#launch an insurrection

[jerzwriter]

Noah…

no cheating by looking but who do you think your Spotify top artist is gonna be this year 👀

[wilwheaton]

When Republican voters in 14 of 15 states on Tuesday went to vote for who they believed best represented their party and should run the whole of government, they chose the man who launched the most consequential insurrection against the government since the Civil War. Because that is who they are, and we all ought to be very damn tired of anyone who claims otherwise.

The GOP is about to officially coalesce around a seditionist for president

[robertreich]

How Trump is Following Hitler's Playbook

You’ve heard Trump’s promise:

TRUMP: I’m going to be a dictator for one day.

History shows there are no “one-day” dictatorships. When democracies fall, they typically fall completely.

In a previous video, I laid out the defining traits of fascism and how MAGA Republicans embody them. But how could Trump — or someone like him — actually turn America into a fascist state? Here’s how in five steps.

Step 1: Use threats of violence to gain power

Hitler and Mussolini relied on their vigilante militias to intimidate voters and local officials. We watched Trump try to do the same in 2020.

TRUMP: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.

Republican election officials testified to the threats they faced when they refused Trump’s demands to falsify the election results.

RAFFENSPERGER: My email, my cell phone was doxxed.

RUSTY BOWERS: They have had video panel trucks with videos of me proclaiming me to be a pedophile.

GABRIEL STERLING: A 20-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out saying he should be hung for treason.

If the next election is close, threats to voters and election officials could be enough to sabotage it.

Step 2: Consolidate power

After taking office, a would-be fascist must turn every arm of government into a tool of the party. One of Hitler’s first steps was to take over the civil service, purging it of non-Nazis.

In October of 2020, Trump issued his own executive order that would have enabled him to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with MAGA loyalists. He never got to act on it, but he’s now promising to apply it to the entire civil service.

That’s become the centerpiece of something called Project 2025, a presidential agenda assembled by MAGA Republicans, that would, as the AP put it, “dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision.”

Step 3: Establish a police state

Hitler used the imaginary threat of “the poison of foreign races” to justify taking control of the military and police, placing both under his top general, and granting law-enforcement powers to his civilian militias.

Now Trump is using the same language to claim he needs similar powers to deal with immigrants.

Trump plans to deploy troops within the U.S. to conduct immigration raids and round up what he estimates to be 18 million people who would be placed in mass-detention camps while their fate is decided.

And even though crime is actually down across the nation, Trump is citing an imaginary crime wave to justify sending troops into blue cities and states against the will of governors and mayors.

Trump insiders say he plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to have the military crush civilian protests. We saw a glimpse of that in 2020, when Trump deployed the National Guard against peaceful protesters outside the White House.

And with promises to pardon January 6 criminals and stop prosecutions of right-wing domestic terrorists, Trump would empower groups like the Proud Boys to act as MAGA enforcers.

Step 4: Jail the opposition

In classic dictatorial fashion, Trump is now openly threatening to prosecute his opponents.

TRUMP: if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business.

And he’s looking to remake the Justice Department into a tool for his personal vendettas.

TRUMP: As we completely overhaul the federal Department of Justice and FBI, we will also launch sweeping civil rights investigations into Marxist local district attorneys.

In the model of Hitler and Mussolini, Trump describes his opponents as subhuman.

TRUMP: …the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country…

Step 5: Undermine the free press

As Hitler well understood, a fascist needs to control the flow of information. Trump has been attacking the press for years.

And he’s threatening to punish news outlets whose coverage he dislikes.

He has helped to reduce trust in the media to such a historic low that his supporters now view him as their most trusted source of information.

Within a democracy, we may often have leaders we don’t like. But we have the power to change them — at the ballot box and through public pressure. Once fascism takes hold, those freedoms are gone and can’t easily be won back.

We must recognize the threat of fascism when it appears, and do everything in our power to stop it.

[niqhtlord01]

Humans are weird: Look the other way

( Please come see me on my new patreon and support me for early access to stories and personal story requests :D https://www.patreon.com/NiqhtLord Every bit helps)

The rise of Gimrak the liberator, or “Gimrak the Bloodied” depending on who you speak to, was an inevitable outcome for his people.  

From humble beginnings as a slave, Gimrak would seek retribution against his oppressors. Not just his slave masters and beaters, but against the society that had allowed such evil to not only flourish, but thrive. Over the course of ten years Gimrak worked in the various deepest and darkest mines of his homeworld all the while creating an elaborate network of supporters and followers. Every mine he was transferred to he would leave behind an ever growing cell of supporters.

By the end of his eleventh year Gimrak had finally amassed enough of a following that he launched an open insurrection across every slave mining complex on the planet. Untold millions of slave laborers battering themselves against their beaters until their guns ran try and their shock batons went cold.

The guards and foremen were the first ones to die. Ripped to shreds by the frenzy of revenge. Some tried to flee to the surface and collapse the entire mine behind them. Many failed in their flight but some did make it and the entrances were sealed under mountains of stone. Yet their measure of safety was short lived, as Gimrak had accounted for this and had secret tunnels, miles long at times, dug between the different mines; and like a flood of rushing water the slaves simply poured through these secret tunnels and breached the surface.

From there the surface of the planet became a bloodbath of untold scale.

No one above ground was innocent. No one who had allowed their fellows to dwell beneath the soil for generations could claim ignorance to the horrors they had played a part in.

With righteous retribution in their eyes entire cities were put to the torch by the slaves and its citizens hung from every light post, building corner, and tree. The body count reached into the millions before the wider galaxy intervened.

Peacekeeping forces were dispatched by the Galactic Council and put a stop to the violence. They did not recognize the slaves as rising against their oppressors, but more as a violent mob enacting their own personal vendettas.

The slaves had been able to rise up against their oppressors, but they were not capable of matching the technological superiority of the peacekeepers. Thousands died at their hands before Gimrak came forward and surrendered himself.

Bound in chains of darkened steel, he was dragged before the galactic council. There he was treated more like a war criminal than a liberator by the council who cut him off at every chance they could. They further humiliated Gimrak by broadcasting his hearing universe wide as they berated the leader into insignificance.  

When it was humanities turn to ask questions of Gimrak he had expected much of the same but was surprised when for the first time he was asked why he had slaughtered so man. The other councilors cut in saying that the reasons why were irrelevant, yet the human insisted to hear why.

Gimrak retorted that they should already know why since they had dispatched peacekeepers. The human admitted that no fact finding mission had been dispatched prior given the dire need of the request for aide.

 Recounting his story, Gimrak saved no detail of his torture in the mines to the day he led his people to a new future. While the other councilors rolled their eyes with disinterest, the human councilor appeared to be following along with every horrific detail. When Gimrak finished he expected to be dismissed and sentenced to a life in prison at best, and a short death penalty at worst. Instead, the human presented a third option.

“After hearing your story, I can’t help but feel that this is an internal matter.”

Gimrak’s eyes went wide as the other councilors turned to shout their objections. The human held up their hand and continued their sentiment.

“Per the regulations of the Galactic Council, we may only intervene in matters of an external nature. Matters in which can damage galactic relations at large or risk the extermination of an entire species.’

“Exactly!” a Binar councilor interjected. “This is extermination plain and simple.”

“On the contrary,” the human countered, “this is a genocide being carried out by a people against their own people; with no external factors at play.”

The look of shock at the human’s words was shared by the entire council and Gimrak. “Are you saying the council should turn a blind eye to such slaughter?” the Binar demanded.

“You did not seem to mind when you looked the other way when the Binar’s forcefully relocated one of your colonies in favor of corporate interests.” The human countered. The Binar flushed red but kept silent as the human turned to another councilor. “Or when the Mintarks decided they needed to carry out purges within their own government to root out corruption with no oversight.”

Now berated into silence the human returned their attention to Gimrak.

“We would of course need certain agreements before we could withdraw our forces.”

“What sort of agreements?” Gimrak remarked as he looked at the human with a flicker of hope.

“First, the bloodshed must be limited within your home system. If the violence continued outside of the borders of your home system it would be regarded as a galactic matter.”

“Second, moving forward a system of trials would need to be held in which proof, either physical or by testimony, of an individual’s involvement before being executed.”

“Finally, any persons not of your species currently in your home system must not be targeted.”

Gimrak had never met a human before yet he could feel something lurking underneath the humans words. While he did not give an open endorsement of the uprisings actions, he had not denounced them either. In fact, through his diplomatic linguistics he had actually given Gimark the means to continue with his people’s liberation free from the interference from outside powers.

“If my people met your terms,” Gimrak spoke slowly, “then you would leave us alone?”

“If all of these terms were met, then this matter would indeed be an internal matter and outside the purview of this council’s jurisdiction. Do we have an understanding?”

It was almost as if the human had wanted him to continue with his retribution, Gimrak thought to himself.

Bowing slightly to the human, Gimrak acknowledge the terms.

Within the hour he was escorted back to the shuttle by the human councilor to return to his followers and inform them of the deliberations. Before he entered the shuttle he turned to the human and asked the only question left to him.

“Why?”

The human crossed their arms behind their back and looked off into the horizon. A wall of soft orange light cascaded over the horizon as the sun slowly set and the encroaching night crept closer.

“When evil presents itself so proudly and unashamed, its decimation must be swift and remorseless lest it spread its vile rot to us all.”

Gimrak took stock of the human’s words. “And how do you know that I am not this evil you wish to destroy?”

Turning back the human shrugged sheepishly. “Then we at least know where to find you, and what to put to the torch.”

With the meaning understood, Gimrak nodded to the human and turned to enter the shuttle; the doors closing slowly behind him as it rose once more into the sky.

In the coming months the bloodshed did not cease, but the savagery and directionless anger had been brought under control. The peace keeping forces withdrew to outside the home system’s borders while the vengeance of the former slaves played out. Some of the higher nobles were able to flee outside of the system, but many more never made it to off world; their bodies rotting in the darkened mines they once ruled over.

[radicalgraff]

Radical murals seen around Oventic, an indigenous Zapatista village in Chiapas, Mexico.

On January 1st, 1994 the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) launched an armed insurrection in Chiapas against the Mexican state and the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement.

The Zapatistas are a resistance movement of indigenous villagers in the mountains and jungles of Chiapas, Mexico’s poorest and southern-most state.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Nick Visser at HuffPost:

Former President Donald Trump participated in a town-hall-style event with undecided Latino voters on Wednesday night, facing a series of tough questions as Americans have begun casting early ballots across the nation. Ramiro González, a Florida Republican, gave Trump a chance to “win back” his vote after he said he was disturbed by the former president’s actions on and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“I am a Republican,” González, a construction worker, told Trump during the Univision event. “I want to give you the opportunity to try and win back my vote. Your action, and maybe inaction, during your presidency and the last few years sort of … was a little disturbing to me. What happened during Jan. 6 and the fact that you waited so long to take action while your supporters were attacking the Capitol.” He went on to voice concerns that some in Trump’s orbit, namely his former vice president, Mike Pence, no longer supported him. Trump rejected that any notable portion of his supporters had broken with him and then launched into a series of falsehoods surrounding the Jan. 6 insurrection while claiming there was “nothing done wrong at all” and “nobody was killed.” “You had hundreds of thousands of people come to Washington. They didn’t come because of me, they came because of the election,” Trump said, discounting his efforts to inflame his supporters after his loss to Joe Biden. “Some of those people went down to the Capitol — I said, ‘peacefully and patriotically.’ Nothing done wrong. At all. Nothing done wrong.”

Ramiro González, a Florida Republican, asked Donald Trump on how to win his vote back at last night’s Univision town hall. González explained why Trump’s despicable actions on January 6th, 2021 and afterwards was disturbing.

Trump responded to Ramiro’s question with delusional nonsense praising the domestic terrorist actions he helped incite on that date with his “stolen” election lies.

See Also:

BBC News: Trump calls 6 January 'day of love' when asked about Capitol riot

[historicity-was-already-taken]

"The end of liberalization in Poland, like its beginning, was accompanied by anti-Semitism. During March of 1968, an organ­ized “anti-Zionist” (a euphemism for anti-Jewish) campaign was launched against those self-defined Poles whom Polish society as a whole tended to regard as nothing but Jews. It turned into one of the most extensive witch hunts in the history of that country. The harassment began with an attack on and purge of a few people in top positions in the party, in the government, in the army, and in public life, but soon it broadened to include individuals of Jewish origin in all walks of life. They were pressured to provide proof of loyalty to the state and party, proof which, when given, failed to exonerate them. Anti-Semitic insults were hurled at individuals of Jewish descent. The students protesting peacefully against the end of liberalization and the tightening of controls in Poland were alleged to be misled into insurrection and counter-revolution by clever, traitorous Zionist plotters. They were mercilessly sup­pressed. When interrogated by the police, arrested students of Jew­ish or mixed parentage were repeatedly asked to state their nation­ality, and their response 'Polish' was rejected as not true. Others who were 'real Poles' were asked, 'why did you tie yourself to these filthy Jews?' or, 'why did you allow yourself to be used by these kikes?' Their 'Zionist' leaders were arrested and put on trial. The parents of these stu­dents—sometimes prominent Communists—were removed from their jobs, as were other individuals of Jewish origin. All of these were urged to leave Poland, but permission to do so was given to them only if they renounced Polish citizenship and applied for exit to Israel."

Celia Heller, On the Edge of Destruction: Jews of Poland Between the Two World Wars, pg 299.

[thunderheadfred]

In the last few weeks of rulings, SCOTUS has begun to dismantle the administrative state, legalize bribery, and devastate the government’s ability to regulate corporations. Today, the conservative supermajority - two of whom should have recused themselves for obvious conflicts of interest - have ruled that a president has absolute immunity for “official acts” in office, which Trump’s team argued before the court could include assassinating political rivals and introducing fake slates of electors. Trump will likely not go to trial before the election in any of the major cases against him, not for leading an insurrection, not for rigging the election in Georgia, and not for espionage.

If he is elected he will dismiss all charges, pardon and release insurrectionists, and immediately replace everyone in Washington with sycophantic loyalists. The people who barely stopped him from launching nuclear missiles whenever he felt like it will not be around to stop him on a second go around.

Trump openly wants military tribunals and death sentences for his political opponents. He wants concentration camps for immigrants. His jet was just spotted parked next to Putin’s on an isolated portion of tarmac at Dulle’s airport for two days. He has stolen nuclear secrets and sold war plans to foreign nations. He has offered one billion dollars to oil companies and promised to overturn every measly environmental protection we have standing between us and planetary collapse. He is part of a vast existential threat to democracy worldwide, and that is not a conspiracy. It’s all right there.

I don’t care if Biden dies tomorrow and his corpse is hauled around Weekend at Bernie’s style by his cabinet. He’s still the better choice. Not voting is a vote for Trump. A vote for RFK is a vote for Trump.

We live in unbelievable times. Vote accordingly.

[centrally-unplanned]

VOR tend to be a good lens for a lot of evaluation of politicians imo due to how often 'great' leaders are just leaders who existed at chaotic times; its why I tend to be only lukewarm on Lincoln, for example, a poor military leader who was only able to abolish slavery because anyone could have at that point, all the pro-slavery politicians just launched an insurrection and quit Congress. (He does have his accomplishments ofc, he is good, just not great) Or say how Lenin is an S-tier world-historical figure in 1917, before collapsing into mediocrity by 1919, because he was a far more talented insurrectionist against the Russian system than he was a leader of a new one, and he was coasting on the weakness of the opposition and his past successes.

A lot of supposedly-great leaders fade away under a VOR lens, while you gain a new appreciation for others (My god is Genghis Khan's VOR insane, like what the fuck how is that possible).

[contemplatingoutlander]

The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information. [...] The facts involving Trump are crystal clear, and as news people, we cannot pretend otherwise, as unpopular as that might be with a segment of our readers. There aren’t two sides to facts. People who say the earth is flat don’t get space on our platforms. If that offends them, so be it. --Chris Quinn, Editor of cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer

THIS is the kind of attitude that journalists and editors should have regarding reporting on Trump!

Chris Quinn, the editor of cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer wrote this excellent column explaining to his readers why opinion columns on his platforms are so critical of Donald Trump. His response is a credit to his integrity as a journalist/editor, and should be emulated by others in the mainstream media. Below are some excerpts:

A more-than-occasional arrival in the email these days is a question expressed two ways, one with dripping condescension and the other with courtesy: Why don’t our opinion platforms treat Donald Trump and other politicians exactly the same way. Some phrase it differently, asking why we demean the former president’s supporters in describing his behavior as monstrous, insurrectionist and authoritarian. I feel for those who write. They believe in Trump and want their local news source to recognize what they see in him. The angry writers denounce me for ignoring what they call the Biden family crime syndicate and criminality far beyond that of Trump. They quote news sources of no credibility as proof the mainstream media ignores evidence that Biden, not Trump, is the criminal dictator. The courteous writers don’t go down that road. They politely ask how we can discount the passions and beliefs of the many people who believe in Trump. This is a tough column to write, because I don’t want to demean or insult those who write me in good faith. I’ve started it a half dozen times since November but turned to other topics each time because this needle hard to thread. No matter how I present it, I’ll offend some thoughtful, decent people. The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information. The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse. This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw, but our eyes don’t deceive. (If leaders began a yearslong campaign today to convince us that the Baltimore bridge did not collapse Tuesday morning, would you ever believe them?) Trust your eyes. Trump on Jan. 6 launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it. The facts involving Trump are crystal clear, and as news people, we cannot pretend otherwise, as unpopular as that might be with a segment of our readers. There aren’t two sides to facts. People who say the earth is flat don’t get space on our platforms. If that offends them, so be it. As for those who equate Trump and Joe Biden, that’s false equivalency. Biden has done nothing remotely close to the egregious, anti-American acts of Trump. We can debate the success and mindset of our current president, as we have about most presidents in our lifetimes, but Biden was never a threat to our democracy. Trump is. He is unique among all American presidents for his efforts to keep power at any cost. Personally, I find it hard to understand how Americans who take pride in our system of government support Trump. All those soldiers who died in World War II were fighting against the kind of regime Trump wants to create on our soil. How do they not see it? [emphasis added]

I encourage you to read the entire column. It is worth it.

[deadpresidents]

Hypothetically what do you think would have happened if the january 6 rioters had gotten to pence or pelosi before they got safe?

At this point, I almost dread answering questions like this anymore because I know the kind of hate mail it will unleash for the next few days, but it's important to keep talking about what happened on January 6, 2021 since so many people are trying to normalize it. That includes many people whose lives were in danger that day, as well as the former President who tried to hold on to power by encouraging his supporters to launch a violent insurrection and is now referring to those who have been brought to justice for attempting a coup as "patriots" and "hostages".

I genuinely believe that there were people in that crowd who would have killed Vice President Pence, Speaker Pelosi, and certain Congressional leaders if they had reached them on January 6th. I think there are people in that crowd who were ready to hold lawmakers hostage. Why else did they have handcuffs and zip ties? To help the Capitol Police maintain order? (Oh yeah...that's right, thanks for reminding me: they violently attacked the police -- some even beat police officers with the "Blue Lives Matter" flags that they brought with them.) Now, I do not think that everybody who was at the Capitol on January 6th -- or even the majority of those who took part in the insurrection -- were willing to go that far. I think a lot of them got swept up in what was happening and went with the flow. That doesn't excuse what they did. The flow that they got swept up in was still a fucking insurrection, and anyone who took part in that deserves to be held accountable. But I think there were certain elements embedded throughout that crowd that were much more organized and prepared to fully execute their plans for a coup after disrupting the certification of the Electoral College votes.

I actually think Vice President Pence was probably in more danger than even Speaker Pelosi or some of the Democratic leaders because Trump was so actively calling him out in the days and hours before the insurrection. I think that's why Pence is so adamant now about not supporting Trump. I mean, think about how disgustingly loyal and subservient Pence was to Trump throughout those four years until basically the first few days of January 2021. But even as other Republican leaders are crumbling and offering their allegiance to Trump again in 2024, Pence is standing by his decision not to endorse or support Trump, and I think that's because he realizes that Trump absolutely almost got him (and his family, who were with him in the Capitol on that day) killed on January 6th. Shit, even Mitch McConnell has folded and endorsed Trump again despite the fact that Trump has spent the last three years not only insulting him but also making racist attacks and questioning McConnell's wife's loyalty to the United States all because Elaine Chao had the audacity to resign from Trump's Cabinet in the wake of the insurrection. Yet Mike Pence -- who spent the better part of four years following Trump around like Paul Heyman follows Roman Reigns...

...THAT same Mike Pence is steadfastly refusing to endorse Trump because he has personal experience about how real of an existential threat Trump is. Some of those people at the Capitol were very serious about following through on their chants to "Hang Mike Pence", and not only does Pence realize that, but he also knows now that Trump -- who refused to take actions that would have helped clear the Capitol more quickly -- said "he deserves it" when hearing about those chants.

That's what is so scary about the insurrection, its aftermath, and the Trump Republican Party's redefinition of what happened that day. It almost worked. They stormed the United States Capitol and invaded both chambers of Congress. They carried Confederate flags into the United States Capitol -- even the fucking Confederate States of America didn't successfully invade Washington, D.C. and plant their flag in the Capitol. They were willing to hurt and probably kill some of America's elected leaders. And the people who helped plan and instigate the events of January 6th have spent the three-plus years since then learning from their mistakes and figuring out how to be successful next time. And guess what? "Next time" is only a few months away.

[mariacallous]

Former President Donald Trump participated in a town-hall-style event with undecided Latino voters on Wednesday night, facing a series of tough questions as Americans have begun casting early ballots across the nation.

Ramiro Gonzalez, a Florida Republican, gave Trump a chance to “win back” his vote after he said he was disturbed by the former president’s actions on and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“I am a Republican,” Gonzalez, a construction worker, told Trump during the Univision event. “I want to give you the opportunity to try and win back my vote. Your action, and maybe inaction, during your presidency and the last few years sort of … was a little disturbing to me. What happened during Jan. 6 and the fact that you waited so long to take action while your supporters were attacking the Capitol.”

He went on to voice concerns that some in Trump’s orbit, namely his former vice president, Mike Pence, no longer supported him.

Trump rejected that any notable portion of his supporters had broken with him and then launched into a series of falsehoods surrounding the Jan. 6 insurrection while claiming there was “nothing done wrong at all” and “nobody was killed.”

“You had hundreds of thousands of people come to Washington. They didn’t come because of me, they came because of the election,” Trump said, discounting his efforts to inflame his supporters after his loss to Joe Biden. “Some of those people went down to the Capitol — I said, ‘peacefully and patriotically.’ Nothing done wrong. At all. Nothing done wrong.”

The former president then criticized Democrats and said they “couldn’t get me,” as he’d done nothing wrong. Trump has, in fact, been indicted twice on felony charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

He said Wednesday night that he believed many people remained tremendously loyal to his presidential bid, including Latinos.

“Maybe we’ll get your vote,” he added to Gonzalez. “Sounds like maybe I won’t, but that’s OK, too.”

The encounter was just one of many tough questions from undecided voters, many of whom stood stone-faced as Trump relied on falsehoods and fear common at rallies he holds before much more vocal supporters. When one voter asked Trump why he ordered Republicans to tank a bipartisan border deal that would have helped shore up funding along the border with Mexico, he refused to answer and instead blamed Democrats for poor management of American cities.

Another person asked Trump if he truly believed the lies that were spread about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating neighbors’ pets.

“This was just reported. I was just saying what was reported,” Trump fired back. “And [they are] eating other things, too, that they’re not supposed to be.”

[yourreddancer]

Trump Won. Now What?

The United States is about to become a different kind of country.By David Frum

Donald Trump has won, and will become president for the second time. Those who voted for him will now celebrate their victory. The rest of us need to prepare to live in a different America: a country where millions of our fellow citizens voted for a president who knowingly promotes hatred and division; who lies—blatantly, shamelessly—every time he appears in public; who plotted to overturn an election in 2020 and, had he not won, was planning to try again in 2024.

Above all, we must learn to live in an America where an overwhelming number of our fellow citizens have chosen a president who holds the most fundamental values and traditions of our democracy, our Constitution, even our military in contempt. Over the past decade, opinion polls have showed Americans’ faith in their institutions waning. But no opinion poll could make this shift in values any clearer than this vote. As a result of this election, the United States will become a different kind of country.

When he was last in the White House, the president-elect ignored ethics and security guidelines, fired inspectors general and other watchdogs, leaked classified information, and used the Department of Homeland Security in the summer of 2020 as if it were the interior ministry of an authoritarian state, deploying U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Coast Guard “troops” in American cities. Trump actively encouraged the January 6, 2021, insurrection at our Capitol. When he left the White House, he stole classified documents and hid them from the FBI.

Because a critical mass of Americans aren’t bothered by that list of transgressions, any one of which would have tanked the career of another politician, Trump and his vice president–elect, J. D. Vance, will now try to transform the federal government into a loyalty machine that serves the interests of himself and his cronies.

This was the essence of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and its architects, all Trump fans, will now endeavor to make it become reality. Trump will surely try again to dismantle America’s civil service, replacing qualified scientists and regulators with partisan operatives. His allies will help him build a Department of Justice that does not serve the Constitution, but instead focuses on harassing and punishing Trump’s enemies. Trump has spoken, in the past, of using the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to punish media organizations and anyone else who crosses him, and now he will have the chance to try again.

Perhaps the greater and more insidious danger is not political repression or harassment, but corruption. Autocratic populists around the world—in Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela—have assaulted institutions designed to provide accountability and transparency in order to shift money and influence to their friends and families, and this may happen in America too. This is not just a theoretical threat. As loyalists take over regulatory agencies, filling not only political but also former civil-service jobs, American skies will become more polluted, American food more dangerous. As a result of this massive shift in the country’s bureaucratic culture, Trump-connected companies will prosper, even as America becomes less safe for consumers, for workers, for children, for all of us.

American foreign policy will also reflect this shift toward kleptocracy. In his first term, Trump abused the powers of his office, corrupting American foreign policy for his personal gain. He pressured the Ukrainian president to launch a fake investigation of his political opponent; altered policy toward Turkey, Qatar, and other nations in ways that suited his business interests; even used the Secret Service to funnel government money to his private properties. In a second term, he and the people around him will have every incentive to go much further. Expect them to use American foreign policy and military power to advance their personal and political goals.

There are many things a reelected President Trump cannot do. But there are some things he can do. One is to cut off aid to Ukraine. The Biden administration has three months to drop all half measures and rush supplies to Ukraine before Trump forces a Ukrainian surrender to Russia. If there’s anything in the American arsenal that Ukraine might successfully use—other than nuclear weapons—send it now, before it’s too late.

Another thing Trump can do is to impose further tariffs—and intensify a global trade war not only against China but also against former friends, partners, and allies. America First will be America Alone, no longer Ronald Reagan’s “city on a hill,” but now just another great power animated by predatory nationalism.

Around the world, illiberal politicians who seek to subvert their own democracies will follow America’s lead. With no fear of American criticism or reaction, expect harassment of press and political opponents in countries such as Mexico and Turkey to grow. Expect the Russian-backed electoral cheating recently on display in Georgia and Moldova to spread. Expect violent rhetoric in every democracy: If the American president can get away with it, others will conclude that they can too. The autocratic world, meanwhile, will celebrate the victory of someone whose disdain for the rule of law echoes and matches their own. They can assume that Trump and Vance will not promote human rights, will not care about international law, and will not reinforce our democratic alliances in Europe and Asia.

But the most difficult, most agonizing changes are the ones that will now take place deep inside our society. Radicalization of a part of the anti-Trump camp is inevitable, as people begin to understand that existential issues, such as climate change and gun violence, will not be tackled.

A parallel process will take place on the other side of the political spectrum, as right-wing militias, white supremacists, and QAnon cultists are reenergized by the election of the man whose behavior they have, over eight years, learned to imitate. The deep gaps within America will grow deeper. Politics will become even angrier. Trump won by creating division and hatred, and he will continue to do so throughout what is sure to be a stormy second term.

My generation was raised on the belief that America could always be counted upon to do the right thing, even if belatedly: reject the isolationism of America First and join the fight against Nazism; fund the Marshall Plan to stop communism; extend the promise of democracy to all people, without regard to race or sex. But maybe that belief was true only for a specific period, a unique moment. There were many chapters of history in which America did the wrong thing for years or decades. Maybe we are living through such a period now.

Or maybe the truth is that democracy is always a close-run thing, always in contention. If so, then we too must—as people in other failing democracies have learned to do—find new ways to champion wobbling institutions and threatened ideas. For supporters of the American experiment in liberal democracy, our only hope is education, organization, and the creation of a coalition of people dedicated to defending the spirit of the Constitution, the ideals of the Founders, the dream of freedom. More concretely: public civic-education campaigns to replace the lessons no longer taught in schools; teams of lawyers who can fight for the rule of law in courts; grassroots organizing, especially in rural and small-town America; citizens and journalists working to expose and fight the enormous wave of kleptocracy and corruption that will now engulf our political system.

Many of those shattered by this result will be tempted to withdraw into passivity—or recoil into performative radicalism. Reject both. We should focus, instead, on how to win back to the cause of liberal democracy a sufficient number of those Americans who voted for a candidate who denigrated this nation’s institutions and ideals.

[nesiacha]

The difference in treatment between the Indulgents and the Cordeliers or Hébertistes

I have an opinion that will seem unpopular, no worries I am open to any criticism or to being corrected in the event of an error so do not hesitate to correct me. I have much more sympathy for the Hébertist faction, the exaggerators or the Cordeliers than that of Danton's Indulgents. Indeed if we exclude the Hebert case who is an indefensible man, mediocre in my eyes (I don't think I need to explain why) this is not the case for so many others. I mean Ronsin was a competent and honest administrator. Despite his mysoginism (horribly reprehensible, just look at the speech he gave concerning the execution of Gouges and Manon Roland) Chaumette could be as competent as procureur syndicale de Paris and had also generous ideas (such as banning whipping in schools, equalization of funeral rites for all, protective measures for the elderly and hospitalized). One of the most impressive cases is Momoro. Even the historian Mathiez, who nevertheless has little sympathy for the revolutionaries who were against the Committee of Public Safety in the spring of 1794, had practically nothing but praise for Momoro. He voluntarily lived in poverty and when he was tried he said he had given everything for the revolution. It was true in my eyes. Of course I understand in a certain way the repression exercised by the Committee of Public Safety (more precisely the Convention since an arrest cannot be made without its agreement, it is not a dictatorship either) when Cordeliers wanted to launch a new insurrection against the Convention ( like Momoro for example). The fact of wanting to persecute the priests did not help, not to mention the fact that they wanted stronger repression of the enemies at the risk of making the Revolution even harsher. But when we analyze, I can understand where come frome their anger. Their hatred about religion was due to the fact that not long ago, a lot of religious fanatics infantilized the people, constantly made prohibitions against them (we must NEVER accept infantilization or loss of free will for religious reasons) and atrocious repressions without counting the their wealth that they monopolized (in terms of absurd repression there is nothing but to see the Calas affair, or that of the case of Chevalier de la Barre etc…), even if there were a lot of priest and believers weren't like that . Although the Cordeliers were wrong to respond to religious intolerance by intolerance, I can agree. The same goes for the Terror. At that time France was threatened by enemies from within and without and quite a few of their enemies carried out atrocious tortures (although rotten people like Fouché, Carrier, were not to be outdone in atrocities to the point that the Committee of Public Safety recalled them immediately). Prices were increasing because of the war, so without excusing them once again I can understand their minds when they demanded ever greater repression of the Terror (even if once again it was a serious error ,a mistake and even a fault).

Let's compare to the indulgent (or Dantonists) who are caught up in financial scandals (according to for a lot of historians like Jean Marc Schiappa). Danton moved only because of the financial scandals which were beginning to erupt and did not dare to attack head-on in this period of factional clashes, he let his friends do so. Moreover, according to certain historians like Decaux if I am not mistaken, he only came back against the Hebertists because they attacked them (and they did not only have them as enemies). He is not a clean character. Let's not talk about Fabre d'Eglantine. For Desmoulins I have an unpopular opinion of him. I find him very overrated and no matter how much I tried to appreciate his historical figure (by reading the very good biography of Leuwers or the book by Joseph Andras) I cannot. I don't think that despite the fact that he is very cultured, a man who rightly think that women must have the right of vote and even a republican before his time, he is not capable of assuming an important position unlike Saint Just or Ronsin who he made fun of. And worst of all I find him hypocritical, he who demanded clemency applauded the execution of the Hebertists following a parody of justice (yes I like the Montagnards of this period but this kind of thing should never be tolerated) . He didn't say anything when the wives of Momoro and Hebert were arrested which was very serious (afterwards I don't know well if they were arrested at the same time as Lucile Desmoulins), but he didn't realize that it was going well back in his face.

The Dantonists were irresponsible in my eyes. I completely agree that it was necessary to examine each prisoner on a case-by-case basis because there were surely a large number who had nothing to do there by creating as many commissions as possible as quickly as possible and getting down to business. job right away because prison is a horrible place, even more so for innocent people. But releasing everyone without distinction immediately would have been dangerous because there were also dangerous counter-revolutionaries or spies. I mean have they forgotten that the fall of Toulon to the English was due to betrayal? The betrayal of Dumouriez, the assassinations of some deputies, etc… Where did this idea of making peace with foreign armies still occupying France come from when the French army was beginning to be victorious? Opposing a war of conquest I completely agree, but allowing one's own territory to be annexed is something else. And how dangerous would it be to leave corrupt people like Danton in power. Sooner or later, he could perhaps have given in to blackmail in view of the evidence of corruption that contemporaries have today, which would have been very dangerous for France. As a result, I never understood why the “good” indulgent ones were portrayed against the “bad” Cordeliers and Hébertists. Whatever happens for all these factions, no matter my great admiration for revolutionaries like Le Bas, Saint Just, Couthon, the fact that I am sorry like many people that Robespierre is demonized, the fact that they allowed a parody of justice against these factions is an unforgivable fault and to have allowed the execution of Marie Françoise Goupil and Lucile Desmoulins among others to consolidate this parody of justice is unacceptable. Even if I understand their states of mind because they could not afford to lose especially in this period against these different factions and contrary to what the Thermidorians put forward, the majority of the Convention was just as guilty as them, there is no excuse for this kind of behavior. Did Saint Just realize this when he said that the Revolution was frozen (even he spoke more about the consequences of this repression and that the revolution is weakened on this point) ? It would later fall on them and Elisabeth Le Bas was threatened with being guillotined for having been Le Bas' wife (some wanted to force her into a marriage with one of the Termidorians). If they had not allowed the fate of Goupil or Lucile Desmoulins earlier perhaps it would have been more difficult for the Thermidorians to threaten her. For more information in the form of a movie , I invite you to see" Saint Just ou la Force des Choses" and " la Camera explore le temps Danton, la terreur et la vertue" in English sub. These are good movies about this period.

And you what do you think ?

[whencyclopedia]

Shays' Rebellion

Shays' Rebellion (1786-87) was an armed insurrection by rural farmers in western and central Massachusetts, sparked by the state government's unpopular response to a debt crisis. The insurrection reached its climax when the rebels, referred to by some scholars as 'Shaysites', unsuccessfully assaulted a federal arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts, ultimately leading to the rebellion's dissolution.

The rebellion erupted amidst an economic crisis and was largely the result of a feud between New England rural farmers and the coastal mercantile elite; when the farmers proved unable to pay debts owed to New English retailers and merchants, their creditors took harsh legal action, often resulting in the farmers losing their property or being thrown into debtors' jail. The farmers believed these judicial actions to be unjust and, in autumn 1786, surrounded courthouses in several Massachusetts towns to halt court proceedings. When the Massachusetts government responded by implementing a severe Riot Act and raising a private army, the protestors turned violent. Under the leadership of American Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays (the namesake of the rebellion) and others, the rebels surrounded Springfield Armory, with the intention of using the weapons within to launch an assault on Boston.

The Shaysites, however, were repulsed when they assaulted the armory on 25 January 1787. The rebels were then mopped up by the private army under General Benjamin Lincoln and the insurrection fizzled out shortly thereafter. Shays' Rebellion highlighted the inefficiency of the United States central government which, under the Articles of Confederation, had been powerless to send federal troops or otherwise intercede to stop the insurrection. The rebellion led many Americans to realize that a stronger central government was necessary, and it influenced the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution.

Debt Crisis

As noted by historian David P. Szatmary, the New England of the 18th century was a society in which aspects of 'rural tradition' and 'commercial expansion' coexisted and gradually came into conflict with one another (1). The vast majority of New Englanders existed within the former category as yeomen farmers or agricultural laborers, who lived in rural communities and often owned the land on which they worked. These farmers enjoyed a subsistence lifestyle, living off their own produce. Whenever they needed something from the market – shoes, for instance, or medicine – they would usually pay with surplus crops rather than in hard currency, which was scarce. If it had been a rough harvest season and the farmers did not have any surplus crops, retailers would often extend to them a line of credit, trusting the farmers to pay them back the next harvest season.

Simultaneously, a growing commercial economy was thriving in the coastal towns of Massachusetts and in the Connecticut River Valley, which relied on trade conducted by merchants. This mercantile class dominated politics in New England and was, therefore, a powerful interest group; indeed, it was partially the grievances of these merchants that had set the New England colonies on the path toward the American Revolution. These merchants had built their fortunes off trade with business contacts in Great Britain and the West Indies, exporting commodities such as timber and rum in exchange for various goods which would then be sold to the shopkeepers in New England's various market towns for resale. Like the yeomen farmers, the merchants did not have much hard currency on hand and were used to conducting business through lines of credit extended to them by their overseas business partners.

At the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783, the New England merchants were eager to resume trade with their prewar business contacts in Britain and France. There was, however, a problem; the United States was experiencing a postwar economic depression and lacked a reliable national currency, making British merchants wary of extending new lines of credit to their New English counterparts. British merchants insisted that any future business dealings must be conducted entirely in hard currency and that all past debts must be immediately paid before commerce could resume. The New English merchants were taken aback by these demands but had no choice but to comply, since Britain was one of their only feasible overseas markets.

The merchants of New England did not have the hard currency that their overseas contacts were demanding; in 1786, for instance, Boston merchants collectively owed £80,000 in debt but had less than £25,000 in hard currency between them. To collect the coinage needed to reopen trade, the merchants decided to call in the debts owed to them by the storeowners of New England's rural market towns. But, of course, the storeowners were as cash-poor as the merchants and were forced to demand that their own customers, mostly yeomen farmers, pay up as well. The burden of the credit crisis, therefore, fell squarely on the shoulders of the farmers, who were at the bottom of this debt hierarchy and could not pass the buck downward. When the farmers tried to pay their debts with surplus crops, they were dismayed to learn that only hard currency would be accepted. This came at a time when the New England state governments were already levying high taxes to pay off their own war debts, imposing an extra financial strain on the rural population.

Continue reading...

[dykeulous]

Kind of insane to quote Mao like he's an inspiration....

:3 silly me! :3

anyway.

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

“An army of the people is invincible!”

“The struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of al the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution. I call on the workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals of all countries and all who are willing to fight against U.S. imperialism to take action and extend strong support to the struggle of the Black people in the United States! People of the whole world, unite still more closely and launch a sustained and vigorous offensive against our common enemy, U.S. imperialism, and its accomplices! It can be said with certainty that the complete collapse of colonialism, imperialism, and all systems of exploitation, and the complete emancipation of all the oppressed peoples and nations of the world are not far off.”

“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

:3

oh, and my personal favorite:

“Women hold up half the sky.”

:3 :3 :3 ^_^