Find all blog entries at A Commoner Manifesto Substack.
Donroe Doctrine: Mike Waltz Did It
One thing that keeps ringing my bell is that President Trump by himself cannot be the author of all the strategic changes in the Trump 47 Administration.
Anyway, on Sunday I asked Grok who was pushing the Monroe Doctrine 2.0. And it said the following:
Vivek Ramaswamy
John Mearsheimer
Mike Waltz
OK, so Mike Waltz was National Security Advisor from January 20, 2025 to May 1, 2025. And then Trump made him UN Ambassador. Why?
On March 26, 2025, it was revealed by The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg that Waltz had inadvertently added him to a Signal group chat discussing the upcoming US strikes in Yemen targeting Houthi militia before they were publicly known.
And the global legacy media dove into the Signal chat thing like the partisan cheerleaders they are. So Trump moved Waltz to the UN.
Here’s Grok on Mike Waltz’s Donroe Doctrine advocacy:
As National Security Advisor in early 2025, he explicitly branded Trump administration priorities as “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” In a notable Fox News appearance, he linked it to:
Taking on Mexican cartels.
Securing/controversial control over the Panama Canal.
Acquiring Greenland for Arctic security (countering Russo-Chinese threats).
Broader hemispheric dominance.
Leading of course to the Venezuela operation and the current pressure on the Castro regime in Cuba.
So, dear liberal friends, it looks like Mike Waltz got the Donroe Doctrine off and running anyway, despite your heroic effort to get rid of him.
But whatabout the Iran conflict? Grok thinks that Jared Kushner is behind it all.
Kushner “helped craft the Abraham Accords (normalizing Israel-Arab ties), which aimed to isolate Iran regionally.”
In early 2026 Kushner and Steve Witkoff led or participated in indirect U.S.-Iran nuclear discussions. Experts agreed that they were amateurs.
Kushner has been involved in post Epic Fury negotiations with Iran. Experts agree that he has conflicts of interest, because of his firm Affinity Partners.
OK. Now I get it. The whole point of Jared Kushner and the Abraham Accords has been to unite Israel and the Sunni Arabs so that, when the crunch came, they would be united with the United States against the mullah-cratic regime in Iran.
And I’d say it’s worked out pretty well so far. Especially now that Trump & Co. visited China last week and seemed to have got agreement that China wouldn’t be backing Iran.
What is interesting to me is that our Democratic friends are all saying that the Iran situation is a quagmire and Trump has botched it and bye-bye midterms.
I guess that we shall see. But gas prices.
| Tue, 19 May 2026 00:33:29 GMT |
The Folly of an End Point
I’m reading a disquisition on German Pbilosophy, from Kant to Adorno, and we’ve got to an interesting point, at the end of the chapter on Hegel. The author, Julian Roberts, argues that, for Hegel, the end point of society
was constitutional monarchy in a nation-state, and for Marx it was a victorious proletariat.
Only, Chuckie Baby, another German, Schumpeter, wrote that the people cannot rule. All they can do is decide who will rule over them. As Lenin wrote: “who, whom.”
By the end of the 19th century we had the rise of the educated class and the Progressive idea that the end point of history was political and economic rule by an educated, administrative elite.
By the mid 1900s, this administrative state would solve everything with Planning. In its most developed form, Hitler and Mussolini combined the nation-state ruler with a national bureaucracy that would Plan everything.
In our day, the end point is the Allies, that fight for the Oppressed Peoples against the White Male Oppressors.
And don’t forget the globalists that want to rule the whole world through global administrative supervision.
Against this is the growing movement of populist nationalism which advocates for political leaders who advance the interest and the culture of the ordinary middle class in the nation-state.
And don’t forget the tech lords that want the future to be decided by successful tech startups supplied by wall-to-wall data centers.
In other words, down the ages, we humans have enormous difficulty thinking beyond the idea that we, ourselves, are the culmination of human history, and the world ought to be organized in accordance with our present particular interests and political arrangements.
The notion of Hegel’s constitutional-monarchy end-point and Marx’s proletarian end-point has made me realize that we humans really don’t have a clue beyond thinking that people like us ought to be in charge.
In fact, regimes come and go; classes come and go; ways of life come and go.
And, er, species come and go.
I guess that the purpose of politics and religion is to hang onto the present arrangement. “Religio” means “to bind fast, or bind together.” In fact, of course, the only thing that lasts is “change.” All things come to an end, sooner than we think, and we don’t know what comes next.
So how do we get beyond the limited world view of a Hegel or a Marx or an educated administrator?
Oddly enough, there is a philosopher that has faced up to this problem, and his name is Nietzsche.
Because the whole point of Nietzsche is to think about what happens when the old way doesn’t work any more, when “God is dead, and we have killed him.”
In Nietzsche we go through the hell of decadence, nihilism and the eternal return and the hope of a new way through the work of the Übermensch. More recent thinkers like Jung and Joseph Campbell dig back into myth and notice how we must resolve problems by descending into the underworld of the unconscious to figure things out. And then the Hero returns from the underworld to die upon the border of Chaos and Order.
But whatabout women? “Women expect to be protected,” and if you listen to women politicians they are always wanting to keep things the way they are and talking about ways to help the helpless. How does the Protection of Women square with the Hero’s Journey?
That’s a good point. Any ideas, philosophers and theologians?
| Fri, 15 May 2026 21:50:39 GMT |
Switch to Substack for more blog posts
Christopher Chantrill
He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, and is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington. Click for more.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
A Commoner Manifesto
Commoners have nothing to lose but their shame
The simplest way to understand human society is as Three Layers such as Nobles, Yeomen, and Serfs.
My take on Three Layers is my Three Peoples Theory of Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates.
I believe that we moderns live in Three Worlds: the War World of politics, the Market World of the economy, and the Life World of family and neighborhood.
And the trouble with politics is that it reduces human society to a war against the enemy, as determined by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt.
The world that we all live in today is the one created by the German Turn in philosophy, psychology, science, and meaning.
But our modern elite, the educated elite, has taken, I believe, a Wrong Turn and has imposed a cultural Great Reaction on the world, a lurch back to the primitive. This manifests in the elite’s conceited Activism Culture and its patronage of Subordinate people as its Little Darlings.
The principal reason for the elite’s Wrong Turn has been that it does not understand and does not want to understand how the Three Peoples’ Religions are necessarily different.
The root of the educated elite’s Wrong Turn is its conceit that it knows what the world needs. I think there is a better way; I call it “A Good Life Better than the Left”.
ABC of Politics – Activism Culture – “Anatomy of Revolution” – Allyism – Critical Theory – Downstream-ism – Dutch Finance – German Turn – Good Life – Great Reaction – Little Darlings – Perfect Plan – Women in the Public Square – Ruling Class – Three Layers – Three Peoples – Three Peoples Religion – Tribalism – Two Cultures – Wrong Turn
Today’s topic: Consequences of Jordan B. Peterson
