Mandate for Leadership
Miranda went looking for Gerald during her lunch break. It was a rare thing for that man to be absent from the canteen. She found him smoking in a nearby grove. Following Gerald’s smoke signals was the preferred way to locate him, since he was the only smoker in the sizeable company.
Gerald noticed her presence when she was practically standing next to where he was sitting. He attentively turned his head when she sat down on the same old birch trunk that he was sitting on. An unfortunate tree that had been knocked over by a strong gale during the late autumn storms.
M: “She threw herself completely into that thing, did she not?”
G: “Who? Christine? Sure.”
M: “Well, lucky her. I feel like a third wheel.”
G: “Don’t knock yourself. The discussion is not primarily technical, but technique is paramount to understanding the certainties and uncertainties.”
M: “That doesn’t change the fact that I’d like to read things too. Something other than court room reports.”
G: “Perhaps the two of us should commence our own side project.”
M: “It must be something that examines the new borderlands between fact and fact-as-myth. The world has surely changed. Facts are used as ammunition. USA is the country that epitomises this trend.”
G: “I’m content with satisfying my own curiosity. During lunch I found the Project 2025 document. Someone said that Trump is following that plan to the letter. I wanted to find out.”
M: “So is he?”
G: “Can I get back to you in 887 pages?”
M: “See, that is what I mean. How can anybody state anything about the reality of such a document, given that few people will ever read 900 pages? Simple. It is because of the myth-weaving we all participate in. The theory goes that you cannot simply decide that you want to shake off the myth and become factual by reading the document. The very way that you perceive what you read becomes a myth, your perception of reality.”
G: “Perception will undoubtedly weigh in, but not exclusively. Factuality does have a place, and an important one at that.”
M: “Only you can’t operate or act on any fact without concocting new reality. If you correct your opponent, you implicitly purport the idea that your opponent is sloppy and prone to erroneous arguments while you are the opposite.”
G: “Then I will argue that there are two radically different mythologies: One of the world on the inside of a certain subject matter, the other populated with theories and perspectives on said world but wholly existing on the outside. Yet, I admit to being dishonest. I believe in factuality, namely the state you enter when you operate within the framework of a science.”
M: “Isn’t this discussion a duplicate of the polemic against »cultural Marxism« as it is called in conservative circles? Whether truth in itself can be known or whether it is always relative to something.”
G: “I have certainly come across reactions to it. But what do you think?”
M: “Me? I don’t »think« as in philosophise. To me those are tools. A hammer is not a truer instrument than a can opener. Anything can seem to be the most self-evident truth in the world until we get ten years older. Then everything changes. Roland Barthes uses a two level sign system to discern between denotations which are signs in themselves and connotations which uses the denotations as signs to build higher level signs. Denotations are as close as you can get to the idea of a meaning in itself. But as such, it is almost hollow, devoid of real meaning. With high degree of certainty what most people think of when they refer to a concept is a specific connotation, which refers to practical use of the concept in a context.”
Gerald finished his cigarette and stared emptily ahead.
G: “Well, to return to the matter of the 2025 project and Trump, I have mixed feelings about this whole equation between them. How conservative is Trump really? Issues such as diversity and equity and tariff policies are clear cut cases where it may seem he is an arch conservative. But how much of a convinced christian is he? How about his foreign policy? What are Trump’s own favourite issues really, not those he employed to win an election? And if they diverge, who will win the internal struggles in government? Trump’s worker’s movement or the christian conservatism?”
M: “Lunch break is over. Since we meet tonight, we should perhaps examine the matter a bit?”
They went back and felt invigorated thinking about investing energy in a sensical passtime rather than nonsensical word.
Trump and the 2025 Project
The two older colleagues were both looking at the young Christine who buried her face in the third Doug Gold report from their election fraud project.
G: “Go on, ask her!”
M: “Oh Gerald, I was getting to that. Christine… Christine?”
C: “Hm hm”.
No eye contact.
M: “While you work on these things, is it okay that Gerald and I spend some time looking around in realms that are less rich on cryptography and whatnot?”
C: “Hmm.”
M: “Assuming those are affirmative responses, I think we can take a first look at the Mandate for Leadership document. I need to read up on it a bit as well. Anything we can realistically look at tonight?”
Panama and Greenland?
G: “Foreign policy, perhaps. With respect to foreign policy I can immediately spot two Trump actions which does not seem to originate in the Project 2025 recommendations:
- Annexing Greenland.
- Taking back the Panama Canal.
Nevertheless, the topics at stake are well-described in the report. They are:
- Melting ice above the Arctic Circle opens new possibilities in shipping, mining, and militarily, possibilities that China and Russia are well aware of.
- China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) means massive investments in Latin America.”
M: “In other words, ordinary, large-scale concerns which Trump takes and puts his very own spin on.”
G: “Listen to this:”
p. 189
In the not-too-distant future, there will be a growing interest in the Arctic from both state and non-state actors alike. China has been open about its interest in the region, primarily as a highway for trade but also for its rich natural resources. While the PRC’s increasing intervention in Arctic affairs is a bit strained because it does not have an Arctic coastline, Russia does—and Russia has made no secret of its view that the Arctic is vital for economic and military reasons. Russia has invested heavily in new and refurbished Arctic bases and cold-weather equipment and capabilities. The north star of U.S. Arctic policy should remain national sovereignty, safeguarded through robust capabilities as well as through diplomatic, economic, and legal attentiveness.
G: “Or this:”
p. 255
In Latin America, 25 of 29 countries participate in the BRI, and the PRC ranks as the region’s largest trading partner. Since 2005, Chinese state-owned banks have issued $138 billion in loans to Latin American countries, and other Chinese entities have invested an additional $140 billion.
M: “Remaining in obscurity is the question of how conservative Trump really is. He almost declared war on Panama and Denmark over these issues. If I understand you correctly, the broader issues are described in the report, but not his specific actions.”
G: “Correct. No mention of Panama at all. And greenland:”
p. 190
Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Greenland’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland.
M: “That’s it? Establish a consulate? Boy I would have liked to see their faces when Trump announced his ambition to annex Greenland. Or support their struggle for freedom as it were.”
China?
G: “Conservatives favour a not-so-isolationist stance when it comes down to it. What is the difference between Democratic and Conservative dreams of American hegemony?”
p. 176
Nonetheless, the concept is one a Republican Administration should support mutatis mutandis. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been “at war” with the U.S. for decades. Now that this reality has been accepted throughout the government, the State Department must be prepared to lead the U.S. diplomatic effort accordingly. The centralization of efforts in one place is critical to this end.
G: “Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are not at all being treated as problems that will go away of themselves. No isolationist dreams on that score. Comparing with Trump, I lean towards agreement. Trump view things the same way that conservatives do. But god I would like internal discussions leaked and experience a day in the White House up close.”
M: “But Russia and Ukraine? For years it has been anathema to even mention peace negotiations with Russia, and that was at both sides of the aisle. What does the report say on that matter?”
G: “First they trace three viewpoints on Russia in conservative circles:
- This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement,
- This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
- A moderate mix between the two.”
p. 182
Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations.
Miranda went to the counter and got another coffee. Gerald looked at Christine, but realised the futility in trying to strike a conversation with her right now. When Miranda returned, she had found time to get her thoughts together.
M: “One thing: We can agree not to waste time on trying to brand any party as neither this nor that label. Wasting time ordering our mental shelves is not a good pastime.”
G: “I’m nodding in agreement, not of boredom. God to honest truth, I am not looking for labels. But it seems to me that conservatism is an old, principled ideology full of necessities and theoretically inspired courses of actions.”
M: “Whereas Trump is driven by baser desires for glory and a lasting legacy and a genuine antipathy towards modern mentalities which he feels erodes traditional values. Not to mention a genuine concern for his followers.”
Gerald was playing with a roller pen. Miranda sat and looked tired. Neither of them really knew much about conservatism when it came to it. Strange because if you had asked them, they would probably have estimated both of them to have partial leanings towards it in today’s climate.
Gerald broke the silence.
G: “I will be honest with you, Miranda. When reading 2025 I tried to like conservatism. I want to believe in an ethical traditionalist force persevering through time. But when I read, I feel the same as always: A profound lack of authenticity. Which is odd, because it is beyond a doubt exactly what most of the many authors in the report already identifies with.”
M: “I know the feeling. There is an odd … non-rotten rottenness about the whole project drenched in rationalism as it is. If anything, it reminds us of the voter psychological pendulum in full swing: When we see emotional people, we swing towards rationalism and vice versa.”
It this unlikely point Christine seemed to awaken from a slumber.
C: “Are liberalists any better? What tragedy it would be if the only difference between democrats and conservatives is the former’s appeal to a weak spirituality which the protestant ethos has snuffed out.”
M: “Thus in the end there is not much else to say other than that politics is boring?”
G: “Perhaps that is where Trump fits in: A promise to his voters to at least feel a little bit of excitement in their dull, dreary lives.”
It was an odd night. Half wasted, half head banging against tall stone walls. But such is the human condition. The club disbanded for the evening and felt uninspired.
And yet, it was an opening chapter in a long and winding story they didn’t know they had embarked on.
/ПРИЗРАК