* Though Trump-as-Hitler meme is tarded, I think Trump has something in common with Fuhrer.
He is a gambler. Many said Hitler had no chance, that he was finished after this or that scandal or setback or etc. But Hitler defied all odds and rose higher and higher. He got so sure of himself that he eventually gambled big on Russia and lost.
Trump who has worked in gambling has a gambling personality. He’s good at bluffing, huffing and puffing, and etc. He can bluster but he can also be slippery and subtle, quality missing in a lunkhead demagogue like McCarthy or Wallace.
And Trump has defied many odds. Many said ‘this’ will finish him, but he’s still in the game and leading among GOP. He’s good at reading the public mood of a certain segment of the US public. He’s like both the crazy guy and the cynical operatives in NETWORK. He plays both the mad prophet and the smooth operator.
So far, he’s done well.
And it’s possible that his Muslim remark was a wager. If in the next months, nothing happens and there is no more terror, he will come across as a fear-monger.
But if there are more terror attacks in Europe and esp in America, it will have been a great bet.
And all those who’d lambasted him will have eggs on their face.
It’s like in JAWS. The town’s establishment is angry about the sheriff scaring everyone away with all this talk of a shark. But a bigger shark happened to be out there, and town elites lost big when it killed more people.
Libs and even cucks have been blasting Trump and feeling awful righteous and good about themselves. And because Trump’s remark was ‘extreme’, he has much to lose if nothing happens in the coming months.
But if major terror attacks do happen, it will have been a super bet.
But betting like that is close to degenerate, and eventually you lose. Hitler lost bunch of bets before he bet too big and lost all.
It’s best not to make reckless bets in politics.
* Right, and some countries today like China that aren’t Muslim but have sizable Muslim communities have state sanctioned versions of Islam that ensure that Muslims are loyal and subservient to the state.
In May 1953, the government set up the China Islamic Association, which was described as aiming to “help the spread of the Qur’an in China and oppose religious extremism”. The association is to be run by 16 Islamic religious leaders who are charged with making “a correct and authoritative interpretation” of Islamic creed and canon.
As you note, because of the First Amendment, the government can’t really do things like this formally, although it apparently does do things like surveil mosques, and in the past the WASP establishment relied on social and cultural pressures and mechanisms to curtail Catholicism’s religious and cultural power in the US. But contemporary elites find overtly pressuring Islam in this fashion to be distasteful and politically incorrect, and basically hope that pop culture and liberal academic and media culture will do the trick for them.
