Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

by Don Hank

A British writer who does not like Donald Trump recently expressed publicly:


“Mr Trump’s rallies increasingly attract violence – by his opponents and his supporters.”

In a three-way conversation in which I was included, a mutual friend reminded him that it is not fair to blame a person who is attacked for being attacked. The mutual friend asserted that it is a well-known trick of the left to blame the attackee for being attacked.


The Trump detractor, undeterred, then called Trump a mountebank who made “demagogic outbursts.”


demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy

the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, 

passions, and prejudices of the people.


It must be noted that in Europe, especially the UK, when someone accuses someone else of being a demagogue, the purpose of the accusation is generally not to adhere to a standard definition of the word but rather to stealthily create an association in the mind of the audience between the person thus impugned and Adolf Hitler. The implication is an appeal to emotion intended to stop the discussion before it can get started – often because the accuser lacks the skill and/or the supporting facts to continue the discussion. That may not have been the case in the above-referenced discussion and I don’t intend to imply that. Note, however, that, particularly in Europe, the accusation of demagoguery is in itself a kind of subtle soft demagoguery because it is intended to evoke emotional images of the last war that caused so much suffering in Europe. Good patriots generally bow reflexively to the person who conjures up this image, no matter how irrelevant it may be. While it is true that Trump, like all the other candidates, appeals to emotion and can thus technically be accused of demagoguery, the content and purpose of Trump’s utterances is the diametric opposite of Hitler’s. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, ironically, the Hitler analogy is more applicable to the Establishments in Europe and the US, which oppose Trump.

In the case of Adolf Hitler, the ultimate goal was war, a racist war that would force Germanism on the rest of the world and even eliminate many non-Germans.

During the GOP debates, almost all of Trump’s opponents expressed the idea that Russia was the number one enemy, on the assumption that the American people would reflexively agree with this assessment, forgetting that Russia had never declared jihad on anyone. Some, like Ohio Governor John Kasich, even went so far as to say that if he were president, he would “punch Russia in the nose.” Ohio Governor Chris Christie said he would also do so if the Russians violated a US-imposed no-fly zone, and Carly Fiorina agreed with both demagogues. Hillary, for her part, has compared Putin with Hitler, and her choice of pro-war cabinet members has led a number of scholars to predict that a Hillary presidency would lead to a nuclear war.

Now why do I call this war rhetoric demagoguery? I do so because it is clear that these Neocon warmongers firmly believe that most Americans are still generally imbued with Cold War fervor. Of course, they are wrong, because if that were true, Donald Trump – who bravely said in his campaign, “I think I can get along with Putin” – would not be as popular as he is. In fact, it is safe to say that Americans are inexorably turning against the Neocons whose whole raison d’être is centered around the kind of senseless war that has caused untold suffering throughout the world for over a half-century. The same rejection of the Establishment is being seen in Europe.

Now the demagoguery of both parties’ elites is almost identical with Hitler’s but is potentially more dangerous because we now are looking at the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, and numerous warnings are being issued by officials in relevant positions such as former generals and foreign ministers, eg, here, here, here, here, and that is barely scratching the surface.

Everywhere in the West, the elites have used nothing less than demagoguery to keep the masses in check. Every time a politician, like Angela Merkel, accuses her opponents of being the “far right,” she is in fact attempting to conjure up images of the Third Reich, when in fact, the EU and Establishment regimes are nothing but an extension of that regime, as ably demonstrated by Rodney Atkinson, for example, in this video, and by our colleague Edward Spalton, eg, here.

Yet the demagogues who want war continue to call the peacemakers demagogues.

But the threadbare ruse can only last until the people see through it, and the time is just about up.

Those identified as supporting the Establishment could soon lose all credibility. The good news: it is not to late to adjust one’s message accordingly.

A word to the wise.

News item:


Looks like these terrorists are trying to get Trump elected. (Yea, I know, they are just stupid!)

Don Hank

Trump the most likely to keep the peace?

A world without war is possible (but you won’t see it)


Don Hank

One of my correspondents sent me an email containing a pasted article entitled “A World Without Nuclear Weapons — Ours.”

The gist of it was that the Obama government was paring back our nuclear arsenal while Russia was beefing up theirs and that they would survive a nuclear conflict while we would not. Because they have more nukes. Hey, good thinking! All we have to do is stay a step ahead in the construction of nuclear weapons and we’ll all be safe even if they launch a strike, but they’ll be toast if they do. Right?

I decided to do a little research and find out the sizes of our respective nuclear arsenals and, of course, answer the really meaty question: how many nukes would it take to make the earth uninhabitable? In other words, despite the difference in size of our respective arsenals, would Russia – or anyone – survive an all-out nuclear conflict given the combined size of our arsenals (and this is not even counting the Chinese arsenal also arrayed against us)?

I discovered here that the difference in the numbers of nukes held by the Russians and those held by the US is a few hundred, with each country bristling with over 7000, or a difference of only a few percentage points.

But scientists reckon that even a small nuclear exchange of about 200 nuke explosions between countries like India and Pakistan, which could have about that many such weapons between them, would make the earth uninhabitable for up to 25 years by kicking up black dust that would quickly spread throughout the earth’s atmosphere and block the sunlight. The first year, the scant sunlight peeping through the bleak atmosphere would allow farming for only a month a year.

So apparently the person who wrote this article thinks we really ought to have enough nukes to destroy the earth, say, 74 times over (counting the Russian retaliatory strikes during a nuclear exchange involving an equal number of nukes on either side) because Russia has enough to destroy it almost 80 times over (counting the US input in such an exchange).

So, taking our cue from that writer, how about this for a military plan?

Make at least 1000 more nukes than Russia and then strike Russia with about 250 at first and kill off most of them. Of course, they would retaliate with their subs and hypersonic ICBMs which cannot be detected by any known means, and with their space-launched MIRVs, each of which would shower us with too many bombs for any anti-missile shield to deal with at once. Most would get through and do their job.

That would kill almost all of us but a few who happened to be out of the country at the time.

Then, according to this exquisitely thought out plan, we could hit them 25 years later – after the world became habitable again – with another 250 to kill all the survivors.  We might reasonably anticipate that they would do likewise with the remaining sub-borne missiles in their stockpile, but never mind.  Just 25 short years after this second all-out strike, if the world became habitable again, we could resume this process and continue it for just 800 years until they were completely out of nukes and then the good old exceptional USA would emerge triumphant at last. No sweat.  I bet the Pentagon would like clever this plan.

Of course, these calculations are based on the assumption that no one would be developing any further nukes during the 25 interbellum years after each all-out exchange.

It also is based on the assumption that neither side would launch more than the number needed to make the world temporarily uninhabitable during any given strike. That is, that the 2 antagonists would not make the world uninhabitable indefinitely during one of the first few exchanges. It could happen, but why sweat something so trivial as the demise of the planet?

Of course, knowing human beings and their desire to be winners against all odds, it is possible that the first strike would be followed by a several-fold retaliatory strike by the other side and then a similar one by the first striker until the entire combined arsenal was gone in one spectacular fireworks display. If it only takes a few hundred strikes to make the earth uninhabitable for 25 years, then, assuming a simple mathematical relationship were possible (though it probably is not), we can imagine that after depletion of our combined arsenals of over 15,000 nukes, the world might become uninhabitable for a total of say, 800 years..

But cheer up. After that, it would probably be all over and that no-nuke world that many have dreamed of would finally have arrived. Hooorah for the USA!

Most likely, however, the first nuclear exchange would wind up killing off all but the cockroaches.

A pity neither fish nor fowl nor four footed creatures, including the one with the best-developed brain that made it all possible, would be around to enjoy such perfect peace.

As the author of the above-mentioned article makes clear, we have more important things to worry about than the survival of earth. One of the opponents in this great conflict must focus on saving the earth from global warming and keeping its dominance of the planet at all costs, and on maintaining its pace in the initiation of color revolutions and wars that reduce nations to chaos, as it did in Libya, Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere — lest it surrender its hegemony. Meanwhile, the other needs to consider the proposition: live free or die.

So is there an alternative to what is increasingly looking like a showdown with Russia?

There is no telling what any candidate will do once elected. However, while almost all of the GOP candidates have “talked tough” on Russia, and some have explicitly stated that, if elected, they would start shooting down Russian planes in Syria (apparently they had never heard of the S-400s strategically placed all around the country), and while Hillary has shown as secretary of state, her warhawk Neocon bona fides, one candidate stood out with statements like “I think I could get along with Putin,” and “what are we nuts? Why not let the Russians take on ISIS?” This more respectful and reasonable attitude toward Russia as a potential partner rather than an adversary is an alternative to the reckless statements of the Neocons on the campaign trail. Trump is at least aware that US military adventures have done nothing but destroy the infrastructure and political stability of nations or regions like Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, and have jeopardized others like Egypt. And while he has been falsely accused by Establishment figures — particularly the Neocons — of threatening world peace because of a supposedly irascible temperament, he has in fact stood out against the others as a man who wants to stop taunting the bear. From the standpoint of a stable and peaceful world, he is, ironically, the only option.