Our Democratic Party folk don't much like Democracy. I recall the restructuring of "Super Delegates" ( “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” ) and the elimination of Bernie Sanders, and now Robert F Kennedy Jr. from primary ballots. Garbage people.
This explains so much of Elite Politics that just puzzled me. A highly recommended read. It explains the extreme hatred and actions against Trump, including the cheating and non investigation of it:
But it doesn't really tell you who these people are--where do they come from, what's their background, how did they get this way, what motivates the hatred and contempt and lack of empathy.
Do you suppose the reason they are not identified is the fact they have the power to ruin anyone who speaks the truth by identifying who they are and elaborating on their reasons for their extreme hatred? We know, but can’t say because they are protected by lawfare. Remember you always know who oppresses you when you know who you cannot criticize.
It identifies who they are for the culture super elite. Basically Graduates of a couple elite schools. It identifies how they think. And hints at how they exert power (networking for jobs in key industries).
The point you are making I agree the article did not cover.
My gut feel is it’s all about the college admissions process, and how only certain types get admitted. It’s an excellent screening process. And once in school they get more of how they are elites, coddled by an extreme dei / leftist faculty and administration that turns out good little ultra elites with the correct way of thinking.
And the PhD programs at these schools spreads the ideology to other schools.
But that raises the questions, is it turtles all the way down? How did the partners doing the selecting get to be that way? I've seen similar stuff, although usually in the go along to get along category. We need to know more about the "evangelizers" the "activists".
Regarding the MSNBC “racist rant” and what it portends, I have long been of the opinion that the DS end game was to create a useful “crisis” which would enable them to declare martial law. With the declaration of martial law, they would hold absolute control over every aspect of American life and society, including elections. Having achieved total control over the country nothing would stand in their way to ensure the final and complete transformation, as BHO put it, of the country and all of this could be achieved under the shibboleth of “saving democracy”.
This constant vilification of the segments of society that the statists see as the largest obstacle to their success is nothing less than an attempt to goad conservatives into some act/attitude that can justify Draconian measures. Whether it’s MAGA, pro-life groups, Christians, Christian Nationalists, Teaparty or some other threat deemed worthy of total contempt, it makes it easier to demonize large groups, e.g., January 6 defendants. So I will not be surprised by any major uptick in attacks on the conservative members of society, nor do I expect the msm to provide any objective balance to this, but they will continue to do what they do best, pedal statist propaganda and ultimately enable the destruction of the Republic.
I don't think that tactic will work. It will just activate even more resistance. Even in weak, sheepy Britain people are getting sick of this stuff. A theatre in London running a black play about slavery tried to ban white people from seeing it. The pushback has been impressive, and these maniacs are being called out for what they are: racists.
Martial law won't work, at least not in its entirety. Blue states will go along, but most Red states will oppose it. Pretty much the same as for Covid.
Martial law in the United States refers to times in United States history in which in a region, state, city, or the whole United States was placed under the control of a military body. On a national level, both the US President and the US Congress have the power, within certain constraints, to impose martial law since both can be in charge of the militia. In each state, the governor has the power to impose martial law within the borders of the state.[citation needed] In the United States, martial law has been used in a limited number of circumstances, such as New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans; after major disasters, such as the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, or during riots, such as the Omaha race riot of 1919 or the 1920 Lexington riots; local leaders declared martial law to protect themselves from mob violence, such as Nauvoo, Illinois, during the Illinois Mormon War, or Utah during the Utah War; or in response to chaos associated with protests and rioting, such as the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike, in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and during the Civil Rights Movement in response to the Cambridge riot of 1963. ...
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Two theories of martial law are reflected in decisions of the Supreme Court. The first, which stems from the Petition of Right, 1628, provides that the common law knows no such thing as martial law;1 that is to say, martial law is not established by official authority of any sort, but arises from the nature of things, being the law of paramount necessity, leaving the civil courts to be the final judges of necessity.2 By the second theory, martial law can be validly and constitutionally established by supreme political authority in wartime. In the early years of the Supreme Court, the American judiciary embraced the latter theory as it held in Luther v. Borden3 that state declarations of martial law were conclusive and therefore not subject to judicial review.4 In this case, the Court found that the Rhode Island legislature had been within its rights in resorting to the rights and usages of war in combating insurrection in that state. The decision in the Prize Cases,5 although not dealing directly with the subject of martial law, gave national scope to the same general principle in 1863. ...
This is a really interesting topic. It reminds me of the middle (feudal) ages when they used to ring the bells to alarm all of the peasants to gather within the protection of the city walls when under attack. Is our federalism perhaps a remnant of the days when neighboring Dukes could rise against each other at any time? So, is that why the Governor of Georgia could declare martial law if Florida decided to attack it or in case of an insurrection against it?
Back in those days there was always a tension between the royal (federal) authority and the local fiefdoms of the nobility. By and large as the nation states developed the nobility deferred to the Kings and supported them with their armies in international adventures but when it came to domestic concerns it was always a balance of interests - in other words, political - and alliances and rebellions were ad hoc. The Kings depended on the cities and duchies for taxes; the cities and duchies depended on the Kings for trading rights, licenses, permissions, and defense both internally and externally. Grievances might arise for any number of reasons and might be with the local Duke or with the King (see the Peasant's Revolt as an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt). So it all seemed very much dependent on the situation and on who had how much power at a given time. I suspect things have not changed much. For example, Texas could defy a Federal declaration of martial law under certain circumstances if it had the political backing of the majority of the nation. Civil War? Not out of the question.
Given the disregard that Congress and the Courts have for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, let alone the rule of law, I didn’t see anything to dissuade me from my contention that a declaration of Martial Law is their end game. “We must do it in order to save democracy and the country”.
People voting is a threat to voting?
You’ve got to hand it to the socialists, they certainly know how to play with words.
Our Democratic Party folk don't much like Democracy. I recall the restructuring of "Super Delegates" ( “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” ) and the elimination of Bernie Sanders, and now Robert F Kennedy Jr. from primary ballots. Garbage people.
This explains so much of Elite Politics that just puzzled me. A highly recommended read. It explains the extreme hatred and actions against Trump, including the cheating and non investigation of it:
I’ll need to read the source Rasmussen PDF.
America's Super-Elite Disconnect
https://darkfutura.substack.com/p/americas-super-elite-disconnect
But it doesn't really tell you who these people are--where do they come from, what's their background, how did they get this way, what motivates the hatred and contempt and lack of empathy.
Do you suppose the reason they are not identified is the fact they have the power to ruin anyone who speaks the truth by identifying who they are and elaborating on their reasons for their extreme hatred? We know, but can’t say because they are protected by lawfare. Remember you always know who oppresses you when you know who you cannot criticize.
It identifies who they are for the culture super elite. Basically Graduates of a couple elite schools. It identifies how they think. And hints at how they exert power (networking for jobs in key industries).
The point you are making I agree the article did not cover.
My gut feel is it’s all about the college admissions process, and how only certain types get admitted. It’s an excellent screening process. And once in school they get more of how they are elites, coddled by an extreme dei / leftist faculty and administration that turns out good little ultra elites with the correct way of thinking.
And the PhD programs at these schools spreads the ideology to other schools.
But that raises the questions, is it turtles all the way down? How did the partners doing the selecting get to be that way? I've seen similar stuff, although usually in the go along to get along category. We need to know more about the "evangelizers" the "activists".
Regarding the MSNBC “racist rant” and what it portends, I have long been of the opinion that the DS end game was to create a useful “crisis” which would enable them to declare martial law. With the declaration of martial law, they would hold absolute control over every aspect of American life and society, including elections. Having achieved total control over the country nothing would stand in their way to ensure the final and complete transformation, as BHO put it, of the country and all of this could be achieved under the shibboleth of “saving democracy”.
This constant vilification of the segments of society that the statists see as the largest obstacle to their success is nothing less than an attempt to goad conservatives into some act/attitude that can justify Draconian measures. Whether it’s MAGA, pro-life groups, Christians, Christian Nationalists, Teaparty or some other threat deemed worthy of total contempt, it makes it easier to demonize large groups, e.g., January 6 defendants. So I will not be surprised by any major uptick in attacks on the conservative members of society, nor do I expect the msm to provide any objective balance to this, but they will continue to do what they do best, pedal statist propaganda and ultimately enable the destruction of the Republic.
I don't think that tactic will work. It will just activate even more resistance. Even in weak, sheepy Britain people are getting sick of this stuff. A theatre in London running a black play about slavery tried to ban white people from seeing it. The pushback has been impressive, and these maniacs are being called out for what they are: racists.
Martial law won't work, at least not in its entirety. Blue states will go along, but most Red states will oppose it. Pretty much the same as for Covid.
Serious question, serious answer ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_States
Martial law in the United States refers to times in United States history in which in a region, state, city, or the whole United States was placed under the control of a military body. On a national level, both the US President and the US Congress have the power, within certain constraints, to impose martial law since both can be in charge of the militia. In each state, the governor has the power to impose martial law within the borders of the state.[citation needed] In the United States, martial law has been used in a limited number of circumstances, such as New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans; after major disasters, such as the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, or during riots, such as the Omaha race riot of 1919 or the 1920 Lexington riots; local leaders declared martial law to protect themselves from mob violence, such as Nauvoo, Illinois, during the Illinois Mormon War, or Utah during the Utah War; or in response to chaos associated with protests and rioting, such as the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike, in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and during the Civil Rights Movement in response to the Cambridge riot of 1963. ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/imposing-martial-law
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Two theories of martial law are reflected in decisions of the Supreme Court. The first, which stems from the Petition of Right, 1628, provides that the common law knows no such thing as martial law;1 that is to say, martial law is not established by official authority of any sort, but arises from the nature of things, being the law of paramount necessity, leaving the civil courts to be the final judges of necessity.2 By the second theory, martial law can be validly and constitutionally established by supreme political authority in wartime. In the early years of the Supreme Court, the American judiciary embraced the latter theory as it held in Luther v. Borden3 that state declarations of martial law were conclusive and therefore not subject to judicial review.4 In this case, the Court found that the Rhode Island legislature had been within its rights in resorting to the rights and usages of war in combating insurrection in that state. The decision in the Prize Cases,5 although not dealing directly with the subject of martial law, gave national scope to the same general principle in 1863. ...
This is a really interesting topic. It reminds me of the middle (feudal) ages when they used to ring the bells to alarm all of the peasants to gather within the protection of the city walls when under attack. Is our federalism perhaps a remnant of the days when neighboring Dukes could rise against each other at any time? So, is that why the Governor of Georgia could declare martial law if Florida decided to attack it or in case of an insurrection against it?
Back in those days there was always a tension between the royal (federal) authority and the local fiefdoms of the nobility. By and large as the nation states developed the nobility deferred to the Kings and supported them with their armies in international adventures but when it came to domestic concerns it was always a balance of interests - in other words, political - and alliances and rebellions were ad hoc. The Kings depended on the cities and duchies for taxes; the cities and duchies depended on the Kings for trading rights, licenses, permissions, and defense both internally and externally. Grievances might arise for any number of reasons and might be with the local Duke or with the King (see the Peasant's Revolt as an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt). So it all seemed very much dependent on the situation and on who had how much power at a given time. I suspect things have not changed much. For example, Texas could defy a Federal declaration of martial law under certain circumstances if it had the political backing of the majority of the nation. Civil War? Not out of the question.
Thanks for the explanation Mark.
Given the disregard that Congress and the Courts have for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, let alone the rule of law, I didn’t see anything to dissuade me from my contention that a declaration of Martial Law is their end game. “We must do it in order to save democracy and the country”.