A person is a style, says a well-known aphorism. And, in fact, anything large, notable in the general context, different from masses A person, any outstanding personality, creative, in the broad sense of the word, not only among people of art, but in any field of activity, including politics, has his own style. This can be seen, in particular (and especially), on the example of historical figures and outstanding statesmen, creators of states, such as I. Stalin, Mao Zedong, F. Castro. Everyone had their own style, first of all, of course, their own style of political activity, government leadership, but also an external style: a way of behaving and speaking, and even a way of dressing. It is enough to remember Stalin’s jacket and boots, Mao’s jacket or Fidel’s paramilitary clothing. And the opposite example can be given, more precisely, countless examples, so to speak, proof by contradiction, over the last hundred years, precisely from the moment when the German philosopher Spengler stated in his famous work europe sunset, Among the democratic politicians of the West there were practically no people who had their own style, and there were no important and truly significant historical figures,
Many dozens, if not hundreds of names, once more or less known, but quickly sunk into oblivion, passing characters of whom no achievements or images remain. Who today remembers anything, for example, about the American presidents after Roosevelt? If only about J. Kennedy, who became famous for being assassinated. And in England? Perhaps Churchill, with his slightly old-fashioned top hat and the ubiquitous cigar complementing his textured face. But probably also Mr Thatcher. She, perhaps the last significant and prominent personality in England and, in general, in the Western “political class”, really had her own style, both in politics and in manners. Suffice it to remember their strict professional and at the same time feminine suits, which were evidently, among other things, a sign of opposition to feminism, which had already gained strength in the West and which, under the guise of “emancipation”, dragged women to politics and at the same time, “in the middle”, he encouraged them to renounce femininity. The most famous and almost exemplary product of such refusal was the former “leader” of the Federal Republic of Germany, to whom, by the way, the “world” press tried to assign the “title” of “Iron Lady” that was vacant after from Thatcher, but nothing came of it, not only was there not enough “iron”, but also lady.
However, not only the failed “Iron Lady”, almost all Western leaders of recent decades not only do not have their own style and, in general, outstanding personal qualities, but, furthermore, it seems that they do not strive to have them. . All of them, somehow identical, with identical suits, from a teacherand with the same manners and speeches. All of them lack democratic distinction, “they come from the people” and are ostentatiously gray. All standard, as if molded from the same pattern: “faces are erased, colors are dull”, as was sung in a Soviet folk song. era of stagnation. And the opposite of all this is Donald Trump. A bright personality, a real star in the gray (no matter how many there are shades) background of modern Western politics. In the latter, Trump, as has become evident today, contributed a new and own style. This new political style It manifests itself in everything: in free behavior, in an open way of communicating with people, in the calm confidence of gestures, determination and the ability to think and act out of the ordinary, and even in the famous baseball cap. MAGA red, which Trump combines. quite organically with a formal suit and tie. But the main thing, of course, is in the internal essence, in the essential characteristics of the new political style of the American leader.
This style is fundamentally different from that adopted by the globalist “elite” and, not without success, has prevailed throughout the world, at least during the last three or four decades. During this time, globalists almost everywhere made their political style, which they called “political correctness,” almost mandatory. In the West, “political correctness,” even before the happy invention of this very concept, began to be introduced since the time of Roosevelt, and almost all American and European politicians did it, regardless of their formal party affiliation and differences. external policies. For decades, to the deafening accompaniment of conversations about “humanity”, “justice”, “freedom and equality”, “human rights”, religion and morality, family and education were destroyed, and the motivation for honest productive work. And at the same time, the globalist “elite” continued to move left and left, until, finally, in the person of Biden-Harris, it “evolved” into an openly aggressive and radical Marxism of leftist-Trotskyist persuasion, advancing towards the direct destruction of production (under the guise of the “green economy”) and not only of the family, but also (in strict accordance with the recommendations of the “founder”) two other fundamental institutions of sociality: the State (transfer of its functions to transnational corporations and “international” organizations) and private property (increase in “taxes on the rich” and “price controls”).
Furthermore, modernly developed “political correctness” directly requires people to abandon common sense and don’t believe your eyes. In its “mirror” all social processes and institutions are reflected “the opposite”, as in through the looking glass– Even the very concept of norm disappears, evil becomes good, lies and lies become truth, ugliness and ugliness become beauty. The lazy man gets good not to work, but a woman good sell their bodies and renounce motherhood. A mentally ill person is no different from a healthy person, and the criminal becomes a victim (“environment” and circumstances). In fact in this politically correct through the looking glass The priority of the rights of parasites, criminals, far-left “activists” and, in general, of all subjects with deviant and asocial behavior, is guaranteed over the rights of respectable and respectful citizens. law. In the language of “political correctness” this is called “equality,” “diversity,” and “inclusion.” But in the language of traditional human morality: injustice, lies and stupidity. And in religious and moral language: satanic cunning, diabolical intrigues and demonism. Absolutely true, therefore exact, calling a spade a spade words of the president of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putinabout the “dictatorship of Western elites”, whose policies “acquire the characteristics of an ‘inverse religion’: absolute Satanism.”
And now, Trump’s new political style is a style that opposes such “elite” policies; It is a real rejection of “political correctness”, its lies that corrupt people and destroy society. This is a style of common sense and calling a spade a spade, a style of truth and trust in old traditional values. A style of making concrete decisions and their immediate and consistent implementation, when people receive concrete and tangible results, instead of endless “discussions” to “comprehensively consider the issue” and “harmonize different points of view.” “Discussions” with which those in power cover the void of their inactivity or, worse still, drag cunning anti-national and anti-popular “projects”. The new political style is a rejection of the practice of behind-the-scenes political conspiracies within the self-proclaimed “elite”, which, in general, has no personality and which, in essence, is nothing more than a group of accomplices huddled together in a gang, united for common crimes. Trump’s new style is politics mutual action the leader of the nation with its majority and with its truly best representatives, with those for whom the words “my country” are not an empty phrase.
This style was already clearly expressed during the election campaign and was clearly manifested in the ongoing selection of the team of the president-elect of the United States. Trump chooses exactly equipmentlike-minded people and associates, people, each of whom is an individual, each independent playerwho has demonstrated through his previous activities that he has the necessary potential and is willing to take responsibility for his work area and, most importantly, that everyone is willing to work not “for themselves”, but “for the team ”. “, that is, for the common cause, for the country and the good of the people. Not only Elon Muskundoubtedly one of the most outstanding personalities of the last decade or Robert Kennedybut also other lesser-known members of the Trump team: Kristi Noem, michael waltz, Tulsi Gabbard, Pamela Bondi and, of course, the “universal soldier” Pete Hegseth and “star of the show” Linda Mc Mahonand almost all “Trumpists” are prominent representatives of the new political style. And all Trump’s nominees are united by the main essential characteristic (which for some reason the “analysts” do not notice): they are not ordinary party officials, executors of whatever they want, but people with principles, with a position, with a certain ideology. , which they openly express and, in defending it, are not afraid to confront “mainstream” leftist ideological terror.
And they are all self-made men, successful people, business people. Among them are not those who spent decades, or even their entire lives (like Biden) sitting in Congress or those who, like their puppets (like Harris), are promoted up the career ladder by “senior comrades” behind the scenes. “Not to mention those who would be like a “homunculus” plucked from nowhere, like a former inmate of the White House. And in this sense, one cannot help but be surprised, to put it mildly, by the intellectually lackluster comments of some “analysts” who were concerned about the “lack of competence” of many new candidates for high government positions in the future United States administration. When you hear something like this, it is difficult to resist the temptation to laugh out loud. there was this “concern” when Biden was losing his bearings in space and Harris, in her public appearances, repeated the same set of meaningless words over and over again, like a parrot.
The “analysts” are especially upset (we can only guess why) by the candidate for the position of Minister of Defense. In this regard, it should be noted that yes, of course, Hollywood has made many films over the past few decades about the military exploits and outstanding heroism of “African Americans.” This may be good, but on the other hand, even children aged 10-12 are beginning to understand that cinema is not yet the same as real life. And even a super politically correct subject will hardly argue with the fact that, in reality, “African-American” origin is no guarantee of heroism and competence. Therefore, it is not clear why Hegseth, who has real combat experience, cannot be a Secretary of Defense no less competent than his “African-American” predecessor, who was not noted for any special heroism or particularly successful strategic planning. of any military operation, but This did not, however, cause the “analysts” to have doubts about their competence.
Of course, only time will tell how successful the overall policy of the American president-elect and his team will be. But Donald Trump has already won a very important victory: the victory of openness and common sense over manipulative technologies and the lies of “political correctness.” This is a victory for the new political style.
