Saturday, January 28, 2017

“The Trump Effect”

It’s so refreshing to report some tentatively good news for once.

I left this comment on a Gatestone column of January 22nd, 2017, “Trump Fires Up Europe's Anti-Establishment Movement”:

I am encouraged and heartened by the sentiments reported in this column. I would really like to visit Europe again someday. But not at present. I think now I would have to look over my shoulder and resort to dodging Muslims. I would also have to watch what I say about immigration. I don't want to be arrested by Germany's and France's and even Britain's "speech police."

The indefatigable Soeren Kern in his January 2017 Gatestone article, “Trump Fires up Europe’s Anti-Establishment Movement,” lets us in on what the European “anti-establishment” is up to.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders (head of the PVV or Party for Freedom) got together with other leaders of opposition European parties (or “anti-establishment” parties) to exchange information and to map strategies on how to come up on top in the upcoming elections in Germany, France, Italy, and Austria.  Although the opposition, aligned especially against the European Union’s (EU) sadomasochist immigration policies and its ambivalence toward culture-sapping and rampaging Islam, has been building for some years, this is the first time so many of these leaders have gotten together at a “rally” to address the “forgotten men and women” of Europe on what is possible, what the issues are, and what is at stake, which is nothing less than a wholly Western Europe and not an Islamized one.

Energized by the formidable Wilders and by what is being called here as “The Trump Effect" (or by Donald Trump’s sweeping anti-establishment victory and the actions he has been taking since taking the oath of office on January 20th), in addition to Brexit, also in attendance at the rally in Koblenz, under the banner of “The Year of Patriots,” were Marine Le Pen, head of the French nationalist opposition party, the National Front, since 2011; Frauke Petry, the leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD); Matteo Salvini, head of the Lego Nord party of Italy; and Harald Vilimsky head of Austria’s Freedom Party.

Marine Le Pen of the National Front
It is hoped that these European anti-establishment activists, if elected as the heads of their own countries, can begin to “drain their own swamps” of unelected EU bureaucrats, conniving, career politicians and political appointees, retired politicians who have turned to lobbying to further their parties’ agendas (and their own incomes) for more regulation and for special interests (many EU bureaucrats own substantial interests in their own countries’ farms that conform to Brussels’ environmental and regulatory diktats), of politicians who do not apply themselves to representing their constituents’ interests, and those who are simply moribund in lassitude.

Kern writes:

Polls indicate that the political sea change engulfing the United States is fueling support for anti-establishment parties in Europe. In addition to anger over eroding sovereignty, a growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.

In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has become the third-largest party the country, with support at around 15% percent. The AfD had gained representation in ten of Germany's 16 state parliaments, and the party hopes to win seats in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time in national elections set for September 24, 2017.

Europe's establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.

Enter Trump. If sufficient numbers of European voters are inspired by the political transformation taking place in the United States, the balance of European political power may begin to shift in favor of the anti-establishment parties. European political and media elites will therefore surely view Trump as a threat to the Europe's established political order.

Frauke Petry of the AfD
It is not the anti-establishment parties that are worried about Donald Trump. It is the leaders of the entrenched European establishment that suffers from what is loosely called the “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a tenacious malady that drives its victims to various states of madness, hysteria, and certifiable irrationality.

The Democrats and the Left, writes Daniel Greenfield about the Syndrome, believe in their own absolute entitlement to power. Any election that they win is legitimate. Any election that they lose is illegitimate…. Like all dictators, the Democrats believe in democracy only until they lose an election.

The last time a national mental breakdown this severe happened was sixteen years ago when Bush beat Gore. The Democrats reacted gracefully to their defeat by insisting that they didn’t really lose because Bush stole the election. Psychiatrists were soon tending to lefties suffering from depression. Others protested outside the Florida Supreme Court, President Bush’s home and their parents’ basement.

Jesse Jackson accused Republicans of a “coup.” Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson warned that "without justice there will be no peace." Thousands protested Bush’s inauguration waving signs like, “We want Bush out of D.C.” and “You’re not our president.”

The Congressional Black Caucus tried to obstruct the certification of the Electoral College vote. Then when Bush won again in the next election, they did it all over again. Expect them to try it one more time.

There must be something flawed about how American elections are held and decided, writes Greenfield, about the ubiquitous teeth-grinding reactions of the losers.

#NotOurPresident on Twitter quickly gave way to riots in major cities. Democrats in the affected cities decided that the riots were a great idea even though it was their own police that were being attacked.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York City’s radical leftist boss, claimed that “more disruption… will change the trajectory of things”. Even though the only trajectory that the protests have changed thus far is New York City traffic. “The more people fight back, the more it takes away his power,” he insisted.

Wiser heads on the left recognized that messing up Manhattan traffic wouldn’t stop Trump from taking office. Instead they decided to abolish the Electoral College. Senator Boxer will introduce a bill to that effect. Bernie Sanders mumbled that it’s time to rethink it. Michael Dukakis [a first-class loser from long ago] fired off an angry email insisting that Hillary Clinton had won and that abolishing it should be a top Democratic priority.

Since Hillary lost, the Electoral College is, according to Slate, an “Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism”. And probably Islamophobic and Homophobic too.

Harald Vilimsky of Austria
Greenfield is sardonic about the Derangement Syndrome. But he rarely writes tongue in cheek. He’s not making anything up. He’s simply reporting the craziness, hair-pulling, and head-banging over Trump’s victory and the prospect of yammering yahoos having brainstorms that will somehow turn the sands of Mars into caramel syrup.

The outer reaches of Trump Derangement Syndrome include calls to boycott three brands of toilet paper because they’re allegedly made by the Koch Brothers. Never mind that the Koch Brothers weren’t supporting Trump. Facts, like democracy, only matter when they happen to be on your side.

Then there are the ritual burnings of New Balance sneakers on YouTube and Instagram. Not to mention support for the secession of California from the United States of America.

A man has sued Donald Trump for $1 billion for having inflicted “great emotional pain, fear and anxiety on Election Day and beyond.” Students at Cornell held a “cry-in” to mourn the results of the election.  The University of Kansas offered students therapy dogs. At the University of Michigan’s multi-ethnic student affairs center students took comfort in regressing to childhood with coloring books and Play-Dough.

John Hopkins recommended a healing circle. Stanford University urged students to “take care of yourselves and to give support to those who need it.” Vanderbilt encouraged them “to take advantage of the outstanding mental health support the university offers.”

At the University of Maryland, an astronomy test was canceled to help students cope with “a personally threatening election result.” A Yale economics professor made his test optional because students were “in shock” over losing an election.  A dozen midterms were rescheduled at Columbia.

Kern writes that the Trump Derangement Syndrome is a kind of unique American export (as are “safe spaces”) that only EU bureaucrats and national politicians and commentators purchase. Some however are trying medication – call it the political pragmatism of realism or doses of cognitive Valium  to cure themselves of the Syndrome:

Commentator Hubert Wetzel said that Trump posed a threat to European security and called for European unity to weather the next four years. In an essay laced with hyperbole, he wrote:

"Europeans will have to adapt to a new tone in dealing with America. Trump has made it clear in his speech that he will pursue a nationalist foreign policy, and his speech contained no reference to America's allies. [Trump actually said: 'We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,' and 'We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world']. His willingness to spend money on the defense of other countries is limited. He does not see the USA as a protective power of democratic values in the world; and he is the first U.S. president since the end of the Second World War who has openly expressed doubts about the value of European unity and the existence of NATO. At a time when Russia is trying to weaken the West by means of diplomatic, intelligence, and military means, it is an attitude that is a serious threat to united Europe."

In Switzerland, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, warned against efforts by European elites to belittle Trump. He wrote:

"Trump's election was a healthy shock. The shock was necessary. Not only power cartels, but also worldviews are breaking down. This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump's predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy."

I do not know enough about the mechanics and methods of European politics to be predict with any prescience whether the muscle-flexing anti-establishment parties will fall into the errors of a compromise with the establishments, or fashion tailored tyrannies of their own, or fail miserably in their appeals to a European population that fears freedom and independence from the EU. In Germany, for example, there is a very real possibility that its fed-up citizens may trade a Merkelian totalitarianism for a more populist one. I hope not.

But I hope I have not misplaced my confidence that many Europeans are as rational and proud as Americans have been in the last election here, and that they hear the people singing and decide to throw off their tyranny.

When tomorrow comes: What will it bring to Europe?


  1. You indicate that support for Trump was an expression of American reason and pride. How do you square your claim with Trump's call for a protective tariff on foreign-made goods? Or Trump's move to ban individuals who have already been granted permanent resident status from re-entering America (a move made without notice or hearing)? Are these issues here merely collateral? Are the rights involved here mere trivia? Or if you in fact do support these actions, how precisely do you ground them is reason? What is the basis of a right to be free from foreign competition? What is the basis of a right to ban previously admitted individuals from entering the country when such individuals have already undergone an extensive vetting process, and there is no due process hearing or proof of illicit activity?

    1. We do not know if Trump is serious about tariffs or is merely using the threat of retaliatory tariffs to secure a low-tariff deal.

      As for the ban on 'individuals' who have been granted permanent resident status - granted by whom, exactly?

      You don't seem to have grasped the nature and extent of the geo-political threat.

      Vlaams Blok was a lesson for us all.

      If you haven't realised that the entire West has embarked on an anti-white/anti-capitalist crusade of self-sacrifice then you have not been paying attention.

      And if you don't think capitalism is a symptom of whiteness then yeah...but that's not the point, is it?

      Take for example the current US immigration policy which deliberately and actively discriminates against white Europeans by placing a higher priority on “family reunification” than on admitting immigrants with skills.

      Sounds fine until you determine what "reunification" actually means - i.e. “reunification” with "relatives" no matter how remote!

      Many people in the US naively believe that the transformation of their culture from 89% white is a consequence of natural forces - it isn't. It is a deliberate policy built on a mountain of lies with a specific goal in mind.

      But it is only a part of a wider campaign - something you need to realise before the US becomes like Belgium.

    2. Good response, Mr. Cade. Thank you. I really am too busy myself to respond to every poison dart or shoe thrown at me. I could make a career out of dissecting every short-sighted, bean-counting objection to Trump, but I have other works to do.

    3. The issue, Mr. Provenzo, is that you like many others who claim to be for individual freedom have wittingly or unwittingly sided with Marxists who now attack the President for doing his job of protecting Americans. FYI, legal immigrants and "refugees" have been involved in terrorist attacks and attempted attacks on US soil, which proves that current vetting procedures are deficient, but you wouldn’t know that because you are preoccupied with potential tariffs. You ignore the subject of the essay because it’s favorable to Trump, and you would rather pretend that the biggest danger facing the US is potential tariffs. Where were you, Mr. Provenzo, the last 8 years of Obama lawless reign? Mr. Cline has spent at good part of his life exposing the Left and excoriating Obama’s countless actions that have violated the Constitution and individual rights but now you dare question his reason and his pride because he hasn’t been critical of Trump’s future actions? What have you done to oppose the destructive Left? Some chutzpah you have! - Hilda N.

    4. Thank you, Hilda. Yes, I've devoted a goodly portion of my life exposing the Obama era and the actions of other West haters, aside from Muslims. I'm too modest to boast, so I must let others do it. Thanks again.

  2. After eight years of Obama's lawlessness, and faced with the prospect of Hillary's, you dare score Trump and me? I will not stoop to answering your comment. Are you turning Muslim, or what?

  3. >I will not stoop to answering your question.

    You already have. You write Obama and HRC are/would be worse. That's not the issue, however. We are in complete agreement that Obama and HRC are bad. The issue between us here is your claim that support for Trump is an expression of reason and pride. The issue is your seeming blindness to, or willingness to excuse, everything about Trump that is downright awful.

    In this regard, it's telling that you choose to be mute about Trump's embrace of trade protectionism. You know this is plainly wrong. But why does Trump merit a pass from you here? Islam? Then let's look at Islam. Then let's look at how you address a wicked idea, those who plan to act violently off that wicked idea, and those who, for better or for worse, are merely along for the ride.

    Last, you ask if I'm turning Muslim. You already know the answer to that question. But that you put it out there is beneath you. I haven't been disrespectful to you. That you are to me is both unjust and unfortunate.

    1. Goodbye. Okay, maybe you're not turning Muslim. You're going Yaron Brook.

    2. So, I apologize for the Muslim remark. See my Yaron Brook one.

  4. Ed: I agree with you so often, and enjoy so much your blog and posts, I wonder at your enmity for Yaron Brook. Do you disagree with everything he says and stands for?

    1. Barbara: I've listened to a few of Brook's podcasts, and I'm astounded by the level of irrationality he propounds, as though the reality we are facing vis-a-vis the Left, immigration, taxes, etc., are irrelevant. My jaw always drops especially when he wades into the issue of Muslim immigration and south-of-the-border illegals. I can take only so much irrationality before I gag and begin shaking my head. I'll tell you this much: Were Rand alive and saw how far left/libertarian ARI has gone, she'd ask that her name be removed from the Institute's banner and name, or else she'd sue.