Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,443
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Deep state coup
==Deep state coup==
==Deep state coup==
{{See also|Transition Integrity Project|U.S. Color Revolution}}
{{See also|Transition Integrity Project|U.S. Color Revolution}}
[[Deep State]] [[subversive]]s openly talked about military intervention in politics and presidential succession in August 2020.<ref>https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/six-scenarios-military-intervention-after-january-20/167777/</ref> John Nagl and Paul Yingling penned an open letter to Milley chalk full of Democrat [[fake news]] talking points in support of the Marxist insurrection and advocating oath breaking.<ref>https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/08/12/john-nagl-and-paul-yingling-advocate-oath-breaking/</ref>
[[Deep State]] [[subversive]]s openly talked about military intervention in politics and presidential succession in August 2020. Thomas Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defence College’s Centre for Joint Operations writing in ''Defense One'', "a portfolio brand of GovExec, whose market-leading services help contractors support government leaders and their missions<,"<ref>i.e. a globalist rag for the [[administrative state]] and [[military-industrial complex]].</ref> wrote:
{{quotebox-float|"there are two competing visions of the military in the public sphere today. One is the orthodox view, steeped in the reassuring Huntingtonian principles of subordination and nonpartisan, apolitical professionalism. The other is the heterodox view — despised and scorned wherever it appears — that dispenses with the self-serving myth that the military (or indeed any million-person, trillion-dollar organization) can ever be apolitical. Nonpartisan, yes; professional, yes; but never apolitical.
The problem is that the first perspective cannot abide any debate on the role of the military in politics, since these thinkers believe there is no acceptable role. For them, any overt action by the military in the political arena is forbidden. For reasons that have never been clear to me, covert action by the military in the political arena — for example, community relations, industrial relations, congressional relations, or public relations — seems to be fine.
From the second perspective, the military has a gravitational effect on American political life, and so inaction is no less politically charged than action.
These two perspectives are not distributed equally. Only the first is taught at military colleges and debated in polite society. The second is '''hounded wherever it appears, dismissed as a form of crypto-fascism. From my perspective, however, the opposite is closer to the truth.'''
On one hand, the orthodox view to keep the military separate from politics has had a long-term corrosive effect, contributing to an ineffective, wasteful military that is never criticized or audited thoroughly enough, and must be left alone as an autonomous, honorable organization for so long as it forsakes any overt political behavior. On the other hand, that same view poses an immediate danger as it insists that the military roll over and accept whatever anti-democratic actions are undertaken by a president clearly intending to do what he can to break the Constitution.
The second perspective — that the military simply is not above or outside of the nation’s politics — demands that we call military silence and inaction by its name: in the worst scenarios, complicity in the shredding of the Constitution, comfort to the enemies of democracy, and facilitation of an authoritarian coup (not by the military itself, but rather the unlawful seizure of power by Trump).
In their open letter,<ref>https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/08/12/john-nagl-and-paul-yingling-advocate-oath-breaking/</ref> Nagl and Yingling were asking the general to act if and only if an authoritarian coup has already taken place — and to do so strictly in accordance with his personal oath to the Constitution. We see the ascendency of the first perspective in the vitriol poured upon their argument. These otherwise respected figures are vilified as advocating a military take-over and mocked for suggesting that a staff officer (especially the chairman, who has no direct command authority over any troops) should somehow be involved. It is as though the authors were channeling Othello’s Iago, a Spartan dog if ever there was one, in their advice to Milley: “follow him, to serve your turn upon him.”
Nagl and Yingling’s critics are right in describing such military intervention as unlawful and outrageous, but they err in labeling it a military take-over and are wrong in assuring the public it won’t be preferable to the alternative.
'''A forced transfer of power from Trump to someone else is not a traditional coup but rather a ''pronunciamento''. Although unknown in American history, the type of political transition does occur globally.''' <ref>https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/six-scenarios-military-intervention-after-january-20/167777/</ref>}}
Milley colluded with Democrat House [[Speaker Nancy Pelosi]] in the coup against President Trump. On January 8, 2021 Pelosi told House Democrats that she spoke with Mark Milley to discuss President Trump and the nuclear codes.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/house-speaker-joint-chiefs-milley/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2021-01-09T04%3A45%3A07&utm_term=link</ref>
Milley colluded with Democrat House [[Speaker Nancy Pelosi]] in the coup against President Trump. On January 8, 2021 Pelosi told House Democrats that she spoke with Mark Milley to discuss President Trump and the nuclear codes.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/house-speaker-joint-chiefs-milley/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2021-01-09T04%3A45%3A07&utm_term=link</ref>