“In the overthrow of the plutocracy, you should know that when you kick in that final door you will not be confronted by a desperate, raging king with his sword drawn, shield at the ready, unafraid to die. Whoever you encounter on the other side of that door will already be on their knees, trembling, offering you all the money in the world (or close to it) to be spared.” —Novel excerpt from The Billionaire Condemnation Society
Everyone has to help get the word of mouth out to the people who don’t have social media.
If you want to get rid of Trump then we have to get the Democrats the majority.
Make sure you vote for Democrat representatives in 2026. OTHERWISE TRUMP AND HIS CORRUPT NETWORK WILL CONTINUE THEIR DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA
FOR NOW ——-///-
Everyone has to educate their House and Senate representatives about Trump raping women and children. Everyone has to educate them that Trump is doing everything in his power to cover that up. Call, write letters and emails to your representatives.
There are a few representatives that don't know how evil/corrupt Trump and his network actually are. Almost all of the republicans know. They are just such lowlifes that they are worried about losing their jobs once everyone finds out.
THE EPSTEIN/TRUMP FILES HAVE TO BE RELEASED.
H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act has to get the majority vote for that to happen.
Don’t let the Republican representatives convince you they voted for this. THAT’S A LIE. They voted for H.R. 668 intended to clear Trump’s name from the sealed files.
The American conception of monarchy always amuses me, both in how it fails to consider how monarchy operates in the context of a modern parliamentary constitutional monarchy and in how the relationship of chief executives to legislatures and the federal government to the states in the United States had come ever more to resemble the state of affairs of which the colonists complained before the American Revolution. (Just for one example, the Presidential veto was intended only for the President to ask Congress to reconsider whether a law comported with the Constitution, but has become a tool used similarly to how "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.")
I would rather have a King than a President--but reject tyrants wholeheartedly.
Not a great conversation starter for your average American, let me tell you. That our system has become corrupted and has been corrupted in different ways throughout its history is not in dispute. But for those of us who fight that corruption and those in the past who have fought against its corruption, it’s not going to be received well to have people sneer at our failings, as those of us who actually have morals and fidelity to law, waive their “superior” political system in our face.
As for the British Westminster system, we shall see how it handles the rise of Farage and Reform, which looks every bit as dangerous to me as MAGA. Then we’ll compare notes.
I have gone into this in more detail elsewhere (obviously, not anywhere that you would likely have read it) but my brief view on the US Constitution is that while I greatly esteem it as a remarkable product for its time, and it had a strong influence on my own country's Constitution (both in what we adopted from it and what we did not), what I see of it now, even only looking at its original design, is a product of having been so early in the development of constitutional theory (only a relative handful of such efforts predate it, and there are fewer still, such as those of San Marino and Vermont, that are still in effect in some form to this day) that it could not incorporate much of what later became clear as that (and related fields, like social choice theory) was refined in the following centuries, and ultimately it seems to me to rely altogether too much on the fidelity of political actors to its principles even when ideological gain is most easily attained by going against those.
I do, of course, have great respect for yourself and others who put constitutional principle before ideological victory, but that does not change that in the US model I see a system all too easily subverted by those who do the reverse while still appearing, at least at first, to be faithful to written law. (Linz's observations in "The Perils of Presidentialism", 1990, have been very influential in my thinking on this matter; early in Trump's first term I remarked to acquaintances from the US that it almost seemed as if Linz had seen a quarter-century into the future and was warning against it.)
And, of course, that doesn't address the first part of my remark, which is the seeming conflation of the term "King" with (as I see it) the practice of unaccountable tyranny, which I consider inaccurate in the context of numerous parliamentary constitutional monarchies across the world with strong democratic traditions and systems. I have a King (though the nature of my monarchism is much more nuanced than some blind allegiance to the House of Windsor, and beyond the scope of this remark)--I reject all tyrants.
As for Farage and Reform, yes, I too am watching the UK's political situation with no small amount of concern. We fended off Poilievre's brand of conservatism for a while--what will happen come the next election is another matter entirely, of course--but I remain greatly worried about the effects on my own polity of the sort of reactionary rage channelled through figures like Trump and Farage due to our cultural proximity to both, potentially amplified by the domestic political pressures that have resulted from our own poor policy decisions in the past.
(Also, do note that I am writing out of a sense of pain, betrayal and rage at a polity that would elect someone who would then turn around and imply that my own should not be sovereign, and, from my perspective, tacitly threaten invasion on numerous occasions. The True North is indeed strong and free. Je me souviens.)
EDIT: I would add further that to some extent my view on presidential versus parliamentary systems is informed by what I see as having been the United States' own historical position on the matter. On three occasions that I know of, the United States has had substantial influence over the shape of a country's constitution--those of the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan following the Second World War, and that of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Germany and Iraq, the eventual constitutional structure that emerged was that of a federal republic, but a parliamentary one (not even a semi-presidential one such as in France or Finland, or in much of the former communist bloc due to, to my knowledge, advice given by Gorbachev to leaders in the new democracies to follow Finland's example); in Japan, while I have understood that there were some in the State Department who wanted it to be a presidential republic, and certainly at least to abolish the position of Emperor, the final decision was to adopt the structure of a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (albeit one in which the Emperor enjoys no reserve powers, unlike other such systems). So when I see that the United States does not even ultimately recommend its own system when given the opportunity to have significant input into the constitutional structure of other countries, that then makes me inclined to think that, in fact, there may very well be something to the notion that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential ones.
You are both right. Mr. Brock can be more idealistic, I think, than is warranted by the 8 billion souls that inhabit the earth. History may take a dim view, but the future may progress. The American Experiment is an important part of that progression, so we must try let it end with a 'boot on our face'.
From a pre/historical perspective, I would argue that governing institutions in complex societies have always been by, for, and of an ‘elite’ ruling class. The idea of the masses governing themselves is a crafty narrative pushed by this minority to help legitimise and support status quo power and wealth structures. Whether it is a pharaoh, king, or democratically-elected respresentative, they all tend to serve this minority of rich and influential individuals/families. Left. Right. Centre. It matters little except for the stories told.
You could argue that. And you could sit there with no moral imagination. From that stance, we would be left—to quote Orwell—with a boot stomping on a human face. Forever.
I’m not advocating for jaded negativity. I’m laying out what I believe the pre/historical evidence demonstrates over millennia—a situation that arose when human societies began creating resource surpluses that could be exploited for ‘power’ over others, leading eventually to entrenched hierarchies.
If you believe you can ‘fix’ the long-established power and wealth structures of our societies, then you may be mistaking it for a solvable problem where it may be better viewed as a predicament with no ‘solution’ and only has outcomes that one might at best manage—especially as long as humans continue to live in complex societies.
Sure, rage against the machine if it makes you feel better, but pre/history suggests it won’t ‘solve’ anything.
Time and energy may be better spent removing oneself from the ‘Matrix’ as much as you can and making your local community as self-sufficient and resilient as possible. That’s more or less what past peoples did when the costs to support status quo systems became greater than the benefits received.
The “story” probably goes down more smoothly in the Nordics, the Netherlands, Germany, and all the other rich countries that have almost eliminated poverty and deaths of despair. Maybe that same “story” would play pretty well in the good ol’ U S of A, too.
DAMN RIGHT!!!!
“In the overthrow of the plutocracy, you should know that when you kick in that final door you will not be confronted by a desperate, raging king with his sword drawn, shield at the ready, unafraid to die. Whoever you encounter on the other side of that door will already be on their knees, trembling, offering you all the money in the world (or close to it) to be spared.” —Novel excerpt from The Billionaire Condemnation Society
https://open.substack.com/pub/brutusmac?r=6aexdu&utm_medium=ios
Mirabile Dictu!
We fight for the Union we fight for the Law
SAVING THE COUNTRY FROM TRUMP
Everyone has to help get the word of mouth out to the people who don’t have social media.
If you want to get rid of Trump then we have to get the Democrats the majority.
Make sure you vote for Democrat representatives in 2026. OTHERWISE TRUMP AND HIS CORRUPT NETWORK WILL CONTINUE THEIR DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA
FOR NOW ——-///-
Everyone has to educate their House and Senate representatives about Trump raping women and children. Everyone has to educate them that Trump is doing everything in his power to cover that up. Call, write letters and emails to your representatives.
There are a few representatives that don't know how evil/corrupt Trump and his network actually are. Almost all of the republicans know. They are just such lowlifes that they are worried about losing their jobs once everyone finds out.
THE EPSTEIN/TRUMP FILES HAVE TO BE RELEASED.
H.R. 4405, the Epstein Files Transparency Act has to get the majority vote for that to happen.
Don’t let the Republican representatives convince you they voted for this. THAT’S A LIE. They voted for H.R. 668 intended to clear Trump’s name from the sealed files.
Republicans are nothing more than paid voters
THIS IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY
https://substack.com/@brutusmac/note/c-167864091?r=6aexdu&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Beautifully written, Mike. Thanks for putting what we must remain clear about into inspiring words.
The American conception of monarchy always amuses me, both in how it fails to consider how monarchy operates in the context of a modern parliamentary constitutional monarchy and in how the relationship of chief executives to legislatures and the federal government to the states in the United States had come ever more to resemble the state of affairs of which the colonists complained before the American Revolution. (Just for one example, the Presidential veto was intended only for the President to ask Congress to reconsider whether a law comported with the Constitution, but has become a tool used similarly to how "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.")
I would rather have a King than a President--but reject tyrants wholeheartedly.
Not a great conversation starter for your average American, let me tell you. That our system has become corrupted and has been corrupted in different ways throughout its history is not in dispute. But for those of us who fight that corruption and those in the past who have fought against its corruption, it’s not going to be received well to have people sneer at our failings, as those of us who actually have morals and fidelity to law, waive their “superior” political system in our face.
As for the British Westminster system, we shall see how it handles the rise of Farage and Reform, which looks every bit as dangerous to me as MAGA. Then we’ll compare notes.
I have gone into this in more detail elsewhere (obviously, not anywhere that you would likely have read it) but my brief view on the US Constitution is that while I greatly esteem it as a remarkable product for its time, and it had a strong influence on my own country's Constitution (both in what we adopted from it and what we did not), what I see of it now, even only looking at its original design, is a product of having been so early in the development of constitutional theory (only a relative handful of such efforts predate it, and there are fewer still, such as those of San Marino and Vermont, that are still in effect in some form to this day) that it could not incorporate much of what later became clear as that (and related fields, like social choice theory) was refined in the following centuries, and ultimately it seems to me to rely altogether too much on the fidelity of political actors to its principles even when ideological gain is most easily attained by going against those.
I do, of course, have great respect for yourself and others who put constitutional principle before ideological victory, but that does not change that in the US model I see a system all too easily subverted by those who do the reverse while still appearing, at least at first, to be faithful to written law. (Linz's observations in "The Perils of Presidentialism", 1990, have been very influential in my thinking on this matter; early in Trump's first term I remarked to acquaintances from the US that it almost seemed as if Linz had seen a quarter-century into the future and was warning against it.)
And, of course, that doesn't address the first part of my remark, which is the seeming conflation of the term "King" with (as I see it) the practice of unaccountable tyranny, which I consider inaccurate in the context of numerous parliamentary constitutional monarchies across the world with strong democratic traditions and systems. I have a King (though the nature of my monarchism is much more nuanced than some blind allegiance to the House of Windsor, and beyond the scope of this remark)--I reject all tyrants.
As for Farage and Reform, yes, I too am watching the UK's political situation with no small amount of concern. We fended off Poilievre's brand of conservatism for a while--what will happen come the next election is another matter entirely, of course--but I remain greatly worried about the effects on my own polity of the sort of reactionary rage channelled through figures like Trump and Farage due to our cultural proximity to both, potentially amplified by the domestic political pressures that have resulted from our own poor policy decisions in the past.
(Also, do note that I am writing out of a sense of pain, betrayal and rage at a polity that would elect someone who would then turn around and imply that my own should not be sovereign, and, from my perspective, tacitly threaten invasion on numerous occasions. The True North is indeed strong and free. Je me souviens.)
EDIT: I would add further that to some extent my view on presidential versus parliamentary systems is informed by what I see as having been the United States' own historical position on the matter. On three occasions that I know of, the United States has had substantial influence over the shape of a country's constitution--those of the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan following the Second World War, and that of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Germany and Iraq, the eventual constitutional structure that emerged was that of a federal republic, but a parliamentary one (not even a semi-presidential one such as in France or Finland, or in much of the former communist bloc due to, to my knowledge, advice given by Gorbachev to leaders in the new democracies to follow Finland's example); in Japan, while I have understood that there were some in the State Department who wanted it to be a presidential republic, and certainly at least to abolish the position of Emperor, the final decision was to adopt the structure of a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy (albeit one in which the Emperor enjoys no reserve powers, unlike other such systems). So when I see that the United States does not even ultimately recommend its own system when given the opportunity to have significant input into the constitutional structure of other countries, that then makes me inclined to think that, in fact, there may very well be something to the notion that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential ones.
I think I can speak for most Americans in saying that none of us really give a fuck what you think
That's not necessary; Substack is where we engage each other, not rage police.
He wasn’t engaging, he was sneering. He got the reply he deserved.
You are both right. Mr. Brock can be more idealistic, I think, than is warranted by the 8 billion souls that inhabit the earth. History may take a dim view, but the future may progress. The American Experiment is an important part of that progression, so we must try let it end with a 'boot on our face'.
Did you intend to say, "try not"?
From a pre/historical perspective, I would argue that governing institutions in complex societies have always been by, for, and of an ‘elite’ ruling class. The idea of the masses governing themselves is a crafty narrative pushed by this minority to help legitimise and support status quo power and wealth structures. Whether it is a pharaoh, king, or democratically-elected respresentative, they all tend to serve this minority of rich and influential individuals/families. Left. Right. Centre. It matters little except for the stories told.
You could argue that. And you could sit there with no moral imagination. From that stance, we would be left—to quote Orwell—with a boot stomping on a human face. Forever.
Cynicism is an ally of tyranny.
I’m not advocating for jaded negativity. I’m laying out what I believe the pre/historical evidence demonstrates over millennia—a situation that arose when human societies began creating resource surpluses that could be exploited for ‘power’ over others, leading eventually to entrenched hierarchies.
If you believe you can ‘fix’ the long-established power and wealth structures of our societies, then you may be mistaking it for a solvable problem where it may be better viewed as a predicament with no ‘solution’ and only has outcomes that one might at best manage—especially as long as humans continue to live in complex societies.
Sure, rage against the machine if it makes you feel better, but pre/history suggests it won’t ‘solve’ anything.
Time and energy may be better spent removing oneself from the ‘Matrix’ as much as you can and making your local community as self-sufficient and resilient as possible. That’s more or less what past peoples did when the costs to support status quo systems became greater than the benefits received.
The “story” probably goes down more smoothly in the Nordics, the Netherlands, Germany, and all the other rich countries that have almost eliminated poverty and deaths of despair. Maybe that same “story” would play pretty well in the good ol’ U S of A, too.