This document discusses how the mainstream media and political establishment do not fully understand Donald Trump and may be attacking him for ulterior motives. It argues that Trump aims to empower everyday Americans rather than large corporations. The document also criticizes how foreign policy has been conducted and suggests Trump may help reform issues like trade agreements, immigration, and national security.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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!???

6. 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/mark
ets/article/2018753/chinese-steel-being-
dumped-us-commerce-department and at
one time sent over toxic dry
wall http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st
ory.php?storyId=114182073 to the USA.
When I was in South Africa China dumped
cheap clothing and put local
manufacturers out of business:

7. “…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.

8. 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% (1/10th
)
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

9. 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,

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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,

14. 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

15. 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 sec
tor 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. best for Europe (e.g., militarizing the
Balkans
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/militarizatio
n-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/secti
ons/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.

20. 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

21. 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/f
orum/surnames/topics/jacques/1087/ &
http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/stag
sere/se1/se5/022000/022900/022999/pdf/m
sa_se5_22999.pdf where Washington
stopped on his way to fight the French &
Indian Wars. My Father (born in Algeria of

22. 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

23. 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 Klasz
To: ANDRE DEGEORGES
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:46 AM
Subject: Everything you have been told
about Donald Trump and which has
nothing to do with reality
Hi Andre,Â

24. 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.

25. Regards
Ivan
Â
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

26. By Yves Roucaute
Yves 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

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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,

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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"

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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.

45. 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

46. 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 réalité
Beaucoup 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

47. Par Yves Roucaute
Yves 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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

57. 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

58. 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.

59. 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

60. 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

61. 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

62. 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"

63. 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

64. 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

65. 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

66. 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

67. (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.

68. 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 ?