Thursday, November 10, 2016

With malice toward some, with clarity towards all


Abraham Lincoln gave his second inauguration speech on March 4, 1865. The great War Between the States was in its final weeks; General Lee would shortly give up Petersburg and Richmond, and would surrender his army at Appomattox on April 9. Anticipating the end of hostilities, in closing Lincoln said,

...With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Six weeks later, he was dead from an assassin's bullet. The nightmare of "Reconstruction" of the South was about to begin. The Ku Klux Klan would be born within a year or so. Although the Confederate states were forced back into the fold, at the cost of over 1 million dead and wounded on both sides, North-South tensions remain even today, more than 150 years later, as evidenced, for example, by the furor over the Confederate flag in 2015 and the targeting by groups such as Black Lives Matter of Confederate memorials in the South.

The 2016 Presidential campaign has been a Civil War of sorts. Lines were sharply drawn early and it doesn't seem that many people budged from their positions from the summer, when the nominations were secured. I suspect a lot of Clinton supporters or Bernie supporters simply stayed home on Tuesday, finding the Democratic candidate too repulsive.

Or, perhaps the voter turnout of the dead wasn't as high as the Democrats and their enablers and cheerleaders in the Lugenpresse anticipated. Even the deceased couldn't stomach Hillary.

The point is that all of the contempt expressed for President Trump through the "legacy" media and social media by pundits, experts, mavens, spokespersons, talking heads, by celebrities and other vacuous pop icons, by social justice warriors everywhere....it's not going to go away. It is really a proxy for scorn for his followers, which is a proxy for disdain for whites and especially for white males. This is obvious.

All the forces and parties that aligned against President Trump, from Soros to Obama to your local cucked-out college kid or activist with a fetish for brown people, are still The Enemy. They have not abandoned their goals: class warfare, leveling, a nonwhite majority...

The current talk of reconciliation, "coming together," "healing the nation" -- these siren songs are really the hissings of snakes coiled in the grass. We must retain our extreme prejudice towards all those who opposed us this year. Many people publically came out of the closet and turned out to take the anti-white (Clinton) side. They cannot be trusted.

Those who actively and tirelessly worked against us, we must never trust again and we must help President Trump drive them from any position where they can influence our affairs. We must call them out at every turn and not succumb to niceties and make-up talk.

"If you meet me, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, and some taste; use all your well-learned politesse, or I'll lay your soul to waste." (Sympathy for the Devil)

The Devil wants President Trump and his followers to retreat to the language of politesse and pretend that there is common ground. He wants the President to be kinder, and gentler; in short, more "Presidential." We don't want that. That's not what brought him, and us, here. That's not why we elected him.

Draining the swamps is going to be a long and dirty job. And many hands make for lighter and more effective work.

We have to view everyone with clarity. Some of our friends and acquaintances will come around and join us, when they see that might makes us right, or when they realize, like Mr. Trump asserted repeatedly, that the mainstream media are totally dishonest in their presentations of news and analysis. Some will at last realize that Trumpism, if not the intentions of President Trump himself, is in large part about race, and that they will have to choose sides: pro-white or anti-white. (And no, "pro-white" does not mean disdain for all other groups.) We have to be patient, and observe them clearly.

Some never will join. Their hearts are hardened, and having eyes, they still will not see. They don't understand why Trump was elected, and they won't understand the things that are going to happen next.

Those people will have to step aside. They're going to have to move back.





Sunday, October 9, 2016

Tough choice: To Trump or not to Trump?


Hmm. Let's see. On the one hand, there are his stated policies and opinions, relative to Hillary's, on free trade, globalization, "global warming," job creation, foreign military intervention, relations with Russia, crime vs. law and order, gun rights, illegal immigration, Muslim immigration, Obamacare, the honesty of the media, etc.. However, on the other hand, there are those crude remarks made, in a private conversation with another man, not knowing it was being recorded, by an extremely wealthy media celebrity, 11 years ago .

That's a tough choice: Is it time to Ditch the Donald?

The woman (a soap TV actress) who was the object of their commentary seemed, in 2005 anyway, to really like him and his wife Melania.



Some quotes from that brief clip: "I did flirt with Donald," "He's my new best friend," "He's so cute and charming," and, from the male host, "You know Donald, he's just super-confident at everything he does."

So, a man who is attractive to tall, beautiful, accomplished women, and who is confident in everything he does....Do these seem like the qualities of a good leader?

Listen to this apology. This is hardly the groveling we've come to expect from a politician who becomes the target of a moralistic attack from the (((news media))):



What do you think, Pepe?



 Pepe says, "No more apologies! On to debate #2. Make America America again!"



Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Where is the hate, Donald?





The following snippet is from a few days ago. You can look up the source if you like. It's not important. Warren is simply another useful tool lying on behalf of her (((masters))).

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans of “making hate OK” as she campaigned for Hillary Clinton on Saturday.
“We’re here to say hate is not OK,” Warren told a crowd of roughly 500 volunteers packed inside a New Hampshire campaign office.

I don't disagree with her that Trump is opening the door to make hate OK. But that itself is fine; it's a more rational attitude towards those who want to exterminate you than the rather childish one advocated by that carpenter from Nazareth. And we could have used a little more of it from the man himself during Tuesday night's debate. He seemed more restrained than usual, and failed to hit her specifically in ways that he could have. A friend of mine has a good take on this:

I am thinking that Trump might find it hard to walk the middle line between being controlled ('presidential') OR flamboyant.  When the flamboyance is controlled maybe his sharp thinking is also controlled.  Maybe this IS new territory for him in maintaining his brain power while being more smooth.

Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, and this is reason enough to support him. I have had my doubts, wondering if the Trump phenomenon wasn't some ultra-sophisticated psy-op brought to us by the usual Skypes. I don't think so now. He was in their arena last night, and the hostility directed towards him was palpable, and you know that he himself felt it.

He was under enormous pressure, and it was written on his face. By contrast, Clinton seemed comfortable and relaxed, and her shit-grin told the audience that she has lots of experience in this machinery, and that she knows that (((they)) are watching her back.


hillary-clinton-frailty-640













She know she's going to get there, if they have to drag her the final few steps.

Trump was right to constantly hammer home what a mess the country is in, and that it's insider politicians like Clinton who have gotten us there. He started out this way and returned to it throughout the debate, but I fear that it will be lost on many viewers. I know a lot of Trumpaphobes and I believe I have a somewhat accurate view of how they think about this.

Many people like Clinton because she is an experienced political hack. The idea of an outsider, someone who isn't "smooth" and "Presidential" in the way we've become accustomed to, is a terrifying one to them. Decline doesn't feel so bad to them if it's managed at a nice steady rate. The jolt that we might experience from someone who accelerates the decline -- he will have that unstable, egotistical finger on the nuclear button, after all -- or who might actually reverse it, is just too scary to contemplate.

Many of the questions asked by Lester Holt were chosen specifically to favor Clinton, like the opening one that claimed the country has experienced growing "prosperity in the last 6 years" but still has a big problem with "income inequality." Of course income inequality is huge, but this question is tailor-made for Clinton, as representing the incumbent President (who brought us "prosperity"!) and as someone running on a "tax the rich" platform.

It should be remembered that Clinton doesn't care a whit about poor people, or the working class, or blacks for that matter, and all of them will continue to lose if she continues the Obama/Skype agenda. Everything she says in a public capacity is either a lie or used in support of a lie.

Here are other question topics I wrote down that were chosen to favor Clinton's position or attack Trump's:

  • What can we do about race relations?
  • When will you release your tax returns?
  • Hilary would be first woman President. Why did you say "she doesn't have the look?"
  • What do we do about "homegrown terrorists" (as opposed to immigrant criminals)?
  • Will you support the election outcome as the will of the voters?
This last one was directed as Trump's contention, entirely accurate, in some of his speeches that the election machinery is rigged and that the election may be stolen for Clinton. To me, this question was like a cryptic message to Trump, or a taunt, that said, "We are going to make sure that she wins."

In a profoundly corrupt and dishonest political system, like the one we have, in which the very premises of the issues discussed are fake, then a profoundly corrupt and dishonest person with a fake persona is greatly advantaged over someone who, however self-serving his business practices may have been at times, genuinely loves his country and would like to serve on behalf of the interests of its people. I believe he does want to "make America great again," and if he tries to do that, I don't care how big his ego is, nor how many disgruntled contractors have complaints about him, or which Pennsylvania Avenue address is his domicile.

People who are still unclear at this point about who is the better candidate probably aren't going to be moved by any debate, and they won't dare to watch one of his speeches or examine his political platform. Such people don't want a great country, and don't in fact deserve one. They are happy to be in a declining society, and to call it progress. It's progress because we had a "black" President, then we'll have a woman, then maybe a gay or a transgender, and then a Muslim. That is their very definition of progress; it's called "inclusiveness," but it's meant of course to exclude whites. Trump may not explicitly be pro-white, but he is not explicitly or implicitly anti-white. And that is just not OK.

I would like Trump, in the final two debates, to release his inner hater. I want to see him openly challenge, rather than merely sidestep, the premises of some of the loaded questions aimed at him. He should open and invite the audience to look into Clinton's rather expansive closet of skeletons -- and I'm not being entirely figurative here. If he asks me again for advice, via email, that's what I'm going to tell him.

But, I'm guessing he doesn't need my advice. He has shown a canny ability during 2016 to adjust and adapt to this game that is highly rigged against him, and last night was a bit of a "draw" -- he certainly didn't lose. He'll figure it out. Round 2 is on a Sunday -- October  9 in St. Louis.













Thursday, September 15, 2016

Dawn of the Deplorables


Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!—Oh! times,
In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in romance!
(Wm. Wordsworth, "The Prelude")



 "...We have to reject the arrogance of Washington DC that looks down on everyday hardworking people, and that’s what’s happening. Too often those who have power have disdain for the views, beliefs and attitudes of those who don’t have any political power..." Donald Trump, 9/13/16, Aston, PA 

One doesn't have to be chronologically young to be feeling especially invigorated in the Current Year. One doesn't have to believe that elections can fix what ails us, that America is even redeemable, to register for the election and to step inside of a voting booth on November 8. The stale, forbidding ways of ZOG, their laws and statutes that grind down all the goodness and vitality in our people, generation upon generation, the anti-natural customs they introduce, can't necessarily be reversed or undone.

Still, if America is going to die, we ought to have our boots on.

Trump has aroused the "Silent Majority" like no one has in quite a long time, but that majority is in a far weaker position than it has ever been in the U.S. Our opponents are legion, and they have a raging sense of entitlement. They feel entitled to tear down what evil YT has built, everywhere it still stands, and they will not go gently into that good night. The fight is going to intensify.

One can also "feel the bliss" while remaining cognizant of the fact that Mr. Trump seems hemmed in on all sides by Tribal members, including his own relatives. This makes it somewhat of a mystery as to how he has managed to drive virtually all of the Tribal or Tribe-friendly talking heads, pundits, and pop icons nearly insane with fear and loathing, by championing policies and positions that are diametrically opposed to what they have been foisting on us for decades.

And at the same time, like every other American who aspires to any important political office, he pledges his undying loyalty to a foreign state. And he seems to be sincere about that.

Yes, so ultimately, you cannot "fix" America without removing its Jewish problem, which includes its pernicious monetary and banking system. And Mr. Trump seems entirely disinclined to do anything along those lines.

Of course, to even mention these topics in any remote way would collapse his campaign faster than a falling WTC 7 or Hillary Clinton on a September day in Manhattan. (Although he does call out the "hedge fund managers," which is mighty thoughtful of him....)

Do Mr. Trump's proposed policies even make fiscal sense? How would the various tax breaks and such be paid for? Can they even be implemented, and if so, will their unintended consequences dwarf their benefits? Have a look yourself and see what you think: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/POSITIONS.

We can never really know ahead of time. We don't even know how sincere or determined he will turn out to be. But anyone who talks the talk he does on immigration, the 2nd Amendment, healthcare, trade policy...It's obvious what the man thinks about America: he loves it. And that's inspiring, and it's contagious. Isn't that what national leadership actually is? It's kind of hard to remember, but, probably that's what it is.  

We don't know what the next and subsequent Current Years will bring. Can America be made great again? One wouldn't have thought so, but at this point who really knows? As the man himself says, What do we have to lose?

But we do know what January 20 will bring:





Sunday, September 4, 2016

"We've got to have a country, folks"









Donald Trump's "immigration speech" in Phoenix on Wednesday, on the heels of his quick trip to Mexico to meet with that country's president, got most of his supporters juiced up. And of course (((the usual suspects))) at NYT, WaPo, NPR, CNN, etc. were in high dudgeon and indignation that Trump didn't "soften his stance" as they expected and didn't "broaden his base." Heh. That would be the base that the Left despises so much -- white, conservative, traditional America. Apparently, the softening of Mr. Trump is not gonna happen, folks.

He held the line on the principles he has been expressing consistently since announcing his candidacy last year. In this speech he shored up those principles by providing a 10-point plan for fixing the "broken" immigration system. It's common for major-party candidates to campaign on fixing immigration. However, Mr. Trump said a few things that signal to me that someone (or more than one) on the Trump campaign team understands the issue at a more profound level

By adding details and maintaining his strident tone, in my ears his speech struck the perfect pitch. I don't believe I have ever hear a candidate speak this candidly about such an important matter so late in an election year -- 69 days before the big day.

And I didn't think such a thing was even possible anymore.

" It’s our right, as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us."

This assertion used to belong to the category of "common sense," but it likely drives the Lefties and the SJW's mad. I have tried to make the same points to some of them recently -- immigration policy has to benefit the people who are already here, legally, and it has to be enforced. Duh. They have no answer for it.

"To keep immigration levels measured by population share within historical norms."

What a thrill to hear this. In the context of Trump having said, a minute or so earlier, "We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015," it is a clear reference to both the 1924 Immigration Act, which was the culmination of a series of legislative acts that placed permanent limits on the number of immigrants from any country to an amount based on its present share of the U.S. population, thus preserving the ethnic balance of the country, and to the 1965 Immigration Act, which, to quote Wikipedia, "eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as basis for immigration."

It may be that the Trump campaign is merely "dog whistling" to white and other nationalists to lure them in for the purpose of....some (((nefarious agenda))). It may be that a betrayal awaits his supporters down the line, which is the position of the writers over at Renegade Tribune. I accept that possibility. Still, I have been basking in this moment. Autumn-like weather has finally arrived in the Mid-Atlantic, and the breeze coming through the Overton Window, now opened wider than a week ago, feels fresh and invigorating.