Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Fernando said:



he is a clown, lol

pure troll

Edited by Vesper
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Peter Kalmus: ‘As a species, we’re on autopilot, not making the right decisions’ | Climate crisis | The Guardian

Shut down fossil fuel production sites early to avoid climate chaos, says study | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

Revealed: the ‘carbon bombs’ set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

Some depressing reading there regarding the state of our climate. Horrendous stuff, psychopathic billionaires have taken over the world. I don't believe there is anything we can do anymore but just wait and see how everything goes to shit.


Edited by manpe
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax rises, handouts, law-breaking: what do the Tories stand for now?


Boris Johnson holds a news conference in response to the publication of the Sue Gray report into partygate.

After a week in which Boris Johnson’s character has been at the heart of public debate, Conservative MPs worry about what has happened to their party

After yet another long and difficult week in the premiership of Boris Johnson, Conservative MPs returned to their constituencies on Thursday and Friday wondering what on earth they would say to voters back home.

“I just have to talk about what I have done for my area and try not to mention what is going on here [at Westminster],” said one former minister. “It is the only way I have any chance of winning next time.”

Wednesday had seen the senior civil servant Sue Gray publish her damning verdict on “Partygate”. Despite repeated denials from Johnson that any parties had taken place, Gray methodically laid out details of 16 events – several attended by the prime minister himself – with examples of excessive drinking, mistreatment of cleaning and other staff, and general Covid rule-breaking at the heart of power.

“The senior leadership at the centre, both political and official, must bear responsibility for this culture,” she said. The prime minister responded initially by telling MPs he was “humbled”, before defiantly rewriting the ministerial code so that ministers would not always be expected to resign for breaking rules. To the astonishment of many in his own party he also removed a section from the code about the importance of ethics in government.

After Gray, the government was, however, desperate to “move on” from Partygate and address “the people’s priorities” in order to stop the flow of negative news and court some desperately needed popularity.

The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, obliged on Thursday with a £15bn package of help for those struggling with the cost of living, to be paid for in part by a windfall tax on the spiralling profits of oil and gas firms.

It mattered not to Johnson that Labour had been proposing such a tax for five months and that he had repeatedly rejected it for being too anti-business, and essentially unTory. Conservative whips had ordered Tory MPs three times to vote against Labour’s proposal over recent weeks in the Commons.

But as Sunak unveiled what he called the “temporary, targeted energy profits levy” – Labour’s plan renamed and repackaged – Johnson grinned across the dispatch box, seemingly delighted to have pulled off such a brazen theft of the opposition’s big idea for tackling the cost of living crisis.

These have been confusing and, for many, dispiriting times to be a Tory MP. Many confide privately that it is not just Johnson’s behaviour, the rule-breaking and misleading over parties that is difficult to defend and grinding them down. At the same time, they say, there is also a broader issue – a wider identity crisis – that his premiership has created.

The problem of the leader, they say, is one thing. The direction in which the party at large is heading ideologically under his stewardship, another. What does it stand for, what does it believe in?

Under Margaret Thatcher – certainly by the end of her premiership – the answer to those questions was abundantly clear. Conservatism meant rolling back the frontiers of the state, getting government off people’s backs and out of their lives as far as possible, lowering taxes and giving people a greater share of the money they earned. It was also about strong leadership and a respect for law and order.

Today, many Conservative MPs struggle to identify any of those as characteristics in the post-Covid administration of Boris Johnson. Rather Johnsonism, if it is anything, is defined by chaos, rule-breaking, U-turns and economic policies that are the reverse of Thatcherite. Rather than cut taxes to stimulate growth, as many Tory MPs would have wanted, Johnson’s team has raised them to heights not seen for decades.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said last week that in little over a year Sunak had imposed tax rises similar in scale to those introduced over 10 years of Gordon Brown’s chancellorship, leaving the UK with the highest overall tax burden since the 1960s.

Asked after Sunak’s statement what the Tories’ biggest problem was, one minister said: “It is that we don’t have a clear strategy. It is that we are not clear what we are.”

Even the most ardent Thatcherites on the Tory backbenches recognise that in exceptional times such as the present, pragmatism has to trump ideology. They know that a cost of living crisis needs big interventions by the centre.

But the increasing worry on the right, and in the Tory-supporting media, is that the entire Conservative brand – the offering – is now fuzzy and unclear, as well as contaminated by what has gone on in No 10.

Anxiety about a lack of identity is spreading. On Wednesday, as rumours spread that Sunak would adopt Labour’s windfall tax plan, the Tory MP for Carlisle, John Stevenson, rose at prime minister’s questions, seeking reassurance. “Labour and socialism have failed the country because their failed policies interfere too much in people’s lives, over-regulate, spend too much taxpayers’ money, borrow too much and raise taxes. Will the prime minister tell the House what policies his government will follow to ensure that we do not have a similar fate?” Johnson replied by focusing narrowly on reductions to national insurance but dodged the thrust of the question.

After Sunak’s announcement, Tory commentators despaired that the party seemed to have ditched its commitment to low taxation.

Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, wrote in the Daily Telegraph on Friday: “After years banging on about the case for low taxation – the quaint idea that societies are fairer and stronger when people are allowed to keep more of the money they earn – the Tories have now given up.

“Handouts are preferred to general tax cuts, allowing the state to choose winners and losers. Ed Miliband’s old idea about good and bad companies (the ‘predators’) is now back. Taxation is spoken of in moral terms: a tool to service justice to stubborn companies making ‘excess’ profits.”

The Daily Mail described Sunak’s package as a “£21bn splurge” and asked “when will the Tories get back to just cutting taxes?”. In the Commons, the Conservative MP Richard Drax was one of several who questioned what was going on. Addressing Sunak, he said: “I warn my right honourable friend that throwing red meat to socialists, by raising taxes on businesses and telling them where to invest their money, is not the Conservative way of encouraging those who create our prosperity and jobs to do just that. Does he agree that, by setting this bar, we are in danger … of allowing the socialists to raise it, which they would do with relish again, again and again?”

The former Tory cabinet minister David Gauke said he felt for MPs who had to defend the prime minister and also make clear to voters what the current Conservative party stood for. “They have a broad coalition of voters to satisfy, a leader who does not have deep beliefs and an exceptional crisis. I completely see why Tory MPs are worried. All they have is cultural wedge issues like [sending asylum seekers to] Rwanda. But that does not amount to a strategy.”

As Gauke suggested, Johnson has a set of challenges that no Tory leader before him has had to address. One is the economic aftermath of the Covid pandemic, compounded by the effects of war in Ukraine.

Brexit supporter

But the other is the consequence of his own past success. By leading the Conservatives to an 80-seat majority at the 2019 general election, with promises to “get Brexit done”, and by exploiting fears of a Jeremy Corbyn government, Johnson broke through the red wall and inherited a complex and incoherent coalition of Tory voters with wildly differing priorities and needs.

Robert Ford, professor of political science at Manchester University, says the difficulties of serving this coalition help explain some of the discontent: “The ‘red wall’ seats gained in 2019 are deprived places where state intervention is sorely needed and very popular. Local MPs, even if they personally favour low taxes and a small state (and not all of them do), respond to the context they face, and therefore favour the big state interventionism of ‘levelling up’.

“But the money for that has to come from somewhere, and as the government faces growing economic pressure, Conservative MPs from wealthier bits of the south of England increasingly worry that ‘levelling up’ ultimately means taking money from their voters and giving it to voters elsewhere.

“MPs who don’t like big spending on principle like it even less when it is their voters paying the bills but seeing little of the benefit. This, I suspect, is the root cause of some of the disquiet.”

What is beyond doubt is that many Tory MPs are now very worried indeed that, after 12 years in government, the period of Conservative rule could be nearing an end. Sir Bob Neill, one of those who has demanded a leadership contest, told the Observer on Saturday that the mix of leadership issues over parties and the absence of clear direction was potentially lethal for his party. “When you put the trust issue and the identity issue together, you do have a pretty toxic mix as far as voters are concerned.”

Already there is evidence of support slipping away. A YouGov MRP poll for the Times on Friday found that the Conservatives face virtual wipeout behind the red wall, and severe losses in the south of England, with Johnson himself set to lose his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat along with the former leader Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green.

The poll suggests the Tories would lose all but three of 88 battleground seats they hold by a slim margin over Labour. The former Tory cabinet minister David Davis said his colleagues could “see their own seats disappearing” as his party’s popularity plunged and Johnson hung on to power without a wider sense of purpose. On Saturday, the former health minister Steve Brine became the latest MP to send a letter to the chairman of the 1922 committee, Sir Graham Brady, expressing no confidence in Johnson’s leadership. “I have said throughout this sorry saga I cannot and will not defend the indefensible. Rule-makers cannot be law-breakers.”

In the very short term, Johnson looks safe. But the number demanding a leadership contest is climbing daily towards the figure of 54 needed to trigger a contest. So far, 23 have gone public but others have put in letters without announcing they have done so. Brady refuses to reveal the figures.

After the Gray report and Sunak’s announcement, on Wednesday and Thursday respectively, there was said to be a celebratory mood in No 10 because the PM’s team felt he had pulled through. “They think they have won. They are in full bulldozer mood,” said a senior party official who used to work there.

In the wider parliamentary party, however, such optimism is not widely shared as Conservative MPs ponder not only whether to get rid of their leader but also, increasingly, what their party stands for with him in charge.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What Would An American Fascist Government Look Like?

We can’t pretend we don’t know what’s happening and where it will lead if it’s not stopped - the question is what we will do about it




It’s time to talk about what an American fascist government would look like. The word “fascism” gets thrown around a lot, but most Americans have no idea what it would look like or how it would actually play out.

It’s critical to lay out what a fascist America would look like now because this is what is being envisioned right now by many in the Republican Party, and it might come to pass.

They don’t talk about it out loud very much, like Nixon’s man G. Gordon Liddy used to back in the day when he signed memos using Hitler’s SS symbol. But there is a model here and they do have something in mind.

What could it be? What would it look like? How will it most likely come about?

First, and essential to American fascism, Republicans envision a strong-man Leader who will hold power for as long as he (it’s always a “he”) chooses, with the transition to the next Leader determined by the Leader himself.

This has been the primary characteristic of every fascistic government to emerge in the 7000-year written history of the modern world.

When Trump was running for re-election, at rallies in both Nevada and Wisconsin, he came right out and said that not only would he win the 2020 election but that he’d also be re-elected again in 2024.  He was dead serious. 

Sure, our constitution says a president can only serve two terms: so did the Russian constitution, until Putin got it amended. Trump was planning the same, and his followers were — if the response at the rallies when he announced it is any indicator — ecstatic at the prospect.

That single strongman Leader is the key to understanding everything else that happens when a country flips from democracy to oligarchy to fascism.

For example, in a fascist state the way that you as an average citizen ensure your own advancement and economic, personal, and political security is by sucking up to that man. You either become an acolyte/follower or you find yourself on the outside looking in.

If you think this sounds extreme, just look at today’s Republican Party.

Liz Cheney spoke against Trump and the Wyoming GOP expelled her and Trump is supporting a primary challenger. Four Republicans who voted to impeach Trump have faced such a backlash that they’ve decided to retire at the end of this term: Adam Kinzinger, Anthony Gonzalez, John Katko, and Fred Upton.

Republican freshman Congressman Chris Jacobs, representing a district including parts of Buffalo, NY, was forced to withdraw from this year’s primary (and, thus, he’ll be retiring from the House) because after the Buffalo massacre he spoke against Trump’s and his party’s embrace of assault weapons.

Not only is fealty to the Leader required for political advancement, it’s also a requirement for individual economic advancement.  Employers eager for state contracts or the Leader’s endorsements of their products or services demote or fire those insufficiently loyal to the Leader.

Psychologist Dr. Bandy Lee was fired from Yale University for tweeting that Trump was mentally ill. Schoolteacher Leah Kinyon was fired from her job for saying that “I hate Donald Trump. … He is a sexual predator. He’s a literal moron.” Juli Brisker was fired from her job with government contractor Akima for giving Trump’s motorcade the finger.

Rebekah Jones was fired by Ron DeSantis for telling the truth about his covering up Florida Covid statistics. Florida’s Orange County Health Director Dr. Raul Pino was removed for encouraging his staff to get vaccinated.

When companies defy the Leader they are brutally punished, as DeSantis is doing right now to Disney and the Tampa Bay Rays. Soon companies don’t even try to stand up to the Leader, including media companies.

And now DeSantis has signed legislation giving him the authority to “hold accountable” college professors, reviewing their politics every five years so those who aren’t totally on board with the agenda can lose tenure and be fired. The headline at Salon says it all:

“DeSantis signs bill requiring Florida students, professors to register political views with state: Universities may lose funding if staff and students' beliefs do not satisfy Florida's GOP-run legislature.”

You end up doing things on the Leader’s behalf, whether you’re supporting his party, working at a private corporation, or engaged in the nonprofit sector like teaching at a university or medical center.

Defying or challenging the Leader brings opprobrium; supporting the Leader is the path to career advancement.  The Trump White House and DeSantis Governor’s Office are filled with examples.

Everything is done for the Leader because the Leader is the state. The state and the Leader have become one.

If you challenge the Leader, you’re challenging the state, and that’s treason.

Whatever the Leader says becomes the law. This is called “rule by decree” and it’s where every fascist in history has ended up.

The power to rule by decree goes back to the days of kings and is also embedded in our laws about the president’s emergency powers. Trump came close to invoking it with an “emergency declaration” when he lost the election. General Flynn begged him to do it and “temporarily suspend the Constitution.”

Next time, he won’t be so restrained and he will have surrounded himself in advance with people like Flynn who will make it happen. While it will change how power is distributed in our government, things will still look much the same.

If a fascist like Trump rises to power again in the United States, there will still be all the trappings of democracy.

The House and Senate, state houses and governors, bureaucracies and political systems will remain intact. Everything looks normal on the surface.

But when you peel off the top layer, you discover that all of those people in all of those offices, whether elected or bureaucratic, are serving only one principle and one person and that is the Leader.

There will even be opposition parties and political candidacies in a Republican fascist America, although if any of them seriously challenge the Leader or show the ability to disrupt the status quo they’ll be discovered to have a secret drug habit or get imprisoned for corruption or other made-up charges.

The prosperity of the company you work for depends in part on how well it supports the politics of the Leader.

The Leader helps a few dozen oligarchs seize control of the nation’s major industries, and every smaller company in each of those industries must directly or indirectly answer to that oligarch.

Those who fail to are bought out, shut down, or simply cannot find customers or supplies because nobody will do business with them.

The industry where this is most visible at first is the media.

Some media organizations will be absorbed by the government itself, as Putin has done in Russia; others will be bought out and run by the Leader’s oligarch buddies, as is the case today in Hungary and Turkey (among others).

Soon opposition voices vanish from all but the most obscure media, and those few opposing voices that are tolerated are pointed to by the Leader as proof the nation is still an open democracy.

Jews and people of color may find a rougher time maintaining a job or staying safe from vigilantes, abuse, and discrimination but whites will be just fine, particularly white men.

There will still be Christmas parties, although people celebrating Hanukkah or Muslims praying may want to pull the shades closed.

Hate crimes and murders by vigilante groups start happening with such frequency that the media doesn’t bother to report them anymore.

Within a few years a little bit of every business activity in the country ends up in the Leader’s pocket. And the Leader uses that revenue to enrich himself, his inner circle, and those who are part of his military entourage, his private military.

That’s right: the Leader’s private military.

It’d be put together like what Ron DeSantis is organizing in Florida right now, a state-sanctioned militia that answers only to the Leader, in this case DeSantis. Trump tried the same, flying Customs and Border Protection officers into Portland where they hit the streets without identification on their uniforms to beat and kidnap people protesting George Floyd’s murder.

When the private militia is created at the federal level it’ll become a substantial national military force with hundreds of thousands of soldiers under the Leader’s direct command. Hitler’s was called the SS and answered only to the Leader himself. Mussolini had his, as do Putin, Erdoğan, el-Sisi, and others today.

Citing “national security,” the Leader’s private militia will have an undisclosed and therefore vast budget. Outside of times it’s called on to intimidate people or make a public display of power, it’ll largely operate in secret.

It’s members won’t have to obey the law because, as agents of the Leader who’s above the law, they are, too. If they have to kill somebody, there will be no investigation unless it’s to cover up the crime. If they need to make somebody disappear, that person disappears.

They, along with the Leader’s allies, promote a law-and-order crime ideology in public that results in high levels of incarceration, heavily militarized police, and a disregard for the general rights of the average citizen, particularly racial and religious minorities.

This is how the kind of government the Donald Trump was trying to establish in America has played out, over and over again, across the world and throughout history.

In our own time we’ve seen it in Egypt, Turkey, Russia, Cuba, Hungary, the Philippines, Venezuela, and dozens of other countries around the world less well known for the nature of the government.

It may call itself left-wing or right-wing, but what really matters is that all power and authority rests with the Leader. Stalin was every bit the fascist that Hitler and Mussolini were; his fascism just had a different face and brand.

As dystopian as all this may sound, there are more governments in the world run this way today than there are democracies. It’s “normal.” Once established it’s almost impossible to dislodge without a crisis like the death of the Leader or an actual revolution.

Some of the governments around the world that are structured like this were democracies that turned fascist, like Russia, Turkey, and Hungary. But many have been this way for centuries, like hereditary kingdoms in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

So, how do the democratic countries that make the transition to fascism allow that to happen? And what is life like in those countries, both during and after it’s happened?

After World War II, a Chicago reporter named Milton Mayer struggled to understand how Hitler was able to flip one of the world’s most stable democracies into fascism.

An American Jew of German ancestry and a brilliant writer, Mayer went to Germany seven years after Hitler’s fall and befriended 10 “average Germans,” asking each how the Nazis rose to power in an otherwise civilized nation.

His book, They Thought They Were Free, is his story of that experience. Intertwined through it — first published in 1955 — are repeated overt and subtle warnings to future generations of Americans: to us, today.

Mayer quotes one of his German friends as describing what happened once the Leader seized power:

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”

Did the German people realize they’d abandoned democracy? That they would soon become international pariahs? The college professor Mayer interviewed answered:

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.

“Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.

“And one day it is over his head.”

Is it possible this could happen in America? That all these “small steps” would one day lead to a dictatorial form of government that has so cowed the people, the politicians, and even the business community and media that it can’t be challenged?

Doesn’t the nation rise up and protest the destruction of its own democracy? Don’t the people pour into the streets?

Mayer’s professor gave us the answer:

“You see, one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.

“You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.”

We can’t say we weren’t warned by our own people, our own politicians, the most senior members of our own institutional power structure. 

In a speech that was hysterically criticized by Republicans and Fox “News“ pundits, President Obama in December of 2017 came right out and said it:

“You have to tend to this garden of democracy, otherwise things can fall apart fairly quickly. And we've seen societies where that happens.”

Yes, the former President of the United States was invoked Nazi Germany five years ago while Donald Trump was President, adding:

“Now, presumably, there was a ballroom in Vienna in the late 1920s or ’30s that looked and seemed as if it ― filled with the music and art and literature and the science that was emerging ― would continue into perpetuity. 

“And then,” President Obama said, “60 million people died. And the entire world was plunged into chaos.”

The warnings have been there all along. I wrote of this in 2005, quoting Mayer and going off on Bush and the PATRIOT Act as the prequel to fascism. 

Americans have been shouting about it lately, in venues like The New York Times and Madeline Albright’s book and from legislators like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

But how do we know? Is there a sudden proclamation by the Leader that the nation is now “officially fascist”?

Back to Mayer’s German friend in 1954:

“But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying 'Jew swine,' collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose.”

I thought about this quote yesterday when a caller to my radio/TV show told the story of his very progressive son who moved to Tennessee and married a local woman; now he’s a complete Trump-humper who uses the N-word at the slightest provocation and rails about Jews and communists. He obsessively watches Fox “News” and listens to right wing radio.

America is changing as you read these words. In this fall’s election many of us will no longer be able to know if our voices, our attempts to vote, will actually decide who leads our nation. 

Five Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that you can be purged from the voting rolls on a whim. In most states Republicans can take over electoral precincts, install their people (as we just learned they are doing right now) and run them under whatever rules they want.

Already, when the GOP inflicts 10-hour lines to vote on a state’s people, for example, you go to jail if you bring them water. If you make a mistake on your voting registration or ballot they can choose to send you to prison for five years or more.

Somehow, of the many people from both parties who are busted for this, only the Democrats end up going to prison.

And yet everything seems “normal.” As Mayer’s professor friend told him, when the Leader finally seizes control of all the levers of power from political to economic to spiritual, everything changes but everything also stays the same:

“The world you live in - your nation, your people - is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. 

“But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. 

“Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.”

We’re already quite a ways down this road, which is why our democracy has been rated by numerous international groups as being “at risk” or similar designations.

Voter suppression, gerrymandering, the proliferation of phony media selling rightwing propaganda as “news,” armed militias on our streets (and the GOP recruiting them for “election monitors”) are the visible tip of the proverbial iceberg.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men?” Mayer’s friend asked rhetorically. 

And, without the benefit of a previous and recent and well-remembered fascistic regime to refer to, Mayer had to candidly answer: “Frankly, I do not know.”

That was 1954; this is 2022. We now know.

We know how the poisonous hate that animates fascism seeps into a society because we’ve seen it ourselves in the 4 years of the Trump administration.

We know how easily a government can be toppled and how close we came in 2020: if just five Republicans had not refused to go along with Trump we’d be in this fascist dystopia today.

We can’t pretend we don’t know what’s happening and where it will lead if it’s not stopped.

The question is what we will do about it.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insanity in the US


disgraced (sex kidnapping scandal) former Missouri Governor and current Republican US Senate candidate Eric Greitens made a violent, gun-laden advert advocating hunting RINOs

(RINO means Republican In Name Only, aka moderate Republicans, not MAGAt batshit cray asshats)


Elite Republicans are now openly encouraging political violence


At this moment in history, Republican radicalism comes in so many forms — election subversion, draconian abortion restrictions, gun fetishism, anti-LGBTQ scapegoating — that some argue the party is moving toward a new kind of fascism. That raises complicated questions, but one of fascism’s key features is the glorification of violence as a domestic political tool.

Keep that idea in mind as you watch this new ad from Eric Greitens, a Missouri Republican running for U.S. Senate:



With a shotgun in his hand and a pistol on his belt, Greitens accompanies soldiers busting into what appears to be a suburban home. Then he says to the camera: “Join the MAGA crew. Get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.”

For the uninitiated, “RINO” is short for “Republican In Name Only,” a term that originally referred to Republicans who were too ideologically moderate for someone’s taste. Now it is used to refer to those who, no matter how ideologically conservative, are insufficiently worshipful of Donald Trump or question the more radical beliefs and tactics of the extreme wing of the party.

Politicians often use martial rhetoric; they talk a lot about “fighting” and engaging in “wars” of various types, and even the word “campaign” originally referred to armies fighting each other. But this is qualitatively different.

Greitens is not deploying some subtle metaphor here. You can even order a “RINO Hunting Permit” sticker from his website. If asked, I’m sure he would say he’s not literally advocating the hunting and killing of human beings. But he kind of is.

In case you’re unfamiliar with him, Greitens’s campaign for Missouri governor six years ago featured an ad showing him firing hundreds of rounds with a gigantic machine gun while the narrator said he was “under attack from Obama’s Democrat machine.” Greitens won that election, then resigned amid multiple scandals. The most appalling of them concerned a woman who charged that he coerced her into sex and then blackmailed her. (He admitted having an affair but denied the blackmail accusation.)

Now he’s running for Senate, trying to stand out in a field of ultra-conservative candidates. There might be a hundred Republicans who fire guns in their ads, many of whom talk about how their guns are a protection against “tyranny” — in other words, they’re ready to use them to kill police officers and military service members. But Greitens is the first to so explicitly say that members of his own party should be hunted without the slightest hint that it’s an exaggeration.

Like most nations, the United States has never been completely without political violence. It has come from many directions, though right-wing violence has been more common and more deadly, from the murder of doctors and staff members at abortion clinics to the Oklahoma City bombing.

At the moment, we’re seeing a rise in widely distributed, low-level acts of violence and intimidation directed at the right’s enemies. This will likely escalate: This year has seen a dramatic increase in threats against Pride Month events, which comes after a couple of years of near-riots at school board meetings and threats against public health officials and election administrators.

There is an undeniable connection between what the angry right-wing mob does on the ground and what it sees from the Republican elite.

And what do members of the right-wing mob see? Every day on Fox News and other conservative media outlets, they get a deluge of histrionic outrage and apocalyptic warnings about “groomers” preparing to abuse their children, about the coming genocidal campaign against White people, about antifa coming to burn down their towns, about the impending outlawing of gun ownership and Christianity and everything else they hold dear.

If you actually believed all of it, violence might seem a reasonable response, just like storming the Capitol might seem reasonable if you believed Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.

Trump repeatedly fantasized about acts of violence against liberal protesters to the bloodthirsty cheers of his supporters (“Knock the crap out of them, would you?”), but the fault does not end with him. The rising tide of thuggery is validated and encouraged by Republican officeholders, who are now devoting an extraordinary amount of attention to scapegoating vulnerable people (especially transgender kids) and echoing the lies and hyperbole of the conservative media.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of two Republicans serving on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, recently shared a death threat mailed to his wife, saying the two of them and their infant son would soon be executed. “There is violence in the future,” he said.

When more of it happens, candidates such as Greitens will pretend they had nothing to do with it. They will say their ugly, violent rhetoric was just figurative — even as they wink and nod to their supporters. They’ll claim to be shocked and ask how they could possibly have known anyone would take them seriously.

But we should take them very seriously. Violence isn’t something they’re working to discourage. It has become a key part of their rhetoric and their political program. And the worse it gets, the more pleased they’ll be.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wade vs Roe overturn, did not expect that. 

As more laws like this get overturn and others approved it just show the division in this country. 

I think eventually USA will brake up. This will not continue to last for long. You will have one country with their liberals view and another with conservative views. It will  be a divided country, similar to what happen to Israel in bibles time when they split and you have northern and southern Israel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Wade vs Roe overturn, did not expect that. 

As more laws like this get overturn and others approved it just show the division in this country. 

I think eventually USA will brake up. This will not continue to last for long. You will have one country with their liberals view and another with conservative views. It will  be a divided country, similar to what happen to Israel in bibles time when they split and you have northern and southern Israel. 

Russia'Johnson'd' the UK using just social media propaganda, (4 years in Moscow Cummings), and some pocket change 'donations'.  Russia Johnson'd the UK  before they Trump'd the USA. They wanted to destabilise the EU more than they wanted to destabilise the USA.

But division and destruction from within is the new warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its impossible for the country to "Break up" because the divisions exist everywhere, and that is healthy.


Even in red Missippippi you go to Jackson and its as blue as Los Angeles. Same with Blue California. Go 1 hour outside the city and you are in trump country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROE vs Wade has been overturned, so who has more rights in the US: a woman, or an AR-15 assault rifle? Find out which you are: 

Are your rights enshrined in the US constitution? 

A) Yes. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln foresaw the world that would come with such clarity that they made sure to protect me with the second amendment. What vision they had.
B) No. I kind of thought they were, but it turns out it was merely an interpretation of the law that was erroneous, according to five judges who make no secret of their political bias, and I no longer have autonomy over my own body.

Is there a powerful nutjob advocacy group defending you? 


A) ‘Nutjob’ is a defamatory term. It’s just a group of organised men with a keen interest in firearms, explosives and all things military, who regularly threaten street warfare if they don’t get their way.
B) Not really. I mean there’s the Democrat party, who are nominally in power, and there’s the president, but neither of them really do anything. A huge number of rational people will march against this decision and will be branded nutjobs.

What state are you in? 

A) The great news is it doesn’t matter, as the Supreme Court decided that second amendment rights are too important to be delegated to states. Those guys always have my back.
B) Unfortunately in one of the states that wasted no time taking the rights delegated to them by the Supreme Court and enacting a total ban.

Are you a man? 

A) Technically I’m without gender, but I like to think of myself as definingly male.
B) No, I’m a woman. When all my rights get taken away without my being consulted, surely it’s obvious?

Are you pregnant?

A) In a sense, yes, but pregnant with death. Which is just as legally valid as the other kind.
B) I am not at liberty to reveal that information as it may implicate me in a serious crime.


Mostly As: Congratulations, you’re a gun! A FN SCAR 16S to be exact, fast, accurate, recoil-free and fully protected in law. You may go about your business without interference.

Mostly Bs: Bad news; as a pregnant woman you’re not capable of making your own decisions for yourself and your future, so your rights have been removed for your own safety. Otherwise there was a real risk you might kill.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2022 at 20:42, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Its impossible for the country to "Break up" because the divisions exist everywhere, and that is healthy.


Even in red Missippippi you go to Jackson and its as blue as Los Angeles. Same with Blue California. Go 1 hour outside the city and you are in trump country.

not at all impossible

simple, very likely scenarios that VERY likely would lead to a breakup:

1. The out of control, RW christofascist (out of the 9 SCOTUS members they now have 5 ultra RWers, with the RW Chief Justice Roberts a 6 RWer, but not a fascist,  versus only 3 liberals) US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) continues to overturn massive civil rights cases:

they overturn the following cases (Clarence Thomas, the batshit cray black RW Justice with a traitor wife, Ginni Thomas, who was fully in the middle of the attempted coup) said in the decision that overturned Roe v Wade that they are going after:

Griswold v Connecticut (overturning that would allow states to ban contraception)

Obergefell v Hodges (overturning that would allow states ban gay marriage)

Lawrence v Texas (overturning that would allow states to criminalise gay sex)

Loving v Virginia (overturning that would allow states to ban interracial marriage)

Brown v Board of Education (overturning that would allow 'separate but equal' to become the law of the land, and allow states to go back to legal racial segregation, open racism)

Plus many other civil rights cases from the last 70 years are overturned.

PLUS PLUS, they (The RWers on the SCOTUS) will likely soon grant 'foetal personhood' from conception, which would instantly outlaw ALL abortions NATIONWIDE, not just kick it back to the States like they just did now.


2. The RW Rethugs take back both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate in 2022, and then hold both, PLUS they win back the US Presidency (POTUS) in 2024 (would be either Trump or Ron DeSantis , the Florida governor, who is just as evil as Trump, and FAR more intelligent), and hold both chambers of Congress, so back to complete Republican control of all 3 branches of the US government (Judicial, Legislative, Executive).

They then pass laws (that the RW SCOTUS upholds) that NATIONALISE all those christofash bans and laws. The Blue (Democratic-controlled States) States WILL not obey, it will never happen.


3. At this point (which WILL be reached if (and this is likely) the Republicans win Congress in 2022 and then POTUS in 2024, and keep Congress) there are two choices, BOTH of which lead to breakup:

(A) The Republican controlled national government tries to enforce the new christofash laws via force in the Blue States. The Blue Sates WILL resist, and this will lead to kinetic violence/civil war, and WILL instantly start the Blue States down the path to secession (ie leaving the Union of the Sates)

(B) The Rethug federal government does NOT try and enforce the law in the Blue States, which will instantly lead to the Red (Republican controlled) States starting to ignore US federal laws that THEY do not agree with. Chaos and kinetic violence ensues again, ad this will again lead to States stating to try and secede (in thsi case it might be Red States as well, IF the Democrats regain control of the POTUS in 2028).


Bonus force multiplier to this all:

In 2024 the Democratic POTUS candidate (Biden or someone else) wins the Electoral College, and this wins the Presidency, BUT enough Republican controlled Red States overrule the popular vote win of the Democrat in their states, and they (the Republican-controlled State legislatures) declare the Republican Presidential candidate the winner and send THAT slate of electors to the US Congress, who will accept the Red States usurpation of the popular vote (after VP Kamala Harris tries to overturn it, it then goes to each Chamber of Congress and the Rethug-controlled US House will vote in the Republican POTUS candidate, and the Rethug-controlled US Senate will vote in the Rethug Vice Presidential candidate) The RW SCOTUS upholds this all, and the Rethug POTUS and VPOYUS are sworn in January 20, 2025, and the Blue States will instantly start secession operations.


THAT (all that above) is how the USA breaks up in a  rapid fashion, as if those scenarios happen (and all of those are very likely to occur) there is almost no way to stop the inertia, no way to put the genie back into the bottle.

There are other, slower (5, 10, 15 years or so in duration) scenarios that could well lead to the same.


Edited by Vesper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the south, or any place, tried to secede again they would be beat into submission just like in the 19th century. The idea of breaking up over grievances has already shown as something the federal government wont, and will never, allow.


The idea of red and blue states doesnt hold up when every state for the most part has red and blue sections. It would have to be street by street, city by city, if things fell a part like that and it simply wont happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the US does break up in the future, many conservatives will finally discover where all that money was coming from.

Florida will be very ironic: many migrants fled their countries for a better life, but IMO many do not understand what in the US makes life better. They may end up where they started.

@Sir Mikel OBE that's the case every time a country breaks up. It's never perfect, but things adjust over time.

Edited by robsblubot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
38 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Who will be victorious in the Westminster Derby? Place your bets! #ToryLeadershipContest #spotthedonkey #VicTORYious


Decided by 180 000 Tory members. 

73% of Tory party members are men and 48% are over 65 years old, compared with 18% of the population as a whole. 

Median income over 80k

This why all the multi millionaire X Factor candidates mention 'tax cuts'. 

Every one of them as far as i can see is motivated by greed and narcissism all endorsed Johnsons lies, law breaking and general incompetence to keep their lavish , expenses filled luxury lifestyles.

All a bunch of cunts

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all want tax cuts but I don't see it coming.
The age of the big brother is looming upon us.
In the ancient world peoples revolted against taxes:
The battle of the Teutoburg forest, Robin Hood against the sheriff of Nottingham (if true), American revolution, French revolution.
In French revolution, the hero Lafayette warned Louis but Louis did n't listen - so he ended up minus a head.

In the modern world things changed. Socialism promised to tax anything that moves.
In Russia they created the holodomor, the genocide of the Ukrainians.
As a result people were charging against the electric fences to find freedom in the west.
This time the taxes were meant to go to the socialist state and not to the "gentilhommes" but the effect was the same.

In the end come the turn of the century.
Now it's the electronics revolution.
The taxman, be it Ivan or the king's horsemen, has an easy task now.
All the money is converted to points residing in computer banks.
At the flick of a switch he can confiscate all you got and more.

So if someone like Lafayette turns up and says "hey guys take it easy" they will just laugh at him. Take easy what mate ? All we do is press enter to run a subroutine.
So the age of slavery and conformity is here to stay.
What will happen if you are with a friend in a motorway and he runs out of gas ? He left his wallet at home as well so he asks to you to buy the gas from the station.
You do that, you continue your journey. But how get your twenty quid back ? The friend is willing to pay his debt but how ? The transaction has to be authorised 
by a political commissar. If he simply transfers twenty quid to you is a "suspect commercial activity" - you both go to jail. Fiddlesticks !

So that's socialism for you.

Edited by cosmicway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2022 at 03:49, cosmicway said:

So the age of slavery and conformity is here to stay.

Literally, if the Republicans sweep both chambers of Congress in the US in 2022, and hold both in 2024, win back the Presidency, plus maintain and increase their dominance at State levels.

Most all civils rights gained since Brown v Board in 1954 (including Brown itself, the case that found separate but equal, ie racial separation, to unconstitutional, thus ending a large chunk of American apartheid) will be washed away in a raging flood of christofascism.

Edited by Vesper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...


Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades.
While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. 

Thank You

Sure, let me in!