First DC, Now Portland - Trump Testing How He Can Turn U.S. Into Fascist State If Re-Elected

"So the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to deploy secret police on the streets of an American city to stop uh...graffiti... and some light property damage?  And as part of that mission they apparently need to abduct people? "  - Chris Hayes, last night on 'All In'

"Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with Right wing media."  - Sen. Ron Wyden (last night on 'All In')

"In a flash, 9/11 turned cocky. self-satisfied Americans into a mob of scared school girls. We went screaming to "Daddy" demanding to be kept safe from "terrorists." Spare us the details, we said, and 'just get it done', we demanded." - Steve Pizzo

We've already seen over a month ago how Trump turned D.C. streets near Lafayette Square into a war zone with his goons tear gassing and pummeling peaceful protesters so he could snatch a photo op with bible in hand, e.g.

• Trump's Invocation of the Insurrection Act Ought T...

But that was just a prelude to what we're seeing 6 weeks later in Portland.  Watching the scenes of innocent protesters in that Oregon city being shot and hurled into unmarked cars by Trump's Gestapo forces on 'All In' last night was unsettling to say the least.  It is also clear, as one NY Times columnist surmised, that the (wannabe) Fuhrer is using Portland as a "bellwether" to see how much he can get away with.  My own surmise is that - if it works and there's no challenge or pushback - he will summon all his feral (federal) power to impose a fascist state if he gets re-elected.  Disbelieve this at your own peril, especially if you are remotely considering not voting in November.  This pestilence must be routed and it must be an absolute blowout win - not even close.

Let's recall that not long ago Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to send personnel to protect monuments, statues and federal property during continuing protests against racism and police brutality, the Department of Homeland Security formed “rapid deployment teams.” Those are made up of officers from Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard and Immigration and Customs Enforcement who back up the Federal Protective Service, which is already responsible for protecting federal property.

Videos showing federal agents using tear gas on protesters and complaints that federal agents lacking insignia are pulling people from the streets have raised questions over the legal authority that homeland security officials have to crack down on citizens. In Portland, federal agents have acted against the expressed opposition of the local authorities.

However, officials in Washington said they had clear authority. Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

But the question remains: Why did they find it necessary to exercise that authority by resort to using unmarked vehicles with armed forces decked out in generic camo uniforms with no insignia?  As Chris Hayes observed last night, this is what "secret police" do  in Banana Republics and other authoritarian states.  Garrett Graff, a historian who studies the Department of Homeland Security’s history and development  pointed out that:  "So broad an interpretation of that authority seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing.” 

Well, that is the basis of a fascist state, no?  One that removes checks and balances to state power, leaving citizens' rights at the fascists' mercy.  Recall what Winston Smith's authoritarian captor told him in '1984', the Orwell novel.  That the future is "a human face being stomped on by a boot".   That stomping "boot" was Oceania's symbol for its fascist state and one which Trump seeks to emulate if he can get re-elected.  That is why he must be stopped.

Impossible! You say?  Local officials in Portland never consented.  Think again. Under the broad scope of laws and provisions under the Patriot Act the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was committed, even just tagging a building with graffiti. This according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.  According to Vincent, quoted in the New York Times:


"Homeland security’s authority is so extraordinarily broad that they can find federal laws that they are authorized to enforce across the spectrum.  This is so long as it has some national security, public safety, human trafficking, criminal street gang conspiracy aspect,” 

Again, you can thank our "courageous" lawmakers in their rush to pass legislation after 9/11 that most never properly read.  (With the notable exception of Sen.Russ Feingold, who  was so appalled by the authority granted he said there was no way he could vote  for it.)  But thanks to  the other Senators - mainly cowards - this is what we are saddled with now. And it only took the ascension of one narcissist degenerate with authoritarian ambitions to put us on the cusp of a fascist USA.  Jann Carson, the interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon said:  

"What is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the United States. Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping. The actions of the militarized federal officers are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered.”

Well, I hate to break it to you, but all  that ought to have been challenged when the Patriot law was up for vote by congress.  Now,  as they say, the "horses have already escaped from the barn".  Good luck getting them all back in.  Among the worst sections of the Patriot Act is Sec. 215, described thusly by Jim Sensenbrenner in the Summer  2014 issue of the ACLU's STAND magazine:

"Section 215 was intended to give the government the ability to secure 'any tangible thing' connected to specific terrorism investigations. As is now common knowledge, the Bush and Obama administrations took the limited power Congress intended and went rogue. If we had known during any subsequent re-authorizations what we now know about Section 215's blatant misinterpretation, Congress would have allowed it to sunset."

Read it and consider how its powers have metastasized .  In effect, the surveillance powers of Sec. 215 have since been combined with the "continuity of government" provisions of the Patriot Act by which - under the G.W. Bush regime- political dissent could be equated with treason.   The definition of 'terrorist' was expanded by congress in 2001 to 'domestic terrorist' and "terrorist activity" to include:

"…activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that or a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

This has since been directed by Trump's AG Bill Barr to focus almost entirely on Left wing protesters, such as Antifa.  Bottom line,  combined with dubious executive orders, Trump has all the tools he needs or desires to convert the U.S. into a proto-fascist state,  especially given all his GOP enablers, if he is re-elected. Recall that in a WaPo piece ('Trump Tests Role He's Long Admired: Strong Man', May 31)  we were warned that Trump may just be "tuning up" his autocratic, authoritarian ways for a 2nd term - assuming not enough people cast ballots to get rid of his toxic ass.  We learned he is especially fond of Philippine strong man Rodrigo Duterte's methods, i.e.

"Duterte is already planning to sign legislation to allow his government to classify some political opponents as terrorists, this mere days after Trump claimed he would designate a group of protesters as 'Antifa terrorists'

And let's bear in mind  under Duterte's regime, using squads of violent police vigilantes and hired thugs,  over 8,000 have already been killed or dispatched in other ways, i.e. to remote labor camps.  Make no mistake that having shattered nearly every norm of law and accountability Trump will yearn to do the same if he gets re-elected on account of American voter complacency.   It will literally be "Trump Unchained". 

Those who foolishly doubt such an extreme could manifest:

need to read Robert Payne's 'The Life and Death Of Adolf Hitler' to see how easily a democratic nation (Weimar Germany) can be converted into a fascist state once the machinery of democracy has been used to install the autocrat to achieve it.  As a minority faction of our citizens did in 2016 with Trump.  Incredibly, a similarly deluded (and myopic) segment could again try to shoehorn this scum into office if they truly believe Trump will deliver economic benefits for them.  

But far more terrifying is that Der Fuhrer may be getting warmed up - not for a post re-election fascist state- but a "Reichstag fire" pretext to declare martial law and postpone  elections.  Meanwhile, deploying his storm troopers in cities across the U.S. even as the virus slaughters thousands more of our countrymen.   If Dotard's poll numbers continue to sink don't think this maneuver is off the table. 


See Also:

“Pre-Fascist” No Longer: Armed Trumpist Takeover of US Cities Begins

And:

Dave Lindorff

Watching Constitutionally Protected Freedoms Die in Oregon

And:
Relax! I know I grabbed you off the street, but I’m just a criminal, not a federal agent

And:

• "Liberal Fascism" ? It's An Oxymoron. Trump I...

Dispelling Five Myths About Atheists

Christopher Hitchens, one of the foremost atheists (who died in 2011), had no patience for Xtian idiots who attempted to portray atheists in a false or distorted light.

As more and more of the younger generation engages in critical thinking to do with religions and migrates to the group known as "Nones" (no religious affiliation) , it is essential we skewer the myths to do with atheism.  To that end I provide the top five myths below and the reasons for saying so.

1. Atheists Deny God

This is perhaps the most popular myth, because on the surface it appears to make sense. Careful thought, however, might disclose how absurd it is. For example, one generally refrains from "denying" anything for which belief is withheld. Let’s take the example of alien colonies on the Chesapeake. Someone or group makes the claim, they exist, and are planning to siphon water to take to their planet.

Fair enough. I hear the claim, but in the next breath ignore it. It's of no concern to me because it is simply too preposterous to waste investing intellectual resources. The reason is that evidence-free claims can be regarded as false or spurious until such time a modicum of evidentiary basis is provided. If this is so, it follows there is even less reason to invest precious intellectual resources to deny the claim! Why the need?

Indeed, if one “denies” a specious claim, he’s already given it a plausible (if unconscious) underpinning. Any active expenditure of mental energy in denial presumes there is at least “smoke” (if not “fire”) to deny! On the other hand, if the claim is totally nonsensical, simple withholding of belief quite fits the bill and is more than adequate. As I noted in an article published in the Mensa Bulletin, March 1994:

"Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition: a-theos, or without god.”

What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. in making a statement “There is no god,” but rather simply passively withholding belief in a statement already made. Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the simple absence of belief in it. No more and no less. It does not and never has implied aggressive rancor or a vehement and militant opposition to the beliefs. (Though yes, some militant atheists – or what we call “strong atheists” – do have such attitudes!)

Let me quickly add here that this withholding of belief is the more natural position, as opposed to advocating belief, which is unnatural. Consider a different context: a neighbor runs over and informs me that aliens have landed in his yard in a spacecraft. Until I actually go over and try to verify his claim I am under no obligation to accept it as a statement of fact. Thus, the default intellectual position is always skepticism, irrespective of the claim made. This again is because the onus is always on the claimant to make good, not the skeptic to “disprove” it.

2. Atheists reject morality

This is one of my favorites because it’s preposterous on its face. It’s also important because many otherwise sober people believe that atheists live by the rule “anything goes,” since we don't acknowledge any god. On many occasions in Barbados, I've been telephoned by religious types who ask: "If you don't believe in God what's stopping you from going out and raping, robbing, murdering or doing anything else? If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in God's laws."

Invariably, I respond that decent, civilized behavior doesn’t depend on god belief or adhering to 'laws' of a god. Rather, it depends on rational and objective analysis of a situation, and sound decisions maximally promoting the welfare of all concerned.

As William Provine notes, people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force, but to protect their own long-term self-interest[1].

In line with this, any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to the one's own welfare. Compromise others' security, and you in effect compromise your own. Undermine their welfare and you also undermine your own. No god is necessary.

By contrast, religious morality is predicated on some formal codification of expected human behavior in terms of absolutist propositions, not subject to debate. The typical moral code of a religionist, whether Muslim, Pentecostal, Catholic or Jewish, isn’t subject to evolution or variation based on contingencies, or externalities. Thus, from this one beholds the Vatican still mandating its flock continue to reproduce - despite the planet being overpopulated. Now, under the name of their absolutist "natural law" they are pressuring exploding human populations to live in more and more desperate, unnatural conditions!

3. Atheism is a Religion

This claim is absurd on its face. The misplaced strategy, however, is always to attempt to place atheism within the same logical context as religion and then attack it on the basis of occupying an analogous “belief” spectrum. In the end, this is a fool’s errand.

For one thing it turns the very meaning and basis of religion on its head. We know all religions embody centralized beliefs or dogmas that issue from some sacred scripture or a body of theology based on scriptural interpretations.. Atheism has none of these, since there are no central propositions or beliefs with which all atheists agree.

First, atheists withhold belief, they do not invest it. This alone separates atheists from religionists or people of faith. Second, atheists make no positive claims for any transcendent existent that requires their worship or obeisance. They simply acknowledge no god or entity with which to build a religion in other words. Third, atheists maintain no sacred works, scriptures, or ancient artifacts, from which their “truths” are extracted.

They have no analog to a Bible, Qu’ran, Talmud or anything remotely similar. Instead, atheists pursue objective truth via open inquiry predicated on current science, which may provide fewer certainties or answers than if they merely placed their faith in a book. However, this doesn't mean they treat "science" as their god, because any hypothesis is always given falsification tests.

Fourth, atheists convene no regular rituals, services or ceremonies to honor, or propitiate any entity. By contrast, the centerpiece of 99 percent of religions is precisely some social ritual, for the purpose of assembling together like-minded believers toward a common goal. Moreover, their churches, synagogues, temples etc. dot the landscape, taking up room that could be used to house the homeless in each respective area or locale.

Perhaps most importantly, there is no "acceptance" of atheist principles from any “congregation” since there’s no homogeneous congregation to bestow it. Atheists often disagree on as many things as they agree on, precisely because no formal coda exists to fix beliefs within a uniform dogma. This means one is just as likely to encounter a wholly Materialist-Naturalist atheist as a non-material one.

4. Hitler was an Atheist.

This myth is intended to achieve exactly what it appears to do: slander atheism by association with the most monstrous human imaginable. If, therefore, Hitler can be painted as an “atheist” and if Hitler’s deeds were so cumulatively vile, it follows (in a bizarre sort of logic) that atheism can only produce vile deeds. However, technically Hitler was a Roman Catholic.   Historian Robert Payne notes [1]:

“Adolf Hitler's birth certificate records that he was born at six o'clock in the evening on April 20, 1889, and goes on to record that two days later, at a quarter past three in the afternoon, in the presence of Father Ignaz Probst, the boy was baptized in the local Catholic Church”

As is known from standard Roman Catholic doctrine, once one is baptized a Catholic, he or she technically remains a Catholic unless excommunicated, or until death. Payne later documents Catholic Church attendance by a number of Hitler's luminaries, including Gregor Strasser, Erich von Ludendorff and others (2).

While it is true that Hitler was probably no more than a nominal Catholic by the time of the invasion of Poland in 1939, this doesn’t mean he was an “atheist” any more than the two Columbine killers (who professed being “atheists”) as they threatened any peers that refused to budge from their faith during the 1999 Colorado killing spree. Obviously these killers merely postured unbelief, invoking the red-flag word “atheist”, as a vehicle for their anti-social acts or to garner more media attention.

5. Atheists Despise all religions

This simply isn't true. Atheists have great respect for those religions which are life-affirming, and which tolerate others rather than condemning them, or trying to employ spiritual apartheid or one-upmanship. In this way, Buddhism is perhaps the closest religion to atheism, especially as its goal of "Nirvana" is just nothingness, or what end the atheist also anticipates.

Elements of Christianity are also acceptable such as embodied in Science of Mind and Religious Science, and made popular in a number of books, e.g. Ernest Holmes Science of Mind. These sects have in common the unifying theme that evil is an illusion and each human can become a “Christ” unto himself (and indeed is an embodiment of divinity like Christ) and also that every material abundance becomes available once one acknowledges that he too, is God. 

Their import for the atheist is that they’re benign forms of Christianity that renounce the odious Heaven-Hell doctrine in favor of either cosmic unification or sequential, progressive reincarnation. They are also realistic in foursquare rejecting such latter day Fundamentalist inventions as "the rapture" - which, of course, denotes spiritual apartheid carried to an extreme. Thus, the righteous and "saved" get magically lifted up into their Lord's arms - while five billion Hindis, Buddhists, Muslims and non-saved Christians as well as all agnostics, infidels....get to be tormented by the "Anti-christ" (another fiction, but convenient to try to drumbeat the gullible and weak into the fold)

In addition, they embody esoteric forms that have much in common with Eastern religions such as Buddhism.  

Intelligent Americans, who also need to bone up on political ideologies (socialism, Marxism, fascism, capitalism etc.), need to also grasp what atheism is - and what it isn't.  This as opposed to knee-jerk assumptions and imbibing false information from non-atheists.



[1] William Provine, ‘Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics’ (MLB Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, p. 25)

[2] Robert Payne: 1973, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, Praeger Publishers, p. 15 

Props To Aussie Jim Jefferies For Exposing Piers Morgan As Trump Toady On 'Real Time'

Aussie comic Jim Jefferies unloads on the Brit hack Piers Morgan in an exchange at the end of 'Real Time'

As the hostility between Right and Left continues to mount by orders of magnitude, largely because Trump groupies live in another world of unreality, the efforts continue by assorted media personae to try to normalize the Donald. But he can't be normalized because he isn't normal. He's a fucking brat - a three year old - in a 70 year old's body, e.g.

He's  also a loser at his new job, and even bawled that the presidency has turned out to be too much for him to deal with. Too many details, too much stuff to master for an extensive government bureaucracy.  See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

Excerpt:

“Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought,” begins the article, neatly capturing the blithe, criminal ignorance that characterizes both Trump himself and the many dozens of millions of morons who thought he should be the leader of the free world. Yes, being the president is a harder job than Donald Trump would expect, because Donald Trump had never previously held an actual job, because actually, spending your inheritance on a succession of failed cons is not an actual job."


 But hey, if the job is too much maybe he ought to resign. It beats wasting time tweeting and watching TV for nine hours a day when you're supposed to be doing the People's business (and that doesn't include pumping wares for Ivanka)

But never mind. Trumpie hacks continue to press the bogus case that the rest of us are "hysterical" in making the analogy of Trump to Hitler. But in a previous post I already showed the extensive personality disorder parallels, in terms of the authoritarian narcissist personality. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/narcissism-pre-moral-mind-and-donald-j.html


As I observed:

"The classic example is the genesis of Adolf Hitler, for example,  as documented by Robert Payne in his 'The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler'.     Therein we learn how mercilessly the young Adolf was beaten by his father Alois.  See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/04/research.secondworldwar

Alois, himself a narcissist at heart, vented his power  on his boy because he deemed him too needy and dependent on his mother. (A "muttersohnchen" or "mama's boy")

In the case of Trump, we've learned he was making special  "all purpose"  switchblades as a young lad that appalled his parents.  According to one site, "By the age of 13, he became a bit more than his parents could handle. They determined the best avenue for the young Donald was to send him to military school, New York Military Academy".  Without a doubt the young kid felt abandoned and probably unloved.

The effect of such treatments has been spelled out by Harvey Hornstein in his book 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression' (p. 41):

"The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

Even more germane comparisons can be deduced on reading: "Hitler: The Psychiatric Files"- about which I will have more to write in a forthcoming blog post.

Thus, it was heartening last night to see near the end of Real Time (before 'New Rules')  when Australian Jim Jefferies metaphorically slapped the shit out of Piers Morgan for saying "there was no Muslim Ban".  The two had been relatively civil to each other until then - and after Jefferies first arrived on set- but Piers had been continually saying the Left and rational side needed to "take a chill pill". Maher tried is best to get Morgan to see reality, but we already know when a guy is captured in the Donald's orbit (in this case "The Apprentice") he is unlikely to come out against him.

So it was left to Jim Jefferies to dish out "licks like peas" starting with FUCK OFF!   To see the exchange in full readers can go here and draw their own conclusion. 

http://www.liberalmountain.com/us-politics/fck-off-comedian-jim-jefferies-blasts-piers-morgan-defending-trump

The choicest response to Morgan's claim Trump was no Hitler, was Jefferies' rejoinder:

"Oh, fuck off. This is what you do, Piers. You say ‘He hasn’t done this, he hasn’t done that, he’s not going to do all these things’. Give him a fucking chance mate – Hitler didn’t kill the Jews on the first day, he worked up to it.”

When Morgan called the analogy “ridiculous, hysterical over-the-top nonsense,” Jefferies got personal.

“You just like that you won The Apprentice and you have a famous friend, mate.”
Said Morgan, noting the crowd’s surprise, “You’re losing your audience because you’re sounding unpleasant…”

“Am I losing you?” Jefferies asked the crowd – he wasn’t – then flipped off Morgan.

Good on Jefferies for keeping things real and not letting Trump PR lackey Morgan get away with trying to make Trump's critics into hysterical banshees. In fact, the takeaway from history is that had the Jews in Germany become more alarmed by Hitler's antics early on, perhaps far fewer might have perished in the gas chambers. Who knows? Our task now is not to let history repeat even with assorted minor permutations, i.e. to enable an Amerikkan Fascist state.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/karin-kamp/71133/how-the-indivisible-movement-is-fueling-resistance-to-trump

Narcissism, The Pre-Moral Mind and Donald J. Trump

Again, we must thank Cheryl Mendelson, former Professor of Ethics and author of 'The Good Life' , who I earlier  (Oct. 11 post) referenced in terms of explaining the  nature of moral capacity and defining the moral character.   In the same work she explores the pathology of the premoral mind and narcissism.  As one reads through her chapter 'Premoral and Moral Culture', it soon becomes evident that Hitler and Trump (both as premoral narcisists) likely had the same childhood development.

Mendelson writes in terms of the parental element (pp. 80-81):

"Narcissistic parents tend to raise narcissistic children and this is one significant means by which premoral thinking achieves cultural dominance. Narcissistic trends have been linked to cold, neglectful cruel and unloving parents  or to tendencies on the part of parents to treat the child as a means of stoking their own narcissism with the child's achievement, beauty or popularity.....

Narcissism in the parent often combines with authoritarianism to create specific failures in child rearing. The parents' own narcissism is bound up in the need for power....and expressed in harsh and cruel punishment"

The classic example is the genesis of Adolf Hitler, for example,  as documented by Robert Payne in his 'The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler'.     Therein we learn how mercilessly the young Adolf was beaten by his father Alois.  See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/04/research.secondworldwar


Alois, himself a narcissist at heart, vented his power  on his boy because he deemed him too needy and dependent on his mother. (A "muttersohnchen" or "mama's boy")

In the case of Trump, we've learned he was making special  "all purpose"  switchblades as a young lad that appalled his parents.  According to one site, "By the age of 13, he became a bit more than his parents could handle. They determined the best avenue for the young Donald was to send him to military school, New York Military Academy".  Without a doubt the young kid felt abandoned and probably unloved.

The effect of such treatments has been spelled out by Harvey Hornstein in his book 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression' (p. 41):

"The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

To cut to the chase, the effect of Alois' projection of his own authoritarianism and narcissism on Adolf created a premoral personality with premoral, narcissistic values.  In like manner,  Trump's parents authoritarian solution  to their little problem spawned the egomaniacal, bombastic presidential candidate we behold today. As Mendelson points out (p. 71):

"In the premoral mind, in place of moral individualism - the individual's capacity to think and act according to conscience - there is mere egoism: the demand or wish, to be allowed to do and have what one wants. The premoral individual who confronts a moral culture must cope with social demands that he regards as illegitimate.

Because of his sense of entitlement, his greed and his demand for superiority feel right to him and are not internally moderated as they are in moral minds. Moral restraints may provoke him to outright rage and hatred."

Thus, we beheld Trump's ravenous rage when held to account (by the still existent moral culture) for his groping and forced kissing of women without their will. (As disclosed in the NY Times, the Palm Beach Post and other sources). In response Trump's rage has turned to  gaslighting his antagonists by resort to claims of managing a "rigged election"  with the women as part of a "conspiracy" driven by "global power elites". In the same manner, Hitler violently reacted when the existing moral culture in Germany looked askance at his attraction to sordid, sadomasochistic pornography. He retaliated by actually instigating a blame game directed at the Jews (for producing it) and then dispatching his S.A. thugs to intimidate them with violent beatings.

Hitler, once he claimed power, then went one step further and began shuttering German newspapers and dispatching journalists to the early concentration camps. (He grew enraged at their constant criticism.) Will Trump do the same if he claims power in this forthcoming U.S. election? We don't know but one can't feel confident that the Constitution will protect us. Recall one former president referred to it as "just  piece of paper".

Mendelson goes on to observe (p.73):

"The moral condemnation of power and wealth gained or used unethically is felt as emasculating and compliance with the moral demand is regarded as effeminate and weak.

In these respects and others, the premoral mind is primitive and childish."

In the above context we beheld Trump fulminating at the media's holding him to moral account for exploiting a $926b write off as means to avoid paying taxes for nearly 20 years. (Trump insisted, consonant with his narcissist nature he was a "genius"). That nearly billion bucks came from the pockets of legitimate  casino franchise owners and ordinary taxpayers. In the case of Hitler, he mocked as "effeminate"  those who held to the Versailles Treaty and showed his scorn by his invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938, and Poland in 1939.

By the same token, Trump's bragging about his ability to just kiss women and "grab their p**sy" exemplifies his primitive and childish mind. Also that he could banter on such degrading issues with glorified frat boy, Billy Bush,  Meanwhile, Hitler was reported to have had a violent sexual relationship with niece Gabi Raubal.  Payne reports how he was obsessed with sadomasochistic (SM) porn and enticed Gabi to actually act out with him, mainly her delivering occasional floggings.  He appeared to require violent stimulation to get off. Most psychologists today would classify such behavior and preoccupations as primitive and childish, in the sense that only a regressed personality (trapped at the "anal stage" of development) would be so obsessed.

After ascension to power Hitler outlawed all pornography which had been produced in abundance during the Weimar Republic.  He also outlawed abortion. But these actions are also characteristic of the narcissist authoritarian. Mendelson again citing a key section from The American Law Institute, 1999  for a Handbook of Jury Research (p..87):

"Narcissistic authoritarians are drawn to sexual material ...but they profess to find the material offensive and seek tp punish those who possess it."

And Hitler did this, dispatching those in possession of the Weimar created material to the early concentration camps.  Mendelson's comment to do with the attitude of the premoral mind is also illuminating and may definitely also have application to the hyper-sexual mores of conservative Catholics (p. 157):

"The premoral mind confuses the disgusting with the wrong and retains an infantile fear of things sexual. Its rationality is overcome by emotion, fantasy, wish and projection.."

Some may think that this controverts Trump's groping behavior and sexual innuendo but they may forget the dynamic of reaction formation. That is, adopting a mechanism by which "emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency."  In other words, any sexual contact with women is actually anxiety producing for Trump (as it was for Hitler) but that anxiety is resolved by exaggerated behavior in the opposite sense.

But a far more serious matter than sexual distortion concerns how the authoritarian narcissist and authoritarian can draw minds of similar nature to himself..  In most cases those drawn to such figures are both "fanatical" and likewise narcissistic. One primary trait (p. 76) is the yen for retaliation to "return evil for evil" or just to get even. We see this trait with almost every move Trump makes, e.g. to use tweets to get back at one target or another, whether the media, the women now accusing him of groping, Alicia Machado, or trashing a 'Gold Star' family,  the Khans. He always wants the last 'punch'. It is impossible for him to "turn the other cheek" or  for his followers to do the same.

This reinforces the worst traits of the narcissist's followers, as Mendelson notes (p. 82):

"In any fanatical group, charismatic, narcissistic figures easily assume positions of power.  They  are idealized and worshipped by followers whose narcissistic hungers are satisfied by the identification with the idealized leader or the group he leads."

We see this with the Trumpies too. They identify with fellow Trumpies by their hatred of  political correctness (which is also the manifestation of a form of social moral capacity)  and the "establishment elites"  Their narcissistic hungers also compel them to identify with Trump and when he says "punch 'em out" they feel enabled to do it to the nearest anti-Trump protestor, as we've seen.  In a similar vein, Hitler's S.A. fanatics had no problem beating up socialists, Jews or labor leaders if they protested at Hitler's rallies.  Hitler had only to cast an eye in the direction of trouble makers for them to feel the blows from dozens of Nazi  (S.A.) clubs.

Trump's most vile recent transgression against the commonweal and polity is his repeated claim of a "rigged election".  At a rally on Saturday he blabbered at a rally to star struck groupies:

"The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect Hillary Clinton President".

Increasingly, Trump issues this gibberish in the context that it is part of a "conspiracy" to take him down. (See also previous post).  Indeed, in the past 48 hours Trump has claimed this tommyrot at least 20 times and even insisted.....wait for it....."Saturday Night Live" is in on it.

Any other person, say an ordinary bloke, would be locked up at Bellevue in a secure straitjacket and given ECT  and thorazine every three hours. But Trump can walk about at will spewing his balderdash.

Make no mistake that Trump's claim for rigging is an exculpatory move designed to seed rage in his more unhinged and gullible followers if he loses the election - which he is very likely to do and in a landslide. Never mind that Trump's election loss on November 8th will be entirely due to his unhinged, bombastic, disreputable campaign. In a similar way, Hitler's toxic narcissism led him to blame "those traitorous generals" for the failure of Operation Barbarossa and specifically the Wehrmacht's failure of will at the Battle of Stalingrad. Never mind it was Hitler's own fault for over extending his forces and also his failure to keep them resupplied during a Russian winter.

But Trump followers believing his bollocks that the election is rigged has hugely negative repercussions for the democratic process - namely the sowing of widespread distrust among a large portion of the populace.  This, in turn, destabilizes the political fabric and leads to loss of civility and dramatic increase in polarization.

Why do so many latch onto this nonsense, including some of the more educated, with degrees from Harvard? Mendelson offers a  clue (p. 82):

Most narcissistic followers "only mouth the ideas and mimic the behaviors required for membership in the group"

In other words, a herd syndrome - - with compliance dictated by the narcissistic leader who determines their identity in the "You're either with us or against us!" mode. Trump evangelical backers have even gone so far in their support rationalizations that they've cited "a Bible abounding in useful scoundrels". (TIME,  Oct. 24, p. 22). .  That is, trying to show that even the Old Testament God made use of "scoundrels" and vagabonds for his purposes. So why not the Donald?

Given "irrationality is also a prominent characteristic of premoral thinking" then it follows that the more irrational conspiracy claims Trump comes out with the more his most steadfast followers will cling to them. Again, they must be viewed en masse as a premoral, narcissist entity for which leader and followers find a mutual,  self-reinforcing basis in identity. This identity pushes Trump to ever wilder, more unhinged claims as it pushes his most devout followers to accept them.  Each new outrageous claim is then integrated into the ongoing Trumpist "identity" matrix. That includes that the election is rigged despite the fact general elections are not run by the federal government but by the states. And the fact of the matter is that the plurality of states (31)  have Republican governors who control the ballot boxes in a very real sense, e.g. access hours, locations, type of machines used etc.

The real danger is that the millions of people driven by resentment to follow Trump are unlikely to change their minds after he loses the election. Rather, they will very likely have their paranoid ideations reinforced by his loss and make trouble where their "rageful feelings" find expression. Who knows what might transpire? We can only hope it is not as bad as after Obama won in 2012 when numerous Obama voters were waylaid and beaten up,  campaign posters defaced with Nazi swastikas and KKK.

Mendelson, for her part, shows that the premoral mind (and narcissism) in this country is now ascendant, e.g. p. 76:

"The prevalence of the premoral psychology of revenge is obvious when we consider how common are the endless incidents of road rage, air rage, horrendous murder-suicides and shootings at schools, workplaces and public events. These incidents are so familiar that they are now cultural memes in the United States."

Sadly, even the defeat of Trump will not quell these tendencies and one can only hope the Republic is strong enough to survive them.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/69403/sodom-gomorrah-and-trump-the-evangelical-quandary
 

Can We EVER Educate Trumpkins On The Difference Between REAL Socialists and Nazis?

Doofus image  put up by a Trumpkin who clearly doesn't know the difference between a socialist and a Nazi

I said it before but it bears repeating, that too many are insufficiently educated in political history to know basic  differences, say between National Socialism (Nazism) and real Socialism. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's a big issue to me because as a (Democratic) Socialist I won't want to be fucking compared to or conflated with, Nazi scumballs.

Sadly, most of those who don't know any better - and likely have read the least real history- appear to be Trumpkins or those who slavishly follow their master, The Donna, aka Donald Drumpf.  As shown in previous posts the right wing blogosphere is replete with disinformation, misinformation - in particular of deliberate conflation of  textbook socialism  with  German National Socialism, despite the fact that Hitler not only dispossessed and brutalized leftists: Marxists, Socialists and commies, but dispatched them for "final solution" in concentration camps as well.

When one accesses serious resources and history texts, as opposed to comics and Faux News, one can easily see Hitler couldn't have been a real socialist by his very actions and policies most of which were totally antithetical to Socialist values. Thus, he didn't use trade unions to parlay them into any "workers' paradise" - he squashed them like bugs!

Why did Hitler hate Socialists so much, with such intensity? Robert Payne in his biography of Hitler (The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler)) acknowledges it was because the originator of Marxism, Karl Marx, was a Jew. Hitler thereby erroneously inferred that Socialism was an inherently Jewish economic philosophy and its practitioners were also Jews. Hitler, like so many Americans today, committed the fallacy of composition - a logical error attributing to an entire class (the whole) what is true of only one part,  or in this case one person (Marx).

Why can't these conflaters just admit their error and walk away? Because most are Right extremists and to admit that would be to admit ideological kinship with the Nazi Right or "National Socialists" - who merely employed the S -word to misdirect the gullible. Hitler is associated with the RIGHT because he espoused FASCISM, which is RIGHTIST! In addition, as documented by Ian Kershaw in his magnificent account of Hitler’s rise to power (‘Hitler Nemesis’) the pre-Reich Weimar Republic constituted a weak democracy which had little or no control over the most radical Rightists, especially Hitler’s (actually, originally Ernst Röhm's) NSDAP party. They would regularly beat Marxists, socialists, and any leftists on the streets while holding up signs that read: “Tot dem Marxem!” (Death to Marxists!) 

Kind of a damned funny way to show kinship with REAL Left Socialists! IF the fucking Nazis were real Socialists why did they regularly beat the living crap out of actual Socialists? So far none of the geniuses that make these false cartoons - like the one shown- has been able to answer that question.

Now, if these geniuses who insist Hitler "wasn't of the Right" are correct, then WHY beat up on Marxists, Socialists and Commies of the LEFT? Huh? My late friend Kurt's films - from his archives -also showed the same thing! 

Hundreds of gangster S.A. (enlisted by Hitler) swooping in on a crowd of union workers, Socialists and Marxists and beating them half to death.

THIS IS HISTORY, ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED! If the American Right doesn't wish to be associated with this, I fully understand, but to try to revise history because you abhor the Rightist link is both pigheaded, and disingenuous. Take ownership, then move on!

 Hey, it's understandable the American fanatical Right doesn't want to be associated with a mass murdering psycho but blatant historical revisionism isn't the way to make your case.  Kershaw again - on Hitler's links to capitalism (‘Hitler Nemesis’, p. xxxiii):

“Leaders of big business, though often harboring private concerns about current difficulties and looming future problems for the economy, for their part were grateful to Hitler for the destruction of the left-wing parties and trade unions. They were again ‘masters in the house’ in their dealings with their work force”

Note carefully: It wasn't Hitler destroying right wing parties but LEFT WING PARTIES and TRADE UNIONS! THIS is why the German capitalists, such as Krupp, Volkswagen, I.G. Farben (infamous for later manufacturing the Zyklon B gas used in the gas chambers) etc. threw their lot behind him and provided the political ballast, without which he could never have become 'Der Fuehrer'.

Beyond all this, we now have very solid evidence, thanks to released FOIA files, of how close the Republican Party has been to the Nazis of Europe. We have to thank author Russ Bellant (Old Nazis, The New Right and The Republican Party, South End Press, 1990), for meticulously documenting how and when Nazi-SS elements and cliques infiltrated the GOP and insinuated themselves into the national political framework. (Which makes one wonder how many of their past policy formulations, e.g. Paul Ryan's "Medicare Voucher plan" are Nazi-based, or hatched originally by Republican Heritage groups. Or how much the Koch brothers - who were raised by a Nazi nanny imported from the Reich- were influenced by her thinking and ideology.)

The key link are the Republican Heritage Groups, which attained major ascendancy after Reagan became president. Bellant notes (p. 4):

"In a sense...the foundation of the Republican Heritage Groups Council lay in Hitler's networks into Eastern Europe before World War II. In each of those Eastern European countries the German SS set up or funded political action organizations that helped form SS militias during the war."

He cites, for example, that in Hungary the "Arrow Cross" was the SS affiliate. In Romania it was the "Iron Guard". In Latvia, it was the "Latvian Legion". And members from ALL of these - and others - obtained passage to the U.S. and found a home in various groups after the War. Under the umbrella of the Republican Heritage Groups Council and later its "Ethnic Division". Their main purpose was in Republican campaign fund raising but they were also used for assorted "dirty tricks" against Democrats and may well have come up with the noisome plan to bargain with Iran to keep American hostages there, until after Reagan was elected (as opposed to Carter, in 1980).

No connection between the Nazis and American Right? Hell, they're freakin' bedfellows! 

The continuing display of ignorance by the Trumpkins only reinforces the perceptions that current analyses of supporter backgrounds disclose.  Rather than provide grist to that mill I'd have thought Trumpian bloggers would seek to show their education is vastly greater than those data appear to show - not less.