Fairfax Press Fail: Donald Trump Is Not Like Germans, Nazis

AN EXTRAORDINARILY GROTESQUE attempt by the Fairfax press to liken Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump to World War I-era Germans and to Nazis should be sneeringly dismissed; Trump is many things, and some conservatives view his right wing populism with contempt. Even so, Trump’s pitch is grounded in a revolt against the US liberal Left. Fellow travellers in Australia — and at Fairfax — would do well to heed the warning signs.

To date, as readers know, I have declined to comment on the early stages of the 2016 US presidential race being played out ahead of the primary season that kicks off early next year; for one thing, this point in the US political cycle is little more substantial than the silly season now descending on our own polity; for another, and with an eye to the farce that played out on the Republican side four years ago, I’m reticent about declaring anybody to be a frontrunner: last time, just about every starting candidate in the field had their five minutes at the top of the pack before sinking into obscurity, withdrawal and/or disgrace.

However, the likelihood that property and media billionaire Donald Trump will emerge as the GOP nominee for next year’s presidential election — and, potentially, as President of the United States — is growing, and it seems no matter what he says (and no matter what his opponents, both within the Republican Party and elsewhere, throw at him), his popularity among likely voters is proving far deeper and more durable than 2012 flameouts such as Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and the candidate I originally supported, former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

With that in mind, I note the shrill and increasingly panicked denunciations Trump is eliciting from an alarmed liberal* press across America and, indeed, around the world; and it is on account of a particularly insidious piece by Martin Flanagan in The Age today that I find myself commenting on the Republican presidential primary season rather earlier than I had intended.

It seems to be a stock tactic these days, of left wing political parties across the world, to accuse conservative contenders of being likely to start wars; in the US, eventual 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney was pilloried for remarks that bluntly stated Russia was America’s greatest strategic and military threat, and subjected to a diatribe that boiled down to World War III and Armageddon being a mere vote for Romney away; I don’t believe for a minute that Romney would have initiated military conflict with Russia, but subsequent events have shown that his judgement of the threat posed by Russia under Vladimir Putin was deadly accurate.

Similar sentiments were articulated about John McCain in 2008; closer to home, of course, Kevin Rudd baselessly proclaimed in 2013 that an Abbott government would result in a war between Australia and Indonesia (it didn’t).

In this vein, the attempt to liken Trump to Kaiser Wilhelm II — the German ruler who presided over his country’s disastrous military confrontation with Allied forces, at the cost of millions of German and Allied lives — and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party is grotesque, and an unforgivable transgression of the bounds of fair comment by a supposedly professional Australian journalist.

It isn’t hard to ascertain the reason for the latest wave of anti-Trump hysteria among the global left wing commentariat: his recent edict that all immigration to the USA by Muslims would cease if he were elected President in November; the Left has become complacent in lecturing and prescribing social positions aimed at destroying the values and foundations of Western liberal civilisation, and accustomed to having its brilliant pronouncements accepted and implemented, verbatim, as the creeping slither of hard state socialism continues its odious infiltration and undermining of the free world.

Any concerted resistance the Left faces must, it follows, be slapped down at almost any cost, and the more damage it inflicts on its enemies in the process, the better.

But the problem is that all too often, the Left overreaches, and when it does — far from contriving to destroy the opponents of its ugly world view — its ridiculous and sometimes downright dangerous utterances are most damaging to itself.

So it is beginning to prove in the case of Donald Trump.

Likening Trump to the figures responsible for initiating the two most destructive and catastrophic conflagrations in human history should and will backfire, and I would be interested to know whether Flanagan — in compiling his silly and offensive piece — was egged on or otherwise provided with fodder by his counterparts in the USA.

There seems to be a chain of inferences and insinuations that are not explicitly spelt out in Flanagan’s piece, which I gather the reader is intended to play “connect the dots” with, and to heed the dog whistle it constitutes. The concept of Social Democrats as the enemy. Talk of the Kaiser becoming a rabid anti-Semite. The introduction of the Kaiser’s war of “Slavdom against Germandom” as a casual method of accusing Trump of racism. The focus on Hitler and on Fascism as the endpoint of this progression, with the clear implication Trump might as well have a swastika tattooed to his forehead.

There is also the small matter of Trump’s ancestry — his great-grandparents were German immigrants to the USA — that Flanagan doesn’t bother to mention (or if he did, would in likelihood simply present as further “proof” of his case against Trump); this is just too subtle an omission to allow to go unnoticed, and illustrates one of the great hypocrisies of the Left: its enemies are to be excoriated for lumping all Muslims into the category of “terrorists,” for example. But as Trump is of German descent, he is basically a German, and therefore as bad as Kaiser Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler. The fallacious logic and cavalier malice in such blatant double standards are breathtaking.

(Flanagan even sneaks in mention of the Left’s favourite Australian hate figure, Tony Abbott, baselessly and perhaps libellously — in the context of the tone of his article — calling him “another World War I figure” and suggesting he would send soldiers to pointless slaughter just for the hell of it. It is beneath despicable).

Flanagan equates the Kaiser’s “scorn for democracy” with “the way Trump scorns political correctness as an impediment to clear thinking and immediate solutions:” this facile statement is based on a false premise, for Trump — far from attempting to circumvent the ballot box — is seeking to win the potential votes of hundreds of millions of registered voters; the Kaiser Wilhelm II was a hereditary monarch. The real meat in the assertion is that Trump is an enemy of political correctness (read: the prescriptive state socialism of the hard Left) who must be smashed by the clenched fist of the global Left.

Frankly, anyone who stands against such insidious and doctrinaire positions is to be lauded; it remains to be seen whether Trump is electable, but at the very minimum no-one can accuse him of pliability where the anti-Western forces of the leftist junta are concerned, and for that much at least, he warrants a hearing.

It is true that Trump, as voting in the first state primaries draws near, has said things that are outrageous, provocative, and designed to maximise the publicity he attracts, but rather than dismiss him as a lunatic (as the Left is wont to do) a more considered view than idiot-simple rants of the kind Flanagan has engaged in today suggests a shrewd, calculated and intelligent pitch — highly organised and professional, even — that has identified a coalition of voters the Trump camp believes can propel it into the White House, and upon which it has been singularly focused.

Equating him to the historical enemies of the West who systematically raped, gassed and slaughtered millions of innocents is not only offensive, but likelier than not to drive even more American voters into Trump’s embrace. Then again, I did make the point that the Left’s approach to what it believes is the enemy — its own enemies — is more often than not counterproductive, and I daresay Flanagan is simply following the trend.

I’m in two minds about the suitability of Donald Trump as President of the United States — part of me thinks he’d be brilliant, and part of me thinks he’d be bloody awful — but his business nous, his connections, and his undeniable patriotism mark him at the very least as someone with some of the tools required to discharge the post if successful. With 11 months until the votes are counted, there remains plenty of time to ascertain what defects might accompany those virtues, and how deleterious they might prove if Trump is elected: if, that is, he manages to secure the Republican nomination in the first place.

I do, however, think the prospect Trump will prevail is growing more probable, and especially if the Democratic nominee, as expected, is Hillary Clinton: one is the champion of just about everything the liberal Left stands for, and the other the polar opposite of it. Right now, if pressed to pick the winner between the two, I’d expect Trump to defeat Hillary.

With growing evidence in most Western countries that people at large are tiring of being told what to say, what to think, what to do and who to unquestioningly defer to, a candidate like Trump comes to this contest with a rich seam of public anger to tap into.

Former President Richard Nixon used to speak of the “silent majority” in America — it’s also a phrase I have used from time to time in tearing into the same insidious claptrap the Left propagates here in Australia — and it is this constituency of ordinary Americans, disaffected and shunned by the Left’s mission to turn the world into some open-border, wealth redistributing, thought-dictated and tightly controlled illiberal ecosystem that Trump is trying to harness.

Whether the Left likes it or not (and irrespective of who is right and who is wrong) people, broadly, are fed up with attempts to legislate their thought, speech and behaviour out of existence.

They are fed up with having pre-determined positions on issues imposed on them as “fact” — irrespective of the moral, ethical, legal or actual veracity of those positions — and then abused and publicly humiliated as “deniers, “skeptics,” “flat-Earthers,” and other accusations of heresy to paint them as ignorant reprobates and figures of ridicule.

They are fed up with being told their countries are international embarrassments and moral abominations by the Left when its own agenda is to destroy forever the fabric and values that underpins those countries in the first place.

They are fed up with governments that make little secret of their prioritisation of third world countries and sometimes murderous despots over the people who already live in their countries, and their welfare: the first responsibility of any elected government is to its own people, not to someone else, and the will in democratic countries to ensure that responsibility is honoured is growing stronger.

And ordinary people are fed up with a narrow band of chattering elites, drunk on Chardonnay and shaking their fingers at anyone or anything that moves in a contrary direction, telling them that their views, aspirations, and even their existence is meaningless compared to the “superior” agenda they seek to enforce.

America might or might not elect Donald Trump as its 45th President.

Whether it does or not, the popular uprising that buoys Trump’s current public standing is unlikely to be an isolated phenomenon. The “silent majority” — in the US, in the UK, here in Australia and elsewhere — is fed up with the drivel the Left is trying to impose on the free world.

If nothing else, Trump’s rise serves potent notice on the Left that its time is passing, and passing fast; all over the world, those who either seek to spread the Left’s agenda directly or who cheer it on from the sidelines — in a stupid opinion piece in the Fairfax press, for example — would do well to heed the warning signs currently emanating from the Republican nominating contest.

When the “silent majority” turns, its strike will be savage and swift; and the moral poseurs of today will become society’s pariahs tomorrow unless they abandon their seditious subterranean campaign to destroy it.

That is what Trump really represents, and it is why the likes of Flanagan and his brethren across the world are jumping all over him. Their panic is real, and their need urgent. They can hardly say they haven’t been warned.

 

*I use the word “liberal” today, of course, in its classic left-of-centre context, as it applies in US political discourse, and which has nothing to do with our own Liberal Party here in Australia.

 

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Fairfax Press Fail: Donald Trump Is Not Like Germans, Nazis

  1. “I’m with Tony Abbott: I like western civilization. I regard Common Law as superior to Sharia, so I would rather people who wish to live under Sharia remained in the many countries where it already operates, rather than adding Austria and Ireland and Denmark to the list. A schizophrenic strategy of ineffectual war overseas and celebrating one’s tolerance of the avowedly intolerant at home will ensure we lose.”…………….Mark Steyn
    http://www.steynonline.com/7370/when-the-arab-spring-blooms-in-paris-and-san

    Air heads like Flanagan have zero understanding of the horse shoe shaped continuum that runs from Left to Right. The extremes, at either end, side by side, are totalitarian dictators. Democracy, Liberty, Free Enterprise, Freedom of speech, and capitalism are all found at the round part of the horseshoe.

    The Left is always obsessed with “equating”. Flanagan “equates” the Donald with the “far right” when in fact the national Socialist Party should be considered the “Far Left”, because they are in the same wretched place. Lambie “equates” the Greens with a death cult, when she would display a better understanding if she “equated” the Greens with the Nazis; the origin of Green ideology. (Did I just use ‘Lambie’ and ‘understand’ in the same damned sentence???)

    The Donald is right out at the front of the curve, where no ‘progressives’ fear to tread. Donald Trump’s popularity stems from the fact that the American public is finally sick of the bull from the political class. The public are finally in search of the truth.
    http://www.patcondell.net/we-want-the-truth/

  2. Nyquist on Trump:
    “The real leader and the mock leader are here side-by-side. The one is concerned for the safety of his country while the other feigns concern for Islam. Where is the concern which is owed to Americans? Cannot we glimpse, behind it all, that common theme of hatred for what is good and normal, and a sick preference for what is harmful and abnormal? Is this not the malice of the inferior man – the malice of the demagogue, usurping high office with a sack of clever lies? Our modern age, with its mass media and mass politics, has aroused the envy of the inferior to a fever pitch. This envy has organized itself through political self-hatred, turning malevolence into a science. The irony appears at once, as the man who loves America is denounced as a hater by those who are the real haters; that is, haters of America. Of course, some of those denouncing Trump are the puppets of political correctness – sad shills who have no business leading anyone. But hatred is at the bottom of it.”

    ……………….http://jrnyquist.com/the-crisis-part-ii.html

    I have some concern regarding the popularity afforded Vladimir Putin. What sort of drama is played out here? I know that Yale visits Jeff Nyquist’s blog from time to time. I was looking for a sort of fable told by an ex-KGB agent about the fox and the frog, and the fox convinced the frog to ford a river on the nose of the fox. I can’t seem to find it now. It weighs on me heavily when even I find myself with thoughts of admiration, even respect for Vladimir Putin. Frequently this leads me to the tale of the fox and the frog.

      • Thanks, Greg.Similar story, with a different outcome. In the version told by the Russian, it is a fox and a frog, or possibly a mouse. The mouse is very apprehensive, bu the fox assures him that if the mouse rides on his back, he will not be able to reach him. Once the int eh river, the mouse begins to drown and crawls closer to the neck of the fox. By the time they near the shore, the mouse has climbed all the way up to the nose of the fox. Then, just as it appears to the mouse that everything will be fine, the fox flips him and eats him.

        On the subject of Obama:

        Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do. Few were listening.

        The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet The Press’, Sunday 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST. Televised on “Meet the Press” THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag. General Bill Gann, USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

        The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…
        During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, “Stand and face it”.

        Senator Obama replied:
        “As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.” “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression…” “The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.”

        Obama continued: “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like ‘To Teach the World To Sing’. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – – – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments …..”

        “When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past”.

        “Of course now, I have found myself about to become The President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country’s First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.”
        Yes, you read it right……

        Washington Post

        • Those Russian foxes will eat anything.

          If anyone thinks its reasonable that the Americans elected Obama, by the same logic they should believe that the British should have made Oswald Mosely Prime Minister. But at least Oswald saw himself as a patriot, whose black shirts fought a gallant rearguard at Dunkirk. Obama must be the ultimate narcissist saying, “When I become President.” He still had two months to campaign against the inept McCain, though it looks like he was a token candidate to facilitate election of a black Kenyan Muslim-Barack is the root of an Arabic word meaning blessed-مبارك. Too bad there wasn’t another Oswald around to shoot him.

  3. I wonder if these geese have read anything of history in their misbegotten lives or simply imbibe the opinions of like minded dopes.
    The correct name for the Nazi party was NSDAP, which stood for Natsional Sozialistische Deutche Arbeiter Partei or National Socialist German Workers Party abbreviated to NAZI party. Can you spot the orientation of this party of the left, which is conveniently ignored? In Hitler’s second book, he makes plain that it is government’s duty to govern for the benefit of its own people, not those of any other. This is how it should be. Always. The mass murder was grotesque and completely beyond the pale, but that should not blind us to other aspects of governance principles which had been abandoned before he came along like a Trump to galvanise a country out of its malaise. Just for the record, the slaughter of innocents was as great, if not greater in Mother Russia under Stalin but Stalin gets better press because he was an ally of the west while it suited him to be one, but no longer than necessary.
    The point of my post is this: in both instances, why are there so few ( only one) political operator in all that population, who is prepared to espouse mainstream values and recognise mainstream fears such that the majority of the population identify with him and are prepared to support him. Trump is more honest than the rest put together but in a country the size of America there should be several less redneck candidates to choose from. Trouble is that they, and we, no longer have government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’ but rather of the majority by accretion of minority interests. Trump is prepared to see the elephant in the room while the rest have spent their lives in slithering survival, standing for nothing, falling for anything, espousing no principled position in case it offends a minority interest.

  4. The Fascists of today and their supporters in the leftist media class are totally convinced that everyone who disagrees with them is a Fascist and must shutup.

    More evidence that Leftism is a mental illness.

  5. Electing Trump would open up expression and protest against the ravages of the west and provide an opportunity where the white population can openly organise. Trump can also get the wall built and delay immigration from the third world, including Muslims. He can exploit executive orders in the same way Obama does, but for a better cause. He will also provide an example of successful anti-immigration politics for Europeans. Different “progressives” condemn Trump because he campaigns exploiting “identity politics”; but voting for Obama was voting for identity-he identified as a black fellow. Voting for Hitlery would be voting for someone who identifies as a persecuted, old woman. The identity Trump represents is undergoing its greatest challenge since the fall of Rome.

    It’s also curious that the fact checkers call into doubt Trump’s assertions; they might be a little bit off by a few percentage points when he talks about black or Hispanic crime, like when Romney said 47% of Americans don’t pay tax. Or when Romney challenged Obama and Clinton about circumstances of the attack on the US embassy at Benghazi. Romney lacked the fortitude to stand his ground against the quibblers who are happy to leave unchallenged mistakes or outright lies by their favourites. But Trump knows he is right and no degree of specious pedantry will deflect him.

  6. “However, the likelihood that property and media billionaire Donald Trump will emerge as the GOP nominee for next year’s presidential election — and, potentially, as President of the United States — is growing”
    Then the GOP will lose. I’m not sure how many US elections you’ve seen but history would indicate that these type of candidates, should they gain a nomination, are doomed. The US is basically a broad middlewclass that is far more concerned with wages, prices and employment than it is with global jihad. I think your obsession with the left is clouding your judgement. Some of the commenters you attract are … interesting.

    • I’ve seen plenty, and whilst I would normally agree with you, these aren’t “normal” times. Particularly given the unelectable Clinton is likely to emerge from the Democratic nominating contests as his rival. Trump might lose to her, I acknowledge, but facing Trump at a general election must rank at the top of any Clinton family list of nightmare scenarios.

      I absolutely detest the Clintons but I’m not barracking for anyone, by the way…but if it’s Trump who lines up for the GOP, then I will barrack for him with a vengeance. “Anyone But Hillary” is, in this case, meant quite literally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s