Praetorianism; Trump's Friday night massacre of military leadership.

[MSC]

Trump has just started gutting military leadership, starting with the chief of joint staffs. The chief of joint staffs is supposed to be a termed position that crosses over administrations precisely so they can't be partisan hacks. 

I assume most of us here have heard the Padme Amidala quote from Starwars 

Quote

So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. 

I'd argue that liberty in fact dies once the slavers are made generals and leaders. 

This is the part where I ask the Americans here; how do you expect to keep your democracy intact after this? We all know where this is going, increased defiance of courts and Congress, no more checks and balances, the goading of the American public to engage in protest and then we walk right into martial law. 

Have we just moved past a tipping point where there is little way out of living under a violent and malignant authoritarian regime without some kind of revolution? That's a question of practicality, can an oppressed public, peacefully get themselves out of a dictatorship without said dictator willingly giving up their power?

[exchemist]

28 minutes ago, MSC said:

Trump has just started gutting military leadership, starting with the chief of joint staffs. The chief of joint staffs is supposed to be a termed position that crosses over administrations precisely so they can't be partisan hacks. 

I assume most of us here have heard the Padme Amidala quote from Starwars 

I'd argue that liberty in fact dies once the slavers are made generals and leaders. 

This is the part where I ask the Americans here; how do you expect to keep your democracy intact after this? We all know where this is going, increased defiance of courts and Congress, no more checks and balances, the goading of the American public to engage in protest and then we walk right into martial law. 

Have we just moved past a tipping point where there is little way out of living under a violent and malignant authoritarian regime without some kind of revolution? That's a question of practicality, can an oppressed public, peacefully get themselves out of a dictatorship without said dictator willingly giving up their power?

Yup very hard to reverse if indeed all the military are loyal to Trump instead of to the Constitution. But are they? 

[swansont]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

“nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.”

“During a peaceful street protest of millions of people, the members of the security forces may also be more likely to fear that their family members or friends are in the crowd – meaning that they fail to crack down on the movement. “Or when they’re looking at the [sheer] numbers of people involved, they may just come to the conclusion the ship has sailed, and they don’t want to go down with the ship,” Chenoweth says.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

Might be why Putin is so fast to respond to any peaceful opposition...don't let any protests, peaceful included, approach 3.5%

Fortunately the US still has enough rights and freedoms in place...for now

Edited yesterday at 01:50 AM by J.C.MacSwell

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

This is the part where I ask the Americans here; how do you expect to keep your democracy intact after this? We all know where this is going, increased defiance of courts and Congress, no more checks and balances, the goading of the American public to engage in protest and then we walk right into martial law. 

One thing that makes a simple coup more challenging here is the amount of autonomy that individual states have, and the Posse Comitatus Act disallowing the military to deploy on US soil (unless a governor requests it, or deploys National Guard reserves within a state).  While there are ways around this, you would have a lot of plates spinning with 50 states, and a couple dozen governors who could be mobilizing their state reserves against outside forces, or even peeling off sections of the federal Armed Forces using Constitutional authority.  

For a walking trouser load of excrement like Trump who thinks he can easily extort minerals from Ukraine with some half-baked protection racket, or imagines a round of bullying will turn Canada into a 51st state, or thinks randomly firing experienced civil servants will create lean and effective government, a military coup probably sounds easy, just make some phone calls, throw in some vague promises, and voila.  I will enjoy watching this ambulating turd get buried deep in the litter box when reality comes knocking (or maybe I should say "comes meowing," to keep my metaphors on track).  IOW, I do not think our military will unite behind him, at least not to the degree that nationwide martial law requires.  

 

[toucana]

The Praetorian Guard was said to have been responsible for the overthrow, abandonment, or murder of 15 out of the first 48 Roman emperors who governed Rome between 27 BC and 305 AD.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-praetorian-guard/

Originally adopted as the personal bodyguard of Emperor Augustus in 27 BC, they were finally disbanded by Constantine The Great in 312 AD who also destroyed their barracks at Castra Praetoria -  the only military stronghold allowed south of the Rubicon on the road to Rome.

During this period of influence, the Praetorians were directly responsible for murdering such notorious Roman emperors as Caligula (41 AD), Commodus (192 AD), and Elagabalus (222 AD) - said to have been the first openly transgender Roman emperor.

After murdering the emperor Caligula in 41 AD, the Praetorians initiated the custom of usurping the authority of the Senate, and unilaterally proclaimed Claudius as the new emperor - a practice which continued for centuries.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/roman/the-emperors-fatal-servants/

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

One thing that makes a simple coup more challenging here is the amount of autonomy that individual states have, and the Posse Comitatus Act disallowing the military to deploy on US soil (unless a governor requests it, or deploys National Guard reserves within a state).  While there are ways around this, you would have a lot of plates spinning with 50 states, and a couple dozen governors who could be mobilizing their state reserves against outside forces, or even peeling off sections of the federal Armed Forces using Constitutional authority.  

For a walking trouser load of excrement like Trump who thinks he can easily extort minerals from Ukraine with some half-baked protection racket, or imagines a round of bullying will turn Canada into a 51st state, or thinks randomly firing experienced civil servants will create lean and effective government, a military coup probably sounds easy, just make some phone calls, throw in some vague promises, and voila.  I will enjoy watching this ambulating turd get buried deep in the litter box when reality comes knocking (or maybe I should say "comes meowing," to keep my metaphors on track).  IOW, I do not think our military will unite behind him, at least not to the degree that nationwide martial law requires.  

 

You don’t need military force for the kind of soft coup that is now in progress, though. All you need is for the army not to get involved to stop you.
 

Once you have ensured all institutions of the state are under your control and that future elections, if any, are sure to return your party, the job is done.

[StringJunky]

Is the time for civil rebellion approaching if the principle tenets of the Constitution are not being observed and democracy is clearly being dismantled? I suppose, the definitive trigger for me would be when no election is called and El Douche declares himself de facto King of the USA.

Edited 14 hours ago by StringJunky

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is the time for civil rebellion approaching if the principle tenets of the Constitution are not being observed and democracy is clearly being dismantled? I suppose, the definitive trigger for me would be when no election is called and El Douche declares himself de facto King of the USA.

I doubt he’ll do that though, since that’s the reaction he might get. The model is Orban’s Hungary. So the electoral process will continue, in some form, but rigged to ensure he or his successor is the next president and Repubican waxworks  remain in control of Congress, with the aid of @CharonY’s cult votes, cultivated via social media.

The idea will be to allow people to think if things go “too far” they would step in, but then carefully nudge along just below that threshold, while acclimatising people so that their threshold moves beyond the situation at any given moment - frog-boiling, if you will. 
 

I think civil - or military - rebellion, or at least mass demonstrations, may ultimately be needed, but the problem will be to identify a trigger point that motivates enough people.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

All you need is for the army not to get involved to stop you.

Which is far easier and far more likely when you purposely install leaders who are loyal sycophantic yes-men across all of the top layers of the chain of command.

[exchemist]

Just now, iNow said:

Which is far easier and far more likely when you purposely install leaders who are loyal sycophantic yes-men across all of the top layers of the chain of command.

Quite, though may be hard to do if you still want the military to be effective and professionally led. Fox presenters as top generals? 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Once you have ensured all institutions of the state are under your control and that future elections, if any, are sure to return your party, the job is done.

Yes, there could be a soft coup.  One impediment to that, which is similar to the state-level issues I mentioned previously, is that we have fifty states and fifty election processes.  Election oversight is at the state level, with a lot of election authority and responsibilities extending down to the county level.  The states do have to comply with the federal Constitution, but not with the federal executive.  Our decentralized electoral system is, from what I've heard, unique among the world's democracies.  It is messy, but it is also a migraine for a would-be autocrat.  (am guessing a serious attempt to work around that would have to involve a declaration that some states are somehow in violation of federal law, and then sending enforcement of some kind to take over polling stations - sort of a semi-soft coup, perhaps?)(the frog boiling you mention might consist in first sending "federal advisors," then gradually giving them more of a supervisory role via a series of executive orders which are responding to an "emergency" )

Edited 11 hours ago by TheVat
adds

[exchemist]

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yes, there could be a soft coup.  One impediment to that, which is similar to the state-level issues I mentioned previously, is that we have fifty states and fifty election processes.  Election oversight is at the state level, with a lot of election authority and responsibilities extending down to the county level.  The states do have to comply with the federal Constitution, but not with the federal executive.  Our decentralized electoral system is, from what I've heard, unique among the world's democracies.  It is messy, but it is also a migraine for a would-be autocrat.  (am guessing a serious attempt to work around that would have to involve a declaration that some states are somehow in violation of federal law, and then sending enforcement of some kind to take over polling stations - sort of a semi-soft coup, perhaps?)(the frog boiling you mention might consist in first sending "federal advisors," then gradually giving them more of a supervisory role via a series of executive orders which are responding to an "emergency" )

True, far harder to capture the processes at state level. But it is only the swing states they have to focus on. And for presidential elections they can have fun and games with the electoral college.  But yes, in principle the mid term elections seem to be the best hope. If Congress ceases to be in Trump’s pocket I suppose there are things it can do to stymie him. So long as Trump listens to Congress at all by that stage.

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, TheVat said:

we have fifty states and fifty election processes.  Election oversight is at the state level, with a lot of election authority and responsibilities extending down to the county level

And when they are ignored, and the people ignoring it have control over the soldiers and machinations and weapons, and when even local authorities are on board with those ignoring it, then who / what serves as the enforcement mechanism to stop them?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Right now it seems more like cooking a frog in a very bad microwave, with temperatures all over the place.

[MSC]

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yup very hard to reverse if indeed all the military are loyal to Trump instead of to the Constitution. But are they? 

Hard to gauge when upto half of the US population voted for Trump. It's my understanding that the exact demographics up to now have been that of leadership leaning against Trump while the rank and file members tend to lean toward him.

With a leadership change to Trump Loyalists, you put control of the chain of command into Trump's hands. It should also be noted that political leanings and moral inclinations aren't going to factor in much when looking at military or criminal sophistication. We have been severely underestimating Trump and the people around them, as stupid, when in fact they aren't. They are criminally sophisticated and have a working understanding of how to play people's emotions. One of histories biggest dictators, Napoleon, was a military genius. Immoral af yes, but still a military genius. 

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Quite, though may be hard to do if you still want the military to be effective and professionally led. Fox presenters as top generals? 

My above paragraph is in response to this. Simply put, there are going to be individuals in the military, already loyal to Trump, who are still more than capable of running an effective military. Cult members don't join cults because they are stupid (I mean some do but not all) they join because they were in a vulnerable state, an insecurity was taken advantage of, a fear magnified and anger given a direction to go. 

21 hours ago, swansont said:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

“nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.”

“During a peaceful street protest of millions of people, the members of the security forces may also be more likely to fear that their family members or friends are in the crowd – meaning that they fail to crack down on the movement. “Or when they’re looking at the [sheer] numbers of people involved, they may just come to the conclusion the ship has sailed, and they don’t want to go down with the ship,” Chenoweth says.”

Thank you for sharing this; I have some questions about it though because within a highly polarized environment like we have now, and the existence of the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world, that 3.5% could be variable depending on the unique circumstances of a given nation. My concern is that in recent years, non-violent campaigns on the true progressive side of things, are met with a reaction from the alt-right side of things. I also worry that with the current state of technology and the psychological impacts of that, whether or not a propaganda machine could create a proportional reaction to defeat any movement that is nonviolent. 

I suppose the best way to kind of illustrate my worries, is to ask; what would have happened if there had been two large groups in DC on January 6th 2020, one for Trump, one against Trump, both groups driven to do what they have to do to defend whatever it is they think they are defending. 

Another thing that worries me this time around with the authoritarians trying to once again take away liberty, is Elon Musk. I tried to see if I could find any historical mention of Hitler straight up bribing the German populace into complicity. I feel like that is part of the playbook this time around, Musk has already talked about giving Americans checks from the money he's claimed to "save" by gutting the government. I heard some Trump supporter talking about it loudly and I just don't know if it is or isn't something to be concerned about from a few angles. 

At this point I'm back here talking to you all about this because I just, don't know what else to do. This all scares the hell out of me to be perfectly honest with you all. Not sure how to process anymore, let alone react. 

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Hard to gauge when upto half of the US population voted for Trump. It's my understanding that the exact demographics up to now have been that of leadership leaning against Trump while the rank and file members tend to lean toward him.

With a leadership change to Trump Loyalists, you put control of the chain of command into Trump's hands. It should also be noted that political leanings and moral inclinations aren't going to factor in much when looking at military or criminal sophistication. We have been severely underestimating Trump and the people around them, as stupid, when in fact they aren't. They are criminally sophisticated and have a working understanding of how to play people's emotions. One of histories biggest dictators, Napoleon, was a military genius. Immoral af yes, but still a military genius. 

My above paragraph is in response to this. Simply put, there are going to be individuals in the military, already loyal to Trump, who are still more than capable of running an effective military. Cult members don't join cults because they are stupid (I mean some do but not all) they join because they were in a vulnerable state, an insecurity was taken advantage of, a fear magnified and anger given a direction to go. 

Thank you for sharing this; I have some questions about it though because within a highly polarized environment like we have now, and the existence of the Kyle Rittenhouses of the world, that 3.5% could be variable depending on the unique circumstances of a given nation. My concern is that in recent years, non-violent campaigns on the true progressive side of things, are met with a reaction from the alt-right side of things. I also worry that with the current state of technology and the psychological impacts of that, whether or not a propaganda machine could create a proportional reaction to defeat any movement that is nonviolent. 

I suppose the best way to kind of illustrate my worries, is to ask; what would have happened if there had been two large groups in DC on January 6th 2020, one for Trump, one against Trump, both groups driven to do what they have to do to defend whatever it is they think they are defending. 

Another thing that worries me this time around with the authoritarians trying to once again take away liberty, is Elon Musk. I tried to see if I could find any historical mention of Hitler straight up bribing the German populace into complicity. I feel like that is part of the playbook this time around, Musk has already talked about giving Americans checks from the money he's claimed to "save" by gutting the government. I heard some Trump supporter talking about it loudly and I just don't know if it is or isn't something to be concerned about from a few angles. 

At this point I'm back here talking to you all about this because I just, don't know what else to do. This all scares the hell out of me to be perfectly honest with you all. Not sure how to process anymore, let alone react. 

One thing I’m missing in all this is to what extent the Trump voters simply thought he would be better than Harris for the economy and their standard of living, and to what extent they had really had it with the current democratic system and really wanted to try Trumpy autocracy. The signs of autocracy were there obviously, for anyone politically conscious, but did the voters perceive it and if so did they just not care? Has there been any opinion research on this? I guess it’s not easy to ask people if they meant to vote  for autocracy.

[MSC]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

And when they are ignored, and the people ignoring it have control over the soldiers and machinations and weapons, and when even local authorities are on board with those ignoring it, then who / what serves as the enforcement mechanism to stop them?

I could actually really do with your perspective on the technological aspect of this; propaganda aided by current technology, AI and a trove of data on most individuals is a new variable that quite frankly wasn't available to the likes of Hitler, but is to Musk and Trump. How drastically do you think this changes things? It's not like Thomas Hobbes could have seen this all coming in Leviathan. 

We haven't even really gotten into how bad this could all get nor how quickly. Trump's DOJ, Trump's election commission etc unchecked threats, bribery and extortion of officials from federal to local. 

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

One thing I’m missing in all this is to what extent the Trump voters simply thought he would be better than Harris for the economy and their standard of living, and to what extent they had really had it with the current democratic system and really wanted to try Trumpy autocracy. The signs of autocracy were there obviously, for anyone politically conscious, but did the voters perceive it and if so did they just not care? Has there been any opinion research on this? I guess it’s not easy to ask people if they meant to vote  for autocracy.

It's honestly a massive mixed bag really. There are so many different reasons it's hard to list and they range from sounding reasonable to utterly reprehensible.

[iNow]

52 minutes ago, MSC said:

AI and a trove of data on most individuals is a new variable that quite frankly wasn't available to the likes of Hitler, but is to Musk and Trump. How drastically do you think this changes things?

Changes? Very little. Amplifies and accelerates? Orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude. 

And it’s a global issue now. This is the new world order, not the bullshit people were walking around with sandwich boards about a decade or two ago. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Musk has already talked about giving Americans checks from the money he's claimed to "save" by gutting the government

So far it’s about $5 per taxpayer, so I don’t think that’s going to sway too may folks, especially those who have lost some kind of support

[MSC]

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

So far it’s about $5 per taxpayer, so I don’t think that’s going to sway too may folks, especially those who have lost some kind of support

For people like me and you, who care about facts, you're right, this wouldn't sway us. For people lost in a propaganda bubble who believe Trump and Musk are rooting out massive levels of corruption and are being told $5000 within that bubble (which they indeed are being told this) this will hold a lot of weight. Also, you said $5 per taxpayer, but this assumes that eligibility is something they'd agree on so that it would be a fair an equitable share of $5 per taxpayer, hell I'm a greencard holder and I qualify as a taxpayer but I somehow doubt I'll be included in any kind of check whether it's 5 bucks or 5k. 

To be clear though I'm not saying I believe this check is ever coming, but what I am saying is that Trump has already gotten his followers to swallow a lot of shit on the promise of "it'll be here in two weeks" and it doesn't take a genius to see that he is shameless enough to float such a promise and then when ungiven, blame it on the "radicals" trying to thwart him as to why it never materializes. 

I do hope I'm just doom panicking over somethings that will never happen and I hope that somehow democracies guardrails hold firm against this... But how long will it be before the assault relents/ends? What sort of damage and chaos is going to happen in the meantime? How much are we going to lose? 

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, MSC said:

For people like me and you, who care about facts, you're right, this wouldn't sway us. For people lost in a propaganda bubble who believe Trump and Musk are rooting out massive levels of corruption and are being told $5000 within that bubble (which they indeed are being told this) this will hold a lot of weight. Also, you said $5 per taxpayer, but this assumes that eligibility is something they'd agree on so that it would be a fair an equitable share of $5 per taxpayer, hell I'm a greencard holder and I qualify as a taxpayer but I somehow doubt I'll be included in any kind of check whether it's 5 bucks or 5k. 

To be clear though I'm not saying I believe this check is ever coming, but what I am saying is that Trump has already gotten his followers to swallow a lot of shit on the promise of "it'll be here in two weeks" and it doesn't take a genius to see that he is shameless enough to float such a promise and then when ungiven, blame it on the "radicals" trying to thwart him as to why it never materializes. 

I do hope I'm just doom panicking over somethings that will never happen and I hope that somehow democracies guardrails hold firm against this... But how long will it be before the assault relents/ends? What sort of damage and chaos is going to happen in the meantime? How much are we going to lose? 

All the money is going to go toward people making >$360k per year. Everyone else will see a tax hike