Glad you addressed the issue of active military obeying commands to work against the American public. I've been wondering where the military leaders are and why there is no pushback from them on this. It is scary as hell! And the numbers you are showing for the length of time these dictators are in control scares the begezzus out of me. If I'm lucky I have 20 good years left. It is my fear that all of us will have to live with this s*** for too long.
For one, as we know, our alcoholic Secretary of Defense has been firing a lot of people in the military chain of command who are either from a minority demographic or who are not strictly loyal to our wannabe tinpot dictator.
Then there's the fact that for a long time now, the military has had a tendency to attract a large amount of disaffected young white people who are vulnerable to right-wing indoctrination (something I have unfortunately experienced personally with my younger brother who became an avid Trump supporter, especially after serving as a Marine).
It troubles me greatly that I cannot say with any confidence that if Trump were to order the military to fire upon American citizens, that they would not obey, that the line that would be met would be public outrage rather than their moral character. The fact that there have been virtually no mass resignations from the military as a result of Trump deploying military into American streets only further erodes my confidence that we could ever hope for the military to step in to defend the Constitution against a would-be dictator rather than play a part in said potential dictatorship.
Same. I see no happy ending ahead. But how bad it gets is going to be directly proportional to how long we continue to wait and enable the fascist regime to consolidate power.
Hitler | Germany → 1933-1945 ~12 years
Marcos | Philippines → 1965-1986 ~21 years
Erdogan | Turkey → 2002-2025 ~23+ years
Modi | India → 2014-2025 ~11+ years
Mugabe | Zimbabwe → 1980-2017 ~37 years
Chavez/Maduro | Venezuela → 99-13+13-25 ~27+ years
Peron | Argentina → 46-55+73-74 ~10 years
Ortega | Nicaragua → 2006-2025 ~19+ years
Orban | Hungary → 2010-2025 ~15+ years
Putin | Russia → 1999-2025 ~26+ years
Average ~20.1 years
There are others I could list here. But here is what they all have in common:
They came into power via democratic means. They all manipulated democratic institutions to consolidate authoritarian power. And once they were done consolidating power it was/has been nearly impossible to end their rule but with much pain and bloodshed.
Waiting for a happy, peaceful resolution is a gamble in which history shows the house always wins.
Very powerful message and very germane to our current situation. This article should get the widest dissemination on all platforms possible. And just ignore the flamers, they aren’t relevant, just noisemakers.
2- You said, “Worse, he pretends as though the courts are still neutral arbiters, when Democrats themselves handed Trump the Supreme Court—and that Court has now ruled him virtually untouchable. Waiting for justice in a captured system isn’t a plan. It’s surrender.” IN fact, the lower courts are holding their own for democracy and primarily Rule of Law. You go to the high point we all know already, sounding almost like the Dictator at large yourself. What you said here has little to do with the many facts and cases being adjudicated. Just today, federal courts denied, flat out, GOP’s grab to stop redistricting in CA. And the stupid Case to. Charge the guy who threw a sandwich at a National Guard was thrown out. —. Where are you getting your information?
You’re not getting it from any real law reporting. What do you know about the law? Are you a lawyer?
3- You said “Pritzker’s speech, for all its righteous tone, still bent the knee in the one place it mattered most: refusing to draw an unbreakable line.” HOW? I would respectfully suggest you read Joyce Vance “Civil Discourse” on this play of your interested in what courts are doing and truth.
1-Pritzker rattled off crime statistics as if Trump might care. His response to crime statistics wasn’t meant only for anyone willing to listen in Trumps sphere. He knows Trump doesn’t care about facts. It was for everyone in Illinois and Chicago, but more, for everyone in this country to know he’s exposing Trumps lies.
You want me to do the work for you. You should be asking yourself that question. Let’s start with the first 3 examples you give in criticism of Pritzkers speech. They’re sensationalistic. They’re inaccurate. If I were a college professor, I’d give you a C. Your arguments don’t hold water. I think it’s You who should be questioning your own conclusions.
Lastly, may I inquire as to your credentials to make judgement? Or are you just doing so on your own, as anyone might say rightfully, stating your opinion. Opinions are subjective. Take that for what it’s worth. Before you talk down Governor Pritzger’s speech, maybe you should consider the harm you do by doing so. He’s a good man. A very brave man. And he spoke truth to power, mo matter how you want to spin it. You, on the other hand, have sought to destroy hope. Hope is the one thing we need to keep going and fight the good fight. Even, if not more so, when it becomes violent.
First, thanks for expanding on your first reply. At first, it seemed like the typical disjointed, vague criticism that relies on throwing a few adjectives around like inaccurate or sensational without offering anything of substance to stand on that criticism.
Now, let me address each of your points:
"1-Pritzker rattled off crime statistics as if Trump might care. His response to crime statistics wasn’t meant only for anyone willing to listen in Trumps sphere. He knows Trump doesn’t care about facts. It was for everyone in Illinois and Chicago, but more, for everyone in this country to know he’s exposing Trumps lies."
There are 4 kinds of people in the US today:
- Those who already know Trump is a lying fascist and that there is no legitimate/legal reason for him to send the US Military into American cities, certainly not under the false pretense of some criminal emergency, when there are several red states, whose cities have much worse crime "problems" (though overall the US is virtually as safe as it has ever been). To these people, the facts are redundant.
- Those who back the fascists no matter what: these include the same people who 6 months ago thought there was a cabal of elite pedophiles involved with Epstein who had to be taken down at all costs, and yet are now fine with Trump transferring Maxwell to a minimum-security prison, contemplating a pardon for her, and jumping on the bandwagon that the entire Epstein thing is nothing but a "Democrat Hoax." To these people, facts are irrelevant.
- Those who have, for a myriad of reasons, become apathetic to politics. To these people, the facts just don't matter, as they've given up/stopped paying attention to politics anyways.
- Those who practice false equivalency and false neutrality for a living, such as the average media pundit/corporate executive. They look at leftists defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people to exist, then look at the right-wingers trying to ban books, arrest doctors, and invade cities with the military with the same level of "concern." To them, the facts are irrelevant, because they will always find a way to both sides any issue.
So, in essence all the rattling off of facts accomplishes nothing. It's not like this is a debate club and whoever comes armed with the best facts/stats will win and resolve the issue at hand. All it does is continue to paint the picture that Dems are elites and academics out of touch with people's lived experiences.
"2- You said, “Worse, he pretends as though the courts are still neutral arbiters, when Democrats themselves handed Trump the Supreme Court—and that Court has now ruled him virtually untouchable. Waiting for justice in a captured system isn’t a plan. It’s surrender.” IN fact, the lower courts are holding their own for democracy and primarily Rule of Law. You go to the high point we all know already, sounding almost like the Dictator at large yourself. What you said here has little to do with the many facts and cases being adjudicated. Just today, federal courts denied, flat out, GOP’s grab to stop redistricting in CA. And the stupid Cade to. Charge the guy who threw a sandwich at a National Guard was thrown out. —. Where are you getting your information?
You’re not getting it from any real law reporting. What do you know about the law? Are you a lawyer?"
Let me ask you to try a thought experiment, if you'll indulge me for a moment (and yes, as a thought experiment, it is precisely meant to simplify an idea in order to make it easier to communicate, not a suggestion that the problem is as simple as the experiment):
Imagine that our future is a rope, and that on one side of it you have those who believe in democracy pulling on the rope, and that on the other, you have the fascist pulling in the opposite direction. Now, imagine that each time they pull on the rope (try a new fascist move), we try as hard as we can to stand our ground (we file lawsuits, which navigate the legal system and result on us winning or not). Of the latest reports I have seen (and I apologize for not remembering right now the source, though I think the number seems pretty reasonable), we currently stand on an 83% victory rate if you account for the many cases filed since Trump got back in office. That is, objectively, an excellent number. That means that 83% of the time they pulled on the rope, we managed to stand firm and prevent the rope from moving in their direction. However, it also means that they have succeeded 17% of the time. That might have been fine, had we been doing anything whatsoever to pull the rope back in our direction. However, we have been exclusively on the defense the entire time, always a step behind, always reacting, never doing anything whatsoever that can exact a cost against the fascist regime. What might have we done? States' AG could have sought indictments of members of the fascist regime in key cases, like for example in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. It would be an upward battle given the Supremacy Clause, but the case has merit however hard it may be. We could be using the fact that we control the largest ports in the country, and as a result, have substantive power to impact trade/economy in red states, via laws that, properly written, would be neutral enough to survive legal scrutiny. But we have chosen not to do any of it, presumably because we fear such moves could fail. Meanwhile, the fascist regime has no problem trying every crazy thing they can muster, in the hopes that any of it might stick (even if only 17%). So, back to the thought experiment, it means that because our underlying strategy is one that is purely defensive and reactionary, we have guaranteed at minimum, that we cannot win because our strategy will never gain any ground. On the other hand, the best we can hope for would be a tie, if we were to have 100% success, which is already not the case. That means that however many court battles we may have won, we are objectively in a worse position now than when we began, with no hopes of improving on that position, unless we take on a different strategy that can gain us any ground. Where do I get my law reporting from? Mostly from Marc Elias, Glenn Kirschner, Joyce Vance (whom you mention in your 3rd point) and a few others. Personally, I believe Marc is probably the most important lawyer in the country today, and I have great respect and admiration for the work that he does. However, I will ascribe to the old saying that "if all you have is a hammer, that every problem looks like a nail" credit for the fact that every lawyer will tell you that our country will be saved by the courts. It will not. Whether you look into history or the present, whatever continent you pick, you will find a myriad of examples of countries where authoritarian regimes utilized and abused democratic systems in order to consolidate power, until their democracies became nothing but a shell of what they once were if they continued to exist at all. From the familiar cases like Hitler in Germany a century ago to Erdogan in Turkey today, with India (Modi), Zimbabwe (Mugabe), Argentina (Peron), Hungary (Orban), Russia (Putin), etc., the historical record is full of case studies on democratic backsliding, and the record is stark: once their power is consolidated, these regimes tend to last decades, until their leaders die, civil war, military coups, or societal collapse.
I will get to whether I'm a lawyer/what are my credentials towards the end of my reply.
"3- You said “Pritzker’s speech, for all its righteous tone, still bent the knee in the one place it mattered most: refusing to draw an unbreakable line.” HOW? I would respectfully suggest you read Joyce Vance “Civil Discourse” on this play of your interested in what courts are doing and truth."
I suggest you listen to Pritzker's speech once more and pay close attention to what he says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q04p3OJdhpU). He preemptively concedes that Illinoisans must accept the military being deployed to their streets without any real pushback (the fascists couldn't care less about however many millions we bring out to the streets in our protests. If anything, it serves them well as it gives us a way to vent our frustration without causing any meaningful pushback against their plans. At best, they're sitting back laughing at our foolishness). He explicitly excuses the choice of members of the military to violate their oaths to the Constitution by following unlawful commands that are at odds with the Constitution itself by justifying that if they refuse, they could be court-martialed (11:55) while instructing people to essentially not engage and just protest — that is, to accept military deployment into their streets. That is precisely the kind of capitulation and bending of the knee that every would-be dictator trying to exploit democratic norms to consolidate power prays for every day. Because each time they can deploy the military into the streets without consequence, is another day they get their populations more used to governance by force rather than governance by vote. And that is precisely what Pritzker invites and preemptively concedes to.
As for credentials, I don't generally care much for them these days. I could brag about sitting on a 153 IQ (tested by a university). You can go look at it yourself in my post about recently being diagnosed with Autism. I could brag about dropping out of university after getting bored and earning ~50 credits in one semester (that's virtually enough to earn a 2-year degree in 6 months). Rather, I will let my work speak for itself, should you want to look around: whether it's my work on USOS (The Unified Societal Operating System — a meta-framework for governance I've been working on based on my understanding of ethical/moral systems developed by different cultures throughout human history), or my essay, "The Real Deep State," which explores and chronicles the marriage between corporatism and theocracy in the conservative movement since the 70s, or "Unmasking MAGA," which takes that endeavor to the next level, chronicling the last ~60 years of American politics to explain how the choices that both parties have made since the late 60s have made the rise of MAGA and our current predicament a near inevitability, to name a few. But more than anything, I would present as my credentials the members of the Substack community — who despite my coming out of nowhere earlier this year, and despite having no paywalls — have deemed my work worthy of support, earning me a Bestseller check here on Substack in just under 2 months.
Finally, this is where we get to the heart of your final point about hope. You suggest that I'm trying to destroy hope. But there's a difference between hope and "hopium." The former is what you get when you take a realistic account of the facts at hand, and prescribe a rational assessment of the situation that gives you an understanding of the actual options and how they may each play out, such that hope comes as a result of a clear-eyed decision that gives you your best odds of success. The latter is what you get when you listen to a bunch of strong words that have no chance or intention to change the status quo. My goal is to provide my readers with one, while wiping out as much as possible of the other. Hopefully, which one is clear by now.
don’t want to expand your head but. . . .finally!. . someone worth listening too who can articulate the problems along with the fallacies. Your assessment that both Parties have had a hand over the past sixty years in bringing us to this juncture is sadly completely accurate; a conclusion i reached over a decade ago and i am no paragon of intellect, just your average mediocre guy. k
I think you’re mistaken about protests. I think they do have an impact. As do sit ins. He told Trump not to come to Chicago. “ We don’t want you to come here” or the like. Sounds pretty clear to me.
I could not wish more to be wrong about protests. However, twice now I believe (at least once for certain with the No Kings march), we have set new records for number of protesters on the streets all over the country. And yet, after each, we've taken yet more steps towards fascist rule. If you believe that we're any more democratic after the protests than before, or that they have had any tangible impact against the fascist regime that you can point me to, I'll will happily be proven wrong. All I see is misused efforts without any chance to change anything (they had no tangible asks, they were not directed at any specific power levers likely to respond, they had no plan for follow up, etc.). They're like a leaky exhaust in an engine, letting out pressure without doing anything to move us anywhere.
As for Pritzker saying he doesn't want them to come to Chicago:
- Because every would be dictator has always respected the "wants" of their opposition.
- Especially when you say that you don't want them to come in one breath, while in the next you explain that they have no choice but to come or they might be courtmartialed, while telling your citizens not to do anything obstructive when they do invade their streets...
It’s not the point whether they respect his wishes or not. I think you know that. He’s standing up to tyranny. That’s what matters. As for protests; the ones we’re seeing so far are not as energized as they must get-yet. I was a young girl during the Viet Nam war protests. The Civil Rights protests. But I was listening and watching. We’re nowhere near mass protests yet.
The point I’m trying to make is , it takes time. A year. Years even. You may say , ‘we don’t have that luxury’. And yeah. There’s no luxury to be had. But it’s a definite-/fighting back. And eventually, the Federal Guards will see the people. Those in the military who have eyes will see it. —. The main argument your argument seems to suggest is that we should use physical force now. I’m just not sure that the way to win. Your argument is approaching the situation in like kind to the way it’s being dangled before us. Trump would just love ‘the ppl to use physical force right away This way he can claim Marshall Law. And he can con his base even more.
I never suggested the Dems don’t need a forceful strategy. The Chairman of the Dem party is saying so every day. But. Do not dismiss the courts completely. This is a country of laws. If you believe that structure, however mangled and bruised and forsaken it has become, within POTUS, is not dead.
I never said to dismiss the courts completely. Only that they cannot save us, as virtually any action we can do within the judiciary will be defensive/reactionary in nature and that it is statistically impossible for us to win every time, and that given the captured nature of SCOTUS, our chances for meaningful victory are even slimmer. The courts might slow down the fascist, but they will not beat them, and the sooner we can snap out of that delusion, the sooner we can start working on a strategy that might actually achieve some form of success. So yes, let the lawyers do their lawyering, as I have immense respect for them. But don't count on them saving our democracy, it will not happen.
Glad you addressed the issue of active military obeying commands to work against the American public. I've been wondering where the military leaders are and why there is no pushback from them on this. It is scary as hell! And the numbers you are showing for the length of time these dictators are in control scares the begezzus out of me. If I'm lucky I have 20 good years left. It is my fear that all of us will have to live with this s*** for too long.
This is in fact, one of my greatest worries.
For one, as we know, our alcoholic Secretary of Defense has been firing a lot of people in the military chain of command who are either from a minority demographic or who are not strictly loyal to our wannabe tinpot dictator.
Then there's the fact that for a long time now, the military has had a tendency to attract a large amount of disaffected young white people who are vulnerable to right-wing indoctrination (something I have unfortunately experienced personally with my younger brother who became an avid Trump supporter, especially after serving as a Marine).
It troubles me greatly that I cannot say with any confidence that if Trump were to order the military to fire upon American citizens, that they would not obey, that the line that would be met would be public outrage rather than their moral character. The fact that there have been virtually no mass resignations from the military as a result of Trump deploying military into American streets only further erodes my confidence that we could ever hope for the military to step in to defend the Constitution against a would-be dictator rather than play a part in said potential dictatorship.
Well said Lukium. Thank you. You've made a very good argument.
Thank you for stating that so clearly. It certainly is a message that needs hearing.
Never negotiate with terrorists.
💯
Unfortunately I can only see two solutions to this problem, & I don't like either one.
Same. I see no happy ending ahead. But how bad it gets is going to be directly proportional to how long we continue to wait and enable the fascist regime to consolidate power.
Hitler | Germany → 1933-1945 ~12 years
Marcos | Philippines → 1965-1986 ~21 years
Erdogan | Turkey → 2002-2025 ~23+ years
Modi | India → 2014-2025 ~11+ years
Mugabe | Zimbabwe → 1980-2017 ~37 years
Chavez/Maduro | Venezuela → 99-13+13-25 ~27+ years
Peron | Argentina → 46-55+73-74 ~10 years
Ortega | Nicaragua → 2006-2025 ~19+ years
Orban | Hungary → 2010-2025 ~15+ years
Putin | Russia → 1999-2025 ~26+ years
Average ~20.1 years
There are others I could list here. But here is what they all have in common:
They came into power via democratic means. They all manipulated democratic institutions to consolidate authoritarian power. And once they were done consolidating power it was/has been nearly impossible to end their rule but with much pain and bloodshed.
Waiting for a happy, peaceful resolution is a gamble in which history shows the house always wins.
Very powerful message and very germane to our current situation. This article should get the widest dissemination on all platforms possible. And just ignore the flamers, they aren’t relevant, just noisemakers.
American democratic warriors must learn stealth, perseverance, and forthright defense, like our brothers and sisters in Ukraine.
You should be on X, not here where we seek truth and hope.
I also seek truth and hope, what makes you think otherwise?
2- You said, “Worse, he pretends as though the courts are still neutral arbiters, when Democrats themselves handed Trump the Supreme Court—and that Court has now ruled him virtually untouchable. Waiting for justice in a captured system isn’t a plan. It’s surrender.” IN fact, the lower courts are holding their own for democracy and primarily Rule of Law. You go to the high point we all know already, sounding almost like the Dictator at large yourself. What you said here has little to do with the many facts and cases being adjudicated. Just today, federal courts denied, flat out, GOP’s grab to stop redistricting in CA. And the stupid Case to. Charge the guy who threw a sandwich at a National Guard was thrown out. —. Where are you getting your information?
You’re not getting it from any real law reporting. What do you know about the law? Are you a lawyer?
3- You said “Pritzker’s speech, for all its righteous tone, still bent the knee in the one place it mattered most: refusing to draw an unbreakable line.” HOW? I would respectfully suggest you read Joyce Vance “Civil Discourse” on this play of your interested in what courts are doing and truth.
1-Pritzker rattled off crime statistics as if Trump might care. His response to crime statistics wasn’t meant only for anyone willing to listen in Trumps sphere. He knows Trump doesn’t care about facts. It was for everyone in Illinois and Chicago, but more, for everyone in this country to know he’s exposing Trumps lies.
You want me to do the work for you. You should be asking yourself that question. Let’s start with the first 3 examples you give in criticism of Pritzkers speech. They’re sensationalistic. They’re inaccurate. If I were a college professor, I’d give you a C. Your arguments don’t hold water. I think it’s You who should be questioning your own conclusions.
Lastly, may I inquire as to your credentials to make judgement? Or are you just doing so on your own, as anyone might say rightfully, stating your opinion. Opinions are subjective. Take that for what it’s worth. Before you talk down Governor Pritzger’s speech, maybe you should consider the harm you do by doing so. He’s a good man. A very brave man. And he spoke truth to power, mo matter how you want to spin it. You, on the other hand, have sought to destroy hope. Hope is the one thing we need to keep going and fight the good fight. Even, if not more so, when it becomes violent.
(1/2)
First, thanks for expanding on your first reply. At first, it seemed like the typical disjointed, vague criticism that relies on throwing a few adjectives around like inaccurate or sensational without offering anything of substance to stand on that criticism.
Now, let me address each of your points:
"1-Pritzker rattled off crime statistics as if Trump might care. His response to crime statistics wasn’t meant only for anyone willing to listen in Trumps sphere. He knows Trump doesn’t care about facts. It was for everyone in Illinois and Chicago, but more, for everyone in this country to know he’s exposing Trumps lies."
There are 4 kinds of people in the US today:
- Those who already know Trump is a lying fascist and that there is no legitimate/legal reason for him to send the US Military into American cities, certainly not under the false pretense of some criminal emergency, when there are several red states, whose cities have much worse crime "problems" (though overall the US is virtually as safe as it has ever been). To these people, the facts are redundant.
- Those who back the fascists no matter what: these include the same people who 6 months ago thought there was a cabal of elite pedophiles involved with Epstein who had to be taken down at all costs, and yet are now fine with Trump transferring Maxwell to a minimum-security prison, contemplating a pardon for her, and jumping on the bandwagon that the entire Epstein thing is nothing but a "Democrat Hoax." To these people, facts are irrelevant.
- Those who have, for a myriad of reasons, become apathetic to politics. To these people, the facts just don't matter, as they've given up/stopped paying attention to politics anyways.
- Those who practice false equivalency and false neutrality for a living, such as the average media pundit/corporate executive. They look at leftists defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people to exist, then look at the right-wingers trying to ban books, arrest doctors, and invade cities with the military with the same level of "concern." To them, the facts are irrelevant, because they will always find a way to both sides any issue.
So, in essence all the rattling off of facts accomplishes nothing. It's not like this is a debate club and whoever comes armed with the best facts/stats will win and resolve the issue at hand. All it does is continue to paint the picture that Dems are elites and academics out of touch with people's lived experiences.
"2- You said, “Worse, he pretends as though the courts are still neutral arbiters, when Democrats themselves handed Trump the Supreme Court—and that Court has now ruled him virtually untouchable. Waiting for justice in a captured system isn’t a plan. It’s surrender.” IN fact, the lower courts are holding their own for democracy and primarily Rule of Law. You go to the high point we all know already, sounding almost like the Dictator at large yourself. What you said here has little to do with the many facts and cases being adjudicated. Just today, federal courts denied, flat out, GOP’s grab to stop redistricting in CA. And the stupid Cade to. Charge the guy who threw a sandwich at a National Guard was thrown out. —. Where are you getting your information?
You’re not getting it from any real law reporting. What do you know about the law? Are you a lawyer?"
Let me ask you to try a thought experiment, if you'll indulge me for a moment (and yes, as a thought experiment, it is precisely meant to simplify an idea in order to make it easier to communicate, not a suggestion that the problem is as simple as the experiment):
Imagine that our future is a rope, and that on one side of it you have those who believe in democracy pulling on the rope, and that on the other, you have the fascist pulling in the opposite direction. Now, imagine that each time they pull on the rope (try a new fascist move), we try as hard as we can to stand our ground (we file lawsuits, which navigate the legal system and result on us winning or not). Of the latest reports I have seen (and I apologize for not remembering right now the source, though I think the number seems pretty reasonable), we currently stand on an 83% victory rate if you account for the many cases filed since Trump got back in office. That is, objectively, an excellent number. That means that 83% of the time they pulled on the rope, we managed to stand firm and prevent the rope from moving in their direction. However, it also means that they have succeeded 17% of the time. That might have been fine, had we been doing anything whatsoever to pull the rope back in our direction. However, we have been exclusively on the defense the entire time, always a step behind, always reacting, never doing anything whatsoever that can exact a cost against the fascist regime. What might have we done? States' AG could have sought indictments of members of the fascist regime in key cases, like for example in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. It would be an upward battle given the Supremacy Clause, but the case has merit however hard it may be. We could be using the fact that we control the largest ports in the country, and as a result, have substantive power to impact trade/economy in red states, via laws that, properly written, would be neutral enough to survive legal scrutiny. But we have chosen not to do any of it, presumably because we fear such moves could fail. Meanwhile, the fascist regime has no problem trying every crazy thing they can muster, in the hopes that any of it might stick (even if only 17%). So, back to the thought experiment, it means that because our underlying strategy is one that is purely defensive and reactionary, we have guaranteed at minimum, that we cannot win because our strategy will never gain any ground. On the other hand, the best we can hope for would be a tie, if we were to have 100% success, which is already not the case. That means that however many court battles we may have won, we are objectively in a worse position now than when we began, with no hopes of improving on that position, unless we take on a different strategy that can gain us any ground. Where do I get my law reporting from? Mostly from Marc Elias, Glenn Kirschner, Joyce Vance (whom you mention in your 3rd point) and a few others. Personally, I believe Marc is probably the most important lawyer in the country today, and I have great respect and admiration for the work that he does. However, I will ascribe to the old saying that "if all you have is a hammer, that every problem looks like a nail" credit for the fact that every lawyer will tell you that our country will be saved by the courts. It will not. Whether you look into history or the present, whatever continent you pick, you will find a myriad of examples of countries where authoritarian regimes utilized and abused democratic systems in order to consolidate power, until their democracies became nothing but a shell of what they once were if they continued to exist at all. From the familiar cases like Hitler in Germany a century ago to Erdogan in Turkey today, with India (Modi), Zimbabwe (Mugabe), Argentina (Peron), Hungary (Orban), Russia (Putin), etc., the historical record is full of case studies on democratic backsliding, and the record is stark: once their power is consolidated, these regimes tend to last decades, until their leaders die, civil war, military coups, or societal collapse.
I will get to whether I'm a lawyer/what are my credentials towards the end of my reply.
(2/2)
"3- You said “Pritzker’s speech, for all its righteous tone, still bent the knee in the one place it mattered most: refusing to draw an unbreakable line.” HOW? I would respectfully suggest you read Joyce Vance “Civil Discourse” on this play of your interested in what courts are doing and truth."
I suggest you listen to Pritzker's speech once more and pay close attention to what he says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q04p3OJdhpU). He preemptively concedes that Illinoisans must accept the military being deployed to their streets without any real pushback (the fascists couldn't care less about however many millions we bring out to the streets in our protests. If anything, it serves them well as it gives us a way to vent our frustration without causing any meaningful pushback against their plans. At best, they're sitting back laughing at our foolishness). He explicitly excuses the choice of members of the military to violate their oaths to the Constitution by following unlawful commands that are at odds with the Constitution itself by justifying that if they refuse, they could be court-martialed (11:55) while instructing people to essentially not engage and just protest — that is, to accept military deployment into their streets. That is precisely the kind of capitulation and bending of the knee that every would-be dictator trying to exploit democratic norms to consolidate power prays for every day. Because each time they can deploy the military into the streets without consequence, is another day they get their populations more used to governance by force rather than governance by vote. And that is precisely what Pritzker invites and preemptively concedes to.
As for credentials, I don't generally care much for them these days. I could brag about sitting on a 153 IQ (tested by a university). You can go look at it yourself in my post about recently being diagnosed with Autism. I could brag about dropping out of university after getting bored and earning ~50 credits in one semester (that's virtually enough to earn a 2-year degree in 6 months). Rather, I will let my work speak for itself, should you want to look around: whether it's my work on USOS (The Unified Societal Operating System — a meta-framework for governance I've been working on based on my understanding of ethical/moral systems developed by different cultures throughout human history), or my essay, "The Real Deep State," which explores and chronicles the marriage between corporatism and theocracy in the conservative movement since the 70s, or "Unmasking MAGA," which takes that endeavor to the next level, chronicling the last ~60 years of American politics to explain how the choices that both parties have made since the late 60s have made the rise of MAGA and our current predicament a near inevitability, to name a few. But more than anything, I would present as my credentials the members of the Substack community — who despite my coming out of nowhere earlier this year, and despite having no paywalls — have deemed my work worthy of support, earning me a Bestseller check here on Substack in just under 2 months.
Finally, this is where we get to the heart of your final point about hope. You suggest that I'm trying to destroy hope. But there's a difference between hope and "hopium." The former is what you get when you take a realistic account of the facts at hand, and prescribe a rational assessment of the situation that gives you an understanding of the actual options and how they may each play out, such that hope comes as a result of a clear-eyed decision that gives you your best odds of success. The latter is what you get when you listen to a bunch of strong words that have no chance or intention to change the status quo. My goal is to provide my readers with one, while wiping out as much as possible of the other. Hopefully, which one is clear by now.
don’t want to expand your head but. . . .finally!. . someone worth listening too who can articulate the problems along with the fallacies. Your assessment that both Parties have had a hand over the past sixty years in bringing us to this juncture is sadly completely accurate; a conclusion i reached over a decade ago and i am no paragon of intellect, just your average mediocre guy. k
Oh.. .where can i find your essays?
Right here on my Substack, if you got to:
https://americanmanifesto.news (https://lukium.substack.com)
It will be on the front page (Unmasking MAGA and The Real Deep State).
I think you’re mistaken about protests. I think they do have an impact. As do sit ins. He told Trump not to come to Chicago. “ We don’t want you to come here” or the like. Sounds pretty clear to me.
I could not wish more to be wrong about protests. However, twice now I believe (at least once for certain with the No Kings march), we have set new records for number of protesters on the streets all over the country. And yet, after each, we've taken yet more steps towards fascist rule. If you believe that we're any more democratic after the protests than before, or that they have had any tangible impact against the fascist regime that you can point me to, I'll will happily be proven wrong. All I see is misused efforts without any chance to change anything (they had no tangible asks, they were not directed at any specific power levers likely to respond, they had no plan for follow up, etc.). They're like a leaky exhaust in an engine, letting out pressure without doing anything to move us anywhere.
As for Pritzker saying he doesn't want them to come to Chicago:
- Because every would be dictator has always respected the "wants" of their opposition.
- Especially when you say that you don't want them to come in one breath, while in the next you explain that they have no choice but to come or they might be courtmartialed, while telling your citizens not to do anything obstructive when they do invade their streets...
Right... He sure told 'em alright...
It’s not the point whether they respect his wishes or not. I think you know that. He’s standing up to tyranny. That’s what matters. As for protests; the ones we’re seeing so far are not as energized as they must get-yet. I was a young girl during the Viet Nam war protests. The Civil Rights protests. But I was listening and watching. We’re nowhere near mass protests yet.
The point I’m trying to make is , it takes time. A year. Years even. You may say , ‘we don’t have that luxury’. And yeah. There’s no luxury to be had. But it’s a definite-/fighting back. And eventually, the Federal Guards will see the people. Those in the military who have eyes will see it. —. The main argument your argument seems to suggest is that we should use physical force now. I’m just not sure that the way to win. Your argument is approaching the situation in like kind to the way it’s being dangled before us. Trump would just love ‘the ppl to use physical force right away This way he can claim Marshall Law. And he can con his base even more.
I never suggested the Dems don’t need a forceful strategy. The Chairman of the Dem party is saying so every day. But. Do not dismiss the courts completely. This is a country of laws. If you believe that structure, however mangled and bruised and forsaken it has become, within POTUS, is not dead.
I never said to dismiss the courts completely. Only that they cannot save us, as virtually any action we can do within the judiciary will be defensive/reactionary in nature and that it is statistically impossible for us to win every time, and that given the captured nature of SCOTUS, our chances for meaningful victory are even slimmer. The courts might slow down the fascist, but they will not beat them, and the sooner we can snap out of that delusion, the sooner we can start working on a strategy that might actually achieve some form of success. So yes, let the lawyers do their lawyering, as I have immense respect for them. But don't count on them saving our democracy, it will not happen.
I don’t believe court actions are defensive as you say. It’s a process.
Fuck you I will clap! Or are YOU another butt-snorkeler?
I take it you have not read the article, and jumped the gun on the comment.
Yeah, he definitely didn’t read it. Very powerful btw. I appreciate you saying what so many won’t. I just hope people listen before it’s too late.