The United States has published its new National Security Strategy. It is a strange document: steeped in conspiratorial thinking, openly ideological, and almost unrecognisable as a traditional American foreign policy text.
It is so odd, in fact, that the temptation is to dismiss it as unserious — roughly as plausible as Donald Trump’s repeated plans to repeal Obamacare. That would be a mistake. This is not nonsense. It is a statement of intent, or at the very least a statement of worldview.
A World Built on Hierarchy
Running through the document is a core belief that there is a natural hierarchy in human society and international affairs.
The world, it suggests, works best when “born leaders” are on top, and collapses when social movements attempt to elevate those deemed inferior over their “betters”. The language is revealing. The text repeatedly warns of “civilisational erasure” and describes migration in overtly militarised terms:
“We must protect our country from invasion… from unchecked migration.”
This is not simply rhetorical excess. It reflects a demographic anxiety that sits at the heart of the strategy’s assumptions.
The hierarchy implicit in the document is clear enough:
- men over women
- straight over LGBT people
- white over non-white populations
This logic is not incidental. It underpins how threats are defined and prioritised.
From Fringe Conspiracy to Political Worldview
The assumptions underlying this worldview closely resemble those of the Great Replacement Theory — a racist, neo-Nazi conspiracy theory claiming there is an organised effort to replace white populations in the US and Europe with non-white, often Muslim, populations supposedly easier to control. In its more explicit forms, Jews are frequently identified as the hidden architects.
Once confined to the fringes of far-right politics, this theory has moved into the mainstream of the MAGA movement, and its influence can be seen in the fears articulated in this document.
The authors make little effort to hide their concern that, within one or two generations, countries like the United States will become “majority-minority” societies — meaning white people will no longer be the numerical majority. In this worldview, such demographic change is treated not as social evolution but as an existential threat likely to result in national decline.
From Border Control to “Remigration”
Viewed through this lens, current US positions on migration come into sharper focus.
The United States is increasingly aligning itself with European political movements that advocate not merely an end to inward migration, but what they describe as “remigration”. Critics argue that, in practice, these proposals would amount to the mass removal of existing non-white, non-Christian populations from European states.
This is not a debate about border control. It is a debate about demography and power.
While proponents frame such policies in the language of sovereignty and security, opponents warn that they risk legitimising large-scale coercion against settled populations.
Two Competing Ideas of the West
There is now a growing ideological clash between two different conceptions of “the West”.
The Trump administration’s vision is rooted in:
- race
- Christianity
- nationalism
Europe’s post-war settlement — flawed, contested, and under strain — is based instead on:
- democracy
- human rights
- the rule of law, including international law
These two visions are increasingly incompatible. From Washington’s perspective, Europe’s legal and institutional frameworks are less a partner than a constraint.
A Return to Spheres of Influence
The strategy document also signals a major shift in how the United States understands the global order.
Rather than a rules-based system, it appears to favour a great-power model, in which America, Russia and China dominate their respective spheres — sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating, but always within limits designed to protect their interests.
Institutions that might restrain this freedom — the EU, international courts, multilateral agreements — are treated not as guarantors of stability but as obstacles to be weakened or bypassed.
This is not realism so much as imperial nostalgia.
Authoritarianism With Historical Precedent
The agenda implied by this strategy is unmistakably authoritarian, but it is also disturbingly familiar. Students of European history will recognise the logic immediately.
It echoes the system of competing spheres of influence that preceded the First World War — a world in which great powers asserted dominance, smaller states were expendable, and stability was assumed rather than secured.
The irony is stark. The post-war international architecture that helped keep the peace now appears disposable when it gets in the way of power, violence, and racial nationalism.
This is not a strategy for security.
It is a strategy for controlled instability.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
https://jon-chadwick.com/page/2/?s=trump
My opinion –
Western countries are losing control of the narrative. The happenings in Gaza is probably the best example of this, governments and so called legacy media want to push it as justified war, not the slaughter it is/was. For everything traditional media pushes, theres an alternative view elsewhere, and these alternative views are often correct – or at least backed up with evidence.
Its creating discontent and division – young Americans for example want a social health care system, many of them see that they have been fed lies about other countries healthcare.
I posted here just a few weeks ago that VPN’s would be next on the chopping board. Now the house of lords want to ban the use of VPN’s to under 16s, Denmark wants ban VPN’s for streaming, certain USA states want a complete ban on the them – rules pushed a musty old farts without a clue on how the technology works – they might as well be trying to ban farting in your own home.
Its all for the same reason, they want to be able to see what citizens are doing, to censor them.
I’m beginning to think the rich and powerful, who are under scrutiny at the moment, look at countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea with envy – for these countries do control the narrative.
They look at Russia and China and see liked minded regimes. That is the plan, to divide the world up into “markets” with each market dominated by a particular dictatorship
I feel this is why we are seeing so much interference in European politics by the US. Create more authoritarian right wing regimes, potentially split the block and have more control, reduce the bargaining power of individual nations, abolish worker and environmental protections to create more favourable conditions for businesses to exploit.
The US is becoming an oligarchy, its people for the most part don’t seem to realise or care, but who are we to be critics – we’re going down the same roads ourselves.
Israel’s war in Gaza was launched in response to a murderous attack which Hamas launched from the territory on 7 October 2023, it is arguably a justified war, even though Israel is also engaging in unjustified colonization of the West Bank.
If Gaza has turned into mass slaughter, that is likely in large part down to the nature of the Palestinian national identity itself. Palestinian identity is not defined by language or culture (as they do not differ in these respects from other Levantine Arabs): what unites them specifically is a thirst for vengeance against the Zionists which they see as having victimized them.
It certainly seems like Israel/Palestine is one of the main factors dividing the Western world: younger MAGA politicians (with Pete “Deus Vult” Hegseth being perhaps the clearest example) are creatures of the War on Terror, and despise Europe for it weakness versus the Islamic menace (read, its unwillingness to ethnically cleanse itself of Muslims).
I think Edward Said would disagree with you:
https://yplus.ps/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Said-Edward-The-Question-of-Palestine.pdf
I think a response was justified, but I dont think displacing 1.7 million, wounding over 170,000, killing over 70,000 including 20,00 kids was a proportionate response. You could argue Israel had took it way to far even after just a month of their invasion. It could also be argued that the horrific attack on Israeli soil was a response for years of Israeli apartheid (longest military occupation in modern history), Gaza was often referred to as the worlds largest open air prison, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International had declared human rights violations long before the recent war. Of course Amnesty International now call it a genocide, along with other organisations such as the UN, ICJ and hundreds of genocide scholars.
Over the years I’ve always support Israel, even though they have been heavy handed, they have a right to defend themselves and I’ve always seen them as a little bit of western values in the Middle East, maybe somewhere I’d go on holiday sometime, and I still see Israel like this. But I can’t support what they’ve done, I guess that makes me an antisemite – because apparently these days criticising anything to do with Israel makes you so, even if you have have no problem at all with Jewish people (of which I don’t).
And now we are seeing awful attacks against Jews, probably as a result of Israel’s actions, recently in the UK and just yesterday in Australia. I hope thats then end of it, but I highly doubt it, more division – incoming.
There are lots of very valid criticism of Israel that aren’t in any way antisemitic.
It is clear that war crimes have taken place. That ethnic cleansing is happening. Same as Bosnia
2nd attempt
On X
Bernie Sanders 🌟
@berniesanders
Seventeen innocent people were murdered in a horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Sydney. Together, we must do everything we can to combat the alarming rise of antisemitism around the world.
What was Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to this tragedy? He blamed the Australian prime minister for the attack, simply because he had moved to recognize a Palestinian state.
No, Mr. Netanyahu. Speaking out on behalf of the Palestinian people is not antisemitic. Opposing the disgraceful policies of your extremist government is not antisemitic. Condemning your genocidal war, which has killed more than 70,000 people — mostly women and children — is not antisemitic. Demanding that your government stop bombing hospitals and starving children is not antisemitic.
As we mourn the tragic loss of life in Australia, we must continue to vigorously oppose antisemitism and all forms of racism and bigotry. At the same time, we must demand a world in which international law and human rights are respected by all governments, without exception.
—-
The greatest president America will never have. Imagine potentially being able to get Sanders but Ending up with Trump – who is more concerned about mocking a murdered movie producer and his wife.