HIR mailing list
















1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11

 En español









In the year 2000 a well-known businessman and media personality announced himself as presidential candidate in order to fight racism, denounce border walls, and defend Mexicans. His name was Donald Trump.









Historical & Investigative Research – Sep 2017, by Francisco Gil-White













print friendly




At HIR we say that last month’s news cannot be understood unless we have the historical backdrop, and the media never include that when they report on the last month.

To know the real Trump, the key historical period is 1992-2000, back when Pat Buchanan, “attacking from the right,” took on the Republican Establishment. Why? Because Trump is using Buchanan’s playbook. As Buchanan himself told Politico during the presidential campaign last year,

“ ‘When I read [my 1992] speech recently, I was astonished’ at the parallels [with Trump today]. ‘There’s just an awful lot there.’ ”[1]

I doubt Buchanan is “astonished.” But yes, Trump used all his stuff, including nods to white supremacism and fiery, anti-Mexican rhetoric. Even the anti-Mexican wall is in there, though in Buchanan’s 1992 proposal it was a ‘fence.[2] Says Buchanan:

“ ‘I was elated, delighted that Trump picked up on the exact issues on which I challenged Bush… And then he goes and uses my slogan? It just doesn’t get any better than this.’ ”[3]

Pat is so modest. It does get better (a lot better…).

Image result for "pat buchanan" "reform party"


Buchanan, running on the Reform Party ticket
(Steve Boitano, Getty Images).

Back in 2000, when Pat Buchanan decided he would stop competing in the Republican Party and try for the Reform Party presidential nomination instead, a well-known business and media personality pretended to challenge him for the prize and launched a media blitzkrieg to discredit Buchanan. His name was Donald Trump.

You read correctly. “No one,” says Politico, “has hit [Buchanan] harder than Trump.” And Trump’s uppercut—get this—was to call Buchanan a  racist.

“Trump devoted portions of a book to highlighting Buchanan’s alleged ‘intolerance’ toward black and gay people, accused him of being ‘in love with Adolf Hitler’ and denounced Buchanan while visiting a Holocaust museum, telling reporters, ‘We must recognize bigotry and prejudice and defeat it wherever it appears.’ ”[4]

Politico left something out. In his 2000 campaign book, The America We Deserve, Trump wrote:

“ ‘Pat Buchanan has been guilty of many egregious examples of intolerance. He has systematically bashed Blacks, Mexicans, and Gays.’ ” (my emphasis)


“Trump went further in an interview with The Advocate, calling Pat’s writings on Mexicans and other minorities ‘disgusting.’ ”[5] (my emphasis)

Donald Trump: Mr. Tolerance! Enemy of border walls! Mexican lover! What gives?

Enter Roger Stone.

Roger Stone (l) toasting Donald Trump’s electoral victory with Alex Jones
(from Get Me Roger Stone).

This character cut his teeth with Richard Nixon, “who created the… DEA in 1973 to declare ‘an all-out global war on the drug menace.’ ”[6] Stone is so fond of Nixon that he owns a creepy shrine full of Nixon memorabilia and has tattooed the man’s likeness on his back (yes, really). Perhaps not coincidentally, Stone is considered the grand wizard of ‘dirty tricks’ politics (he loves that). And he is widely credited with the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Roger Stone with Richard Nixon, and showing off his tattoo
(from Get Me Roger Stone).

He’s always been in Trump’s corner. Back in the 2000 presidential race, it was Roger Stone who got Buchanan to drop out of the Republican race and seek the Reform Party nomination. And it was also Stone who then got Trump to simulate a contest to attack Buchanan as a racist.

What for?

In the recent Netflix documentary, Get Me Roger Stone, the protagonist explains on camera: “I had an interest in the Reform Party imploding, at that point.” The point was to tar the Reform Party as a racist circus and destroy it. It worked.

Trump, ‘running’ against Buchanan; Roger Stone in the background
(from Get Me Roger Stone).

It is alleged that Roger Stone was helping the Republicans beat the Democrats. Too many people had switched from the Republican to the fledgling Reform Party in 1992, throwing the election to the Democrat, Bill Clinton. And so, in 2000, to protect Bush Jr. from suffering his father’s fate, Stone and Trump destroyed the Reform Party.

I don’t buy it.

Those in power care not a whit whether the Democratic or Republican candidate wins—they own both. The US is run by a two-party political cartel centered in the CFR (Part 4) and other powerful think tanks. That’s the HIR model.

But those in power do care whether a third force outside of the two-party Establishment can become viable, for this might bring real democracy to the United States. With Trump’s help, Stone buried the whole third-party idea. That, I believe, was the point of the maneuver.

They weren’t honest anti-racists then; they aren’t honest racists now. They are con men. (Buchanan, another Nixon stalwart, most likely colluded with Stone and Trump from the start.[7]) You’ve been conned.

And now, you’ve been conned again.

If not, then why did Trump strut before all the world as the number one, most tremendous (most tremendous!) anti-Establishment peacock, promising to “drain the [Washington] swamp” of Obama’s pro-jihadi bias, only to hire a team that reeks of Obama’s pro-jihadi and CFR Establishment types (Part 5)?

It’s the same ol’ swamp.

“There is no spoon.” (from The Matrix)

The world is illusion, Buddha taught. The mind awakens—as if coming to its senses whilst remaining in the dream—when it understands that. Thus, in The Matrix, a world made up of everybody’s dreams, it is a young child, shaved and dressed as a Buddhist monk, and bending a spoon left and right without touching it, who teaches an amazed Neo the lesson that brings mastery over the simulated world: There is no spoon.

Remember this: There is no Trump.

That’s the secret of our simulated political world. Once you accept that Trump is a character written to match the current scene, you can resist the emotional manipulations intended by Trump’s handlers, and reason about their intentions, setting your mind free.

We will do some reasoning next, in Part 9, where I explain how Trump’s anti-Mexico con works.




















































Related Readings









What is the Council on Foreign Relations?

THE US AND IRAN: Friends of foes?

NOW YOU SEE IT: Just Where Did ISIS Come From?








Footnotes and further reading

[1]Trump Is Pat Buchanan With Better Timing”; Politico; September/October 2016; By Jeff Greenfield

[2] “When Pat Buchanan first proposed building a fence on the Mexican border, the Republican establishment was shocked, shocked! The candidate’s sister and campaign manager, Bay Buchanan, pushed for language in the 1992 GOP platform calling for ‘structures’ on the border. Surely you don’t mean a fence, she was told. ‘We’re not talking about lighthouses,’ she replied.”

SOURCE: “Pat Buchanan: Donald Trump Stole My Playbook”; The Daily Beast; 6 January 2016; by Eleanor Clift

[3] “ ‘The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t’ ”; Politico; May/June 2017; By Tim Alberta

[4] “ ‘The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t’ ”; Politico; May/June 2017; By Tim Alberta

[5]That time Donald Trump put a Republican on blast for dissing Mexicans”; Fusion; 16 September 2015; by David Matthews.

[6]Mexico's war on drugs: what has it achieved and how is the US involved?”; The Guardian; 8 December 2016; by  Nina Lakhani and Erubiel Tirado in Mexico City.

[7] Though Buchanan pretends to be outside the Establishment, it isn’t true. Like Stone, he cut his teeth with Richard Nixon, whose speeches he wrote (he was “ ‘like a father to me,’ ” says Buchanan). Ronald Reagan was fond of those speeches, apparently, because he asked Buchanan to be his communications director, after which Buchanan became a tremendous force in the mainstream media.

SOURCE: “ ‘The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t’ ”; Politico; May/June 2017; By Tim Alberta



  1. Will Trump be different? 


Will Trump be different? Israeli patriots expect him to be. After all, he postures as an enemy of Iran and ISIS. But, what evidence will be diagnostic that Trump really is delivering on his Mideast promises?


  2. Can Trump buck the trend?


Can Trump (assuming he wants to) transform US foreign policy in the Middle East? To get a sense for how difficult this might be, we must appreciate how traditional the pro-jihadi policy has been. (It wasn’t just Obama.)


  3. Trump & Netanyahu: How to interpret their summit?


According to many in the mainstream media, the Trump-Netanyahu summit evidenced a ‘pro-Israeli’ turn. That would be a direct challenge to the HIR model. But we don’t see it. The result of the summit, we claim, was ‘pro Iran.’ To say otherwise, as we show, requires important historical omissions.


   4. Is Trump the boss?


Is US policy-making run by a bipartisan elite cartel? Perhaps the president is a figurehead; the media show changes, but the long-term goals—chosen by the CFR—are always the same. If so, Trump’s Middle East policies will feel different, but they will yield familiar fruits.


   5. Who makes foreign policy for Trump?


When we examine the backgrounds of those chosen to make foreign policy for Trump, we find they are Establishment figures with a history of supporting pro-jihadi policies.


  6. Why does Trump bully Mexico? (It’s a con)  


What does Trump’s bullying of Mexico have to do with supporting jihad and undermining Israel? Oddly enough, everything. By thus tugging at people’s identity-based emotions, Trump’s handlers divide the political field and weaken opposition to their dangerous policies. It’s psychological warfare. Trump is a con artist. And you’ve been conned.


  7. Obama, too, was a bully   


In the last century, US policy was never so violent against Mexico as in the Bush Jr.-Obama period. What changes with Trump is just the style—and that’s the clue that this is a con—.


  8. Trump!: He’s conned us before 


In the year 2000 a well-known businessman and media personality announced himself as presidential candidate in order to fight racism, denounce border walls, and defend Mexicans. His name was Donald Trump.


  9. Political grammar of the anti-Mexico con 


To preserve the West as the refuge of human rights and modern liberties, we need to be, simultaneously, pro-liberty and anti-jihad. But the identity-driven emotions stirred by the anti-Mexico con make Westerners either 1) anti-jihad but fascist; or 2) pro-liberty but pro-Islam. Either combination dooms the West.


  10. The anti-Mexico con and Trump’s foreign policy


Trump, naturally, makes a few noises to satisfy those who expect him to implement an anti-jihadi and pro-Israeli foreign policy—these are obligated moves, forced by the political grammar. But if we look at what Trump is achieving, we find that, like his predecessors, he is making radical Islam stronger and Israel weaker.


  11. Why the US pro-jihadi tradition?


Even granting that the US is run by a power-elite cartel, it may be difficult to accept that it would want to support jihadism and destroy Israel. But if we consider the cartel’s history, we shall find nothing implausible in this.




Notify me of new HIR pieces!