The Big Lies Of The “Resistance”: A Directory. Big Lie #3: “Trump Is A Fascist/Hitler/Dictator/Monster/White Supremacist”

 Big Lie #3: “Trump Is A Fascist/Hitler/Dictator/Monster/White Supremacist” is the Big Lie of longest duration wielded against Donald Trump, since it arose early in the 2016 campaign, before Trump had been nominated. It’s a framing lie, designed to color everything he does or says within an established bias. If there is some interpretation of his words, however far-fetched, that can be used to support the premise that Trump is a fascist/Hitler/dictator/monster/white supremacist, it will be. #3 is also useful for spreading fear and hate. It is a direct cognitive dissonance ploy: on the cognitive dissonance scale,

…all of those labels are about as low as they can be in the value systems of most Americans. Linking any individual to them, even a President, effectively pulls his positive rations down without evidence or support.

#3 is a traditional anti-conservative, anti-Republican lie, and is distinguished in Trump’s case only by the fury and persistence with which it has been used by Democrats and progressives. President Roosevelt, in his 1944 State of the Union address, described Republican policies in the 1920s as “the spirit of fascism:”

His successor, Harry Truman, warned that a Thomas Dewey victory in 1948 would bring a fascistic threat to American freedom even more dangerous than the perils from communism.  In 1964, Walter Cronkite suggested on the CBS Evening News  insinuated that Goldwater (an advocate  of small government whose father was Jewish) was a Nazi, as  Cronkite biographer Douglas Brinkley noted   2012. Nixon, of course, was often called a fascist for his administration’s dedication to “law and order,” also called “enforcing the laws.” He was an early recipient of the “Worst Nazi President Ever” award for opening diplomatic channels with Red China.

A Democratic congressman accused President Ronald Reagan of “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.’ ” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s pronounced President George W. Bush as a “fascist” in 2008. Even Senator John McCain, later beloved by the “resistance” for his petty and destructive personal vendetta against the President, was called a fascist when he was running against Barack Obama (who was himself labeled a fascist by conservative pundit Mark Levin). Even nice, mild, Mitt Romney was a nascent fascist according to Watergate has-been Carl Bernstein, who wrote in 2012 that  “today’s Republican Party (and its Tea Party wing) represent the first bona fide radical political party to rise to dominance in Washington in nearly 100 years.”

One would think that the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” principle would kick in after 70 years or so, but today’s political audiences are like the short-term memory amnesiacs in “The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat.” As George Orwell observed, “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’.” Comparing  another limited government, pro-Jewish state Republican to Hitler should be embarrassing to the wielders of Big Lie #3, but it isn’t, in part because the slander has been bolstered by the mainstream media’s alliance with “the resistance,”

It began from the day Trump announced his candidacy, unequivocally condemning illegal immigration as it should be condemned. This was quickly spun into anti-brown bias (Trump has never suggested that America’s interest in not allowing law-breakers to breach the borders has anything to do with race), and Trump’s endorsement of deportation of law-breaking non-citizens was (shamefully) conflated by Democratic demagogues with Hitler’s deporting, imprisoning and liquidating law abiding Jewish citizens. Oh, never mind, close enough—if one’s goal is to falsely impugn legitimate governing principles as evil. The “Trump is Hitler” lie has recently been embraced by the spectacularly irresponsible and ignorant Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who blithely ignores the fact that Trump’s detention centers on the Southern border are no different from those used by Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Not only has Big Lie #3 been unethically employed to frighten and mislead the public while “otherizing” the President of the United States—you can’t be more un-American than Hitler, after all— it is being used to justify stifling political discourse by Trump’s supporters.  Ravelry,  a KNITTING website, just announced that “We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry.”  The ban includes “support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all other content.” The company assures users that if they get booted from the site for supporting Trump, “we will make sure that you have access to your data.” “We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy,” the site explains.

One word: Bonkers.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence, event or statement by the President that suggested his support for white supremancy. Indeed, his statements have indicated the opposite.

I won’t elaborate so I can hand his or her head to the first commenter who falsely claims that the President called the Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville “fine people.” Oh, all right, I’ll hand their heads to them now. Here’s the exact quote:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name…. I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” 

For the record, I might join a protest against taking down a statue of Robert E. Lee (or George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson—oh heck, even Martin Luther King)and I know that I’m a very fine person.

British commentator Lionel Shriver has pointed out that like “fascist,” the white supremacy accusation has lost all meaning from indiscriminate use. He writes,

“… [A] guest commentator on Sky News sputtered that Donald Trump has ‘normalised white supremacy’….Welcome to the world of impotent hyperbole. That dig about white supremacy is a good example of contemporary word inflation, in some ways worse than what’s happened to grades. (The fetishistic lefty resort to normalise deserves parsing as well: the verb seems to decode ‘Maybe it’s not strictly illegal yet but we don’t like it, so it should be illegal’.) Now that white supremacist no longer refers specifically to Anglo-Saxons who proudly believe their race is superior, the term means nothing..”

Well, it means you should blindly hate your President. Like the rest of Big Lie #3, that’s its purpose.


31 thoughts on “The Big Lies Of The “Resistance”: A Directory. Big Lie #3: “Trump Is A Fascist/Hitler/Dictator/Monster/White Supremacist”

  1. There are so many parallels in other big lies we have been treated to over the decades. How about climate change.
    1. Silent Spring (DDT) 1960s
    2. Ice Age coming 1970s
    3. Forests irrevocably dying rapidly from Acid Rain 1980s
    4. Global Warming and sea levels 1990s
    5. Global Climate change, storms overwhelming coasts 2000s
    6. Climate Catastrophe in 40 um, 20 um, 12 years 2010s

    It all the same bullpoop propaganda translated across topics by the same ideology. All lies and damned lies for one thing: POWER.

        • [We gave the subject 400 ml of brewed highland coffee. She screamed “I must have panela!” she screamed, “Where is the panela!” (We looked it up and it appears this is a regional sweetener made from sugarcane residue similar to what we know to be ‘brown sugar’). We located panela and administered a tablespoon and, from behind the glass, observed the subject go into spasms and then to recite the following, as if in a prophetic trance:]

          It is interesting to read your ‘essays of analysis’, Mr Witherspoon. My impressions are that you are lunging around, in anger and frustration, while you attempt to discover some sort of formula, or some viewpoint, through which you can order your perception and understand what is going on. You seem to be one who came to a realization, a painful one, all in a moment:

          I can’t put my finger on a single point in time when society held the sturdy societal building blocks like the golden rule, human respect, basic decency, logic, critical thinking, and civility in high regard but to me it sure seems like that time once existed. Was this perceived Golden Age a phenomenon only found in a “unique” subculture like the one where I grew up and lived for most of my life or was it a delusion?

          You are making an assertion here, but it is subtle. You are in fact asserting that you yourself are decent, respectful, think critically, hold civility in high regard, and live in accord with the The Golden Rule. Your view is that you grew up and lived in such an environment and were formed by such. In this sense — perhaps without recognizing it? — you establish yourself as the measure and as the standard.

          It’s been said that you never really know what you have until it’s gone.

          The most notable aspect is that you are immersed in a nostalgic mood, and the mood seems to possess you. If you can say the word ‘stupid’ enough times it is as if you think that you might wake up your reader. Yet all they would have, all that they get essentially, from what you write is a general complaint. In this sense your *complaint* is emotional or sentimental, insofar as nostalgia is sentimental.

          I would suggest — and I have been suggesting this for some time and directing it to people who seem to have a similar position as yours (nostalgic and complaining) — that there are many people, here in America, in Europe, and also throughout the English-speaking world (the great colonies), who have not only reacted to the *stupidity* as you say of their time, but have made significant inroads toward answering the questions you seem just to have come upon *yesterday* as it were.

          Oswald Spengler for example:

          We have not chosen this time. We cannot help it if we are born as men of the early winter of full Civilization, instead of on the golden summit of a ripe Culture, in a Phidias or a Mozart time. Everything depends on our seeing our own position, our destiny, clearly, on our realizing that though we may lie to ourselves about it, we cannot evade it. He who does not acknowledge this in his heart, ceases to be counted among the men of his generation, and remains either a simpleton, a charlatan, or a pedant.

          Or Jonathan Bowden:

          Truthfully, in this age those with intellect have no courage and those with some modicum of physical courage have no intellect. If things are to alter during the next fifty years then we must re-embrace Byron’s ideal: the cultured thug.

          Or Wilmot Robertson:

          Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities? / With all due allowance for minority dynamism … this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority “split in the ranks” – without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind’s greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.

          This list could go on and the available resources are vast. But here’s the thing (and this is my opinion): Though you ask questions, and questions really do have power, I have the sense that you are not so much seeking answers but rather, in circularity, wishing to assert yourself, or your family situation, or perhaps your neighborhood, or the time you came up in, as the standard and as the model. It has a little of the longing for the *glorified 50s* that one reads about. Therefore, it seems to me that your position is narcissistic: you are admiring your reflection in a pool of vanity. Because this is so, you seem to fail to really get started in a project of serious analysis and remain trapped in ‘complaining’. You might not like to hear this — one salient feature I notice is a generally closed attitude — but your position is largely sentimental and emotional, and in this way you have a connection to those you complain about.

          But let’s take a quote from Wilmot Robertson as a starting point.

          The historical sequence of human communities seems to be race-building, nation-building, art-building, and empire-building. As the country moves closer to imperialism, the people move farther apart. The binding forces of the state are weakened by war, civil strife, and entropy, as the cultural shell is penetrated by outsiders. The aristocracy withdraws into an isolated decadence, its place taken by a plutocracy. Members of the once dominant population group mix with the newcomers and in order to compete are forced to adopt many of their habits. Art becomes multiracial, multinational, multidirectional, and multifarious.

          The statement in itself is perhaps as much as a thousand times more potent than anything you have come out with in your blog-post. First, because it establishes some fundamentals: the origin of powerful and significant human communities. Then it indicates what begins to happen when a ‘human community’ moves into an imperialistic phase: the uniting glue begins to come undone. These effects are listed as “war, civil strife, and entropy, as the cultural shell is penetrated by outsiders”. The ‘aristocracy’ (I take this as intellectual aristocracy) quite literally retreats into decadence, but the intellectual class also reveals that it is profoundly complicit in the machinations of the present. And, there is an indication about how power is transferred to, or is grabbed by a ‘plutocracy’. And the rest is more-or-less obvious, except to persons who have extremely well-placed, bolted in, super-glued blinders attached to their forehead and their temples. A kind of emotionally-driven narcissistic-nostalgic tunnel vision. (That even rhymes nicely!)

          • Alizia,
            You spent a whole lot of time trying to evaluate, psychoanalyze, demean (whatever it was) the person instead of dealing with the arguments. It’s difficult to tell if you agree or disagree with what I wrote and at this point I really don’t care, that’s the consequence of your style of commentary. With the exception of a few small token things you squeeze in your comment comes across as one long ad hominem. I get the feeling you’re fishing for long drawn-out arguments, so I guess the best thing for me to do is to join the crowd here that apparently ignores you.

            Thanks for spending the time to read my blog, there’s more to read, enjoy.

            • ♫ In your mouth trouble can start! ♫

              Evaluation seems to be a paramount importance. It is an application of values held, is it not? The first order of business in a general critical project, since many of the topic of the blog have to do with developing a critical posture in regard to current events, evaluation seems a necessary starting point.

              The term ‘psychoanalysis’ is also interesting. I definitely think that psychology is an important area to focus in. Our own psychology, and the psychology of those around us. I guess I would say that there is something essentially and profoundly psychological about what is going on today. For example, I see the entire thrust of the NYTs as it now manifests itself as dealing essentially in psychological manipulation.

              To deliberately, and unfairly, psychologize someone on a forum as this, that is certainly suspect, but it is very fair — and appropriate — to consider in a general way our psychological orientation. Therefore it is not fallacious argument to have concern about such things and to note them.

              You are very right when you notice that I am ‘fishing’ for ‘long drawn out argument’. I can think of nothing more important than engaging, vigorously, in the assertion and the defence of ideas.

              [ ]

            • It’s difficult to tell if you agree or disagree with what I wrote and at this point I really don’t care, that’s the consequence of your style of commentary.

              I can understand your position. What you write — the content of your blog — is vapid.

              Origin: mid 17th century (used originally in description of drinks as ‘lacking in flavor’): from Latin vapidus.

              Vapid: offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging; bland. “tuneful but vapid musical comedies”
              Synonyms: insipid, uninspired, colourless, uninteresting, feeble, flat, dead, dull, boring, tedious, tired, unexciting, uninspiring, unimaginative, lifeless, zestless, spiritless, sterile, anaemic, tame, bloodless, jejune, vacuous, bland, stale, trite, pallid, wishy-washy, watery, tasteless, milk-and-water, flavorless.

              You are one of the millions of spiritless, identity-less Americans with fine teeth Baudrillard referenced. I am an American-by-naturalization and, in this sense, I have gained through citizenship an association with *you*. The *you* I speak of is an operative in the destruction of the Republic which, if taken in the original sense, is a thing of great value and importance. You are crass, vulgar, mind-numbingly ignorant, and you are not even aware of your lack. You chime, your chortle, you gargle, you inflict — pardon me for borrowing your own term — your stupidities on everyone as if it is some benevolent rain. It is not Mr Witherspoon. I have learned to have contempt for *you* and I struggle, as if it is a life-and-death question, to find a bona fide way to oppose you. That is, to what renders you ‘vapid’, weak and a coward.

              You cannot understand what I say, and you cannot understand those who really take ideas seriously, because you are an intellectual fraud. Actually you don’t get to be even a ‘fraud’ since you have not even entered the intellectual world. You are a giant child with fine teeth though, and your ideas are those of a child, not of men. This is what you have been rendered to be. Horrifyingly, you participate overtly in it.

              You and the many millions just like you have sold out your patrimony for a mess of bland pottage. You are pulled in a current you cannot intellectually understand. Certainly your vapid dialogue is insulting to me but really it is your intellectual spiritlessness and your fundamental lack of concern for those things that have true importance that apalls me. I talk about those thing — the things that have value — exclusively. And it goes over your head. Your insults, your mis-comprehensions really, are then reversed by me and made poignant critiques not against you as a man, but against what has robbed you of spiritful humanity as well as manhood. And you cannot stand in their heat. At the least you could be honest.

              Get it? Over five years of constant work I have clearly seen through *your* vapidness (this plurality of idiocy). You have no idea what to critique, you have no idea how things have wound up as they have, you have no program to remedy and ameliorate any aspect, any part, of what is occurring in the present. You are completely lost and without a rudder. You cannot *see* and you *will not to see*. You are an empty vessel that desires to be full — with something, anything. And you fill yourself with vapid complaining. I have done more just now to serve you than you seem capable of understanding.

              But you have wonderful teeth, that I admit.

              I will take you on one at a time. I will take you on ten at a time. I will take on hordes of you. Come out of your hole one of these days . . .

  2. “Fascism” now has no more meaning than “racism.”

    Saw a “Resist!” bumper sticker on a car today (obviously a lefty from Massachusetts insofar as there were tons of Red Sox stickers on the back as well). I was sorely tempted to take a pen and write, “What and Why?” on it if I could have found any space.

  3. I’m not sure if my comment went to moderation (it had 2 links), or something happened and it went missing as I posted it.

  4. It all goes back to the sadly ‘more-true-every-day’ statement that Democrats only accuse Republicans of things that the Democrats are actually doing. FDR sent his people to learn from ‘that fine gentleman’ Mussolini and implemented many fascist ideas they learned. Biden owes his political career to the fact that he sucked up to white supremacist Democratic leadership in the Senate early in his career and was awarded with plum committee assignments and support from senior Democrats.

  5. Writing this comment again, hoping it doesn’t disappear this time!

    Michael Ejercito pointed out elsewhere the Resistance’s most recent attempt to tar Trump as a racist: his 1989 newspaper ad calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York in the wake of Trisha Meili’s assault and rape in Central Park. This is only in the news lately because of Ava DuVernay’s film about the five exonerated defendants in the case has appeared on Netflix, and as a result it has been brought to the attention of people who were children or not yet born in 1989. USA Today published an article on June 3rd about it, with this sentence near the end:

    Given Trump’s history of racist remarks, DuVernay isn’t surprised that people have forgotten – or have chosen to overlook – his overzealous involvement in the Central Park Five case.

    The phrase, “history of racist remarks,” is hyperlinked to a USA Today piece from last August, entitled “Here are 10 times President Trump’s comments have been called racist,” which is at least is true so far as it goes. The piece includes his insults directed toward non-white persons (Omarosa Manigault Newman, LeBron James, Don Lemon, and Maxine Waters), his “both sides” remarks concerning Charlottesville (of course, left out is the part where he explicitly condemns “Neo-Nazis and white nationalists”), his MS-13 “animals” comment, his disapproval of NFL players kneeling during the the National Anthem, his remarks about the “Mexican” judge in the Trump University case, his “shithole countries” comment, his (now repudiated) claims that Obama may not have been born in the US, his comments about the Khans, and his claim that Mexico was sending it’s “worst people.”

    Of course, none of these comments is explicitly racist, but that doesn’t stop progressives from claiming that they are “white supremacist dog-whistles.” It’s fascinating to me that the only people who can hear the “dog-whistles” are progressives.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.