The 'Stab in the Back;' Trump's Getting Desperate; QAnon: The New S.A.
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
Jake Angeli. Convicted rioter. The fire next time?
(Image by Wikipedia (commons.wikimedia.org), Author: TheUnseen011101) Details Source DMCA
Introduction
About a year-and-a-half ago on Buzzflash.com I published a column that in part described and analyzed the "Stab in the Back" propaganda-theme that was central to Nazi ideology from its beginning, and was a central for its rise to, and maintenance of, power in Germany until well after Hitler and the Nazi Party took that power on January 30, 1933. That column was entitled "Trump's Cult, Like Hitler Fanatics, feels 'Stabbed in the Back' by Inclusive Democracy." In this column I shall review the original "Stab in the Back" big lie, compare it with Trump's "Big Steal" big lie, and then go on to consider the other two subjects highlighted in the title.
The Historical Origin of the "Stab in the Back" Myth, and its Utility for the Nazis
In the Spring of 1918, the Prussian Army launched what proved to be its last major World War I offensive on the Western Front in Europe. It happened that by that time, since the occurrence of the Russian Revolution on October 25, 1917 [November 7, new calendar] and the subsequent departure of Russia from The Great War, Germany faced only that one front. But even that situation eventually proved to be too much for an exhausted and way underfed army.
Not too long after the beginning of the war in 1914 the British had instituted a naval blockade of the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, the planning for which had commenced at least as far back as 2008. As the War-years passed, it became increasingly effective in denying both the two militaries and the civilian populations of food and other goods. (It is fascinating, isn't it, how much we hear of the U-boat campaign in both World Wars and their attempts to "starve Great Britain into submission," but how little we hear of the two blockades, especially since the German ones were eventually ineffective while the British [and U.S./Canada] ones were increasingly effective. But that is another story.)
As it was, by the summer of 1918, the Prussian Army had to stop fighting in order to forage for its own food. The 1918 Spring Offensive thus eventually failed. And so, the Prussian government, with the major participation of the Social Democratic Party (the SPD, which had in 1914 voted "war credits" so that the Kaiser could undertake his war in alliance with his brother monarch, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor) began surrender negotiations with the Western Powers. They eventually led to the Armistice of November 11, 1918, and then on to the Versailles Treaty (which, as it happened, proved to be so disastrous for the whole of Europe, in the long run). In the political process in Prussia, that led to that agreement, in return for its participation with the Prussian government, the SPD issued a set of demands it. They included the abdication of the Kaiser.
The two leading commanders of the Prussian Army, Generals Paul von Hindenburg (later the Weimar Republic President who, as it happened, appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor [prime minister] of Germany on January 30, 1933), and Erich Ludendorff (who as it happened became a Hitler supporter from the mid-1920s onwards), did not like the movement to end the war, in that summer of 1918. They thought that somehow Prussia could fight on and did not do so only because the civilian government, especially the SPD (Jewish) sector of it, was weak-kneed and had for that reason only decided to implement the policy to bring the War to an end. As noted above, it was that civilian government, especially the Social Democratic Party that was part of it, which undertook the (starvation-related) peace policy, which came to called, by the German Right, the "Stab in the Back."
During the 1920s, this doctrine was used, over-and-over again, to justify the development of various right-wing parties in Weimar Germany, most especially the Nazi Party. Hitler and Goebbels were still using the phrase and what for them it stood for in speeches into the 1930s, well after they had taken power.
The US Presidential Election of 2020
As everybody in the United States, and indeed around the world, who has any interest in the U.S. Presidential elections knows, Donald Trump, at the end of the last Presidential debate, on October 22, 2020, said that he would not necessarily accept the result of the vote on November 3. In fact, as is now becoming increasingly well-known, before the 2016 election Trump had been complaining that if he lost it, it had to have "been rigged for Hillary." In both 2016 and 2020 he said that if he thought that "something was going on" (a phrase that he uses constantly to describe supposed conspiracies against him of all sorts, of course without defining them, much less proving their existence), he would not accept the election's outcome.
As is well-known, this time around he has steadily maintained this mantra, evermore fiercely claiming that the election was somehow "rigged," by the media, by the courts, by voting machine manufacturers, by various vote counters, etc. to create "massive voter fraud," by the millions. This fraud, of course, occurred only in "certain neighborhoods," which means that voting while Black was not a "legal" vote. (As is well-known, this white supremacist perspective has its origins in the Confederacy and the Jim Crow era.) And of course, it has been proved over and over again that the "fraud" was non-existent. A recent summary of this history was presented by Philip Bump in the Washington Post just about two weeks ago.
As it happens, while at the beginning I thought that Trump actually believed that "the election was stolen from him," I have now come to the view that he knew from the start that it wasn't. Thus, as I said recently, he is now in the process of running the biggest con of his storied career of lying. And of course, the central element of any con is that the con-person knows that he/she is lying. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a con.
But, even given the Con, is Trump Finally Getting Scared?
Well, yes, I really think that. Why? Well, to date, with all the cons, all the schemes, personal, financial, political and otherwise, except for an occasional hiccup, like "Trump University," with all the business failures, large and (relatively) small (e.g., "Atlantic City," Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks), he has always been able to "get away with it." (Time recently published an excellent analysis of just how he has done it: "How Trump Survived Decades of Legal Trouble: Deny, Deflect, Delay, and Don't Put Anything in Writing.") Furthermore, Trump has always had his protectors (Magic Trick 1). The Roy Cohn Magic Trick 3, "when in trouble, just sue," has almost always worked too. But even so, now the legal ring may finally be closing, for real.
The Magic Tricks MAY (and I do say MAY, for Trump does have this phenomenal talent for "getting away with it, getting out of it") finally be losing their magic for him. For, and this is hardly an original thought, there are these major legal problems he faces: "Mar-a-Lago" and all of the law breaking that it potentially entails (e.g., violating the Presidential Records Act, Obstruction of Justice, violation of various national security statutes); the "New York Attorney General's suit"; "Georgia;" the ongoing investigations of the "January 6th Committee;" and, just popping up, in the latter context, the "Roger Stone Tapes," the most famous line from which, so far, is "Let's get right to the violence." Oooof! Even for Trump this is a heavy legal load and while this is nothing new for him either (remember Ty Cobb [no, the lawyer, not the baseball player] or Jay Sekulow of the far-right-wing "American Center for Law and Justice" [reflecting its name, whether the name is deserved or not]), Trump is having increasing trouble holding on to lawyers.
So where does he go from here? Looks like to violence. Trump has historically been viewed favorably in polls by less than 40% of the vote. But it is useful to recall that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (clever name, eh wot?) never got more than 37% of the vote in a free election. As it happened, from the beginning, Hitler used force against his enemies: "Die Sturmabteilung" ("Storm Division" or "Brown Shirts") the private army which was organized very early on to support the Nazis in a variety of violent ways. The Trump equivalent? For example, in certain "open carry" states armed Trump supporters were already showing up at his rallies before and after the 2020 election. And then there is what might yet come of what can be called "The Rittenhouse Initiative."
This is truly scary stuff folks, but in my view, it is all part of his long-range plan to get back to power (or at least to make lots and lots of money from his latest grift), of which the "rigged election," the U.S. "Stab in the Back" for the 21st century, is a central piece. Just as he knows that he lost the 2020 election, he knows what has worked for him so far --- the repeated claims/maneuvers: the new "oh woe is me [7th] magic trick," sue/delay/sue/delay, "witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt." But at the same time, in my view, he also knows that this group of tricks may no longer work for him.
It appears as if he tried violence for January 6 (for the evidence, see e.g., the Roger Stone link above) and even though it didn't work then (too disorganized and slap-dash, not enough troops), he continues to flirt-evermore-strongly with the idea. It appears (and I am only speculating here) that he may be preparing to go beyond "Proud Boys" type, (military) company-type violence, to a whole new level.
In this line of analysis, one can speculate (and at this time one can only speculate) that he is preparing QAnon for a much larger role in the U.S. political economy than they have enjoyed to date. QAnon is presently amorphous to be sure. But it has a very large following (and has a great Nazi-style salute). Its original leader has appeared to have gone away (in one way or another). It seems to be prone to violence (if the epithets members toss out have any significance in practice). It would need some organization and some leadership (after the Great One himself) that can run the nuts and bolts (certain names come to mind, that is if they can stay out of jail).
We will of course have to wait and see. But in my mind, it is absolutely no coincidence that in this time of increasingly dangerous legal actions against him, he is turning to QAnon. No coincidence at all. Trump getting deeper and deeper into the barrel. Why wouldn't he use QAnon to help him get out of it --- in one way or another? What? You really think that Trump going to one QAnon rally after another is a coincidence? That would be as much of a fantasy as the one that a Jewish/pedophilia/witch-like/Satanist conspiracy is preparing to take over the world. Be afraid. Be very afraid.