Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In the decades after WWII it was common to speculate on just how such a proudly civilized country such as Germany, back then even an historically relative paradise for Europe's Jews, could turn so suddenly into such a dark venture. It turns out that it was rather easy, and we are witnessing a replay of the same underlying circumstances and dynamics today, albeit there are some obvious differences - which don't alter the premise here.

In searching for a book in my unsorted obscure and inherited cache, I came across several interesting ones I don't remember how I received. One was an early seventies book called How to Read a Person Like a Book, which explains how to both read other people's unconscious body language (based upon research studies), and thus also knowing how to use such "clusters" of gestures in tune with what one is verbally stating. As was discussed, the non-verbal gestures are even more powerful than the verbal, and can trump the verbal when the two sometimes contradict. But, in this case today, and as with Adolf, the verbal messaging is closely in tune with the respective sentiments of deep seated frustrations by those paying the price of their now unmet expectations.

In regards to this verbal messaging, at least, the second book I happened upon is a typical 60's psychological justification puff piece demonstrating that we had done the right thing in eventually putting Adolf in his place. It is titled The Insane World of Adolf Hitler, by Chandler Brossard, and presciently for the focus here, the very first text excerpt in the front of the book was from Otto Strasser, merely labeled "a former Nazi leader". In fact, Strasser, and his brother, were active leaders in the NSDAP before Hitler joined. At that time the NSDAP was indeed Socialist, and their focus was to try to protect the parochial national interests of such as the country's industrial workers from the interests of the powerful, such as the industry scions, typically motivated by their just randy profits.

Otto Johann Maximilian Strasser (also German: Straßer, see ß; 10 September 1897 – 27 August 1974) was a German politician and member of the Nazi Party. Otto Strasser, together with his brother Gregor Strasser, was a leading member of the party's left-wing faction, and broke from the party due to disputes with the ‘Hitlerite’ faction. He formed the Black Front, a group intended to split the Nazi Party and take it from the grasp of Hitler. This group also functioned during his exile and World War II as a secret opposition group.

Once Hitler had joined the NSDAP and put his alpha skills to good use by taking over command of the party, in the course of a day (when he felt secure enough), he turned the party focus to supporting the interests of the industrialists. This marriage of powerful private interests with what soon became political power, via the election of 1933, and forms the technical, economic basis for Fascism. This is an example of co-optation which I have discussed elsewhere. Another good term is "bait and switch".

In the course of performing this switch in emphasis, the Strasser brother's were both concerned at this turn of events, with Gregor deciding that ultimately Hitler would do more good than harm. Gregor was eventually killed by the Nazis, while Otto was put on the run.

Otto eventually wrote the book Hitler and I, where he detailed such as the 'bait and switch' details pulled by Hitler. I don't remember if the following passage is from the book or not, but in any case it speaks directly to today's dynamics, and such as 'making the trains run on time'.

From the opening unnumbered pages of The Insane World of Adolf Hitler (1966), emphasis is mine:

Hitler responds to the vibrations of the human heart with the delicacy of a seismograph, or perhaps of a wireless receiving set, enabling him, with a certainty with which no conscious gifts could endow him to act as a loudspeaker proclaiming the most special desires, the least admissible instincts, the sufferings and personal revolts of a whole nation ... I have been asked many times what is the secret of Hitler's extraordinary power as a speaker. I can only attribute it to his uncanny intuition which infallibly diagnoses the ills from which his audience is suffering. If he tries to bolster up his arguments with theories or quotations from books he has only imperfectly understood, he scarcely rises above a very poor mediocrity. But let him throw away his crutches and step out boldly speaking as the spirit moves him, and he is promptly transformed into one of the greatest speakers of the century ....

Adolf Hitler enters a hall. He sniffs the air. For a minute he gropes, feels his way, senses the atmosphere. Suddenly he bursts forth. His words go like an arrow to their target, he touches each private wound in the raw, liberating the mass unconscious, expressing its innermost aspirations, telling it what it most wants to hear.

Otto Strasser, a former Nazi leader

Hitler's early strongarm support, the SA 'Brown Shirts', they were the most frustrated and fanatical supporters of Hitler, unwilling to broach any criticism of their savior. One still finds their ilk today. Brossard correctly mentions that these people were mostly of the relatively uneducated worker class who had paid the heaviest price of the post WWI depradations imposed upon Germany. And as we know, it was people such as these that were ultimately "hoisted on their own petard." This is the same dynamic that I have asserted happened to the Jewish Zealots, and is again being cynically repeated by the American Zealots, whose institutionally programmed zeitgeist was overtly modeled upon the same OT Conquest ideals, and thus their identical expectations. These expectations being raised to extreme heights, post WWII, only to have the rug slowly pulled out from under them starting with the likes of Nixon (or LBJ?) through Obama. It was perhaps epitomized by the uber-hero, Ronnie Raygun, who cynically invoked the OT's "shining city on a hill" motif.

On the first 'unnumbered' page of Brossard's commentary he states:

... He broke every rule, every traditional concept with extraordinary success.

Sound familiar? On the next page:

Hitler himself summed up the fundamental tenet of the frustrated, neurotic, and vengeful German masses: " Terrorism is absolutely indispensable in every case of the founding of a new Power."​

I suspect the quote is from Mein Kampf. Of course, the latter excerpt goes beyond the realm of the trumpet, and takes us into the consideration of the larger interests, as should be the case when examining Hitler, Churchill, FDR, the Vatican, etc..

I have considered, like some others, that Trump was merely a stalking Trojan horse for Hilary, but perhaps Trump is instead the golden One.

Hitler won his election in 1933 because the Socialists and the Communist parties were at extreme odds against each other, and refused to agree upon a common candidate, thus dividing their voting power. Hitler had allied himself with such as the Catholic Zentrum Party and made deals with such as Franz von Papen. Von Papen negotiated the Concordat with the Vatican for Hitler, and became a Papal Chamberlain, or camerlengo. To digress briefly, as I have mentioned before, von Papen attended the 1933 celebration of Hitler's rise to power at the Trier Cathedral, where Christ's seamless robe, the ephod of the Jewish high priest, is infrequently put on display. The next display of the ephod was in 1959, when von Papen was again in attendance, as related by James Carroll, who was there in attendance along with his father, an USAF general -- rebuilding Europe. BTW, Trier was the capitol city of Constantine.

So as with the Socialist and Communists dividing their votes, in a slightly different manner, the Republican Party, traditionally very organized in running candidates, has now been rendered seemingly ineffectual by the running of almost 20 candidates, where one highly effective communicator sucks out all of the political oxygen.

This person is so effective in his alpha dominance that he gets away with openly saying that American workers, his very own base of support, should be paid less. I have no doubt this man can make the trains run on time, but this could also be done by others if hidden interests didn't have their fingers in the many gears of the mechanisms that once worked without the trumpet.

The third book I came across, was Jess Stern's The Power of Alpha Thinking (1976). The premise is altering your manner of interacting with others such that they respond to you in a better manner. While I have not delved into these topics, I was indeed inspired by the Dog Whisperer, that animals, and humans, are indeed hardwire programmed to unconsciously respond to others manner, unconscious or not. By recognizing this you can protect yourself from their witting or unwitting manipulations. Conversely, you can turn the tables, and produce a better outcome for yourself, or ... like everything else you could put it to malevolent purposes, hopefully not.

It has been alleged that Adolf spent two years in England after WWI, along with his brother who fathered a child there. If so, what was young Adolf doing there, given his otherwise odd personal characteristics at the time?
Last edited:
I wonder if there was any analogue in pre-WWII Europe, to the situation now unfolding with ISIS in the Middle East. Trump just recently claimed that Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS (about 2:50 in):

Which seems to be, more or less, true. However, Trump's theory seems to be that they did this while conspiring with Iran against Saudi Arabia? It's a bit muddled. But, there does seem to be an aspect of truth-telling to Trump's method. Aside from that, I watched about 10 minutes of the above video, and found that Trump's delivery is flighty and ambling, which he says is intentional. Too boring to be demagogic? Lacking in Hitler's fiery intensity?

A better theory about the US role in the creation of ISIS is here, from Nafeez Ahmed:
I'm not aware of a good analogue for the ISIS situation, as during that period most of such tensions were those trying to break free from colonialism and/or such as United Fruit. With the latter, of course, was where Marine General Butler figured out which way was up.

I should say that perhaps the Donald might turn out to be perfectly benign, and, like Hitler and Il Duce, he would accomplish many of the wonderful things that he says he will do, and without the negative comparisons to the European examples. The trouble here, for me, is all of his reversals from his positions before he was running, combined with the hyperbolic language such as: "I am the most militaristic person here ...". Hmmm

Maybe a sign of his sincerity is that he doesn't 'appear' to know about the history of the head lopping Saudi Wahhabis, the Sauds and the bin Ladins, but I'm more scared that he does know it and/or doesn't care. We know for sure that the Bushes were good friends with the bin Ladins (Carlyle Corp. etc.).

The following excerpt is supposedly from a Peggy Noonan piece that is widely posted over the web. The complete article provides a laundry list of great concepts, at least, many of which I can support. That said, the most important thing for me, is that the same general dynamics are in place between here now and the Weimar Republic, albeit not as extreme as with inflation and such. But people are being whipped into a frenzy over things like the Constitution, which was abrogated long before we were born and even before the Greatest Generation was born. If Mr. Trump is not a 'schlonging' tool of the hidden hand, then he should have a profound fear that the hidden hand has a solid record of making people's expensive toys fall out of the sky.

Trump - Things You Might Not Know About Him
As candidates for president emerge it is important to know where each stands on issues that are important to AMERICA. The USA cannot afford to make another mistake in electing an anti-American Socialist, someone with a poor track record of public service, or someone who values illegal invaders more than hard-working, loyal Americans and her military.

Trump, hopefully, is waking some of the RINOs up. The criticisms of Trump are amazingly missing something. They are lacking in negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he’s had and all the business deals he’s made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity than people may think. And while it may surprise many, he’s actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didn’t brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others.But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trump’s plan is for America. It’s funny how so many people say they don’t know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won't do their own research, here, in no particular order, is an overview of many of Trumps positions and plans:

Address : <>
I'm not saying that I think Trump is benign, or that I would trust Peggy Noonan's fables about his righteousness and humility. It's just that he doesn't strike me as being essentially more racist, or misogynist, or fascist, or generally more of a harbinger of the Apocalypse, than characters like Ronald Reagan, or the Bushes, or even Obama.
Who said anything about the Apocalypse here? The names you mentioned still played on relatively conventional political terms. Most commentators are saying, I think correctly, that Trump has turned all the tables of convention upside down. And I am saying it is rather curious that he is doing so just at the time when the Republican Party has lost all of their traditional control over the process, or has appeared to. This includes breaking all the rules about not attacking other contenders for the nomination. Now Trump is invoking Birtherism on Ted Cruz. How funny, and sad. He has already made the threat to go nuclear on Bill Clinton's pecadillos, and the Clintons have gone uncharacteristically silent.

It used to be common for Americans to talk about why Russians and others prefer their 'strong man', well here it is.
A better theory about the US role in the creation of ISIS is here, from Nafeez Ahmed:

This is starting to get off topic, but I'm wondering why the DoD would declassify the document? Which should have been an explosive revelation, but for the fact that the right and left media and most of the controlled opposition politicians have no interest in 'going there'.

Some pols like to kvetch about why such as the Saudis don't get involved in the fight against ISIS, or like Trump to play political football with it, but they wont go near the real truth, the divide and conquer aspect. Or endlessly focus on Benghazi.
"Who said anything about the apocalypse here"? If the Hitler typology holds, one might predict that Trump plans to embark on a campaign to kill or purge all Muslims, and then go on a rampage of conquest that would engulf the entire planet in a war which would most likely go nuclear.

All I'm saying is, I don't see Trump as necessarily embarking on that agenda. Indeed he might be less likely than Hillary to go that route.
I should have added a caveat that I have no idea where all this is headed, that is, if there is indeed some agenda behind all of this. That he is tapping the pulse of the disaffected in the same general manner, albeit with his odd NYC, semi-comedic affect, appears certain. Oddly (on the surface), I have seen reports that many Trump supporters say they could also see themselves voting for Sanders as an anti-establishment alternative.

MSNBC's Last Word had a segment where George Wallace's daughter said Trump was doing the same thing as her father did, only worse. And Wallace's campaign manager (Turnipseed) agreed. It was pointed out that Wallace had started out in politics with the support of the NAACP, but when he got beat by a typical southern white supremacist in an early election he switched camps.

Turnipseed explained that he himself had evolved in the opposite direction after the Wallace campaign (and assassination). He got involved in lawsuits protecting the poor southern whites and blacks against monopoly utilities, who were paying off their friends, the utility regulators, to approve rapacious rate hikes. I noted that this was what Roger Morris documented in Partners in Power about the Clintons being in the pocket of Arkansas utilities and other financial interests.

Julius Caesar was an elite whose power base was his populist appeal with the plebes.
Continuing on with the same theme of Trump's nature, I had often wondered about the Clinton vulnerability stemming from Bill's sordid sexual past, that had frequently made it out of the otherwise fringe environment and into the mainstream media. I vividly remember watching the rape allegation, by an Arkansas nursing home operator, airing on NBC News while laying down in my hotel room. And I remembered in amazement that so many women, otherwise ready to pounce on any other abuse of women, were so quick to give Bubba an easy pass.

As I started this thread with the comparison to the dynamics of Hitler's rise, one of the big divisive issues at the time was the rise of extreme libertinism within the major cities such as Berlin. If one (such as I) believes such as Machtan's account in The Hidden Hitler that Hitler and the uppermost Nazis were really closet gays then we have another parallel element of extreme hypocrisy. This of course occurred in the context of the extreme repression found in such as extremely conservative Catholic Bavaria, where such an individual as Hitler, the struggling sketch artist, and his inner circle would be vulnerable to manipulative and coercive pressures by those who would wish to use him as a proxy shield.

The rest of this Maureen Dowd piece below is properly brutal against Hillary and her minion's extremely callous hypocrisy and expedience, and well worth the read. But notice what I have highlighted below regarding Trump's earlier comments regarding Bill, who according to Sam-u-el Jackson have been fairly recent golf buds:

Trump is like a CGI Rathtar or Indominus Rex, a larger-than-life, fight-to-the-death animated creature who improbably pops up in the ordinarily staid presidential campaign and stomps around, devouring attention and sinking his Twitter teeth into rivals. With his muddle of charm, humor, zest, vulgarity, bigotry, opportunistic flexibility, brutal candor, breathtaking boorishness and outrageous opening bids on volatile issues, he has now leapt into that most sensitive area: the Clintons’ tangled conjugal life.

Hillary was asked by The Des Moines Register about Trump’s crude comments that she had been trounced (he used a phallic word) by Barack Obama in 2008 and that her prolonged debate bathroom break was “disgusting.” She replied that Trump had a “penchant for sexism.”

That spurred him to declare “open season” on the Clintons’ seraglio imbroglios. On Thursday, he put out an Instagram ad showing The Daily News cover about Bill, after he admitted the affair with Monica Lewinsky, blaring “Liar, Liar.”

The ad goes straight at what Hillary sees as her strengths: Bill and running as a woman. Playing her famous line in Beijing in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights,” it features pictures of the Clintons with “friends” who have been ensnared in seamy scandals — Bill Cosby and Anthony Weiner, the husband of Hillary’s close aide Huma Abedin.

In 1999, when I interviewed him, Trump said of Bill: “He handled the Monica situation disgracefully. It’s sad because he would go down as a great president if he had not had this scandal. People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level. Now Clinton can’t get into golf clubs in Westchester. A former president begging to get into a golf club. It’s unthinkable.”

Ignoring our more gender-fluid society, the skyscraper-obsessed Trump has hectored male rivals for being girlie men. But he knows Hillary is tough. So he’s wielding his knife on her most sensitive pressure point: her hypocrisy in running as a feminist icon when she was part of political operations that smeared women who told the truth about Bill’s transgressions. Hillary told friends that Monica was a “troubled young person” getting ministered to by Bill and a “narcissistic loony toon.” Hillary’s henchman Sidney Blumenthal spread around the story that Monica was a stalker and Charlie Rangel publicly slandered the intern as a fantasist who wasn’t playing with “a full deck.” ...

Address : <>
Here is a 1991 documentary, Trump: What's the Deal, showing the history of this man that now appears to have no serious opposition to the nomination, and with Hillary having serious Hillary issues. One needs to get past the first few minutes, which are nothing more than personal opinions of character and such, to get to the substance.
From the blurb for the film:

In his business heyday during the 1980's, Trump was considered the people's billionaire, a brash but relatable embodiment of the American dream. The apex of this carefully crafted persona occurred on November 12, 1986 when he successfully spearheaded a project to restore the public ice skating rink in New York's Central Park. The media was his darling, and remained firmly committed to furthering the perception of Trump as a cozy benefactor of the common people.

That all changed when reports of extramarital affairs and shady business dealings entered the picture, and he found himself the subject of endless tabloid speculation. The film presents and supports many of these claims, including his alleged ties to underworld figures, defaults on massive debts, unfair payment practices amongst his workers, and poor management of the properties which carried his name.

In spite of these damning accusations of ill character, Trump: What's the Deal? highlights perhaps the most significant key to the tycoon's unprecedented success in both the business and political realm: salesmanship. Trump's greatest product is himself, and his greatest gift is in convincing the people that he's the product they want.
Is this the worst of it? Friends in the Mafia, bankruptcies, underpaid workers, poorly maintained buildings? Not that I'm saying any of that is good news, but maybe not any worse than "Hillary issues", either.

Alex Jones, meanwhile, is calling for God and Prayer to help elect Trump, so that Trump can drive a sword into the heart of the oligarchs and globalists. Seriously??

Learn something every day... I didn't realize that in addition to demanding that Mexico build a wall, Trump last summer called for deporting all ~11 million US residents who don't currently have valid paperwork. Ted Cruz, running a distant 2nd (nearly tied with Rubio) has just said he'll do the same thing. This is indeed starting down the same road Hitler travelled.
Is this the worst of it? Friends in the Mafia, bankruptcies, underpaid workers, poorly maintained buildings? Not that I'm saying any of that is good news, but maybe not any worse than "Hillary issues", either.

Alex Jones, meanwhile, is calling for God and Prayer to help elect Trump, so that Trump can drive a sword into the heart of the oligarchs and globalists. Seriously??
It seems that when you dig only a small ways below the surface that most everything about his claims are overhyped. It shows how far one can get with Daddy's money and a lot of chutzpah. What I'm afraid of is that the video is only 1991, and even then were probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Regarding the wall, a debate fact checking piece on the Washington Post today has an account from a professional contractor who says that Trumps estimates are grossly off for the cost to build such a monstrosity. If nothing else an insane waste of concrete, which has been in short supply in recent years. Besides, the Mexicans already know about tunnels. But I imagine that Trump is mostly pandering to his base here.
If you want a real Philosophical analysis of the parallels between Weimar Germany and America read The Ominous Parallels :

Kant and Hegel were products of the so-called Romantic period that started with the foundation of the 'modern' university system supposedly based upon the new principles of scientific rigor beginning at Gottingen in 1734 (sponsored by George II). The Romantic Movement was focused on the primacy of 'feelings' over other objective data and 'rational' interpretation. And thus the first 'Scientific' works out of that system brought us such things as baseless justification for why Europeans must colonize the savages for their own benefit, the White Man's Burden. All for a good profit though.

My point being is that no doubt Philosophy plays a role in all this, making people more or less malleable in one direction or another. But, we also have cynical insiders with their Machiavellian thumbs on the scale, at universities, the media, church, government, etc.. In my example, it is likely that George and his friends set the tone for what was to be accomplished by the new system, where one's faculty adviser guides the direction of your work.

Hitler and his friends had a lot of help coming to power, including from George II's 'Windsor' descendants. And I doubt that Trump is doing all this purely of his own ego. Ha, He's sacrificing himself and his profits for the good of the nation after all.

You should like the documentary link I posted for Philosophy and the Matrix. The commentators frame the work as examining Platonism vs. Aristotle-ism. I'm going to post another link for a documentary on the same duel.
Richard said:

"You should like the documentary link I posted for Philosophy and the Matrix. The commentators frame the work as examining Platonism vs. Aristotle-ism. I'm going to post another link for a documentary on the same duel."

You will be interested then, in this:

"If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle. He has been opposed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and—like an axiom—used by his enemies in the very act of denying him. Whatever intellectual progress men have achieved rests on his achievements.

Aristotle may be regarded as the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved the way for one of history’s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did mankind. The Aristotelian revival of the thirteenth century brought men to the Renaissance. The intellectual counter-revolution turned them back toward the cave of his antipode: Plato.

There is only one fundamental issue in philosophy: the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind. The conflict of Aristotle versus Plato is the conflict of reason versus mysticism. It was Plato who formulated most of philosophy’s basic questions—and doubts. It was Aristotle who laid the foundation for most of the answers. Thereafter, the record of their duel is the record of man’s long struggle to deny and surrender or to uphold and assert the validity of his particular mode of consciousness."
Having this documentary, Alexander the Great ("the true story of Alexander the Great and his relationship with Aristotle and Olympias"), on my watchlist for a while, I decided it was time to look at it.

It presents Aristotle, and Olympias, as the ideological foundation of Alexander's egalitarian vision of what the world should be, all harmonized under one system. This rather than a more typical craven imperial expansion for the benefit of the few. Of course, that same general harmonizing idea became the basis for the relationship of the American states to each other for purposes of better commerce, etc.. And the Romans centered their economic might upon this principle as well.

It was said that much of Alexander's success was the fact that many communities, even the Jews of Palestine, welcomed his takeover and hegemony, because they quickly understood the benefits that would, or could, come. In the case of the Jews, the famous Maccabees were heavily Hellenized, but they soon fell out with the Greeks and into the hungry lap of the Romans.

So, at what point did the Alexandrian dream go wrong? With Alexander's successors whose attachment to the ideal soon turned to greed and lust for power? Supposedly Alexander's next target was the Arabian peninsula, where we are now starting to focus on as a possible basis for OT patriarchal stories. Here, one hypothesis is that Ptolemy I colluded with the Jews to transpose the original Holy Land from Arabia into Palestine and incorporate Egypt into the narratives (e.g. Joseph and Moses) via the Septuagint translation.

Of course, then we ended up with Christianity, which is just distilled paganism amalgamated with Platonism, via Philo and Josephus' efforts.

Whatever the case, I would like your expert (as I am not one) Aristotelian opinion on whether we are being misled by these Greek academics about the nature of Alexander and Aristotle. For one thing they have Aristotle and Olympias steeping Alexander heavily with notions of the gods, the soul, etc.. that don't seem to jib with a pure interpretation of Materialism.

Jerry and I have asserted that many 'reforms' ostensibly meant to improve social balance end up being co-opted by the elites who, by default, must lose their crony benefits. Could this be the case for Alexander, who some think was poisoned?
One reason given for Trump being able to garner a sizable percentage of evangelicals is that this is not a monolithic group. A sizable percentage of evangelicals has bought into the so-called Prosperity Gospel, which makes Trump fit right in. Mentioned in the opinion piece below is that Trump had been 'blessed' a few months ago by a laying on of hands by a number of such hucksters.

Trump is arguably the candidate most resembling a televangelist.

For many evangelicals, Pentecostals and charismatic Christians, magical thinking has found its expression through the prosperity gospel, much to the consternation of Christians who consider it a heresy and a fraud. A uniquely American contribution to the evolution of Christianity in the modern age, the prosperity gospel teaches that God wants believers to be rich.

It’s also called the health and wealth gospel: Its adherents believe that God blesses the faithful with great wealth, keeps their health robust and cures the faithful of every malady. Successful televangelists boast of revelations received directly from God and of their ability to produce miracles.

If you’re poor or if you’re sick, that’s a sign of a lack of faith. Or in Trump’s parlance, a loser.
The following two excerpts analyze Trump's appeal to his base. The first delves into the aspects of messaging where he is trumping his rivals' positions. In the aggregate it seems to reveal a well gamed out strategy on the issues, as to what is the most primal appeal. This seems to be playing the role of a protective strong man. The second is by Peggy Noonan that covers the same protector issue from a different angle.

Neither piece addresses the issue that Trump has been all over the map over issues, and we're supposed to assume that he has generally come to a perfect storm of Republicanism, ... except on all the issues where he deviates from them.

Like many people, I have been wondering: What on Earth explains Donald Trump’s remarkable appeal to voters?

I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is fairly simple. The message of his Republican opponents has effectively been: We are more faithful to conservative principles. Trump’s message has been entirely different. He essentially says: I will protect you. I’m conservative, but if protecting you requires jettisoning conservative ideology, I will do so. Protecting you is the prime directive. This message has powerful resonance, especially for voters who feel the Republican Party has failed to protect their interests.

You see this pattern in all of Trump’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy. Take the debate over Planned Parenthood. Like all conservatives, Trump opposes abortions. But he stresses he does not want to stop funding their wonderful work protecting women from cervical and breast cancer. The other Republican candidates simply express a desire to destroy Planned Parenthood outright. Trump’s message to voters: The other candidates will adhere rigidly to ideology, even if it needlessly fails to protect millions of women from cancer. I won’t. ...

... But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.

Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and Western Europe is immigration. It is the issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump. ...
Last edited: