Trumps "Republican/white nationalist party's playbook" revealed (hint same one Hitler used)

Mo-Better

The R&B Master
OG Investor
Ah so now you guys are getting it. Its been there if front of you all along. This is why 45 has been trying to circumvent the constitution and court systems.

Just look at who has maintained Trump's attention since in office. Rocket Man and Putin, that's as fundamental as it gets.
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
32723002_1602107819838984_969629050786021376_n.jpg
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor



European fascism was popular because, for those not persecuted, it was a welfare state
sheri-berman.jpg

By Sheri BermanMarch 30, 2017
Professor, Barnard College


An analogy is haunting the United States—the analogy of fascism. It is virtually impossible (outside certain parts of the Right-wing itself) to try to understand the resurgent Right without hearing it described as—or compared with—20th-century interwar fascism. Like fascism, the resurgent Right is irrational, close-minded, violent, and racist. So goes the analogy, and there’s truth to it. But fascism did not become powerful simply by appealing to citizens’ darkest instincts. Fascism also, crucially, spoke to the social and psychological needs of citizens to be protected from the ravages of capitalism at a time when other political actors were offering little help.

The origins of fascism lay in a promise to protect people. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a rush of globalization destroyed communities, professions, and cultural norms while generating a wave of immigration. Right-wing nationalist movements promising to protect people from the pernicious influence of foreigners and markets arose, and frightened, disoriented, and displaced people responded. These early fascist movements disrupted political life in some countries, but they percolated along at a relatively low simmer until the Second World War.


The First World War had devastated Europe, killing 16 million people, maiming another 20 million, crushing economies, and sowing turmoil. In Italy, for example, the postwar period saw high inflation and unemployment, as well as strikes, factory occupations, land seizures, and other forms of social unrest and violence. The Liberal Italian governments of the postwar era failed to adequately address these problems. The Liberals’ constituencies—businessmen, landowners, members of the middle class—abandoned them. The country’s two largest opposition parties—the socialist PSI and the Catholic PPI—also offered little effective redress to these basic social problems.

Benito Mussolini and his National Fascist Party (PNF) stepped into the breach, taking advantage of the failure or ineffectiveness of existing institutions, parties, and elites, and offering a mixture of “national” and “social” policies. Fascists promised to foster national unity, prioritize the interests of the nation above those of any particular group, and promote Italy’s stature internationally. The fascists also appealed to Italians’ desire for social security, solidarity, and protection from capitalist crises. They promised therefore to restore order, protect private property, and promote prosperity but also shield society from economic downturns and disruption. Fascists stressed that wealth entailed responsibilities as well as privileges, and should be administered for the benefits of the nation.

These appeals enabled the fascists to garner support from almost all socioeconomic groups. Italy was a young country (formed in the 1860s), plagued by deep regional and social divisions. By claiming to serve the best interests of the entire national community, it was in fact the fascists who became Italy’s first true “people’s party.”

After coming to power, the Italian fascists created recreational circles, student and youth groups, and sports and excursion activities. These organizations all furthered the fascists’ goals of fostering a truly national community. The desire to strengthen (a fascist) national identity also compelled the regime to extraordinary cultural measures.

They promoted striking public architecture, art exhibitions, and film and radio productions. The regime intervened extensively in the economy. As one fascist put it: “There cannot be any single economic interests which are above the general economic interests of the state, no individual, economic initiatives which do not fall under the supervision and regulation of the state, no relationships of the various classes of the nation which are not the concern of the state.” Such policies kept fascism popular until the late 1930s, when Mussolini threw his lot in with Hitler. It was only the country’s involvement in the Second World War, and the Italian regime’s turn to a more overtly “racialist” understanding of fascism, that began to make Italian fascism unpopular.


Italian fascism differed from its German counterpart in important ways. Most notably, perhaps, anti-Semitism and racism were more innate in the German version. But Italian and German fascism also shared important similarities. Like Italy, Germany was a “new” nation (formed in 1871) plagued by deep divisions. After the First World War, Germany had found itself saddled with punitive peace terms. During the 1920s, it experienced violent uprisings, political assassinations, foreign invasion, and a notorious Great Inflation. Then the Great Depression hit, causing immense suffering in Germany. The response of the government, and other political actors, however, must also be remembered. For different reasons, both the era’s conservative governments and their socialist opponents primarily favored austerity as a response to the crisis. Thus came a golden opportunity for fascism.

Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) promised to serve the entire German people, but the German fascist vision of “the people” did not include Jews and other “undesirables.” They promised to create a “people’s community” (Volksgemeinschaft) that would overcome the country’s divisions. The fascists also pledged to fight the Depression and contrasted its activism on behalf of the people’s welfare with the meekness and austerity of the government and the socialists. By the 1932 elections, these appeals to protect the German people helped the Nazis become the largest political party, and the one with the broadest socioeconomic base.

When Hitler became chancellor in Jan. 1933, the Nazis quickly began work-creation and infrastructure programs. They exhorted business to take on workers, and doled out credit. Germany’s economy rebounded and unemployment figures improved dramatically: German unemployment fell from almost six million in early 1933 to 2.4 million by the end of 1934; by 1938, Germany essentially enjoyed full employment. By the end of the 1930s, the government was controlling decisions about economic production, investment, wages, and prices. Public spending was growing spectacularly.

Nazi Germany remained capitalist. But it had also undertaken state intervention in the economy unprecedented in capitalist societies. The Nazis also supported an extensive welfare state (of course, for “ethnically pure” Germans). It included free higher education, family and child support, pensions, health insurance, and an array of publicly supported entertainment and vacation options.

All spheres of life, economy included, had to be subordinated to the “national interest” (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz), and the fascist commitment to foster social equality and mobility. Radical meritocratic reforms are not usually thought of as signature Nazi measures, but, as Hitler once noted, the Third Reich has “opened the way for every qualified individual—whatever his origins—to reach the top if he is qualified, dynamic, industrious, and resolute.”


Largely for these reasons, up till 1939, most Germans’ experience with the Nazi regime was probably positive. The Nazis had seemingly conquered the Depression and restored economic and political stability. As long as they could prove their ethnic “purity” and stayed away from overt shows of disloyalty, Germans typically experienced National Socialism not as a tyranny and terror, but as a regime of social reform and warmth.

There can be no question that violence and racism were essential traits of fascism. But for most Italians, Germans and other European fascists, the appeal was based not on racism—much less ethnic cleansing—but on the fascists’ ability to respond effectively to crises of capitalism when other political actors were not.

Fascists insisted that states could and should control capitalism, that the state should and could promote social welfare, and that national communities needed to be cultivated.

The fascist solution ultimately was, of course, worse than the problem. In response to the horror of fascism, in part, New Deal Democrats in the United States, and social democratic parties in Europe, also moved to re-negotiate the social contract. They promised citizens that they would control capitalism and provide social welfare policies and undertake other measures to strengthen national solidarity—but without the loss of freedom and democracy that fascism entailed.

The lesson for the present is clear: you can’t beat something with nothing. If other political actors don’t come up with more compelling solutions to the problems of capitalism, the popular appeal of the resurgent Right-wing will continue. And then the analogy with fascism and democratic collapse of the interwar years might prove even more relevant than it is now.
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor



The Suffocation of Democracy

Christopher R. Browning
OCTOBER 25, 2018 ISSUE

Culture Club/Getty Images

German President Paul von Hindenburg and Chancellor Adolf Hitler on their way to a youth rally at the Lustgarten, Berlin, May 1933
As a historian specializing in the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and Europe in the era of the world wars, I have been repeatedly asked about the degree to which the current situation in the United States resembles the interwar period and the rise of fascism in Europe. I would note several troubling similarities and one important but equally troubling difference.

In the 1920s, the US pursued isolationism in foreign policy and rejected participation in international organizations like the League of Nations. America First was America alone, except for financial agreements like the Dawes and Young Plans aimed at ensuring that our “free-loading” former allies could pay back their war loans. At the same time, high tariffs crippled international trade, making the repayment of those loans especially difficult. The country witnessed an increase in income disparity and a concentration of wealth at the top, and both Congress and the courts eschewed regulations to protect against the self-inflicted calamities of free enterprise run amok. The government also adopted a highly restrictionist immigration policy aimed at preserving the hegemony of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants against an influx of Catholic and Jewish immigrants. (Various measures barring Asian immigration had already been implemented between 1882 and 1917.) These policies left the country unable to respond constructively to either the Great Depression or the rise of fascism, the growing threat to peace, and the refugee crisis of the 1930s.

Today, President Trump seems intent on withdrawing the US from the entire post–World War II structure of interlocking diplomatic, military, and economic agreements and organizations that have preserved peace, stability, and prosperity since 1945. His preference for bilateral relations, conceived as zero-sum rivalries in which he is the dominant player and “wins,” overlaps with the ideological preference of Steve Bannon and the so-called alt-right for the unfettered self-assertion of autonomous, xenophobic nation-states—in short, the pre-1914 international system. That “international anarchy” produced World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Depression, the fascist dictatorships, World War II, and the Holocaust, precisely the sort of disasters that the post–World War II international system has for seven decades remarkably avoided.

In threatening trade wars with allies and adversaries alike, Trump justifies increased tariffs on our allies on the specious pretext that countries like Canada are a threat to our national security. He combines his constant disparagement of our democratic allies with open admiration of authoritarians. His naive and narcissistic confidence in his own powers of personal diplomacy and his faith in a handshake with the likes of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un recall the hapless Neville Chamberlain (a man in every other regard different from Trump). Fortunately the US is so embedded in the international order it created after 1945, and the Republican Party and its business supporters are sufficiently alarmed over the threat to free trade, that Trump has not yet completed his agenda of withdrawal, though he has made astounding progress in a very short time.

A second aspect of the interwar period with all too many similarities to our current situation is the waning of the Weimar Republic. Paul von Hindenburg, elected president of Germany in 1925, was endowed by the Weimar Constitution with various emergency powers to defend German democracy should it be in dire peril. Instead of defending it, Hindenburg became its gravedigger, using these powers first to destroy democratic norms and then to ally with the Nazis to replace parliamentary government with authoritarian rule. Hindenburg began using his emergency powers in 1930, appointing a sequence of chancellors who ruled by decree rather than through parliamentary majorities, which had become increasingly impossible to obtain as a result of the Great Depression and the hyperpolarization of German politics.

Because an ever-shrinking base of support for traditional conservatism made it impossible to carry out their authoritarian revision of the constitution, Hindenburg and the old right ultimately made their deal with Hitler and installed him as chancellor. Thinking that they could ultimately control Hitler while enjoying the benefits of his popular support, the conservatives were initially gratified by the fulfillment of their agenda: intensified rearmament, the outlawing of the Communist Party, the suspension first of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly and then of parliamentary government itself, a purge of the civil service, and the abolition of independent labor unions. Needless to say, the Nazis then proceeded far beyond the goals they shared with their conservative allies, who were powerless to hinder them in any significant way.

If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings.

One can predict that henceforth no significant judicial appointments will be made when the presidency and the Senate are not controlled by the same party. McConnell and our dysfunctional and disrespected Congress have now ensured an increasingly dysfunctional and disrespected judiciary, and the constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of government is in peril.

Whatever secret reservations McConnell and other traditional Republican leaders have about Trump’s character, governing style, and possible criminality, they openly rejoice in the payoff they have received from their alliance with him and his base: huge tax cuts for the wealthy, financial and environmental deregulation, the nominations of two conservative Supreme Court justices (so far) and a host of other conservative judicial appointments, and a significant reduction in government-sponsored health care (though not yet the total abolition of Obamacare they hope for). Like Hitler’s conservative allies, McConnell and the Republicans have prided themselves on the early returns on their investment in Trump. The combination of Trump’s abasement before Putin in Helsinki, the shameful separation of families at the border in complete disregard of US asylum law (to say nothing of basic humanitarian principles and the GOP’s relentless claim to be the defender of “family values”), and most recently Michael Cohen’s implication of Trump in criminal violations of campaign finance laws has not shaken the fealty of the Republican old guard, so there is little indication that even an explosive and incriminating report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller will rupture the alliance.

But the potential impact of the Mueller report does suggest yet another eerie similarity to the interwar period—how the toxic divisions in domestic politics led to the complete inversion of previous political orientations. Both Mussolini and Hitler came to power in no small part because the fascist-conservative alliances on the right faced division and disarray on the left. The Catholic parties (Popolari in Italy, Zentrum in Germany), liberal moderates, Social Democrats, and Communists did not cooperate effectively in defense of democracy. In Germany this reached the absurd extreme of the Communists underestimating the Nazis as a transitory challenge while focusing on the Social Democrats—dubbed “red fascists”—as the true long-term threat to Communist triumph.

By 1936 the democratic forces of France and Spain had learned the painful lesson of not uniting against the fascist threat, and even Stalin reversed his ill-fated policy and instructed the Communists to join democrats in Popular Front electoral alliances. In France the prospect of a Popular Front victory and a new government headed by—horror of horrors—a Socialist and Jew, Léon Blum, led many on the right to proclaim, “Better Hitler than Blum.” Better the victory of Frenchmen emulating the Nazi dictator and traditional national enemy across the Rhine than preserving French democracy at home and French independence abroad under a Jewish Socialist. The victory of the Popular Front in 1936 temporarily saved French democracy but led to the defeat of a demoralized and divided France in 1940, followed by the Vichy regime’s collaboration with Nazi Germany while enthusiastically pursuing its own authoritarian counterrevolution.

Faced with the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the US election and collusion with members of his campaign, Trump and his supporters’ first line of defense has been twofold—there was “no collusion” and the claim of Russian meddling is a “hoax.” The second line of defense is again twofold: “collusion is not a crime” and the now-proven Russian meddling had no effect. I suspect that if the Mueller report finds that the Trump campaign’s “collusion” with Russians does indeed meet the legal definition of “criminal conspiracy” and that the enormous extent of Russian meddling makes the claim that it had no effect totally implausible, many Republicans will retreat, either implicitly or explicitly, to the third line of defense: “Better Putin than Hillary.” There seems to be nothing for which the demonization of Hillary Clinton does not serve as sufficient justification, and the notion that a Trump presidency indebted to Putin is far preferable to the nightmare of a Clinton victory will signal the final Republican reorientation to illiberalism at home and subservience to an authoritarian abroad.

Such similarities, both actual and foreseeable, must not obscure a significant difference between the interwar democratic decline and our current situation. In his 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis portrayed a Nazi-style takeover in the US, in which paramilitary forces of the newly elected populist president seize power by arresting many members of Congress and setting up a dictatorship replete with all-powerful local commissars, concentration camps, summary courts, and strict censorship, as well as the incarceration of all political opponents who do not succeed in fleeing over the Canadian border. Invoking the Nazi example was understandable then, and several aspects of democratic decline in the interwar period seem eerily similar to current trends, as I have noted. But the Nazi dictatorship, war, and genocide following the collapse of Weimar democracy are not proving very useful for understanding the direction in which we are moving today. I would argue that current trends reflect a significant divergence from the dictatorships of the 1930s.

The fascist movements of that time prided themselves on being overtly antidemocratic, and those that came to power in Italy and Germany boasted that their regimes were totalitarian. The most original revelation of the current wave of authoritarians is that the construction of overtly antidemocratic dictatorships aspiring to totalitarianism is unnecessary for holding power. Perhaps the most apt designation of this new authoritarianism is the insidious term “illiberal democracy.” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary have all discovered that opposition parties can be left in existence and elections can be held in order to provide a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy, while in reality elections pose scant challenge to their power. Truly dangerous opposition leaders are neutralized or eliminated one way or another.

Total control of the press and other media is likewise unnecessary, since a flood of managed and fake news so pollutes the flow of information that facts and truth become irrelevant as shapers of public opinion. Once-independent judiciaries are gradually dismantled through selective purging and the appointment of politically reliable loyalists. Crony capitalism opens the way to a symbiosis of corruption and self-enrichment between political and business leaders. Xenophobic nationalism (and in many cases explicitly anti-immigrant white nationalism) as well as the prioritization of “law and order” over individual rights are also crucial to these regimes in mobilizing the popular support of their bases and stigmatizing their enemies.

Trump has shown unabashed admiration for these authoritarian leaders and great affinity for the major tenets of illiberal democracy. But others have paved the way in important respects. Republicans begin with a systemic advantage in electing senators and representatives, because the Democratic Party’s constituency has become heavily concentrated in big states and big cities. By my calculation every currently serving Democratic senator represents roughly 3.65 million people; every Republican roughly 2.51 million. Put another way, the fifty senators from the twenty-five least populous states—twenty-nine of them Republicans—represent just over 16 percent of the American population, and thirty-four Republican senators—enough to block conviction on impeachment charges—represent states with a total of 21 percent of the American population. With gerrymandering and voter suppression enhancing even more the systemic Republican advantage, it is estimated that the Democrats will have to win by 7 to 11 points (a margin only obtainable in rare “wave” elections) in the 2018 elections to achieve even the narrowest of majorities in the House of Representatives.


Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Trump supporters at a rally in Charleston, West Virginia, August 2018
In the five presidential elections of the twenty-first century, Democrats have won the popular vote four times. Two of these four (2000 and 2016) nonetheless produced Republican presidents, since the Electoral College reflects the same weighting toward small, more often Republican states as the Senate. Given the Supreme Court’s undermining of central provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder), its refusal to take up current flagrant gerrymandering cases (Gill v.Whitford for Wisconsin; Benisek v. Lamone for Maryland), and its recent approval of the Ohio law purging its voting rolls (Hustedv. Randolph Institute), it must be feared that the Court will in the future open the floodgates for even more egregious gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The unprecedented flow of dark money into closely contested campaigns has distorted the electoral process even further. The Supreme Court decision declaring corporations to be people and money to be free speech (Citizens United v. FEC) in particular has greatly enhanced the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to influence American politics. We are approaching the point when Democrats might still win state elections in the major blue states but become increasingly irrelevant in elections for the presidency and Congress. Trump’s personal flaws and his tactic of appealing to a narrow base while energizing Democrats and alienating independents may lead to precisely that rare wave election needed to provide a congressional check on the administration as well as the capture of enough state governorships and legislatures to begin reversing current trends in gerrymandering and voter suppression. The elections of 2018 and 2020 will be vital in testing how far the electoral system has deteriorated.

Another area in which Trump has been the beneficiary of long-term trends predating his presidency is the decline of organized labor. To consolidate his dictatorship, Hitler had to abolish the independent unions in Germany in a single blow. Trump faces no such problem. In the first three postwar decades, workers and management effectively shared the increased wealth produced by the growth in productivity. Since the 1970s that social contract has collapsed, union membership and influence have declined, wage growth has stagnated, and inequality in wealth has grown sharply. Governor Scott Walker’s triumph over public sector unions in Wisconsin and the recent Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory public sector union dues (Janus v. AFSCME) simply accelerate a process long underway. The increasingly uneven playing field caused by the rise in corporate influence and decline in union power, along with the legions of well-funded lobbyists, is another sign of the illiberal trend.

Alongside the erosion of an independent judiciary as a check on executive power, other hallmarks of illiberal democracy are the neutralization of a free press and the steady diminution of basic human rights. On these issues, often described as the guardrails of democracy against authoritarian encroachment, the Trump administration either has won or seems poised to win significant gains for illiberalism. Upon his appointment as chancellor, Hitler immediately created a new Ministry of People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels, who remained one of his closest political advisers.

In Trump’s presidency, those functions have effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News and Sean Hannity. Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a “Trump bubble” for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times. The highly critical free media not only provide no effective check on Trump’s ability to be a serial liar without political penalty; on the contrary, they provide yet another enemy around which to mobilize the grievances and resentments of his base. A free press does not have to be repressed when it can be rendered irrelevant and even exploited for political gain.

The very first legislation decreed by Hitler under the Enabling Act of 1933 (which suspended the legislative powers of the Reichstag) authorized the government to dismiss civil servants for suspected political unreliability and “non-Aryan” ancestry. Inequality before the law and legal discrimination were core features of the Nazi regime from the beginning. It likewise intruded into people’s private choices about sexuality and reproduction. Persecution of male homosexuality was drastically intensified, resulting in the deaths of some 10,000 gay men and the incarceration and even castration of many thousands more. Some 300,000–400,000 Germans deemed carriers of hereditary defects were forcibly sterilized; some 150,000 mentally and physically handicapped Germans considered “unworthy of life” were murdered. Germans capable of bearing racially valued children were denied access to contraception and abortion and rewarded for having large families; pregnant female foreign workers were often forced to have abortions to prevent the birth of undesired children and loss of workdays.

Nothing remotely so horrific is on the illiberal agenda, but the curtailment of many rights and protections Americans now enjoy is likely. Presumably marriage equality will survive, given the sea change in American public opinion on that issue. But the right of businesses and individuals to discriminate against gays is likely to be broadly protected as a “sincerely held religious belief.” Chief Justice John Roberts’s favorite target, affirmative action, is likely to disappear under his slogan that to end racial discrimination, one must end all forms of racial discrimination. And a woman’s right to abortion will probably disappear in red states, either through an outright overturning of Roe v. Wade or more likely through narrower rulings that fail to find any “undue burden” in draconian restrictions that in practice make abortion unavailable. And equal protection of voting rights is likely to be eroded in red states through ever more insidiously designed voter suppression laws and gerrymandering once the Supreme Court makes clear that it will not intervene to curb such measures.

The domestic agenda of Trump’s illiberal democracy falls considerably short of totalitarian dictatorship as exemplified by Mussolini and Hitler. But that is small comfort for those who hope and believe that the arc of history inevitably bends toward greater emancipation, equality, and freedom. Likewise, it is small comfort that in foreign policy Trump does not emulate the Hitlerian goals of wars of conquest and genocide, because the prospects for peace and stability are nevertheless seriously threatened. Escalating trade wars could easily tip the world economy into decline, and the Trump administration has set thresholds for peaceful settlements with Iran and North Korea that seem well beyond reach.

It is possible that Trump is engaged in excessive rhetorical posturing as a bargaining chip and will retreat to more moderate positions in both cases. But it is also possible that adversarial momentum will build, room for concessions will disappear, and he will plunge the country into serious economic or military conflicts as a captive of his own rhetoric. Historically, such confrontations and escalations have often escaped the control of leaders far more talented than Trump.

No matter how and when the Trump presidency ends, the specter of illiberalism will continue to haunt American politics. A highly politicized judiciary will remain, in which close Supreme Court decisions will be viewed by many as of dubious legitimacy, and future judicial appointments will be fiercely contested. The racial division, cultural conflict, and political polarization Trump has encouraged and intensified will be difficult to heal. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and uncontrolled campaign spending will continue to result in elections skewed in an unrepresentative and undemocratic direction. Growing income disparity will be extremely difficult to halt, much less reverse.

Finally, within several decades after Trump’s presidency has ended, the looming effects of ecological disaster due to human-caused climate change—which Trump not only denies but is doing so much to accelerate—will be inescapable. Desertification of continental interiors, flooding of populous coastal areas, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with concomitant shortages of fresh water and food, will set in motion both population flight and conflicts over scarce resources that dwarf the current fate of Central Africa and Syria. No wall will be high enough to shelter the US from these events. Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism, but regardless of how the Trump presidency concludes, this is a story unlikely to have a happy ending.
 
Last edited:

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
At this point, Trump has consolidated so much power that we're getting close to the point where he won't be able to be stopped. He's running the authoritarian/autocrat playbook with precision right now. Every country that lives through the transition doesn't think it's going to happen UNTIL it actually happens.

Just to add relevance
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
What do liberals think we should call the holiday of Thanksgiving?

https://www.quora.com/#


It appears we have arrived at some sort of bridge here. The bridge when Donald Trump’s lies became so insane that it is a test of his supporter’s loyalty to defend them.

The “War on Christmas” was a lie. It’s true that “Happy Holidays” is a popular alternate over the whole festive period, because it includes other midwinter celebrations. Nobody ever said you should stop saying “Merry Christmas” - but the existence of “Happy Holidays” was enough for the more lunatic fringe of the right to announce they were under attack from foreigners and and liberals.

But “Happy Thanksgiving”? Come on. I mean, there isn’t even a viable alternative. It literally doesn’t exist. This is a made-up nonsense too far. Nobody believes it.
Which leads us to this:

Donald Trump says, in all seriousness, that his daughter Ivanka created 14 million jobs. 14 million.
Now, given that the entire US economy has only created 6.5 million jobs since January 2017, this is fairly obviously beyond bullshit.

I say fairly obviously, we are way beyond that.

If Donald could give us any shred of evidence that Ivanka had created just a thousand jobs, I might give him the benefit of the doubt - I wouldn’t believe it, but I wouldn’t say it was impossible.

But no. He goes for 14 million. Not 100,000, which would be absurd. Not a million, which would be so ludicrous you would expect Trump to be walked away by people in white coats to a padded van.

No. 14 million.

Here he is, saying it. Out loud.

I

I remind you again that the ENTIRE US ECONOMY has created 6.5 million new jobs.

Now, Trump supporters. Your job is to run all over social media defending the increasingly ridiculous and unhinged lies that Donald J Trump comes out with. Where are you going to go with “the war on thanksgiving” and “Ivanka created 14 million jobs”.

And the sad thing is, you will say “Ha ha, he’s owning the libs. He's playing them like a master”. Which means “This is obviously a lie so fundamentally insane and obvious that it must be some sort of tactical ploy”.

But no. He’s not testing us, he’s testing you.

How far are you willing to go? Shooting someone on Fifth Avenue? Because it sounded ridiculous at the time but now, I honestly 100% believe that at least 20% of the American public would support and defend him if he did that.

He’s testing your loyalty, and he thinks you are beyond stupid.


the followup comment from the quora post above

Tim Chiswell

This is, quite literally, fascism 101. Read what Goebbels had to say on the subject.

You don't need 51%+ of the country to support you, in order to achieve complete control over a democracy.

A certain % are inherently apathetic, and won't vote, no matter what (in most countries this is surprisingly consistent over time and place at around 30% - in America it's usually higher).

The remainder will never completely unite behind a single opposition - there will always be some level of splitting.

And a few people will vote for you without a tally supporting you, provided there's a level of self-interest in it for them.

Add these factors together, and most democracies can be controlled with the loyalty of around 1/4 to 1/3rd of the population, provided that loyalty is firm, and they're highly motivated to turn out.
How do you test that loyalty and motivation?

Well, according to Goebbels, you lie. The more outrageous and unbelievable the better. Then you pay close attention to who parrots it. These are your target audience - those too dumb to recognise a lie, however obvious + those that know damn well you're lying but don't care.

Then you focus tightly on that demographic. Forget about the other 2/3rds to 3/4s of the population - you don't need them. It doesn't matter what they think.

You work the base you have left, for all it's worth. And, from time to time you check and re-calibrate (outrageous lie, make sure the base don't baulk at it).

Congratulations - you can now run the country as an autocracy, with the added bonus of being able to claim a 'democratic mandate'.

For extra points, undermine the legitimacy of any negative press by claiming it is false (Goebbels's term was lugenpresse - 'lying press'), the legitimacy of any democratic agencies or institutions that might oppose you (accuse them of being '5th columnists' treasonous insiders), the legitimacy of any opposition ('unpatriotic traitors'), and fine-tune the electoral process (disenfranchisement of opposition voters, gerrymandering etc).

TL;DR - the unbelievable nature of the lies is the whole point
[/QUOTE]
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor





Scaramucci Has A 'Revolting' Theory About Republicans Saying God Chose Trump
Lee Moran
,
HuffPostNovember 26, 2019







Anthony Scaramucci on Tuesday broke down why top Republicans keep saying that Donald Trump was chosen by God to become president, and he claimed it’s “a little revolting.”
According to the former 10-day White House communications director-turned-Trump critic, it’s all to do with sending a subtle message to both the president and his base of hard core supporters.
Departing Secretary of Energy Rick Perry on Sunday claimed Trump was “the chosen one” sent by God to rule over America.




Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley made similar comments over the weekend:




On Tuesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “New Day,” Scaramucci told host Alisyn Camerota they were likely “signaling to the president that they’re ultra-loyal to him.”
He continued:

Camerota noted how Trump does not attend church “as much as we have with all past presidents in recent memory” and asked “why does that kind of language work on him?”

Scaramucci, who is a Roman Catholic, said he “can’t really speak for the evangelical community” but believed they saw Trump “as a sinner” and somebody who is “seeking redemption through the presidency,” which allowed them to ignore his “litany of sins.”

“If you’re going to be political and cynical, you’ll say, well, they’re willing to ignore that because he’s prosecuting some of their ideas as it relates to social conservatism,” he added.

Scaramucci later called the practice of claiming Trump had been divinely chosen “a little revolting” because “I think there’s a disingenuousness to what politicians are saying about the president.”

“I mean, down deep they’re objective, they’re smart people, both Gov. Perry and Gov. Haley in the past have said things about the president that I think are probably more congruent with reality than what they’re saying today,” he concluded. “So it’s a little bit disingenuous.”
Check out the interview here:
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
Just for further reiteration




American Democracy Will Die in 100 Days
…Unless Americans Start Understanding How to Fight Nazism — Now



Americans being abducted off the streets. A mayor being attacked with chemical agents. Secret Police, otherwise known as “Homeland Security,” occupying cities. And an aspiring dictator behind it all. Here’s a bitter truth, made of five smaller ones. America now has 100 days to save its democracy.

Even if, at this late juncture, Americans begin to fight for their democracy, there’s no guarantee of success. Nonetheless. This upcoming election is America’s last chance.

To those of us who lived through authoritarian collapses — and survived them — what’s going to happen in America over the next six months is as simple as it is predictable. That’s not to be a know-it-all blowhard. It’s to warn you.

Fact one. Trump is going to try to steal the election. If this were any other President, I myself would dismiss such an idea as crackpot conspiratorialism. But Trumps not any other President. He’s a man who’s checked every item off the list of Nazi politics, from camps to bans to raids to purges. He’s announced proudly that he doesn’t believe in democracy, or the Constitution, and wants to keep power for as long as he can.

When authoritarians tell you what they are going to do, believe them. They’re like mafiosi: they have to follow through on their threats or they lose all credibility. So when Trump says he’s not going to accede to a peaceful transfer of power, believe him. Americans have spent too long playing dumb, not believing Trump at any stage of collapse so far, from camps to bans to purges — and now it’s almost too late.

Fact two. Trump is still within striking distance of being able to steal the election. Don’t count him out yet, just because he’s sunk a little in the polls. He’s still got an Army of American Idiots behind him — about 40% or so of Americans. That number, it seems, is a hard floor — it doesn’t budge, no matter what. The whys and wherefores — these are mentally broken people regressed to infantile psychologies, who regard Trump as an unconscious omnipotent father figure — are now irrelevant. What is relevant is that thanks to the vagaries of America’s electoral college, Trump can still squeeze out a narrow victory, especially with a little help from Zuck and the Kremlin. Or a narrow enough loss that it can be contested to high heaven — and then turned into a victory thanks to a stacked Supreme Court and a supine Senate.

Don’t count Trump out.

Fact three. This is how authoritarians steal elections: with creeping martial law. Those storm troopers on Portland’s streets, abducting people, beating moms, gassing the mayor? That’s exactly — exactly — how authoritarians institute martial law. Not like in the movies — suddenly. But slowly, one step at a time. One city, town, set of shock troops at a time. Their power are expanded. Your rights are eroded. And before anyone knows it — you’re living in a police state, a place where people feel afraid to express themselves, organize, protest, dissent, vote.

Trump is instituting martial law right before a crucial election that will decide the fate of democracy in America for at least a generation. Probably longer. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a culmination. Of what? Of Trump’s Nazi politics. Camps, bans, raids, purges, institutionalized hate, paramilitaries and secret police — all that’s a pattern. What does it culminate in? The next step of the sequence of implosion. The final seizure of power.

That is what this pattern has been leading up to for four solid years now. It’s what those of us who’ve lived through authoritarian collapses have been trying to warn you of — and failing, because we’ve been dismissed as “alarmists” by mainstream pundits. But by now, I’d bet, you’re pretty goddamned alarmed. You should be, because this is all very real. Those of us who know know because we’ve lived it, and what we know is that collapse proceeds according to a predictable and time-honored pattern. In America, it couldn’t have been any clearer, which is why us survivors of authoritarianism have been trying to warn you as loudly as we can — even if it cost us personally.

That brings me to fact four.

Fact four. Americans have been in denial about what Trumpism really is. What kind of people build…actual concentration camps? Put kids in them? Rip them from their mothers? Set up Gestapos to hunt them in the streets?

There’s only one word for such people. Nazis. That’s one of history’s great lessons — and Americans are the world’s laughingstocks at this point because they’re the only people left in the world who don’t get that this is Nazism reborn. The only people. Like I say, every single person I know asks me why Americans don’t get it every single day now. I’m not exaggerating when I say that. What the? By now, you can see openly and in shocking, weird, and frightening ways that Trumpists really are Nazis. For example, they call slavery a “necessary evil.” For example, they wear swastika masks to Walmart. For example, their Gestapo destroys medical supplies during a pandemic — which is a literal war crime.

Trumpism is American Nazism. Maybe not all Trumpists think of themselves that way — but so what? If you’re happy with Gestapos beating moms and gassing mayors, and kids in concentration camps, guess what…you’re a Nazi. The good American — the non-Trumpist, the one who still believes in democracy and freedom — now has just 100 days to emerge from their foxholes of denial, and begin acting like they finally get that this is America’s final showdown with American Nazism.

If Americans really understood that — and they don’t — what would they do?

That brings me to my fifth fact. Americans aren’t fighting authoritarianism yet — not the way it needs to be fought. And that is a consequence of four long, terrible, painful years of denial.

Look, in any sane nation, Trump would not be the head of state anymore. If Justin Trudeau had gassed mayors…he’d have had to resign tomorrow. If Emanuel Macron had let 150,000 people die of Covid — he’d have been thrown out of office swiftly. If Angela Merkel had ripped kids from their parents and put them in concentration camps, she’d have been tried in German courts for fascism.

People would have lined the streets of Paris, Berlin, and Toronto, day after day — until these leaders resigned.

If Americans really understood that this was their final showdown with Nazism — they’d demand scalps. That Trump resign. That all his white supremacist advisors be thrown out of office — and never find work or friends in society again. They’d line the streets of every major American city. There would be a mass movement calling for the end of American Nazism — politically, culturally, and socially. Millions would park themselves in front of the White House, and not leave until the job was done.

There are stirrings of that, in protest growing across the nation. But so far, they aren’t calling for Trump to resign. What the? Why not? But that’s the point.

The best way to defeat Trump in the upcoming election is to checkmate him — not to have him in one.

That’s how you play this game — because it’s the precise opposite of what he wants, after all. What does he really want? Not to have an election at all, or to postpone it. Maybe Covid will be the pretext. Or maybe it’s the way he’s amping up tensions with China. Maybe it will just be “law and order.” Would you be surprised if Trump tried to cancel the election? Of course not. Nobody sane would be. He’s said he doesn’t want one, more or less, over and over again. That’s how authoritarians usually make their final seizure of power — they don’t win elections, they steal them, thwart them, or destroy them.

Trump is trying to checkmate American democracy. Why else is he sending storm troopers nationwide just before a crucial election? So that — if he can get away with it — there isn’t one, and if he can’t get away with that, so he can terrorize people into not voting.

What’s the best way to deal with that? One way is to encourage people to vote and so forth — to mobilize. But that’s a weak strategy at best, because Trump holds all the cards. He’s the one with the storm troopers and the terror tactics.

The best strategy Americans have right now is to make it impossible for Trump to contest the next election at all, by calling for his resignation — now. That should have happened long ago. Like I said, no other rich nation, and not even most poor ones, would have tolerated what Trump’s gotten away with to date, and I don’t mean the small abuses of power, like bribery and playing golf while the nation burns, I mean the big ones, like camps, Gestapos, storm troopers, and mass death.

“How is this lunatic still in power?!,” the entire world asks, baffled. “Why don’t Americans remove him?” What the world doesn’t understand about Americans is that they’ve been abused by their leaders so long they’ve forgotten how to take power back from failed elites. You don’t have to wait for an election that’s going to be rigged, manipulated, terrorized, and hijacked. You can demand a failed President resign now.

Maybe I’m being optimistic. Still, don’t imagine that I’m telling Americans what to do. Rather, I’m pointing out what a saner nation would have already done. And I’m pointing out the best way to save a democracy that’s in deep, deep peril.

If Americans don’t begin calling for Trump to resign, in a powerful mass movement, then the next six months, after all, are eminently predictable. Those storm troopers being abducting people and beating moms and gassing mayors across the nation. Opponents and critics and dissidents begin getting disappeared to God-knows-where, under the pretext of “homeland security.” Meanwhile, Trump’s buddies in the Kremlin flood social media with disinformation — while Zuck grins and checks his bank account. The Trumpists — the American Nazis — simmer with rage, anticipating the sweet taste of total power.

In the lead-up to election day, the nation’s on fire. Beatings and disappearances and abductions and gassings are now everyday events. Nobody knows what to do, and an atmosphere of frustration, bewilderment, and anger reign. Trump’s tricks have worked. People have been terrorized. Trumpists join storm troopers in intimidating and frightening everyone else. It’s open season, and “law and order” now means the right to abuse and terrorize anyone who’s not part of America’s Nazi movement.

America’s spirit has been broken.

And when election day finally comes, Trump knows his storm troopers, his propagandists, his Idiot Army — all that can eke out enough of a margin for him to steal the election, if not win it outright.

Bang! And then there is no more American democracy for a generation. Trump is America’s Saddam, it’s Gaddafi, and after him come a long retinue of kids and advisors, even more demented and bloodthirsty than him.

That’s how it works.

That’s what us survivors of authoritarian collapse have to warn you of. If any of that sounds outlandish, to you, still, then let me ask you. Did you think, five years ago, that America would be here? That Donald Trump would be sending his…shock troops…to gas American mayors…while mass death surged? What the?

Your rational side is not your ally right now, because you haven’t lived through this. It’s not helping you to overthink what’s about to happen — because Trump and his army of American Nazis aren’t exactly logical. Your rational side has underestimated American Nazism over the last four years for exactly that reason. But there is no more room for mistakes now.

Those of us who’ve survived all this before — we are trying to share our experience with you. Because we need to, because it’s what decent and sane people must do. And that experience can be summed up in three short principles. It’s always worse — much worse — than your rational side thinks. It’s always as bad as — or worse than — your worst, hidden fears. And when you put those two things together, the only conclusion is: you’d better act like this is your last chance to remain a functioning and free society.

Because it is.
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
Another way that Orange Hitler is like Original Hitler...

Hitler's Nero Decree :

The decree came about after Hitler studied a memorandum sent to him on March 18 by his trusted Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer. Therein, Speer reported the German economy could only hold out another four to eight weeks. That was the absolute limit for the Third Reich’s war effort. In the text, Speer went on to urge Hitler to concentrate on doing everything possible for the country’s population to ensure their survival.

Unmoved, Hitler did not yield an inch. In Gitta Sereny’s biography of Speer, Hitler is quoted as responding, “it is not necessary to worry about their [the German people’s] needs for elemental survival.” He stunned his Armaments Minister, accustomed to the Führer’s fulminations against the “inferior” peoples of the Soviet Union, by declaring “the future belongs entirely to the strong people of the East.” On March 19, Hitler then promulgated a special decree titled “Destructive Measures on Reich Territory.” Otherwise remembered as the “Scorched Earth Decree” or “Nero Decree,” for the brutal Roman Emperor Nero (ruled 54-68 C.E.), the order mandated the destruction of Germany’s infrastructure.
:cheers:
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
Trump's touting of 'racehorse theory' tied to eugenics and Nazis alarms Jewish leaders

Seema Mehta
Mon, October 5, 2020, 2:21 PM EDT

838990d047b3e26d1aa93da770bdd739

"You have good genes," President Trump told a mostly white crowd at a campaign rally Sept. 18 at a Bemidji, Minn., airport. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

President Trump has alarmed Jewish leaders and others with remarks that appeared to endorse "racehorse theory" — the idea that selective breeding can improve a country's performance, which American eugenicists and German Nazis used in the last century to buttress their goals of racial purity.

"You have good genes, you know that, right?" Trump told a mostly white crowd of supporters in Bemidji, Minn., on Sept. 18. "You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it? Don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."

Rabbi Mark Diamond, a senior lecturer on Jewish studies at Loyola Marymount University, was stunned.

“To hear these remarks said at a rally in an election campaign for the presidency is beyond reprehensible,” said Diamond, the former executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

“This is at the heart of Nazi ideology… This has brought so much tragedy and destruction to the Jewish people and to others. It’s actually hard to believe in 2020 we have to revisit these very dangerous theories.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump's remark was not the first time that he has spoken favorably about the racehorse analogy, which has been embraced by white supremacists for decades. But these latest comments come as the country has been roiled over racial injustice and the protests against it. Trump has continued to make inflammatory remarks and his campaign has made blatantly racist appeals.
During the presidential debate Tuesday, he deflected when asked to unambiguously disavow white supremacists. And he touched upon the genetic theory, returning to a frequent sentiment — that one's skills are innate.
“You could never have done the job we did,” Trump said to former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee. “You don’t have it in your blood.”

Trump has long spoken about his beliefs in the superiority of his genes, dating back to his days as a Manhattan developer; he's talked less frequently of his belief in the racehorse theory, which basically calls for using breeding to encourage desirable traits and eliminate undesirable traits.

Initially used for horses, the theory was ultimately used to justify selective breeding of people, including forced sterilization laws that were on the books in 32 states and used in some of them up through the 1970s.

Scientists who study human intelligence and accomplishment generally agree that while genetics may play some role, the success of individuals is heavily shaped by their environment, including their families and neighborhoods, as well as other factors including mentoring some people receive and simple chance.

Trump views the issue differently.

“You can absolutely be taught things. Absolutely. You can get a lot better. But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes," Trump told Larry King on CNN in 2007. "And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot.”

Three years later, he told CNN that his father was successful and it naturally followed that he would be too: “I have a certain gene. I'm a gene believer. Hey, when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse. And I really was — you know, I had a — a good gene pool from the standpoint of that.”

He used the phrase again at a 2016 campaign rally in Iowa, and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., told his father’s biographer that the family believed in the theory.

“Like him, I’m a big believer in racehorse theory. He’s an incredibly accomplished guy, my mother’s incredibly accomplished, she’s an Olympian, so I’d like to believe genetically I’m predisposed to better-than-average,” Trump Jr. told Michael D'Antonio in a 2014 interview, according to a transcript provided by the author.

D'Antonio, now a Trump critic whose scathing biography "Never Enough" was published in 2015, vividly recalled the interview.
“I happened to have done a book on eugenics so I knew exactly what he was talking about, I knew where it came from,” said D’Antonio, who had written a nonfiction book about the confinement of learning-disabled orphans in Massachusetts. “This was something American pseudo-scientists taught the Nazis…. It sent a chill through me.”

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, some mainstream scientists and elected officials in the United States, particularly in California, urged "the improvement" of the citizenry through eugenics. The concept was often used against people of color, Jewish people and Native Americans, but it was also used against white people who were deemed "feeble-minded," delinquent or otherwise damaged.

Eugenics arose in the U.S. as the gains Black people had made during the Reconstruction era came under attack by white people aiming to maintain power, often by murder and mob violence. It was also used to argue against immigration by Italians and others.

Across the U.S., “there were two avenues that eugenicists used to exploit what they thought of as the racehorse theory of human development," D’Antonio said.

The first was to encourage people deemed to have superior traits to have large families. These efforts were partly encouraged by "fitter family" competitions at state fairs, where well-nourished white families would be judged on their height, weight, size of their heads and symmetry of their faces — alongside the competitions for the heartiest livestock and largest crops. Winners would frequently be recognized in newspapers.

(Nazi Germany ran the Lebensborn program to cultivate Aryan traits. The state provided support to pregnant women — mostly unmarried — deemed racially "pure"; many of the babies were given to German couples, often SS officers and their families.)
The second avenue in the U.S. was institutionalization and sterilization. Children, often minorities, who were deemed troubled or labeled with the term "imbeciles" were confined to institutions. More than 65,000 people were "officially" sterilized against their will, said Paul Lombardo, a Georgia State University law professor who specializes in bioethics, though he suspects the actual number is far larger.

He said eugenics theory was used to justify forced sterilization laws, as well as immigration restrictions and miscegenation prohibitions. American eugenicists conversed with German leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, and their policies became part of the Nazi playbook. In "Mein Kampf," Adolf Hitler wrote approvingly about the United States' immigration restrictions, Lombardo said.

At the Nuremberg trials, after World War II, Nazi defenders noted that Americans had also forcibly sterilized people and quoted a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from the 1920s that said state laws allowing such procedures did not violate the Constitution, said Lombardo, who has written two books on the history of eugenics in the U.S.

"When Trump says at a rally in Minnesota, 'You have good genes, I believe in the racehorse theory of heredity,' he has all of the earmarks of a classic eugenicist," Lombardo said. "It has been astounding to me as somebody who has studied this stuff for 40 years that any public figure would be willing to use that kind of language that so clearly echoes the kinds of things we heard from the people who were running the eugenics movement back in the '20s and '30s."

Rob Eshman, the former editor of the Jewish Journal who is now the national editor of the influential Jewish American online newspaper the Forward, said Trump’s language was a clear signal to his supporters who harbor racist or anti-Semitic views.
Racehorse theory "is basically like a forerunner to eugenics theory, which led to the Nazis' 'final solution,'" Eshman said after Trump's Minnesota comments. “It’s one of the least coded messages he has sent."
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor






Let me just say a couple of things about the Trump rally that a lot of folks are missing....



Yes, it's creepy and weird. But take it all with the other rallies going on- The Re-Awaken America Tour with General Flynn, the Charlie Kirk Revivals in Arizona with Republican candidates... you have a major faction of the Republican Party morphing into Republican Religion.



Yes, it is fascism ,but it is bringing elements of conspiracy theory (Q- Anon) alongside Evangelical Christianity to blend into a movement with charismatic "figures" who people can latch onto and imagine themselves part of the "end times" and saving the nation.



One of the most dangerous things about all of this is that it empowers regular people to believe their "special" part in a movement that can change the world morally. We don't talk about the affective part of how feelings of belonging make for powerful motivators religiously.



These rallies, especially the Trump ones, have effectively blended religious fervor, calls for violence, and patriotism into a noxious stew. Add in ways in which Republicans have called Democrats "demons" ,demonic, etc..You can see where this is going.



Trump's rallies are going to get darker than this in the lead up to November's election. I hope I'm wrong, truly ,but I think this is all going to get really ugly. @WillBunch Is right-it's Wangerian, but it's Ragnarok.














 
Top