and self-confidence.

The United States Government seems to be saying that it knows better than the democratically elected Governments of those countries.

The United States Government is entitled to make those judgements about its own country, within its own borders, but it has no entitlement to second guess the democratic decisions taken by other governments in other countries, regardless of whether or not they run counter to its own ideological leanings.

Second, and related to that, by what logic the USA can portray itself as the defender of free speech within its own borders, as well as of freedom of expression in Europe, when it is so patently unwilling to tolerate the freedom of those, whether inside or outside the United States, to criticise the country, its government, its isolationist ignorance or the blatant contradictions within its blinkered ideology.

A fundamental insecurity lies at the heart of the US Government’s approach.

For this is a National Insecurity Strategy. It displays for all to see the insecurity of a critic who is afraid of criticism; the insecurity of a country that is bitterly divided against itself, and most likely in terminal decline; the insecurity of a relatively new country nursing an inferiority complex, with very little interest in the rest of the world and even less understanding of what goes on there.

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Both the United Kingdom and Europe are beset with huge problems, made even more insurmountable in the face of United States isolationism. Patience with politicians of all stripes is wearing painfully thin. We are struggling to make any substantive improvement in our situations.

Even so, we will not listen to criticism from the US Government, or accept any intervention by it in our own affairs.

At least, not unless that Government is willing to extend the reciprocal right to us. Is the United States happy for Europe to ‘cultivate resistance to the current trajectory of the United States’?

No, I thought not.