For those of us who see the Trump Presidency as a regime instead of a 'mere' Administration

Jailbreak, roughly 300 million people, January 20, 2021...

I understand that many here are allergic to Fox News but Judge Andrew Napolitano is in fact a libertarian.  I must say Trump's choice comes at a bit of a surprise but it is a pleasant one.

Here is what the left devolved into.  Perhaps it is appropriate and ironic that free speech should be opposed so violently in the place where the Free Speech movement got started.  Here is how one person planning to attend Milo's speech was treated.






I also suggest that you listen to what Molyneux has to say.






This all looks like brown-shirt behavior from the thirties.  Makes me wonder who the real fascists are?

From David Kaiser's blog, and well worth reading: (Updates to recognize expiration of time or subsequent events in blue)


Donald Trump took office on Friday January 20,  and the world has held its breath.  Has a major nation ever been led by such a man—a flighty, unstable narcissist, self-indulgent to the core, who acts on impulse, wears his emotions on his sleeve, and bullies his subordinates with pithy, brief comments?  How exactly will the presence of such a man in the White House challenge the American people and the people of the world?

There is a very important historical precedent for Trump, dating from more than 100 years ago, on the other side of the Atlantic.  The leader in question was German—but not the Austro-German whose name seems to be on so many people’s lips.  The man in question was the German Emperor William II, the famous Kaiser Wilhelm, who ascended to the throne in 1888 at the age of 29 and ruled until driven into exile in the midst of defeat and revolution in November 1918, at the end for the First World War.  That war grew out of the biggest obsession of William’s imperial career: to make Germany not simply great, but greater—not merely the leading European nation, which it already was, but also a world power on the scale of the British Empire or the United States.

To illustrate the profound similarities between William and Donald Trump, I would like to begin with an appreciation written in 1897, when William was 38.  The author, Philip Eulenburg, was a nobleman and one of his intimate friends; the recipient was Bernhard von Bülow, a diplomat who had just become foreign minister and who would serve from 1899 until 1909 as Chancellor, the leading official of the empire.  Eulenburg’s advice on how to handle the emperor would undoubtedly serve the leading figures of the new administration very well.

“Wilhelm II takes everything personally. Only personal arguments make any impression on him.  He likes to give advice to others but is unwilling to take it himself.  He cannot stand boredom; ponderous, stiff, excessively thorough people get on his nerves and cannot get anywhere with him. Wilhelm II wants to shine and to do and decide everything himself.  What he wants to do himself unfortunately often goes wrong.  He loves glory, he is ambitious and jealous.  To get him to accept an idea one has to pretend that the idea came from him. . . . Never forget that His Majesty needs praise from time to time.  He is the sort of person who becomes sullen unless he is given recognition from time to time form some one of importance.”  (I owe this quote and much of the data here to the wonderful, multi-volume biogarphy of William by the British historian John C. G. Rohl.)

William also held grudges.  Although Donald Trump spent much of his life within the eastern establishment, he has now developed a hatred for the liberal elite and lashes out against anyone who dares question him on twitter.  William resented anyone who questioned his imperial authority.  Even though Germany had had a constitution since 1866 and his chancellors could not govern without the support of the Reichstag or parliament, he saw himself as a divinely ordained absolute ruler.  He frequently threatened to stage a coup d’etat and do away with the Reichstag altogether, and he regarded the two largest parties—the Social Democrats and the Catholics—as subversive elements whose leaders, he frequently said, should be shot.  

Like Trump, William could not control himself.  In Chancellor Bülow’s own memoirs, he told how he frequently accompanied the emperor on visits around Germany and had to beg the press not to print his latest intemperate remarks.  His famous “marginal notes” on state papers—his comments in his own handwriting—read like Trump’s tweets.  He frequently excoriated his own ministries and officials, as well as foreign leaders and domestic political opponents.  He also made commitments to foreign leaders without consulting his subordinates, and sometimes created European crises by insulting them in public.  He was sure he knew what foreign leaders intended, and his certainty that Russia would go to war with Germany as soon as it felt ready—an idea with very little basis in fact—played a big role in his aggressive policy in July 1914, which led to the First World War and his own and Germany’s downfall.  In one marginal note he actually claimed that sovereigns like himself could see the future in ways that statesmen and diplomats very rarely could.  And while these remarks were for the eyes of his leading subordinates alone, Trump has already stated or tweeted similar criticisms of military leaders and the intelligence committee for all to see.

The First World War might easily have broken out at various times between 1905 and 1914, but William’s civilian, military and naval leadership held him back during several previous crises.  That was not all.  In a famous passage in his memoirs, Bülow—who knew him as well as anyone—insisted that William did not want war, “if only because he did not trust his nerves not to give way in any really critical situation,” and knew that he could never command an army, lead a naval squadron, or even captain a ship. Whether Trump, another bully, will also prove to be a blowhard in office remains to be seen.  

William came to power at the age of 29 at the end of an age of confidence and stability, and reigned for 30 years before he fled to Holland in disgrace.  Trump is already 70, comes to power in the midst of a world political crisis, and knows he cannot remain in office for more than 8 years.  He seems in more of a hurry to put his own stamp on events—and the Republican Congress shares his feeling of urgency.  As a modern President of the United States, with Congressional majorities behind him, he is much closer to enjoying the absolute power that William only dreamed of.  Some subordinates inevitably will try to curry his favor by telling him what he wants to hear, while others may try to make him see reason and restrain his emotional impulses.  Trump is a commentary on the wretched state of our political life.  William II inherited his throne, but the American people elected Donald Trump.  William’s example suggests that Trump is truly a grave danger to our future as a nation. His tenure may well force his subordinates—whom he will select—to make difficult choices, and could force the Congress to choose between partisanship and fidelity to the Constitution.  Let us hope they are all up to the task.

I am working on a paper that seeks to achieve some sort of synthesis between the generational cycle concept proposed by S&H and others with the secular cycle concept proposed by Turchin and others.  I am having all sorts of difficulties, particularly with the interface between what Sean Love dubbed saeculum I and saeculum II, that is, the transition from generations that averaged 26-27 years in length with the more recent generations that averaged 20 years in length. Anyways, that is not the issue for this thread.  The issue is how this 4T may play out, assuming the S&H concept is valid.

I start with the observation that the previous six 4Ts fall into only three categories. As 4T's all fit the definition of a secular crisis: a period when society focuses on reordering the outer world of institutions and public behavior.  Four of the historical 4Ts produced a reordering of the state achieved through either a civil war or a revolution.  Another (Depression & WW II) accomplished the same politically though crushing electoral defeats.  Finally, one 4T (Armada) did not involve an internal reordering of the English state (as would happen in the next 4T), but rather a reordering of the position of England in European politics, in that England became a great power.

Some guy (I believe) proposes this third (Armada) type.  That is, this 4T won't achieve major changes in the state domestically, but rather in the US position in the international order.

I believe that this 4T (if the concept is valid) will involve a domestic re-ordering to be accomplished politically, not through internal war (that is, the Depression & WW II model).

Many have pointed out a similarity of tone to the Civil War 4T.  I see the similarity, but are they saying this 4T will be resolved through internal military conflict (i.e. civil war/revolution)?

Please weigh in.

I knew that President Donald Trump would make the world much more dangerous. This is not solely an American concern.

The Doomsday Clock Is Reset: Closest To Midnight Since The 1950s

January 26, 201710:08 AM ET


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced during a news conference Thursday that its advisory group is moving the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to midnight.
 
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The minute hand on the Doomsday Clock ticked closer to midnight Wednesday, as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said it's seeing an increase in dangers to humanity, from climate change to nuclear warfare. The group took the "unprecedented" step of moving the clock 30 seconds closer to midnight, to leave it at 2 1/2 minutes away.
The setting is the closest the clock has come to midnight since 1953, when scientists moved it to two minutes from midnight after seeing both the U.S. and the Soviet Union test hydrogen bombs. It remained at that mark until 1960.
"Make no mistake, this has been a difficult year," Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said as the new setting was announced Thursday.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...o-midnight

Usually one thinks of cases where one proposed a plan that got laughed out of the room, when using the expression "eating crow."

So maybe "eating crow" is not the correct turn of phrase.

In any case, I want to formally apologize for some past sins.

Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand. To me, at the time, George W. Bush was a complete globalist, limp wristed, nothing. I cried out for a strong man. I wanted to see everyone fired from the State Department. I wanted to see us at least plan for a war of our choosing against, initially, all of the "states who harbor them" followed by the SCO. This last wrinkle is probably the sole area where certain contemporaries are no longer aligned. I digress.

Naturally some of this was a reaction against 9/11. But some of it was also the meme set of the virtual tribes I was hanging with. Many of the members of those tribes went on to become the Alt-Right. Now some of them have their hands on the levers of power.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

Quote:I just returned from a briefing for Communication Directors where the following information was provided. These restrictions are effective immediately and will remain in place until further direction is received from the new Administration’s Beach Team. Please review this material and share with all appropriate individuals in your organization. If anyone on your staff receives a press inquiry of any kind, it must be referred to me so I can coordinate with the appropriate individuals in OPA.

• No press releases will be going out to external audiences.
  
• No social media will be going out. A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media. Existing, individually controlled, social media accounts may become more centrally controlled.
  
• No blog messages.
  
• The Beach Team will review the list of upcoming webinars and decide which ones will go forward.
  
• Please send me a list of any external speaking engagements that are currently scheduled among any of your staff from today through February.
  
• Incoming media requests will be carefully screened.
  
• No new content can be placed on any website. Only do clean up where essential.
  
• List servers will be reviewed. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.
  

I will provide updates to this information as soon as I receive it.

It is time to take stock of the Obozo presidency and I think that Stefan Molyneux basically has it right.  As usual the sources for the material are in the YouTube description.

The people may have been shut out of the White House for now, courtesy of 18th century slaveholders who gave us the electoral college, but we are still here, and we will continue to organize and mobilize.

The "women's march" today was huge. As Steve Allen might say, this could be the start of something big. It was huge in DC, but huge all across the country too. I went to the one in San Jose, and I've never seen a bigger march and rally in this sleepy tech town. It seemed like half the city was there, although it wasn't that big; but lots of people squeezed into the entire march route downtown so that people were still standing at the start point when people were arriving at the end point. There were similar rallies all over the country in every state, even a dozen or so in Alaska! The mayor was one of the speakers, along with a minister of my New Thought persuasion. There was a lot of pride today in our city that we turned out so well. Usually events like this barely fill up the space in front of City Hall, if even that.

It might not have pleased some folks here like Rags and David who say the Left is too focused on social justice issues. This one was, for sure. It's certainly the result of the focus by the two candidates: the winner and new "president" being outspokenly against social justice, and the loser outspokenly in favor. But I wouldn't call it identity politics, because every conceivable identity was there together, standing up against Trump and for inclusion, diversity and love. One sign mentioned not only all the ethnic and religious groups, but the three main generations as we know them here as well.

It was the peaceful side of the movement, but yesterday a more militant variety was visible, stirred up by groups such as "DisruptJ20" which apparently were anti-capitalist anarchists. There were over 200 arrests in DC when a few of them starting breaking windows, battling police and such. And we had one of those gatherings too in San Jose, and I went to that one too. There were only about a hundred mostly young people, and none of them had any rocks or broke any windows. But they did storm onto the street and took it over for a while, shouting "Whose street? Our street!". A helicopter was shining its light down on us even before we started, and 2 cops pulled up and followed us onto the street right away. I myself didn't go into the street though, or insult the police, as some of them did; I didn't think that was the issue. But those who are victims of police brutality, or otherwise turned off by the state and authority, might think differently. Once we marched down into a street with no traffic, though, a dozen police cars and motorcycles suddenly cornered us. Maybe because police behavior would be safely out of view? As I returned to the sidewalk, I saw a few young people in the street make gestures of pushing back against their motorcycles. 3 were arrested, and gradually they forced the marchers to stay off the street and soon to disperse. One college cop said they had "information" that it was the same group behind this march that was behind the violent one in DC. I don't know if there were any other violent events, but there were other such Disrupt rallies around the country on Jan.20. Since there was no violence or any threat of it here, I thought the San Jose Police were overdoing it. And yet the next day the mayor himself speaks at the larger rally. So I'm not sure what to think about whether my blue city is going to participate in Trump's promised crackdown. It seemed like both sides intended for there to be some civil unrest, although I was not part of that intention.

It's only the beginning, the speakers said today. I hope so. There will need to be a lot of organizing, election work, protest and speaking out to do to turn back the tide that put Trump in office.