Half the nation is okay, blasé, or in favor of a police state, but what could eventually liberate us from totalitarianism? Could it be a military "hell no we won't go?"by Hal M. Brown

 

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

If you watched Rachel Maddow last night (watch it here) you saw her opening segment about how Trump has a new tool to implement a supercharged Nazi-like police state that even George Orwell hadn’t imagined for Big Brother. She described what the spyware that the government has purchased, which is called Paragon, can do. This is from Wikipedia:

It’s worth going to Wiki again for a detailed explanation of a police state:

A police state is a state whose government institutions exercise an extreme level of control over civil society and liberties. There is typically little to no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive, and the deployment of internal security and police forces play a heightened role in governance. A police state is a characteristic of authoritarian, totalitarian or illiberal regimes (contrary to a liberal democratic regime). Such governments are not exclusive to simply one-party states or dominant-party states, as they can also arise in a democracy or multi-party system.

Originally, a police state was a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century it has “taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning” by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of civil authorities. The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force that operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.Robert von Mohl, who first introduced the rule of law to German jurisprudence, contrasted the Rechtsstaat (”legal” or “constitutional” state) with the anti-aristocratic Polizeistaat(”police state”).

We also have stories like this:

Unfortunately the word “police” (which you see in the photo above) for the ordinary citizen doesn’t instill the fear it should unless they are hard core felons, or even minor lawbreakers who blow through a red light or speed and their heart races when they see the blue lights strobbing on top of the car behind them.

Trump’s armed thugs do a disservice to real police by having the word on their clothing. Real police are supposed to protect, serve, and to protect people from criminals.

Even the term “secret police” doesn’t lead to terror for those who root for the James Bond types in spy stories. 

This is the kind of secret police that Trump wants for the country:

He also wants to expand what he already has on the streets terrorizing people with all the armed thugs that comprise his anti-immigrant army. It used to be called ICE, but doesn’t currently have a name. It is the force that combines armed agents from Border Patrol, the FBI, ATF, Homeland Security, and even the IRS. They aren’t at all “secret” like the often dapperly dressed 007, but they don’t have uniforms like the Nazi SS.

Trump’s SS wears a hodgepodge of outfits, often with jeans or kakki pants, and some kind of weapon festooned bulletproof vest on top. The frequently wear a mask which not only hides their identities but makes them look more intimidating, as if that’s needed what with all the weapons they carry and their reputation for brutality.

These storm troopers are anything but secret. They come in with a bang, sometimes literally with the explosions of tear gas canisters, and they do their dirty work sometimes shooting people with non-lethal weapons or beating them, and then dragging some of them off to be at the mercy of another group of psychopaths who think they are doing God’s work.

They are not. Only about 50% are feeling various levels of concern, from terror to being blasé. 

Some, like me, see our democracy, and myself, about to drown caught in a whirlpool from which there’s no rescue, no life preserver that can be thrown to save us. 

Others hold out hope coming from the courts or the Democrats winning control of Congress in the next election. I think Trumpism can be slowed down but I don’t see how it can be stopped through the normal democratic proccess.

I have a fleeting sense of hope that there will be a proverbial red line which Trump will cross, probably a confluence of circumtances, which will lead to a decidedly undemocratic resolution. This could eventually restore democracy. It would involve the military saying a very hard “hell no we won’t go” when ordered to turn against American citizens. 

If this happens the numbers would have to be exponentially greater than the two soldiers described in this story:

I asked in my title what could liberate us from totalitarianism. It took a concerted effort by the Allies to save the world from the Axis powers. This culminated with D-Day and ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don’t have that kind of time. I desperately hope that our liberation is non-violent. Perhaps it could be achieved with the “hell no, we won’t go” I used AI to illustrate in this Substack.

I just looked at Sabrina Haake’s Facebook page where she wrote about Democracy.IO:

This is an incredible free resource. It makes it easy to contact your senators and representatives, all you do is enter your address and it populates the email addresses to Congress assigned to your location. A screen pops up, you write your message and it sends it to your elected representatives.

it came from someone urging dems to thank their representatives for fighting back on the budget, and for holding their ground to pressure the republicans not to throw 12 million people off their health insurance plan. 

She included this link:

My reply, alas, may look overly pessimsitc to some though obviously I think it is realistic. This is what I wrote:

I am afraid that this is a feel-good excercise. Our Democratic Party members of Congress aready know how we feel. If we have Republican members they don’t care. I might say I hate to throw cold water on optimism, but that would be a lie. I am quite deliberate in doing this. I regret doing it. I feel like I am still a psychotherapist working with clients clinging to wishful thinking or false hopes and trying to figure out how to get through to them in ways that will help them cope with inevitable bad outcomes. My Substack today was prompted by Rachel’s show last night. It was about the government use of spyware. I see this as just one way they are well on their way to establishing a police state. I do see hope for a rescue, but it would be drastic and I am no way sure it will happen.

I refuse to be like this, hiding my head ad my feelings in a happy smile Amazon envelop…

… when I really feel like this:

For those with sharp eyes the sign in the background is from a famous Paul Krasner poster from The Realist. Read about it here.

Thanks for reading Hal Brown's Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work not by sending money, just by subscribing and reading what I post.

Leave a comment

Previous Substacks

Share Hal Brown's Substack

My comments in RawStory

RawStory: go-to site for breaking news.

My RawStory comments

Portland Media:

KOIN

KGW

OPB

KATU (Sinclair)

Click to read previous.

It is time for Rachel Maddow cut the chuckling and get deadly serious. by Hal M. Brown

 

I have admired Rachel Maddow ever since she began her show on MSNBC. I always agree with everything she says. I don't always agree with how she says it or how she produces her show. I address the latter today.

Last night Rachel Maddow found something to smile and chuckle over about something Trump did. I found this to be inappropriate.

I wanted to find a picture for this Substack of Rachel Maddow to illustrate the habit she has of laughing inappropriately when discussing something serious. I looked up "Rachel Maddow laughing" and found more than I expected to in this: 

Rachel Maddow laughs at white supremacists whining about money woes before Charlottesville trial

Out MSNBC host Rachel Maddow laughed at complaints from white supremacists about their upcoming trial for inciting violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Maddow also mocked the white, straight, cisgender men at their choice to represent themselves after their lawyers quit the case, saying “couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.”

The article didn't offer an opinion about her laughing about something so serious.

Last night Rachel Maddow began her show with a long explanation about Trump using a family crest which the previous owners of Mar-a-Lago left behind on a wall for his own self-agrandizement. It was off-putting to me because she sounded rather chipper and she smiled and chuckled occasionally as she went on. 

She told about his new challenge coin. Wikipedia explains what they are, but in brief, they have been used by many other presidents and by the military to show appreciation to individuals.  

Bottom: Trump's coin with the crest and Donald J. Trump on it.

At least she didn't waste time, like I am about to do, telling about his 2017 challenge coin. This is from The NY Times:

What’s big and shiny and gold and features Donald J. Trump’s name splashed across the front? No, it’s not a new development on the West Side of Manhattan. It’s the redesigned presidential challenge coin.

A custom dating back 20 years, presidential challenge coins have traditionally been handed out to service members in commemoration of special achievements and milestones. President Trump’s coin, which many saw on Friday for the first time, is unmistakably different from its predecessors.

Gone is the national motto, E pluribus unum, meaning “out of many, one.” In its place appears the president’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” which the administration has also used on official White House documents.

This would have been approprate if the segment was merely about Trump's narcissim. Besides, his stealing the family crest is old news. The only thing new is his putting it on a coin. Here's a BBC article about it from 2017:

The title of this segment was "Trump makes laughingstock of America with repeated embarrassments in early days of term." His being the laughingstock of the world doesn't mean we should be laughing at him. You can watch the segment here. 

She talked about his saying that Hezbolah used condoms in making bombs and quizically asking just how this would work. She talked about his saying that the US sent military troops into Calfornia to turn on the water, and other things not at all related to his appropriation of the crest of another family. She talked about how Trump thought Spain was a member of the BRIC nation group. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. All this is fodder for discussion, but it had nothing to do with the family crest story. 

Rachel frequently begins her show with a backstory, but it always connects to what she then goes on to address. This one didn't. It just gave her something light to talk about.

Rachel never made the connection between Trump's wanting to have a family crest and an aspect of his dark and dangerous personality. She could have made the connection by doing this.

Better yet...

 ... she could have explained that demonstrates that Trump is an exemplar of someone manifesting all of the traits of The Dark Triad. The triad is narcissism, psychopathology, and Machiavellianism. These traits have been described as occuring together in a malevolent way. I won't waste space going further into this here since you can look it up on Wikipedia.

Click to enlarge image

I have never seen Rachel Maddow address the psychopathology of Trump. On the other hand, Lawrence O'Donnell regularly has mental health professionals on his show addressing this subject. 

Recently he had psychoanalyst Lance Dodes on. This was just after Trump announced his desire, or threat, to take over Greenland. You can watch the segment here.

O'Donnell previously had both Dodes and psychologist John Gartner, the founder of Duty to Warn, on the show.

Rachel Maddow came back to doing a five night a week show to cover the first 100 days of Trump's presidency with great fanfare on MSNBC. 

I see from the MSNBC website that she went on to discuss Trump going too far in his zeal to dismantle the federal government and interviewing Tim Walz. I don't know whether those segements were worth watching because when she went to commercial after 25 minutes we went back to watching "The Night Agent" on Netflix.

This is the second Substack I've written expressing dismay that Rachel sometimes takes things too lightly. Read it all here.

I wrote, among other things, the following:

I don't want to pick on Rachel Maddow in particular, but she seems to be the worst offender. Others, like Lawrence O'Donnell, Michelle Wallace, and Ali Velshi, report on Trump and what he is doing with gravity. But Rachel seems to have a kind of nervous reaction sometimes, not all of the time, when she laughs or chuckles when reporting on Trump and his cadre.

There is nothing remotely amusing about Trump and about what he is doing. He is hell-bent on turning the country into a ruthless dictatorship as soon as possible.  Nobody on MSNBC should crack a smile when they talk about him even if they are reporting on some of his faux pas. 

I am open to considering that Rachel's approach is acceptable just because, however she comes across, she gets under Trump's thin skin. I measure this possiblity against how it effects her audience. I think of the impact Walter Chronkite had when he came out against the VietNam War.  

It is time for Rachel to say she isn't going to crack so much as a hint of a smile until the menace of MAGA is gone.

I think the peril of Trump will begin to sink in. It may take more reporting on children cowering in fear and crying when ICE agents manhandle their parents who are in chains when they are loaded onto airplanes.

Rereading this, written just five days ago, I realize that the actions Trump has taken since then demonstrate that he is hellbent on riding roughshod over democracy. In his fervor to get revenge on his enemies as he demands alligence from the GOP lest they, too, become his enemies, he makes no secret of the fact that he wants to become a ruthless dictator. Forget the "day one" crap and the lie about not knowing about Project 2025. This is his plan.

I expect more from Rachel Maddow. I think her lead-in last night was basically shtick. Chuckle, chuckle, so Trump is a self-aggrandizing asshole. Yeah, we know that, but he's an asshole that has nominated somone to be FBI director who, as a wrote about yesterday, wants to put you in prison.

I've given up on the "Morning Joe" crew. They or their producers insist on spending time talking about sports and having entertainment segments on. The other morning they had a relevant discussion about Trump and then had John Larrouqutte on talking about the revival of "Night Court." That's when we tuned in to CNN. 

What is happening to the couunty is, as the sayings go, as serious as a heart attack or a cancer diagnosis. Now it is time for Rachel Maddow to get deadly serious. 

I post my Substacks (formerly blogs) on several platforms. They are on Substack where, if you want to submit your email, you can be notified of all new blog posts. They are on HalBrown.org. They are also on Stressline.org I also post them on Medium because this enables them to be easily found on internet searches.