​On November 30, Donald Trump nominated Kash Patel to serve as FBI director. A staunch MAGA activist and loyalist with significant standing in Trump’s orbit, Patel aligns closely with the president-elect on both domestic and foreign policy matters. Indeed, he appears to struggle to pinpoint areas of disagreement with Trump’s agenda.

Patel has consistently advocated for a hardline approach to China and is an unabashed supporter of Israeli interests, often prioritizing them over U.S. considerations. On October 7, marking the first anniversary of the Hamas attack, Patel delivered a fiery interview on Fox News. During the segment, he vowed that the incoming Trump administration would intensify its crackdown on anti-Israeli elements.

We should be side by side [with Israel]…When we are back in power with President Trump…we will shut off the machinery that feeds money into Iran…We need America to wake up and prioritize Israel, and that is not what Kamala Harris is about, we need to bring home Americans and end this war, bring home Israelis, and stand by our number one ally in Israel, and people need to wake up on November 5.”

A relative political outsider who has never occupied high office, the media has been awash with profiles of Patel and fevered speculation about what his management of the Bureau could mean in practice ever since. In the process, he has been subject to a level of mainstream scrutiny and criticism that was entirely lacking over recent weeks, as Trump filled his cabinet with a rogue’s gallery of dedicated hawks, hardcore pro-Israeli elements, and characters both unknown and notorious with potential extremist ties and views.

For some, the composition of Trump’s cabinet is a crushing disappointment. On November 9, Trump caused shockwaves when he announced neither Nikki Haley nor Mike Pompeo would be invited to join his administration in any capacity. The news, coupled with comments he made in a late October appearance on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, perked optimism in some quarters that the President-elect’s longstanding anti-war posturing could produce real-world results in Ukraine, if not elsewhere.

In his discussion with Rogan, Trump professed that “the biggest mistake” of his first term was he “picked a few people that I shouldn’t have picked” – “neocons or bad people or disloyal people,” among them John Bolton. Haley was the U.S. ambassador to the UN under Trump and perhaps the most ardent, outspoken Zionist ever to fill the role. She, Bolton and Pompeo – who personally orchestrated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, among other hostile deeds – were widely regarded as the administration’s leading hawks.

Yet, any slight hope that the pair’s absence from Trump’s new White House might herald an influx of some doves and, in turn, a more peaceful shift from the U.S. government was comprehensively dashed when the President’s transition team nominations began rolling in. Now the cabinet is fully stocked, countless millions around the world have urgent and grave concerns about what the future could hold for them, their families, countries, regions, and more.

In particular, Trump’s prospective government can already claim the mantle of the most fervently pro-Israel in U.S. history. This is despite replacing an administration that has done more than any before to accelerate, encourage, and facilitate Israel’s war on Gaza. The prospect that Tel Aviv’s deadly assaults on Gaza and Lebanon will escalate somehow further is now not only very real but seemingly inevitable. However, as we shall see, there are minor rays of hope among the mass doom and gloom.

‘Promised Land’
​
New Secretary of State Marco Rubio hardly needs any introduction as one of the most pro-war members of the modern U.S. political class. Since his career kicked off in 2000, he has been consistently among the loudest voices on how America’s officially designated enemy states should be dealt with, be that China, Iran, Venezuela, or otherwise. Threats of sanctions, coups, and military intervention are almost a daily staple of his political oratory.

​A close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2019, Rubio cosponsored a Senate resolution condemning UN Security Council resolutions designating Jewish settlement expansion in occupied Palestine as a violation of international law. He has referred to Israel’s mass murder in Gaza since October 7, 2023, as legitimate self-defense, claimed Hamas is “100% to blame” for any civilian casualties inflicted by the horrific onslaught, and ominously declared Palestinian resistance must be “eradicated,” as Tel Aviv cannot coexist “with these savages.”

The media has reported that the Trump administration is already concocting plans to “bankrupt Iran” with “maximum pressure” upon taking office. Rubio, who has long called for tightening already crippling sanctions on Tehran, is reportedly at the forefront of this effort, alongside nominated National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, a Pentagon journeyman who previously sat on the House Armed Services Committee. At an event convened by NATO adjunct the Atlantic Council, in October, Waltz bragged:

Just four years ago…[Iran’s] currency was tanking, they were truly on the back foot…we need to get back to that posture.”

Neutralizing Iran has long been touted as a prerequisite for reclaiming Israel’s waning dominance in West Asia. Any measure that destabilizes Tehran—economically, militarily, or politically—diminishes its capacity to curb Israel’s actions, leaving Tel Aviv emboldened to act without restraint. The logic is stark: weakening Iran strengthens Israel. Within the Trump administration, with its hawkish alignment, policies serving this end will likely be met with uncritical endorsement.

Already, Trump has pledged to lift the few remaining restrictions and end delays in the supply of military equipment and ammunition to Israel immediately after his inauguration. This includes an embargo on certain weapons shipments and limitations on various combat-related equipment. This embargo reportedly impacts Israel’s war-fighting capabilities, as its forces struggle with multiple self-initiated active battle fronts, requiring “strict control” over ammunition supply and use.

The pro-Israel credentials of Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz are unquestionable. Yet their fervor for supporting Israel’s controversial policies pales in comparison to some of President-elect Donald Trump’s other nominees. Take Mike Huckabee, the ultraconservative former Arkansas governor and twice-failed presidential candidate, now tapped to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist pastor, wasted no time declaring his intentions. He vowed to publicly refer to Israel in biblical terms, calling it the “Promised Land,” and proclaimed that Jews hold a “rightful deed” to Palestinian territory.

‘American Crusade’

Despite its unwavering consensus on Israel, Trump’s cabinet has been labeled “eclectic” by the mainstream press—and not without cause. Alongside establishment stalwarts like Huckabee and Rubio, Trump has tapped figures long considered political outsiders. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a polarizing figure in his own right, has been nominated for a senior post. Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and U.S. military veteran, has also emerged from the fringes to claim a role in Trump’s cabinet. Hegseth, who quietly advised Trump during his first term, pushed for the pardons of American soldiers convicted of heinous war crimes—a campaign that, in some cases, was effective.

Hegseth, a contender for Defense Secretary, has made his allegiances to Israel unmistakably clear. He has described Israel’s settler population as “God’s chosen people.” He has openly advocated for transforming Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish-only recreation of the historic Temple Mount, framing such an act as a “miracle.” At a 2018 National Council of Young Israel gala in New York City, Hegseth left no room for ambiguity:

 "Zionism and Americanism are the front lines of Western civilization and freedom in our world today.”

Such disturbing comments have elicited little media interest since Hegseth’s nomination. However, NPR has chronicled his unsettling array of tattoos, including a Jerusalem cross—a Christian emblem with origins in the Crusades—and the Latin phrase deus vult, often interpreted as a call to reclaim the Holy Land through the slaughter of Muslims. Both symbols have been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. Perhaps predictably, Hegseth’s 2020 book, “American Crusade,” brims with incendiary Islamophobic rhetoric.

Another wildcard nomination is Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Concurrently a politician and serving U.S. military officer, for years she occupied a dissident, dovish space on the Democrat left, all along smeared as an Assad or Putin apologist for her anti-war positions. However, she acrimoniously quit the party in October 2022, slamming it as “under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers who are driven by cowardly wokeness” and for purportedly “stoking anti-white racism.”
​
Gabbard had, by that point, been distancing herself from previously held progressive stances on issues such as abortion and LGBTQ rights, and she has rapidly grown ever more conservative since formally joining the Republican party. Despite her longstanding criticism of U.S. military interventionism, Gabbard effusively supports Israel, opposing any limits on its assaults on Gaza and Lebanon. She has slandered protesters critical of Israel as “puppets” of a “radical Islamist organization,” accusing them of supporting Hamas.

​‘Maverick Appointment’

Despite her inflammatory rhetoric and overt support for Israel’s most belligerent policies, Gabbard’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) could be a silver lining in Trump’s cabinet. The position wields immense power, coordinating the work of America’s sprawling intelligence apparatus across 18 agencies. Since the announcement, deep anxiety has rippled through intelligence circles on both sides of the Atlantic, with veterans voicing fears about the potential consequences of her leadership.

Trump spent much of his first term at war with the U.S. intelligence community. The President and his supporters quite legitimately accuse the CIA, FBI et al. of seeking to undermine and sabotage his first term in office. On November 24, The Economist forecast—based on interviews with U.S. and European intelligence officials—a “likely” mass exodus from American spying agencies, as many operatives are “fearful of falling foul” of Trump and Gabbard, under whom “spies are on notice.”

Gabbard’s disdain for America’s spy agency alphabet soup was writ large in her April book, “For Love of Country.” She blamed the CIA, FBI, “and a whole network of rogue intelligence and law enforcement agents working at the highest levels” of the U.S. government, in conjunction with “the Democratic National Committee, propaganda media, [and] Big Tech” for America’s most egregious ills. She declared this shadowy nexus “so dangerous that even our elected officials are afraid to cross them.”

Gabbard reserves some of her sharpest criticism for the intelligence community’s role in fueling the Ukraine proxy war, accusing it of laying the groundwork for conflict to benefit defense contractors. “How would their friends in the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars from the fear they fomented in America and Europe by stoking the fires of the new Cold War?” she wrote. American spies, it seems, are taking her seriously. “We are all reeling,” a “current intelligence official who’s worked through multiple administrations” told TIME magazine following the announcement of her nomination.

​Per The Daily Telegraph, the intelligence community in London is likewise “alarmed” by Gabbard’s nomination. The doggedly pro-Ukraine outlet quoted a number of “British defence figures” which slammed the move in the harshest possible terms. Disgraced former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove attacked the “maverick appointment,” lambasting her lack of “experience of intelligence and security.” Elsewhere, former British Army tank commander Hamish de Bretton Gordon angsted that the “special relationship” between Britain and the US “could be impacted.”

The perspectives of Dearlove and de Bretton Gordon are striking, for both have long histories of exploiting the “special relationship” to further London’s ends and bounce the U.S. intelligence and military establishment into war. MI6 chief Dearlove was responsible for cooking up false intelligence that formed the basis of the formal British and U.S. case for invading Iraq. The subsequent Chilcot Inquiry was completely damning of his activities in this regard.

Its report noted that Dearlove personally informed Prime Minister Tony Blair that Baghdad could definitively strike Britain with chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, and this information had been provided to MI6 by an Iraqi with “phenomenal access” to the highest levels of Saddam Hussein’s government. That false claim was central to London’s justification for war and much repeated in the media at the time. In reality, British spies were furnished with the claim “indirectly” by a taxi driver.

‘Perfect Nominee’

More recently, Dearlove was a central figure in Russiagate and a prominent advocate for the credibility of former MI6 operative Christopher Steele and his ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier in the media, despite the document’s self-evident falsity and concerns about its veracity within British and U.S. intelligence circles. Russiagate was clearly intended to ensure relations between Washington and Moscow didn’t improve under Trump, and were it not for the belligerent stance resultantly taken by his administration, the Ukraine proxy war could well have been avoided.

Hamish de Bretton Gordon also played a personal role in pushing for a U.S. war in Syria. He was part of an MI6 operation that smuggled soil samples out of Syria, purportedly to prove the Syrian government’s responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. These samples were later revealed to be falsified. A senior Western source acknowledged in August 2013 that the true aim of British intelligence was to pressure Washington into direct boots-on-the-ground military intervention, ala Iraq.

While that catastrophic outcome was avoided, a supposed government chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018 succeeded in pushing Trump to launch missile strikes against Syria. Leaked documents and independent investigations have since revealed that this incident was staged by British intelligence operatives and their assets. Notably, Gabbard publicly criticized Trump’s response, questioning whether Douma was a staged ruse by the opposition to prolong the conflict at a time when the White House appeared ready to de-escalate.

With Gabbard in the role of DNI, the sway of intelligence agencies over political decisions and the readiness of figures like Rubio, Trump and Waltz to act on dubious intelligence could be blunted. While this may not provide immediate solace to the Palestinians, who remain under constant threat of death and displacement, it could signal a positive shift in the unchecked influence of British and U.S. intelligence on the White House.

These tentative grounds for optimism are somewhat reinforced by Patel’s nomination as FBI director.
​
As a committed Israel-firster, he comfortably aligns with the rest of Trump’s prospective cabinet, and one might expect that mainstream news outlets eager to advance a pro-Israel agenda would embrace him as a result. Yet the media’s response has been anything but supportive. The New York Times warns that Patel would bring “bravado and baggage” to the role, while The Washington Post branded him a “dangerous and unqualified choice” to lead the Bureau.

The Atlantic, run by long-time pro-Israel activist Jeffrey Goldberg, has intensified this scrutiny of Patel, publishing multiple hit pieces in recent weeks. A November 30 op-ed warned that senior FBI officials “would likely resign rather than serve under Patel, which would probably suit Trump just fine.” The article concluded, “If Trump’s goal is to break the FBI and undermine its missions, Kash Patel is the perfect nominee.” This may well be one of the administration’s core objectives—on top of galvanizing Israel.

Patel has vowed that a future Trump administration would “come after” government officials, intelligence agency leaders, journalists, and other establishment figures he associates with what he describes as the “Russiagate hoax.” It’s hardly surprising that these same factions view his rise—and the broader ascent of a new administration—with trepidation.

Like Gabbard, Patel’s combative disdain for the U.S. deep state offers little solace. His stance does not mitigate, let alone counteract, his Pro-Israel leanings or the Trump administration’s aggressive resolve to ensure that Israel’s actions in Gaza, which human rights groups characterize as a genocide, proceed to their grim conclusion.
​
Yet, one might argue that the left could find itself in a stronger position to oppose the ongoing atrocities in Gaza under a Republican administration that makes no pretense of sympathy for the Palestinians. Unlike Democratic governments, which weaponize progressive rhetoric to attempt to shame solidarity activists and progressive dissidents into supporting its doggedly pro-Israel actions, the Trump administration’s overtly pro-Israel stance strips away such falsifications. And the possibility that entrenched institutions like the CIA and FBI—longstanding adversaries of progress and justice in America—might finally face accountability for their actions could be a potential silver lining. Watch this space.

The connection between the authoritarian personality and the working class began in earnest in the 1950s with cold war political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset.  Lipset argued that since World War I, “working class groups have proved to be the most nationalistic and jingoistic sector of the population” [1959: 483.]  His concept of authoritarianism is a mash-up Adorno’s ideas mixed with support for “extremist” groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Communist Party.  Lipset argued that in the US, the working class authoritarianism poses a threat to democracy.

The question is: does the psychology of individuals in the working class explain Trump’s rise to power?  A Marxist perspective reveals the flaws in this and other individual-level psychological explanations:
​

• first, the psychological argument obscures the real source of power in the capitalist society, namely social structures like corporations, property, media, and the state, that have been constructed over the years intentionally to serve the interests of the ruling class, namely the corporate elite that benefits the most from exploitation of the working class.
• second, it denies the established social science research that one’s position in such social structures, especially the economy, shapes one’s psychology far more profoundly than individuals’ psychological tendencies can influence enduring and evolving social structures.
• finally, it’s factually incorrect.  The Atlantic Magazine’s analysis of Trump support show that among voters with incomes less than $50,000, Hilary Clinton won 53 to 41.  Voters with incomes between $100 and $200,000 voted for Trump 56% to 39%.

​Despite its obvious flaws, the psychological argument has a special appeal for members of the privileged class, who want to hold themselves blameless for the social ills around them.  They believe they knew better, and they blame the working class to avoid facing up to their own culpability.  Scapegoating the working class is known as the “myth of upper class benevolence.”

One classic study in race and ethnicity shows the fallacies in the myth of upper class benevolence and zeroes in on the ways the working class is often portrayed, incorrectly, as the source of white supremacy.  In his book The Mississippi Chinese: Between black and white, the sociologist James Loewen interviewed hundreds of residents of the Mississippi Delta.  He found upper middle class whites routinely blamed poor working class whites for any and all oppression of both African Americans and Chinese Americans.  But looking closely at the facts gave Loewen a much different picture of culpability.   It was the privileged planter- and business-class whose members had the power to keep Chinese- and African-Americans out of their neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces.   Working class organizations like the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and small Baptist churches were the first to welcome people of color, while upper class organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, and Episcopalians excluded them.  Financial institutions acted in the interests of the privileged class and served to limit opportunities for others.    Schools reserved for whites only were resource rich compared with schools that served people of color.   One county in Mississippi, Loewen discovered, actually spent $45 per white pupil for every $1 per African American pupil.
​
Loewen rejects the widely held belief, echoed in the London Business School study mentioned earlier, that the working class, fearing economic competition, feels the most prejudice.  Instead, he turns to the pioneer Marxist sociologist of race, Oliver C. Cox, who argued that to analyze racial dynamics one needs to look first at “the economic policies of the ruling class.”  Cox continued, “Opposition [by the working class] to social equality has no meaning unless we can see its function in the service of the exploitative purpose of this [ruling] class.”

​A working class divided by race is easier to control and to keep unorganized than a united one, so concerted and deliberate efforts are made to encourage members of the working class to embrace authoritarian beliefs, especially white supremacy.  Using corporate-funded think tanks, right-wing radio and cable television, and presidential pronouncements, the ruling class frames current events in authoritarian terms, attempting to undermine the unity of the working class and therefore weaken it.   In Mississippi Loewen found that alliances between working class whites and blacks were viciously undermined and blocked by the powerful of the community.  Likewise, people who challenge class oppression and racial hierarchies are singled out for condemnation and retaliation.

Newer research on intolerance shows furthermore that authoritarian beliefs are not clearly associated with membership in the working class, defined by wage dependence, low income, and job insecurity.   Erasmus University sociologist Dick Houtman revisited Lipset’s theory of working class authoritarianism found that it is not class that is correlated with intolerance, but educational level and access to cultural opportunities like books, concerts, and art exhibitions.  Thus another way that the ruling class tries to divide the working class is by limiting their educational opportunities.  Donald Trump once famously intoned, “I love the poorly educated.”  Along with his secretary of education Betsy DeVos, Trump seems intent on increasing their ranks.  With working class pupils forced to attend substandard, unsafe and under-resourced schools year after year, with college costs putting post-secondary education out of reach of many, and with crippling student debt for those who do borrow for college, the ruling class aims to limit the critical thinking resources the working class needs to challenge ruling class propaganda.

For those who are in college, corporate forces have developed special interventions to encourage neoliberal and fascist accommodation.  The Charles Koch Foundation, established by the head of Koch Industries, has implemented a $50 million, 32-state strategy establishing institutes, holding conferences, and funding faculty and graduate students in a concerted effort to influence policy rightward: toward denial of climate science, undermining of labor rights, and revision of history in favor of business interests.  Hand in hand with these corporate forces are the white supremacist organizations that pay for speakers to visit campuses and foment hate, then cry “first amendment” when students object.  Other corporate-sponsored organizations encourage students to record, expose and protest faculty who do not espouse conservative views.
​
In short, the psychological argument claims that authoritarian tendencies emerge from working people themselves.  It’s no surprise that researchers from a business school embraced that idea, because it is what Marx and Engels refer to as a “ruling idea.”  By pretending that authoritarian ideas arise organically from the working class itself, it hides the relationship between authoritarianism and the economic policies of the ruling class.  In contrast, a Marxist analysis recognizes the congruence between authoritarian ideas and the economic interests of the corporate ruling class, especially its efforts to divide the working class by race, gender, citizenship status, etc.   It recognizes the influence of powerful corporate forces which intentionally try to persuade workers to blame each other for their oppression, instead of the capitalists who profit from their lack of unity.

Citations

​Adorno, Theodor et al. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.
​
Edsall, Thomas B. 2017. “The Trump Voter Paradox” The New York Times. 28 September.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/opinion/trump-republicans-authoritarian.html
​
Ferris, Robert. 2017. “Why voters might be choosing dominant, authoritarian leaders around the world.” CNBC, 12 June. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/why-voters-might-be-choosing-dominant-authoritarian-leaders-around-the-world.html
​
Jacobs, Tom. 2018.  “Inside the minds of hardcore Trump Supporters” Pacific Standard. February 15. https://psmag.com/news/inside-the-minds-of-hardcore-trump-supporters

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Democracy and Working-Class Authoritarianism.” American Sociological Review 24 (4), 482-501.

Loewen, James. 1988. The Mississippi Chinese: Between black and white. 2e. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Serwer, Adam. 2017. “The Nationalist’s Delusion.” The Atlantic. November 20.
​
Image: Trump addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2015.  Greg Skidmore/Creative Commons

With the latest attack from Trump on the US postal services for the sake of voter suppression, the outrage from the democrats has been at an all-time high since the epoch of the great Russia Gate conspiracy. The difference is that now, unlike Russia Gate, this attack on the post office is something real and worth worrying about. The post office is one of the few and great public services of our country, and any attack on it should be fought against ferociously. The main concern of this work is on the reaction by most democrats to these attacks by Trump, and specifically on what precisely it is that they are outraged by.

To the naked eye the reaction of outrage is the natural result of a clear case of voter suppression and hindrance of our democratic process. To be fair, it might genuinely be the case that many democrats are really outraged at this monstrosity; at the end of the day, it is truly a monstrosity. But in terms of the democratic establishment, the discontent comes not in the action itself, but in the image the action portrays. Essentially, how the action destroys what has been a bipartisan effort to create the illusion of democracy, revealing the truly undemocratic character of our society.

The most drastic change the Trump administration has brought to the US has not been the brutal treatment of immigrants, the fascistic use of the state’s instruments of violence on protestors, the imperialist and regime change policy, or the complete lack of regard of the interest of the mass of Americans; all those things are quite old and hence were already there before him. Policy wise his government has been indistinguishable from any administration of the last four decades of Neoliberal rule. So, what has the democrat's outrage really been about? Well the answer lays in the mask, and not the one used by Jim Carrey.

​Thus, when it comes to the democrats outrages of Trump, let us not be fooled. What bothers them is not itself the voter suppression whose goal the attack on the USPS represents, but how obviously un-democratic it is. But, un-democratic in what sense? If we have already established that there is no real democracy for the mass of Americans. Well, it is undemocratic in that it thwarts the process of the illusory democratic process of the masses, which in reality is the game by which the different factions of the ruling elites play house and decide who will be the face of the shitshow for the next few years. What bothers the democrats is not the un-democraticness itself, but how it destroys even the fake democratic veil previously held up to cover the dictatorship of capital. Their problem is not really with Trump’s attack being undemocratic, if that was really the case they would be trying to abolish the basically legal bribe mechanism that came with Citizens United, or trying to expand democracy at work through promotion of union membership or cooperative worker owned businesses. None of these things are promoted by them because they represent the potential of democracy for the many, the biggest threat to their democracy of the few. Thus, their real problem is with the unapologetically un-democraticness of Trump’s actions; because to them it is most importantly an attack to the legitimacy of their mask, both nationally and internationally.

The struggle of the democrats against Trump over the last three years has not been one fought in the arena of matter but in the arena of form. What bothers them about Trump is not what he actually does (matter), but how it is that he does it (form). Thus, although we do have to struggle against the un-democratic actions of the current administration; we must primarily struggle against those who have for many years done the same in the dark, and when now it is done in the light they fight to bring it back to the dark. Our struggle cannot just be against the symptom which Trump represents, but against the totality of the illness itself; in order to then actually destroy it at the root and prevent any worst symptoms from appearing. In essence, if you really are disgusted by the Trump administration, your fight must also include those who actively created the conditions for that administration to emerge.

If what disgusts you about Trump is the material, the actual policies and what he does, not just how; then your answer is not in changing the form but maintain the content. This means that your answer is not in Joe Biden or anyone else in the democratic establishment. Your answer to the Trump phenomena, if what he is doing is what bothers you, is to fight against the whole system itself. Not just because it was the system that brought about Trump, but because everything that is despicable in the material of Trump is identical to every other administration the system has produced, and the removal of it is not in the return to the mask, but in the destruction of the whole head in which the mask is put on and removed.

The Trump phenomena seems to have divided the traditionally organized ruling classes of our country. The answer from us must be to capitalize on their weakness and on the chaos being produced by the pandemic and organize ourselves. We must organize ourselves towards destroying this hidden fetter which maintains us in the shallow democracy of a few and tyranny for the many. This hidden fetter is our economic system. A system that has as its only condition the accumulation of capital by any means necessary; and which to maintain its tyrannical rule it has created the illusory mask of democracy. The mask which democrats today are fighting endlessly to put back on; knowing very well that without it their mass blinding hegemony, both nationally and internationally, will begin to crumble. Something which I believe we are already witnessing. 


[1] V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution (Foreign Language Press, 1970), 74.

[2] Ibid., 38.