Which Historic Parallel With President Trump?

“And we are here as on a darkling plain.” I swing between the black pill and the white pill. Western countries are under genocidal alien rule. Poz chokes the civilized world. It’s not natural but that’s the reality of the early 21st century.

What’s Trump’s analogue in east-central European history? Let’s assume that to be a helpful question, one that shines a light on perhaps some parallel between one occupied nation then, and unfree nations now.

Americans are ruled by malicious transnational interests, as are Canadians, New Zealanders, English, Swedes, etc. Poland was under foreign occupation for from 1772 to 1918, an era knows as the Partitions during which her people were stateless under the rule of Russian, Prussian, and Austro-Hungarian empires and endured campaigns of forced russification and germanization under their respective occupant. Commonly, historic judgment blames the decadence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the height of its power in the latter half of the 18th century for the Partitions, along with the treason of nobles who sold out to the three partitioning empires. A parallel with present circumstances.

Is Trump our man? Great things happened over the past two years. Hungary’s bold national project is thriving. There is the Gilets Jaunes uprising in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy. At the very least, Trump can be given credit for this apparent US non-interference with Europe’s nationalist awakening. There are also signs that elements of the globalist cabal are losing their cool. And lest we forget, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Accord, averting the planned demographic collapse of Republican-majority regions of the country.

Yet immigration is unprecedented in volume, in direct opposition to Trump’s promises during his Presidential campaign. Jarvanka, MIGA, SOTU, WTF. Who is Trump’s historic parallel?

The man who seized destiny…

I was once convinced that Józef Piłsudski (1867 – 1935) is an analogue for Donald Trump. He was a man of extraordinary personal magnetism. A dreamer of the multi-ethnic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s past imperial glories with a resolve to revive that past. From the hostile perspective of the nationalist Right of his time, Piłsudski was an imperialist. From the hostile perspective of the revolutionary Left, he was a mere socialist and unacceptable due to his loathing of Soviet Communism. Yet he captured the hearts of his nation for an eternity. My grandmother told me that she remembers seeing people crying in the streets when news broke that he had died.

Piłsudski’s pivotal moment took place during the waning years of WWI. He commanded 25,000 Polish legionnaires under allegiance to Austria, under whose flag they scored key victories against Russia on the eastern front. Piłsudski was asked to transfer his allegiance from Austria to her ally Germany. This is from historian Norman Davies’ 1981 edition of God’s Playground:

The extent of the German success, and the imminent collapse of Russia, undermined Piłsudski’s original motives. He no more wanted a complete German victory than a Russian one. So on 21 July 1917 he refused to transfer his allegiance from Austria to Germany. Piłsudski’s interview with [Hans Hartwig] von Besseler, the German Governor of Warsaw, was entirely uncompromising:

PIŁSUDSKI: Your Excellency, do you imagine for one moment that you will win the nation’s confidence by hanging Polish insignia on each of the fingers of the hand which is throttling Poland? The Poles know the Prussian stranglehold for what it is.

VON BESSELER: Herr von Piłsudski, you know that in these stirring times Poland needs a leader of vision, and you are the only one whom I have been able to find. If you go along with us, we will give you everything — power, fame, money…

PIŁSUDSKI: Your Excellency does not understand me, and does not wish to understand. If I were to go along with you, Germany would gain one man, whilst I would lose a nation.

(If you just skimmed over the above, re-read von Besseler’s offer and Piłsudski’s reply. Idle thought: did globalists make Donald Trump a similar offer?)

Piłsudski was arrested and imprisoned in Germany for the remainder of WWI. But with the Central Powers’ collapse in 1918, Piłsudski stepped into the power-vacuum created by the chaotic departure of German garrisons from Warsaw and became the head of the newly independent Poland. Two years later, he routed the Soviet Union in a battle that became known as “The Miracle on the Vistula,” strangling Vladimir Lenin’s dream of marching his armies on to Berlin to ignite a Bolshevik Revolution in continental Europe. 

Piłsudski’s physiognomy: soldier, leader, visionary.


… or the man who wanted to work with the system?

But what if instead of that story of deliverance and destiny, Trump’s historic parallel is a different figure? Namely, margrave Aleksander Wielopolski (1803 – 1877). Margrave is a hereditary title of the Holy Roman Empire’s legacy. Wielopolski ran Poland’s civil administration within the Russian Empire. To forestall the bloodshed that would result from Poland’s growing independence movement, he ordered a conscription of Polish nationalists into twenty-year enlistments in the Tsar’s army. That decision sparked the January 1863 Uprising that lasted almost a year and a half, the very outcome Wielopolski wanted to avoid.

Wielopolski’s physiognomy: diplomat, thinker, conservative.


When following along with this song about the ill-fated 1863 Uprising, my translation below, replace “Margrave Wielopolski” with “President Trump” and “Tsar” with (((globalists))). Does the analogy work? It’s too soon to tell.

Margrave Wielopolski

Through Saxon square, Circassian hundreds gallop
And by the palace, a hundred campfires burn
How do you do it, Your Excellency
That you’re despised on every side?

Lord Margrave, you don’t think in lockstep
So with the Tsar you’re already suspect
Neither Petersburg nor Moscow will trust
A Pole who has his own plans

Lord Margrave still walks the tightrope
It’s dangerous to walk so high
After all, disaster won’t spare him
Because bad luck has he, who is born here

Your contempt, no one will forgive
We’re superstitious, fervent and teary
And you’re proud, you won’t deign wallow
In the national borscht with us

Why splash logic in our faces?
We did not read Hegel, sire
For us it’s Chopin, peas and cabbage
And from time to time an uprising

Lord Margrave still walks the tightrope
Abyss on the left, abyss on the right
If he avoids death at countryman’s hand
He’ll leave office in disgrace

All that work, Lord Margrave, and for nothing
In vain, the forced conscription
Things will be as they must – business as usual
To battle unarmed, backbreak and welts

Lord Margrave, you won’t change a nation
Here, being reasonable is seldom heard of
And the one thing we do truly well
Is lose most beautifully in the world

Lord Margrave still walks the tightrope
Awkwardly and with a wild boar’s posture
And when he falls, he’ll merely earn
A traitor’s shame instead of a monument

That you fell, that’s normal Polish fate
In the end, everyone falls off that rope
Only why did you forget, Wielopolski,
That the fall must look pretty?

Lyrics: Jerzy Czech; music/performance: Przemysław Gintrowski (c. 1980)

Back to Donald Trump and America

Trump’s physiognomy. Is it “businessman, playboy, neophyte” or is it “chess-player, wolf, king”?

America doesn’t get the Romantic spirit of beautiful loss, of futile sacrifice… right? Except for the death-scene of Sergeant Elias in Platoon. I’m not bringing this up flippantly. The Vietnam war was a beautiful loss. Civil Rights, in contrast, was a hideous loss and so has been every setback since then, from the negrification of Detroit through drag queen storytime at America’s public libraries. A national tragedy, once felt and understood as such, can cleanse the collective psyche of its hubris and forge a people’s fanatical will to never perish.


24 thoughts on “Which Historic Parallel With President Trump?

  1. The Vietnam War was neither beautiful nor a defeat.

    Google the date “August 15,1971”.

    The cabal’s objectives were met.

  2. That quote and reply does have some eerie parallels, well, potential parallels. (That being said, I’m wonder when this administration is all said and done, several years after the fact mind you, will we ever get a good idea or presentation of what was going on? Will it come from someone such as Stephen Miller?)

    Back to your point: I’m beginning to think that Trump hadn’t realized this entire collusion issue would go on as it had, coupled with the fact that he probably thought he could bully his way to get things done, as he had in the private sector. Classic boomerism or just a romanticism of his potential?

    And in reference to that quote and reply, even if Trump was to make a deal, I don’t think he’s that naive to think he’d be left to his own devices once he’s no longer president. Making a deal would be likened to offering an apology and the sharks would smell blood in the water.

    It’s all in the timing and one thing I’ve learned about Trump is he’s very good at finding the right time to act. (Well, at least he seemed to.)

    I say this in thinking if an impeachment takes root, it will only have a boomerang effect that could net him a 2020 win.

  3. Pingback: Which Historic Parallel With President Trump? | Reaction Times

  4. America doesn’t get the Romantic spirit of beautiful loss, of futile sacrifice… A national tragedy, once felt and understood as such, can cleanse the collective psyche of its hubris and forge a people’s fanatical will to never perish.

    Hello, may I introduce you to the Lost Cause?

    Or am I completely misunderstanding your meaning of “beautiful loss”?

    [Try not to do that gay ‘hello’ thing. America is not synonymous with South. – PA]

  5. I’m definitely misunderstanding “America”, then. I thought America was the superset that included the various nations like New England, the South, Tidewater, etc. If the South’s history is not part of America’s history, then where does America’s history begin, and what are its extents?

    If you are searching for a conflict on which all American nations are in complete agreement, then isn’t 9/11 a “beautiful loss”? Flight 93 particularly.

  6. Trump’s situation is unique. His enemy first and foremost is the Central Bank(s). They are everywhere and yet have no presence as a nation state. They operate through control of the political class and the intelligence services. Any standing force they use is one of the nation states’ militaries duped into participating or a mercenary force such as ISIS. Trump is the man of the moment and I don’t think he is a puppet because too much is at stake and the bankers have gone to great lengths to destroy him politically. He has too many important enemies. His accomplishments in the economic infrastructure have more than shown his mettle and the desire to create an infrastructure that is not rigged in favor of the bankers. This is a complicated problem to unravel and must be done in the correct sequence. I think the influence of Javanka is overstated. He has them working special projects and working the cocktail party circuit but the current invasion is not under their control. The Democrats and their international supporters are making this invasion happen and the current US laws do not allow for the needed ease of enforcement. It is a deliberate effort to discredit Trump. The people who most stand to lose against Trump also stand most to gain from the invasion. This is a cold civil war and a lot of money is threatened by Trump. I think he has to choose his battles and focus his thoughts where they are most urgently needed. The courts are being transformed with increasing speed because of Senate control. The invaders can always be deported but you need to control the courts in order to do so. And any victory would be temporary without that control. In my opinion, he is Pilsudsky in a business suit and fighting a vastly more dangerous and complex enemy than Pilsudsky faced.

  7. I am probably also the only one here besides PA who knows of Pilsudsky. I am a big admirer of him. He is the father of modern Poland.

  8. good work, Carlos. that’s a concise, informed summary of a the extraordinarily complex, present situation Trump is facing.

    I’m grateful to PA for creating a space where intelligent conversations like the one here can take place without being dragged down by the lowest common denominators and disinformation agents.

  9. It’s not an original thought, but I do believe we are living in a period that has no historical parallel; an escape from history. One of the many ways this affects us is in our judgement of leaders. In Pilsudsky’s time, a leader could build around him a cult of personality from just a few anecdotes of bravery or leadership. Stories would spread and people could impart on faraway figures those traits they admired most. Their perceptions were probably largely projection.
    Modern leaders of (partly) open states don’t have that advantage. Trump goes on screen and on Twitter and all his humanness is there exposed. There’s no chance for him or any other politician who opens his mouth or lets video of himself be taken.
    Cultural and ethnic diversity make the problem of mass appeal all the more difficult.
    Revolutionary change can only be led through violence of the minority, since absolute majorities will be really hard to come by in the Western countries you mentioned. New kinds of heroes are needed.

  10. Here’s a historic parallel: George Washington and the conspiracy of some of his bodyguards to kill him.

    If you hold with this parallel, it means the Deep State fight is happening far removed from the media.


    The assassination plot is hidden history. When the British were coming, the last thing Washington wanted to say was, “Hey, everyone, my own men just turned on me.” That is not the picture of leadership you want when you are in charge of the military. It’s clear to me that he didn’t want anyone to know this story.

  11. The cabal’s objectives were met. (Reggie)

    It’s wild, delving too deeply into speculation about the cabal. Taken too far, it paralyzes one into a feeling of helplessness before despotic gods. I may be objectively right or wrong, but I’m not prone to aggrandizing my enemies to superhuman stature.

    It’s all in the timing and one thing I’ve learned about Trump is he’s very good at finding the right time to act. (mendo)

    He’s also a good student. The election season is coming. He certainly didn’t peak early like GHWB did.

    then isn’t 9/11 a “beautiful loss”? (Mocheirge)

    My original comment was meant to be taken with nuance and as a broad stroke. I omitted the South from that point intentionally because it’s unique, as regions go, in its distinctness as its own nation.

    [Pilsudski] is the father of modern Poland. (Carlos Danger)

    Yes. With Roman Dmowski, his contemporary and long-time rival. He was Pilsudski’s opposite in his aspirational vision. Where Pilsudski sought to create a large, multiethnic Poland after the Partitions, Dmowski wanted a smaller state comprised solely of Polish-speaking Roman Catholics. In effect, Dmowski’s goal was realized in 1945 and still holds today. In a very loose analogy, you can make Dmowski the Pat Buchanan to Pilsudski’s Donald Trump.

    Dmowski also founded radical nationalist organizations that are active today, such as National Radical Camp (technically, that was started as an offshoot of Dmowski’s more moderate organization). He did not have Pilsudski’s grandeur or charisma, not that many men ever did. He was more of an academic personality. After retiring from politics, Dmowski became a lecturer at Cambridge University.

    good work, Carlos. that’s a concise, informed summary of a the extraordinarily complex, present situation Trump is facing. (plumpjack)

    Carlos’s summary of the Trump presidency was a well-appreciated glass of something strong and top shelf.

    There’s no chance for him or any other politician who opens his mouth or lets video of himself be taken (DN Poolside)

    It’s politics becoming hyper-local. Like your boss at work whom you see regularly, a head of state can’t easily weave a legend about himself. They tried to do that with Obama but the internet didn’t let them turn him into the larger-than-life figure he most obviously wasn’t.

    “When the British were coming, the last thing Washington wanted to say was, “Hey, everyone, my own men just turned on me.” (donsunconvergedinvestments)

    That’s a good point. We give Trump shit for some of his “that’s unfair!” tweets but when it comes to the serious stuff, he’s stone-silent.

  12. You’re right…the US doesn’t really do the concept of “beautiful defeat”. I think it’s because we don’t have too many defeats. We only had three major wars that weren’t victories – the War of 1812, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.

    1812 and Korea were ties, and 1812 ended with a morale-boosting victory in New Orleans. Vietnam was a loss, but it wasn’t an existential defeat (after all it was half a world away), and the country was never really behind it 100%.

    The only defeats that might qualify as a “beautiful defeat” to a large subset of the country are the Battle of the Alamo and the Civil War. Neither of these really work, though…the Alamo loss was avenged by Texan independence, and the Civil War is seen as a victory by a majority of Americans.

    PS – This isn’t a knock on Poland; when you’re stuck between two great powers with no natural barriers, the odds just aren’t in your favor.

  13. — when you’re stuck between two great powers with no natural barriers, the odds just aren’t in your favor.

    Poland’s somewhat uncommon historic condition: too big to go with the flow its stronger neighbors, too small to be a continental power. There have been three kinds of approaches to national security.

    One strategy has been to ally with a more distant power, but those have mixed results. An alliance with Napoleon during the Partitions did bring about a short-lived independent Duchy of Warsaw but at too great a cost of life on his Russian campaign. An alliance with France and England in 1939 didn’t bear fruit until England turned to hot war in WWII. And since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the obvious non-regional ally. NATO membership modernized Poland’s and every east-central European country’s military, including combat experience in IRQ/AFG.

    It made sense to ally with America until the boomer-cuck element of Poland’s government took things to the point of wanting military bases on its soil. Russophobia, along with insufficient cynicism about US government, is very much an older-generational thing over there.

    The second security strategy is a central European alliance. Pilsudski wanted to create an Intermaerum of central/east European countries as bulwark against Germany and Russia. This would include a number of small nations pulled away from Russian Empire’s (and later Soviet) control and under Poland’s stewardship, sort of like the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Visegrad 4 alliance today serves a similar purpose.

    A third strategy, in effect, is to join the strong neighbor. Joining the EU was basically joining Germany, with associated short-term advantages. The Communist era was a partnership with Russia/USSR. I personally see a reproach with Russia as the way forward that ought not be rejected outright.

  14. I think a closer figure in Polish history to Trump could be King Jan Sobieski. His decisive intervention and victory over the Turks in Vienna in 1683 is the stuff of legend.

  15. Trump is, at best, incompetent as a leader and a terrible judge of character.

    Today we’re being told that Trump is going to pick Ken Cuccinelli for some high profile DHS position on immigration. Cuccinelli was another “never Trumper” who resisted until the last moment at he GOP convention.


    Setting aside the fact that appointing Cuccinelli to anything is counterproductive to Trump’s policy goals; it’s a sign of weakness to be rewarding those who actively worked against him, Makes him look like the total paper tiger that he’s turned out to be.

    From Day 1 of his presidency, Trump has staffed his administration with people who don’t agree with his most important campaign promises—Never Trumpers, Conservative Inc. blowhards, Neocons, and Jews. Is anyone surprised that nothing substantial has been accomplished? People is policy.

    Even beyond his presidency, look who Trump associated with—Cohen, Kushner, Epstein, etc.

    Trump saw the immigration issue as a means to the presidency, and it worked. But he has no idea how to get anything done himself, and the positions he should be filling with pro-MAGA people he gives to credentialed losers and backstabbers instead. And nothing gets done.

    Trying to be charitable, Trump seems to think he can run the Executive branch like he runs a company—put in a bunch of credentialed and “well-respected” underlings (“the best people”), bark his desires, and then sit back while everyone scrambles to please The Boss because they are highly motivated by money (and fearful of losing their lucrative positions). But in government, the Deep State is happy to just run out the clock at the civil servant level, while his political appointees are either actively working against him or dithering and feet-dragging due to those same primary motivators—greed and fear. The high level political appointees know that they stand a better chance of making out by being “principled resisters” in a failed Trump administration than by actually making tough choices necessary to get things done. And Trump has made things worse by showing little to no loyalty to people who take risks to support him.

    The buck stops with Trump and all the blame ultimately lies at his feet.

  16. “And Trump has made things worse by showing little to no loyalty to people who take risks to support him”

    That’s been my big criticism of him, going back to his silence during the campaign after his supporters were attacked in San Jose.

  17. I’ve thought it would be the supreme irony if Trump, who everyone including himself sees as a Jacksonian figure, indeed repeats Jackson’s big accomplishment which was to kick the slavery question down the road one last time, yet in doing so it ultimately just resulted in a much bloodier Civil War.

    In Trump’s case, it will be to kick the immigration question down the road one last time, yet in doing so it may ultimately resulting in a much bloodier balkanization and dissolution of the States of America.

  18. He doesn’t give a crap about his supporters being physically assaulted and free speech being eliminated. He also gives jobs to his open enemies. I don’t know what to compare him with… eventual total defeat?

  19. “Piłsudski’s physiognomy…”

    He does look as if he could handle his liquor (with slightly more ease than Wielopolski.) Your insight is a feathery kite in the day’s distillations that almost seems to grin, PA.

    Assuredly brightens my mood!

  20. Even if Trump is good, so too were some of the Roman emperors during the first two centuries of the decline and fall of the Western Empire.

    All roads lead to decline, bottom and (eventual) renewal, but the level of popular stupidity and genetic weakness that must be washed away before that renewal argues that it will take a level of hardship few of us can begin to imagine before the downtrend can conclude.

  21. “From Day 1 of his presidency, Trump has staffed his administration with people who don’t agree with his most important campaign promises—Never Trumpers, Conservative Inc. blowhards, Neocons, and Jews.”

    Flynn, Bannon, Sessions, Mooch etc…

    Look the issue is The Presidency is the equivalent of a start up. Trump believers were neccesarily outsiders (save Sessions) and as such had limited real experience and consequently blew themselves up right quick…

    As in any start up you need bodies… And there are a ton of bodies with the right resumes who say all the right things and are supported by the power structure and so you go. You hunt with the dogs you have. To his credit he hasn’t been shy of shaming and cutting the chaff…

    Buy they will both run out the clock on any policy he supports (so you shouldn’t get your shorts in a knot over any trial balloons he floats) and will move to impeach to frustrate 2020 attempts. They simply cannot afford to lose another SCOTUS seat. They can’t risk it.

    This is also ample evidence that there is no “deal” Trump made… He risked everything by fighting them. His business is land and image based. He doesn’t have a bank, or an energy company or a government contractor… His positions are fixed….

    Any of you ever go by Trump Tower? There has been a constant demonstration there since this started. Is this helping his revenue? How many nights are globohomo booking in his hotels? Which SJW are going to buy Trump branded products or watch his shows?

    He has put everything on the line and it wont end if he is ousted in 2020. They will hound him in court proceedings through his dotage. As an example. To ensure another not dare rise.

Comments are closed.