Yep, a higher percentage of Americans support trump than weimar republic Germans ever supported Hitler. Fascist don’t have to engage in electoralism once they securely seize the power of the pulpit.
I’m done caring about America as a whole, I’m creating my mutual defense/support networks with friends and family and preparing for the worse. Democrats are still stuck in thirdway politics as the Reichstag burns to the ground.
The way Hitler took over with such a small support was by dividing the remaining citizens into smaller groups. Unity is our most powerful asset in resistance.
Trump has also failed to obtain abject loyalty of the military, which will prevent him from control by force.
Trump has also failed to obtain abject loyalty of the military, which will prevent him from control by force.
The problem is that also mimics hitler’s ascent to totalitarian control. Even at the height of his power lots of career soldiers and especially sailors were never really ideologically aligned with Hitler. Unfortunately, at the end of the day people in the military follow orders.
That’s not accurate. Germany had a strict top-down chain of military command, hence the Nuremberg trials defense of “just following orders.” After the trials, the US military was redesigned with a break above the Commanding Officer. The CO must verify the legality and constitutionality of orders before giving orders to the troops, just as it’s the responsibility of the troops to refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders. CO’s have the JAGs, or Judge Advocate General Corps, who are legal advisors at the CO’s disposal to ensure they have the resources needed to remain accountable to the law and Constitution.
That’s not accurate. Germany had a strict top-down chain of military command, hence the Nuremberg trials defense of “just following orders.”
The Nuremberg trials, like most international laws were an invention of convenience. If someone attempted to apply them to US action in a foreign intervention today, they would not be successful. In fact the US has stated that they would sooner invade a system like the ICC than allow them to prosecute anyone in the military.
After the trials, the US military was redesigned with a break above the Commanding Officer. The CO must verify the legality and constitutionality of orders before giving orders to the troops, just as it’s the responsibility of the troops to refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders.
This may be a fact in doctrine, but in practice the military has historically has failed to fulfill this particular commitment. There have been several examples of US troops committing illegal actions commanded by officers without legal retribution.
You can refuse to follow orders you think are illegal, but more often than not it’s a career ending action or punishable offense if not proven in court…and military court is not exactly a non biased apparatus of justice.
This system depends on young soldiers with minimal educations and rights to stand up to a system that has an immencse amount of control over their lives. A system that has proven to defend higher command and officers in most cases, and to defend its overall image over anything.
Even higher commands ability to stand up to the commander in chief is limited, we can see this in the news today with active duty military members being deployed state side to conduct what is fairly obvious policing actions in LA and on the US border in a direct violation of posse comitatus.
My entire point was that the rules that are supposed to protect the general population are often interpreted to serve those in power. Posse Comitatus is supposed to negate the use of military members from being used for policing on US soil.
Meaning that the definition of policing is being semantically interpreted as “arresting people” when in reality policing is defined as prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
What other purpose can the military be utilized against the general public other than to maintain public order?
First of all, the national guard are not active duty military personnel and can and are utilized in state policing actions. Secondly, laying down shields is not disobeying a direct order. Lastly we have historic examples of national guard members committing massacares against non violent protestors.
The US has not signed the Rome Statute, and is therefore not beholden to the laws of the ICC unless in a nation that has signed said agreement.
My point was that international law a kin to those laid down by the Nuremberg trials do not protect us from fascist utilizing the military against us.
Your claim was that we were granted protections via the establishment of the Nuremberg principals…the Nuremberg principals are now moderated by the ICC via the 1999 Rome statute.
You are just proving my point for me. Internal laws are subject to interpretation via those who currently hold power (fascist), and external laws are inventions of convenience that we do not and have never allowed to truly moderate our countries behavior. My original claim stands, that we are not really in a much different scenario than in Hitler’s Germany.
Yep, my faith in any established political party has been worn thin since the bush era. Right now I’m just working on teaching my LGBT friends how to maintain and shoot a rifle and how to properly stock a go bag.
Yep, a higher percentage of Americans support trump than weimar republic Germans ever supported Hitler. Fascist don’t have to engage in electoralism once they securely seize the power of the pulpit.
I’m done caring about America as a whole, I’m creating my mutual defense/support networks with friends and family and preparing for the worse. Democrats are still stuck in thirdway politics as the Reichstag burns to the ground.
The way Hitler took over with such a small support was by dividing the remaining citizens into smaller groups. Unity is our most powerful asset in resistance.
Trump has also failed to obtain abject loyalty of the military, which will prevent him from control by force.
The problem is that also mimics hitler’s ascent to totalitarian control. Even at the height of his power lots of career soldiers and especially sailors were never really ideologically aligned with Hitler. Unfortunately, at the end of the day people in the military follow orders.
That’s not accurate. Germany had a strict top-down chain of military command, hence the Nuremberg trials defense of “just following orders.” After the trials, the US military was redesigned with a break above the Commanding Officer. The CO must verify the legality and constitutionality of orders before giving orders to the troops, just as it’s the responsibility of the troops to refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders. CO’s have the JAGs, or Judge Advocate General Corps, who are legal advisors at the CO’s disposal to ensure they have the resources needed to remain accountable to the law and Constitution.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-armed-forces-high-command
The Nuremberg trials, like most international laws were an invention of convenience. If someone attempted to apply them to US action in a foreign intervention today, they would not be successful. In fact the US has stated that they would sooner invade a system like the ICC than allow them to prosecute anyone in the military.
This may be a fact in doctrine, but in practice the military has historically has failed to fulfill this particular commitment. There have been several examples of US troops committing illegal actions commanded by officers without legal retribution.
You can refuse to follow orders you think are illegal, but more often than not it’s a career ending action or punishable offense if not proven in court…and military court is not exactly a non biased apparatus of justice.
This system depends on young soldiers with minimal educations and rights to stand up to a system that has an immencse amount of control over their lives. A system that has proven to defend higher command and officers in most cases, and to defend its overall image over anything.
Even higher commands ability to stand up to the commander in chief is limited, we can see this in the news today with active duty military members being deployed state side to conduct what is fairly obvious policing actions in LA and on the US border in a direct violation of posse comitatus.
You’re using an argument for the exceptions as the rule. It’s wildly sensationalist.
Out of 4,100 National Guard members and 700 Marines dispatched to LA, there has been one detainment of a US citizen, and no arrests. Detainment is currently being debated as a possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marines-carry-out-first-known-detention-civilian-los-angeles-video-shows-2025-06-13/
There are also many instances of the National Guard laying down their riot shields, and even taking a knee to support citizens in peaceful protest. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/02/tennessee-national-guard-troops-lay-down-riot-shields-at-protesters-request/
The US has not signed the Rome Statute, and is therefore not beholden to the laws of the ICC unless in a nation that has signed said agreement.
My entire point was that the rules that are supposed to protect the general population are often interpreted to serve those in power. Posse Comitatus is supposed to negate the use of military members from being used for policing on US soil.
Meaning that the definition of policing is being semantically interpreted as “arresting people” when in reality policing is defined as prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
What other purpose can the military be utilized against the general public other than to maintain public order?
First of all, the national guard are not active duty military personnel and can and are utilized in state policing actions. Secondly, laying down shields is not disobeying a direct order. Lastly we have historic examples of national guard members committing massacares against non violent protestors.
My point was that international law a kin to those laid down by the Nuremberg trials do not protect us from fascist utilizing the military against us.
Your claim was that we were granted protections via the establishment of the Nuremberg principals…the Nuremberg principals are now moderated by the ICC via the 1999 Rome statute.
You are just proving my point for me. Internal laws are subject to interpretation via those who currently hold power (fascist), and external laws are inventions of convenience that we do not and have never allowed to truly moderate our countries behavior. My original claim stands, that we are not really in a much different scenario than in Hitler’s Germany.
Securing your local community is the smartest thing to be doing right now
Yep, my faith in any established political party has been worn thin since the bush era. Right now I’m just working on teaching my LGBT friends how to maintain and shoot a rifle and how to properly stock a go bag.