Thread- History Explains.

Trump being taken out by the Senate is the same a Caesar, in that: The elite despise populist reforms because they dislike the lower classes.

They believe Trump has only ingratiated himself to the common people to take power from the Senate. 1/7

As with Caesar the Senate are removing him in order to protect their institutions.

If folks knew anything about Roman history, this take down signaled the end of the empire as a Republic.

Years of civil war following Caesar’s death resulted in... 2/7
...resulted in a senate that granted Octavian full control. He became the first Augustus.

A God-King.

The very thing Caesar was assassinated to prevent.

Jesus came during this time of God-Kings. They also wanted to kill Him.

3/7
Mark 10:45 “I did not come to be served, but to serve.” -Jesus.

Jesus was seen as ingratiating Himself to the common people by healing & forgiving them. His ministry was said by the religious to be that of Beelzebub (Lord of the flies). 4/7
They had to be careful about grabbing Jesus in public, because those filthy common people flocked to Him.

The people were supposed to revere the institution of religion. Something had to be done to restore things...

The Sanhedrin was a religious Senate. 5/7
The religious elite did not know after the Messiah was rejected the resulting years of Jewish revolt against Rome would ultimately lead Rome to destroy the institution altogether through the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

The Faith would never be the same.
6/7
So, here we are, at the Senate ultimately standing against a populist leader. His final revolting act, appealing to common people in the nations capital.

This cannot be tolerated by the elite. They must protect their institutions.

History says they will crumble now.

7/7 end.
Addendum: Congress.

They don’t even care if they are popular with the people.

They are an elite ruling class institution.

They despise populism.
It shows who they truly are. Fake.
@threadreaderapp please unroll

More from Politics

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?