and see what you get.
Oh, other comparisons are fun, too. Napoleon, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Charlemagne — anybody who seized the reins and turned a country around, which is what so many of us hope Trump will do. Even a comparison to Hitler has some validity, because he certainly made Germany change course. But those who call him a Hitler don't have that sort of thing in mind, and are just tyring to defame him. You'll notice that his detractors never compare him to Mao or Stalin of Castro, because the kind of people who oppose Trump like those guys.
Well, the first thing I found by googlink is this on Reddit [link], the author's name deleted, for some reason. Author, if you want your name restored, let me know in the comments. Also, I can't figure out how to comment on Reddit, so if somebody here does, please go to that link and inform the group that I've reprinted the essay here with commentary, and give them the URL. Okay? Thaniks. And here's the eassay.
People keep comparing Trump to Hitler (we've all seen this low-energy BS by now), but they should be comparing him to Julius Caesar (the first literal God-Emperor of the Roman Empire). Allow me to explain.
In the Roman republic, there were two political parties. One was called the Populares (literally: "the populists"), and represented the desires of the common citizens. The other party was called the Optimates (literally: "the best"), and represented Patricians and Equestrians (read: the political elite/establishment).
During Caesar's ascendancy, he was a leader among the Populares, propelled by his military successes in Gaul (the dude seriously annihilated barbarians). Cato, meanwhile, was a major voice for the Optimates, and is respected to this day for his excellent rhetoric and political professionalism.
Caesar branded Cato as an effeminate sexual degenerate (i.e. cuck), and Cato branded Caesar as a despot whose personal successes were irrelevant to the leadership of Rome (sound familiar?). Caesar won the election and the consulate (the Roman presidency).
You can read about the rest elsewhere, but Caesar turned out to be such a strong leader that he ushered in the "Pax Romana" (peace through Roman strength) for the next several centuries. Many "barbarian nations" (including modern day Germany and Russia) took his name (pronounced "Kie-sar" in classical latin, think "Kaiser") as their word for a king or a leader. In short, he made Rome great again despite his rivals going so far as to assassinate him.
He did make one big mistake though- he built a bridge over the Rhine. Once the Rhine was no longer an effective barrier to population movement (not necessarily due to Caesar's bridge, though his was the first), eastern European barbarians could move freely into Europe. Some 400-500 years later, their free movement into Western Europe led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
If only the Rhine had been ten feet deeper...
Smart men (like Trump) learn from the mistakes of others.
----------Nice piece, and I have just a couple of "correctiona." And I imagine the author would agree. First, he left out the Russian word Tsar (), which is the form "Caesar" took in the Russian language. The bridge was probably a fine idea at the time, and if Caesar had been followed by emperors of his own calibre, I imagine the invasion would have gone the other way, and there'd be a Romance language or two or three right now in Germany, Britain, and Scandinavia. Et questa esseya sereva in une de teli lingui. Finally, do go to the piece on Reddit, because some of the comments are well worth readin.
Quibcag: True, not a real quibcag, but a nice meme for you to send around, along with this URL.