The EQ Post

TRUTH & TRUST. For God & Country. Fearless citizen journalism.Year 10.

EQ

EQ
After 300 Days In Office,What Grade Does Duterte Truly Deserve?

EQ Video

EQ Post HOME

Reflections

“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms, by truth when it is attacked by lies, by faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, in the final act, by determination and faith.”

― Archibald MacLeish

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Hitler, Duterte and Trump: What do they have in common?

Hilter, Duterte and Trump
  • Like Hitler, Duterte and Trump have populist appeal.
  • Like Hitler, Duterte is supported by Moral Leaders.
  • Hitler, in the eyes of the elite, was not a serious man, unfit to govern, a classless buffoon. His appeal, the German elite believed, came from his outsider status, which allowed him to posture against the political system and make extravagant promises to his followers that would never be tested against reality. 
  • Like Hitler, Trump is a radical, authoritarian figure who lies outside the normal parameters of his country’s conservative governing class.
Reasons why HE rose to power
He was a great speaker, with the power to make people support him.
The moderate political parties would not work together, although together they had more support than him.
There was widespread poverty and unemployment, which made people angry with the government. People lost confidence in the democratic system and turned towards the extremist political parties .
The death squads attacked his opponents.
The propaganda campaign was very effective and it won support for him. They targeted specific groups of society with different slogans and policies to win their support.
He was given power in a seedy political deal by a political party who foolishly thought they could control him.
Industrialists gave him money and support.
The above description is NOT about Duterte. This is a BBC article on how HITLER rose to power! Isn't it eerily similar to the Duterte story in the Philippines?
From NY Mag
How Hitler’s Rise to Power Explains Why Republicans Accept Donald Trump
Like Hitler, Trump is a radical, authoritarian figure who lies outside the normal parameters of his country’s conservative governing class. Thus, there is a parallel between the two men’s unexpected rise to power that is worth considering: Why would traditional conservatives willingly hand power to a figure so dangerous that he threatened their own political and economic interests? Why, having failed in their halfhearted efforts to nominate an alternative candidate during the primaries, don’t they throw themselves behind a convention coup, a third-party candidacy, or defect outright to Hillary Clinton? Why do so many of them consider Trump the lesser rather than the greater evil?
Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power, by the historian Henry Ashby Turner, describes the political machinations that allowed Hitler to seize the chancellorship of Germany. (I stole the idea to read it from Matthew Yglesias, via Twitter.) In January 1933, the Nazi party’s vote share had begun to decline, and its party was undergoing a serious internal crisis, with dues falling, members drifting off, and other leaders questioning Hitler’s direction. A widely shared belief across the political spectrum at the time held that Hitler would not and could not win the chancellorship, because Germany’s revered conservative president, Paul von Hindenburg, had long vowed to deny such a position to Hitler.
Hindenburg and the German right viewed Hitler in strikingly similar terms to how Republican elites view Trump. Yes, they badly underestimated his fanaticism, which Hitler had downplayed in public. While they failed to anticipate that Hitler would launch a total war and industrial-scale genocide, they did consider him a buffoon. Alfred Hugenberg, leader of the German-Nationals, deemed the Nazis “little better than a rabble, with dangerously radical social and economic notions,” writes Turner. Hindenburg considered Hitler qualified to head the postal ministry at best. Hitler, in their eyes, was not a serious man, unfit to govern, a classless buffoon. His appeal, the German elite believed, came from his outsider status, which allowed him to posture against the political system and make extravagant promises to his followers that would never be tested against reality. What’s more, Hitler’s explicit contempt for democracy made even the authoritarian German right nervous about entrusting him with power.
All this is to say that German conservatives did not see Hitler as Hitler — they saw Hitler as Trump. And the reasons they devised to overcome their qualms and accept him as the head of the government would ring familiar to followers of the 2016 campaign. They believed the responsibility of governing would tame Hitler, and that his beliefs were amorphous and could be shaped by advisers once in office. They respected his populist appeal and believed it could serve their own ends. (Hugenberg, writes Turner, “recognized that [the Nazis] were far more successful than his party in mobilizing mass support and hoped to harness their movement to destroy the republic and establish a rightist authoritarian regime.”) Their myopic concern with specifics of their policy agenda overcame their general sense of unease. (One right-wing landowner was “hopeful of relief measures by a Hitler cabinet for the depressed agriculture of the east,” and thus concluded “the army and the forces of conservatism would suffice to prevent a one-party Nazi dictatorship.”) Think of the supply-siders supporting Trump in the hope he can enact major tax cuts, or the social conservatives enthused about his list of potential judges, and you’ll have a picture of the thought process.
There is one more parallel between the events of 1933 and the events of 2016: Most of the complicit parties (the main exception being the scheming Franz von Papen) did not fully apprehend the extent of their actions until it was too late. In Germany, Hitler’s ascent required complicated intrigue, the upshot of which was that conservatives believed they had parliamentary leverage that would restrain Hitler. They placed enormous faith in the power of this leverage, until the final two days, when the rumor of an impending military coup rushed their timetable, and the once-crucial terms of Hitler’s chancellorship became forgotten details, discarded in a mad rush.
What do HITLER,TRUMP  & DUTERTE have in common? Antisocial Personality Disorder.
From ABS-CBN News
"Tough-talking" may be the most-used description for Davao city mayor and presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte, but it seems that his attitude and personality are caused by a psychological condition, according to court records.
Details on how Duterte thinks were made public after a report prepared by a psychologist was entered into as evidence in the annulment proceedings initiated by his former wife, Elizabeth Zimmerman.
A report prepared by Dr. Natividad Dayan, former president of the International Council of Psychologists, concluded that Duterte was suffering from "Antisocial Narcissistic Personality Disorder,” a condition characterized by "gross indifference, insensitivity and self-centeredness," "grandiose sense of self-entitlement and manipulative behaviors" and "pervasive tendency to demean, humiliate others and violate their rights and feelings."
A clinical examination conducted on Duterte confirmed that he was suffering from “Antisocial Narcissistic Personality Disorder.”
Among the features of said personality disorder are "inability for loyalty and commitment, gross indifference to others' needs and feelings, heightened by lack of capacity for remorse and guilt."
For years, Duterte had been criticized for his alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City–and his apparent lack of remorse for it.
In more than one instance, Duterte admitted, perhaps in jest, to killing scores of individuals allegedly involved in criminal activities before they received their day in court.
The mayor previously admitted his links to the Davao Death Squad, which is allegedly responsible for summary executions of criminals in the city. He also warned he will kill up to 100,000 criminals if he is elected president.
In a television interview, Duterte was unapologetic about his actions and even dared the group to file a case against him in court.
"Ako, ako daw death squad? True, that's true," Duterte said on air. He also said that instead of 1,000 dead criminals, the number might rise to 50,000 dead if he is elected president.
"Pag naging presidente ako, magtago na kayo. Yung 1,000 na ‘yan it would reach 50,000. I will kill all you [expletive] breaking the life of the Filipino miserable. Papatayin ko talaga kayo.
"Manalo ako kasi because of breakdown of law and order. I do not want to commit a crime but if by chance, God will place me there, magbantay kayo. Yung 1,000, magiging 100,000. Dyan mo makita tataba yung isda sa Manila Bay. Dyan ko kayo itapon," Duterte said.
Results of Dayan's examination of Duterte showed that the mayor is likely to be "a highly impulsive individual who has difficulty controlling his urges and emotions. He is unable to reflect on the consequences of his actions."
Several groups have also hit Duterte for his womanizing and alleged demeaning treatment of women.
In one of his campaign sorties, Duterte was caught on video kissing a number of female supporters on the lips.
Several women who Duterte forcibly kissed on the lips tried to avoid the presidential aspirant's actions, a seen on the video.
In Pampanga, one woman tried to avoid Duterte's kiss. But the Davao City mayor held her by the face and kissed her on the lips.
The assessment further showed that Duterte can be easily upset when his needs and desires were not met.
"Immediate gratification of his [Duterte's] needs and desires is always expected; any delay can upset him a great deal," the assessment said.
The psychological assessment also found Duterte capable of destructive behavior and has poor capacity for objective judgment.
"Such lack of self-discipline often leads him to engage in unhealthy or destructive behaviors. However, he is not apt to see his behaviors as such, and instead sees these as merely exciting and challenging," the assessment found.
“As it is, he has poor capacity for objective judgment. He fails to see things in the light of facts, or at least from the point of view of most people. He interprets his actions solely from his own viewpoint, which is blemished by his personal needs, biases and prejudices,” it continued.
Duterte also tends to rationalize and justify his wrongdoings, according to the psychological assessment.
“For all his wrongdoings, he tends to rationalize and feel justified. Hence, he seldom feels a sense of guilt or remorse.”