Source: https://pco.gov.ph/PBBM-extends-condolences-to-Iran-following-death-of-President-Raisi-and-Foreign-Minister-Amirabdollahian

Thank you Prof Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi for writing the following post on the martyrdom of Ali ibney Abi Talib.

MartyrdomImamAli

"On the eve of the martyrdom of Imam Ali (as) I extend my heartiest condolences to Imam of the time, Imam Mahdi (as) and all the Believers of Uprightness. May Allah help us live the life of Imam Ali (as): there is a saying “Live Like Ali, Die Like Husain!”
Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) had prophesied his departure from this world several days before hand, and on the day of his martyrdom, he desired his sons Imam Hasan and Imam Hussain to offer their morning prayers in the house and not to accompany him as they usually did to the mosque of Kufa. He went alone, knowing fully well what was going to happen.
On the 19th Ramazan 40 A.H, Imam Ali came to the mosque in Kufa and as per practice gave the call for prayer (Azaan) before leading the congregation.
While entering the mosque, he crossed his future assassin, who pretended to be asleep. He called him out to join the prayers.
Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam stood just behind Imam Ali, and when Imam Ali was in a state of prostration, Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam dealt a heavy stroke with his sword, inflicting a deep wound on Imam Ali's head.
After the passing away of the Prophet, this was perhaps the third political murder, which, it is generally believed, was carried out by by a disgruntled group, who came to be known as Kharji’ites. Umar ibn Khattab, the second Caliph, had been assassinated by Abu Lulu Piruz, a former Iranian slave. Uthman ibn Affan, the third caliph too had been assassinated by an unknown assassin.
When struck by the dagger on the forehead, Imam Ali (as) uttered his famous words : "Fuzto be Rabb-il-Kaaba" - "By the Rab of Kaaba, I am successful".
Holy Prophet Muhammad had prophesied the assassination of Imam Ali and his issues. Regarding Imam Ali Holy Prophet Muhammad had once claimed, "O Ali! I see before my eyes thy beard dyed with the blood of thy forehead."
Imam Ali was assassinated as he bowed before Allah during the morning prayers, while fasting during the month of Ramadan considered as one of the most glorious months, while preparing to wage jihad, and in the highest and most pure divine places, the Mosque of Kufa.
The crime of assassinating Imam Ali remains one of the most cruel, brutal and hideous, because it was not committed against one man, but against the whole rational Islamic leadership. By assassinating Imam Ali, they actually aimed at assassinating the message, the history, the culture and the nation of Muslims embodied in the person of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib. In doing so, the Islamic nation lost its guide of progress, and at the most wondrous opportunity in its life after the Holy Prophet.
Imam Ali (pbuh) suffered from his wound for three days, and ultimately passed away on 21st of the month of Ramazan at the age of 63 years.
During these three days, he entrusted his son, Imam Hasan with the Imamate of guiding the nation ideologically and socially. During those three days, as during all his life, he never ceased remembering Allah, praising Him, and accepting Him and His ordinance.
Likewise, he continued giving pieces of advice and directions leading to good, pointing to the right, defining the way to guidance, explaining the course for deliverance, calling for the observance of Allah's ordinances, and warning against following one's ill desires and set-backs from not carrying out the divine message.
The following is one piece of #advice offered to his sons, Imam Hasan and Imam Hussain, as well as to his people, the nation and coming generations:
"I advise you to fear Allah, and not to run after (the pleasure of) the world, even if it may run after you. Do not be sorry for anything from it which you have been denied. Say the truth and act for (Allah's) reward. Be an enemy of the oppressor, and be a helper of the oppressed."
"I advise you, my children, my household and all those who may receive my message, to fear Allah, to arrange your affairs well, to maintain good relations among yourselves, for I have heard your grandfather (pbuh) saying: 'Good relations are better than prayer and fasting in general.'"
"(Fear) Allah when handling matters of orphans. Do not let them starve, nor allow them to be lost as long as you are there."
"(Fear) Allah in respect to your neighbors, for they were the trust of your Prophet (pbuh). He went on asking us to take care of them, so much that we thought he would make them heirs (of our heritage)."
"(Fear) Allah in respect to the Holy Quran, (take care that) no one may excel you in following its tenets."
"(Fear) Allah in respect to prayer, as it is the pillar of your religion."
"(Fear) Allah in respect to your Lord's House (Kaaba), do not forsake it so long as you live, because if you do you will not be looked upon with respect."
"(Fear) Allah in respect to Jihad, fight with your wealth, your lives and your tongues, in the way of Allah."
"Have mutual liaison and give-and-take. Beware of turning your faces from, and of renouncing, one another. Do not abandon bidding good and forbidding evil, lest vicious people may overrule you, and then in such a case, your invocations will not be responded to (by Allah)."
Then he said: "O, Banu Abdul Muttalib, certainly I do not want you to wade through the blood of the Muslims, crying: Amir al-Muminin was murdered. You certainly kill for me no one but my killer."
"Wait till I die by this stroke of him (Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam), then strike a single stroke against him, and do not disfigure his body, for I had heard the Holy Prophet (pbuh) saying: 'Avoid mayhem even with a rabid dog.'"
Such was the heroic end of this great man! The loss to the Mission and the nation was the gravest after the loss of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
By the death of Imam Ali (pbuh) the nation lost:
A heroism that had become the song of the time;
A courageous history that has never dreamt of its like;
A wisdom no one can fathom, save Allah;
A purity, the like of which was only in the prophets;
An abstinence from the pleasures of life that could be attained only by the nearest to Allah;
An eloquence such as to be the echo of Book; and
A jurisprudence, and a thorough knowledge of the laws of religion, that made him the 'gateway of the city' of the Prophet's knowledge, and the authority to whom the Islamic nation referred in all its affairs.
Peace be upon Amir al-Muminin the day he was born, the day he was martyred on his altar, and the day he shall be raised alive."

Is Trump The Next Caesar?

​
https://preview.redd.it/pf1acymnsxdc1.png?width=1480&format=png&auto=webp&s=de547db1880872222b2ce6c80b0396e9c0218fd6
Pivoting off of my last post that went into "Why The United States is NOT Falling Like The Roman Empire", I wanted to take the time and go into even more detail about a a more apt comparison:
"The Roman Republic"
\note* A link to my previous post about The United States & The Roman Empire falling is in the comments below if you wish to catch that before this.*
More specifically to go into depth about the pairing of a polarizing present figure with a historical one.
(No we will not be doing the highly requested Joe Biden and Muhammed Venn diagram. Thousands have asked, millions more will soon enough, but I'm going to need my PHD in Islamic Dragon Ball to confidently do that.)
"Is Donald Trump The Next Julius Caesar"
​
Gaius Julius Caesar - Note this is not an Ancient Roman sculpture, just a beautifully made Renaissance one by, 'Andrea di Pietro di Marco Ferrucci' in the 16th Century.
The first thing we need to ask ourselves is why the comparison in the first place? What does Julius Caesar, a man who lived over 2000 years ago, have to do with the modern politics of The United States?
-------------------- Let's set the scene then. ---------------------
​
Where was 'Gaius Julius Caesar' born?
Rome, July 12th, 100 B.C.
Ok, what was Rome like during this time?
Rome was a Republic, and a regional superpower of the Mediterranean.
And what did Julius Caesar do during his lifetime?
Caesar would carry the flag of Rome's disenfranchised against the corrupt elite Senatorial Class of Rome, restoring it to it's former glory.
This is technically correct, but something feels...off about this generalization.
This is where many will hide in their attempts to persuade someone that Trump is the next Caesar. By oversimplifying the past, we can rewrite within its fog. Here we are again having to go deeper in order to prevent ourselves from misjudging our current situation.
​

Why do people make the Comparison?

In truth? To point out the bad guy they don't like. Julius Caesar to many on the left is seen as a right wing dictator that broke a democratic institution for his own personal gain, hence why this lines up with modern day Trump comparisons, even if they are utterly incorrect in doing so.
Comparing someone to Hitler is done in the same way, whilst ignoring the conditions and situations of the time that gave way to that horror.
But I think we need to do something first, since this is DGG and your Roman history is lacking, we need to figure out who this Julius Caesar character is! Don't let Shakespeare cloud your notions, Caesar is a TOP 10 most influential human to ever live for not just for his political exploits, but also his personal, and especially his military ones.
Because believe it or not, the situation is much more complicated than articles such as this would have you believe:
Politico -
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/03/donald-trump-julius-caesar-433956#:~:text=Over%202%2C000%20years%20ago%2C%20the,power%20and%20eroding%20political%20debate.
​

THE LATE ROMAN REPUBLIC

​
The Roman Senate discussing whether or not helping the plebians will impact Lebron's legacy.
What many people fail to mention when comparing someone like Trump to Julius Caesar, was the political situation of Caesar's country at the time.
Caesar was born into a noble family, but a middling one. Not high on the rungs, but not falling off the social ladder. His father had aligned himself with the famous Gaius Marius, and served politically intertwined with him. Caesar's family was married into Marius' as well.
General Marius was one of the most important military commanders of Roman history. A hardworking can do no nonsense winner that took the world on with his bare hands. The ideal Roman in many people's eyes, and the genius protégé of the great Scipio Aemilianus, the man who razed Carthage in the Third-Punic War.
Marius would reform the military during his many Consulships, and pass legislation to have Roman armies be paid by their Generals and State, with uniform gear being provided to them, instead of having to largely bring their own during a levy.
\note* A Roman "*Consul" was the highest office one could obtain in The Republic. After The Roman Kings were thrown away, no one man could hold power unless in extreme circumstance. (We will get there) There were two consuls serving at the same time, and held power for one year together. Every month, they would switch off ruling and legislating The Republic, this month to month exchange system is known as "Holding Fasces". Whoever held fasces, would be in power for that month, then hand fasces over to the other Consul. In recent times, someone who always holds fasces would be called a "fascist". Yes this is where the most overused word in modern politics comes from. Fascism began in Italy after all.
The biggest reason for this change however, was scale. The Roman Republic had a law that stipulated all soldiers must be land owners. (Gives soldiers a bigger reason to fight with something to lose) Well when you have hundreds of thousands of slaves and noble elites buying up more land to deploy their increasing number of slaves on; this presents a problem. With these reforms, many of the urban poor and disenfranchised could now become soldiers, and be guaranteed land and pay for service.
This did have a very interesting side effect, those poor and hungry young men who joined the Roman military, would now have a chance to get crazy wealth off of military victories. The plundering of cities and tribes wasn't new, but now any average joe could gamble his life on the possibility of riches from just a single victory.
Who's largely responsible for how your future turns out now? Your General. If your general was a loser, you'd be poorer and miss the chance of gaining fortune and glory. (And you'd probably die under a shit general)
So, when a good general comes around, and wins many battles, and plunders many enemies and brings fame, honor, and fortune to his soldiers, this turns them into The General's soldiers, not Rome's. Because it was my commander that made my life better, who made the decisive moves in battle that not only protected my life, but made my life so much better than the Roman state had. I owe him my life, my wealth, and my honor.
Marius would end up falling on his own sword with this policy change. The now old General wanted to take command over conquest into the wealthy Eastern Mediterranean, only, someone else already had this command...Sulla.
​
Sulla without his nose. Unfortunate really.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla, a lifelong rival and antagonist to Marius and his allies. Old Marius had gone too far this time.
Upon hearing the news, that his upcoming conquests of the rich and bountiful Eastern Kingdoms was revoked and given to his rival, he reportedly said to his angry soldiers; That command against Mithridates was not to be by him, and the conquests of their rich kingdoms would go to other soldiers and not them. (Paraphrasing)
The soldiers upon hearing this, would follow Sulla in any attempt to overturn this decision, as their entire lives were now worse than they were promised. They would have to watch others gain the life they themselves were not allowed to, because of some last minute law.
Sulla would then march on Rome. The first Roman General to do so with their own army. (Armies were prohibited from the Capital by law)
Sulla would outlaw Marius, yes the actual guy got outlawed. (And his family) Then Sulla returned to command the conquest against Mithridates in the East.
With no Roman Army defending Rome (Because armies in the capital is illegal) Sulla changed the Law by force, and gave himself back the command that was ("legally") stolen from him. Sulla argued he was saving Rome from tyrants when he did this. That Marius was benefitting himself over The Roman State.
Eventually, problems got worse while Sulla was away in the East, and when he returned...vengeance was incurred.
The First Roman Civil War...
​

THE PURGE - PROSCRIPTION

​
https://preview.redd.it/96oc4b1a5ydc1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=b799d523a67dc89d38322cd66dd8df2fed78d606
Sulla would enact purges of The Roman Senatorial Class called "The Proscriptions" after winning his civil war.
On a notice board near the buildings of Government, bounties would be placed on Sulla's political enemies. Those that Sulla deemed as "Enemies of The Republic" were proscribed.
If you killed a proscribed person, you and The Roman State would be entitled to a portion of their land and wealth. This tore families and friends apart, when one family member was deemed unworthy in the eyes of Sulla, lustful allies of friend and foe alike would jump on them like lions.
From poor people raiding luxury estates, to wives killing their husbands, these purges sent Rome into a blood fueled power struggle and cleansing. Anyone harboring a proscribed person was handed the death penalty, this went on for months.
Historian Plutarch accounts the horror in his work: "Life of Sulla"
Plutarch writes:

Sulla now busied himself with slaughter, and murders without number or limit filled the city. Many, too, were killed to gratify private hatreds, although they had no relations with Sulla, but he gave his consent in order to gratify his adherents. At last one of the younger men, Caius Metellus, made bold to ask Sulla in the senate what end there was to be of these evils, and how far he would proceed before they might expect such doings to cease. "We do not ask thee," he said, "to free from punishment those whom thou hast determined to slay, but to free from suspense those whom thou hast determined to save." And when Sulla answered that he did not yet know whom he would spare, "Well, then," said Metellus in reply, "let us know whom thou intendest to punish." This Sulla said he would do. Some, however, say that it was not Metellus, but Fufidius, one of Sulla's fawning creatures, who made this last speech to him. Be that as it may, Sulla at once proscribed​ eighty persons, without communicating with any magistrate; and in spite of the general indignation, after a single day's interval, he proscribed two hundred and twenty others, and then on the third day, as many more. Referring to these measures in a public harangue, he said that he was proscribing as many as he could remember, and those who now escaped his memory, he would proscribe at a future time. He also proscribed any one who harboured and saved a proscribed person, making death the punishment for such humanity, without exception of brother, son, or parents, but offering any one who slew a proscribed person two talents as a reward for this murderous deed, even though a slave should slay his master, or a son his father. And what seemed the greatest injustice of all, he took away the civil rights from the sons and grandsons of those who had been proscribed, and confiscated the property of all. Moreover, proscriptions were made not only in Rome, but also in every city of Italy, and neither temple of God, nor hearth of hospitality, nor paternal home was free from the stain of bloodshed, but husbands were butchered in the embraces of their wedded wives, and sons in the arms of their mothers. Those who fell victims to political resentment and private hatred were as nothing compared with those who were butchered for the sake of their property, nay, even the executioners were prompted to say that his great house killed this man, his garden that man, his warm baths another. Quintus Aurelius, a quiet and inoffensive man, who thought his only share in the general calamity was to condole with others in their misfortunes, came into the forum and read the list of the proscribed, and finding his own name there, said, "Ah! woe is me! my Alban estate is prosecuting me." And he had not gone far before he was dispatched by some one who had hunted him down.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/ThayeE/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Sulla*.html
​
The luxuries of your family could get you killed because they could be seized.
Sulla had himself appointed as "Dictator" by the Senate, a Roman emergency office that granted one man absolute authority to deal with crisis. This had a term limit of 6-months, Sulla's didn't have one.
\Note* Yes this is where we get the word "*Dictator" from, it was an appointed position of The Roman Republic during times of great panic. As time went on, the idea of one man being absolute ruler without checks and balances would be described with this word, thus moving from an actual official position, to a conceptual *one, like we see today with say, "*President *Xi Jinping", or "*President Putin". Monarchies being an exception to this description.
At any moment, your name could appear on the proscription board, and you were over. With no reason other than Sulla wanted you erased. You were an enemy of The Republic. If you were proscribed, your sons and possibly grandsons would be barred of holding any government office for 30 years, if they weren't killed by the mob. Sulla sought to rebuild the Republic through blood and fire, quickly and brutally solving the problems he deemed to be so.
So I preface all of this to say...Julius Caesar saw all of this. Romans murdering and betraying other Romans by use of a legal purge, and this is just one small part of The Late Republican Period.
Caesar was the son-in law of one of Sulla's biggest enemies, Cinna. A teenage Caesar reportedly fled the city with the help of relatives. Sulla would later say he should've killed Caesar when he had the chance, as reported by Plutarch in his volume; "Life of Caesar"
Plutarch writes:

The wife of Caesar​ was Cornelia, the daughter of the Cinna who had once held the sole power at Rome,​ and when Sulla became master of affairs,​ he could not, either by promises or threats, induce Caesar to put her away, and therefore confiscated her dowry. Now, the reason for Caesar's hatred of Sulla was Caesar's relation­ship to Marius. For Julia, a sister of Caesar's father, was the wife of Marius the Elder, and the mother of Marius the Younger, who was therefore Caesar's cousin. Moreover, Caesar was not satisfied to be over­looked at first by Sulla, who was busy with a multitude of proscriptions, but he came before the people as candidate for the priesthood, although he was not yet much more than a stripling. To this candidacy Sulla secretly opposed himself, and took measures to make Caesar fail in it, and when he was deliberating about putting him to death and some said there was no reason for killing a mere boy like him, he declared that they had no sense if they did not see in this boy many Mariuses.​ When this speech was reported to Caesar, he hid himself for some time, wandering about in the country of the Sabines. Then, as he was changing his abode by night on account of sickness, he fell in with soldiers of Sulla who were searching those regions and arresting the men in hiding there. Caesar gave their leader, Cornelius, two talents to set him free, and at once went down to the sea and sailed to King Nicomedes in Bithynia.​ With him he tarried a short time, and then, on his voyage back,​ was captured, near the island Pharmacusa, by pirates, who already at that time controlled the sea with large armaments and countless small vessels.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/ThayeE/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html
Caesar being closely tied and related to Sulla's enemies, had to flee his home and live on the run as a young man, eventually being captured by pirates. (Whom he would later have crucified after half joking to them that he would)
​
"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full. "
- Sulla
​
(I think of DGG when reading this quote, great love to Ana in her fight against Russia, and then well...Hamasabi)
​

THE FULL PICTURE

​
https://preview.redd.it/utvz196l5ydc1.png?width=1119&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2c7c1b9960441c70485de0f9173593f11f0afe8
I give all of this context to simply say, The Republic that Julius Caesar was born into, was ad infinitum more volatile and deadly and bloody and broken, than anything Donald Trump has faced. Everything stated so far happened before Caesar could be eligible for his drivers license.
It is politically and socially and militarily impossible for Donald Trump to be compared to Julius Caesar outside of character traits, but whenever people make such comparisons, they leave the context for Caesar's actions in the void, so as to say like POLITICO did 4 years ago that many have come to parrot:
​

However unprecedented these times might feel, it’s a decision as old as democracy itself. Over 2,000 years ago, the Republic on which America was modeled faced the same choice. The Donald Trump of his day, Julius Caesar, promised to return Rome to an imagined ancient glory—but instead constructed himself a throne, bulldozing democratic norms, ignoring checks on his power and eroding political debate. Rome chose to follow Caesar, putting the famed Republic on a glide path to destruction.

By TIM ELLIOTT
Any Roman Historian worth their salt knew the Republic was well on the path towards destruction before Caesar ever held any power. (As shown with Sulla) Julius Caesar was a result of The Republics failure, not the catalyst for it. To say Caesar was the "Donald Trump of his day" is a huge disservice to not only Caesar, but the problems he faced during his lifetime.
Now, could one say that Donald Trump is a result of our Constitutional Federalist Republic's failure?
Maybe...maybe that's the question those on the left should be asking themselves; "How did we get here? What do we have to do better so that this doesn't happen?"

"BUT"

You cannot say that Trump is like Julius Caesar within the same context.
Donald Trump should be looked at for what he is, do not risk conflating his actions with that of someone else operating within a different circumstance.
Julius Caesar marched on Rome after he was declared an enemy of the state for not giving up his legal immunity. Laws passed by Caesar were much needed to save The Republic from collapse, such as his land reform bill, or the grain dole. He was willing to stand down as long The Republic and Pompeii also stood down with him, they chose not to.
Donald Trump lost an election, and believes he didn't actually lose and the game is rigged against him. Feeding into his supporters idea's of a "deep state" controlling who's in power and who isn't. He runs for office to give himself legal immunity against pending charges.
While there are similarities one can draw, it is extremely important to understand what is happening now so we can solve the now. Not try and frame a historical figure to the present because it makes more sense in our heads to do so.
Now let's be sensible historians, and try to figure out what they have in common that actually matters. What traits do they both have that will help us maybe see things more clearly today?
Let's learn history in a way that is truthful so that we may be ready for tomorrow.
​

POPULISM

​
Mark Antony speaking during Caesar's funeral.
Let's flip this script shall we?
Both Julius Caesar and Donald Trump appeal to "the people" but in what ways are they the same, and other ways might they be different?
Caesar would paint his own actions as for the people, even if they were to serve himself or "The First Triumvirate". Anything Caesar did was for "the good of The Republic".
Donald Trump offers a similar message, often saying what he his doing is fighting for "the common man" in D.C. against the swamp of elitist, who are responsible for their plight.
Both are no doubt populist, but what someone should ask is; "Why is populism being generated right now? What social or economic ills are creating this problem? Is the problem real?
If so, how do you fix it?
If not, how do you tell the people that their problems don't exist without being crucified...perhaps literally in Caesar's case.
In Caesar's time, the social ills are very present and problematic. The Social War, Sulla vs Marius Civil War, rampant piracy in the Mediterranean, the largest slave revolt in human history led by Spartacus, bribes were a must for political success, Roman Law had become confusing and more random than ever leading to incredible insecurity on the legal level, veterans not getting what they're owed (kinda true now), and welfare being taken advantage of by those who don't legally qualify. Oh and the upper class just got beheaded.
In Trump's time, The United Sates has had unprecedented economic growth coincided with great peace and less violence than ever. The quality of life for the average American has gone up, and the military has become optional rather than forced. Immigration is an issue, prices are inconsistent and wages need to be worked on. Medicine is obscenely expensive, and the divide between poor and rich has never been greater.
In my opinion, one of these is just not like the other. Caesar's populism, while obviously self serving, was absolutely reasonable for it's time. Roman society was caving and could be seen collapsing. The same can be said with Napoleon during "The French Revolution", both are dictators who gained massive wealth and power unto themselves during times of great instability, but that's what you get when you have the power to solve the problems. These two lived during the MOST chaotic times. But both Napoleon and Caesar were extremely effective policy makers, effective governors, and the most effective General's in human history...Donald Trump is not.
Let's look at Caesar's first Consulship in 60 B.C. and see what sort of policies he was able to enact in just one year:

1. Gaining Political Allies by aligning their goals with his, most notably Crassus and Pompei. Crassus being the richest man in Rome, whilst Pompei the Greatest General of this time. (This is known as "The First Triumvirate". It wasn't an official partnership in law, but a handshake one behind the doors)
2. Land Reform Grants for Veterans (Following up on the promises of land for veterans after a designated time of service, The Republic was dragging it's feet on this)
3. Publishing every decision and ruling of The Senate out for the public to see. (Senate decisions would usually just be told to important people with the grapevine trickling to the "plebians" or, "lower class". It's where we get the word "plebs" from) This allowed the populace to actually see and know what was going on in the "swamp" so to speak.
4. A one third write-DOWN for tax debts uncured by farms.
5. Approving of land settlements in the East for veterans of Pompeii's.
6. A crackdown of provincial corruption with finance laws and regulation in the provinces. (Money that should've been flowing through the empire would be missing, some people were taking off the profit so to speak)

This was done in one year, Donald Trump has shown to be nowhere near as effective of a policy maker. During his time as President for four years, notable things include:

1. Supreme Court Justice Appointments
2. Making friends with North Korea
3. Putting tariffs on Chinese goods
4. Tax incentives for upper end financial makers
5. Stimulus Checks

Trumps allies do nothing but say yes to him, rather than making progress on policy and law like Caesar's.
I would expect more of a bite from a dog that's so loud, and I honestly don't mind populism on the surface because it's a symptom of our most pressing problems that need to be addressed.
My issues arise when the populist doesn't do what they said they would do. When they are ineffective in their policy and a bad representation for their voters. The populist is elected because they hear the problems of the masses when others don't, so when they do nothing about those problems or make them worse, what fucking good are ya? And here lies the great difference between Caesar and Trump:
Julius Caesar could back up his populist rhetoric with effective policy measures and action, Donald Trump does not.
So now we find ourselves in the situation we are currently in, problems constantly being talked about whilst nothing is truly done about them.
Donald Trump is not the next Julius Caesar, because then I would believe problems would at least be dealt with somehow. Donald Trump is his own beast, one that barks so loud many can't notice how his hands aren't actually doing anything beyond beckoning you to feed him more of your attention.
That is the danger of Trump, that all his political rhetoric doesn't involve change, but simply ideas and messages. Doing things because they feel good rather than making good. Look at January 6th, there was nothing that mob could've done to overturn the election, yet they stormed the building anyway.
He is happy to watch others burn his enemies for him, with nothing to gain but personal gratification.
​
https://preview.redd.it/skhigq526ydc1.png?width=630&format=png&auto=webp&s=e5f01fef82331bbf711069779a2e79bef6c25916
Vanity of Vanity, All is Vanity.
Senators such as Cicero and Cato The Younger, were unable to dislodge Caesar from power because his actions backed up his words so well. He always had a track record of success to fall back on. By using this, he was able to leverage the people into believing he was the one who could solver their problems and not the Senate.
It is my opinion that Democrats do not target Trump's center of gravity enough, the plight of his voters. Trump does not have the political success like Caesar to fall back on, so Democrats need to undercut him by addressing the things to these people that matter. Let's not underestimate him in the slightest when it comes to this election.
​
My home slice Cicero even agreed with what Caesar wanted sometimes! He just hated that Caesar used the military to change The Republic rather than changing it through the institutions and laws that governed it.
All too common Cicero W.
​
Cicero Smoking That Caesarian Pack
"The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and thebrute by instinct."
- Cicero
​
- BlossomyLion