The always-wise and eloquent Claire Wolfe is wondering about a few important things.
We hardly need Arnold Schwartzenegger to tell us our freedom is screwed.
As determined as we freedomistas may be to uphold our mental and philosophical freedoms, our political freedoms and economic freedoms are gone-gone-gone. They’ve been going for decades of course. But we now live under a regime that in eight months has ruled via a combination of ever-shifting whim, diktat, incompetence, and a complete disregard for reason, principle, or constitutional law.
When you’re ruled by capricious madmen, your external freedoms are moot. Here today, gone tomorrow, partially restored for a few moments the day after that, made illegal and punishable by heaven knows what the following day.
Knowing we’re headed for some sort of revolution, I’ve surrounded myself with history books. Seeking parallels. Seeking key differences. Seeking advice from the past. Seeking useful blog fodder.
What can we learn not to do from the French? How are we like, and different from, the Americans of 1774? Must we expect the Russian revolution or might we be smart, luck out and get the kind they had more recently in Estonia or East Germany or Hungary? What can the fall of the Roman empire and its long aftermath tell us? How about the Irish, with their centuries of failure followed finally by a “success” that tears them apart to this day?
I’m telling you, though, I read and read and read and got nada.
While history does at times conveniently rhyme — or echo; we can hear the echoes of several civilizations now — our circumstances are so different they’re like discordant, meterless, meaningless nonsense verse, conveying nothing coherent.
I called up a friend with whom I often brainstorm.
“Give me some insights, preferably with a dose of optimism,” I requested.
For half an hour he ranted about…how screwed we are.
Yes, we’re like the French in 1789 or the American colonists in 1774 or the Irish in 1916. But we’re much more like Germany in 1933.
I have no hope for us; we are such a nation of cowards. We have no backbone.
Even after decades of being lied to, we’re watching Americans not only bow down to every bit of nonsense uttered by the establishment, but seeing those of us who question the nonsense demonized as vermin, to be exterminated.
It’s the kind of self-righteousness that goes along with absolute spinelessness.
Well. That was cheery.
Oddly ironic, ain’t it, how we’ve suddenly found ourselves tossed about on the stormy seas of all-too-familiar history, and yet are in completely uncharted territory simultaneously. But since Claire brought up the French and all, Dave Renegade reviews a little French history that might well contain a useful lesson or three for us.
History once again repeats itself as Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban in a matter of days. Or should we acknowledge this as a surrender since the American puppet army did not give any resistance to their conquerors. I doubt the Afghanistan government installed by the United States was popular except with the opium traders. I also doubt that this was an intelligence failure: the CIA knew what was going to happen. They found greener pastures to rape under the illegal Biden administration.
The analogy of Napoleon’s return to power from Elba should also be considered. Napoleon landed back in France on March 1, 1815. He regained power in Paris on March 20, 1815 without any resistance.
Napoleon was recognized by the military and the people as their rightful leader:
[Napoleon] landed at Cannes on March 1st, intending to travel to the city of Grasse, however the road he wanted to travel did not exist for the Bourbons had given up on expensive works in order to have money. It was known that Grasse was in favour of Royalist cause at the time, yet Napoleon’s sudden appearance led to submission towards the Emperor. After this display of loyalty to the Emperor, Napoleon began to march confidently to Paris as the population were in favour of his cause. There was zero opposition until they reached a battalion on the road the fifth day after landing at Cannes. The commanding officer of said battalion refused to talk to Napoleon. Hearing this, The Emperor took matters into his own hands and walked straight at the battalion with his 100 soldiers treading behind slowly, ripped open his jacket, exposed his chest to the entire battalion and shouted “Let him that has the heart kill the Emperor”. Upon seeing this, the soldiers threw down their arms, tears in their eyes, and shouted “Vive l’Empereur!”
How about another repeat to replace an illegal and unpopular government?
Dave goes on to roll out a scenario involving a reclamation of power by the rightful POTUS (Trump) which parallels Napoleon’s. It has its appeal, I guess, but is unlikely in the extreme to happen. He includes several useful suggestions for what should happen after that, all of which are good.
Honestly, though, I’m pretty much all done with Trump, and I’m by no means alone in that. He had his contribution to make; if nothing else, Trump pulled off the lid to expose what a great big box of pure, undiluted nasty the US government has become. But now—love him or hate him, for better or for worse—his time has passed. From what I’m seeing, he’s lost a significant chunk of his core support at this point—so much of it, in fact, that I have to wonder if he’d even be re-elected in an honest election today. I seriously doubt he would, frankly.
Claire, as usual, leading the way.
Hope you noticed the nice compliment she threw your way at the end there, John. Excellent taste, has our Claire. 😉
Oh, I absolutely did. I’ve always been a big fan of hers: I even stole the idea of describing my town as Modern Mayberry from her Hardyville stories.
I used to read her columns out loud to The Mrs. when I was on dial-up and The Mrs. and I were newly married.
Talk about a compliment! Again, she’s just wonderful.
“From what I’m seeing, he’s lost a significant chunk of his core support at this point—so much of it, in fact, that I have to wonder if he’d even be re-elected in an honest election today. I seriously doubt he would, frankly.”
While I rarely find myself in disagreement with you Mike, that’s nuts 🙂
Where exactly do you think the 80 million Trump voters went? Perhaps he lost support among the weak willed, the ones that think the next shiny politician will come along to do better. People have proven they are easily fooled.
But no, Trump hasn’t lost a bit of support. There is zero evidence of this.
He probably hasn’t lost a single (real) voter. (There may well be a few that weren’t real, maybe. Or maybe not. If the census-adjusted vote story was actually real, maybe he did get at least some fake votes too.)
But he’s lost a TON of support. People now realize he didn’t accomplish ANYTHING of any lasting value. And unfortunately too many probably would not expect him to do any better on a second try.
Almost everyone who voted for him before would vote for him again. But now they would vote for him as the lesser of two evils, no longer from full-throated support.
In a fair election that would probably still be enough, especially with the donktards proving to be certifiably insane. But I wouldn’t guarantee that.
What people now know is that his own Party sabotaged him.
Now we know that electing even someone like Trump wasn’t enough.
So tell me, who do you think could do better?
My answer is: no one. As Mike has noted elsewhere TINVOWOOT.
Of course there isn’t any voting that matters. There never was.
As for doing better, who cares? Maybe Desantis could do better, maybe not. Maybe Trump could do better on a second try. Maybe not.
Neither of those have anything to do with my point. People would still vote for him. Probably even enough people still would, if there was a snowball’s chance in hell of a fair vote. But there’s a difference between being willing to vote for him and wanting to vote for him. A difference between voting for him if they can vs. crawling across broken glass to vote for him even in a state like CA where he’s got no shot to win the EVs at all they’d still make sure to go vote for him.
He’s lost some of the latter in both sentences. Not all. You clearly still in group two. Probably a lot of people still are. But not as many as there were before.
“But he’s lost a TON of support.”
Opinion, unsupported by the facts. Unless you define “ton” as a few thousand out 80 million or so. But then there is the possibility that new supporters are being created as they see the chaos of the farcical replacement regime.
If Trump holds a rally, do they still show up?
Of course they do, as many and as enthusiastic as ever.
There is only one problem – That Trump is not the current president.
I think he has MORE support.
So do I. Whatever he’s lost, 10 more realize how solid he was, and how bad it can be with a phony in office.
I like D Renegade’s exuberance & initiative. And the strategy I think would work well enough. However, I don’t think it needs a Trump, or anyone else, to lead it. In fact, being leaderless would be a strength. No one to target. (And it would allow approach from multiple directions by multiple large groups simultaneously.)
All we’d need to do is pass around the idea, find some way to signal one another our agreement, & well, “go”.
Are people ready for that?
But I’d expect pretty much all the vets are right pissed about now. Maybe if they put out the call that’s all it’d take.
Sooner or later, someone, somewhere, will inevitably get tired of waiting & “go” regardless. Be a whole lot better if it were a lot of someones.
One possibility among many of course. A lot of ways to skin a cat as they say.
“All we’d need to do is pass around the idea, find some way to signal one another our agreement, & well, “go”.”
That is the very definition of what you say we don’t need, a leader.
1. One that leads or guides.
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
Seems like a pretty clear difference to me.
Try to get the 2nd without the first in any group larger than a squad. Cooperation does not preclude a leader.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide an example that has worked?
First return in the search result.
Pages & pages of information in the search results for anyone who cares to learn.
Of course, it goes against what you want to hear, so I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears.
If it doesn’t involve Trump coming to save us, it doesn’t exist.
How is that working out for us so far?
There’s lots of options. Just because you don’t want to see or consider them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Of course, we could have had a serious discussion about any number of different decentralized leadership strategies as well. But let’s be honest, you’re not interested in that or you would have approached this whole discussion differently.
So you do you man. I’m sure doing more of the same will work out different for us this time.
If your original comment was directed at mass protest, then OK, I was wrong. Yes a bunch of people might show up to a protest and do so across a large area. The french do it all the time.
“But I’d expect pretty much all the vets are right pissed about now. Maybe if they put out the call that’s all it’d take.”
That doesn’t sound like a call for protest. All those “Vets” operated under leadership, by the way. But if you want protests then fine.
In the end you’ll have a president. A leader. You can have a dope pretending to be in charge, you can have a new tryout for the job, you can have a known like Trump that did something no one has ever done before.
“Of course, it goes against what you want to hear, so I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears.
If it doesn’t involve Trump coming to save us, it doesn’t exist.”
Here’s a fact for you – many of those leaderless revolutions are 1) not leaderless and 2) not revolutions. There are organizers you don’t see, just like the antifa violence here. There are organizers under it all. If there is not a revolutionary change then no revolution occurred.
You pathetic anti-Trumpers are always the same. Anyone that see’s Trumps achievements and understands the failures were the result of non support by the republican party aligned with the entire democrat party and DC bureaucrats is automatically a Trump worshiper rather than a Trump supporter.
That’s what it’s all about, gotta have someone other than Trump.
Failure, it’s what you want.
As for your article –
“ At this very moment, protesters are out on the streets of not only Lebanon, Iraq, and Chile but also Hong Kong, Spain, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Haiti, Egypt, and Algeria. They have been out in force as well in recent months in Russia, France, Indonesia, and Thailand. In recent years, the restlessness of citizens has been channeled elsewhere into the ballot box for political populists from the United Kingdom to the United States, Brazil to the Philippines, Poland to India. And at the outset of the decade, the Arab Spring tore through 15 countries.”
1) stating they are examples of “leaderless revolutions” is bullshit. There are leaders in many of those so called revolutions.
That article is 2019, almost 2 years old. What are the results? Are the Hong Kong people free? Has Iraq changed? Haiti is now what besides an assassination. Oh, you think that assassination was leaderless?
They all seem pretty short of results.
“Trump was hated for the qualities that made him an excellent president…”
There is no replacement for Trump. He is the only one that would or ever has tried. Think really hard on why you would choose any other man for that job. I’m sure there are others, who they are is less clear, as in unknown. They do not come out of our political class very often.