Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

The rioters were trying to prevent the certification of the election.

Well, according to the “Eastman memo”, to the extent anyone takes it seriously, the “coup plan” was actually dependent on the certification process moving forward, at which time the scheme to swap out electors from various states would be enacted.

Pence received exactly the same heavy security as Pelosi, to which she said she never felt in danger. Whether the Secret Service wanted to move him to Andrews or not, the eventual certification of the election was never endangered either. The MSM accounts are filled with emotive adverbs and phrases such as “harrowing” or “terror at the Capital” which - as field tested at Fox News - trigger response at a level below rational dispassionate discourse.

Certainly Trump is a malignant narcissist, and his continuing promotion of an alleged “stolen election” is astonishingly irresponsible. Beyond that, a cynical observer might say this boils down to a dispute between rival factions of millionaires over who gets to craft the next round of tax cuts for their friends and “donors”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

     Once you've dug yourself into a deep hole, stop digging.

     It's obvious that you haven't really studied the film or witness testimony about January 6th, including the harrowing experiences of members of Congress, many of whom had to barricade themselves in their offices and/or hide under desks.  (Either that or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.)

    And your weekend timing in claiming that there was no coup plot was particularly absurd given the new reports about Mark Meadows and the Ellis Memo.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this Thread might be appropriate for this:

1) Integralism

There was a throwaway line in something Jean-Claude Perez told Fensterwald in 1982. He said that,

post 1962, Souetre was part of an ultra-right, ultra-Catholic splinter group which included four men named Pichon, Lefevre, Bourget, and Grossouvre. Group called Integraliste
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Souetre%20Jean%20with%20aka%27s/Item%2011.pdf

p. 4.

(Albert Lefevre, by the way, was the one man I could find that both stood trial with Souetre in December, 1961 and who escaped with him from the Camp at St. Maurice L'Ardoise in February, 1962.)

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integralism

Integralism is an ideology according to which a nation is an organic unity. Integralism defends social differentiation and hierarchy with co-operation between social classes, transcending conflict between social and economic groups. It advocates trade unionism (or a guild system), corporatism, and organic political representation instead of ideological forms of representation. Integralism claims that the best political institutions for given nations will differ depending on the history, culture and climate of the nation's habitat. Often associated with blood and soil conservatism, it posits the nation or the state or the nation state as an end and a moral good, rather than a means.[1]

The term integralism was coined by the French journalist Charles Maurras, whose conception of nationalism was illiberal and anti-internationalist, elevating the interest of the state above that of the individual and above humanity in general.[1]

Although it is marked by its being exclusionary and particularistic, and there has been consideration of its historic role as a sort of proto-fascism (in a European context)[1] or para-fascism (in a South American context),[2] this link remains controversial, with some social scientists positing that it combines elements of both the political left and right.[3]


Catholic Integralism does not support the creation of an autonomous "Catholic" state church, or Erastianism (Gallicanism in French context). Rather it supports subordinating the state to the worldwide Catholicism under the leadership of the Pope. Thus it rejects separation of the Catholic Church from the state and favours Catholicism as the proclaimed religion of the state.[5]

Catholic Integralism appeals to the teaching on the subordination of temporal to spiritual power of medieval popes such as Pope Gregory VII and Pope Boniface VIII. But Catholic Integralism in the strict sense came about as a reaction against the political and cultural changes which followed the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.[6

(Where have we heard “Blood and Soil” recently?)

Steve Bannon's criminal indictment is the best thing that's ever happened to him

by Heather Digby Parton, Salon https://www.rawstory.com/u/heather_digby_parton_salon

November 15, 2021

https://www.rawstory.com/steve-bannon-s-criminal-indictment-is-the-best-thing-that-s-ever-happened-to-him/

 

Bannon tried to make himself into a kingmaker during the 2018 primaries but saw dismal results so he spent the next couple of years wandering around the world, connecting up with leaders of other authoritarian regimes, acting as something of an alt-right entrepreneur. Nothing much came of it, at least institutionally. Bannon's ballyhooed global far-right movement he branded with an exceptionally catchy name, "The Movement," failed to ever get off the ground. Likewise, his hopes to start a far-right Catholic political academy in an 800-year-old monastery in Italy were thwarted last March when The Council of State ruled against it after years of court battles. Bannon was designing the curriculum for the Academy for the Judeo-Christian West for Catholic activists in which, as The New Yorker's Ben Munster put it, "a new class of right-wing 'culture warriors' would be trained."”

 

Bannon's philosophy has been written about quite a bit, including by yours truly, because it is extremely radical and very, very weird. It's all wacky mysticism mixed with antediluvian, pre-enlightenment, authoritarianism posing as nationalism based upon the writings of an obscure French writer named René Guénon from the early 20th century and the teachings of one of his followers (and Mussolini adviser) Julius Evola. (If you're interested in going deep, these articles will fill you in.) The school of thought is called "Traditionalism" and it is like no tradition you've ever heard of. But Bannon is not alone with this philosophy. It's held by members of far-right leaders' inner circles throughout Europe and in places like Brazil and Russia. If there is an intellectual rationale for Trumpism beyond the Dear Leader cult of personality, this "traditionalism" is it.”

Inside the Secret, Strange Origins of Steve Bannon’s Nationalist Fantasia

“The chief strategist of Trump’s triumph reveals his strange brew of intellectual influences, including a French-Egyptian Muslim occultist guru, and his apocalyptic view of history.”

By Joshua Green Vanity Fair July 17, 2017

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/the-strange-origins-of-steve-bannons-nationalist-fantasia

 

Steve Thomas
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jeff,

     It's obvious that you haven't really studied the film or witness testimony about January 6th, including the harrowing experiences of members of Congress, many of whom had to barricade themselves in their offices and/or hide under desks.  (Either that or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.)

    And your weekend timing in claiming that there was no coup plot was particularly absurd given the new reports about Mark Meadows and the Ellis Memo.

You are misrepresenting my position. I fully agree the events of 1/6 constituted a major and serious breach of security, but it was not a fundamental “attack on democracy”. This framing has been largely manufactured by the corporate media to increase partisan division and rancour, very successfully if one consults the past few months on this thread.

By definition, dodgy legal advice does not amount to a “coup” attempt. A coup is an “unlawful” (or “unconstitutional”) seizure of power. Using legal gambits based on interpretations of legal statutes is technically best described these days as “lawfare”. The election in 2000 was a result of lawfare supported by the Supreme Court, and was entirely legal. Trump’s lawyers were trying to find legal avenues to reversing electoral results, but their schemes were obviously hare-brained and were never acted upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

You are misrepresenting my position. I fully agree the events of 1/6 constituted a major and serious breach of security, but it was not a fundamental “attack on democracy”. This framing has been largely manufactured by the corporate media to increase partisan division and rancour, very successfully if one consults the past few months on this thread.

By definition, dodgy legal advice does not amount to a “coup” attempt. A coup is an “unlawful” (or “unconstitutional”) seizure of power. Using legal gambits based on interpretations of legal statutes is technically best described these days as “lawfare”. The election in 2000 was a result of lawfare supported by the Supreme Court, and was entirely legal. Trump’s lawyers were trying to find legal avenues to reversing electoral results, but their schemes were obviously hare-brained and were never acted upon.

The Eastman and Ellis Memos establish that Trump was conspiring to sabotage the certification of Biden's election on January 6th.

Secondly, although Trump is desperately fighting to stonewall the investigation, there is ample evidence that Trump and his inner circle actively incited the violent attack on Congress during the certification proceedings.

You have dodged the facts that I posted for you over the weekend, including the fact that Congressman Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) wore body armor on January 6th, while urging the Trump mob to, "March down to the Capitol and kick some ass!"  Trump, Giuliani, and others also actively incited the attack on the Capitol on January 6th.

And Trump watched the attack on television for three hours, repeatedly ignoring requests for intervention.

His interim SecDef, Chris Miller, refused for three hours to send the National Guard to the Capitol.

And the Secret Service, apparently, attempted to remove Pence to Andrews AFB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Very much looking forward to him being charged with seditious conspiracy along with the others.

From your lips to GOD's ears.  I am wondering if anyone in our justice system is going to ever get up the nerve and necessary documentation to defend their/our democracy.  If our founders had the timidity of our current political leaders, we would still be flying the Union Jack.  When do our leaders come to understand the dire consequences of what happened on January 6 and continues unabated even now.  If there is no punishment for the crimes committed, we are not surviving as a republic.  While there is much to be appreciated about moderation and "coming together" as a nation, failure to punish those who directly and unabashedly attacked the very foundations of our nation as a republic will yield the same fruits as those that fueled the rise of נאצי Germany over the Weimar Republic.

Sneaked that one in instead of poopoo maybe.  It's Hebrew text for the "N" word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

So ironic that Trump and Robert Mercer's notorious grifter, Steve Bannon, would be blathering now about "signal-to-noise" ratios.  Not surprisingly, Bannon is suggesting the diametric opposite of the truth.

The actual "signal" here is that Trump, Bannon, et.al., conspired to overturn the election-- even inciting a violent attack on the U.S. Congress.

The "noise" is the Fox/GOP propaganda denying and downplaying what really happened on January 6th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Query:

Whatever the "truth" on 1/6, will it turn out to be a 9/11?

Another platform-excuse to increase the police and surveillance state? 

That is what many readers here seem to be missing. 

Whatever happened on 1/6, it "becomes a crisis, and never let a crisis go to waste." 

It is in the interests of the national security state and allied media to define 1/6 with as much hyperbole as possible. And whatever Liz Cheney says is a narrative, not journalism.  

Keep your thinking caps on, drink the kool-aid not. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

As can be seen by referring to actual statute rather than being triggered by MSM hyperbole, a concept of a “coup attempt” based on preventing Pence from certifying the election seems equally dodgy, despite five months of breathless speculation on this and another similar thread, twitter, etc: 

1) the fixed date for the certification process can be changed

2) once the process has begun, there is no fixed time by which it must conclude

3) should the vice-president be somehow incapacitated, then the certification is to be led by the next person in the line of succession aka the Speaker of the House who is Nancy Pelosi.

So, is this right?: the plan was to use unruly mob to attack the Congress, force Pence to postpone the certification, have the Secret Service remove him to Andrews airfield and then on to Alaska, so that Nancy Pelosi could then declare Trump the president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

As can be seen by referring to actual statute rather than being triggered by MSM hyperbole, a concept of a “coup attempt” based on preventing Pence from certifying the election seems equally dodgy, despite five months of breathless speculation on this and another similar thread, twitter, etc: 

1) the fixed date for the certification process can be changed

2) once the process has begun, there is no fixed time by which it must conclude

3) should the vice-president be somehow incapacitated, then the certification is to be led by the next person in the line of succession aka the Speaker of the House who is Nancy Pelosi.

So, is this right?: the plan was to use unruly mob to attack the Congress, force Pence to postpone the certification, have the Secret Service remove him to Andrews airfield and then on to Alaska, so that Nancy Pelosi could then declare Trump the president?

Nice try, but no cigar, Jeff.

Removing Pence to Andrews AFB on January 6th would not have constituted incapacitation.  At most, it would have delayed Pence's certification of Biden's election-- probably to buy Trump and his Bannon/Eastman goon squad more time to work on Pence to implement their Eastman coup plan.

The Trump coup plan outlined in the Eastman and Ellis Memos, (only recently made public-- contrary to your "five months of breathless speculation" meme above) was to have Pence object to the Electoral College vote tallies for several states which had been targeted by Trump's "Stop the Steal" propaganda campaign prior to January 6th.

The concept was to have the election outcome determined by a House vote, with one vote per state.

You also seem to be unaware that Trump and Eastman tried to directly leverage the threats to Pence and Congress during the attack to alter the certification of the election.  For example, Eastman called or texted Pence's aid during the attack to advise Pence that he was in danger because he refused to cooperate with the (Eastman) coup plan!

Similarly, in a phone call with Kevin McCarthy during the riot, Trump told McCarthy that the mob cared more about the election outcome than McCarthy did...  Hint, hint...

Time for you to go back to the drawing board to concoct another inane theory about what happened on January 6th. 🤥

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...