Replies

This sort of breakdown unless rolled back will inevitably lead to insurrection I would think

I’ve a mind to actually write about all the forces Trump is facing

It’s unprecedented

From the state and most aspects of the culture and of course media

All including his own party working harder than ever they have on anything to deprive him of another term or any ability to govern

It’s almost like war already

I’m not sure what to call it

This country has had minor rebellions and major secession slash intercine war between states and the central govt...a very costly adventure for everyone

But this is different ....it’s a concerted effort to stymie the man elected by the people

Monarchs especially in the period between the Tudors and Charles II had to deal with bureaucrats who would not be brought to heel but usually except during the Cromwell reign they had forces to thwart resistance of their directives

From 1066 thru the Tudors if a king actually held power then he usually had the power to insist on his demands

With exceptions...
Weak rulers and broke ones

Trump is being universally opposed in a voting Republic

Where this sort of thing leads is ominous in my book and I sure get no pleasure in that

Or do we simply submit to the progressive Borg so to speak with nary a whimper except maybe some lone wolf terrorism/freedom fighting here and there

As a parent I’m not optimistic for my kids long run

This would have never happened baring open borders and dark quotas but that’s a litttle late now

What do y’all think?

This judge thing today now establishes a pattern....it’s no coincidence

YES. The closest thing in history was Lincoln, whose own cabinet constantly schemed against him and whose enemies wanted to assassinate him. He could not win. Don’t free slaves? Then the very issue of the war-—the real issue-—would remain. Free them? Lose many northern whites.the USSC was against him.

He had to force the resignations of his entire canonet & then not implement them.

Aside from actual combat, the biggest difference was that yge Rs in Congress wantef him to be MORE aggressive so he truly was in the middle. Trump is on one end of a rope pulling against EVERYONE else, even the HFC at times.

What I think is that the composite of aspects you describe--as opposed to a view confined to the Leftwing Court decision, alone--is well defined by the old cliche about "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

The quip captures not the sociopathic myopia of a George Soros, who would never have bathed the "baby" to start with, but the idiotic consequences of those in the mainstrteam accepting the premises involved in the academic/media/political rejection of the very concept of the traditional nation.

Consider the recent moaning from EU spokesmen against the revitalization of nationalistic sentiments in Europe! What they are arguing--inter alia--is that the reason there has been no war among the EU members is the EU. But the obvious flaw in that argument, is that it supposes that throwing out the unique cultures of unique nations in favor of a centralized bureaucracy is required for nations to get the message that modern warfare serves no nations interest in an area as confined as non Russian Europe. This ignores something that is patently the more likely cause of that "peace."

World War II, with the great increase in technology, and explosive weapons--not to mention the innovation of Blitzkrieg warfare--greatly changed the public perception in every European country. The present Bureaucracy in Brussels, and the deep State holdovers--sabateurs--in our bureaucracy, are not the causes of a more peaceful intent, but rather parallel effects--mistaken parallel effects. Hence the concept of throwing out the baby with the dirty water.

Take another example of the same thing. The Le Pen candidacy being almost universally mislabeled in the media both in America & Europe, as "rightwing extremism. Query, is it really "extreme" in the French context, for one to recognize that the reason the French & Germans are no longer planning their next conflict, is simply a realistic recognition of what would be involved? Peace does not really require that the French scrap pride in the roots of their culture--and a determination to maintain it--in Charlemagne, Roland & Oliver, in order to comply with absurd dictation from a foreign bureaucracy, that demands not only free trade, but legal acceptance of an asexual, non ethnic, non patriotic, non-Christian demography.

It really doesn't.