[James Malloch]

Twitter account that copies and reposts donald trumps posts is suspended after 3 days for glorifying violence...

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/trump-twitter-account-copy-tweets-glorifying-violence-suspended-a9545831.html

[SA Chris]

Saw that, interesting

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

I guess you'd say well yes he would, but interesting reading.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think the tone of Military reporting is significant. “The Army Times” is hardly a “Liberal” publication. That the writer of this article, is a former enlisted Airman and Spec Ops, is possibly telling, too.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/05/dc-mayor-asks-trump-to-withdraw-troops-and-federal-police/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow+MIL&utm_source=facebook.com

I’m seeing a lot of this from a former US Army Colonel and her Partner (a former US Navy CDR and now CEO of “Dark Sky Mitigation” security advisers to the Saudi RF).
I don’t know Bruce so well, only through Erika (the Colonel), but she’s no shrinking violet. She lectures at a Catholic Uni in Vermont, now she’s retired, quite conservative (small c). It’s obvious though, from FB comments, that their Peer group are very, very anti military involvement, really quite pro the protests and utterly anti Trump.

Also, this is grade A+ trolling of Trump:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/05/us/black-lives-matter-dc-street-white-house-trnd/index.html

[mrjonathanr]

Looking at the increasing militarisation of US police (>$7bn ex military kit since 97), the aggressive comments toward protesters from Trump, his antagonisms towards journalists which is mirrored by police aggression, it’s hard not to see fascism as having already arrived in the US. It does not need to have taken full control to be there. I can’t view Trump in a more benign light I am afraid.

Twitter footage of police attacking journalists:
https://twitter.com/edouphoto/status/1267958349477249024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1267958349477249024&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2020%2Fjun%2F06%2Fgeorge-floyd-protests-reporters-press-teargas-arrested

[tomtom]

A few years back I remember reading about the police militarisation and it was partly due to govt money giving even small police departments a large budget for quasi military spec hardware. So you had small PD’s in a rural town owning an armoured hummer for example.

[mrjonathanr]

A few years back I remember reading about the police militarisation and it was partly due to govt money giving even small police departments a large budget for quasi military spec hardware. So you had small PD’s in a rural town owning an armoured hummer for example.

Breakdown of spending programme since 97 in guardian article here

[Oldmanmatt]

So I mentioned a couple of retired American friends in a post above, because the nature of their ire struck me as, well, unexpected.

I mean, Erika seems to post mainly about organising baking sessions for the Vermont Round Table (or similar).

Then, on my feed today, this pops up from her partner Bruce:



This is not normal. This is not “just another storm in a teacup” to be forgotten next week. This seems to be penetrating into areas I wouldn’t have expected.

[petejh]

Looking at the increasing militarisation of US police (>$7bn ex military kit since 97), the aggressive comments toward protesters from Trump, his antagonisms towards journalists which is mirrored by police aggression, it’s hard not to see fascism as having already arrived in the US. It does not need to have taken full control to be there. I can’t view Trump in a more benign light I am afraid.

Twitter footage of police attacking journalists:
https://twitter.com/edouphoto/status/1267958349477249024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1267958349477249024&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2020%2Fjun%2F06%2Fgeorge-floyd-protests-reporters-press-teargas-arrested

I agree that Trump and sections of US law enforcement bring fascist demeanour and beliefs into the mainstream.
But the US must be one of the hardest countries in the world for a fascist government to succeed at suppressing a population. It's one of very few countries remaining whose citizens haven't had their right to bear arms removed. People may despair at US gun laws and the number of deaths by shooting. But those constitutional laws were written to give citizens autonomy and prevent tyranny by a federal government. Any attempt by a federal government to impose itself through violence against the population would, if taken far enough, ultimately result in the population shooting back - not a good result in any way but it keeps fascist power in check. 

Suppression through financial pressure, sure..

[Offwidth]

Unless of course most of the homeowners with guns support any (unlikely) attempt at right wing popularist takeover. I think what Matt said is more relevant ... the the armed forces are the best protection from Trump thinking about doing something really stupid, like refusing to stand down if he loses the election. Well before we get to that stage GOP would be against him... a coup is just not good for business.

[andy popp]

He lost yesterday, utterly. He lost all authority and any possible claim to the moral high ground, if he had any. He and his proxies promised to dominate the "battlespace" with the most vicious dogs and most ominous weapons. But when, after days of police violence and these darks threats, it became obvious that the protests would be larger than ever on Saturday, all the machismo melted into nothing. Mayor Bowser, who commands DC's own police force, had already made it clear she would not be doing his dirty work and I suspect that behind the scenes the military and other federal agencies had made it clear that nor would they. The moral argument was lost and we all saw exactly how joyously and peacefully dominated the streets of DC, Philadelphia, and other cities yesterday. Meanwhile, he sits surrounded by two miles of fencing retweeting himself. In the meantime, the police have spent the last two weeks making the protesters' point for them, time and time again. Change has already begun in some jurisdictions, though how deep and lasting it will prove only time. How this will shape the election is anyone's guess at this stage.

[Oldmanmatt]

Unless of course most of the homeowners with guns support any (unlikely) attempt at right wing popularist takeover. I think what Matt said is more relevant ... the the armed forces are the best protection from Trump thinking about doing something really stupid, like refusing to stand down if he loses the election. Well before we get to that stage GOP would be against him... a coup is just not good for business.

Actually, Pete is probably correct.

The impression that gun ownership, distrust of the government and a dedication to the ideal of “freedom”, are the preserve of the right wing, in the US, is wrong.

I would posit, in an all out civil conflict, the “Liberal” faction would outnumber and overwhelm the currently vocal knob heads.

Trump lost the popular vote, his base are a shrinking demographic. That’s probably why they’re so loud.

I read a commentary by an American Liberal writer (can’t remember who, now, but one paragraph stuck). It read something like this:

“If you despair for the American dream, ask yourself this:
How many people do you know think a Gay couple should be denied a wedding cake, let alone be stoned to death?
How many, that think Black people are inferior?
How many think all Mexicans are “rapists and murderers”?
How many actually think “White people are endangered”?

Not many, is it? Maybe one or two in your social group? At work?
Out of how many people you know?
Only people you already know are weird.
Don’t despair.”

[Oldmanmatt]

Five minutes well spent:

https://time.com/5846970/kansas-protests-photographs/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=lightbox_&linkId=90253354

[andy popp]

There are left wing gun groups and militia, but it's much more prevalent on the right, and they overwhelmingly support Trump. That said, I think the whole "2nd amendment is a defence against fascism" argument is just a bit silly. Should it chose to, the US military could clearly crush any popular revolt with ease. The real defence is the robustness of American institutions. I think the military have shown this week they're not willing to be used for political ends. There's a lot of speculation about what would happen if Trump loses and then refuses to leave office, but I don't think he would have military support (I trust the cops far less). I do think they will do everything to steal the election but they will do it by voter suppression in advance, not by trying to stage some kind of coup after the event.

[teestub]

That said, I think the whole "2nd amendment is a defence against fascism" argument is just a bit silly. Should it chose to, the US military could clearly crush any popular revolt with ease.

⬆️ This. No matter how ‘well regulated’ these militia may be they have a distinct lack of armour and air support. In the hypothetical situation where you get a tyrant in charge with the full support of the forces, you can just imagine them bombing anyone well dug in in the back country!

[Oldmanmatt]

That said, I think the whole "2nd amendment is a defence against fascism" argument is just a bit silly. Should it chose to, the US military could clearly crush any popular revolt with ease.

⬆️ This. No matter how ‘well regulated’ these militia may be they have a distinct lack of armour and air support. In the hypothetical situation where you get a tyrant in charge with the full support of the forces, you can just imagine them bombing anyone well dug in in the back country!

Hmmmmm...
.
.
.
.
Afghanistan.
.
Um...
.
.
Vietnam.
.
.
Uh, any country that any nation has tried to suppress through superior fire power, let alone one where there are complicated, personal and familial relationships between opposing combatants.

Civil war in the US, would be highly unlikely to give either side total control of the existing military. That would likely fracture and you’d see units acting in opposition to each other. There’s substantial differences and rivalries between, for instance, East and West coast based troops, airmen and fleets. I would look to the events of the last little fracas of fraternal fucking up in that nation for clues about the likely shape of that scenario.

I’m always amused when people imagine the military to be composed of mindless drones, who blindly follow orders and have no personal integrity, moral compass or loyalty to a larger ideal, external to their military role.

Even in the face of contrary evidence.

Directing them to turn their weapons on their own people, would be a tough sell. It is not the same as sending them against a foreign foe.

For sure, some would go happily. I suspect, not enough to achieve what you envision.

[teestub]

I agree entirely, that’s why I wrote ‘hypothetical situation’. It’s hard to come up with a scenario in the states where you have the military and intelligence etc on one side and the militia on the other side, but it’s fascinating to think about. I don’t think looking at historical foreign interventions by the US give a particularly good reference point either really.

Back more into Pete’s point I don’t really see a mechanism whereby these 2A people running around with  guns has any impact on the fascistic or otherwise leanings if the government. I can only remember one incident recently where a load of them got into a stand off at a nature reserve or something, but I can’t even remember what that was about. Not sure the displays at the various city halls of far people in too small vests with semi automatics changed anyone’s mind about anything!

[andy popp]

First of all, I think the possibility of an American civil war is diminishingly small. But the only even vaguely plausible scenario in which it might happen is a right wing/militia insurgency in support of a defeated Trump (and make no mistake, they would see themselves as defending America from liberal fascism) and for all their posturing I think they would be soon exposed as utterly insignificant. A comparison to either Vietnam or Afghanistan, both of which I thought about, seem completely misplaced, to me.

Far from thinking that the military are mindless drones (my father, my godfather, and both my grandfathers served in the British army) I actually have quite a bit of trust in their professionalism and judgement.

Edit: why I said "should it chose to."

[andy popp]

Speaking of the military, Colin Powell just endorsed Joe Biden.

[Oldmanmatt]

First of all, I think the possibility of an American civil war is diminishingly small. But the only even vaguely plausible scenario in which it might happen is a right wing/militia insurgency in support of a defeated Trump (and make no mistake, they would see themselves as defending America from liberal fascism) and for all their posturing I think they would be soon exposed as utterly insignificant. A comparison to either Vietnam or Afghanistan, both of which I thought about, seem completely misplaced, to me.

Far from thinking that the military are mindless drones (my father, my godfather, and both my grandfathers served in the British army) I actually have quite a bit of trust in their professionalism.

Edit: why I said "should it chose to."

No no no.

I’m talking about the idea that asymmetrical conflicts are easily prosecuted and therefore cited two recent highly asymmetric conflicts, where the “superior” force most certainly did not achieve total domination. Then went on to point out that it has rarely been achieved in any theatre or era. I could have cited any conflict or occupation from the Roman era to date. British action in Burma (as it was then) being the notable exception and even that short lived.
The original point (not mine) was that should the (hypothetical) US facist government carry the entire military, the “resistance” would be swept aside in a hail of precision guided munitions.
Whereas the reality would be a broadly majority supported resistance, embedded in a sympathetic population and a fractured “military”, if (if) said government enjoyed sufficient support to embark on such a route (highly unlikely).

I also agree that the existing “Militias” are both delusional and unlikely to be as effective as a spun sugar urinal in a rugby team locker room.

Edited because it sounded combative, when it was meant to be jovial (? Playfully sparring? I dunno, you get what I’m aiming at I hope).

[andy popp]

I think we're just unintentionally talking passed each other Matt - even talking about completely opposite scenarios. I think the only even vaguely plausible scenario is a militia attempt to keep a defeated Trump in power. But even this is just la la fantasy land.

The point about asymmetric conflicts is demonstrably true but it's just never going to happen in the US as it is today.

Meanwhile, all the stuff about defending themselves against tyrannical governments remains silly little macho posturing.

[Oldmanmatt]

Meanwhile, all the stuff about defending themselves against tyrannical governments remains silly little macho posturing.

Yes.

Hardly Sophie Scholl are they.

Amongst the (essentially) cosplay brigades of waddling machismo, beer gut and bingo-wing swinging there are a few serious contenders.
Unfortunately.

[andy popp]

Hardly Sophie Scholl are they.

Exactly. And really the only point I was trying to make. I should have kept it simple.

[andy popp]

Fuck off Toby.

[Ged]

That sounds fairly dismissive of the fact that a higher proportion of the violent crimes are committed by black people.  But surely that is kind of the whole point?  You can't just say "it's fine that loads of black people are victims of police violence because black people get themselves into those kinds of situations".  Surely there is a desperate need to address the reasons WHY black people are more likely to end up in those situations (poverty, job opportunities, social mobility).  Yes, there's going to be the minority of cops who are inherently racist, but the whole idea of this being systemic is much deeper than cops pulling triggers/kneeling on necks.

As an example of why black people are more likely to perhaps end up in those situations, an interesting point was made on the radio the other day.  White working class boys are more likely to come out with poor qualifications than black working class boys, but the white boys will STILL end up being more likely to get a job.  How messed up is that?

[tomtom]

The c. ten percent difference actually means there’s nearly twice as many (proportionate to population)...

That’s significant I’d say.