Trump Foreign Policy Dog-Whistle as Doctrine: Cruel and Simple White Supremacist Imperialism

It’s All Just About Racial Hierarchy: the cruel simplicity of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine isn’t hard to decode. The two recent White House declarations on land rights lay bare a brutal, simple plan from Trump to explicitly tie racial identity to land rights around the world, declaring who deserves protection and who faces forced removal.

Favors resettlement of non-whites: In Gaza, he proposes immediate foreign “ownership” with total displacement of all Palestinians, framing it as a real estate development opportunity regardless of the past.

Opposes resettlement of whites: In South Africa, he condemns and cuts aid over laws allowing land redistribution because it would reduce historically unjust white male economic power.

These positions aren’t contradictory at all when viewed through the lens of preserving and expanding existing white power structures. They align perfectly because they ignore human rights entirely, it’s just about racism.

In Gaza, his proposal for American “ownership” and Palestinian displacement mirrors colonial practices – treating inhabited land as empty space ready for “development,” while dismissing the rights and existence of its current inhabitants. His vision of a “Riviera of the Middle East” requires first removing the Palestinians who live there, just as many colonial projects required removing indigenous populations.

The Riviera that he cites as his example emerged from and still reflects colonial extraction – a playground built on displaced communities and extracted wealth. His vision for Gaza follows this exact template: displacement first, playground for the powerful later.

To be clear, foreign ownership of Gaza by Americans reveals Trump’s ultimate vision of racial hierarchy. Netanyahu, in his shortsighted pursuit of power, fails to see how white supremacy eventually turns on all those it temporarily allies with. History shows repeatedly these alliances are always temporary – the hierarchy must always narrow, as evidenced by one Hitlerjugend’s later realization about the mass displacement program and genocide that she facilitated.

I became a National Socialist because the idea of the National Community inspired me… What I had never realized was the number of Germans who were not considered worthy to belong to this community.

If history means anything at all then Netanyahu, after he signs away all rights over Gaza to Trump’s imperialist shock troops, could expect to be put in front of their firing squad that removes all competition for power.

Netanyahu’s present overt alignment with American white supremacists very foolishly ignores they always expand targets of exclusion and would gladly push him into the sea next. Consider Netanyahu’s role in the assassination of an Israeli state leader, which eliminated democratic leadership based on extreme racial fears to provoke extra-judicial violence.

In the weeks before the assassination, Netanyahu, then head of the opposition, and other senior Likud members attended a right-wing political rally in Jerusalem where protesters branded Rabin a “traitor,” “murderer,” and “Nazi” for signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians earlier that year. He also marched in a Ra’anana protest as demonstrators behind him carried a mock coffin.

How does this not suggest that Trump easily could do the same to Netanyahu that Netanyahu did to Rabin?

The consistency of White House statements while meddling in foreign affairs carries a crystal clear pitch, the same exact whistle that Trump blows twice. It lies in non-whites being devalued, their land rights ignored or actively denied, and the non-white residents displaced. In South Africa, he opposes policies that would reduce white minority economic dominance established under colonialism. In Gaza, he proposes the exact same thing, supporting policies that would increase white minority economic dominance established under colonialism – displacing non-whites from their homeland.

Additionally, with South Africa, Trump makes racial hierarchy explicit by linking land reform there to the country’s stance against Israeli treatment of Palestinians, merging these issues into a single narrative about preserving white supremacist power structures globally. His fraudulent framing of South African justice as “discrimination” reveals the colonial mindset that treats any reduction in unjust power as persecution.

The White House barks that displacement is wrong when it affects powerful white groups, and also barks it is acceptable – even desirable – when targeting non-whites with less power. Such a coherence against human rights is historically patterned on Trump’s fetish for colonial – white supremacist – ideology about race determining whose land claims matter. When Trump decries “unjust racial discrimination” against whites in South Africa while proposing mass displacement in Gaza to develop an elitist beach resort for whites, he advocates toxic “blindness” to skin color – make America only see white again.

This is the dangerous core meaning of Trump’s campaign mantra being a heavy handed return to aggressive racist imperialism. Americans already are suffering under a foreign-obsessed regime has been rapidly and ruthlessly driven away from what, in the timeless words of Baldwin, it “must become”.

This is your home, my friend, do not be driven from it; great men have done great things here, and will again, and we can make America what America must become.

American Chinese 1944 Airman Finally Returned Home: Nazis Killed and Buried Him in Germany

Despite the incredibly racist and difficult environment in California for American Chinese, they went to war for their country.

Though the memories are hazy after all this time, Margery Wong remembers 1944 like it was yesterday. When news came to her front door that her brother, then 20-year old, Sergeant Yuen Hop, was missing in action.

“He enlisted when he was about 18. I was probably about 12 years old. My dad was working in the orchards…and my mom…I think she took it pretty bad.”

Army Air Force Sgt. Yuen Hop’s plane had been shot down on a mission in Germany. Details at the time were slim.

[…]

About 20,000 Chinese Americans served in World War II, even despite the Chinese Exclusion Act.

“America First” (Nazi Americans) tried extremely hard to prevent these American Chinese from becoming citizens, and yet they still served with distinction and gave the ultimate sacrifice for America (killed by Nazi Germans).

Zuckerberg on Rogan: Meta Has Always Been “something out of 1984”

Facebook was literally founded on stealing private images to abuse women, using a popularity pageant as pretext for public shaming.

Mark E. Zuckerberg ’06 said he was accused of breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy… Zuckerberg said that he was aware of the shortcomings of his site, and that he had not intended it to be seen by such a large number of students.

Yeah, ok Mark.

The bank robber didn’t expect the bank to see him rob it? Did he think he was Big Brother? All seeing, but never seen…

He setup a public website to watch and control women. We’re supposed to believe it wasn’t intended to be accountable from “such a large number of students” (meaning he thought his victims shouldn’t have a say in his abuse of them), as if that’s even a reasonable excuse?

When women of color at Harvard called out this privileged criminal’s dishonest disinformation tactics, Zuckerberg faced absolutely no consequences and instead grabbed himself a girl to ride off into Silicon Valley like a bro celebrity with millions of dollars in his pockets somehow.

But my best memory from Harvard was… I had just launched this prank website Facemash, and the ad board wanted to “see me”. Everyone thought I was going to get kicked out. My parents came to help me pack. My friends threw me a going away party… in what must be one of the all time romantic lines, I said [to a girl at the party]: “I’m going to get kicked out in three days, so we need to go on a date quickly.” Actually, any of you graduating can use that line. I didn’t end up getting kicked out — I did that to myself. …you could say [Facemash] was the most important thing I built in my time here.

Framing serious ethics violations as pranks while converting harm into personal gain didn’t just continue, it was rewarded by Harvard. The institution itself became an early investor into his bigger platform concept of capture and extraction of value from targets (especially women), setting a pattern that continues today.

Twenty years later, it seems things maybe are getting even worse, thanks to people like Joe Rogan. In his recent interview, Zuckerberg deployed a classic tactic of information warfare: reframing accountability for attacks as being persecuted.

“It really is a slippery slope,” Zuckerberg told Rogan, while expressing worry about “becoming this sort of decider of what is true in the world.”

By claiming Meta’s fact-checking was “something out of 1984” while invoking a “slippery slope” fallacy, he attempts to recast being in absolute control over his content moderation system as also being a victim of oppression by basic societal ethics (known since the 1700s as a system of inherited rights — law and order — that prevents tyrannical abuses).

His intentional self-contradiction is glaring. Every algorithm tweak and content policy is Zuckerberg actively deciding truth on his platform as evidenced by his own admission that he unilaterally was always “deciding truth” and overseeing all fact-checking.

Relationships were so frayed [by refusing to admit I was wrong] that within a year or so every single person on the management team was gone.

Zuckerberg’s rhetorical duplicity and sleight-of-hand becomes particularly stark alongside his dismantling of diversity programs and relaxation of hate speech policies. When faced with responsibility for egregious harm, Zuckerberg’s defense is as absurd as an industrial-era factory owner claiming coal restrictions would be on a slippery slope to “dangerously clean air” – it’s simply a privileged attempt to avoid accountability through childish fallacies for narrative control.

He may as well have said he was in danger of being run over by a unicorn that morning. There’s never a unicorn, there’s never a slippery slope – there’s only Zuckerberg intentionally facilitating widespread abuse of people with a big wink and a nod from someone who also rose to prominence promoting violence for profit.

The parallel is telling: Rogan got rich promoting consensual fights while Zuckerberg got rich exploiting non-consensual ones. Is it any wonder Rogan rolled over like a lapdog when Zuckerberg claimed he should face no external restrictions of any kind when aiming to profit from external harms?

Trump’s Hoover Maneuver: 1932 Bonus Crisis Looms Over “Severance” Case of Federal Workers

As a student of information warfare and American history, I can’t help but notice the unsettling parallels between today’s federal workforce crisis and the Bonus Army situation of 1932. In both cases, we see a fundamental conflict over promised government compensation during times of economic uncertainty.

Nearly 100 years ago American military veterans marched en masse on Washington demanding early payment of service certificates they were owed.

Just before Congress adjourned in the summer of 1932, thousands of desperate World War I veterans surrounded the U.S. Capitol. With the nation in the grips of the Great Depression, the House of Representatives had approved a bill to provide immediate cash payments to veterans. Servicemembers now waited anxiously as the Senate debated the same bill. At issue was the question, What did the nation owe its veterans?

Notably, servicemember camps setup around the Capitol were “racially integrated, vibrant communities“, a very alarming situation to those holding a line on extremely racist power. In other words the outspoken primary opponent to giving veterans money owed was from Senator Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas – a violent segregationist during the Jim Crow era who also opposed anti-lynching legislation. He rose to Senate Majority Leader in 1933 where he blocked all civil rights legislation for the next four years.

September 15, 1932, an American Black man named Frank Tucker was lynched in Crossett (Ashley County), Arkansas. He was paraded through the business district with a rope around his neck to generate a mob of 500 people, who then hanged him from an iron pipe, later dismembering Tucker’s body into pieces for the American “lynching souvenir” business of profiting from racist torture and murder.

The Hoover administration’s response to the integrated Americans demanding rights was to characterize military veterans – who had served their country faithfully and had followed the proper channels for basic income – as opportunists and troublemakers. Today, we hear similar rhetoric, with the White House describing federal workers as “lazy” and accusing them of “ripping off the American people” by doing their jobs.

The Bonus Army crisis escalated when the Hoover administration sent the racist and segregationist General Douglas MacArthur to forcibly remove the veterans from their integrated encampments. For context, MacArthur’s tenure as Army Chief of Staff from 1930 to 1935 heavily promoted institutional racism. Later, as Supreme Commander of Allied Powers in occupied Japan, he again promoted racial segregation policies. However it was his conduct during the Korean War that has drawn the most scrutiny from historians in terms of his deeply flawed strategic decision making – racism against Asians caused unnecessary losses due to consistent underestimation of Chinese military capabilities.

Thurgood Marshall recalled that General MacArthur, who believed that American Blacks were inferior to whites, was the greatest impediment to the Army’s desegregation in Korea. Things changed rapidly as soon as Truman fired him in 1951.

Today’s situation, while different in its details, shows similar signs of escalating tension, as well as racist underpinnings to attacks on diverse groups of federal workers. The administration’s recent memo threatening those who remain with “enhanced standards of suitability and conduct” and warning of prioritized “investigation and discipline” creates an atmosphere of intimidation reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.

Just as the Bonus Army veterans faced uncertainty about whether they would ever receive their promised compensation, today’s federal workers are being offered a deal that unions warn may never be paid because it lacks congressional authorization. The administration’s pressure tactics – including warnings about impending layoffs and demands for “loyalty” – echo the kind of strong-arm approaches that characterized the government’s response to the Bonus Army.

What’s particularly concerning is how this situation could potentially escalate. The Bonus Army crisis became a watershed moment in American history not because of the initial dispute, but because of how the government chose to handle it. The sight of American troops attacking American veterans created a public relations disaster that contributed to Hoover’s defeat.

Today, we’re seeing scattered protests outside federal buildings. One worker quoted in recent reporting expressed fear that “we’re all going to lose our jobs and they’re going to put all these loyalists or people that will be their shock troops.” This language of “shock troops” and loyalty tests yet again eerily mirrors the militaristic response to the Bonus Army.

The critical difference now is that we have the benefit of historical hindsight.

The Bonus Army crisis teaches us that handling of regular government workers – whether veterans or civil servants – as enemies of the state rather than as dedicated public servants tends to backfire both politically and practically. When the racist segregationist MacArthur led troops against the desegregated Bonus Army, he wasn’t just attacking a group of protesters – he was attacking the very idea that the government should honor its commitments to all those Americans who serve it.

In the current situation, federal courts have already stepped in to temporarily halt the administration’s plans. This judicial intervention offers hope that we might avoid the kind of confrontation that marked the Bonus Army crisis. However, the administration’s rhetoric and tactics suggest they may not be learning the correct lessons that history offers.

The ultimate resolution of the Bonus Army crisis – Congress finally authorizing early payment in 1936 – reminds us that these situations eventually require legislative solutions, not executive force. Today’s federal workers, like the veterans of 1932, are simply asking the government to treat them with the respect and consideration they’ve earned through their service.

As we watch this situation unfold, we would do well to remember that the Bonus Army crisis didn’t have to end in tear gas and burning encampments. It escalated because racist leadership chose confrontation over negotiation, forceful bluster over competency in dialogue. Let’s hope today’s leaders can learn from clear historical mistakes before we witness another awful MacArthur moment in American history.

Trump keeps praising a controversial American general whose actions nearly prompted World War III: “MacArthur was considered a ‘media whore’ of his time, Daniel Drezner, a professor of international affairs at Tufts University, told Reuters.” […] “I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the president,” Truman later explained. “I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the laws for generals.”

Truman later said that he had become anti-racist by 1946, which perhaps helps explains why he put such an abrupt end to huge “dumb” mistakes being made by an obviously racist MacArthur. And also explains why Trump keeps trying to repeat those same mistakes.