The fact that this guy can “normalize” anything is incredible to me. He is so cartoonishly villainous that he stands out even in an entire administration of villains. They are all corrupt and authoritarian, but he is so blatantly antagonistic to even basic civil rights and due process, goes even beyond the Unitary Exective Theory into trying to establish the presidency as having autocratic control of the entire federal and state governments (i.e. dictatorship), and has justified much of this on racist fear mongering. The Nazi label is spot-the-fuck-on.
I genuinely think Miller is the most dangerous person in the administration.
He’s both the weakest and most dangerous. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with the new right and authoritarianism in general. He spews his hateful rhetoric to scapegoat, incite violence, and distract from the obvious reality that he and the agenda he promotes profits from America’s destruction. He relies on diffusion of responsibility to keep himself from being held accountable, and when anyone points out the obvious, he pretends to be the victim.
He loves to stir shit up and then run like a coward to hide behind the actions of others. He shields himself with his position, but without it he’s absolutely nothing. He’s good at squawking orders at other people like a little bitch, but he would never physically go out and do the things he’s commanding others to do.
Can you imagine Stephen Miller trying to go out and actually arrest somebody? I don’t mean one of those photo op/publicity arrests like Kristi Noem loves to orchestrate. Just arresting one unarmed person, on his own. He would be eaten alive.
So why does he feel so comfortable screaming quotas at other people to go out and do the dirty work he would never be able to actually physically carry out? Or get off on making his subordinates cry? He pretends to be a lion among sheep, but in reality he’s just the sickliest of sheep who found a discarded lions hide laying around.
If America would refuse to let him keep hiding under the skin that doesn’t even belong to him, he would break so fast. The same goes for all these boot strappin’, social darwinism loving, fascist Nazi losers.
Without the illusion of strength, they are fucking nothing. And without narrative control, they lose the ability to control anything. Thats also why when they feel their narrative control starting to slip, they’re willing to do some unspeakably evil shit to create fear and get it back. It’s odd that when Russia was dealing with “domestic terrorism,” they also created special task forces to keep their cities “safe.”
It’s not secret and it’s been publicly available since about 2019. It was posted on the open internet way back then. They made a whole playbook. They said they were gonna use the playbook. They are using the playbook. They are successfully executing and completing entire sections of the playbook. This is not a surprise. You’re not allowed to be surprised by this.
I think it’s fair to be surprised by their effectiveness, and also surprised by the homegrown resistance to it
Tbh the only thing I’m really surprised by at this point is the almost complete and total lack of pushback from fucking anyone who has the capacity to actually push back
I was just listening to Ken Klippenstein on the QAA podcast talking about Trumps memo on labeling leftists as domestic terrorists along with anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, and anti-American messaging being labeled as domestic terrorism, and he mentioned that he’d talked to a high ranking Democrat and a friend had talked to Dick Durbin, who’s the number two Democrat in the senate, five days after the memo was released and both claimed they’d “never heard of it.”
At this point I don’t find this behavior surprising. What I do find surprising is that people still don’t believe that Republican and Democratic politicians are in complete alignment and that they consider all of us their enemies.
Yesterday Miller said on CNN that Trump has plenary power. That’s the legal term for full, absolute, total control of the country. A literal king. Miller then shuts down because he’s a clown that realizes that he isn’t above the law.
We are there kiddos. It’s just a matter of who is willing to say it out loud.
To that end, Miller appears to want Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. Recently, Miller was asked directly if he’s discussed the idea with Trump, and he evaded the question. It’s likely that Miller, a master manipulator lurking furtively behind the despot’s throne, frequently uses the word “insurrection” about Trump’s opponents to lodge it deep in Trump’s brainstem and make invocation of the Act more likely.
Of course he wants him to invoke the insurrection act. So much of this has been in the making for a very long time. Not just the plans written in Project 2025, via very subtle actions of GOP at state and local levels before Trump was even elected for a second term. Elected officials have been working together to have everything in place necessary to overthrow democracy, and barely anyone noticed.
Ex: In April of 2024, the current AG of TN quietly removed a section of the state constitution that would have made Trump sending troops to crack down on crime in September of 2025, a violation. Nobody noticed he removed this until a few days before the guard arrived.
During a press conference, the TN AG gaslit his own state by pretending it was crazy to suggest that he somehow did so because he knew it would help Trump 6 months before he was elected. It also turns out this AG belongs to an organization that has churned out many of Trump’s loyal servants (including Pam Bondi and Jeff Landry), the Republican Attorney Generals of America (RAGA).
Her Republican colleague, Jim Walsh, dismissed her concerns as performative and simply a swipe at Donald Trump. What’s really odd, is that TX has its own legislation protecting it from invasion from other states national guard. So it seems a little odd that Walsh would go out of his way to frame and dismiss this legislation as partisan theatrics:
The legislation is about maintaining the state’s autonomy and authority, Mena, a Democrat, told her colleagues during last week’s hearing. “Without this bill, there’s nothing on the books to prevent this.”
Its not a wild conspiracy theory to point out that large numbers of the GOP (and I suspect some Democrats, including one mentioned in this article) have been part of a long standing plan to overthrow democracy. You can’t prove intent based on circumstance, but it’s naive to believe they were unaware of what they were doing. That willingness to believe these people are now or have ever been acting in good faith is what they’re relying on to destroy us.
How does an AG have the power to change a state’s constitution?
AG withdrew legal opinion in 2024 suggesting National Guard for TN policing unconstitutional
Alarm bells are being rung in the Capitol over the withdrawal of a legal opinion from 2021 that suggests use of the National Guard in Tennessee for crime-fighting would violate the Tennessee Constitution.
The opinion, written by former Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, was withdrawn April 19, 2024, without much, if any, public notice.
At a Sept. 30 news conference, Tennessee Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, said the withdrawn opinion suggests the upcoming deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis this week would be unconstitutional.
“That is not just reckless, but seemingly lawless,” Yarbro said about the deployment of troops to Memphis.
Yarbro called withdrawing the opinion “scrubbing the historical record.”
Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told The Tennessean the opinion was withdrawn “because it did not accurately reflect the state of the law.” The attorney general’s office withdraws opinions when it determines the state of the law has changed or the analysis was incorrect, Skrmetti said.
So just so we’re all on the same page, withdrawing a legal opinion from a former AG is not the same thing as “removing a section of the state constitution”. An AG’s opinion indicates how their office will apply the law when deciding who and how to prosecute cases, but they don’t even get the final say on how that law is interpreted. The courts do. It’s bad and definitely indicates collusion, but let’s please use the proper language to describe what’s happening.
To be clear, the public is squarely with Pritzker: A new CBS surveyfinds that 58 percent of Americans oppose Trump’s National Guard deployments.
This number makes me feel a deep shame for my country. 58%? That’s all? That’s the cap on the number of people who see fascist military action happening in their own country and are shocked and disgusted?
What the fuck happened to us?
42% happened
Life, the universe, and everything.
Bottom of the article: “This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,441 U.S. adults interviewed between October 1-3, 2025. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.3 points.” The methodology from YouGov is at this link: https://today.yougov.com/about/panel-methodology. Not sure how much I trust these kinds of results, and its very difficult to determine their reflection of reality, especially given the various motivating incentives to the respondents including monetary and political incentives to being on their ‘panel’.
This may be a secret to Congress and MAGA, but not to anyone in the general public who is paying attention.
Do Democratic leaders broadly have their own theory about this moment? It’s unclear. But here’s what we can divine right now: Governors J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Gavin Newsom of California do have one. They grasp Miller’s theory of the case, and they are responding in kind, with their own war for attention, on the intuition that voters will side with the rule of law over authoritarian dictatorship—if they are presented with this as a clear choice.
I don’t like the comparison of Pritzker to Newsome. It feels pretty disingenuous, and I have to be honest, there is a part of me that sees the things Newsome is doing to his own state and worries he wouldn’t mind seceding and making California his own left of center Authoritarian super state. Almost like a if you can’t beat em join em.
I really hope I’m wrong about that, but I’m just being honest. I like the way he’s standing up to Trump. I don’t like watching a governor demand a city implement homeless sweeps and establish his own state police force.
Pritzker has actually really impressed me with the way he’s handled defending his state while keeping the people of Chicago and their own autonomy at the forefront. That is the kind of leadership that says we’re really in this together. I’m here to support you and do everything in my power as your governor to give you access to the tools you need to defend yourself.
Cities in California and Louisiana have seen their governors take control for very different reasons, but at the end of the day it feels like L.A. has been seized by Newsome because he believes this is the best way to defend it.
Several of the things Newsome has done have been eerily similar to Jeff Landry in Louisiana, but for some reason nobody wants to talk about that. As your governor, you’re adopting these tools regardless of if you want them or not.
I actually wrote something about the similarities I’ve noticed a couple of weeks ago.
there is a part of me that sees the things Newsome is doing to his own state and worries he wouldn’t mind seceding and making California his own leftist Authoritarian super state.
Bro, what?? Do you think Newsom is a leftist?
His own version of leftism in comparison to Trump and Miller. I guess it would be more accurate to call it centrist or moderate authoritarianism, which seems like an absurd oxymoron, but so do most things at this point.
This may come as a shock, but authoritarians can be on the left or right. Living under a boot isn’t freedom regardless of if it’s red or blue.
Newsom is a liberal
He claims to be, and maybe in his heart he truly believes he is, but liberalism at it’s core is supposed to be about equality and freedom.
Conservativism, at its core is about hierarchy. Hierarchy requires control, and despite the people at the top always claiming to love social darwinism so much, when they inevitably start to lose their control, they will default to authoritarianism to keep others from reaching the top and dethroning them. They will then claim some bullshit about being lions amongst sheep, but in reality they’re just rationalizing being authoritarian dick heads.
Well whatever he is, it’s not “leftist” or even “progressive.”
Seems like a neo-lib to me, but I’m not an expert on the guy.
Centrist moderate authoritarianism. I’m going to need an example of such an authoritarian in existence.
That is why it feels like an oxymoron, but it’s not. There is no doubt that if this is indeed the case with Newsome, he is selling his brand as the left alternative to right wing bigotry, but both are authoritarian.
I do appreciate the pearls of wisdom about how Newsome’s social policy in California is exactly the same as the policy in states like Louisiana and Florida. It’s a very helpful argument to distract from the actual point.
And an example of centrist moderate authoritarianism actually masquerading as progressive: Robespierre got a bad rap
Robespierre said that no one has the right to hoard heaps of wheat while his fellow man is starving.
Cool story bro, what did Robespierre do when the commoners were still starving, and he was in full control living large and in charge, and blowing money on a bunch of shit nobody asked for like hiring a poet to come up with a new calendar and names for the seasons?
A. Did he welcome the commoners to come eat at his plentiful table?
B. Did he ask the commoners what they believed he should be doing instead of hiring poets to make a new calendar?
C. Did he send the commoners and anyone that dared to criticize him to the guillotine, and also guillotine the fucking poet his cabinet had hired in a failed attempt to take the heat off of himself?
American examples would be Peter Thiel funding Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie as some kind of progressive/moderate team taking on Trump bc they are his back up plan.
Funny enough, guess what other Democrat from California Peter Thiel funded in the past?
Calling Robespierre a “moderate authoritarian” is kind of a wild claim lol
I’m not calling him a moderate authoritarian. I’m calling the leftist politician who is trying to rewrite history by making Robespierre out to be a progressive who got a bad rap, an example of “moderate” authoritarianism.
Moderate in terms of where her politics actually sit in terms of left vs right. Bc even though there can definitely be leftist authoritarians, I suspect most of the people who are doing these kinds of performances right now are similar to Jill Stein/most likely paid to help promote the right wing agenda for global dominance.
My guess is Californian nationalism. A lot of people seem to have pride in California as “not like those other fascist states” and I think Newsom is playing into that. I have full confidence that most liberals who fall for it won’t wise up, while it will only really fail if Trump or people who oppose him stop it. I’m not sure if Newsom will be able to actually capitalize on this nationalism, but I do think it’ll provide a backbone for future civil war and breakup of America should the military weaken enough.
The key part is that his authoritarian ambitions aren’t left wing in the slightest, merely right wing in a way that opposes Trump as an external enemy. Like many in the corporate aligned world, liberalism is truly dead to him, so for maintaining power he doesn’t really need to consider it seriously. As long as he has a fascist enemy, he can position himself as a bastion of liberalism. Looking at ideology on any political axis is a mistake, it’s all about power. He’s an opportunist through and through.
