THE REAL TRUMP NOT UNDERSTOOD BY PRESSTITUTES OR BEING ATTACKED FOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES

Agha H Amin AS RECEIVED FROM MY DEAREST FRIEND PROF DR ANDRE DE GEORGES

Ivan: Yes most Americans do not trust the establishment.  The States have lost a lot of control – the government closest to the people in favor of an isolated and entrenched political elite in Washington.  One thing I would have hoped for is at all those banquets/gatherings the day of the

inauguration that Trump would have invited farmers, factory workers, plumbers, truck drivers, etc. and placed them among the tables of the political elite and then in a speech saying – these people are who you represent and who elected me, not the Corporates. I was surprised after bad mouthing the CIA, in his speech at the CIA he told how he loved them. In my opinion, he should have said that in the future, he will rely on the truth and not fabrications of the truth. He went on to say how the CIA would help defeat Radical Islam.  He should have said that the CIA and thus America will no longer support Radical Islamists since it is the very CIA along with the Saudis/Gulf States that have helped Radical Islam to spread across the Globe.  The CIA used it to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan and tried to use it but failed to kick Assad out of Syria, and supported such groups to dump Gaddafi in Libya, among other geo-political goals. None of this was said.  So is he just becoming another politician??? Time will tell. So  agree with the article that “The enemy is djhadism and not Putin” but then the State

Department and CIA need major changes in leadership & policies. I hope Trump can bring about appropriate changes. I don’t know much about Obama Care except some people I know had their costs go up and in some cases – unlike what Obama said, something like  - if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor – some people were forced to give up their preferred doctor. I would hope Trump will look at the cost of pharmaceuticals and health care.  For awhile when I came back from South Africa – my pharmacist sent me my medicine from South Africa to the USA. Including postage what I paid for 6 months of medicine sent from South Africa would buy one month in the USA.  Many people on the Canadian border go to Canada to buy their medicine.  When I lived in South Africa, many Americans came to South Africa for surgery and compared to the cost in the USA had enough money left over to visit game parks, etc. 

We’ll see how tax reform turns out – Let’s see if it benefits just the corporate or the average working stiff!??? I am all for renewable energy, but it must become affordable and I also understand nuclear pebble bed technology is safe from meltdowns.  I believe we should increase nuclear power (believe France gets 80% of its power from nuclear), stay with coal and oil until it can be proven that solar, wind and other renewables are affordable.  Let’s see how Trump plays it out! China has been dumping poor quality steel http://www.scmp.com/business/markets/article/2018753/chinese-steel-being-dumped-us-commerce-department and at one time sent over toxic dry wall http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114182073 to the USA. When I was in South Africa China dumped cheap clothing and put local manufacturers out of business: 

“…Dumping is not prohibited under the policies of the WTO.

However, when it causes material injury to another market, it is condemned as being anti-competitive. According to the WTO, China is at the top of the list of countries subject to anti-dumping investigations. Statistics published by the WTO indicate that between 1995 and 2012 there have been 32 countries worldwide that have initiated anti-dumping investigations of around 664 cases against Chinese products. Of these cases, 20 are from African countries; 19 from South Africa alone…” http://www.polity.org.za/article/cheap-chinese-imports-in-africa-implications-and-remedies-2014-03-06

 As far as NAFTA and Mexico (extract DeGeorges & Reilly, 2008): 

“…The North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has transformed Mexico into a cheap

source of manufactured goods, with wages 10% (1/10 th ) of the U.S.  The decrease in wages was hailed as an inducement to foreign investment, along with labor repression and lax enforcement of environmental restrictions. “Free-trade agreements” extend control over the global economy to the benefit of a few, while impoverishing the masses (Chomsky, 1999)… Attempts are being made to deal with environmental issues (see Chapter 13, Section 13.13.4, NAFTA, Maquiladora and the Environment, Lessons for Sub-Saharan Africa)…Meanwhile, NAFTA has been used to subordinate workers in America, with actual or threatened exports of jobs overseas, when increased salaries or worker benefits are demanded.  Real wages have fallen since the 1960s for

production and non-supervisory workers, and concern exists that “free-trade” deals like NAFTA, will harm not only local workers, but lock the United States into a low-wage, low-productivity, high profit (for the corporate elite) future, with increasing polarization between the rich and poor, with possible social disintegration (Chomsky, 1999).  Africa beware!... Since its inception in 1965, the Mexico’s Border Industrialization Program (maquiladora program) has grown to include over 3,000 plants, employing well over 689,420   people  (TED, 1997). Most of the program’s growth came after 1982 when Mexico’s economy suffered severe disequilibria due to the debt crisis, a fall in basic commodity export prices and Balance of Payments (BOP) problems. Concomitant to the increase in the numbers

of   maquiladora   plants was rapid population growth, over-development and environmental degradation (TED, 1993). The maquiladora program essentially allows foreign-owned and managed companies duty free imports of manufacturing equipment, tools, machinery and spare parts required for production into Mexico.  The goods can then be exported to any country in the world with only a value-added tax assessed by the maquiladora industries -- which seek to profit by using cheaper Mexican labor in production (TED, 1997). The NAFTA agreement was supposed to spread the wealth, pushing companies located in the maquiladora trade zone further into the country.  This has not happened. Instead, more and more companies, primarily American, are relocating to take

advantage of the cheaper labor costs – where workers are paid an average of US$ 0.75 an hour.  While the goals of setting up the maquiladora zones were admirable, they have brought about the same results as the bracero program (allowing Mexican citizens into the United States legally as seasonal farm workers); the exploitation of cheap labor (TED, 1997).  “Automobiles, machinery, electronics, apparel, and furniture, previously manufactured in the United States but now made in Mexico by U.S. companies employing $US 1.50/hour labor” flowed back into the U.S., resulting in the trade deficit with Mexico increasing from US$ 1.7 billion in 1993 to US$ 23 billion in 2001 and US$ 31 billion in 2002.  Net U.S. export gains came in agribusiness and bulk commodities like cereals and

organic chemicals (Phillips, 2004),  raising the question of possible adverse impacts on Mexican farmers having to compete with subsidized American farmers (Add – some say this has contributed to the mass migrations into the USA, as a result of Mexican farmers being put out of business).  As the result of NAFTA, “the U.S. trade surplus in agricultural products has declined sharply with Mexico, and has turned into a deficit with Canada…some U.S. producers of corn and cattle have profited, as have all the major grain trading companies, while Canadian Dairy farms, U.S. farmers growing wheat, barley, fruits and vegetables, and Mexican corn producers have all suffered catastrophic losses” (Scott, 1999). Job losses for U.S. industries centered in high wage sectors, mostly in the north (Phillips, 2004)…. Various studies

show that post-NAFTA, water, air and soil pollution has increased in Northern Mexico due to the growth of manufacturing industry and the controversial   maquiladora   sector  along the border with the United States (Ghiso, 2003).”

 Trump will have to deal with NAFTA among other trade deals. If he plays it smart, he will do it through various controls allowed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) so few can complain. As far as Trump and his wall.  Yesterday I had to take my cousin in for a hip replacement.  While waiting for her to come out of surgery I wondered about the hospital talking to people. I met up with two Guatemalans, one 34 (came to America at age 16) and the other 26.  As we talked, it eventually came out that they were illegals, working on a cattle ranch in Maryland.  They said they will not go back, that they know America better than their country of birth. If sent back, as they told me – once we get to

the USA/Mexican border there are many places to cross and we’ll be back – they laughed. There were police all around us and they didn’t seem too worried. Anyway, they already have a “WALL” that has not stopped them – the desert where many die and in the case of Europe the Mediterranean Sea. The majority of people immigrating illegally into America from Latin America and from Africa into Europe are economic migrants (Middle East/South Asia – escaping wars).  Either Africa and Latin America are helped to develop economically or No Wall will be able to stop such young people from seeking a better way of life! My opinion! I wholeheartedly agree with Trump – we don’t go around trying to impose our values and our form of government on other cultures (certainly in tribally and religiously divided societies “One Man One Vote Multi-party Elections” have failed) and we stop Interventionist Foreign Policies and manipulating economies and politics (West putting in its puppets) to the benefit of the West, but not the people of these countries. The State Department, not the military should

be the Spear Head of our Foreign Policy – with the military a last resort when all negotiations fail. We don’t need a WWIII that would destroy the World we live in today Foreign aid must be restructured so it actually helps the recipient country develop, not the donor country (70-90% of donor money goes back to the donor country in the form of salaries to “experts”/consulting firms/NGOs/Condition Precedents such as buy American or French with the donor money – with little reaching or uplifting the poorest of the poor or resulting in economic development. I don’t know about NATO – the Soviet Union is a thing of the past. Is this really needed? Werner Brach, whom you know seems to think the Germans are fed up with all the American military bases in his country and they feel the USA uses NATO for its agendas – not necessarily what is best for Europe (e.g., militarizing the Balkans (http://www.globalresearch.ca/militarization-of-the-balkans-directed-against-russia-u-s-leads-largest-air-combat-exercises-in-

bulgaria-s-history/30527 ) & Poland/Baltic States (http://www.globalresearch.ca/poland-will-do-it-for-us-poland-acquires-first-strike-capability-to-pose-threat-to-russia/5567381 & http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/01/12/509520482/u-s-troops-arrive-in-poland-but-will-trump-keep-them-there), orchestrating overthrowing elected president in Ukraine).  Is it not time to end NATO or greatly modify the alliance, maybe even bringing in Russia???  I see Russia as a potential ally, not an enemy. Europe and the USA may need Russia as a counter to China and also Radical Islam. On Trump & World Disorder – full of misinformation.  America helped create the Ukraine Crisis, and as one Russian told me, Russia will not give up Ukranian territory to the West (NATO/EU) East of the Dnieper River – because of historical ties; Anatov Airplane and other armaments made there, cultural and Crimea a key Warm Water Port. F-You Nolan from the State Department was caught on helping to overthrow the Democratically elected president of Ukraine. 

AS an aside - The article mentions - religious persecution being the reason for many early Europeans coming to America.  My Great, Great, Great – not sure how many greats – Grandfather was a French Huguenot – Lancelot Jacques fleeing France (it is unclear if he fled France or he was born in England after his family fled France as I see different accounts) first to England and then Maryland, the “Religious Free State” in the mid-1700s where he was a businessman, eventually opening up Catoctin Iron Furnace with the first Governor of Maryland, Thomas Johnson and eventually moving to what then was the frontier - building an iron furnace at Green Springs in partnership with Johnson, western Maryland panhandle – his home today an historical site http://articles.herald-mail.com/2011-12-09/lifestyle/30503510_1_chimney-original-section-annapolis/2 & http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/jacques/1087/ &http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/stagsere/se1/se5/022000/022900/022999/pdf/msa_se5_22999.pdf where Washington stopped on his way to fight the French &

Indian Wars. My Father (born in Algeria of Spanish/Italian decent, his Father fighting in the 4ieme Regiment De Tirailleurs Indigenes, Mother from Oran – Spanish-speaking Algeria – family name Martinez, and my Father’s family name DiGioja (Italian) – my Father Americanized it to DeGeorges).  My Father came to the USA in 1939 on a scholarship to Notre Dame University. With WWII breaking out and his family trapped in Paris, he was recruited as an interrogator in Patton’s headquarters – interrogating German captives, and while in training at Fort Richie before going to the war in Europe – met my Mom, a farm girl (bunch of those soldier boys married those farm girls – among others my Mom and one of her sisters – getting married after the war.  I was raised Catholic for what it is worth, but favor the ecumenical movement that would not only bring together various Christian religions, but all religions, as other than superficial differences, from my experience they all preach about the same moral values. The politicization and radicalization of religions is an obvious issue, but such groups are in a minority of the World’s population.

    Regards Andre ----- Original Message -----From: Ivan de KlaszTo: ANDRE DEGEORGESSent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:46 AMSubject: Everything you have been told about Donald Trump and which has nothing to do with reality

Hi Andre, 

We found an article, by a French academic, quite interesting, as it is rather in opposition with mainstream media, as far as Trump is concerned. Sandrine made a "Google translation", trying to eliminate as much as possible non sense and counter sense generated by Google translating program. We are curious what you would think about this paper?We have been a bit shocked by the hysterical anti-Trump demos, as he was after all democratically elected by the Americans. And

even more chocked by anti Trump demos held in diverse cities across the world, pretending to mix into US politics.We were mainly glad that H. Clinton has not been elected.Quite a few American friends, living in the US and elsewhere, wrote us that they voted Trump.

Regards

Ivan

 45th President of the United States: everything you have been told about Donald Trump and which has nothing to do with reality.Much has been said about Donald Trump since his inauguration to the US presidency. But all is not to be taken for cash. Here are four received ideas that French commentators have on Donald Trump.

Read more at http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/45e-

president-etats-unis-c-est-parti-tout-qu-on-raconte-donald-trump-et-qui-rien-voir-avec-realite-yves-roucaute-2941464.html#9wmemtXWvqJsVhJ8.99 By Yves RoucauteYves Roucaute is a philosophy and political science teacher at the Faculty of Law of the University of Paris-X.He is the author of:Eloge du mode de vie à la française (Editions Contemporary Bookstore),Histoire de la Philosophie Politique (volume 1), Du néolithique à l'antiquité grecque;  Les grandes spiritualités à la fin du Moyen-Âge (Volume 2), (Editions Contemporary Bookstore).  1 - "Donald Trump, nobody knows what he will do."Be careful not to model the French vision of policy on the American one. The United States does not have that "Latin" vision of politics, where, when saying  something, the politicians  have a hidden idea behind the head and where when they promise they

rarely intend to keep it,  their primary objective being to be elected or to remain in power, and not to defend ideas.In the United States, Presidents generally try to do what they say. They do not always succeed, or only partially, but it is a characteristic of the American political conception born of American civilization. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, the Bush, Barack Obama, and today Donald Trump had positions and projects during their campaign that they tried to realize once elected.There is behind this vision of promise to be kept a very particular American perception. The one that lies is wrong. Obviously, this may seem extravagant as we [French] often enthusiastically elect people we know are liars, and more than once it was proven that even the proven corruption does not bother the French.Thus, when Donald Trump says that the key to what he will do is to give power back to the people, he believes in it. And it at the same time he sticks to a spiritual universe, very American who wants to believe it too. And who believes it all the more because it is American normality.

Let us not forget that the United States were built by people who were persecuted in Europe for religious, then political reasons. There is a strong sense of mistrust towards the central government. This is the spirit of Calvin, Zwingli and John Knox. It is the spirit of St. Augustine already transported by the Pilgrim Fathers that will fuel American spirituality: power is evil. It is a necessary evil, but it remains an evil. This means that one must mistrust  like the plague  the political center, Washington.In recent years, many Americans, even those who ultimately voted for Hilary Clinton by rejection of Donald Trump, had the strong impression that the central power was abusing its power. On health, on education, on military intervention, on commercial relations and the uncontrolled opening of the market, on morality even with this politically correct  which has imposed a juridification from above rejected by the largest number of Americans. The American people did not feel that they were consulted. For example, the French commentators say that the Obamacare is a great advance and they applaud because they are plating the French

situation on the American situation and ignore almost everything of the American health system. There have even been commentators claiming that the poorest and old were without medical coverage while they have been for ages by the Medicare and Medicaid. And they do not know that insurances have climbed 22% in 2016, since Barack Obama has set up a confusing, bureaucratic medical system with a coverage at a discount for about ten million Americans. Why are Americans predominantly against this system? Because the Obamacare is experienced as an imposition by the central state that goes against the individual freedom to take an insurance.Donald Trump said he would break this centralizing, statist dynamic, and we must believe him. He announces the return of the counter-powers against Washington, and it is a double return. On the one hand, it is a matter of restoring power to the states against Washington, which at the same time ensures the support of a large part of the republican apparatus very opposed to State centralism, and on the other It is a matter of restoring decision-making powers to local

authorities, associations, the middle classes, traders, artisans, and individuals. He has formulated proposals which sometimes offend good thinking but which are clear and elaborate in the fields of defense, security, international relations and in the fiscal, economic, industrial, educational, environmental, social and cultural.And for those who would doubt this determination to achieve the goals clearly set out in his program on all points, I would like to remind you that Donald Trump intends to be re-elected, and for this he must try to realize what he said. It is therefore wrong to say that one cannot know what he will do. It is enough to take his program seriously instead acting as if he had not been elected President of the United States. 2  - "Trump is confused about his economic policy as well as about everything, he risks provoking the crisis of his party which is liberal while he is protectionist!"Trump's position is very clear and is not in opposition to the culture of the Republican Party. First, the Republican Party is not monolithic. There are many currents within it

(as in the Democrat Party, for that matter). And among them, there is one that is very strong: the current America first. A patriotic current of Jacksonian origin, named after President Andrew Jackson, on which George W Bush and Ronald Reagan had already played, although they had developed another political orientation at the same time.The idea is simple and it was recalled during the investiture speech: to put the interest of America first. This is the principle that will guide all public policies. In economics and to settle the social question, the question for him is how to make America, all America, richer, more prosperous. He wants growth for power.To do that, we will find in his program very strong elements that can be considered liberal. But our zealous commentators have preferred to listen to CNN or read the New York Times than to listen and read what has been a thousand times said and written by Trump in his campaign. Thus, his willingness to lower corporate tax from 35% to 15%, which is nevertheless a radical measure. His will to create a ceiling of 33% for the tax rate of individuals. His will to liquidate part of the tax administration, to simplify the law, to

leave states and individuals a greater freedom.Besides, one can be surprised of his will to do major infrastructure, worth 500 billion dollars. But it is because he considers that the State must play its function of aid to the infrastructures to allow the development of companies and individual energies. This does not necessarily mean that this amount will be paid by an injection of the State, and therefore by taxes. Nor does this mean that the State has a vocation to remain the owner of these infrastructures. We will have to wait to know the conditions of financing. Trump's only objective is to increase American power, he has no other. And, considering what is happening in China and the modernization of its infrastructures by leaps and bounds, he thinks that the retard of the United States in infrastructures must be filled.This explains, for example, why he wants to revive coal. He laughs at environmental discourse, aside from the idea of a carbon tax. He wants the United States to be powerful. This requires that they retain their energy sovereignty. It is therefore logically pro-nuclear, pro-coal, pro-schist and for the

development, at the same time, of so-called "alternative" energies. This is confused only if one does not understand that he follows a single principle, as I already wrote almost a year ago: America first!This explains why he opposes naïveté in economic matters, a supposedly liberal naïveté but, in truth, an ideological cult of the market. He was applauded by a large part of the population over China, because he said that liberalism cannot be a system where one respects the rules and not the other, or one uses dumping and the other not, or one multiplies the counterfeits, copies the patents, makes work at indecent prices millions of small hands and the other not. It seems to him that China does not play the game. And to a lesser extent Mexico. America first it means: a wild competition where everyone wields his weapons. And in his speech he repeated it again but it seems that some do not want to hear it. He will be patriot through and through and he does not forbid anyone to be so nor reproach anyone. That is the new rule. From the United States determined to fight who know that the

economic competition is not a game for tired Care Bears.I am told that there will be conflicts within the Republican Party because of this position. I do not believe it for the short term. On the contrary. His policy will be beneficial to the party. The electors in the states where the middle classes are most affected (employees, small cadres, craftsmen, small traders) will re-elect their elected representatives. Consider that the only major works account for roughly 25 million jobs. And with the lowering of taxes and taxes, still millions of real jobs, not these jobs more or less helped, assisted, random. In the medium term, there will be a crisis only if this policy fails.Trump is perfectly legible and in no way confusing. Liberalism or interventionism let us beware of words. His line is the interest of the country. And the most disinherited too. This is why, for France in particular, and the European Union in general, it is going to be fearsome.  3 - "Trump will create world disorder!"

 The disorder is there. The American power since the Obama presidency has weakened. It has failed to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine, it has isolated itself in the Middle East, and it has allowed the return of Russia. On the Iranian nuclear, Obama has not convinced because the Iranians are still able to produce nuclear military. It has been hidden from the American population that the agreement with Iran is about a pause not a destruction of the process of manufacturing military nuclear. The United States has been very clumsy, isolated from the entire Sunni which no longer understand where they are going.We are in a situation where the United States seems to have had poor overall governance. An example, the Ukrainian affair via that of Crimea. They have denied the right of the Crimean people, Crimean since Catherine II, to choose their destiny, even though they are based on the right of nations to self-determination. It's their DNA. They wanted to compel  some Russian, Orthodox depending on Moscow Patriarchate, Russian-speaking, of Russian tradition and Russian inheritance, a

natural right while the Americans have always advocated the right of nations. Think of their former refusal to support France and the United Kingdom in the Suez Canal affair, consider formerly NATO intervention in Kosovo against the Serbs. And there, for the Crimean, they refuse it.It is all the more serious that this conflict with the Russians, that went as far as threats of military intervention uttered by the muse of the Parisian bobos, Hilary Clinton, led to the inability to discern the main enemy of the others in the Middle East. The enemy is djhadism and not Putin. [Bobo: bourgeois bohemian]The position of Trump is conversely perfectly clear. Each state has the right to seek its power. He will not try to impose on others his model he will look for the American interest above all. And what does he propose? Reshuffling the cards in the Middle East, renegotiating with the United Arab Emirates, reconnect with Jordan, re-establishing a firm alliance with Israel. And if Russia helps in the fight against Jihadism, main enemy, then Trump will ally with her. As Roosevelt did with Stalin's Russia. Without hesitation. But it

takes naivety to believe that he is "pro-Russian." For if tomorrow the interests of Russia are opposed to American interests, the alliance will cease immediately. And it is exactly the same model, this neo-realistic model of international relations that presides over relations with China. It does not play the game; it tries to invest by unfair competition the markets, so it is the economic war. That is perfectly clear. He therefore does not create disorder, in this multipolar world, disorder is there. He only wants to create an order favorable to the United States. 4  - "Trump wants to destroy the European Union and NATO"Y.R: Again, the key for reading is Jacksonian. Donald Trump is simply in a situation of search for American power. And in his eyes, the countries of the European Union do not play the game neither economically nor in defense. He considers that it is a slack structure, which has not taken the right decisions in relation to the Islamic threat, in relation to its identity and in relation to the type of organization of the European Union itself. He sees in the European Union the very

model of what he denounces in the United States: the will of a bureaucracy in Brussels which wants to impose its rules on all European states, in the same way the bureaucracy and establishment of Washington do with the United States. And that is why the idea that he wants to destroy the European Union is absurd. From its point of view, the European Union simply does not have a future, it destroys itself.For him, the United Kingdom therefore did well to leave the Union. Thus, it will preserve its identity and combat Islamic threats effectively. He openly supports Theresa May and is equally openly opposed to Angela Merkel, who in a certain way reminds him of Barack Obama, whom, he thinks, has led Europe to the wall, for want of building one.Donald Trump judges each European state in terms of its own patriotic vision. He sees in the United Kingdom an economically powerful ally and, according to him, who will be even more so, in the medium term, by his exit from the European Union. It is also a stable political and military ally. It is indeed one of the four countries in the European Union to have accepted a defense budget of more than 2%

of the GNP, as had nevertheless been concluded with the other states of the European Union. And he does not despair of finding other traditional allies like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary or the Netherlands.He is reviewing its relationship with the European Union in the same way as all the international treaties passed to the mill of the American national interest, which is not very reassuring for the European states. Thus, when he is accused of wanting to destroy NATO, whose primary aim, as I recall, was the defense of the Western European states against the Soviet threat, it looks at the interests of the United States. He noted that the European member states of NATO had not respected the 2006 agreements which had established the rule to increase their national defense budget to at least 2%. Only Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Poland have done so. Others have even declined, such as Germany or France.Concretely, he notes that the United States contributes to 72.5% of the NATO budget and that they themselves have a defense budget of 3.5% of the GNP, 625 billion dollars against 224 billion only for Europe. He notes that

when the French intervene in Mali they ask for drones and refueling planes in Washington, he finds that Berlin is pleased to see others assuming its defense by paying it at the slightest expense, including human. And when the Europeans want to secure Europe, they are asking NATO for help, for example in the former Yugoslavia. And when they want to secure the Mediterranean from terrorist incursions (Operation Sea Guardian) in Europe, they still call NATO. But who pays? For Donald Trump, the calculations would show that there is no equitable sharing of security. With its America First principle, he raises the question of how the security of the United States is stronger when thousands of men and equipment are sent on all fronts to the service of European security instead of being used in the service of the United States alone. He wants to rethink NATO. And all the more so because he considers that the main danger for the United States is not Russia but jihadism. While the use of NATO envisaged by Europeans is based on the idea, imposed by the administration of Barack Obama and the CIA, of a Russian main enemy. This means using a part of the budget, mainly paid by the

United States, to defend a strategy that is no longer theirs. Undeniably, if clarification there must be, it is on the European side.He does not want to destroy the European Union which does not need him to explode in groups and sub-groups according to the divergent interests of the states, and if he wants to call NATO in question, is it not simply because the existence of NATO is in question? 45e président des États-Unis, c'est parti : tout ce qu'on vous a raconté sur Donald Trump et qui n'a rien à voir avec la réalitéBeaucoup de choses se disent sur Donald Trump depuis son investiture à la présidence américaine. Mais tout n'est pas à prendre pour argent comptant. Voici quatre idées reçues que les commentateurs français ont sur Donald Trump.

Read more at http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/45e-president-etats-unis-c-est-parti-tout-qu-on-raconte-donald-trump-et-qui-rien-voir-avec-realite-yves-roucaute-2941464.html#9wmemtXWvqJsVhJ8.99

 Par  Yves RoucauteYves Roucaute est professeur de philosophie et de sciences politiques à la Faculté de droit de l'Université de Paris-X.Il est l'auteur de:Eloge du mode de vie à la française (Editions Contemporary Bookstore),Histoire de la Philosophie Politique (volume 1), Du néolithique à l'antiquité grecque; Les grandes spiritualités à la fin du Moyen-Âge (Volume 2), (Editions Contemporary Bookstore). 1: "Donald Trump, on ne peut pas savoir ce qu’il fera. ".Attention à ne pas calquer la vision de la politique  française sur la vision américaine. Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas cette vision que l’on pourrait dire « latine » de la politique, où quand les politiques disent quelque chose, ils ont une idée cachée derrière la tête et où quand ils promettent ils ont rarement l’intention de tenir ayant l’objectif premier de se faire élire ou de se maintenir au pouvoir et non de défendre des idées.Aux Etats-Unis, les Présidents essaient généralement de faire ce qu'ils disent. II n’y

parviennent pas toujours, ou seulement en partie, mais c'est une caractéristique de la conception politique américaine née de la civilisation américaine. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton,  les Bush, Barack Obama, et aujourd’hui Donald Trump ont eu des positions et des projets durant leur campagne qu’ils ont tenté de réaliser ensuite.  Il y a derrière cette vision de la parole à tenir une perception américaine très particulière. Celle selon laquelle le mensonge c’est mal. Ce qui évidemment peut nous paraître extravagant car nous élisons souvent avec enthousiasme des gens dont nous savons pertinemment qu’ils sont menteurs, et plus d’une fois il est apparu que même la corruption avérée ne gênait pas les Français.Ainsi, lorsque Donald Trump dit que la clef de ce qu’il fera est de rendre le pouvoir à la population, il y croit. Et il colle en même temps à un univers spirituel, très américain qui veut y croire aussi. Et qui y croit d’autant plus que c’est cela la normalité américaine.N'oublions pas que les Etats-Unis ont été construits par des gens qui ont été persécutés en Europe pour des raisons religieuses, puis politiques. Il y a un esprit de méfiance très

marqué envers le pouvoir central. C’est l’esprit de Calvin, de Zwingli et de John Knox.  C'est l’esprit de saint Augustin transporté déjà par les Pères Pélerins qui va alimenter la spiritualité américaine :  le pouvoir est un mal. C’est une mal  nécessaire, mais cela reste un mal.  Cela signifie qu’il faut se méfier comme de la peste du centre politique, de Washington.Or, ces dernières années, beaucoup d’Américains, même ceux qui ont finalement voté pour Hilary Clinton par rejet de Donald Trump, ont eu la forte impression que le pouvoir central abusait de son pouvoir.  Sur la santé, sur l’éducation, sur les interventions militaires, sur les relations commerciales et l’ouverture incontrôlée du marché, sur la morale même avec ce politiquement correct qui a imposé une juridicisation par en haut refusée par le plus grand nombre d’Américains. Le peuple américain n’a pas eu le sentiment d’être consulté. Pour exemple, les commentateurs français disent que l'Obamacare est une belle avancée et ils applaudissent, parce qu’ils plaquent la situation française sur la situation américaine, et ignorent à peu près tout du système de

santé américain.  On a même entendu des commentateurs prétendre que les plus pauvres et les vieux étaient sans couverture médicale alors qu’ils le sont depuis des lustres par le medicare et le medicaid. Et ils ne savent pas que les asusrances ont grimpé de 22% en 2016, depuis que Barack Obama a mis en place un système médical confus, bureaucratique, avec uen couverture au rabais pour une dizaine de millions d’américains. Pourquoi les américains sont-ils majoritairement contre ce système ? Parce que l'Obamacare est vécue comme une imposition depuis l'Etat central qui va contre la liberté individuelle de s’assurer. Donald Trump a dit qu'il casserait cette dynamique centralisatrice, étatiste, et faut le croire. Il annonce le retour des contre-pouvoirs contre le centre Washington, et c'est un double retour. D'un côté il s'agit de redonner du pouvoir aux Etats contre Washington, ce qui lui assure, en même temps, le soutien d’une grande partie de l’appareil républicain très opposé au stato-centrisme, et de l'autre il s’agit de redonner  les pouvoirs de décision aux pouvoirs locaux,

aux associations, aux classes moyennes, commerçants, artisans, et aux individus. Il a énoncé des propositions cqui choquent parfois la bien pensance mais qui sont claires et élaborées, dans les domaines régaliens, de la défense à la sécurité en passant par les relations internationales, et dans le domaine fiscal, économique, industriel, éducatif, environnemental, social, culturel. Et pour ceux qui douteraient de cette détermination à réaliser les objectifs fixés clairement dans son programme sur l’ensemble des points, je me permets de rappeler que Donald Trump a bien l’intention d’être réélu, et pour cela, il doit essayer de réaliser ce qu'il a dit. Il est donc faux de dire qu’on ne peut pas savoir ce qu’il fera. il suffit de prendre au sérieux son programme au lieu de faire comme si il n’avait pas été élu Président des Etats-Unis. 2 "Trump est confus, sur sa politique économique comme sur toute chose. Il risque de provoquer la crise de son parti qui est libéral alors que lui est protectionniste!" 

La position de Trump est très claire et n'est pas en opposition avec la culture du parti républicain. D'abord, le Parti Républicain n'est pas monolithique. Il y a en son sein de nombreux courants (comme au sein du Parti démocrate d'ailleurs). Et parmi eux, il y en a un qui est très fort, c'est le courant America first. Un courant patriotique, d’origine jacksonnienne, du nom du Président Andrew Jackson,  sur lequel avaient déjà joué George W Bush et Ronald Reagan, même s’ils avaient développé en même temps une autre orientation politique.L’idée est simple et elle a été rappelée lors du discours d’investiture: faire passer l'intérêt de l’Amérique en premier. C’est la principe qui va orienter l'ensemble des politiques publiques sur ce principe. En économie et pour régler la question sociale, la question pour lui est donc de savoir comment rendre l’Amérique, toute l’Amérique,  plus riche, plus prospère. Il veut la croissance pour la puissance.Pour cela, on va retrouver dans son programme des éléments très forts et qui peuvent être considérés comme libéraux à moins que nos commentateurs zélés aient préféré écouter CNN ou lire le New York Times

que d’écouter et de de lire ce qui a été mille fois dit et écrit par Trump dans sa campagne. Ainsi, sa volonté baisser l'impôt des sociétés de 35% à 15%, ce qui est quand même une mesure radicale. Sa volonté  de créer un plafond de 33% pour le taux d’imposition des individus. Sa volonté de liquider une partie de l’administration fiscale, de simplifier le droit, de laisser Etats et aux individus une liberté plus grande.A côté, on peut s’étonner de sa volonté de faire de grands travaux, à hauteur de 500 milliards de dollars. Mais c’est qu’il considère que l’Etat doit jouer sa fonction d’aide aux infrastructures pour permettre le développement des entreprises et des énergies individuelles. Cela ne signifie pas nécessairement que cette somme se fera par une injection de l'Etat, donc par les taxes et impôts. Cela ne signifie pas non plus que l’Etat a vocation à rester propriétaire de ces infrastructures. Il faudra attendre pour savoir les conditions de financement. Le seul objectif de Trump, c'est de permettre d'accroitre la puissance américaine, il n'en a pas d'autre. Et le retard des Etats-Unis dans les infrastructures, vu ce qui se passe en Chine et

sa modernisation des infrastructures à pas de géants, lui paraît devoir être comblé.Cela explique, par exemple, pourquoi il veut pourquoi relancer le charbon. Il se moque comme d’une guigne des discours environnementaux, en dehors de l’idée d’une taxe carbone. Il veut que les Etats-Unis soient puissants. Cela nécessite qu’ils conservent leur souveraineté énergétique. Il est donc logiquement pro-nucléaire, pro-charbon, pro-schiste et pour le développement, en même temps des énergies dites « alternatives ». Ce n’est confus que si on ne comprend pas qu’il suit un seul principe, comme je l’ai déjà écrit il y a près d’un an : America first !Cela explique pourquoi il s’oppose à la naïveté en matière économique, une naïveté prétendument libérale mais, en vérité, un culte idéologique du marché. Il a été applaudi par une grande partie de la population sur la Chine, parce qu’il a dit que le libéralisme ce ne peut être un système où l’un respecte les règles et pas l’autre, ou l’un fait du dumping et l’autre non, ou l’un multiplie les contrefaçons, copie les brevets, fait travailler à des prix indécents des millions de petites mains et l’autre non.  Il lui semble que la

chine ne joue pas le jeu. Et dans une moindre mesure le Mexique non plus. America first cela veut dire : une concurrence sauvage où chacun sort ses armes. Et dans son discours il l’a encore répété mais il semble que certains ne veuillent pas l’entendre. Il sera patriote jusqu’au bout des ongles et il n’interdit à personne de l’être aussi et ne le reproche à personne. C’est cela la nouvelle règle. Des Etats-Unis déterminés à se battre qui savent que la concurrence économique ce n’est pas un je pour bizounours fatigués.On me dit qu’il y aurait des conflits au sein du parti républicain à cause de cette position. Je n’en crois rien pour le court terme. Au contraire. Sa politique sera bénéfique au parti. Les électeurs dans les Etats où les classes moyennes sont les plus touchées (employés, petits cadres, artisans, petits commerçants) feront réélire leurs élus. Songez que les seuls grands travaux signifient à peu près 25 millions d’emplois. Et avec la baisse des taxes et des impôts, encore des millions de vrais emplois pas de ces emplois plus ou moins aidés, assistés, aléatoires.  A moyen terme, il y aura crise seulement si cette politique échoue.

Trump est parfaitement lisible et en aucune façon confus. Libéralisme ou interventionnisme, méfions-nous des mots. Sa ligne c’est l'intérêt du pays. Et des plus déshérités aussi. C’est d’ailleurs pourquoi pour la France en particulier, et l’Union européenne en général, il va être redoutable. 3 "Trump va créer du désordre mondial ! " Le désordre est là. La puissance Américaine depuis la présidence Obama a faibli. Elle n'a pas réussi à négocier la paix entre Israël et Palestine, elle s’est  isolée au Moyen-Orient, elle a permis le retour de la Russie. Sur le nucléaire iranien, Obama n'a pas convaincu car les Iraniens sont toujours en état de produire du nucléaire militaire. On a caché à la population américaine  que l’accord avec l’Iran porte sur une pause pas une destruction du processus de fabrication du nucléaire militaire. Les Etats-Unis ont été très maladroits, ils se sont isolés de l'ensemble du monde sunnite qui ne comprennent plus où ils vont.

On est dans une situation ou les Etats-Unis semblent avoir eu une mauvaise gouvernance globale.  Un exemple, l'affaire ukrainienne via celle de Criméé.  Ils ont refusés le droit aux Criméens de la Crimée, russes depuis Catherine II,  de choisir leur destin, alors qu'eux même sont fondés sur le droit des nations à l’autodétermination. C'est leur ADN. ils ont voulu contraindre les Criméens, russes, orthodoxes liés à Moscou, parlant russe, vivant en russe, porteurs d’un héritage tricentenaire russe, un droit naturel alors que les Américains ont toujours prôné le droit des nations. Songez à leur refus jadis de soutenir la France et le Royaume Uni dans l’affaire du canal de Suez, songez naguère à l’intervention de l’Otan au Kosovo contre les Serbes. Et là, pour les Criméens, ils la refusent.C'est d'autant plus grave que ce conflit avec les Russes qui est allé jusqu’à des menaces d’intervention militaire proférée par l’égérie des bobos parisiens, Hilary Clinton, a conduit à l'incapacité à discerner l'ennemi principal des autres au Moyen-Orient. L'ennemi c'est le djhadisme et non Poutine. 

La position de Trump est à l’inverse parfaitement claire. Chaque Etat a le droit de chercher sa puissance. Il n'essaiera pas d'imposer aux autres son modèle il cherchera l'intérêt américain avant tout. Et que propose-t-il ? Rebattre les cartes au Moyen-Orient, renégocier avec les Emirats Arabes-Unis, renouer vers la Jordanie, repasser une alliance ferme avec Israël. Et si la Russie aide dans la lutte contre le djhadisme, ennemi principal, alors Trump s'alliera avec elle.  Comme le fit Roosevelt avec la Russie de Staline. Sans états d’âme. Mais il faut bien de la naïveté pour croire qu’il est « pro-russe ». Car si demain les intérêts de la Russie s'opposent aux intérêts américains, l'alliance cessera aussitôt. Et c’est exactement le même modèle, ce modèle néo-réaliste des relations internationales, qui préside aux relations avec la Chine.  Elle ne joue pas le jeu, elle essaye d’investir par une concurrence déloyale les marchés, alors c’est la guerre économique. Cela est parfaitement clair. Il ne crée donc pas du désordre, dans ce monde multipolaire, il est là. Il veut seulement créer un ordre favorable aux Etats-Unis.

4 "Trump veut détruire L'Union européenne et l'OTAN" Y.R : A nouveau, la clef de lecture est jacksonnienne. Donald Trump est simplement dans une situation de recherche de la puissance américaine. Et à ses yeux, les pays de l'Union Européenne ne jouent pas le jeu ni économiquement ni en matière de défense. Il considère que c'est une structure molle, qui n'a pas pris les bonnes décisions par rapport à la menace islamique, par rapport à son identité et par rapport au type d’organisation même de l'Union Européenne. Il voit, en effet, dans l'Union Européenne le modèle même de ce qu'il dénonce aux Etats-Unis : la volonté d'une bureaucratie à Bruxelles qui veut imposer ses règles à l'ensemble des états européens, à la façon dont tente de le faire la bureaucratie et l’establishment de Washington avec les Etats-Unis. Et c’est pourquoi, l’idée qu’il veuille détruire l’Union européenne est absurde. De son point de vue, l’Union Européenne n’a tout simplement pas d’avenir, elle se détruit toute seule.

Pour lui, le Royaume-Unis à donc bien fait de quitter l'union. Ainsi, il préservera son identité et luttera contre les menaces islamiques avec efficacité. Il soutient ouvertement Theresa May et s’oppose tout aussi ouvertement à Angela Merkel qui lui rappelle d’une certaine façon Barack Obama, dont il pense qu’elle a mené l’Europe dans le mur, faute d’en construire.Donald Trump juge chaque Etat européen à l’aune de sa propre vision patriotique. Il voit dans le Royaume-Unis un allié économiquement puissant et, selon lui,  qui le sera encore plus à moyen terme par sa sortie de l’Union européenne. C’est d’autre part en allié politique et militaire stable. C’est en effet l’un des quatre pays dans l’Union Européenne à avoir accepté un budget de la défense supérieure à 2% du PNB, comme cela avait pourtant été conclu avec les autres Etats de l’Union Européenne. Et, il ne désespère pas de  retrouver d'autres alliés traditionnels comme la Pologne la Slovaquie, la Hongrie ou encore les Pays Bas.Il revoit sa relation avec l’Union européenne au même titre que l’ensemble des  traités internationaux passés à la moulinette de

l’intérêt national américain, ce qui n’est en effet pas très rassurant pour les Etats européens. Ainsi, quand on lui reproche de vouloir détruire l'Otan, dont le but premier, je le rappelle, était la défense des Etats de l’Ouest européenne contre la menace soviétique, il regarde les intérêts des Etats-Unis. Il constate que les Etats européens membres de l'OTAN n'ont pas respecté les accords de 2006 qui avaient fixé la règle d'augmenter à 2%, au moins, leur budget de défense national. Car, seuls la Grèce, le Royaume-Unis, l'Estonie et la Pologne l'ont fait. D'autres l'ont même baissé, telles l’Allemagne ou la France.

Concretely, he notes that the United States contributes to 72.5% of the NATO budget and that they themselves have a defense budget of 3.5% of the GNP, 625 billion dollars against 224 billion only for Europe. He notes that when the French intervene in Mali they ask for drones and refueling planes in Washington, he finds that Berlin is pleased to see others assuming its defense by paying it at the slightest expense, including human. And when the Europeans want to secure Europe,

they are asking NATO for help, for example in the former Yugoslavia. And when they want to secure the Mediterranean from terrorist incursions (Operation Sea Guardian) in Europe, they still call NATO. But who pays? For Donald Trump, the calculations would show that there is no equitable sharing of security. With its America First principle, he raises the question of how the security of the United States is stronger when thousands of men and equipment are sent on all fronts to the service of European security instead of being used In the service of the United States alone. He wants to rethink NATO. And all the more so because he considers that the main danger for the United States is not Russia but jihadism. While the use of NATO envisaged by Europeans is based on the idea, imposed by the administration of Barack Obama and the CIA, of a Russian main enemy. This means using a part of the budget, mainly paid by the United States, to defend a strategy that is no longer theirs. Undeniably, if clarification there must be, it is on the European side.Il ne veut donc pas détruire l’Union européenne qui n’a pas besoin de lui pour exploser en groupes et sous groupes selon les

intérêts divergents des Etats, et s’il veut remettre en question l’OTAN n’est ce pas tout simplement parce que l’existence de l’OTAN est en question ?