Dear Stephen Miller, Men of Power Act, They Do Not Bluster
- john raymond
- Sep 22
- 2 min read
Let us begin with three premises. First, Ukraine is on the cusp of punishing Putin on a scale yet unseen, as drone warfare strips away the regime’s illusions of security and strikes deeper into the Russian core.
Second, President Trump’s entire political machine depends on Putin: for money laundered through oligarchic networks, for kompromat and blackmail that keeps allies in line, for propaganda channels that stoke fear, and for the structural intimidation that makes political enemies hesitate.
Third, men like Stephen Miller see these facts with sufficient clarity to understand what they mean—that Putin’s collapse would cascade downward, shaking Trump’s foundation and leaving his courtiers exposed.
The Function of Bluster
This is the context in which Miller delivered his speech at the Charlie Kirk memorial. He did not speak like a man commanding an army or holding the treasury. He spoke like a man who fears he will be irrelevant when the order collapses. His words about dragons, storms, and legacies are not weapons but talismans—ritual incantations to ward off an approaching reality.
Real power does not invoke storms. Real power launches drones, seizes assets, commands battalions, imprisons enemies, and redistributes wealth. Putin exercises power when he strips $50 billion from his oligarchs. Ukraine exercises power when it destroys Russian refineries and air-defense systems.
By contrast, Miller’s speech exercised nothing. It created no pain for adversaries, no gain for allies, no shift in the balance of material force.
Power Versus Performance
The contrast could not be sharper. Trump, for all his dependence on Putin, wields actual authority—executive orders, appointments, policy decisions that alter the lives of millions.
Putin, weakened though he may be, still directs armies and nuclear arsenals.
Miller wields only adjectives. His denunciation of “wickedness” and “nothingness” produces neither fear nor compliance. It is performance masquerading as power.
From the Raymond Method perspective:
Pillar One (Regime Security): Miller is not securing a regime; he is securing his own place in line should Trump survive. His words substitute for action because he possesses no independent levers of security.
Pillar Two (Asymmetric Warfare): The vagueness of his rhetoric—an enemy that is everyone and no one—costs him nothing but buys him the posture of militancy. It is asymmetric bluff, not force.
Pillar Three (Byzantine Traitor-General): In a system that thrives on treachery, Miller’s bluster is an audition. He simply seeks to be remembered as loyal.
Implications
Miller’s speech, then, should not be read as evidence of strength but of panic. Men of power act; men without power talk.
And Miller blusters because he senses collapse: Ukraine advancing against Russia, Putin faltering, Trump weakened by the unraveling of his patron, and himself reduced to a man of words in a moment that demands deeds.
Miller’s storm imagery is not prophecy but preemption, an attempt to seize the narrative before the mathematics of power renders him completely and totally irrelevant.
Comments