Lex Anteinternet: Some Grim Predications. "He who saves his country violates no law" as the stupidest possible quote.

For those who thought the first part of this might be a little extreme as a predication:

Lex Anteinternet: Some Grim Predications: 

Some Grim Predications

Get ready for massive gun control (and worse).

Symbol of the Freedom Caucus, um, Nazi Germany's Sturmabteilung.

Eh?  With the NRA in Donny's pocket.

Yep.

The reason for this is pretty obvious.  Trump has no natural affinity for firearms, although apparently his son Eric does.  Trump's love for the NRA was because they loved him more than they loved their country, or anything else.  The NRA was and is his tool.  The NRA can thank Wayne LaPierre's leadership for that.*

But we're about to see some massive violence in American society, which gets to a couple of other predictions

Mass shootings, and by that I mean real ones, not ones where five people are shot up in a gang fight, are probably likely to break out here soon on an increased scale.  Political violence is about to occur.  You can't release 1,000 Brownshirts into society and not have violence break out and you can't routinely insult up to half the nation before somebody gets mad.

And sooner or later, some of that is going to be directed at Trump himself.

Of course, it already has. There's been two attempted assassinations of Trump already.  That's not going to stop, it will occur again.  

I'm not wishing that on him, or anyone else, but only a fool could deny that it might occur, or indeed that it will occur.  The level of tension is too high in the country for this not to start playing out, and Trump is making it worse on a daily basis.

The last President this hated was Abraham Lincoln, who was perhaps ironically hated by the same people who are MAGA today.  That's the last time the country was this divided, and that division resulted in John Wilkes Booth killing Lincoln.  Trump isn't comparable to Lincoln in any fashion, his own demented imagination aside, except for the level of hatred they both engender, and interestingly from the same classes.  It was probably nearly inevitable that somebody would take a shot at Lincoln, and it likely is the same in regard to Trump.

And frankly, like Booth going after Lincoln, the general trends fit the pattern, as do the sorts of personalities involved.

Leon Czolgosz

Leon Czolgosz killed William McKinley, whom Trump suddenly discovered, as Czolgosz was an angry unemployed anarchist and a member of a despised minority.  

We're about to see a dip in the economy, which I'd guess will be a massive recession, and there are going to be a lot of angry unemployed around.  For that matter, there are about to be a bunch of angry unemployed former Federal (and State) employees and we seemingly have a problem with angry semi employed veterans around right now.

Charles Whitman. . . he doesn't look like an unhinged killer, does he?

An angry radicalized veteran is what Lee Harvey Oswald was.  Charles Whitman was also a veteran. Indeed, they'd both been Marines. The country has spent the last several decades absolutely idolizing veterans to the point where we've seen at least three mass killing performed by them and barely took notice of that fact.  With the war in Afghanistan causing thousands of head injuries and a devotion to servicemen that's so profound that we excused their refusal to get vaccinated and have ignored service member presence at the January 6 insurrection, we're really setting ourselves up, something that's been amplified by the AR15 Effect.

And we're also in the process of making entire foreign and ethnic populations angry.  Palestinians who naively hoped for a less pro Israel administration now have a kook who proposes to take over Gaza and make it into a sort of Club Med.  Canadians openly boo the Star Spangled Banner at sporting events now every time they're held.  A hockey game in Montreal this past week showed at least one American hockey player nearly in tears.  The United States is experiencing a level of contempt not leveled at it since the height of the Cold War, when Communists nations and their fellow travelers displayed it.  And Trump has made vague threats against Iran, which has never had a problem with murdering people.

Shirhan Sirhan.

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was a Palestinian who had formerly adored Bobby Kennedy, we might wish to remember.  The current goofball Secretary of Health and Human Services' father was running for the Presidency at the time he was murdered for his support of Israel.  That was at a time when the Muslim population of the United States, and the immigrant Middle Eastern population, was quite small in comparison to what it is today.  And Kennedy hadn't betrayed the misbegotten trust of an Islamic population the way Trump has.  Nor did Kennedy accuse anyone of eating cats and dogs, or create an environment in which Native Americans now carry their IDs out of fear of being expelled from their own country for looking too brown.

Truman's would be killers were members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, and we don't even usually think of the Puerto Ricans being all that angry.

Funny, by the way, with all the talk of adding a state, Trump doesn't mention Puerto Rico. . . I wonder why that is?

And added to that, Trump's targeted Mexican drug cartels.  For years some have been convinced that John F. Kennedy was "Paddy Wacked" by the Mafia or by Irish American mobsters working for the Mafia.  It seems to lack any real credibility, but if the mob had reasons to go after Kennedy, whose father had connections with bootleggers, who was going after them, surely the Mexican mobs have just as great of incentive, and frankly are much more violent.

Finally, and one that is admittedly unlikely, there are growing rumblings about a military strike on Trump.

Just the other day I saw an officer post an item which, while veiled, clearly argued that his fellow officers needed to be prepared to disobey illegal orders, basically like the members of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York just did.  Okay, that's one thing. But then this past week I saw outright cries, from civilians, that the military oath to protect the country from foreign and domestic enemies applies to Trump, as he's a domestic, and maybe, a foreign enemy.

He may in fact be a foreign enemy, I'd note.  We've raised it here before, but now Time's raising it.

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a knowing Russian agent, in which case there's some sort of duty for somebody to do something, if not actually what's being urged.  On this we might note that the Army kept the Venona Files for decades before anyone knew it, and didn't really trust Franklin Roosevelt to know the truth about what was in it.  The Venona Files revealed that the U.S. Army was aware that people like Alger Hiss were Soviet spies, they just didn't feel they could get any traction on it, and for that matter Whitaker  Chamber's efforts to enlighted FDR outright failed.  The point is that the service, if Trump is a paid or compromised Russian agent, may very well know it, but be afraid at this point to act on it.  I wouldn't blame them for being afraid.

But, if that's the case, and of course we don't know that it is, it's worth noting that officers will act independently if they feel they have no choice or are obligated to.  That's what nearly caused the US and the USSR to nearly go to war over Berlin.  The officer in charge lacked clear instructions and was headed to war with the Soviets on one occasion when JFK was President before the clear instructions came in.  If the Service is stilling around with information that Trump is simply a Russian tool, and to an outside observer there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he may very well be, it's not impossible that the service, or the CIA, might actually act.

Of course, the fact that Trump is still living is pretty good evidence that neither the military or the CIA actually have anything of this type on him or he'd already be dead.  If they had something, they probably would have done something by now.

On this topic, however, we might recall France.

France's politics became enormously polarized before World War Two, much like are own are, right now.  World War Two made the French far right ascendant.  Petain would have recognized the Project 2025 crowd pretty easily.  The Second World War put the French far right sort of in the trash can, from which its never emerged, but French politics didn't return to normal for decades.  One of the thing that occured in that context is that France fought two bitter colonial wars, one in Indochina and another in Algeria, in the decade following the Second World War.

DeGaulle's decision to pull out of Algeria lead to an internal anti DeGaulle movement inside of the French Army itself, the Organisation armée secrète.  The OAS not only opposed DeGaulle's decision to leave Algeria, it tried to kill him numerous times.  One such fictional attempt is the plot of the excellent book Day of the Jackal, which has been made into a movie twice.

The OAS was bitter about leaving Algeria, and not really happy about what happened in Indochina.  Of course, Algeria was an overseas department of France, so giving it up is sort of loosely analogous to leaving American Samoa or perhaps Puerto Rico, so the analay is strained.

Having said that, it was Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, who surrendered to the Taliban, something that Trump's deluded followers were easily distracted from, including those followers who served in Afghanistan.  But the fact remains we shed blood and then left, and now have a large population of veterans who served there.

And Trump is imperiling our relationship with Taiwan.  "Losing" China in the 1940s, is what caused the Republican Party of that era to be shaken out of its foreign policy slumber and lead directly to the McCarthy Era, which saw the first expressions of something resembling what we're now seeing, point being, if we "lose" Taiwan, it's going to shake something up.

And Trump's course seems likely to lead us from withdrawing to an 85 year commitment to the security of Europe.

None of this means a military coup or an internal strike on the Presidency is going to  happen, but all of it does put the overall violent situation that Trump has fostered into a very strange position.  Men who have spent 30 years dedicated to defending the West might not really take it that well if they're told to cozy up to a side they know to be the enemy.

What would happen if the military actually acted in this fashion?  I think we'd see far right riots for about a week, and that's about it.  Most of the far right is a pack of paper tigers.  Faced with a military action, or an action by a limited number of servicemen, they'll just accept it as the right thing to do and claim they were for it all along.

Back to civilian actors.

If all this seems far fetched, I've already seen two barely veiled calls for assassination on Blue Sky or Twitter.  People outright hoping somebody will kill Trump.  During the Super Bowl I heard several people either outright note what an assassination opportunity it was, or in the words of one person "what a John Wilkes Booth moment."

So where does this lead, if it happens?

If Trump survives the next attempt, he'll slap down an executive order banning wide classes of long arms and handguns, as well as orders massively curtailing civil liberties.  My guess is that most semi automatic long arms will be outright banned.  If Trump asks Congress to do it, the Democrats are already all in, and the dog like GOP will do exactly what Trump wants.  He'll probably simply ban handguns as well.

And, as noted, he'll curtail civil liberties.  In that sense, such a thing would be a gift to him.

And there's a good chance he'll do that when the next big mass shooting occurs.  It's probably already being worked out.

And what's the risk to him?  It's not like the NRA is going to suddenly turn its back on somebody they fanatically worshipped.  Hitler, to a degree, turned on the SA, but they didn't turn on him.  The NRA will roll over like a dog and come out for whatever he asks for.

If Trump doesn't survive, mass violence will break out in the Populist Storm Trooper camp who will blame the murder on the fantastical "deep state". They already believe they're freedom's vanguard in this fashion.  J. D. Vance will use the event to declare an emergency and then he'll do the same thing.  That will last for about a week, as noted, until Vance declares all is well.

Indeed, William McKinley, whom Trump so adores, provides an example.  McKinley's Vice President was  Theodore Roosevelt, who many in the  GOP feared as a dangerous radical.  Roosevelt wasted no time making the government his own.  The  Trumpite lackeys and Elon Musk will be shown the door, and we'll have National Conservatism, like it or not, and whether or not anyone voted for it.

I have now seen a pile of people quoting Trump's quote of Napoleon, "he who saves his country violates no law" as justifying assassinating him.  A highway bridge has been painted with graffiti openly asking who is going to kill Elon Musk.

Which is exactly why that sort of goofball dictatorial view should not be expressed by somebody in power.  If Trump feels that ignoring the law is justified as he's "saving the country", others who feel he's wrecking the country can say the exact same thing.

We're supposed to be a country of laws not men.  I hope the Supreme Court remembers that here in the near future.

Now, one of his predictable loyal supporters on This Week claimed that this was just "catnip for the media".  Well, there's a lot of unhinged people out there.  Remember Luigi?

And beyond that, let's remember that if Trump is openly advocating illegality, those who have sworn an oath to uphold the law are put in a really difficult position in regard to Trump.  What do loyal members of the government, Congress, and the military do when the illegal orders come?