Trump has committed the same crimes against us as King George III was accused of committing against the colonists when the Founding Fathers proclaimed our Declaration of Independence. As long as our nation lives, this Declaration lives. It’s our responsibility to defend the beliefs stated in our Declaration and Constitution.
I’ve inquired into what the line is when arms must be taken up. The loss of free and fair elections seems a bright line. Elections are the method for people to proclaim their reading of the compass. Elections are the main windows of our American liberal cathedral.
I am no Constitutional scholar, but it seems beyond obvious that this administration, the Republican Congress, plus some in the Federal Judiciary, have already subverted the Constitution and continue to do so daily.
A sane response to me would be to use only as much force as needed to get the job done to remedy the situation. I also feel Democrats in general have dropped the ball of responsibility to put an end to this. It should have been done during the lawless first term. There is obviously much more that could be done.
Fascism itself is unconstitutional because it takes away individual constitutional rights. This includes the very delusional Christian Nationalism they are trying to force on the nation.
Thank-you, this is a great piece, and many Americans need to be reminded that our democratic republic was forged, and preserved, with the blood and sacrifice of armed citizens.
The Trump regime has already embarked on a project to overthrow the Second Amendment by instructing banks to disallow purchase of firearms with their accounts (case in point: Bank OZK) and Noem has issued a statement that DHS is drafting a plan to register firearms, to which Gun Owners of America has taken extreme exception. In response to sharing this information, people have replied that the Second Amendment is pointless in modern times because armed citizens would not be able to prevail against the entire US military, with their superior equipment and armaments. Many people apparently believe that the US military is in Trump's thrall, and would be deployed in all its awesome power against American citizens.
There are good reasons to believe that is not the case. First, even in the Third Reich, Hitler was not able to rely on the Wermacht to attack German citizens, and was obliged to establish the SS to imprison, torture and murder Germans. The US Military has even less reason to obey illegal orders from the Trump regime. From their oaths to the Constitution, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to the fact that Congress controls DoD's budget, there are layers of rules that prevent the US Military from being under the control of a rogue President. Second, even if the US military did deploy against American citizens, the examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Vichy France, and multiple Central American countries, not to mention the American Revolution, should demonstrate that even a smaller, less well-armed guerilla insurgency can prevail against a larger traditional military force.
The Trump regime and their traitorous minions in Congress have turned ICE into the analog of the SS, but the US isn't Germany. The population is not disarmed, and in Texas, the Southern Plains, and many parts of the West, it would be very difficult indeed to match the citizenry in firearms expertise and knowledge of the local terrain. It is highly unlikely that 50k ICE officers would be able to control 285m heavily armed Americans adults, who, on average, own three firearms each. To make matters worse for ICE, 16m of those adults are US military veterans. The Trump regime is striving to impose their will on the American people, through violence and intimidation, or by derailing elections, but the truth is that they have overestimated the power and authority within their reach.
Mike -- your way over your skies on this - showing yourself either too blind to see - or too dumb to comprehend.
This Country was set up to be Republic / with a Constitution / and with it's Military under civilian control.
But There is a caveat to that - and it is this.
The US Military Officer' Oath of Allegiance -- is to fight all enemies foreign and domestic, i.e., to protect the US Constitution and the peoples living under it's protection that don't cause damage / harm to the Constitution:
That enemy can be any President, any Politician, or any US citizen - that votes to damage / bring harm to the Constitution - full stop.
Check your facts first - it will keep you from making an uninformed fool out of yourself.
I must admit that I do not understand even the nature of your disagreement with me here. I contest this notion that I do not understand the constitutional framework of the United States of America. I consider myself somewhat of an independent scholar of the bloody thing. And upon reading your intervention, I must say that I do not understand how it is responsive to anything I said.
You can contest all you want -- but if you knew the Constitution as you state - then you would know that your position is incorrect; and this is the end of this conversation on this matter.
Well, you commit the intellectual sin of tautology here. A fair intervention would demonstrate through coherent argument, where it is exactly, that I err.
Hi Mike, another inspiring article that moves me because it resonates with me. I'm Catalan, from Barcelona, what can I tell you...
But I think you have a blind spot. Let me try to explain.
1. The underlying hypothesis
Could it be that the evolutionary success of sapiens sapiens is explained, in part, by a specific cognitive blindness: the inclination to annihilate the brother. This genetic flaw — that makes us potential killers — proved useful in competition for resources. We survived because we were very efficient at eliminating the other.
There's an image that helps me think about it: a monkey arrives at the riverbank where another is sitting. They don't know each other. With his gaze and gestures, the seated one conveys acceptance of the facts: there's no water, brother, stay by my side if you want and let the night fall. The other picks up a stone, smashes his head, and sees his blood. He survives.
This heritage is still inside us.
2. The political consequence
If we accept this premise, fascism is not a historical anomaly. It's not an interruption of the normal course of civilization. It's this genetic heritage shaped into political doctrine: the politics of eliminating the other, organized and legitimized.
The problem, then, is that the "enemy" doesn't come from outside. It comes from within. And when we prepare to fight it with the same tools, maybe we're just digging the hole deeper.
3. The pacifist's dilemma
This opens the question of the pacifist. You, following Orwell, present him as a freeloader: someone who benefits from the violence of others while refusing to participate.
But there's another reading possible. The pacifist is not the one sleeping soundly while the guardians keep watch. He's the one trying to break the circle. And breaking it can mean, at the limit, not defending oneself. Accepting annihilation without offering resistance.
"To be annihilated by the violent without offering resistance is also the pacifist's act of rigor." This sentence contains a question: if what we want is a just society, at some point we'll have to set down the sword. When is that moment?
4. Other paths
But between the sword and annihilation there's an intermediate territory. The general strike, for example. Shutting down the country. Not with weapons, but with the collective decision not to participate. Civil resistance, disobedience, peaceful blockade.
These paths exist. They're slow, costly, require much more organization than wielding a weapon. But they don't feed the circle. They deactivate it.
5. What remains open
The fundamental question is not whether we're willing to defend the republic with the sword. The question is whether we'll be capable, someday, of setting it down. And whether in the meantime there are paths that aren't the same old ones.
The general strike is one. There are others. Worth exploring them before rushing to wield the sword.
Thank you for writing. I read what you said. I must say that we are approaching this territory from completely different vantages. We do not look at the cosmos in the same way at all.
The way you have framed this is to think of human nature as a problem to be solved. To build political ideologies and institutions around human nature in a sense that we should normatively conserve the "center". It is the utilitarian intution to political theory. I'm not saying you're a utilitarian—and I would be less than surprised if you are—but I simply don't view the role of institutions and the legitimization of power through the same lens you do. So I think we're quite far apart here, in terms of the language and maps we use to talk about our exploration of the world.
In my recent writing, I have been talking about my split from what I've come to call the "Cartesian rationalist" worldview. And it seems abstract and perhaps subtle to push on this metaphysical argument. But I must also say that if you do not understand that I write from outside this intellectual posture, you might not fully understand what I'm saying. I suggest reading this for more on what I mean by this: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-cathedral-and-the-compass
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It has prompted me to revisit and refine an idea I now recognize I initially expressed rather imprecisely. The ideal of a community of awakened individuals striving together in compassion remains a horizon of possibility rather than a present reality. Therefore, the republic—as an imperfect but structured container—is the best instrument we currently have to preserve individual freedom and the potential for personal flourishing.
I find myself wondering, in moments of extreme crisis, whether the sword could ever be drawn without compromising the clarity of compassion. Could it be wielded, if at all, only when all other creative, non-coercive, and compassionate interventions have been exhausted—and never from fear or reactive impulse? This is the question I carry as I navigate the tension between moral clarity and the structures that allow it to exist responsibly.
This is not a statement of either the wisdom of experience or the strength of resistance. I thought you were going to argue we are not evolved past our winning ancestors violent natures. So, doomed to repeat mankind’s nature in cyclical and predictable patterns. Globally. Until some far flung future when we’ve grown out of it. Or even not ever. But, I speak for myself. You suggest setting down the sword in pursuit of justice. Those who believe not in justice do believe you when you say this. Even when the sword is at your back. That you’ll accept the plunge over disgracing your ideals by committing murder. Many more would die in your, martyrdom for justice, if scenario. Justice remains an idea only. Word on paper. Not a practice.
This current popular idea that starving the beast, by withdrawing our labor and subsequent taxes, is actually a deliberate dismantling of what we want held together. I see only homeless folks scrambling for minimum shelter, food and clean water sources. The wealth classes could hold out as long as need be for us to relinquish over to them only what we’d have left. Need and desperation. I’m sure they’d gladly deliver the boot. Only a lucky few could get away with hiding. Those are the prepared. The silver lining in this is that small enclaves across this nation and the greater West would be established. Defended and tribal. Good luck against the overhead of drones and helicopters. Ukrainians would make good advisors if we could maintain contact. It would be a deliberate life. An honest life. A blast from the pre-industrial past. Bring out the best in men and their families. I live where this communal living could play out naturally and successfully. I knew someone who moved here for such a future possibility. I’ll shut up now. It all seems so obvious. I’ll leave my opinions on the fallout of the consequences of the coming elections which ever way they swing directly to Mike Brock if I decide I’ve anything worth chewing on. Appreciate your time and space! My first line is a bit harsh but remains.
Talk about the elephant in the room! That is a wide eyed, clear eyed description. May we all go forward with the understanding of what is at stake when all is said and done.
Trump has committed the same crimes against us as King George III was accused of committing against the colonists when the Founding Fathers proclaimed our Declaration of Independence. As long as our nation lives, this Declaration lives. It’s our responsibility to defend the beliefs stated in our Declaration and Constitution.
We the People. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I’ve inquired into what the line is when arms must be taken up. The loss of free and fair elections seems a bright line. Elections are the method for people to proclaim their reading of the compass. Elections are the main windows of our American liberal cathedral.
I am no Constitutional scholar, but it seems beyond obvious that this administration, the Republican Congress, plus some in the Federal Judiciary, have already subverted the Constitution and continue to do so daily.
A sane response to me would be to use only as much force as needed to get the job done to remedy the situation. I also feel Democrats in general have dropped the ball of responsibility to put an end to this. It should have been done during the lawless first term. There is obviously much more that could be done.
Fascism itself is unconstitutional because it takes away individual constitutional rights. This includes the very delusional Christian Nationalism they are trying to force on the nation.
What a grand opening para.
TRUTH YOU SPEAK
Americans must remember that only a minority rose up to resist the British.
This time around, that will not work!
How long is the long train of usurpations?
We like to say things like “freedom isn’t free” but for most it is of no more visceral impact than “live, laugh, love.”
Many of us are.
Thank-you, this is a great piece, and many Americans need to be reminded that our democratic republic was forged, and preserved, with the blood and sacrifice of armed citizens.
The Trump regime has already embarked on a project to overthrow the Second Amendment by instructing banks to disallow purchase of firearms with their accounts (case in point: Bank OZK) and Noem has issued a statement that DHS is drafting a plan to register firearms, to which Gun Owners of America has taken extreme exception. In response to sharing this information, people have replied that the Second Amendment is pointless in modern times because armed citizens would not be able to prevail against the entire US military, with their superior equipment and armaments. Many people apparently believe that the US military is in Trump's thrall, and would be deployed in all its awesome power against American citizens.
There are good reasons to believe that is not the case. First, even in the Third Reich, Hitler was not able to rely on the Wermacht to attack German citizens, and was obliged to establish the SS to imprison, torture and murder Germans. The US Military has even less reason to obey illegal orders from the Trump regime. From their oaths to the Constitution, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to the fact that Congress controls DoD's budget, there are layers of rules that prevent the US Military from being under the control of a rogue President. Second, even if the US military did deploy against American citizens, the examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Vichy France, and multiple Central American countries, not to mention the American Revolution, should demonstrate that even a smaller, less well-armed guerilla insurgency can prevail against a larger traditional military force.
The Trump regime and their traitorous minions in Congress have turned ICE into the analog of the SS, but the US isn't Germany. The population is not disarmed, and in Texas, the Southern Plains, and many parts of the West, it would be very difficult indeed to match the citizenry in firearms expertise and knowledge of the local terrain. It is highly unlikely that 50k ICE officers would be able to control 285m heavily armed Americans adults, who, on average, own three firearms each. To make matters worse for ICE, 16m of those adults are US military veterans. The Trump regime is striving to impose their will on the American people, through violence and intimidation, or by derailing elections, but the truth is that they have overestimated the power and authority within their reach.
Mike -- your way over your skies on this - showing yourself either too blind to see - or too dumb to comprehend.
This Country was set up to be Republic / with a Constitution / and with it's Military under civilian control.
But There is a caveat to that - and it is this.
The US Military Officer' Oath of Allegiance -- is to fight all enemies foreign and domestic, i.e., to protect the US Constitution and the peoples living under it's protection that don't cause damage / harm to the Constitution:
That enemy can be any President, any Politician, or any US citizen - that votes to damage / bring harm to the Constitution - full stop.
Check your facts first - it will keep you from making an uninformed fool out of yourself.
I must admit that I do not understand even the nature of your disagreement with me here. I contest this notion that I do not understand the constitutional framework of the United States of America. I consider myself somewhat of an independent scholar of the bloody thing. And upon reading your intervention, I must say that I do not understand how it is responsive to anything I said.
It made no sense to me either.
You can contest all you want -- but if you knew the Constitution as you state - then you would know that your position is incorrect; and this is the end of this conversation on this matter.
Well, you commit the intellectual sin of tautology here. A fair intervention would demonstrate through coherent argument, where it is exactly, that I err.
Hi Mike, another inspiring article that moves me because it resonates with me. I'm Catalan, from Barcelona, what can I tell you...
But I think you have a blind spot. Let me try to explain.
1. The underlying hypothesis
Could it be that the evolutionary success of sapiens sapiens is explained, in part, by a specific cognitive blindness: the inclination to annihilate the brother. This genetic flaw — that makes us potential killers — proved useful in competition for resources. We survived because we were very efficient at eliminating the other.
There's an image that helps me think about it: a monkey arrives at the riverbank where another is sitting. They don't know each other. With his gaze and gestures, the seated one conveys acceptance of the facts: there's no water, brother, stay by my side if you want and let the night fall. The other picks up a stone, smashes his head, and sees his blood. He survives.
This heritage is still inside us.
2. The political consequence
If we accept this premise, fascism is not a historical anomaly. It's not an interruption of the normal course of civilization. It's this genetic heritage shaped into political doctrine: the politics of eliminating the other, organized and legitimized.
The problem, then, is that the "enemy" doesn't come from outside. It comes from within. And when we prepare to fight it with the same tools, maybe we're just digging the hole deeper.
3. The pacifist's dilemma
This opens the question of the pacifist. You, following Orwell, present him as a freeloader: someone who benefits from the violence of others while refusing to participate.
But there's another reading possible. The pacifist is not the one sleeping soundly while the guardians keep watch. He's the one trying to break the circle. And breaking it can mean, at the limit, not defending oneself. Accepting annihilation without offering resistance.
"To be annihilated by the violent without offering resistance is also the pacifist's act of rigor." This sentence contains a question: if what we want is a just society, at some point we'll have to set down the sword. When is that moment?
4. Other paths
But between the sword and annihilation there's an intermediate territory. The general strike, for example. Shutting down the country. Not with weapons, but with the collective decision not to participate. Civil resistance, disobedience, peaceful blockade.
These paths exist. They're slow, costly, require much more organization than wielding a weapon. But they don't feed the circle. They deactivate it.
5. What remains open
The fundamental question is not whether we're willing to defend the republic with the sword. The question is whether we'll be capable, someday, of setting it down. And whether in the meantime there are paths that aren't the same old ones.
The general strike is one. There are others. Worth exploring them before rushing to wield the sword.
Thank you for writing. I read what you said. I must say that we are approaching this territory from completely different vantages. We do not look at the cosmos in the same way at all.
The way you have framed this is to think of human nature as a problem to be solved. To build political ideologies and institutions around human nature in a sense that we should normatively conserve the "center". It is the utilitarian intution to political theory. I'm not saying you're a utilitarian—and I would be less than surprised if you are—but I simply don't view the role of institutions and the legitimization of power through the same lens you do. So I think we're quite far apart here, in terms of the language and maps we use to talk about our exploration of the world.
In my recent writing, I have been talking about my split from what I've come to call the "Cartesian rationalist" worldview. And it seems abstract and perhaps subtle to push on this metaphysical argument. But I must also say that if you do not understand that I write from outside this intellectual posture, you might not fully understand what I'm saying. I suggest reading this for more on what I mean by this: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-cathedral-and-the-compass
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It has prompted me to revisit and refine an idea I now recognize I initially expressed rather imprecisely. The ideal of a community of awakened individuals striving together in compassion remains a horizon of possibility rather than a present reality. Therefore, the republic—as an imperfect but structured container—is the best instrument we currently have to preserve individual freedom and the potential for personal flourishing.
I find myself wondering, in moments of extreme crisis, whether the sword could ever be drawn without compromising the clarity of compassion. Could it be wielded, if at all, only when all other creative, non-coercive, and compassionate interventions have been exhausted—and never from fear or reactive impulse? This is the question I carry as I navigate the tension between moral clarity and the structures that allow it to exist responsibly.
This is not a statement of either the wisdom of experience or the strength of resistance. I thought you were going to argue we are not evolved past our winning ancestors violent natures. So, doomed to repeat mankind’s nature in cyclical and predictable patterns. Globally. Until some far flung future when we’ve grown out of it. Or even not ever. But, I speak for myself. You suggest setting down the sword in pursuit of justice. Those who believe not in justice do believe you when you say this. Even when the sword is at your back. That you’ll accept the plunge over disgracing your ideals by committing murder. Many more would die in your, martyrdom for justice, if scenario. Justice remains an idea only. Word on paper. Not a practice.
This current popular idea that starving the beast, by withdrawing our labor and subsequent taxes, is actually a deliberate dismantling of what we want held together. I see only homeless folks scrambling for minimum shelter, food and clean water sources. The wealth classes could hold out as long as need be for us to relinquish over to them only what we’d have left. Need and desperation. I’m sure they’d gladly deliver the boot. Only a lucky few could get away with hiding. Those are the prepared. The silver lining in this is that small enclaves across this nation and the greater West would be established. Defended and tribal. Good luck against the overhead of drones and helicopters. Ukrainians would make good advisors if we could maintain contact. It would be a deliberate life. An honest life. A blast from the pre-industrial past. Bring out the best in men and their families. I live where this communal living could play out naturally and successfully. I knew someone who moved here for such a future possibility. I’ll shut up now. It all seems so obvious. I’ll leave my opinions on the fallout of the consequences of the coming elections which ever way they swing directly to Mike Brock if I decide I’ve anything worth chewing on. Appreciate your time and space! My first line is a bit harsh but remains.
Talk about the elephant in the room! That is a wide eyed, clear eyed description. May we all go forward with the understanding of what is at stake when all is said and done.