April 9, 2017

Put 150,000 Americans in Syria: Deep State envoy McMaster

Mike Cernovich, who broke the Susan Rice as unmasker story, delivers some unfortunate news (article link in tweet):

Here is a livestream he did at the same time.

Current National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond “H. R.” McMaster is manipulating intelligence reports given to President Donald Trump, Cernovich Media can now report. McMaster is plotting how to sell a massive ground war in Syria to President Trump with the help of disgraced former CIA director and convicted criminal David Petraeus, who mishandled classified information by sharing documents with his mistress.

As NSA, McMaster’s job is to synthesize intelligence reports from all other agencies. President Trump is being given an inaccurate picture of the situation in Syria, as McMaster is seeking to involve the U.S. in a full scale war in Syria.

The McMaster-Petraeus plan calls for 150,000 American ground troops in Syria.

The article also says that plan intends for the American force to be working mostly alone, not even with our jihadist supporting allies in the region (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). Therefore, certainly not with Assad, Russia, or Iran, whose forces are stabilizing Syria.

Read the whole thing.

This seems to be what the military wing of the Deep State wants, and is trying to get it the easier way, by having the Nat Sec Advisor present a warped picture of what the intelligence says to Trump, nudging him persuasively toward the full-scale invasion. More likely they're just using McMaster as a glorified courier delivering the message of what their demands are, if they are to continue giving Trump their legitimacy (control over the armed forces).

Timewise, both Cernovich and Jack Posobiec are saying their sources suggest a roll-out no later than the end of May.

That means all of this was crafted long ahead of time, back when every elite group was 100% convinced that Crooked Hillary was going to win. If it sounds like Hillary's foreign policy is coming true, it's more that she was the mouthpiece for plans that were developing and are now coming to fruition.

It's not as though the Deep State sat around with their thumb up their ass during all of 2016, and only after a winner emerged on November 9 did they begin crafting a set of short-term plans and long-term goals that would be to the liking of Trump and his voters. They knew Trump would lose, and began designing the standard interventionist program that Hillary would begin selling to the citizens during the electoral season.

Except that the Trump movement won on Election Day -- oops. They weren't going to let that get in their way, though. We managed to stop the TPP trade deal dead in its tracks, even though the Chamber of Commerce didn't want to give that one up either. But they have no leverage over us -- just money, which we don't need. The military wing of the Deep State, however, has armed forces that are slightly more persuasive.

Internally, we Trump voters and citizens in general are headed on a collision course with the Establishment warhawks. Externally, we are headed on a collision course with nuclear Russia -- far worse than merely getting bogged down in quagmires like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, where there was no major power on the other side.

As we prepare for the coming anti-war movement, remember not to blame Trump since his goals are our goals, and it's not his fault that the military part of the Deep State can threaten a coup or similar if he doesn't play along with their plans.

We will be only too happy if he does stand up to them, but at this early stage without widespread popular support for the anti-war position (especially after that disgusting speech he was forced to read during the missile strike), he might have to give in on this issue for a little while.

Our goal is to get him the popular support cover that he needs in order to say, "Gee fellas, I'd love to indulge you, but in case you haven't noticed, the streets are in turmoil and we're facing a bloody peasant revolt unless we get the hell out of there."

Our other goal is to shine a light on who exactly is pushing this -- both the Deep State concept, as well as specific individuals such as McMaster and Harvey (his Middle East advisor). Exposing shadowy behavior raises the social costs on it, and tends to make them knock off their subversion while they're under a spotlight.

Fun fact: the article says that the drama between Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner is hyperbole put out into the media by McMaster's team, since both Bannon and Kushner agree on not wanting to pursue nuclear WWIII in the Middle East. I told you I never know what to make of the mainstream media's reports of palace intrigue because the sources are the factions involved themselves, and have every motive to deceive.

BTW, I will be deleting all comments that are non-sequitur or raising questions of credibility (i.e. the Soros-funded shills). We'll stipulate that the report may be true or not, but given his track record in breaking the Susan Rice unmasking story, as well as going public with advance warning of the strikes the other night, it seems likely this one is true, too. He'd been sitting on it before the Rice story, and used that one to establish that his sources are accurate.


  1. Is it possible that we'll see street-level Lefty anti-war activists standing next to ripped guys in MAGA Hats shouting "One, two, three, four - we don't want your fucking war!" at the White House? This next phase in our country's history could make for some strange bedfellows.

    1. Ag could answer this better than I could do, but I'll just share my observations from watching Spencer's livestream...

      This is a country of 300+ million people and the factions were tiny. Not much time to organize, but it's in DC, huge country, etc.

      Spencer is great at getting attention for his movement. Though he started off very strong by having guys show up with Trump's own past Syria tweets on giant posters, he seemed to mostly be involved with shouting matches and put downs with the people there to protest him.

      The protesters look like comfortable, well-off people who are terminally upset that they didn't win the genetic lottery in the looks department. Everything good in life has come there way, but not that and it's not fair; they're owed. Maybe cause they aren't white, or they're heavy, or who knows.

      The protesters are not Bernie people. Bernie and Jill people aren't Gollum people. These are Gollum people. They were seething with rage and very personal against Spencer with the name-calling and wanting to commit violence against him while practically ignoring the guys flanking him who didn't have his GQ looks.
      They tried a little to show that they were anti-war, too, but kept reverting to Spencer hatred.

      Honestly, it all looked more like an identity politics pissing match than anything with a focus on opposing war. Spencer will hopefully get sharper with his focus, but my guess is that things are getting serious real fast and the paleocons and Bernie/Jill people will come together and by sheer numbers the ID politics guys will become just a sliver-sized faction.

  2. If its true that they plan to put boots on the ground by late May, I'd imagine Bannon would be forced out by then. If we see reports in a few weeks that Bannon is resigning, or is being re-assigned to some meaningless role, that's a sign.

    The whole idea simply sounds like lunacy. We are not allies with Assad or Russia. So we would have three enemies in Syria. Presumably they would try to sell it by saying our forces will focus first on ISIS in eastern Syria. But we will still have violated the territorial sovereignty of Syria, and we won't be coordinating with anyone. And given that ISIS is already present in western Iraq, it seems very likely that US forces could become trapped between ISIS and Syrian forces.

    How popular would this be? It's disturbing that an overwhelming majority on Drudge supported the missile strike. What portion of the right will simply turn on a dime to support the latest foreign policy move?

    If he really does commit 150,000 troops to Syria (which is very close to the initial deployment for Iraq), I do think he will permanently burn his credibility with his base. We have to make it clear that such a move is unacceptable and that he will pay for it in 2020. The outcry needs to be loud, persistent, and organized, and needs to use the America First slogan.

  3. Gateway pundit (run by a late Boomer), it totally on the war train. There definitely is a generational thing here. Late Boomers are a huge group of people, very white and very politically engaged too.It's probably what accounts for all the war glorification and upvoting of the Syrian attack on sites like Drudge.

    I saw that Boomer births peaked from about 1955-1961. That's a big deal, for three reasons: First, via sheer numbers they're going to be important. Second, they were much less likely to see combat than early Boomers/Silents/G.I.s , thus making them more cavalier about warfare. Third, earlier generations (including early Boomers) are now dying, which is only going to raise the influence of Late Boomers and subsequent generations.

    The lingering bitterness regarding Vietnam made everyone reluctant to start wars in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, but it seems like 9/11 was the catalyst for late Boomers in particular to cheer on the possibility of America getting to finally kick some ass. A lot of Boomers feel embarrassed about Vietnam; the liberal ones regret some of their hostility towards the military in the 60's and 70's, while the more conservative ones feel that Uncle Sam didn't "let" us win. After cocooning took off around 1993, Boomers could no longer tolerate their tender feelings about Vietnam being explored out in the open, so few movies even mentioned 'Nam after the early 90's.

    Is the incessant war mongering from some Boomers the result of festering shame and unresolved insecurity regarding Vietnam? In pre-cocooning times, they were willing to examine the complexities and lessons of Vietnam in movies like Rambo, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Aliens etc. But when people get more neurotic in cocooning times, they're less willing to examine politically/morally complex and possibly unflattering events and issues. That's why nearly all war movies since 1992 have been about not just WW2, but typically about the Americans and/or Germans to boot. Can't have any doubt who the good and bad guys are. Nor can we dwell on how traumatic war is, especially if the enemy is alien and doesn't play fair (Charlie in 'Nam, suicide bombing towelheads in the Middle East)..

    I do think that in the 2030's and 40's we'll get a revival of 'Nam movies and we'll also get the first movies to wisely and urgently examine the impact of war in the Mid-East.

  4. Also, we've got a serious blindspot regarding the military among conservatives. As far as many of them are concerned, the military is a fortress situated 20 feet above the swamp.

    Do ya'll understand why jets are flown over football pre-game ceremonies these days? The sad treatment of many returning 'Nam vets in the 70's and early 80's bugs so many Boomers that they've increasingly over-corrected to a default mode of not questioning ANYONE in the military, at most being willing to criticize (usually Dem) politicians for not using the military well.

  5. http://www.unz.com/isteve/how-did-jared-kushner-get-into-harvard/#comment-1829234

    I think there is something to this. (Steve's hunch or "hunch" on Israel has been interesting and Putin's less-than-loyal comment about Assad the other day makes some sense under this.) My intuition tells me this makes a whole lot more sense than the idea that what's been pushed lately, that's for sure. He's Orthodox, for crying out loud! Guy who got interested in politics cause he was moved by the people who attended Trump rallies? Running to the Gollums as part of a power play to advance neo-liberalism??? I'm not saying I endorse this, but the other just seems like a crock. Time will shortly tell if he's the sensitive guy feeling noblesse oblige, or if he's the Rasputin.
    Also, see Steve's comment about Putin's feelings about Assad.

  6. The theme of Baby Boomers screwing over America is indeed palpable with this Syria episode. I am noticing that sentiment not just here, but elsewhere as well.

    With the Boomers, you run into this curious combination of (1) mindless jingoism, thinking that we can impose Whig liberalism on Middle Easterners by force, and (2) sheer callousness to the gravity of war.

    The college-age demographic has its own natural faults and naivetes, but the above-two are not among them.

    It's all very discouraging - the question seems to be whether the last 20-25 years of the Boomers will spell the end of the US in its current form.

  7. Regarding Boomers, there's a lot of confusion about who supported the Vietnam War -- polls consistently showed that young people were always the main supporters, with support dropping off steadily with age, from the start to end of the war.

    If they're a later Boomer, they were still in elementary school when Vietnam was blowing up.

    Events in some domains can leave a lasting impression at younger ages, some at older ages. Things like war and politics require a mind that is fully adult, at least 25 and more like 30.

    Those who would have been most humbled by the Vietnam debacle would have been born closer to 1940 and before, than 1950 and after.

    When someone born in 1950 was becoming more politically serious rather than sophomoric, it was already the Reagan era. And right when the Iranian Revolution kicked off with Americans being taken hostage.

    That's where they get the idea that Iran is eternally evil, "main state sponsor of terrorism" (despite no jihads or jihadists emanating from there), etc.

    And also where they get the idea that the US can impose its will anywhere -- the USSR was internally weakened and heading toward collapse during the '80s, so it looked like Reagan and America were just waltzing across the battlefield. Similarly after the Gulf War in '91.

    The Boomers spend the formative part of adulthood after Vietnam but before 9/11 and the Iraq War. They are the most oblivious.

    Seeing the debacle of Iraq by circa 2005-'10 means you had to have been born circa 1975 or after to have an instinctive distrust of adventurism, especially in the Mid-East.

    9/11 means the cut-off for wokeness about the Saudis is about 1970.

  8. The generation that shaped the Postwar Midcentury were generally born from 1880-1890 or somewhat earlier. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Eisenhower, and so on.

    The main formative event for them was WWI, which confirms the idea that it's a person's 30s when they're gobbling up information about the world regarding big things like war and politics, which sets the tone for the rest of their lives.

    If Turchin's apocalypse of 2020 takes place, it will be the early Millennials and late X-ers who will be the main shapers of foreign policy in the aftermath and re-building stage.

    Within those cohorts, it's nearly impossible to tell the "left" apart from the "right" vis-a-vis war.

    BTW, another reason to doubt that Kushner and Ivanka are bloodthirsty neocons or neolib interventionists. If Ivanka put out an emoting tweet pro-war, it must have been for the same reason her father was forced to read that ridiculous speech. *Not* their true feelings.

  9. Why do we have to assume some sort of conspiratorial motives for Ivanka? It's entirely possible husband and spouse feel differently on this. We know that Trump has done some things to toy with the media and his enemies, the Romney meeting is a good example of that. But sometimes things are exactly as they appear.

  10. I wonder if that would be a more viral way of framing the anti-war movement -- "Gen X-ers against pointless wars" and "Millennials against pointless wars".

    If we went with "Trump supporters against the Deep State," there would be all the rally-around-the-flag Boomers who would refuse to believe it. And they're the largest cohort within Trump voters.

    If we went with "right" or "left" takes -- "Walls Not Wars" on the right, "No Capitalist Imperialism" on the left -- that would not present as united of a front, and asks too much of a buy-in from the audience.

    Distrust of adventurism, in the Mid-East of all places, is so instinctive to Gen X and Millennials regardless of party affiliation or political apathy, we might as well run with it and reel onlookers in as easily as possible.

    Also makes a nice non-partisan frame, and avoids attacking Trump himself, which would have fractured the Trump coalition.

  11. Not to get off-topic, but that framing would work also for other areas that are generationally defined. "Gen X-ers and Millennials for single-payer healthcare," whereas Boomers think anything less than corporate rape is communist ownership of all hospitals and drug companies, and central planning boards dictating prices.

    "Gen X-ers and Millennials for good jobs, not student loans".

    (Why can't you kids just pound the pavement like we did before the labor market became saturated with off-shore workers, illegal immigrants, and inflated degrees at home?)

  12. Trump "is forced" to do this by the threat of... what? They'll stage a coup if he refuses to get involved in Syria?

  13. You raise good points in regards to generational attitudes. I'm reminded of all the polling that shows younger Republicans (people in that 18-29 range specifically) are noticeably more positive on Russia than the party as a whole. Despite being less pro-Trump. Makes sense given the post-war climate they were born. Also the emerging partisan divide on Israel that just wasn't a thing until very recently... Driven in large part by how much less supportive minorities and younger American jews are of Israel.

  14. "They'll stage a coup if he refuses to get involved in Syria?"

    Not necessarily rising to that level overnight, but some escalating moves that weaken the support of the armed forces for Trump. If he's no longer commander-in-chief of the legitimate use of force, there goes his authority.

    At least in the international dimension.

    I don't think they have the anti-Trumpers to pull off a domestic stand-down of law enforcement. E.g., if ICE and the FBI grunts and brass refused to enforce deportations and border security. That's still moving forward.

    But in the foreign policy arena, there's a lot more sociopaths looking to spread the empire at any cost (to us, not them).

    1. Then why didn't they do that to the much more indolent an pliable Obama?

  15. "Driven in large part by how much less supportive minorities and younger American jews are of Israel."

    Someone in Bernie world noted how shocking it was to see how many college-age American Jews are taking part in the Boycott - Divest - Sanctions movement against Israeli expansionism.

    When they were coming of political age, Israel is no longer the plucky underdog David-and-Goliath story that they were around 1967 and 1973, when they whooped the Arab countries' asses against all odds.

    Now they are an occupying power, apartheid, colonialist, etc., sending tanks against teenagers armed with rocks. They are not attacked by major powers in the region anymore, and do not enjoy victim status.

    The turning point seems to be the Intifada of the early 2000s. There was the first Intifada in the late '80s, but perhaps it was not covered as much as other Mid-East events like Iran-Iraq.

    By now, though, it seems like Palestine-Israel has fallen off the radar, with Iraq and then Syria taking its place.

  16. Gateway pundit (run by a late Boomer), it totally on the war train. There definitely is a generational thing here.

    It's not generational it's that Jim Hoft is an End of Days Christian zionist. There's a picture of him with his hero Netanyahu and Andrew Breitbart on his website.

    He's a classic White male "cuck" to "the chosen people".

    So for him pro war against Assad is a way of protecting Israel from a perceived threat.

    Remember the zionist extremists in America are heavily White evangelical Christians.

    And as noted above many Bernie/Jill Stein Jews are pro Israel yet highly critical of expansionist zionism.

  17. "It's not generational it's that Jim Hoft is an End of Days Christian zionist. "

    A distinction without a difference, since Boomers and very early X-ers are far more religious than those born in the 70's and beyond.

    It's this kind of BS that's turned younger generations off to religion. Invade the world/invite the world ideology promoted by Me Gen dolts. I'll admit that not all Boomers are clueless (after all, Steve Sailer coined the phrase Invade the world/invite the world). But they've got a lot to answer for, especially if anecdotally speaking they seem to gravitate towards belligerent foreign policy. With early Gen X-ers not being much better, though they aren't as numerous and therefore aren't as important as Boomers.

    WRT later Boomers, it's fairly common for entire sets of siblings to be born between the mid 50's-60's when the Boom peaked. So this is a cohort that wasn't necessarily THAT affected by Vietnam. When you, your family, and the vast majority of your peers didn't sweat it out in the jungle, it just isn't going to mean as much to you. Casualty levels were in the 4 digits each year between 1965 and 1971. In other words, Silents and early Boomers were the greatest victims of the war. Someone born in 1954 would've been just 16-17 in 1971, nowhere near 'Nam at it's most bloody. 1967-1969 had 5 digit body counts per year, and that's what really begin to provoke a backlash.

    Right now, the immense size of the 1954-1964 cohort, and the fact that they're heavily white and mostly still alive, means that they have more power to set the tone than anyone else. And tragically, this is the group most likely to not appreciate the impact of being in a anxiety ridden tour of duty where you might die any moment. Where you have to watch the impact of bullets and bombs on flesh and bone, and you're not always sure just what the hell it is you're trying to accomplish, or whether it will all make sense in the long run.

    BTW, the 1965-1970 cohort is pretty big too. And they're fairly close to late Boomers in their attitudes towards war, but at least they don't feel the same grandiosity about changing the world as Boomers do.

    Hearing from your peers about what a bummer it is to be in a conflict with an alien enemy, where you're never confident that you've got the upper hand and you're never quite sure when it's all gonna end, makes a big difference. I think I understand now why so many late Silents and early Boomers were reluctant to let kids play with army toys (G.I. wasn't even made anymore between 1978-1981).

    The weird thing too is how many late Boomers and early Gen X-ers seem callous about putting their own kids in harm's way. If your generation didn't get robbed by a stupid war, it's harder to appreciate the folly of robbing a different generation.

  18. Metal Church, Method to your Madness (1986)

    Please let us at them
    Goes the barrack room cry
    I'm glad I'm not going
    I'm not dying to die

    I've got all my medals
    Survived sneak attacks
    It's not worth all the feelings
    And compassion I lack

    Out on the run, guns at your back
    They've got you in their sights
    Everyone's gone
    They're dead in a trench

    Endless, sleepless nights
    I've been to the jungle
    In garrison file
    I've walked death's quiet paths

    Each lonely mile
    I killed for no reason
    My heart grew stone cold
    With a gun in your hand

    Suddenly you think, you're so bold
    Out on the run, guns at your back
    They've got you in their sights
    Everyone's gone, they're dead in a trench

    Endless, sleepless nights
    Out on the run, guns at your back
    They've got you in their sights

    Is the method to your madness now

    To try to end your life?
    Captive there and all alone
    I would bide my time

    I'd write my family and all my friend
    And tell them I am doing fine
    But why is there blood upon my chest?
    Is there a method to this madness?

    Twenty one guns salute you
    When you die
    Twenty one guns salute you
    Why, oh why?

    Your gravestone reads
    You were a patriot's son
    But nobody cares
    When all is said and done

    Out on the run, guns at your back
    They've got you in their sights
    Everyone's gone, they're dead in a trench
    Endless, sleepless nights

    Out on the run, guns at your back
    They've got you in their sights
    Is the method to your madness now
    To try to end your life?

    As late as the 80's the trauma inflicted by Vietnam was still in the mindset of everyone. Over time though, later born people in particular buried the bitter memories of 'Nam and fantasized about instigating more wars.

    Metallica actually did 4 songs about war on their first three albums, and it didn't sound pleasant. Metal-wise, War Pigs by Sabbath is the pioneer but I don't think it matches what 80's artists did. Slayer did Mandatory Suicide ('88) and War Ensemble ('90). 80's metal made war seem psychotic and brutal.

  19. "A June 2016 Pew Research Center survey found that 36 percent of U.S. adults learned something about the election campaign in the previous week from a print newspaper. That compared to 44 percent from radio, 65 percent from digital, and 78 percent from television."


    Never underestimate the impact of visual war "coverage" that minimizes the carnage as much as possible in so far as it suits the warmongering(esp. if it's our guys being shredded).

    Seeing as how Boomers are way more addicted to TV than younger generations, it's a double edged asword. It's definitely hurting us right now, but on the plus side, the generations that don't remember Walter Conkrite confessing his ambivalence towards Vietnam don't have the same credulity towards the media.

    In the 60's and 70's, Boomers became accustomed to the media telling it like it was. You can't really blame them for not being able to shake the respect for the legacy media that the media once earned.

  20. "Then why didn't they do that to the much more indolent an pliable Obama?"

    They could have grown more desperate after Russia intervened directly as of fall 2015. That was a game-changer.

    Pulling off a ground war in Syria vs. Russia could not be done during the general election, unless the incumbent were up for re-election.

    But they probably drafted their plans once Russia sent their military in and really turned things around. They were just waiting it out until Hillary took office. Her first major foreign policy move, proving how tough and bloodthirsty the first female President truly is.

  21. "He's a classic White male "cuck" to "the chosen people"."

    An interesting twist on this is that it's two layers of cuckdom -- Israel's importance in the Mideast is based on being a "local cop on the beat" in order to maintain American influence over Arabian oil. American govt doesn't give a shit about the Holy Land.

    If Israel had no relevance to propping up the Saudis, we would never have taken them in as a client. In fact, we've been best buds with the Saudis since the 1930s, and with Israel only since the '70s, after they demonstrated in '67 that they could kick ass if needed.

    Judeo-LARPers in America are cucking for Israel, who is cucking for Saudi Arabia.

  22. From my experience, in the Midwest states that Cruz won, and in the South as well, there is simply this intense, base-level evangelical support for Israel. "Chosen People", "the only democracy in the Middle East". Even churches that are not Christian Zionist share some of their views.

    These Boomer evangelicals also grew up when the intense focus on the Holocaust got started (1960s), culminating in the 1990s and 2000s, where every other show on the History Channel was about the Holocaust, and the Holocaust Museum was finally constructed in DC in the early 2000s, IIRC.

    Their whole picture of the tribe is of the eternal suffering victim, who rose from the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust to re-claim their homeland and then throwback the Arabs in '67 and '73. They are our elder brothers in the faith, holding our hand in commitment to freedom, democracy, and Judeo-Christian values. I spend most of time around evangelicals, and am simply summarizing the view expressed by many friends and family. Any attempt to broach the JQ is repelled instantly with typical charges of being anti-semitic or a conspiracy theorist.

    So far as I can see, younger Americans are simply more ambivalent about Israel and the Jews. Growing up more removed from the Holocaust, the narrative just isn't as compelling.

  23. You've all seen the latest news about the joint Russia/Iran statement vowing to strike back should the US strike Syria again...

    I don't recall any of the 60D chess scenarios factoring in Iran, so it appears those wishes are gone and that things are mostly what they appear.

    My developing sense of what may be going on...
    Trump showed contradictory pulls during the election: "Why can't we work with Putin?" "Why can't we work with Assad to defeat ISIS?" "I'll make the US Israel's best friend again." "That Iran Deal to get them to stop making nuclear weapons was the worst deal in history!!!"
    Why? I don't know, but I think each one was sincere.

    But he's been showing signs that he's resolved the contradictions by siding with the Gulf State-Israel side. Cozy meeting with their leaders in the last few weeks and so on.

    And then there's the Deep State MIC angle, the 800lb gorilla. Absolutely, these plans were all drawn up ahead of time for President Hillary...

    I tend to wonder if, when they were twisting his arm and making life miserable for him, did he get talked into it, like as with Stockholm Syndrome: it won't be that bad, it won't lead to a wider war. We'll get in and get out.
    Did Trump, being a Boomer so much discussed here lately, say to himself, yes, I suppose I could go along with this. It'll be different with me, I'm not that loser, Obama, etc.

    I do believe this goes against all Trump's instincts, but he's not Ron or Rand Paul. The Pauls would have been keeping their eye on the Deep State, seeing them as their major foes, trying to counter all their moves, most especially, the appointments. With Trump, there appears to be none of that at all.
    But, really, that's academic. Understanding degree of Trump's agency, views, etc. is obviously valuable, though.

    I leave out a sliver of hope for the Sailer scenario of US-Israel-Russia, but I don't remember where Saudi Arabia fit into that. You gotta account for the Gulf. And, again, Russia seems enraged.

  24. This is... something.

    Recommended because of the thinking, and lack thereof, displayed here and it's worse than pro-Trump people have been letting on. I have yet to see acknowledgement of Russia's 6-year investment in Syria, by anglosphere media, to even begin to ask, "Why on earth would Russia abandon Syria so easily?" Also, nothing about Iran here whatsoever, let alone, why they'd abandon it.

    Tillerson: Putin could be allowed to rejoing G7 if he'll just pull out of Syria

  25. On matters where Trump has been adamant for years, right through a couple months ago -- no, no one can convince him that it's backwards. He's being pressured in a way where he can't immediately tell them to get lost.

    You're right that Trump was not picking sides in the Mideast, but was trying to sound exasperated over every one of our commitments over there, as though we should get the hell out after knocking out ISIS and let everybody else over there worry about it.

    Still, he was much harsher against Saudi Arabia -- the only one calling them out as the ones who did 9/11, "Dopey Prince Waleed thinks he can buy me with daddy's money, but it doesn't work that way with Trump!" etc.

    He's also mentioned many times how rotten Pakistan is for hiding Bin Laden for years.

    And he did tell Israel to knock off the settlements.

    He defended Assad as the lesser of two evils, made a point of "if we got along with Putin, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing," and his main criticism about Iran is that they're too smart for our negotiators!

    He didn't call them terrorists, #1 state sponsor of terrorism, etc. Didn't say "I will rip to shreds" the nuclear deal. Didn't threaten their own regime or their allies / clients in the Shia Crescent (Abadi in Iraq), let alone Russia.

    I think Trump saw, over the years, how the Arabian side was waning while the Iranian side was waxing, putting the US on the losing side in yet another conflict.

    I think he did want to eventually cut a deal with the rising and expanding side, which is why he never vilified Iran or its allies. Back when Ahmadinejad visited Columbia, Trump was on cable news saying how horribly the Iranian leader was treated when the Pres of Columbia called him a petty dictator right before his speech. Who da hell does that to a guest?

    But as with single-payer healthcare and a wealth tax to pay down the debt, shifting our commitment in the M.E. *relatively* more toward the Iranian side and away from the Arabian side was about seven bridges too far for an American audience, especially a GOP primary audience.

    So he just criticized how badly they ripped us at the negotiating table, saying he could have gotten more for our side -- not that they should have gotten nothing. "The Persians... the Persians are great negotiators, folks."

    He never paid such complements to the Saudis -- "The Arabians are world-class in backstabbing, their backstabbing act is just in phenomenal tippy-top shape."

  26. One more, missed this from yesterday. This does not look like a happy man:
    Putin asks US where the evidence is of the Syrian Army and how disrespectful the US is to say they must keep it secret.

    By the way, I found this doing a search of Putin on twitter and it appears 10-1, 20-1, people who feel the need to say anything about Putin are insane. In their world, Russia is not dangerously angry with the United States. Russia and Trump feel an overwhelming need at all times to please a certain sliver of the American population that hasn't moved on from the election. What the hip hop-listening Millenial ladies, and middle-aged doofuses addicted to arguing on the internet, are thinking is at the center of Vladimir Putin's thoughts.

  27. Vintage Trump, 2007, on "Iran better than Saudi Arabia":


    Ahmadinejad is visiting New York, and Trump says that instead of blowing him off, Bush should be meeting, talking, and negotiating with the Iranian leader, especially now that he's on our turf (rare opportunity for home field advantage).

    Fox-cuck host asks, "Do you think he's mentally stable?" Trump: "Who, the President?" lol. Calls the Persian "sly like a fox" who is playing other world leaders without them realizing it.

    Trump reiterates that Iraq didn't knock down WTC -- that was Saudi Arabia and other (Gulf) countries. Then emphasizes that it wasn't Iran either on 9/11. Calls out Saudi Arabia again for probably harboring Bin Laden, when the retarded media is focusing on distraction countries.


  28. You give me hope, Ag.

    I looked into what Smoothiex12 has said lately and he's on that Russia-Iran call:

    Reiterates your points on Iran, and even buffoonery of American leaders to not be able to calculate the consequences of their actions (a constant theme of his). BTW, he and his readers, mostly Russian, are the exception to the observation the other day that virtually nobody is gaming this out to WWWIII and potential catastrophic consequences.

  29. "I have yet to see acknowledgement of Russia's 6-year investment in Syria, by anglosphere media, to even begin to ask, "Why on earth would Russia abandon Syria so easily?""

    Well they're journalists, so the majority are stupid, ignorant, and lazy, and the rest are paid shills for the Establishment.

    That article, for those who didn't click, says Sec State Tillerson is going to give Putin an ultimatum during his Moscow visit -- withdraw armed forces from Syria, and withdraw support for Assad, and we'll let you back into the G8 club of rich countries (kicked out after taking back Crimea in 2014).

    Oh and BTW, we promise not to kick you back out of the G8 once we have moved in to be the main shaper of postwar Syria and are enjoying the spoils from the war in which you were the decisive actor for the winning side. If the US re-negs, Russia would have no way to re-neg -- American forces would already be controlling Syria, and their client Assad would already be gone.

    That is so retarded it would have to be a poison pill designed to trigger sanctions against Russia -- and hopefully that would be that. Make ridiculous demands about the military, get immediately told "no," and then apply economic pressure rather than escalate militarily.

    The way things are going, though, it sounds like it's only one prong of a general attack on Russia, sanctions plus increasing military tension in the M.E. against Russia.

  30. Fake news? In the comment thread at Smoothies, someone said the Russia-Iran joint statement and phone call story is fake!
    Fun house mirrors once again...
    Original report:
    "A fake news story has been circulating on both mainstream media and
    alt-media saying that Russia and Iran have issued a joint threat to ‘use
    force’ in the event of the US targeting Syrian forces again. It was
    also reported that the issue was quoted as being a ‘red line’, a term
    generally used by the United States....
    In all likelihood, the document is a forgery produced by those who seek to spread false stories about the strategy of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.
    Because the document is in Arabic, it is unlikely to have originated in either Russia or Iran....
    The actual content of the well documented phone call between the Russian and Iranian Presidents entirely contradicts the dubious document and is totally in line with official and de-facto Russian and Iranian policy...
    Further information on the phone conversation can be found in the original report from The Duran...
    Whoever has spread this fake news clearly wants to paint Russia and Iran as violent, unhinged and destabilising as the United States....
    The reality is in fact almost the complete opposite of what is being reported".

  31. BTW, another fake news item is that videoclip of Putin speaking angrily -- it's an old clip about a different topic, not a recent one demanding that the US show whatever proof it has that Assad did the chemical attack.

    1. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I found the real story of the phone call between Russia and Iran and it is so very much different.
      I had gone to RT: fine. Afterward, twitter: big mistake
      Nice white pills to chase down those god-awful poisonous black ones...
      Ag, I can't hardly take this, lol!


      “On the initiative of the Iranian party a phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hassan Rouhani was held. … [The presidents] exchanged their views of the situation in Syria. Both parties pointed out the inadmissibility of US aggressive actions against the sovereign state in violation of the international law. Putin and Rouhani called for holding an objective, impartial investigation of all circumstances of the incident involving chemical weapons in the Syrian province of Idlib on April 4,” the statement read.

  32. Agnostic, if your theory is correct and Trump has been forced into a war he doesn't want by his own MIC there is one option open to him that he would never consider in any other circumstance. He could collapse his country's own currency. With the dollar in hyperinflation the military can't fight a war. This would toss over the global chessboard, weaken the American military empire and give him leverage to set a different course, domestically as well on things like health care, entitlements, trade, etc. Instructing the Federal Reserve to make a global market for physical gold bullion (sending the price into the tens of thousands of dollars per ounce) should be enough to start the currency dominos falling.

  33. Another whitepill on the whole Deep State coup -- Trump did get to veto both of Sec Def Mattis' picks for Deputy, both of whom were globalist interventionists, one being a shill for the Muslim Brotherhood.

    I've read some say Mattis was just making a misguided attempt at bipartisanship, rather than trying to stack the administration with globalists per se. I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other.

    But Trump vetoed those choices and picked a Boeing executive instead -- *not* a swamp creature.

    The fact that he got away with this means that at least part of the Deep State is either unwilling or unable to have its way regarding his personnel. At least the Deputy, and perhaps the Sec himself, are stand-up guys in Defense.

    The real snakes like McMaster on the NSC trying to get us into WWIII are coming in through the intel world, whether military intel, CIA, or whatever. But not the battlefield chargers in the military like Mattis.

    So there could be a rift within the Deep State itself -- not uncommon in a climate of such hyper-competitiveness and status-striving. The intel faction is the worst (though even they have their dissenters and defectors), while the soldier faction is more neutral on the globalism vs. nationalism question.

    We'll see. If true, we can be saved by the soldier faction threatening force against the propagandists from the intel faction.

    Things might get really crazy! Jocks vs. nerds -- who's bald, Mattis or McMaster?

  34. Mattis does have the standard view about whose side we should be on in the M.E., and who is against us, but I'm not sure if he's willing to push for WWIII in order to confront Russia (and Iran).

    The crazy people are already preparing for it, we'll have to see how Mattis and his wing of Deep State respond.

    Trump should persuade Mattis into turning his love for brawling onto the fifth columnists within and not Iran.

  35. http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/09/trump-supporting-hackers-claim-to-release-nsa-archive-of-some-kind/

    "One exit question for TheShadowBr*kers: If Trump had kept all his promises, would you have released the alleged NSA database, or would you have kept it secret because Trump was “your guy”? If it’s the former, then great. If it’s the latter, then you’re not better than the mainstream media who held water for the previous administration. The information needed to be made public, regardless of who has the White House and who doesn’t. Americans need know if and when the government is spying on them, so change will hopefully happen and the spying stops. If that change doesn’t happen, then Americans can vote out the politicians who enacted the policy and put in new politicians who will repeal it."

    LMAO 1000x!!!!!!!!!!!!
    No idea, no clue!!!!! We're talking about dudes whose crimes amount to decades of jail time. They don't f*** around and this... oh my God, I'm dying!!!!

    It's April 2017 and this is the most innocent, clueless thing of the year and no way anything else this year will top it. No. Way. And Trump is not their guy the way he's our guy. This guys a nice guy, but he's green.

  36. Checking in on the Boomers at Con Treehouse -- they don't care if Christians are protected by Assad because he doesn't truly love them as his own, and uses them to create a benefactor image to Western audiences.

    Ask those Christians themselves whether they care or not about Assad's motives -- they don't care if they're cherished, they just want to be protected.

    "Yeah, I guess Assad protects Christians, but it doesn't really count because he isn't Mother Theresa, and still has to go, even if his successor's commitment to protecting Christians is unknown -- and unproven by a track record."

    I know who they can never rely on for love -- American Christians. Some get it, but most do not. Normally I don't get too angry at American ignorance, but when the other side has been following Jesus for centuries longer than your own people, show some fucking respect and follow their lead on who is good for them in the government.

  37. I'm skeptical of the timeline. I don't think we can get 150,000 soldiers into Syria by the end of May (that's about six weeks from now). Maybe some kind of initiation of a conflict (which means special forces, air, anti-air, electronic warfare) in May, with an intention of actual conflict in September (about six months from now, conveniently after the hot summer).

    Not to say I think that is what is happening (and definitely now what I want to happen). Just my estimate of the time required to do something like this.



You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."