Trump will make good only on his promises to his mega-donors.

25 January 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Trump is a billionaire. For a billionaire, expanding the wealth he/she controls (via profits and non-profits) is his/her top priority (though he/she says and might fool him/herself otherwise), because this is that individual’s lifelong habit. I haven’t yet found any exception to that rule; but, even if some do exist, I believe the likelihood that Donald Trump would be among them would be around zero, because he is NOT a liberal billionaire, and because ONLY liberal billionaires even pretend to have any other main interest than to further expand the wealth that they control — the non-liberal billionaires don’t even make that pretense because they are instead libertarians/neoliberals, which means that they believe that the only objective way to measure anyone’s valuableness or “worth” is that individual’s net worth or “wealth” — the richer one is, the better one is. Trump has shown himself pretty obviously as being a libertarian/neoliberal; and, so, his likelihood of even having any real concern of benefitting anyone who didn’t help him to buy the U.S. Presidency — in other words, who didn’t help him to fulfill on his business ‘contracts’ in the politics-business — would be extremely small, if any at all. (And, as far as the liberal billionaires go, I have never run across any who has more than a pretense of not being a libertarian/neoliberal — perhaps because most of the public think that libertarians/neoliberals are, because of that ideology, uncompassionate and ruthless, and therefore are outright dangerous to the public, which is why some billionaires are liberals: to prevent the public from knowing this about themselves.)

Libertarianism is a sub-category of conservatism (to be progressive and to be conservative is logically impossible, though some confused individuals hold simultaneously some conservative views and some progressive views, not recognizing their inconsistencies with one-another). On 2 April 2014, I headlined “Breakthrough Study Proves: Good Luck Causes People to Become More Conservative” and reported that, for the first time ever, an authentically scientific study in the social-science fields, titled “Money Makes People Right-Wing and Inegalitarian.” — which is certainly one of the most important social-scientific studies ever done — found that (as that study itself opened), “Rich people typically lean right politically. Are they motivated by deeply moral views or self-interest? This column argues that money makes you right-wing. It shows that lottery winners in the UK are more likely to switch their allegiance from left to right.” The way my article about it opened was:

The lottery is, of course, a game of pure luck; and a recent study shows that after people win that game of luck, their politics move significantly rightward — the more so as the size of their winnings is larger. Or, as the study’s authors put it, in their headline at an economics blog, “Money Makes People Right-Wing and Inegalitarian.”

Consequently, the often-noted extreme conservatism of billionaires may now reasonably be considered to reflect the fact that (as the authors summed up in their formal paper), “Money apparently makes people more right-wing.”

As regards the authors’ additional “Inegalitarian” claim, their paper provides no support for it, but simply assumes that support for the more conservative political party means that one must, ipso facto, be more “inegalitarian.” This claim of theirs is, in other words, unsupported in their paper, and reflects only their prejudice (even if it’s true).

Despite that flaw (which was gratuitous — didn’t affect anything regarding their titled claim), their finding was scientifically rock-solid, even astoundingly so.

Then, on 1 June 2015, I headlined “What is Conservatism: Social Science Findings about Conservatism”, and, as you will see there, the finding that “Money makes people conservative” is consistent with all of the other social-science findings about conservatism; it’s not at all contradictory to any of those other scientic research findings.

My article earlier today, “Like all recent U.S. Presidents, Trump is owned by only American billionaires.”, indicated that by means of all of the empirical information thus far about Trump, he is authentically a libertarian/neoliberal conservative; he is not at all a progressive. The difference between him and liberals (Democrats) is only that he is much bolder about it, far less hypocritical about it, than people such as Biden, Harris, Obama, and the Clintons, are. So, American foreign policies under Trump will likely be essentially as militaristic and imperialistic as their foreign policies (not their words but their actual actions and decisions, their policies) were, and maybe even more extremely so — not more progressive than theirs were.

Therefore, the United States Government, controlled by its billionaires, will continue to try to increase its empire (its colonies or “allies”) so as to encompass ultimately the entire world and to shove off (instead of to improve) the U.N. It’s NOT a question about “internationalism” versus “nationalism” such as billionaires would want the public falsely to believe; it is instead about the progressive FDR’s goal of creating his U.N. as replacing all empires by a U.N. that would be the source of ONLY international laws and would be the global democratic federation of internally 100% sovereign states, and armed so as to impose its democratically-arrived-at international laws upon any nation that violates them, versus Truman’s goal (which is still the existing U.S.-imperialistic goal) of establishing an all-encompassing global empire ruling over all other countries and imposing NOT international laws but instead the American Government’s own “rules-based international order” — a global dictatorship. Whereas conservatives support the latter (Truman’s ideal and goal: an all-encompassing global U.S. dictatorship), progressives support FDR’s ideal and goal: an all-encompassing democratic federation of sovereign, independent, states — such as FDR had started in August 1941 to design and plan.

PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding — what the ‘news’-media ignore if they can, and deny if they must. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.