A great piece, but it neglects one key element: Trump is crazy and getting worse. To tell the NY Times that he is only constrained by his "morality" (LOL, as though he has any) is an insane act. Whether he believes it or not (and I think he does), it's nuts because it shows an obliviousness of how others will react to it. So this absence of pretexts Brian talks about probably doesn't come from confidence that he has consolidated power and no longer needs them. It stems from a rampaging narcissistic belief that he has *never* needed them.
He wasn't telling the Times "I can do whatever I want because no one can stop me." He was telling them, "I have the RIGHT to do whatever I want." That's what's new.
It's the difference between imagining the US as a struggle toward a "more perfect union" -- a place that rises to better ideals, that is capable of progress -- or a place that is all cynicism, all the time.
"When they find they can’t sustain the lie, they’ll have a choice: retreat, or announce a standing policy that civil disobedience can and may be punished by summary killing.
We’ll definitely miss the pretexts then. "
Thank you Brian. Isn't this our greatest fear? That they start killing those of us who voice an opinion different than theirs?
I expect we will know soon as the Goode murder will inspire George Floyd level protests in the coming weeks. When they start firing on those the pretensions will be gone.
How tens of millions of people, including many elected republicans, have completely lost their humanity is both dangerous and depressing.
Whether they’re backing a corrupt, lawless administration because they want clout, they’re ‘scared to go against it’, or they’re true believers really doesn’t matter to me. Letting these people off the hook once Trump is gone should not be an option.
Yes. Start with the Republican Party. They have, and have always had, the ability to end this lawlessness and corruption, and they refuse to do it. And damn the Democrats for continually failing to hold them to account, loudly and publicly.
Considering how these things are polling under toe fungus with the American people, can it possibly be sustained? Bush used 9/11 as his pretext, but didn't he also have career high favorability ratings? What is equally frustrating is how Schumer responded, saying he was "disappointed" in hearing Trump won't rule out invaded other countries in our Hemisphere.
And a little early for the mailbag, but what can you make of the drawn out tongue bath the NY Times is giving Trump just because he let them sit in his "fancy" office? It's sickening and I can't understand it.
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others--after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds are there for criticism? Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour--you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception--he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."
"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."
"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved--the missteps we make along the way--are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."
This reminds me of every time the Republicans act and behave like a Nazi Fascists but then get offended when we call them Nazis. I'm like, "why don't they just come out in the open about being Nazis?" Of course the day they do openly embrace, and are proud to call themselves Nazis, will be a truly frightening moment
His lies about election theft started well before the election. He's too stupid to have come up with the plan on his own, but unfortunately cartoon villains Roger Stone and Steve Bannon were on top of it.
And they are trying out the new strategy through some surrogates:
“The bottom line is this: When a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep your life,” Representative Wesley Hunt of Texas said on Newsmax.
I like this but I also think that democrats should go blow for blow with every new pretext that is assaulted, while still verbally defending the pretexts themselves. Like, their pitch is lawlessness, which we know will lead to ruin. Therefore, we will break the rules in order to construct a society of justice and freedom. To play by the rules would be the destruction of the rules themselves forever.
Machiavellian self-defense. I don't mean violence, although the constitution does tell people that you actually have a right and duty to use violence against the government if they become corrupted against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- If you're going to threaten to arrest, or as we see now, kill people for no reason, we are going to threaten to arrest noem for conspiracy for murder since her actions lead to someone dying that would otherwise be alive. They have lied already publicly, so therefore we have to arrest them all to find the truth.
- If the court is going to make rulings in bad faith, we are going to ignore them in bad faith too. Let the court enforce their own anti-constitutional rules, we will follow the ones that are constitutional
- If you're going to follow illegal orders, we will throw you in jail when we get back for treason. Fuck the courts, when we have power we have power
- We will launch a conspiracy investigation into the coverup of Trump's involvement in Epstein's child rape ring. Anyone found to have covered up evidence will be prosecuted as an accomplice.
-Stephen miller, you better learn russian buddy, because you're getting deported and denaturalized. No sick fuck like him is an American. This one is just a personal wishlist item but I think it's totally fair. Might give him a therapist too, he needs it
When people are asking democrats to be fighters, this is what they mean. If you cheat, I will cheat right back. Then I'll throw you in jail for cheating and restore the anti-cheating rules.
Sure that's not all legal, I know. I don't know, not my problem? Give me power, I will do it. Trump showed you can break the rules if you need to, and now I have absolute immunity if I get to the white house.
The angle that they're weak because they're pretending to have justifications is powerful. What kind of strong man tries to say he's following the rules? What kind of pussy paramilitary organization has to pretend they're following the constitution when they rough people up?
You elect us and we will use every cheatcode they just made available, except we will use it to build a society of freedom and opportunity, instead of just pretending we did. That's a whole other post about how you have to build credibility to be able to deliver that message, but that's what it'll take. proof of concept, either locally or extragovernmentally
Anyway I totally empathize with what you're saying about trying to make sense of things. I thought I was about to cook with this note and it turned out to be me just ranting. It's not easy to pull out a clear story with all this noise. Bryan, you're the Lebron James of doing that
Reading this I first thought, “hmm haven’t thought about our situation this way- good point”. But then rushing into my memory was Trumps statement the other day in substance- he has the power to do what ever he wants while POTUS And is only limited by “his own morality”. At the time I read that I thought what the F#@+! was that all about? But now taking into consideration what Brian lays out, Trumps statement makes me think we are closer to the actual elimination of pretext than is laid out by Brian.
In a way, this makes all of us complicit in the lies. It’s all so kabuki theater. They crime, we gasp, they lie about the crime, we grumble, the dust settles, and the cycle repeats. It was so refreshing to see the mayor of Minneapolis call ‘bullshit’ on all the explanations Noem gave for what happened. I wish more politicians would do the same. It’s an insult to our intelligence to be asked to believe crap that is so obviously … bullshit.
This kind of writing is the reason I subscribed to your postings
A great piece, but it neglects one key element: Trump is crazy and getting worse. To tell the NY Times that he is only constrained by his "morality" (LOL, as though he has any) is an insane act. Whether he believes it or not (and I think he does), it's nuts because it shows an obliviousness of how others will react to it. So this absence of pretexts Brian talks about probably doesn't come from confidence that he has consolidated power and no longer needs them. It stems from a rampaging narcissistic belief that he has *never* needed them.
He wasn't telling the Times "I can do whatever I want because no one can stop me." He was telling them, "I have the RIGHT to do whatever I want." That's what's new.
It's the difference between imagining the US as a struggle toward a "more perfect union" -- a place that rises to better ideals, that is capable of progress -- or a place that is all cynicism, all the time.
"When they find they can’t sustain the lie, they’ll have a choice: retreat, or announce a standing policy that civil disobedience can and may be punished by summary killing.
We’ll definitely miss the pretexts then. "
Thank you Brian. Isn't this our greatest fear? That they start killing those of us who voice an opinion different than theirs?
I expect we will know soon as the Goode murder will inspire George Floyd level protests in the coming weeks. When they start firing on those the pretensions will be gone.
sadly.
How tens of millions of people, including many elected republicans, have completely lost their humanity is both dangerous and depressing.
Whether they’re backing a corrupt, lawless administration because they want clout, they’re ‘scared to go against it’, or they’re true believers really doesn’t matter to me. Letting these people off the hook once Trump is gone should not be an option.
Yes. Start with the Republican Party. They have, and have always had, the ability to end this lawlessness and corruption, and they refuse to do it. And damn the Democrats for continually failing to hold them to account, loudly and publicly.
Considering how these things are polling under toe fungus with the American people, can it possibly be sustained? Bush used 9/11 as his pretext, but didn't he also have career high favorability ratings? What is equally frustrating is how Schumer responded, saying he was "disappointed" in hearing Trump won't rule out invaded other countries in our Hemisphere.
And a little early for the mailbag, but what can you make of the drawn out tongue bath the NY Times is giving Trump just because he let them sit in his "fancy" office? It's sickening and I can't understand it.
Going through these times is like watching the Roman Empire fall, or the British Commonwealth fail.
Hopefully this regime will fall too 🤞
from Neal Stephenson's (1995), "The Diamond Age"
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others--after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds are there for criticism? Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour--you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception--he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."
"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."
"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved--the missteps we make along the way--are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."
This reminds me of every time the Republicans act and behave like a Nazi Fascists but then get offended when we call them Nazis. I'm like, "why don't they just come out in the open about being Nazis?" Of course the day they do openly embrace, and are proud to call themselves Nazis, will be a truly frightening moment
His lies about election theft started well before the election. He's too stupid to have come up with the plan on his own, but unfortunately cartoon villains Roger Stone and Steve Bannon were on top of it.
God, I hate these people.
100%
And they are trying out the new strategy through some surrogates:
“The bottom line is this: When a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep your life,” Representative Wesley Hunt of Texas said on Newsmax.
I like this but I also think that democrats should go blow for blow with every new pretext that is assaulted, while still verbally defending the pretexts themselves. Like, their pitch is lawlessness, which we know will lead to ruin. Therefore, we will break the rules in order to construct a society of justice and freedom. To play by the rules would be the destruction of the rules themselves forever.
Machiavellian self-defense. I don't mean violence, although the constitution does tell people that you actually have a right and duty to use violence against the government if they become corrupted against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- If you're going to threaten to arrest, or as we see now, kill people for no reason, we are going to threaten to arrest noem for conspiracy for murder since her actions lead to someone dying that would otherwise be alive. They have lied already publicly, so therefore we have to arrest them all to find the truth.
- If the court is going to make rulings in bad faith, we are going to ignore them in bad faith too. Let the court enforce their own anti-constitutional rules, we will follow the ones that are constitutional
- If you're going to follow illegal orders, we will throw you in jail when we get back for treason. Fuck the courts, when we have power we have power
- We will launch a conspiracy investigation into the coverup of Trump's involvement in Epstein's child rape ring. Anyone found to have covered up evidence will be prosecuted as an accomplice.
-Stephen miller, you better learn russian buddy, because you're getting deported and denaturalized. No sick fuck like him is an American. This one is just a personal wishlist item but I think it's totally fair. Might give him a therapist too, he needs it
When people are asking democrats to be fighters, this is what they mean. If you cheat, I will cheat right back. Then I'll throw you in jail for cheating and restore the anti-cheating rules.
Sure that's not all legal, I know. I don't know, not my problem? Give me power, I will do it. Trump showed you can break the rules if you need to, and now I have absolute immunity if I get to the white house.
The angle that they're weak because they're pretending to have justifications is powerful. What kind of strong man tries to say he's following the rules? What kind of pussy paramilitary organization has to pretend they're following the constitution when they rough people up?
You elect us and we will use every cheatcode they just made available, except we will use it to build a society of freedom and opportunity, instead of just pretending we did. That's a whole other post about how you have to build credibility to be able to deliver that message, but that's what it'll take. proof of concept, either locally or extragovernmentally
Anyway I totally empathize with what you're saying about trying to make sense of things. I thought I was about to cook with this note and it turned out to be me just ranting. It's not easy to pull out a clear story with all this noise. Bryan, you're the Lebron James of doing that
Reading this I first thought, “hmm haven’t thought about our situation this way- good point”. But then rushing into my memory was Trumps statement the other day in substance- he has the power to do what ever he wants while POTUS And is only limited by “his own morality”. At the time I read that I thought what the F#@+! was that all about? But now taking into consideration what Brian lays out, Trumps statement makes me think we are closer to the actual elimination of pretext than is laid out by Brian.
I wish that I could share your hope that there may after all be light at the end of the tunnel, Brian.
They are already enacting civil disobedience means death policy, indeed if not word. But in word too. “Haven’t you learned from the last few days?”
I honestly don’t see us getting out of this without at least a general strike and international severing of trade, travel, finance, etc.
PS if the Senate Dems don’t make a stand on DHS $ after Jan 30, they are worthless.
In a way, this makes all of us complicit in the lies. It’s all so kabuki theater. They crime, we gasp, they lie about the crime, we grumble, the dust settles, and the cycle repeats. It was so refreshing to see the mayor of Minneapolis call ‘bullshit’ on all the explanations Noem gave for what happened. I wish more politicians would do the same. It’s an insult to our intelligence to be asked to believe crap that is so obviously … bullshit.