For we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately
I love Trump being the sovereign, and I loved the Musk being his tech adviser.
And I would love Musk being president, and Trump being his speechwriter, political adviser, and press officer.
But Trump is president, and if Musk was president he would desperately need such a political adviser. Musk is troubled because the one big beautiful bill will lead to the US becoming bankrupt in a decade or so. It just postpones imminent looming bankruptcy a little bit. I am more worried about civil war, international nuclear war, and/or hot genocide of whites in the next year or two.
Trump needs to get power into his hands and out of the hands of the permanent government before he can worry about imminent US bankruptcy.
Right now we have California government funded and organised rioters challenging the power of the federal government in LA. Also burning and looting random things, and assaulting random people. This is proxy civil war. If governor Newscum had his way, if the Judge had ruled that federalising the LA national guard was unconstitutional, then in the unlikely event that Trump did not jackson the judge, the federal offices in Los Angeles would have been burned to the ground.
Instead of US troops being sent to die on far away bloodstained sands that have seen thousands of years of war without anything that Americans are likely to care about changing, they are being sent to LA to fight against foreign invaders sponsored and brought in by American traitors.
Trouble is that because Trump is trying to revive a dead Republic, he is reluctant to use the kind of force that is actually required. Should have given the marines arrest power, (insurrection act) which is martial law, and authorised the use of live ammo.
Deal first with enemies, then later worry about solvency, then after that time to worry about the Republic. Musk, due to normalcy bias, is too worried about solvency, and Trump is a 1980s leftist. He believes in the Republic.
It is not the job of soldiers to arrest anybody. Soldiers can accept surrender and thereby take prisoners, but taking a prisoner of war is very different from making an arrest.
The job of soldiers is to kill and destroy. They could be used to guard property, federal and other. They don’t need arrest powers for that, but I don’t see how they can guard anything without being authorised to use live ammo.
If the soldiers sent to LA are not authorised to use live ammo, what are they supposed to do? They are certainly not sent to fight.
Well, there was that Australian journalist who got shot in the ass with a rubber bullet. Everyone was very indignant, lol.
If the Republic was still real, and law and the constitution still mattered, Trump should have summoned the National Guard through the Governor and the State of California
He did not do so, because everyone knows the riots are instigated, organised, and funded by the State of California, and the order would not have been obeyed. Instead he bypassed the state bringing out the national guard by political power, rather than legal power.
The correct constitutional power for him to act under was the insurrection act, which would give the marines the authority to make arrests and to impose martial law. But using the insurrection act would call out the State of California as in rebellion.
The Californian Government is pretending to not be in rebellion, and Trump is going along with that pretence.
Since the law and the constitution would require the governor summon the national guard, should the president find he is unable to execute the laws of the land and direct the governor to do so, then failure of Newscum to obey would put him in rebellion, making altogether unambiguous the application of the insurrection act.
The insurrection act also may be invoked if the president is unable to execute the laws of the land (which obviously was and is the case) It does not require that the governor be in on it — but it bypasses the governor and local law enforcement just in case the governor is in on it. So Trump could have invoked the Insurrection act while preserving some ambiguity, and also adhering to the law and the constitution. But instead he bypassed the constitution to help Newscum keep up as much pretence as possible.
Legally, Newscum has a case, and he went judge shopping for a friendly court. But had the court ruled in his favor, one more pretence of Republic, laws, and constitution would go under, as Trump would directly go to Insurrection act, or just continue to bypass normal chain of command through loyalists in the National Guard, Jacksoning the Judge, and very likely both.
The correct constitutional and legal mechanism is: Direct Governor Newscum to apply the national guard and restore order — Newscum fails to obey –> Insurrection act –> Martial law –> arrest governor –> install a new governor –> order out national guard.
To avoid going directly from proxy civil war to actual civil war, Trump bypassed, arguably illegally and unconstitutionally, National Guard chain of command.
Newscum had a good case, and he went judge shopping, and yet the judge ruled against him lickety spic, for the laws of the Republic and the Constitution say “Go directly to civil war without farting around”.
Newscum is trying to create a situation where Trump has to arrest him or give up on enforcing the laws of the land, Trump is trying to enforce the laws of the land without arresting Newscum, Newscum is trying to do so without openly being in rebellion, and the Judge said “Yikes, the stakes at this table are too high for me.”
So Trump is fishing in the Rubicon again? Sounds like a golden opportunity to imprison some enemies and take power according to the constitution.
If Trump knows the stakes, the only explanation I see for his handling of the situation is that Thermidor vetoed crossing the Rubicon and he still needs Thermidor or at least thinks he needs Thermidor
It was, and is, a golden opportunity. The founder’s plan, based on actual experience, was that when necessary, the president would become dictator — having experienced circumstances where it was necessary. And the laws and the constitution have this built into them, just as the Roman constitution did, as every viable constitution must. Caesar became dictator legally, having won the nearest thing to an honest election that Rome had had in a very long time. Our word “dictator” comes from an ancient provision in the Roman constitution and state religion that dates back to when written history and written law fades into myth and religion.
Of course, in a Republic with a wicked and profoundly dysfunctional elite, this door built into the constitution is likely to become permanent. But still constitutional.
The converse happens with a virtuous elite under a theoretically absolute monarch. The British King remained theoretically the supreme judge and lawgiver for a very long time, but in practice ever more encumbered by laws, judges, and parliament.
Trump is 108 years old, brainwashed by TV like all his generation, and extremely conventionally successful. The Boomer’s brain has calcified into a solid lump of limestone; it’s just what happens with age and success. There is no possible way he can change his worldview enough to cross the Rubicon, so fishing is all that’s on the menu, at least until the Left takes the initiative and kills him.
Impressive at this point how Trump keeps walking that tightrope between being an incorrigible believer in the republic and simultaneously being a symbol of hope and change.
That’s only because he’s the only vessel available to pour our hopes into. Look at him without any emotional investment and it’s obvious he’s a garden variety brainwashed boomer.
Does not matter. If he rolls the state religion back to 1980s leftism, and stabilises it at 1980, or at 2008, it dies.
Leftism must get ever lefter, ever faster, as a shark must swim or drown.
The left is going crazy, because it is drowning.
The danger is that the left will find something new to be left about. Thus in events leading up to Reagan, redistribution had gone far beyond the Laffer Maximum. Reagan backed it off to the Laffer Maximum, but cheerfully went along with the destruction of marriage and family.
Right now one of the paths the left is considering is redefining itself as against capitalists and capitalism, instead of against straight white males. (While still remaining opposed to marriage and family) Could work. But as I am fond of saying, no one is short of bread, but everyone is short of sex, family, and grandchildren. So I think we have a winner in dismantling the sexual revolution, which promised pornotopia and failed to deliver. If we push on that, they will be unable to re-orient to anti-capitalism.
Marriage 1.0, womb conscription, and poofs off roofs. Which is a program far less radical than abolishing capitalism.
Observe how the left cannot help themselves when Trump pushes on boys in women’s sports and illegal immigrants wanted on criminal charges.
Something new = 1920s Bolshevism. Death to the bourgeoisie!
I would laugh so hard if the Left tried that. It would be like re-releasing Covid, except that this time everyone’s immune, both in the biological sense and the we-won’t-be-fooled-again sense. Might appeal to white Bernie Bros, if any of them still exist.
The left did take initiative to kill him. Clearly that got his attention.
I think he has figured out that he has to rule or die. Things are getting real, and they are likely to get more real.
Recent events could reasonably be interpreted as both sides see civil war coming, and they want the other side to cop the blame for it. Certainly that is what governor Newscum is doing.
Trumps split-the-difference caution on this issue could be interpreted as not seeing civil war coming, or as trying to avoid the unavoidable, or as trying to postpone it till the other side has to cop the blame for it.
Fishing in the Rubicon was wicked, foolish, and disastrous in the months leading up to Jan 6, But today its only a few months in to his administration. He has time enough for some fishing. If civil war is coming, he needs to get all his ducks in a row for it. Every battle is won before it is fought. He has to make sure that when the time comes, the NCOs will believe that that the troons started it.
A little more elaboration on this point, please. What if the judge had NOT ruled against Newsom? What would have been the legal/logical chain then?
The next logical step if the judge ruled for Newsom would be Trump invoking the Insurrection Act.
Discussions groups and classes were being held by higher ups reminding junior officers about their constitutional duty and obedience to orders in such a way that suggested they were moving towards pulling the trigger on insurrection act.
I can’t easily explain how disappointed a number of my buddies are.
Which logical step, the insurrection act, would, under the circumstances, imply a presidential finding that Newscum is in insurrection. Which he obviously would be, since he is constitutionally required under the circumstances to obey the presidential order to activate the national guard. Newscum clearly wants such a presidential finding, while piously proclaiming he is not in insurrection, and a judge in a friendly leftist cherry picked jurisdiction did not want such a finding, so ruled against the left even though they had a pretty good case.
He wants to launch the tiger at his enemies while disowning the tiger. I suspect the tiger would not like that.
Well then that depends on Trump.
Trump could Jackson the judge. He would more likely soft Jackson the judge, saying he is going through Newscum while in fact continuing to ignore the chain of command specified in the constitution. In which case nothing much changes. We have no Jacksons yet, but already have a lot of soft Jacksons, where the Administration says they are obeying the judge, and are just not obeying the judge.
Or Trump could follow the law and constitution to the letter, as Newscum demanded, in which case he issues an order to Newscum under his article two powers in the event of inability to enforce federal law, Newscum does not obey, Trump grants himself martial law powers under the finding, that he has already made, that he is unable to enforce the laws of the land in the state of California, and then arrests Newscum, on the finding that the constitution requires him to obey the president in this matter, and Newscum did not, appoints an acting governor, who then orders out the National Guard.
And the judge evidently soiled his diapers when thinking about that outcome
Newsom is between a rock and a hard place.
He doesn’t really want to give in to the most radical left elements, as he’s trying to cultivate the image of being a moderate of sorts.
But he cannot look like he did nothing to stop Trump, because he still has to answer to democrats.
Suing Trump, and a judge ruling against him, gives him an easy out. His hands are tied, it’s Trump’s or the judge’s fault.
This isn’t a bad outcome for Newsom given the situation. Perhaps it’s what he wanted.
What Newscum wanted was to get arrested.
This would give him control of the radicals, control enough, he imagined, to piss all over their agenda.
If he wanted a ruling against him, would not have gone forum shopping.
But forcing Trump to arrest him is a big step to civil war, which the radicals want. And may well get. He is trying to present himself as moderate, while at the same time giving the radicals the civil war they want.
I don’t follow you yet here. (Not calling you wrong or stupid. You’ve just overestimated my intelligence again.)
If Newsom were in jail for even a week, I’d presume that La Revolucion would just steam leftward right past wherever he had been standing when the Marines showed up to take him away. So whenever he got out, he’d be yesterday’s news.
There must be good parallels to draw from various moments in the French/Russian/Nazi/Cambodian revolutions, and if any come to mind, please share.
There must have been “establishment left moderates” back then too, who jumped out in front (to save themselves?) and tried to calm down the radicals and divert their reasonable elite support to themselves. But I believe they got ran over or routed around (but with exceptions?).
(I recall a scene in Cabaret where someone observes a Nazi march from a taxi and tells his friend, effectively, to not worry, because they’re just silly rubes larping, and the smart establishment people in charge of the money and government would divert them to a place where they could blow off their steam safely.)
Is this the Kerensky/Menshevik story?
How about King Sihanouk going along with the Khmer Rouge but then being immediately sidelined and forgotten (but not murdered, which was nice of them)?
Didn’t Hindenburg try a similar move to calm down and divert the Nazi radicals?
I mean shit, when HAS this worked?
Exactly so, but he believes he can ride the tiger.
The tiger is going to eat him.
This scene accurately describes what the vicious, corrupt, decadent, and depraved Weimar elite believed. And probably accurately describes what Newscum believes about the Democratic party.
And it is also what Thermidor thinks about Maga. We shall see if they are right. I doubt it. History tells us that in the end, Maga will fight it out with the troons and their illegal immigrant army, and both Newscum and Thermidor are going to get flattened in the middle.
Talk of Musk being President is ridiculous. The man has nowhere near the emotional temperament to hold such a position. He’s smart enough to know that he needs somebody to control his sperg outs already as merely head of DOGE and CEO of many great companies, yet either does not have one or does not listen to him.
Or maybe it’s just a drug problem as many have noted.
I agree. That’s also why the Catholic and Orthodox posters here need not worry about me being the Antichrist – I’m an emotionally unstable, heavily-tattooed ketamine-fiend, and the Jews will never crown me their King as I sit in the Temple and all that; nor would I want them to do such a thing.
You can breathe a sigh of relief, fellas.
The DNC just kicked out David Hogg due to his diversity deficit. It’s not enough being a pajama boy these days if you’re white:
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1932925299110314481
The word I’ve been hearing is that he ruffled a lot of feathers by trying to accuse a lot of sitting apparatchiks in the underlord class of insuficient leftism, declaring that he will have them purged in his capacity as undersecretary of the party.
You’re not supposed to do that until you’ve already acquired decisive power of course, and you don’t just up and announce it either.
Hogg reiterates that in his parting shots on X:
“After seeing a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel, and Democrats dying in office that have helped to hand Republicans an expanded majority, it became clear that Leaders We Deserve had to start primarying incumbents and directly challenging the culture of seniority politics that brought our party to this place to help get our party into fighting shape again.”
Ah, the final stray appears to be sticking his nose into the race to replace the late Rep. Connolly, 11th district of Virginia. The folks of Fairfax didn’t much care for that.
Deportations out, war with Iran in!
>fell for it again award
In a week or two we’ll be reflecting upon the eternal truth that ever happens.
In a week or two we’ll be reflecting upon the eternal truth that nothing ever happens.
Re: the discussion on “normies” and whether they matter or not.
Here’s my take on this. I look at this from the varnashrama angle, which means, society is divided into priests, warriors, merchants and proles. And the only varnas capable of memetic sovereignity and ruling are priests and warriors.
When Jim or others here say “normies don’t matter” it doesn’t mean that normies are incapable of thinking for themselves or otherwise having an opinion. It means proles, unlike warriors and priests are incapable of memetic sovereignity, meaning that they are incapable of forming any meaningful or effective counter-religion to oppose the prevailing state religion.
This doesn’t mean that proles are incapable of dissent. Of course they are. But unlike other priestly dissent which is dangerous to a ruling priesthood, proles usually dissent within the frame of the existing state religion. Meaning that when something extremely distasteful is passed down as official truth, like say tranny worship, their can feel in their blood it is wrong but cannot say why. So they will either, depending on individual temperament (a) go along unwillingly with the farce but remain greengrocers, (b) express dissent by sullen silence/indifference or (c) otherwise try to find some loophole within the existing state religion to carve out some personal exceptions to the rule.
Note that I am talking about proles, who cannot be “true believers”. Even a prole who accepts the official state religion willingly is not a true believer, he has simply bought into the farce. Once a person becomes a true believer, he transforms from a prole to a priest.
The prole/”normie” dissent usually takes the form of “democrats are the real racists”, or “I oppose illegal immigration but support meritorous immigrants who are willing to assimilate in our society” tier opposition, meaning that their framing will be within the official state religion and never challenge it from the outside.
The management of prole dissent by the ruling priesthood in modern democracies always takes the form of the “outer party” as Jim calls it. It is always the outer party that shapes prole dissent which is always within the limits of the official state religion.
Unless proles are offered an alternate state religion, they are absolutely incapable of expressing effective opposition to the ruling state religion, let alone organize any kind of rebellion against it.
Nitpicks:
Priests have memetic sovereignty but are incapable of ruling. Rare exceptions (warrior-priests/paladins) prove the rule. Priestly attempts at ruling are bound to end disastrously.
Warriors are naturally capable of ruling but are not memetically sovereign, vulnerable to get corrupted by evil Wormtongues. Rare exceptions (God-Kings) are exceptionally rare for a reason.
Merchants have neither memetic sovereignty nor can rule. They’re like choroplasts — incapable of living alone but absolutely essential for producing the grist that everyone else eats. If your merchants die, no amount of priests or warriors will save you.
Shudras/proles have the same limitation as merchants, with the added problem of having no natural talent at production or trade. However, they reproduce fast, provide labour, and can be made into strong, intensely loyal soldiers, which is their real strength.
Ideal combination: Sri Samrat Changragupta Maurya as Warrior King, Sri Acharya Vishnugupta Chanakya as Rajguru/High Priest, Patliputra Merchants Guild to supply unlimited funds, and essentially unlimited Shudras attracted to honour, wealth and glory willing to fight for it. This was the combination that wiped the floor with Greek Seleucids.
The swerving is just insane. We just was talking about la and civil war, now it is all war with Iran .
Dose Thermidor want to distract from internal war by external war ? Trump might go with it , if he thought that will stop civil war or at least postpone it .
As Sun Tzu famously wrote in the Art of War (chapter 1):
As a subversive and outright eBul MOSSAD AGENT, that’s all I’ll say about this topic.
While many Jews should indeed huff gas, I’ve been noticing some gay subversion lately employing oy-vey antisemitism, and I’d like to provide an easy translation from faggotese to non-subverted language to dismantle the plot.
***
“Haha, you worship a Jewish Rabbi” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Christianity is a sinister Jewish conspiracy against the Gentiles” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Jews actually love Christianity because they hate Paganism” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Who cares what some desert primitives wrote millennia ago lololol?” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“I don’t just oppose Christianity, but Islam too, both are foreign Semitic religions” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“The Abrahamic religions ruined the whole world!” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Okay, perhaps Christianity worked well in the past, but now it’s time for us to move on” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Christianity is just totally incompatible with the true Aryan spirit” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Christianity is backwards Jewish superstition holding us back from making scientific progress” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Actually, without Christianity we would have conquered the stars already” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Christianity is anti-aesthetic, we need to discard ugly Christian aesthetics ugh!” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
“Semitic religions enshrine Jewish supremacy!” = I’m pissed off at Leviticus calling out my sexual perversion for what it is.
***
Poofs off roofs.