In today’s polarized America, a significant wave of independent voters—motivated by a pragmatic stance that cuts across traditional party lines—is coalescing around Donald Trump for the 2024 elections. Backed by anti-war advocates and voices disillusioned with both major parties, this movement represents more than a simple alliance; it’s a powerful rejection of the interventionist policies of the Biden-Harris administration and the outsized influence of the military-industrial complex. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
At the Peace Freedom Rally in Kingston, NY, I witnessed this rising coalition firsthand. The event drew leading voices of the anti-war movement, including Scott Ritter, former United Nations inspector with the UNSCOM mission from 1991 to 1998, tasked with monitoring Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Having resigned in protest, Ritter became a fierce critic of U.S. policy in Iraq and a skeptical voice against the Bush administration’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Other notable speakers included Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge known for his uncompromising defense of civil liberties and opposition to centralized state power, and Max Blumenthal, journalist and founder of The Greyzone, known for his independent, often critical analyses of mainstream narratives. Together, these diverse voices underscore the growing appeal of this independent, anti-interventionist movement centered on sovereignty and peace.
During the event, Ritter spoke candidly with me about his concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy, warning of the potentially catastrophic consequences. “According to my sources, had Biden signed a certain document, there was a real risk of nuclear conflict,” he said gravely. “And this wouldn’t just impact America; the French, you’d be dead too.” For Ritter, nuclear war is no longer an abstract threat but a tangible risk that could spell disaster for both the U.S. and allies like Europeans.
“What happens in America reverberates globally,” he continued, explaining how the war in Ukraine is pushing the world down “a path to hell.” In a direct and personal appeal, he asked, “Is Ukraine worth the lives of your families? Your country’s future? Because that’s what Joe Biden is sacrificing for. He’s acting like a terrorist, sacrificing everything to support Ukraine. If that’s what you want, then fine. But I refuse to sacrifice my children’s future for this insanity.”
When I pointed out that France lacks a robust anti-war movement, Ritter responded firmly, “Create one, if you don’t want to see your families and friends die.” His words resonate not as abstract political advice but as an urgent call to action. For Ritter, opposing the unchecked ambitions of the military-industrial complex is a matter of survival for future generations.
Back in Manhattan, I spoke with Diane Sare, an independent candidate for the Senate from New York. She described the grueling journey required just to get on the ballot. “Running as an independent is no small feat,” she explained. “The law demands that candidates unaffiliated with major parties collect petitions with either 70,000 signatures or an equivalent number representing 5% of registered voters from the last election, whichever is higher. I’m the only candidate to pull it off this year.”
Affiliated with the LaRouche Party and the Schiller Institute, Sare describes herself foremost as an anti-war advocate. “I firmly oppose the use of public funds to finance conflicts like those in Ukraine or the Middle East.” she said passionately. Her stance, rare in American politics today, positions her as a powerful voice against the interventionist consensus in Washington.
For these anti-war advocates, supporting Trump is a choice grounded in reason and political realism. The former president, despite his controversies, remains the least hawkish candidate in the race. During his term, he launched no new conflicts, facilitated multiple peace agreements in the Middle East, and eased tensions with North Korea. To Sare and her followers, a return to the White House for Trump could offer a break from what they view as the current administration’s militaristic agenda, symbolized by Kamala Harris and the neoconservative influence.
Although Sare’s anti-war stance resonates widely, many of her supporters identify with the LaRouche movement, founded by political dissident Lyndon LaRouche. The movement has long criticized interventionist wars, American expansionism, and unchecked financial capitalism. LaRouche’s ideals champion a multipolar world and a return to a productive economy, challenging the neoliberal and militaristic policies that dominate today’s power structures.
Following Sare’s campaign, I traveled to Washington, D.C. to witness the symbolic “Rescue the Republic” rally near the Washington Monument. Under gray skies, Republicans and independents stood together, united in their vision of an America free from the grip of the military-industrial elite and Washington’s lobbyists.
The event spotlighted Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a surprisingly popular figure. During his Democratic primary run against Joe Biden, Kennedy consistently polled at 20% before he withdrew in October 2023, opting instead for an independent campaign. Now, he has thrown his support behind Trump, aiming for a key role in a future administration. Kennedy outlined his commitment to reforming health and intelligence agencies, which he controversially claims have historically conspired against his family.
In the wake of this alliance, Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic representative, openly criticized her erstwhile party, describing it as “now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness,” and explained her decision to join the Republicans: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; it left me.”
Other prominent figures took the stage, including Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand, Bret Weinstein, Senator Ron Johnson, and Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer in mRNA technology. Backstage, Malone expressed his deepening concerns about the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty, which he sees as a threat to national sovereignty and individual freedoms—a key reason for his support of the day’s initiative. Each speaker leveled scathing critiques of the current administration, accusing it of servitude to corporate power and neglecting American citizens’ interests. Slogans like “A vote for Kamala is a vote for nuclear war” were visible throughout the crowd, reflecting the urgent call for a fundamental shift in leadership.
Closing the event, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed his supporters from behind bulletproof glass, all wearing “Make America Healthy Again” hats. He condemned the collusion between the government and major corporations, especially in food and pharmaceuticals. “We demand independence from pharmaceutical companies, from big food giants, from corporate interests,” he declared. He highlighted how, in the 1990s, tobacco companies bought food corporations and used their scientists to make addictive products with synthetic chemicals banned in Europe but permitted in the U.S.
Kennedy concluded with a call to action, urging Americans to elect leaders who will dismantle the fusion of corporate and state power: “We need a president who will protect our children, our constitutional rights, our freedom of speech. Don’t you want a president who’s going to make America healthy again and who’s going to make America free again and is going to make America once again the greatest nation and the moral authority around the globe? You need to go to the polls and get your friends there and get Donald Trump and me into Washington, D.C.”
Back in New York, I joined Ian Walsh Reilly, president of the Metropolitan Republicans Club, to watch a vice-presidential debate. Reilly shared his thoughts on the Trump-Kennedy alliance, viewing it as a revival of MAGA’s original spirit: “The MAGA movement in 2016 transcended partisan divides, calling to Americans of all backgrounds who shared a love for their country and a desire to Make America Great Again. Unfortunately, once in power, the Republican National Committee boxed it under the GOP brand with help from D.C. Democrats who sought to weaken it.” He argues that this partnership with Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure from an iconic political dynasty associated with an era of American unity during the space race, restores the bipartisan appeal of MAGA.
With endorsements from high-profile figures like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, and Ron Paul, Trump’s campaign is bolstered by unexpected allies. Musk, who recently joined the effort, brings his efficiency-driven approach, echoing his restructuring of Twitter (now X). Recently, Musk tweeted about his plans to audit federal agencies, stating, “There’s a lot of waste and redundant regulations in government that need to go,” and expressed enthusiasm about Paul joining the initiative. Together with other prominent backers, their influence could significantly impact the perception of the Trump-Vance administration, countering narratives that label it as extreme.
This unprecedented wave of independents rallying to Trump has drawn fierce backlash from mainstream American media. ABC News, Rolling Stone, Reuters, and other outlets have ramped up their attacks. Notably, Elon Musk has become a frequent target, particularly after his public support of Trump’s campaign. Recently, Claire McCaskill, MSNBC analyst, mocked Musk: “He thinks that just because he builds rockets and electric cars, he can figure out how to make people vote.” Musk responded coolly: “Funny how she never said a word about Soros, who’s put a hundred times more money into elections than I have.” In a pointed follow-up, he added, “If I can handle rocket science with SpaceX and brain surgery with Neuralink, maybe I can grasp a bit of politics too.”
International media criticism hasn’t lagged far behind. In late October, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a piece featuring a photo montage of Musk and Trump under the caption “Enemy Number Two.” Musk interpreted it as dangerously provocative. “With their endless hit pieces, mainstream media is actively encouraging the assassination of both Donald Trump and myself,” he alleged.
More controversies have arisen, including one where the media claimed Trump wanted Liz Cheney “in front of a firing squad.” In fact, Trump had only said he’d like to see politicians who send young Americans to the front lines take on those risks themselves. For Trump supporters and independents alike, these misrepresentations only expose the bias of left-leaning media, which they accuse of using distortions and hyperbole instead of addressing real issues. Such tactics fuel rising mistrust in the press, steadily eroding its credibility.
Though energized, this movement faces steep challenges. Traditional media outlets, even as their influence wanes, continue to amplify divisive narratives. Fake news, misquotes, and personal attacks risk alienating moderate voters. Still, polls suggest a shift. With unexpected allies like Musk and Ron Paul and a growing independent voter base, Trump may be able to leverage this coalition to rally a broader electoral base of moderates, independents, and former Democratic supporters.
The presence of figures like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.—embodying a shift from idealistic Left to pragmatic Right—could be decisive. For them, as well as for many Americans, corruption, public waste, and relentless foreign entanglements are seen as obstacles to a prosperous nation.
Could this new alliance shake up the established order? The answer may begin to unfold on the night of November 5 (and perhaps the following days), as election results reveal America’s deep-seated aspirations. An undercurrent of anti-war sentiment, sovereign priorities, and pragmatism is coursing through the political landscape, suggesting the possibility of a historic shift. Tired of endless conflicts and ballooning military budgets, America appears ready for renewal. While still intent on global influence, it seeks a more careful approach, one aligned with domestic needs and democratic values. On the ground, the message is clear: it’s not about isolation but about redefining engagement to resonate with a populace weary of broken promises.
All eyes are on this unusual coalition, seen by many as a harbinger of transformation. In victory or defeat, could this partnership of Republicans and independents chart a new course for America’s future? This alliance shows promise for disrupting traditional political divides and giving voice to perspectives that have long been marginalized. A more balanced political model, where skeptics and pragmatists find resonance, may be emerging. However, this coalition faces colossal obstacles: institutional pressure, media scrutiny, and relentless attacks. Its resilience will soon be tested. America’s choice in this election will not only shape its future but could influence the global balance, potentially leading to a more reflective, pragmatic, and grounded America.
Big Pharma, the War Machine, and the American Independent Voter
In today’s polarized America, a significant wave of independent voters—motivated by a pragmatic stance that cuts across traditional party lines—is coalescing around Donald Trump for the 2024 elections. Backed by anti-war advocates and voices disillusioned with both major parties, this movement represents more than a simple alliance; it’s a powerful rejection of the interventionist policies of the Biden-Harris administration and the outsized influence of the military-industrial complex. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
At the Peace Freedom Rally in Kingston, NY, I witnessed this rising coalition firsthand. The event drew leading voices of the anti-war movement, including Scott Ritter, former United Nations inspector with the UNSCOM mission from 1991 to 1998, tasked with monitoring Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Having resigned in protest, Ritter became a fierce critic of U.S. policy in Iraq and a skeptical voice against the Bush administration’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Other notable speakers included Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge known for his uncompromising defense of civil liberties and opposition to centralized state power, and Max Blumenthal, journalist and founder of The Greyzone, known for his independent, often critical analyses of mainstream narratives. Together, these diverse voices underscore the growing appeal of this independent, anti-interventionist movement centered on sovereignty and peace.
During the event, Ritter spoke candidly with me about his concerns regarding U.S. foreign policy, warning of the potentially catastrophic consequences. “According to my sources, had Biden signed a certain document, there was a real risk of nuclear conflict,” he said gravely. “And this wouldn’t just impact America; the French, you’d be dead too.” For Ritter, nuclear war is no longer an abstract threat but a tangible risk that could spell disaster for both the U.S. and allies like Europeans.
“What happens in America reverberates globally,” he continued, explaining how the war in Ukraine is pushing the world down “a path to hell.” In a direct and personal appeal, he asked, “Is Ukraine worth the lives of your families? Your country’s future? Because that’s what Joe Biden is sacrificing for. He’s acting like a terrorist, sacrificing everything to support Ukraine. If that’s what you want, then fine. But I refuse to sacrifice my children’s future for this insanity.”
When I pointed out that France lacks a robust anti-war movement, Ritter responded firmly, “Create one, if you don’t want to see your families and friends die.” His words resonate not as abstract political advice but as an urgent call to action. For Ritter, opposing the unchecked ambitions of the military-industrial complex is a matter of survival for future generations.
Back in Manhattan, I spoke with Diane Sare, an independent candidate for the Senate from New York. She described the grueling journey required just to get on the ballot. “Running as an independent is no small feat,” she explained. “The law demands that candidates unaffiliated with major parties collect petitions with either 70,000 signatures or an equivalent number representing 5% of registered voters from the last election, whichever is higher. I’m the only candidate to pull it off this year.”
Affiliated with the LaRouche Party and the Schiller Institute, Sare describes herself foremost as an anti-war advocate. “I firmly oppose the use of public funds to finance conflicts like those in Ukraine or the Middle East.” she said passionately. Her stance, rare in American politics today, positions her as a powerful voice against the interventionist consensus in Washington.
For these anti-war advocates, supporting Trump is a choice grounded in reason and political realism. The former president, despite his controversies, remains the least hawkish candidate in the race. During his term, he launched no new conflicts, facilitated multiple peace agreements in the Middle East, and eased tensions with North Korea. To Sare and her followers, a return to the White House for Trump could offer a break from what they view as the current administration’s militaristic agenda, symbolized by Kamala Harris and the neoconservative influence.
Although Sare’s anti-war stance resonates widely, many of her supporters identify with the LaRouche movement, founded by political dissident Lyndon LaRouche. The movement has long criticized interventionist wars, American expansionism, and unchecked financial capitalism. LaRouche’s ideals champion a multipolar world and a return to a productive economy, challenging the neoliberal and militaristic policies that dominate today’s power structures.
Following Sare’s campaign, I traveled to Washington, D.C. to witness the symbolic “Rescue the Republic” rally near the Washington Monument. Under gray skies, Republicans and independents stood together, united in their vision of an America free from the grip of the military-industrial elite and Washington’s lobbyists.
The event spotlighted Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a surprisingly popular figure. During his Democratic primary run against Joe Biden, Kennedy consistently polled at 20% before he withdrew in October 2023, opting instead for an independent campaign. Now, he has thrown his support behind Trump, aiming for a key role in a future administration. Kennedy outlined his commitment to reforming health and intelligence agencies, which he controversially claims have historically conspired against his family.
In the wake of this alliance, Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic representative, openly criticized her erstwhile party, describing it as “now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness,” and explained her decision to join the Republicans: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; it left me.”
Other prominent figures took the stage, including Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand, Bret Weinstein, Senator Ron Johnson, and Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer in mRNA technology. Backstage, Malone expressed his deepening concerns about the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty, which he sees as a threat to national sovereignty and individual freedoms—a key reason for his support of the day’s initiative. Each speaker leveled scathing critiques of the current administration, accusing it of servitude to corporate power and neglecting American citizens’ interests. Slogans like “A vote for Kamala is a vote for nuclear war” were visible throughout the crowd, reflecting the urgent call for a fundamental shift in leadership.
Closing the event, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed his supporters from behind bulletproof glass, all wearing “Make America Healthy Again” hats. He condemned the collusion between the government and major corporations, especially in food and pharmaceuticals. “We demand independence from pharmaceutical companies, from big food giants, from corporate interests,” he declared. He highlighted how, in the 1990s, tobacco companies bought food corporations and used their scientists to make addictive products with synthetic chemicals banned in Europe but permitted in the U.S.
Kennedy concluded with a call to action, urging Americans to elect leaders who will dismantle the fusion of corporate and state power: “We need a president who will protect our children, our constitutional rights, our freedom of speech. Don’t you want a president who’s going to make America healthy again and who’s going to make America free again and is going to make America once again the greatest nation and the moral authority around the globe? You need to go to the polls and get your friends there and get Donald Trump and me into Washington, D.C.”
Back in New York, I joined Ian Walsh Reilly, president of the Metropolitan Republicans Club, to watch a vice-presidential debate. Reilly shared his thoughts on the Trump-Kennedy alliance, viewing it as a revival of MAGA’s original spirit: “The MAGA movement in 2016 transcended partisan divides, calling to Americans of all backgrounds who shared a love for their country and a desire to Make America Great Again. Unfortunately, once in power, the Republican National Committee boxed it under the GOP brand with help from D.C. Democrats who sought to weaken it.” He argues that this partnership with Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure from an iconic political dynasty associated with an era of American unity during the space race, restores the bipartisan appeal of MAGA.
With endorsements from high-profile figures like Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, and Ron Paul, Trump’s campaign is bolstered by unexpected allies. Musk, who recently joined the effort, brings his efficiency-driven approach, echoing his restructuring of Twitter (now X). Recently, Musk tweeted about his plans to audit federal agencies, stating, “There’s a lot of waste and redundant regulations in government that need to go,” and expressed enthusiasm about Paul joining the initiative. Together with other prominent backers, their influence could significantly impact the perception of the Trump-Vance administration, countering narratives that label it as extreme.
This unprecedented wave of independents rallying to Trump has drawn fierce backlash from mainstream American media. ABC News, Rolling Stone, Reuters, and other outlets have ramped up their attacks. Notably, Elon Musk has become a frequent target, particularly after his public support of Trump’s campaign. Recently, Claire McCaskill, MSNBC analyst, mocked Musk: “He thinks that just because he builds rockets and electric cars, he can figure out how to make people vote.” Musk responded coolly: “Funny how she never said a word about Soros, who’s put a hundred times more money into elections than I have.” In a pointed follow-up, he added, “If I can handle rocket science with SpaceX and brain surgery with Neuralink, maybe I can grasp a bit of politics too.”
International media criticism hasn’t lagged far behind. In late October, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a piece featuring a photo montage of Musk and Trump under the caption “Enemy Number Two.” Musk interpreted it as dangerously provocative. “With their endless hit pieces, mainstream media is actively encouraging the assassination of both Donald Trump and myself,” he alleged.
More controversies have arisen, including one where the media claimed Trump wanted Liz Cheney “in front of a firing squad.” In fact, Trump had only said he’d like to see politicians who send young Americans to the front lines take on those risks themselves. For Trump supporters and independents alike, these misrepresentations only expose the bias of left-leaning media, which they accuse of using distortions and hyperbole instead of addressing real issues. Such tactics fuel rising mistrust in the press, steadily eroding its credibility.
Though energized, this movement faces steep challenges. Traditional media outlets, even as their influence wanes, continue to amplify divisive narratives. Fake news, misquotes, and personal attacks risk alienating moderate voters. Still, polls suggest a shift. With unexpected allies like Musk and Ron Paul and a growing independent voter base, Trump may be able to leverage this coalition to rally a broader electoral base of moderates, independents, and former Democratic supporters.
The presence of figures like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.—embodying a shift from idealistic Left to pragmatic Right—could be decisive. For them, as well as for many Americans, corruption, public waste, and relentless foreign entanglements are seen as obstacles to a prosperous nation.
Could this new alliance shake up the established order? The answer may begin to unfold on the night of November 5 (and perhaps the following days), as election results reveal America’s deep-seated aspirations. An undercurrent of anti-war sentiment, sovereign priorities, and pragmatism is coursing through the political landscape, suggesting the possibility of a historic shift. Tired of endless conflicts and ballooning military budgets, America appears ready for renewal. While still intent on global influence, it seeks a more careful approach, one aligned with domestic needs and democratic values. On the ground, the message is clear: it’s not about isolation but about redefining engagement to resonate with a populace weary of broken promises.
All eyes are on this unusual coalition, seen by many as a harbinger of transformation. In victory or defeat, could this partnership of Republicans and independents chart a new course for America’s future? This alliance shows promise for disrupting traditional political divides and giving voice to perspectives that have long been marginalized. A more balanced political model, where skeptics and pragmatists find resonance, may be emerging. However, this coalition faces colossal obstacles: institutional pressure, media scrutiny, and relentless attacks. Its resilience will soon be tested. America’s choice in this election will not only shape its future but could influence the global balance, potentially leading to a more reflective, pragmatic, and grounded America.
READ NEXT
Milei Disrupts the Cosy Consensus at the G20
The Albanian Conservative Institute: An Intellectual Beacon for Albania’s Center-Right
Brussels Opens Path to ‘Fiscal Fascism’