What's His End Game?

Trump is crazy as a fox and I can't help wondering what is Trump's objective? Let's take a walk through history, set your "Way Back Machine to the 1930s, with the rise of Hitler and Mussolini to power. The University of Oslo's Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History has this essay.

Both Mussolini’s and Hitler’s rise to power followed the rules of democracy

There are clear parallels between the erosion of democracy currently being witnessed today and the disastrous takeover of power by the Fascists and the Nazis in the 1930s, observes historian at the University of Oslo.

Economic uncertainty, migration, ethnic nationalism and the narrative of a strong leader. These are all key words that might describe several European countries today, but which also define the interwar years – a period during which democratic countries took an authoritarian turn which eventually ended in war.

“Obviously all periods and events are different. But much is based on fixed patterns connected to the nature of mankind. This has not changed much over the centuries.”

These are the words of Elisabetta Cassina Wolff, a historian at the University of Oslo, who elaborates:

“We are guided by the same emotions such as ambition, fear, vengeance or our need for safety. That’s why history is so vital to understanding the present – because it's about people.”

For many years Wolff has conducted thorough research into fascism and the far right, and she believes that the interwar period in particular has a lot to teach us about the situation today.

Take a look at Trump's attacks on Columbia University and Harvard, it all fits a pattern.

The main enemy of fascism: liberal democracy

Elisabetta Cassina Wolff emphasises that contrary to popular belief, fascism did not dominate the whole of Europe during the thirties. However, many European countries saw the emergence of large right-wing ultra-conservative, and even right-wing anti-Semitic, movements, especially in Eastern Europe.

Fascist activists and fascist movements could be found in most countries. These all had some common traits:

• They were anti-conservative, anti-democratic and anti-liberal.
• They were revolutionaries. The revolutionary project was about making one’s country ‘great again’ after the humiliation suffered during and after World War I.
• They were populist. Both Mussolini and Hitler believed that they represented the real people, who were deceived by the lies of the elite.
• They were both anti-capitalist and anti-communist. Ideologically, fascist corporatism was supposed to represent a ‘third way’ characterised by unity, discipline and class cooperation. In practice, fascist economic policy served the interests of big industry.
• They glorified violence and considered violence to be a legitimate means of achieving political goals.

“But it was only in Italy and Germany that parties inspired by this ideology succeeded in legally coming to power and realising their goals and political programmes,” says Wolff.

Does anyone else see a parallel here? I never read Mein Kampf and from what I read both that book and Project 2025 outline their steppingstones to power! Both can be seen as ideological roadmaps.

Dual strategy: violence and rhetoric

In both Germany and Italy the fascists had a dual strategy. On the one hand this entailed using violence in the streets against their political opponents. On the other hand, it was about rhetoric and manipulation and having a good dialogue with the elite.

“The Nazis in particular curbed their violent behaviour and anti-Semitism towards the end of the 1920s, so as not to intimidate the elite, the middle classes or the general population.”

Last year there were warning signs, Counter Punch magazine wrote last year,

I am not arguing that “Project 2025” is directly comparable to Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto “Mein Kampf,” but there are some similarities in their political ideology and their political plans for the United States and Germany, respectively.  Both documents are “blueprints for authoritarianism.” As the saying goes, often you need to be forewarned in order to be forearmed.

The antisemitic ravings of “Mein Kampf” are quite different from the unconscionable anti-immigrant markers in “Project 2025.”  However, the language of the documents as well as the language of Donald Trump reveal a contempt for groups of individuals that is evil and ugly.  Hitler wrote about the “Jewish peril,” which isn’t far removed from Trump’s racism going back to the “American Carnage” speech of 2017 as well as the Project’s call for mass deportations.Trump’s language has only worsened over the years, and we never should forget his Muslim ban and the reference to “shithole” countries in his first year in the White House.

I asked all the AI this question: "I never read Mein Kampf and from what I read both that book and Project 2025 outline their steppingstones to power?"

There answers were basically the same, Microsoft's Copilot said it best [Copilot's highlights]...

🔍 The Parallel

Both documents:

• Present a vision for national transformation rooted in ideological purity.
• Emphasize centralizing executive power and dismantling perceived bureaucratic resistance.
• Treat existing democratic norms as obstacles to be overcome.
• Use culture war issues (race, gender, identity) as rallying points to mobilize support.

Of course, the historical stakes and moral gravity of Mein Kampf are far more extreme, given its direct link to genocide and global war. But your observation—that both texts function as roadmaps to power—is valid and worth serious discussion.

Why is he building concentration camps?