#United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley

[xtruss]

Analysis: What Israel Can Teach the U.S. About Confronting a Constitutional Crisis

Sometimes you not only need to vote—you also need to vote with your feet.

— By Aaron David Miller and Daniel Miller | Foreign Policy | March 18, 2023

A protester waves an Israeli flag during a massive protest against the government's judicial overhaul plan on March 11 in Tel Aviv, Israel (Illegally Occupied Palestine). Amir Levy/Getty Images

Over the past four months, in an extraordinary display of national resolve and resistance, millions of Israelis have rallied in the streets to protest their government’s efforts to revolutionize the judiciary. Because Israel does not have a written constitution or bicameral parliament, these so-called reforms, if enacted, would eviscerate an independent judiciary, remove the one check and balance standing in the way of unbridled government power, and fundamentally undermine Israel’s democratic system.

In a recent conversation with the author, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak noted that the behavior of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government during the current crisis evoked thoughts of the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Can the United States learn anything from Israel in its own efforts to stop democratic backsliding and combat a future constitutional crisis in the event, for example, that a president seeks to hold on to power, overturn the results of a free and fair election, and threaten the very essence of constitutional government?

At first glance, the sheer size of the United States and fundamental differences between the two countries’ political cultures and governance systems might appear to render comparisons moot, if not irrelevant. But a closer look reveals important takeaways from Israel’s situation that are worth considering. If Israelis succeed in checking this judicial juggernaut, and even if they don’t, there are lessons for Americans should U.S. liberal democracy be seriously threatened.

The biggest takeaway from what has been happening in Israel has to do with the size, tactics, and endurance of the protests themselves. For months, the world has watched Israelis engage in sustained, massive, nonviolent protests and civil disobedience in cities and towns across the country, drawing participants from nearly all sectors of society.

The scale, scope, and composition of these demonstrations are unprecedented in the country’s history. Hundreds of thousands regularly attend the protests, which are largely grassroots demonstrations, locally organized with former officials and intellectuals recruited to speak. On April 1, close to 450,000 Israelis took to the streets. That is close to 5 percent of the population, roughly equivalent to 17 million Americans. A recent poll showed that 20 percent of all Israelis have protested at one time or another against the judicial coup.

Given the vast disparity in size, replicating this kind of sustained protest movement is no easy matter. As a point of comparison, the Women’s March on Washington on Jan. 21, 2017, drew between 1 and 1.6 percent of the U.S. population. But that doesn’t mean this is impossible. Indeed, the Black Lives Matter protests that took place in the United States in the summer of 2020 were largely spontaneous and may have included as many as 26 million—and perhaps more—protesters in total.

Size is critical, but so is the character of demonstrations. The essential element is nonviolence. As Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan have demonstrated in studying civil resistance movements that occurred between 1900-2006, using nonviolent tactics—which can include protests, boycotts, and civil disobedience—enhances a movement’s domestic and international legitimacy, increases its bargaining power, and lessens the government’s efforts to delegitimize it. Although the vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests were peaceful (despite the false or misleading media and government claims to the contrary), there were acts of violence, looting, and rioting. Any future protest movement in the United States must shun this kind of destructive behavior.

The Israeli movement’s endurance and persistence has also been an asset. The struggle for democracy is not a 100-yard dash—as demonstrated in other countries, such as Serbia. In Israel’s case, the perception that the so-called judicial reform wasn’t just some technical adjustment to the political system, but rather a fundamental threat to Israelis’ way of life, sustained the protests. The profound anger and mistrust toward the Netanyahu government further catalyzed Israelis from virtually all sectors of society to turn out in the streets.

A second essential part of the response to the judicial legislation in Israel has been the active participation of military reservists who have signed petitions, participated in protests, and boycotted their formal and volunteer reserve duty. These reservists play a critical role in both intelligence and air force operations that are key to the current security challenges Israel faces.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is the most respected institution in the country. In fact, what led Netanyahu to pause the judicial legislation was the surge of protests that followed his (since rescinded) decision to fire Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Gallant had publicly called for a halt to the judicial overhaul, arguing that it was jeopardizing Israel’s security. Adding to the pressure, a host of former IDF chiefs of staff, commanders, and former directors of Mossad have publicly opposed the judicial legislation. And even active, lower-level Mossad employees have been given permission to participate in the protests.

Such actions by former and current government officials are precisely what is needed to imbue the protests with additional legitimacy and to amplify the seriousness of the moment. Active members of IDF units have not refused to serve, and we’re not recommending that active U.S. military units join the protests. Indeed, given the U.S. tradition of the subordination of military to civilian authority, uniformed military would be hard-pressed to intervene in a political crisis.

Still, before the November 2020 election, when then-U.S. President Donald Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power pending the results, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley issued a public statement that the military had no role in an election and would “obey the lawful orders of our civilian leadership.” And senior military officials might well publicly remind the U.S. military—as the Joint Chiefs of Staff did in the wake of the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021—that their mission is to defend the U.S. Constitution.

At the same time, civil servants from throughout the federal government should consider joining the protests and have their organizational representatives (the American Foreign Service Association at the Department of State, for example), issue statements in support. These employees need not resign, at least at first, but they should make clear their nonpartisan opposition to efforts to undermine the rule of law and constitutional norms. The nonpartisan nature of these actions would be reinforced if they involved not just federal employees in Washington, but also the much larger workforce throughout the country. Furthermore, calls to protest could also involve state employees, particularly if the constitutional crisis stemmed from state action.

Third is the importance of strikes. The Histadrut—Israel’s largest trade union, with an estimated 800,000 members—called for a general strike that followed more limited strikes in the preceding months. That decision shut down departures from Ben Gurion Airport. Israel’s research universities and medical facilities (all public hospitals and community clinics) also called to strike, in addition to the closing of banks, businesses, and restaurants (including the ever-popular McDonald’s).

These tactics worked in Israel because, along with other measures (such as closing highways through acts of civil disobedience), they communicated to government ministers and Knesset members that unless they reassessed the situation, the country would shut down, with grave economic and political consequences. The tech sector had already begun to express major concerns that judicial reform as envisioned by the Netanyahu government could turn Israel’s image as a start-up nation into one of a shut-down nation, raising risks that foreign investment might be curtailed and Israeli entrepreneurs might decide to move out of the country.

To be sure, the same tactics could not be so easily deployed in the United States. First, 25 percent of Israeli workers are in a union, compared to 10 percent in the United States. Second, shutting down a country the size of the United States would simply be impossible (although such a strategy might have more success in a small enough state). Additionally, it is unclear if such strikes would help or hurt the opposition politically, particularly in light of the fact that COVID-19 school closures and other lockdown measures were fraught. But strikes should be explored and studied as possible tools. In the summer of 2020, tens of thousands of U.S. workers participated in a “Strike for Black Lives.”

Furthermore, taking a page from the sports strikes in the wake of the 2020 police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, there are more creative measures to explore in place of or in conjunction with traditional worker strikes. Sports leagues at both the college and professional level might suspend games until the crisis was resolved. If individual leagues were unwilling to participate, their stars could—and many likely would. What better way to cause a sustained, nationwide conversation about a specific topic that punctures all information bubbles than by forcing the cancellation of college football games, or the NBA playoffs, the World Series, or even the Super Bowl? In recent years, sports figures have increasingly become involved in politics, including ones from places you might not expect.

Similar strategies could be considered in the realm of Hollywood, the music industry, and other areas where Americans have a shared cultural appreciation and imbue their idols with the recognition and respect once enjoyed by political leaders. To avoid the appearance that these measures were partisan or political, these actions would need buy-in from actors, singers, entertainers, and writers from across the political spectrum, including from those who have always stayed above the political fray or who belong to the opposing political parties.

Fourth is the importance of respected political leaders, both current and former, joining the response to a severe political crisis. In Israel, former prime ministers have participated in the protest movement, including Barak and Ehud Olmert, as well as foreign and justice ministers such as Tzipi Livni. Former U.S. presidents have generally avoided this kind of participation, but in a severe crisis one can imagine former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, as well as other former senior officials from across the political spectrum, speaking out and participating in demonstrations.

Leadership extends beyond mere symbolism. Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid made calls for a general strike, among other involvement by elected officials. Similar kinds of bipartisan leadership from those in the U.S. House and Senate would be important to amplify the message of the protests and provide legitimacy. And of course, if the constitutional crisis originated from Congress itself, elected representatives could use their authority to shut it down. In this case, the protesters and other stakeholders, such as businesses, should view their opposition as a way to lobby Congress, including by promising to withhold financial backing to any member who participates in the unconstitutional scheme. There were similar actions in the wake of Jan. 6.

It would also be imperative for leaders to come from outside government, including from media organizations that represent a broad spectrum of U.S. politics. Given the United States’ problem with misinformation, this would be essential to accurately portray what was happening on the ground, including dispelling any untruths—for example, the notions that the protests had turned violent or that they were simply partisan reflections of one political party or another.

Finally, perhaps the most important lesson of all is to look for ways to motivate the public with an inclusive national response that transcends party and partisan affiliation. The reason the Israeli protests have been so effective is that even in a society rent by so many divisions, Israelis have gone into the streets because they believe deeply that their very way of life—the character of their society, and the image they have of Israel as an open, tolerant, and democratic polity with all its weaknesses, including and especially the Israeli occupation—is fundamentally threatened. As journalist Gal Beckerman has written, Israeli protesters have wrapped themselves in their flag—the most visible symbol of the protests. And this is something, according to Beckerman, that Americans should take to heart.

It is important to emphasize, though, that most Palestinians—including both those who are Israeli citizens (roughly 2 million out of a total population of 9.7 million) and those under Israel’s occupation and control—see the protests as an effort to protect Israeli Jewish democracy, not a movement to extend equal rights or statehood to them. Arab political parties in Israel have backed the protests, but the majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel, even while they have a great deal to lose should the judicial legislation pass, feel the demonstrations don’t address their needs, including equal rights and rising crime.

But without holding the line against a government whose objectives include de facto if not de jure annexation of the West Bank, continued second-class citizenship for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and enabling violence against Palestinians—as seen in the settler rampages through the West Bank town of Huwara—there will be no chance for peace, an end of the occupation, or statehood for the Palestinians.

And while we remain gloomy about any chance in the near term for an equitable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this protest movement has imbued Israel with a new energy and dynamism. It has created a focus on democracy, rights, and equality that hasn’t been seen in years and that could, under the right leadership, drive home the message that the preservation of Israel as a Jewish democratic state depends on ending the Israeli occupation and extending equal rights not just in principle but in practice to Palestinian citizens of Israel. One can at least hope so.

For the United States, the greatest challenge would be finding a way to wrap a movement in the U.S. flag and identify a broader set of unifying purposes that creates the biggest tent under which millions of Americans could rally. In today’s perniciously partisan environment, this would be hard—some might say impossible. To quote the historian Henry Adams, politics in the United States has become a “systematic organization of hatreds.” Without a written constitution, Israelis have turned to their Declaration of Independence as a source of inspiration, even as a set of principles for a future constitution. Perhaps the United States could do the same, turning to the basic founding principles that have shaped the country’s self-government.

The United States is perhaps the only nation in history founded on an idea: self-government in the interest of securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fundamentally, no matter the differences between Americans, what makes the United States special is its ability to self- correct, reinvent itself, and make progress toward guaranteeing opportunity, equality, and dignity for all. A truly national protest movement must be grounded in this dream and the aspiration of making it more accessible to everyone. We are hopeful and inspired by the younger generations in the United States today—by their commitment to making the country a better place for all Americans, and by how they would rise to meet the challenge if the United States were truly tested.

Of course, the best way to avoid illiberal backsliding, let alone a constitutional crisis, is to vote for candidates who respect the rule of law, abide by the Constitution, and adhere to democratic norms and standards. Once authoritarians entrench themselves in power, they can use their authority to remain there. But sometimes you not only need to vote—you also need to vote with your feet.

Some of this may seem naive and Panglossian. But the fight for U.S. democracy has always mixed the pragmatic and the aspirational. What has happened in Israel these many months has shown the power that people possess to safeguard their democracy when threatened. It’s not an easy conversation to have. But it’s worth having now because the stakes are so very high, and sadly, the dangers to the United States’ own democratic system are all too real.

— Aaron David Miller is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations. He is the author of The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.

— Daniel Miller is a Lawyer and Activist. Since 2016, he has engaged in various forms of Pro-democracy work and has written for the Washington Post, CNN, Daily Beast, and New York Daily News on democracy issues.

[tomorrowusa]

People who have heard Trump in private understand better what a danger he is to the country. Disproportionately this group consists of those responsible for protecting the United States.

Mark Milley was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top ranking person in the US military. He's one of the people Trump used to call "my generals". Now Gen. Milley is calling Trump "fascist".

Mark Milley, the US Army general who Donald Trump appointed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now says the current Republican presidential nominee is a “fascist to the core” and says no person has ever posed more of a danger to the United States than the man who served as the 45th President of the United States. Milley, a decorated military officer who became a target for right-wing scorn after it became known that he expressed concerns over Trump’s mental stability in the wake of his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, is described by journalist Bob Woodward in his new book, War, as incredibly alarmed at the prospect of a second Trump term in the White House. The Independent obtained a copy ahead of the book’s October 15 release date.

This wasn't a gotcha sort of thing. Gen. Milley went out of his own way to talk to Bob Woodward.

Woodward writes that when he approached Milley at a reception, the general spoke first and told him: “We gotta talk.” He told the journalist that “no one has ever been as dangerous to this country” as the former president. He asked: “Do you realize, do you see what this man is?”

At his retirement ceremony Gen. Milley famously said...

We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.

Of course Trump has promised to be a dictator on day one.

It's always easier to acquire dictators than it is to get rid of them.

[mydaddywiki]

Mark Milley

Height: 5'8" (1.73 m) Physique: Husky Build

Mark Alexander Milley (born June 20, 1958) is a retired United States Army general who last served as the 20th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023. He previously served as the 39th chief of staff of the Army from August 14, 2015, to August 9, 2019, and held multiple command and staff positions in eight divisions and special forces throughout his military career.

Nice and manly, when I first saw him, he looks like he would be a filthy whore in bed. Some one that'll give you a hard, almost angry fuck in the sack and have you cumming hands free. Then hear about some his policies he’s thinking of and I think bottom. And not a power bottom. I think sub bottom. But still a filthy in bed.

Now that he’s retired, maybe I could get shot at that ass. Sure he’s married with two children, but he's married to a nurse. Nursing is the #1 jobs for T.H.O.Ts. Plus there's a lot of whoring in the military.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 16, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 17, 2024

Two Fox News Channel interviews bracketed today: one this morning with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in front of an audience of hand-picked Republican women in Georgia, the other by Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with host Bret Baier. Together, the two were a performance of dominance. 

FNC billed Trump’s so-called town hall as a chance for female voters, a demographic that is swinging heavily to Harris, to ask Trump about issues they care about. But Hadas Gold and Liam Reilly of CNN reported that FNC had packed the audience with Trump supporters. The first question came from the president of the Fulton County Republican Women, though she was not identified as such. FNC then edited the broadcast to cut out remarks in which the attendees expressed support for Trump. 

It seems unlikely that Trump attracted any new voters by speaking to an audience of loyalists audibly cheering him on.

After Trump refused to debate her again, Harris voluntarily moved into his right-wing territory, agreeing to an interview with FNC host Bret Baier. In that interview, Baier reframed right-wing talking points as questions, essentially giving Trump a second shot at a debate. Baier kept talking over the vice president’s attempts to answer—even putting out a hand to interrupt her—in a stark contrast to FNC’s deference to Trump. Harris asked him to let her reply, and then answered his questions, sometimes testily, usually turning them into opportunities to contrast her own candidacy and record with Trump’s. 

Control of the interview changed abruptly when Harris called out Trump for referring to the “enemy within” and talking about using the American military against those he considers enemies. Baier used that opportunity to show a clip of Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anyone, but the clip was edited to remove his threats against “sick,” “evil,” “dangerous” “Marxists and communists and fascists” including Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and “the Pelosis”—presumably former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, who was attacked by a man with a hammer in 2022 by a man who wanted to force Nancy Pelosi to renounce the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. 

Harris had had enough propaganda.

“Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.” 

Simply by going on the right-wing network, Harris was demonstrating dominance. Then, by answering as thoroughly as she did, she undercut the right-wing narrative that she is stupid and inarticulate. By calling out the FNC for deliberately misleading its viewers, she took command. Baier, rather than Harris, was the one doing the post-interview spinning.

Writer Peter Wehner, who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, wrote: “Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world's most important media outlet.”

In between the two FNC events were two others that also told a story, this one about how the Republican Party’s descent into MAGA is creating a new political coalition to defend American principles.

Trump held a town hall with undecided Latino voters moderated by Mexican journalist Enrique Acevedo for Univision. Members of the audience asked excellent questions: how would he bring down household costs, who would take the jobs left behind by undocumented workers if Trump deported them and how much would that drive up food costs, why Trump took so long to stop the January 6 rioters, if he had caused deaths during the pandemic by misleading Americans, and if he agrees with his wife, Melania, about protecting abortion rights. 

But Trump did not answer the questions, instead regurgitating his usual talking points. He promised to produce more oil and gas, called undocumented immigrants criminals, repeated the lie about Haitian migrants eating pets, and, after notably referring to the January 6 rioters as “we” and law enforcement officers as “the others,” called January 6 “a day of love.” The audience did not appear convinced.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris joined more than 100 Republicans in Pennsylvania, near the spot where George Washington and more than 2,000 Continental soldiers crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 to surprise a garrison of British soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, where they won a strategic victory. 

Harris noted that those gathered were also near Philadelphia, where in 1787 delegates from across the country gathered to write and sign the U.S. Constitution. 

“That work was not easy. The founders often disagreed. Often quite passionately. But in the end, the Constitution of the United States laid out the foundations of our democracy, including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. And these principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries, sustained because generations of Americans, from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them. 

“And now, the baton is in our hands,” she said. [A]t stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States…its very self.” 

Harris welcomed the Republicans in the crowd, saying that everyone there shared a core belief: “That we must put country before party.” The crowd chanted, “USA, USA, USA.” 

Harris noted that many of the Republicans on stage had taken the same oath to the Constitution that she had. “We here know the Constitution is not a relic from our past, but determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely, and even criticize the president, without fear of being thrown in jail, or targeted by the military. Where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. Where you can vote without fear that your vote will be thrown away. All this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the Constitution.”

Trump, she pointed out, tried to overturn the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election, has vowed to use the military to go after any American who doesn’t support him, and has called for the “termination” of the Constitution. “It is clear,” she said, “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is seeking unchecked power.” Trump, she said, “must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States.”

“And to those who are watching,” she said, “if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time: There is a place for you in this campaign. The coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump.”

“I pledge to you to be a President for all Americans. And I take that pledge seriously.”

She reiterated her promise to appoint a Republican to her cabinet and to establish a Council on Bipartisan Solutions to strengthen the middle class, secure the border, defend our freedoms, and maintain the nation’s leadership in the world. She noted that the country needs a healthy two-party system, and described how the Senate Intelligence Committee left partisanship at the door. It “was “country over party in action,” when she sat on the committee, she said, “[s]o I know it can be done.”

“[O]ur campaign is not a fight against something,” she said. “It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded, It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people.

“[W]e are all here together this beautiful afternoon because we love our country…and we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an American and the duty that comes along with it…. Imperfect though we may be, America is still that ‘shining city upon a hill’ that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”

“So, to people from across Pennsylvania, and across our nation, let us together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals, and for the Constitution of the United States. And in twenty days, we have the power to chart a New Way Forward, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[beardedmrbean]

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and retired Gen. Mark Milley went from reportedly warning that President-elect Donald Trump is "fascist to the core" to saying that the United States will be fine under his leadership.

Many of Trump’s harshest critics have gone from cautioning that he would be a threat to democracy to speaking positively about how America will fare under him, now that he won the presidential election. 

Milley’s purported claims about Trump being "fascist" and "the most dangerous person to this country" in a forthcoming book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward appear to have gone by the wayside as he spoke about America’s future at a recent event. 

"Bottom line is breathe deep, America’s going to be okay," he told MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle at a Pallas Foundation event shown on the network. "There is a lot of waves out there, but this is a big, strong country. 380 million people. Great institutions, great people, great workforce, and a great younger cohort of people that are gonna protect America."

JEAN-PIERRE BRISTLES WHEN PRESSED ON PAST 'DEMOCRACY' WARNINGS: 'DO NOT APPRECIATE HAVING MY WORDS TWISTED'

MSNBC also showed him speaking to their host at the same event and saying that the Pentagon has a long history of reforms from incoming Secretaries of Defense.

"Every single Secretary of Defense has come in with the idea of ‘reforming’ the Pentagon. It is extraordinarily difficult and it takes, in my view — first of all, it takes mature leadership and it takes an alliance, or an alignment, I should say, between the Hill, the senators and congressmen up on the Hill who pass the laws," he said.

Milley went on to argue that incoming Trump allies have the potential to bring "helpful" reforms to the Pentagon or reduce it to "rubble."

"If all you’re going to do is come in with a wrecking ball and just blow things apart, then what you’re going to get is rubble. And if that’s what you want, that’s awesome if you want rubble, but that’s not going to defend the United States," he said. 

Milley added, "So we absolutely have to transform the Pentagon and it’s going to take an effort. And industry-outside guys like Elon, Vivek and whoever – sure, they can be very helpful but they – it has to be done correctly."

[solarbird]

He is the most dangerous person ever. I had suspicions when I talked to you about his mental decline and so forth, but now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is now the most dangerous person to this country… a fascist to the core. — General Mark Milley (retired), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Trump, speaking about former President and convicted felon Donald J. Trump

Trump vows to be a dictator. Only “for one day,” but I remind you that the “one day” part is meaningless, since on the “one day” you grant yourself all power so can pretend you’re not a dictator and are acting within the law the very next day.

He promises a mass ethnic purge of immigrants, including legal ones, and says he’ll expel 15 million people and that they will have to do “terrible things” to people. There are no cases in history where this doesn’t turn into a broader purge – which he’s said he wants.

Now he just says he’s ready to use the military against his greatest – his worst – enemy: domestic political opponents.

Against you and me. Against us.

“Donald Trump has proposed a fascist plan to deploy military forces against U.S. citizens who oppose him on election day.“

We know this.

We all know this.

What’s it take?

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat told NBC News that Trump’s threats to curb dissent are “out of the autocratic playbook.” “As autocrats consolidate their power once they’re in office, anything that threatens their power, or exposes their corruption, or releases information that’s harmful to them in any way becomes illegal,” Ben-Ghiat said. “He’s actually rehearsing, in a sense, what he would be doing as head of state, which is what Orban does, Modi is doing, Putin has long done,” she added, naming the dictatorial leaders of Hungary, India and Russia, all of whom Trump has lavishly praised. — Rolling Stone Magazine, “Trump Wants the Military to Target Americans Who Oppose Him,” 13 October 2024. By Peter Wade.

I don’t know anymore.

What does it take?

If you have any Trumpy friends or family, ask them: do they really want to end the Republic? Do they really want to live in a dictatorship? Do they want literally everything in their lives to be about political compliance to the leader, at the barrel of a gun?

Is that what they really want? To destroy the American experiment? To end the United States as a democracy?

Ask them. Make it clear. Make them use small words, make them explain it to you like you’re four, make them try to make you understand. And don’t let them deny, because there is no room for denial. It’s all there, in his words, from his mouth, and yes, it is Trump being Trump, because this is literally who he is, and who is always has been.

Do they hate America that much?

Ask them.

22 days remain.

[the-psudo]

Trump's People

“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution. … Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” — Mike Pence, Trump's vice president

“Someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.” — Bill Barr, Trump's 2nd attorney general

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us.” — James Mattis, Trump's 1st secretary of defense

“I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.” — Mark Esper, Trump's 2nd secretary of defense

“We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.” — retired Gen. Mark Milley, Trump's chairman of the joint chiefs

“(Trump’s) understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of US history was really limited. It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.” — Rex Tillerson, Trump's secretary of state

“He used to be good on foreign policy and now he has started to walk it back and get weak in the knees when it comes to Ukraine. A terrible thing happened on January 6, and he called it a beautiful day.” — Nikki Haley, Trump's 1st ambassador to the United Nations

“Someone who I would argue now is just out for himself.” — Chris Christie, Trump's presidential transition vice-chairman

“We saw the absence of leadership, really anti-leadership, and what that can do to our country.” — HR McMaster, Trump's 2nd national security adviser

“I believe (foreign leaders) think he is a laughing fool.” — John Bolton, Trump's 3rd national security adviser

“A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law. There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.” — John Kelly, Trump's 2nd chief of staff

“I quit because I think he failed at being the president when we needed him to be that.” — Mick Mulvaney, Trump's acting chief of staff and US special envoy to Ireland, resigned after January 6th, 2021

“He is the domestic terrorist of the 21st century.” — Anthony Scaramucci, one of Trump's former communications directors

“I am terrified of him running in 2024.” — Stephanie Grisham, another former communications director

“When I saw what was happening on January 6 and didn’t see the president step in and do what he could have done to turn it back or slow it down or really address the situation, it was just obvious to me that I couldn’t continue.” — Betsy DeVos, Trump's secretary of education, resigned after January 6th, 2021

“At a particular point the events were such that it was impossible for me to continue, given my personal values and my philosophy." — Elaine Chao, Trump's secretary of Transportation, resigned after January 6th, 2021

“…the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.” — Richard Spencer, Trump's 1st secretary of the Navy

“The President undermined American democracy baselessly for months. As a result, he’s culpable for this siege, and an utter disgrace.” — Tom Bossert, Trump's 1st homeland security adviser

“Donald’s an idiot.” — Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer

“Trump relentlessly puts forth claims that are not true.” — Ty Cobb, Trump's White House lawyer

“We can stand by the policies, but at this point we cannot stand by the man.” — Alyssa Farah Griffin, one of Trump's directors of strategic communications, now a CNN political commentator

“Donald Trump, who would attack civil rights icons and professional athletes, who would go after grieving black widows, who would say there were good people on both sides, who endorsed an accused child molester; Donald Trump, and his decisions and his behavior, was harming the country. I could no longer be a part of this madness.” — Omarosa Manigault Newman, a top aide in charge of Trump's outreach to African Americans

“I thought that he did do a lot of good during his four years. I think that his actions on January 6 and the lead-up to it, the way that he’s acted in the aftermath, and his continuation of pushing this lie that the election is stolen has made him wholly unfit to hold office every again.” — Sarah Matthews, one of Trump's deputy press secretaries, resigned after January 6th, 2021

“I think that Donald Trump is the most grave threat we will face to our democracy in our lifetime, and potentially in American history.” — Cassidy Hutchinson, Trump's final chief of staff’s aide

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Prominent members of the right-wing media elite touted John Kelly’s ability as White House chief of staff to impose discipline on then-President Donald Trump and prevent the nation from falling into chaos.  The Wall Street Journal editorial board and commentators like National Review Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich praised the retired four-star general as an “indispensable” and “unflinching” figure who “deserves the nation’s gratitude” for stopping Trump from exercising his worst impulses.  Now, Kelly is publicly describing the former president as a fascist bent on ruling the United States as a dictator if he returns to power — while Trump is making clear that he will not allow himself to be surrounded by similar figures who could act as guardrails in a second term — and the same figures are still backing his candidacy.

Elite right-wing commentators lauded Kelly for keeping Trump under control

For a segment of the right-wing press that likes Trump’s support for cutting taxes, banning abortion, dismantling the social safety net, and other traditional GOP positions — but dislikes the chaos he brings with them — Kelly’s July 2017 appointment as chief of staff was a godsend.

[...]

Kelly served at the highest levels of the Trump administration and says the former president is a fascist

The Journal editorial board, Lowry, and Gingrich were correct to worry about the prospect of an unhinged Trump unrestrained by a competent chief of staff. Mark Meadows, a former congressman who served in that role, oversaw the final chaotic months of Trump’s administration, during which Trump led a shambling response to the COVID-19 pandemic, threatened to use military force against protesters, and ultimately sought to subvert the results of the 2020 election and triggered the storming of the U.S. Capitol. Now Kelly, who served Trump as chief of staff for a year and a half, is speaking out about what he saw in the White House and the urgent danger he says the former president poses to the country.

In interviews with The New York Times, he said of Trump and his plans for a second term:

“Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

“He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

He “never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted.”

“I think this issue of using the military on — to go after — American citizens is one of those things I think is a very, very bad thing — even to say it for political purposes to get elected — I think it’s a very, very bad thing, let alone actually doing it.” 

“He’s certainly the only president that has all but rejected what America is all about, and what makes America America, in terms of our Constitution, in terms of our values, the way we look at everything, to include family and government — he’s certainly the only president that I know of, certainly in my lifetime, that was like that.”

Kelly is one of several high-ranking national security appointees in Trump’s administration who are warning the country that the former president is a fascist. Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, has described him as “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person ever,” remarks reportedly echoed by Jim Mattis, Trump’s former secretary of defense.  And on Wednesday, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on CNN that “it's hard to say that” Trump “doesn't” fit the definition of fascist, adding, “He certainly has those inclinations, and I think it's something we should be wary about.”

[...] The defining feature of right-wing media during the Trump era has been that you either back the former president despite your better instincts and morality, or you get excommunicated from the movement. That incentive structure — and the right-wing commentariat’s craven responses to it — explains the resulting media ecosystem rallying behind a lying felonious racist and conman who launched an insurrection and whose own former top aides describe as a fascist.

During Donald Trump’s first term, right-wing media elites such as Newt Gingrich and Rich Lowry praised John Kelly as a restraint on Trump’s worst impulses.

[azspot]

Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.

Kamala Harris

[foreverlogical]

U.S. military veterans in one of the most important battleground states are coming out hard against former President Donald Trump, and urging their fellow service members to support the Democratic ticket.

The Guardian reported Saturday that in the swing state of Michigan — which went for Trump in 2016 and for President Joe Biden in 2020 — Vice President Kamala Harris is getting a late surge of momentum from veterans. Men and women who served in the U.S. military are phonebanking voters across the Mitten State by both talking up Harris' bona fides as well as warning of the threat Trump presents to both democracy and the rule of law.

"This man here, that Kamala is running against, he’s like the devil and, you know, he ain’t even trying to hide it," retired Air Force electrician Josie Couch told the Guardian.

READ MORE: 'Listen to his words': Harris plays audio of Trump insulting auto workers to MI auto workers

Veteran Jerold Blunk met his wife, Dale while both of them were deployed to a base in Iceland. Jerry was in the Navy, and Dale was in the Air Force. Both of them are Michigan residents supporting Harris' campaign, with Dale Blunk saying she was particularly disgusted with Trump's disparaging of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) for being a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"It’s about time a woman became president of the United States," Jerold Blunk told the publication. Dale interjected at that point and said that wasn't the only reason the two were voting for the Democratic ticket.

"[B]oth of us agree that Trump can’t be allowed into office again. He has no respect for anyone except himself. He has no respect for the constitution. He has no respect for veterans. He doesn’t have any respect for anyone. So he can’t go back to the White House," she said.

Earlier this week, Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg reported on conversations he had with former Trump White House chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general. Kelly — whose own son was killed in combat in Afghanistan — confirmed that the former president referred to American war dead as "suckers" and "losers," and recalled how Trump had no concept of sacrifice for one's country, saying: "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"

In addition to Kelly's concerns about how Trump views the military, he also told the New York Times that his former boss met the dictionary's definition of fascism. This echoes a previous comment by Mark Milley — Trump's appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — who called Trump a "fascist to the core" in an interview with journalist Bob Woodward.

Dale Blunk also called Trump a "fascist" and told the Guardian that she's particularly concerned about the havoc Trump would wreak if he wins the November election. She specifically mentioned that Supreme Court's Trump v. United States decision that granted presidents absolute broad immunity from criminal prosecution for any "official acts" carried out in office as a reason to believe the country will be "lost" if the former president returns to the White House.

"I don’t think the rule of law will prevail. The supreme court has already given him unlimited power. You give that to an egotist and a fascist, then we’ve lost our country," she said. "Literally, we’ll lose our country."

Click here to read the Guardian's full article.

[zvaigzdelasas]

The United States and its allies need to speed up the delivery of weapons to Taiwan in the coming years to help the island defend itself, the top U.S. general said on Friday. The United States is Taiwan's most important arms supplier. Beijing has repeatedly demanded the sale of U.S. weapons to Taiwan stop[...]

"The speed at which we, the United States, or other countries assist Taiwan in improving (their) defensive capabilities, I think that probably needs to be accelerated in the years to come," U.S. Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters during a visit to Tokyo. Milley said Taiwan needed weapons like air defence systems and those that could target ships from land.[...]

Taiwan has since last year complained of delays to U.S. weapon deliveries, such as Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, as manufacturers turned supplies to Ukraine as it battles invading Russian forces. The issue has concerned some U.S. lawmakers. Taiwan has said that its defence spending this year will focus on preparing weapons and equipment for a "total blockade" by China, including parts for F-16 fighters and replenishing weapons.[...]

Milley said the United States was looking at whether it needed to change where some U.S. forces were based within the Asia Pacific. The majority of U.S. forces in the region are in northeast Asia, including 28,500 in South Korea and 56,000 troops in Japan. "We are seriously looking at potential alternative basing options," Milley said.

13 Jul 23

[mariacallous]

Ukraine’s military will be deploying robots to fight against Russia within the next year, part of a strategy to deal with a shortage of readily available human combat troops, the country’s defense industry czar said.  

Ukraine’s strategic industries minister, Oleksandr Kamyshin, was in Washington last week to help the country’s state defense company open an office in the United States and to work on a number of joint ventures, including a deal with Northrop Grumman to produce medium-caliber ammunition in Ukraine. 

“This year will be the year of land systems as well, unmanned land systems,” Kamyshin said at the opening of the defense office. “We’ll see more of them on the front line. That’s one of the game-changers we expect in the nearest 12 months.” 

The point, Kamyshin said, is to get more troops off the front lines. “That’s the main philosophy,” he said. “We count people, and we want our people to be as far from the front line as we can.” 

Kamyshin said most of the robots will be produced in Ukraine, not with Western partners, and expects Ukrainian troops to use the machines for all types of missions, including ground combat and medical evacuation. He said in a follow-up interview that the deployment of ground robots to save human lives is a contrast to Russia’s military strategy. “They save machinery. They save everything. But they send people,” he said. 

There are about 250 defense start-ups building unmanned ground vehicles, or UGVs, across Ukraine, The Associated Press reported this week—many of them in secret to hide from Russian bombs. Ukraine’s government-funded Brave1 platform has already tested more than 50 ground systems, and Kyiv is expected to buy hundreds of them in the coming months. 

Ukraine has also certified at least 67 models of domestically built unmanned aerial vehicles, the vast majority of which the country’s defense ministry has contracted to buy. Kamyshin said Ukraine will produce millions of first-person-view drones, tens of thousands of midrange strike drones, and thousands of long-range strike drones this year.

Ukraine is not the only country that is thinking about deploying machines in battle to deal with a shortage of human troops. There are challenges when it comes to the availability of ground forces throughout Europe, too—one of the major things that has held back the implementation of new NATO war plans to deter Russia. 

The U.S. Army is considering adding a platoon of robots to fight within tank-backed infantry units, with the stated goal of not shedding human blood in the first exchange with an adversary such as Russia or China. Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that a third of the U.S. military could be robotic within the next 10 to 15 years. 

The difficulty is doing it without slowing down troops as they move forward and giving units more things to maintain and a heavier logistical tail. The technology is still maturing. UGVs have limited battery capacity and can be rendered mostly useless by a damaged sensor, which they rely on to make judgments. 

But experts believe the tactical payoff for fielding UGVs at scale could be enormous. “If you are advancing through a breach, and you have concealed enemy firing posts, there is a high probability they would knock out your tanks,” Jack Watling, the senior research fellow for land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank, said in an interview in March. “If the UGVs go first but the tanks are behind them, the enemy may be detected by the UGVs—they may be killed by the UGVs if they don’t destroy them. But if they destroy them, they will reveal their position and be destroyed by the tanks.”

Because the battlefield has become a laboratory of innovation, Ukraine is further along than most nations when it comes to developing robots. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has already said the country will create a separate service branch for drones and unmanned vehicles. 

“It’s impossible for us to overrun Russia [in production],” said Vlad Muzylov, a diplomat at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. “It’s just impossible.” But, he added, Ukraine could level up the technology in its arsenal “to defeat them not in quantity but in quality.”

Still, with Western officials eyeing another window for a Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2025, Ukraine will also need more troops. 

“If you look at what both sides are doing now, they need more people,” Royal Netherlands Navy Adm. Rob Bauer, the chair of NATO’s Military Committee, told Foreign Policy in an interview on the sidelines of last week’s NATO summit. “We are not recruiting for Ukraine. They are recruiting for themselves. They have to solve that issue in terms of finding enough soldiers.”

A Baltic diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Western training needed to improve to help Ukrainians fight in combined groups on the battalion level, about 250 to 500 troops in their military, according to U.S. Defense Department estimates. Zelensky has already lowered Ukraine’s conscription age from 27 to 25, but Western officials have urged Ukraine to tap into the country’s 18-to-24 population to fuel next year’s push. And the trainings, which last only about eight to 12 weeks, need to go on longer, the official said, to make Ukrainian troops more effective. 

The Ukrainian military will also need to be trained on effectively integrating ground robots, too. 

“Last year was the year of the big challenge to produce enough. This year is the year of coordination, integration, and program management,” Kamyshin said. “It’s all about training people, coordinating, and integrating.”

[theculturedmarxist]

In his book In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin, Erik Larson cites a cable sent to the State Department in June 1933 by a U.S. diplomat posted in Germany that provided a far more candid assessment of the Nazi leadership than the one that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration was then conveying to the public. “With few exceptions, the men who are running this Government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand,” read the cable, which was written five months after Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor. “Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere.”

I’ve thought about that passage from the cable many times over the past several weeks as I’ve been reading excerpts from a private WhatsApp group chat established last December by Erik Prince, the founder of the military contractor Blackwater and younger brother of Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education during President Donald Trump’s administration, who invited around 650 of his contacts in the United States and around the world to join. Prince, who has a long track record of financing conservative candidates and causes and extensive ties to right-wing regimes around the world, named the group—which currently has around 400 members—“Off Leash,” the same name as the new podcast that he’d launched the month before.

Among the group’s hottest topics:

• The “Biden Regime,” which a consensus of Off Leash participants who weighed in view as an ally of Islamic terrorists and other anti-American forces that needs to be crushed along with them and its partners in the deep state, such as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, who “deserves to burn in hell,” Lara Logan shared with the group chat.

• The shortcomings of democracy that invariably resulted from extending the franchise to ordinary citizens, who are easily manipulated by Marxists and populists. “The West is at best a beautiful cemetery,” lamented Sven von Storch, whose aristocratic German family fled the country after World War II to Chile, where their son was raised before returning to the land of his ancestors, where he married the granddaughter of the Third Reich’s last de facto head of state, who was convicted at Nuremberg.

• Israel-Palestine, a problem that Michael Yudelson, Prince’s business partner at Unplugged, which markets an allegedly supersecure smartphone, said should be handled by napalming Hamas’s tunnel network. “I would burn all those bastards, and have everything above ground, everything left of Gaza, collapse into this fiery hell pit and burn!” he wrote.

• The Houthi rebels in Yemen, whom Yoav Goldhorn, who was an Israeli intelligence officer until last year and now works for a Tel Aviv–based security contractor headed by former senior national security veterans, thinks should be “dealt with” as soon as possible to ensure they don’t grow from “an inconvenience to a festering mess [that] will eventually require an entire limb to be amputated.”

• And most of all, Iran, which participants agreed, with a few exceptions, also needed to be wiped out. Saghar Erica Kasraie, a former staffer for Republican Representative Trent Franks when he served on the House Armed Services Committee and whom, according to her LinkedIn profile, she advised on Middle East issues, urged that the Islamic Republic’s clerical leaders be targeted by weaponized drones that “take them out like flys 😎.”

Not all of the group’s members are conspiracy theorists in the mold of Logan, the former CBS correspondent. I know many people who are in roughly the same political ballpark as the average Off Leash participant, including some of the chat group’s members, who are razor-sharp, even if I strongly disagree with a lot of their opinions. I don’t know Prince other than having been in the same room with him on a few occasions, but we have mutual acquaintances who say he’s not a one-dimensional evil mercenary as typically portrayed but brilliant and funny, and over drinks greatly prefers to discuss business and history rather than expound upon the latest developments in right-wing political circles.

Frank Gallagher, a former Marine who once provided security for Henry Kissinger and who worked in a high-level position at Blackwater in Iraq following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, isn’t a fan of Prince but offered a similar assessment. “We had issues from time to time, but I can’t deny that he’s extraordinarily smart,” he recounted. “When he came to Iraq, he’d cover 10 topics, and he had command over all of them.”

All of which makes Off Leash arguably more concerning, because the group can’t be dismissed as merely a collection of harmless cranks. Many of the participants, though not all household names, are wealthy and politically wired—which makes their incessant whining in the group chat about being crushed under the bootheel of the deep state particularly grating—and they will collectively become wealthier and more influential if Trump wins the November election. That’s especially true of the Americans in the group, but the same holds for the international figures because the global right will become immensely more powerful and emboldened if the former president returns to the White House. That prospect is a source of great hope to Off Leash participants. “Trump, Orban, Milei, it’s happening,” former Blackwater executive John LaDelfa posted to the group during a trip to Argentina on December 4, two days after Prince created it. “Around the Globe, we are the sensible, the rational, the majority. Don’t give in to fear. We will defeat the Marxists.”

His hopes were shared by many other Off Leash participants, among them Horatiu Potra, a Romanian mercenary who has recently been operating in the mineral-rich, conflict-plagued Democratic Republic of Congo. “The globalists want to control the entire planet [and] the only chance to get rid of them is a spark from a great power (the USA),” Potra wrote. “Surely there will be a strong man like Erik who will initiate it, otherwise there is no chance of regaining our freedom. If this spark is started, all countries will follow suit.… We were waiting for the signal, the spark!!”

A December 2023 United Nations report alleged that Potra owns a company that has provided combat support and fighters to Congolese government troops fighting a vicious rebel insurgency. Prince unsuccessfully sought to negotiate a deal with the DRC government to fly 2,500 mercenaries from Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico into the country to fight alongside Potra’s men, the report said.

About three-quarters of the people Prince invited to the group chat are from the U.S. or live here. The largest overseas blocs are from Israel (32 members), the United Arab Emirates (20 members), and the United Kingdom (20). There are smaller contingents, sometimes a single person, from 33 other countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Collectively, Off Leash provides an informal virtual gathering place for current and former political officials, national security operatives, activists, journalists, soldiers of fortune, weapons brokers, black bag operators, grifters, convicted criminals, and other elements in the U.S. and global far right. The roster of invitees includes:

• Icons of the MAGA ecosphere such as Tucker Carlson, the most revered figure among group chat participants, with the exception of the Supreme Leader himself; Kimberly Guilfoyle, the longtime fiancée of Donald Trump Jr.; and retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Trump’s convicted-then-pardoned first national security adviser. Flynn has participated, Carlson only minimally, and Guilfoyle not at all.

• Current and former lawmakers and aides, such as Tennessee Congressman Mark Green of the House Freedom Caucus; Vish Burra, who was director of operations for Congressman George Santos; and Stuart Seldowitz, a national security adviser to Barack Obama from 2009 to 2011 who was arrested last November after harassing an Egyptian halal street cart vendor in New York City for two weeks, during which time he called him a “terrorist” and said, “If we killed 4,000 Palestinian kids, it wasn’t enough.”

Prominent figures in the Off Leash crew are well known for their paleoconservative political views, but the private opinions expressed in the group chat are even more extreme and jarring than we normally see voiced publicly. Participants chirpily discussed the desirability of clamping down on democracy to deal with their enemies at home and regime change, bombings, assassinations, and covert action to take care of those abroad. The group’s overall bloodlust periodically proved to be too much for a few more judicious individual members, who in almost any other setting would be considered ultraconservatives but in the context of Off Leash sound like hippie peaceniks‎. One of the dissidents—a National Rifle Association firearms instructor who runs a weapons company—joked that he was worried about an “unsupervised” subgroup of especially enthusiastic military adventurers that formed to discuss topics too “hot” for WhatsApp, saying, “I imagine their ‘to be bombed’ list is over 49 countries and growing.”

Many other Off Leash participants have also stated that they don’t view the group chat as merely a forum to exchange ideas but want it to become a vehicle to put their theories into action. “If we band together … we can damage the other side like no one has ever seen before!” exclaimed Jeff Sloat, who worked with a U.S. Army psyops unit in Central America during the Reagan era.

I don’t want to disclose much about how I learned of the group chat and the nature of its discussions, but I will say that multiple sources in the U.S. and elsewhere shared information, including two journalists who I discovered had learned about Off Leash, which nearly gave me a heart attack for fear I’d lose my scoop. Participants did occasionally express concerns about security, but their worries were mostly centered on the possibility that their conversation was vulnerable to hackers. It apparently never occurred to any of them that their confidentiality might be compromised not by sophisticated cyberwarfare specialists but by old-fashioned leakers, which was virtually inevitable given the group’s size.

Off Leash was still active as of Wednesday, though I expect it won’t be, at least in its current form, for much longer, given that the conversation Wednesday included much discussion about their security being breached, which became evident after I reached out to participants for comment. Fortunately, I obtained details about a large slice of the chat group’s discussions over the past six months. Here’s some of what they discussed.

Solving the Middle East Crisis: Nukes, Napalm, and Other “Extreme Measures”

Off Leash was launched less than two months after Israel commenced its assault on Gaza following Hamas’s deadly October 7 attack on Israel, and that topic has been one of the group chat’s main concerns since it was established by Prince on December 2. Five days later, Omer Laviv, an executive with the Mer Group, a private security company with many former Israeli intelligence officials in its senior ranks, posted a story to the group that ran two days earlier in The Times of London and reported Prince had been seeking to sell the Israel Defense Forces equipment for a plan he’d devised to flood Hamas tunnels with seawater.

“I was involved,” remarked Moti Kahana, the Israeli American businessman who runs GDC, the firm where Off Leash member Stuart Seldowitz previously worked. Kahana pointedly added that at least one part of The Times’ story was false—for example, Prince had offered to donate the equipment, not sell it, he said.

“Why do you expect accuracy from journalists?” retorted Laviv, who during the Trump administration retained 27 U.S. lobbyists and consultants to run a $9.5 million lobbying campaign on behalf of President Joseph Kabila, the corrupt, brutal leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who used surveillance equipment supplied by the Mer Group to monitor his regime’s opponents. Among those Laviv involved were Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer, fixer, and dirt-digger, and Robert Stryk, whose clients have included Saudi Arabia and El Salvador’s state intelligence agency under crypto-fascist President Nayib Bukele.

Yudelson, who also reportedly partnered with Prince in an attempt to buy weapons for resale from Belarus dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko (whom the two men praised for bringing “peace, stability, and prosperity to your country”), predicted the tunnel-flooding proposal would be shot down by the “Israeli left,” a force he labeled the country’s “biggest enemy,” ahead of Hamas and Iran, over concerns about the environmental impact in Gaza. “Who gives a shit about that,” Yudelson posted to the group. “If it was up to me … I would flood them with Napalm! I would burn all those bastards, and have everything above ground, everything left of Gaza, collapse into this fiery hell pit and burn!”

Even that was deemed to be insufficiently hawkish for some Off Leash participants. In a lengthy tirade on February 14, Tzvi Lev, who formerly worked in Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said it was rare to see a people as “twisted” as Palestinians, whose culture “worships death and bloodshed.” The only solution, he wrote, was to “completely uproot the radical Islamic Palestinian nationalism,” which was possible to do based on the historical precedent of Japan, which “went from being nuked twice to one of the world’s strongest economies within two decades.” Dropping nuclear weapons on what’s left of densely populated Gaza, which is roughly the size of Detroit, would be a war crime and kill huge numbers of civilians.

Yoav Goldhorn, the former Israeli intelligence officer, also cited “fucking nukes in Japan” as an appropriate remedy to the Palestinian problem. Sadly, wrote Goldhorn, whose LinkedIn profile says he has “a passion for strategic planning,” there was no one in the Israeli government with “the balls nor vision to go all those extra miles.”

Iran: Off Leash’s Public Enemy No. 1

It was hard to keep track of all the wars, invasions, covert operations, coups, and assassinations Off Leash members favored. One region ripe for a bit of good old-fashioned Western intervention was Africa, which was described as a “pot about to boil over” by Emma Priestley, who posts as “Customer” in the group chat and is the CEO of GoldStone Resources Limited in Jersey, the English Channel island that is one of the world’s most popular offshore secrecy havens. China would have to be taken down a peg as well, particularly as Biden wasn’t going to stop the country “from doing a damn thing,” and indeed he would pave the way for it to do “whatever it is they want to accomplish,” posted Randy Couture, the former UFC heavyweight champion and actor who had the role of arsonist and killer Jason Duclair in the TV series Hawaii Five-0 and starred in the 2011 movie Setup with 50 Cent and Bruce Willis.

But the No. 1 target on Off Leash’s hit list, by orders of magnitude, was Iran. “Follow the source of evil,” wrote Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, who served as interior secretary under Trump. “Hamas. Hezbollah. Houthis. Iran is the center of gravity.”

“Zinke is right,” agreed Tennessee Congressman Mark Green of the House Freedom Caucus.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels were most immediately in the group’s crosshairs, due to their attempts to halt arms shipments to Israel. Finishing them off would be a cakewalk, but time was of the essence as the Houthis were “relatively limited in strength” at the moment but could become a major problem if swift action wasn’t taken, wrote Yoav Goldhorn, a former Israeli intelligence operative.

To Goldhorn’s way of thinking, the Houthis were best compared to “rot [that] stinks a lot more than the flesh it ate”:

As we’ve seen countless times in the Middle East, if you don’t treat rot it will grow and spread and turn from an inconvenience to a festering mess, and will eventually require an entire limb to be amputated. The Houthi threat has to be dealt with now, while they’re still relatively limited in strength. Otherwise it’ll become a problem too big to handle without extreme measures, or worse yet—remain a problem for future generations to come.

As for moving against Iran itself, the leading cheerleader in the group chat for military action is Kasraie, who worked for Representative Franks of Arizona until 2017, when he resigned amid charges of sexual harassment by two female staffers. “The IRGC is the head of the snake,” Kasraie wrote in one post, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “It’s time to cut the head of that snake.”

An Iranian American who converted to Christianity after her family moved to the U.S. following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Kasraie has worked closely with fellow exile Amir Abbas Fakhravar, the co-founder of the Confederation of Iranian Students, which claimed to represent a worldwide pro-Western movement in support of domestic opponents of the Islamic government.

Fakhravar was hailed by the neoconservative think tanks American Enterprise Institute and Foundation for Defense of Democracies—which were leading advocates of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and are currently leading the drumbeat for regime change in Iran—as his country’s 2.0 version of Ahmed Chalabi, the CIA-backed Iraqi exile whom the Bush administration promoted as a beloved figure among citizens of his native land during the run-up to the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. That didn’t pan out as promised when Chalabi 1.0 led a political coalition in parliamentary elections two years after his triumphant return that won less than 1 percent of the total vote.

Now Kasraie, who organizes congressionally hosted “global conferences in Washington for activists to plan the constitutional future of a free, democratic Iran,” according to an online bio, is touting Reza Pahlavi, the shah’s oldest son and crown prince of Iran, as “the only viable opposition leader” and the man the U.S. should install in power after seeing to the formality of dispatching the current government.

“I assure you, the Iranian people want nothing more than to be free from the bloodthirsty mullahs,” Kasraie wrote in the group chat on January 27, and added with equal certainty that younger Iranians were “pro-Israel and pro-America” and that millions in the country felt a deep “sense of nostalgia” for the former royal dynasty. If Reza Pahlavi received strong international support—he would merely be a “mouthpiece” to be handled by a team of “good advisors,” Kasraie stated—the internal opposition “would be much more inclined to rise up and we would see far more defectors.”

For his part, Reza Pahlavi, who hasn’t stepped foot in Iran for 45 years and lives in a lavish estate in the Washington suburbs, said in an interview last year he wasn’t sure he wanted to have an official role in a future government if the current one was overthrown, or even live in the country. This didn’t dampen the ardor of Kasraie, who in one post labeled the mullahs a “cancerous venom that need to be eradicated from … the planet,” with her preferred method to accomplish that being weaponized drones that would “take them out like flys 😎.”

That type of approach was endorsed by others in the group, including Gabriel “Kaz” Kazerooni, a former U.S. intelligence officer, Special Forces veteran, and Blackwater employee in Iraq, who described Iran’s religious leaders as “pedofile [sic] Mullahs” and a “bacteria to humanity” who he hoped would soon “die away.”

“EP [Erik Prince] has the right people in place,” Kazerooni added cryptically, saying it was only a matter of time before the “Mullah Pigs” would be removed from power.

Washington should “take out” the commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force that replaced Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a 2020 operation ordered by President Trump, Lara Logan said. Prince had urged he be targeted for killing four years earlier, when he was informally advising the Trump campaign, in a memo to White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Logan proposed the U.S. also assassinate other “key targets” in the Middle East, specifically mentioning “the head of Hamas,” whose name she didn’t mention, but she presumably was talking about Mohammed Deif, who leads the group’s military wing. “That will send a message,” she said.

Nathan Jacobson, a 69-year-old Canadian Israeli businessman who told The New Republic he is a longtime friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and fought with the IDF as a young man, had a more ambitious proposal. In order to topple the Islamic regime, he said blithely, “We need to hit” Iran’s nuclear facilities, ports, Qom, where the mullahs reside, IRGC headquarters and bases, and oil industry production facilities, which would shut down the country’s economy for months.

The calls for carnage elicited pushback from two Off Leash members. “The problem is while doing nothing could empower them, bombing might empower them more,” warned Mark Farage, who owns a firearms and ammunition manufacturer in Virginia and made the joke about the “unsupervised” subgroup’s ever-growing list of countries they wanted to be targeted for airstrikes. “I don’t think we have successfully bombed anyone into an ally since WWII.… Maybe we should consider more tools than just a hammer?”

“Huge mistake to attack Iran directly,” concurred Matt Heidt, a Special Forces veteran who deployed to Africa, South America, and Asia, including a 2007 stint in Iraq’s Anbar Province. “We would be inviting 10/7 here.”

Jacobson was infuriated by the criticism of his blueprint for war.

“We don’t want them as an ally,” he said in a comment directed at Farage. “Let them spend their time stoned on qat and screwing their sheep.”

He was even more contemptuous of Heidt’s opinions. “You remind me of the Jews in Germany in the 30’s that thought that by being quiet that the problem would go away,” he sneered. “We have no choice but to hit them hard and then kill these cells if they raise their ugly heads. Why are you taking a coward’s standpoint?”

“So you’re going to waddle your fat ass over there and put some skin in the game or are you content to put others at risk?” retorted Heidt.

“Unlike you, I’ve had skin in that game for years,” said Jacobson, who served in the IDF in the 1970s. “What have you done?”

“Retired SEAL Senior Chief with a Bronze Star with V,” shot back Heidt. Bronze Stars are awarded for heroism in a combat zone, and are not uncommon, but a Bronze Star with V, for Valor, are relatively rare.

Those in Off Leash’s overwhelmingly dominant hard-line faction were having none of the namby-pamby defeatism from Heidt and Farage.

“Bomb the hell out of them,” Kazerooni insisted. “Mess with US and you will eat your Sh_t. We the United States Of America is still the strongest Country in the world.”

More recently, the Off Leash crew has been in a chronic state of agitation over political developments that have led them to further ratchet up their calls for jihad against their worldwide enemies. In mid-April, after Tehran fired missiles into Israel in retaliation for an airstrike in Syria that killed two of its generals in a diplomatic building, Sloat, the psyops specialist, excitedly declared it was “time to disintegrate Iran.” In May, their fury turned to Biden’s brief pause in arms shipments to Israel, though none were surprised by the president’s treachery, as his “Regime is infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood” (Yudelson) and “compromised … by Iranian regime influencers” (Zinke).

The group finally got good news recently with the helicopter crash that killed Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, though nerves frayed as they awaited confirmation he was dead. If he’d tragically survived, wondered Tzvi Lev, perhaps it would be possible to dispatch a Special Forces search and rescue unit to “disappear” him before he was found.

The Future of American Democracy: “It’s Trump or Revolution!”

Even more worrying to group chat members than the state of global affairs was that democracy was under attack across the world, especially in the West and most of all in the U.S. They blamed the same barbarians at the gate science fiction writer Robert Heinlein pointed to in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, which was published in 1987, the year before his death. “Democracy often works beautifully at first,” but the day the franchise is extended “to every warm body … marks the beginning of the end of that state,” Heinlein wrote. “For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition … succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.” The passage about bread and circuses was posted in its entirety on February 16 by former Virginia Congressman Tom Garrett, who offered it as an explanation for why democratic governance made it impossible to address the problems facing the United States.

“Definitely an issue,” agreed Scott Taylor, another former House member from Virginia, and Republicans were responsible as well. Too many GOP lawmakers campaigned as principled opponents of government spending, Taylor wrote on the list, but were “more concerned about their individual selves then actually advancing conservative policy” and chased federal money for their home districts like common Democrats in hopes of currying favor with their pleb constituents.

Former President Trump’s campaign to return to the White House posed an even graver and more imminent threat to American democracy. It wasn’t Trump, per se, or his efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election that troubled the group, needless to say. The danger was that following his landslide victory this November, which was a foregone conclusion, the deep state would “steal it again,” just as it had four years ago, Yudelson posted. “I just hope and pray that they will not JFK Trump before the elections, physically, or with some of their other methods.”

Despite such trepidations, Congressman Zinke spoke for the group when he wrote, “There is only one path forward. Elect Trump.”

“It’s Trump or Revolution!” Yudelson chimed in from the chorus.

“You mean Trump AND Revolution,” a right-leaning Canadian businessman shot back. “The Left is too violent to sit back and let Trump win again.”

John Mills, a retired Army colonel who held a cybersecurity post at the Pentagon under Trump, was overcome with emotion when his hero appeared at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. “Tears streamed down my face,” he wrote to the Off Leash group chat from the event. “DJT and the J6ers are in the house.”

The view that Trump represented a unique hope was shared by group chat members outside of the U.S. “He is the best thing … even in Africa,” offered N.J. Ayuk, a native of Cameroon who currently lives in Johannesburg, where he founded a law firm that assists clients with interests in the oil and gas sector. “Trump all the way 💯”

“I live in darkest west Africa,” posted Emma Priestley of GoldStone Resources Limited. The overall situation was such an irredeemable mess, Trump himself might not be able to “save this shithole of a continent.”

“Completely agree,” replied Ayuk, who once worked as an intern for the late New Jersey Democratic Congressman Donald Payne but was deported in 2007 after pleading guilty to using his boss’s stationery and signature stamp to illegally obtain visas to the U.S. for citizens of his home country. The Biden administration had been “a disaster” for Africa. “They only give us lectures and talk about renewables,” said Ayuk. “These latte liberators are actually the problem.”

That was a minor offense among the long litany of crimes Off Leash participants laid at Biden’s door. “Looks like the globalists are enabling this mass illegal immigration,” Yudelson, citing an article at Zerohedge, wrote in one post. “Surely with tremendous assistance from the Biden Regime.” But Biden was merely a figurehead controlled by “elements that are actually ruling for the Deep State,” he continued. The real problem was that Democrats had been “in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and infiltrated by their proxies and agents, as well as Ayatollah sympathizers” ever since President Bill Clinton’s administration.

With the Democratic Party captured by Islamic terrorists, Marxists, globalists, and other foreign and domestic evildoers, the U.S. was “being destroyed from within,” warned Kasraie, whose fears were shared by many among the Off Leash crew.

“The insurgency within our country today is going to bite us,” said Scott Freeman, the CEO of a Virginia company called International Preparedness Associates, which designs “unique special programs” that help defend U.S. national security, friendly foreign governments, and private-sector interests, according to its website.

Many Off Leash participants were even less restrained. When a chat group participant posted a story that revealed JPMorgan Chase had hired General Mark Milley—whom Trump appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but clashed with during and after his presidency—as a senior adviser, Lara Logan went off the rails. “Milley is a piece of shit and a traitor and he deserves to burn in hell,” posted Logan, who holds a seat on the board of America’s Future, a conservative nonprofit chaired by Off Leash member and former Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser for less than a month.

At a February 23 America’s Future event, Logan shared that she’d originally been skeptical of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which spread in far-right circles during the 2016 election and proposed that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Party officials were running a child sex trafficking ring out of the pizzeria Comet Ping Pong. However, after conducting her own independent investigation, Logan told the audience at the event, she’d discovered, “Holy guacamole! This actually is all true.”

What, then, was to be done?

The answer was clear to Freeman, a.k.a. “ScottyF” in the group chat. “Apply all tenets of warfare internally against the many enemies living among us. America is capable of being fully capable again. Do we have the will to levy the toll?”

Jesse Barnett, a retired Navy SEAL specializing in “Active Shooter Prep ... and Crisis Prevention” who ran the Indianapolis-based indoor shooting simulator Poseidon Experience, offered a harsh but necessary recipe. “We need a Nuremberg style clean up of this global cabal,” he proposed. “Only through accountability can we cleanse our spirits.” Once the cleansing was out of the way, security could be maintained by using “technology to identify sociopaths and keep them in their place.”

On the roster of Off Leash participants, there was one—a poster with the handle of “S,” whom it took me weeks to identify—who stood out as a particularly dark character. There were some in the group who expressed more unhinged views and others who more casually called for violence against their enemies; what made S distinctive was his dry, bloodless manner and businesslike espousal of a disciplined worldview that was unmistakably fascist.

“This is no longer politics, this is an open war against freedom and human nature. And wars aren’t won with more balloons and confetti as we know,” S wrote. “It’s no longer a ‘game’ either.… It is time to adapt strategies to reality and stop pretending that we live in a free democracy in the West.”

S was later revealed to be Sven von Storch, born to a German family that left for Chile after World War II, whose wife, Beatrix von Storch, is the granddaughter of Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, Hitler’s finance minister from 1933, the year he took power, until he killed himself in Berlin in April 1945, as Russian troops closed in on the bunker where he and the dregs of his loyalists were holed up. In his last will and testament, Hitler appointed von Krosigk to serve under Joseph Goebbels, his handpicked successor as chancellor, but since his minister of propaganda committed suicide the day after Hitler, von Krosigk became the Third Reich’s head of state during its final days. “Von Krosigk never wavered in his enthusiasm and labors for the Nazi cause,” prosecutor Alexander Hardy said during his trial at Nuremberg, where he was sentenced to 10 years for financing the concentration camps and other crimes.

Beatrix von Storch is a leader and Bundestag member with Alternative for Germany, arguably the most radical of Europe’s far-right parties, which calls for a crackdown on immigration into the country to protect its “Western Christian culture,” a variant of the “great replacement” theory espoused by white supremacists in the United States. Sven von Storch doesn’t hold elected office, but he’s considered to be a prominent figure in the AfD. An admirer of Steve Bannon, von Storch has close ties to Chile’s pro-Pinochet political bloc; he and his wife met with Jair Bolsonaro, the country’s former president, at the presidential palace in Brazil, and the latter’s powerful son Eduardo gave the couple a bottle of the first family’s brand wine as a gift.

“Law and justice no longer mean anything in the West,” von Storch wrote during the same conversation. “Stupid and naive people may still believe it. And probably not even them anymore.”

It’s not clear how many in the group knew S’s real identity, but he was clearly a pedigreed German fascist who even within the rarefied far-right ecosphere of Off Leash sat at a distinctly extreme end. No one seemed troubled by his views, and indeed von Storch was warmly embraced. “This is getting interesting,” Kazerooni wrote in response to his post. “Love this Group.”

Freeman was one of a number of group chat participants who, like the former psyops specialist Sloat, wanted to look for ways to implement their policy ideas. A group with so much “experience, accomplishments and resources” should look for a few issues we “might be able to influence together,” Freeman proposed. “Not to save the world or the idiots in the USA but rather a core of us or perhaps a broader group of like minds/patriots of some sort. 🤷‍♂️”

Reading the group chat’s conversations would be comical if it wasn’t so pitiful and disturbing in equal measure. Group members clearly regard themselves as natural elites who are more intelligent, virtuous, and honorable than Heinlein’s tired, poor, unwashed plebs.

Yet none of the four current and former members of Congress who are active in the group distinguished themselves as model public servants. In 2018, Zinke resigned as Trump’s secretary of the interior after an Inspector General’s report concluded he was a serial violator of ethics laws. Green withdrew his nomination to be Trump’s army secretary after being criticized, including by GOP John McCain, for past statements he’d made that called for his fellow citizens to “take a stand on the indoctrination of Islam in public schools” and labeled transgender people “evil.” Garrett resigned his House seat in 2018 after it was alleged he and his wife used his congressional staff to run errands, chauffeur their children, and clean up after their dog, though he denied those charges and cited alcoholism as the reason he had stepped down. Four staffers who worked on Taylor’s 2018 reelection campaign were subsequently indicted for election fraud, which he said he knew nothing about, but he lost that race and did again when he ran for his old seat two years later.

Even more farcical was the manner in which group chat members portrayed themselves as rightful guardians of democracy, even as they proposed employing military force against their unarmed domestic political opponents and rounding up members of the “global cabal” for trial at a Nuremberg-style tribunal. It’s blazingly evident that many in the group can’t even define democracy, and those who can don’t like it.

Dallas real estate developer Scott Hall informed the group he was moving his family to the UAE, which is ruled by an authoritarian monarchy, because “freedom is real” there. When President Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first leftist president, was running for office two years ago, the rural oligarch Sergio Araujo Castro publicly declared that his employees “have the right to vote freely for whoever they want,” but he’d fire any who supported Petro. After protests against the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza erupted at Stanford in January, Goldhorn wondered how it was legal that students who took part weren’t summarily expelled as they received benefits from the U.S. government, but “[wished] for its destruction,” which he evidently equated with criticism of its policies.

I sent messages seeking comment to Prince and the 29 participants whose comments in the group chat are cited in this story. Prince did not respond. Of the others, only Barnett, Jacobson, and Goldhorn were willing to be interviewed.

Barnett, who once worked for Blackwater, said participants in the group chat “love the country and want good solutions” and that he was not an ideologue and favored “checks and balances, and transparency.” A “centrist who leans libertarian” and Barack Obama voter in 2008, Barnett said the 9/11 attacks seven years earlier were an “inside job 100 percent,” and that they “woke me up” and triggered the political evolution that led to his current “conspiracy observationist perspective.”

Barnett said he was a Trump fan in part because “the establishment hates” the former president, adding that the Russiagate scandal that led to his first impeachment had been cooked up by Democrats as part of a politically motivated attack to drive him from office. (An opinion I share.) When I told Barnett his remarks about the need for a new Nuremberg tribunal sounded like a call for an attack of the same type but against enemies of the group chat, he said he didn’t favor a politically driven kangaroo court but envisioned a scrupulously fair judicial process that “truly enables our country to move forward,” which could be ensured by establishing panels with impartial experts such as journalist Matt Taibbi, psychologist and commentator Jordan Peterson, and others of similarly “high integrity” to help determine who would be prosecuted.

Jacobson also said his remarks in the group chat sounded harsher than he’d intended. Despite having been friendly with Netanyahu for many years, he said the Israeli prime minister and his government were “long past their expiry date,” and he considered the military attack on Gaza to be “a complete failure.” On Iran, Jacobson said he “loved Iranian culture, cuisine, and people” and noted that he’d spent time with Reza Pahlavi last week when the latter was in Toronto, where he lives.

“I hate the mullah’s regime,” Jacobson added, but “I’m not calling to go to war” but to help the domestic opposition bring the regime down by bombing Iranian oil infrastructure and related targets. About a month ago, he’d proposed that during an informal discussion with an unnamed Israeli official, telling his interlocutor that Iran’s missile strikes against Israel were “our opportunity to hit their oil facilities so they can’t make money to finance terrorism.” About Off Leash itself, Jacobson said, “I enjoy the banter of the group, but it’s not a political conspiracy.”

“I have no idea what you’re talking about,” Goldhorn, who told me he knows Prince “very tentatively,” replied when I paraphrased his remarks about dropping nuclear weapons on Gaza and regarding the Houthis. “I didn’t see anyone proposing or discussing such actions in the group, so I can’t really comment on these claims.” When I sent him the relevant excerpts, his memory was refreshed regarding the Houthis, though he said he was “referring to the naval threat mostly,” as the group was seeking to sink merchant ships. “I was not [referring] to the Yemenese [sic] people as a whole, only the military organization.” He continued to insist he’d “never suggested to nuke Gaza, which is a laughably dumb idea,” though I had excerpts of the respective conversations about both topics, which were faithfully recounted earlier, and the quotes from Goldhorn are verbatim.

Off Leash’s participants want a “democracy” where the “plebs” vote the way they want in every election and the government only approves their preferred policies, which would give them the absolute certainty they want that their outsize wealth, privileges, and influence will be protected. That’s not the way democracy works, it’s the way dictatorships do, which no doubt feels comfortable to group chat members who have thrived doing business with corrupt, repressive regimes and leaders, which is the way many met each other and Prince, and how they came to be part of Off Leash in the first place.

To paraphrase the assessment of Nazi officials made by the U.S. diplomat from Erik Larsen’s In the Garden of Beasts, during ordinary times, people who hold such opinions would be receiving treatment somewhere. However, to continue with the analogy, many Off Leash participants currently hold powerful political roles or are intimate allies of those who do.

The key to expanding their influence, in the collective view of the group chat, and not only its American members, is a victory by Trump in the November election. “The freedom of the Western world is decided in the USA,” as von Storch put it. “As long as the USA lets the globalists do whatever they want, we patriots in the rest of the world can only try to maintain and survive our positions.”

Comparing the contemporary United States to Nazi Germany is an admittedly imprecise analogy. Nevertheless, it’s impossible not to be alarmed by the crypto-fascist, off the leash views expressed by Trump’s allies in the group chat about exterminating their foreign and domestic enemies and needing to “find the will to levy the toll.” However imprecise the comparison, as a model political capital, Berlin 1933 is far more compatible with the worldview of Off Leash participants than Washington 2024, and in the event they and like-minded associates gain power in the U.S. or elsewhere, they’ll be pushing backward in that general direction.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Quote of the Day. stevebrodner.substack.com

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 13, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 13, 2024

“He is the most dangerous person ever. I had suspicions when I talked to you about his mental decline and so forth, but now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is now the most dangerous person to this country…a fascist to the core.” 

This is how former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer and the primary military advisor to the president, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council, described former president Donald Trump to veteran journalist Bob Woodward. Trump appointed Milley to that position. 

Since he announced his presidential candidacy in June 2015 by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, Trump has trafficked in racist anti-immigrant stories. But since the September 10 presidential debate when he drew ridicule for his outburst regurgitating the lie that legal Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating their white neighbors’ pets, Trump has used increasingly fascist rhetoric. By this weekend, he had fully embraced the idea that the United States is being overrun by Black and Brown criminals and that they, along with their Democratic accomplices, must be rounded up, deported, or executed, with the help of the military. 

Myah Ward of Politico noted on October 12 that Trump’s speeches have escalated to the point that he now promises that he alone can save the country from those people he calls “animals,” “stone cold killers,” the “worst people,” and the “enemy from within.” He falsely claims Vice President Kamala Harris “has imported an army of illegal alien gang members and migrant criminals from the dungeons of the third world…from prisons and jails and insane asylums and mental institutions, and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to prey upon innocent American citizens.” 

Trump’s behavior is Authoritarianism 101. In a 1951 book called The True Believer, political philosopher Eric Hoffer noted that demagogues appeal to a disaffected population whose members feel they have lost the power they previously held, that they have been displaced either religiously, economically, culturally, or politically. Such people are willing to follow a leader who promises to return them to their former positions of prominence and thus to make the nation great again. 

But to cement their loyalty, the leader has to give them someone to hate. Who that is doesn't really matter: the group simply has to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters are suffering. Trump has kept his base firmly behind him by demonizing immigrants, the media, and, increasingly, Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings by blaming these groups for undermining him. 

According to Hoffer, there’s a psychological trick to the way this rhetoric works that makes loyalty to such a leader get stronger as that leader's behavior deteriorates. People who sign on to the idea that they are standing with their leader against an enemy begin to attack their opponents, and in order to justify their attacks, they have to convince themselves that that enemy is not good-intentioned, as they are, but evil. And the worse they behave, the more they have to believe their enemies deserve to be treated badly.

According to Hoffer, so long as they are unified against an enemy, true believers will support their leader no matter how outrageous his behavior gets. Indeed, their loyalty will only grow stronger as his behavior becomes more and more extreme. Turning against him would force them to own their own part in his attacks on those former enemies they would now have to recognize as ordinary human beings like themselves.

At a MAGA rally in Aurora, Colorado, on October 11, Trump added to this formula his determination to use the federal government to attack those he calls enemies. Standing on a stage with a backdrop that read, “DEPORT ILLEGALS NOW” and “END MIGRANT CRIME,” he insisted that the city had been taken over by Venezuelan gangs and proposed a federal program he called “Operation Aurora” to remove those immigrants he insists are members of “savage gangs.” When Trump said, “We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long,” a person in the crowd shouted: “Kill them!”

Officials in Aurora emphatically deny Trump’s claim that the city is a “war zone.” Republican mayor Mike Coffman said that Aurora is “not a city overrun by Venezuelan gangs” and that such statements are “grossly exaggerated.” While there have been incidents, they “were limited to several apartment complexes in this city of more than 400,000 residents.” The chief of the Aurora police agreed that the city is “not by any means overtaken by Venezuelan gangs.”

In Aurora, Trump also promised to “invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.” As legal analyst Asha Rangappa explains, the Alien Enemies Act authorizes the government to round up, detain, and deport foreign nationals of a country with which the U.S. is at war. But it is virtually certain Trump didn’t come up with the idea to use that law on his own, raising the question of who really will be in charge of policy in a second Trump administration.

Trump aide Stephen Miller seems the likely candidate to run immigration policy. He has promised to begin a project of “denaturalization,” that is, stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship. He, too, spoke at Aurora, leading the audience in booing photos that were allegedly of migrant criminals. 

Before Miller spoke, a host from Right Side Broadcasting used the dehumanizing language associated with genocide, saying of migrants: “These people, they are so evil. They are not your run-of-the-mill criminal. They are people that are Satanic. They are involved in human sacrifice. They are raping men, women, and children—especially underaged children." Trump added the old trope of a population carrying disease, saying that immigrants are “very very very sick with highly contagious disease, and they’re let into our country to infect our country.” 

Trump promised the audience in Aurora that he would “liberate Colorado. I will give you back your freedom and your life.”

On Saturday, October 12, Trump held a rally in Coachella, California, where temperatures near 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) sparked heat-related illnesses in his audience as he spoke for about 80 minutes in the apocalyptic vein he has adopted lately. After the rally, shuttle buses failed to arrive to take attendees back to their cars, leaving them stranded.  

And on Sunday, October 13, Trump made the full leap to authoritarianism, calling for using the federal government not only against immigrants, but also against his political opponents. After weeks of complaining about the “enemy within,” Trump suggested that those who oppose him in the 2024 election are the nation’s most serious problem. 

He told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that even more troubling for the forthcoming election than immigrants "is the enemy from within…we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

Trump’s campaign seems to be deliberately pushing the comparisons to historic American fascism by announcing that Trump will hold a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden on October 27, an echo of a February 1939 rally held there by American Nazis in honor of President George Washington’s birthday. More than 20,000 people showed up for the “true Americanism” event, held on a stage that featured a huge portrait of Washington in his Continental Army uniform flanked by swastikas.

Trump’s full-throated embrace of Nazi “race science” and fascism is deadly dangerous, but there is something notable about Trump’s recent rallies that undermines his claims that he is winning the 2024 election. Trump is not holding these rallies in the swing states he needs to win but rather is holding them in states—Colorado, California, New York—that he is almost certain to lose by a lot.

Longtime Republican operative Matthew Bartlett told Matt Dixon and Allan Smith of NBC News: “This does not seem like a campaign putting their candidate in critical vote-rich or swing vote locations—it seems more like a candidate who wants his campaign to put on rallies for optics and vibes.” 

Trump seems eager to demonstrate that he is a strongman, a dominant candidate, when in fact he has refused another debate with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and backed out of an interview with 60 Minutes. He has refused to release a medical report although his mental acuity is a topic of concern as he rambles through speeches and seems entirely untethered from reality. And as Harris turns out larger numbers for her rallies in swing states than he does, he appears to be turning bloodthirsty in Democratic areas. 

Today, Harris told a rally of her own in North Carolina: “[Trump] is not being transparent…. He refuses to release his medical records. I've done it. Every other presidential candidate in the modern era has done it. He is unwilling to do a 60 Minutes interview like every other major party candidate has done for more than half a century. He is unwilling to meet for a second debate…. It makes you wonder, why does his staff want him to hide away?... Are they afraid that people will see that he is too weak and unstable to lead America? Is that what’s going on?” 

“For these reasons and so many more,” she said, “it is time to turn the page.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[idvoteforthatdaddy]

General Mark Milley United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff