April 5, 2017

Trump is not cucking on regime change: Another boomerang operation

After the false flag chemical attack in Syria, the neocons and oppositional Dems are crying for regime change.

Trump ran his campaign on preferring a "bad guy" like Assad, if the only alternative is jihadist whackjobs who will spread chaos and violence all around the Middle East and the wider world. He defended that as a general principle, from Assad to Saddam to Qaddafi. "But they hurt their own people!" I know, it's terrible, really hahribble stuff -- but look at who the replacement would be, and the situation for people would be far worse.

Here are all the times Trump mentioned Syria on Twitter, from the most recent. Most are about the potential invasion or regime change in 2013 after another false flag chemical attack. Trump was forceful about not getting suckered into invading -- and that if Obama did get suckered into that, at least don't get suckered into picking up the tab as well, but make the Arab League pay us handsomely.


Now, he pins the blame on Assad and says it's changed his mind. He says he's famously flexible and not a rigid ideologue, so his plans are subject to change.

But when you listen to interviews from 10, 20, and 30 years ago, it's clear that he is the least flexible or mutable person who has ever taken high office. At least on the very important matters like trade, re-industrialization, immigration, healthcare, and foreign policy, all fitting into the broad theme of nationalism and populism. He even uses the same phrases and intonation (1999: "Saudi Arabia is ripping us off big-league").

The only thing he's really "evolved" on is abortion, going from pro-choice to pro-life after his wife got pregnant while he was fairly old to be a new father, but they took the risk and were rewarded with a son who's the apple of his eye. Even that issue is part of the culture war, which does not interest Trump at all -- the big picture is about the economy and the government, not social-cultural matters.

What does change from Trump is his moment-to-moment messaging, image, and presentation -- meant to throw his enemies onto the wrong track, keep them guessing, and lure them into letting their guard down.

There are four main groups who are pushing for regime change, so let's look at how Trump's policy of dissembling about his goals in Syria neutralizes the threat from each of them.

1. Jihadists on the ground (ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, etc.)

This is the group he is most worried about, since they're the ones doing the raping. By appearing to flip-flop overnight, he lulls them into complacency. Maybe Uncle Sam will be helping us topple Assad after all!

This will not only give the pro-Assad coalition the all-important element of surprise against the jihadists, it will also convince al-Nusra etc. not to take such desperate last-ditch measures like another false flag chemical attack. Their days are numbered, and Trump doesn't want them to go out with a great big desperate bang.

2. State enablers of jihadists (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey)

These countries favor jihadists over an ally of Iran, which is expanding its sphere of influence in the region.

But they are also lazy and stingy, relying as always on Uncle Sam to do the fighting, supply the arms, and otherwise pay up for the operation.

If they thought that the US was against regime change in Syria, then they might grudgingly take up the task themselves, risking a war against Russia.

If they're lulled into complacency about Uncle Sam stepping in yet again, they won't mobilize their militaries for invasion. Regime change will be a "possibility" that never materializes, and by the time the jihadists are defeated, their state enablers will have no cover story for why they're invading to topple Assad.

3. Warmongers in the American military, deep state, and elected office

They want to expand their sphere of influence as broadly as possible, whether or not it benefits the American people.

By appearing to have changed his mind, Trump fends off a rising chorus of war cries, and lulls them into complacency. They no longer cook up plan A, B, and C, figuring that Trump and his team are already on it.

4. Media and oppositional Democrats

They tow the Establishment line, so appearing to acknowledge their concerns gets them to stop beating the war drums so incessantly.

They are even more easily lulled into complacency because they have the self-aggrandizing delusion that they're powerful enough to push Trump one way or another on major policies. They will be the first to declare victory and pat themselves on the back, while Trump prepares his true plan.

The "tell" that Trump is playing his enemies yet again is how over-the-top his denunciations have been about the inhuman barbarity against little beautiful babies. This is the same guy who responded to Bill O'Reilly's attempt to provoke him into denouncing Putin as a "killer" with, "Yeah, well, there's a lot of killers out there -- you think we're so innocent?"

He knows which side is likely behind the attack, if not the specific jihadi group / state enabler / deep state operatives. Those specifics will take some time to figure out, and he needs to be left alone by his enemies in the meantime.

Rather than dismissing the attack on Twitter as "another obvious false flag trying to lure our stupid leaders into wasting lives and money in the Middle East," he's going to turn it back around on the real perpetrators.

In order for that boomerang to inflict maximum damage, he's going to have to get people's emotions on fire about how intolerable the act was. Then when we read a tweet about how he "just found out" that it was really, say, al-Nusra, helped along by Turkey, with CIA support -- he can call for greater severity against the jihadists (torture to get information), a clean break with the wrong-side-of-history nations like Turkey / Saudi Arabia, and heads to roll among deep state warmongers.

Then he can call for reprisals not just for how horrific the initial act was, but for the deceptive propaganda that could have lured us into another Iraq War -- this time against a nuclear superpower like Russia!

It will be hard to pull off a full discrediting of the jihadi warmongers without indulging them a little bit first. If he wants the warmongers to hang for it, first he has to fan the flames of calling for the perps to hang for it. The ultimate sneak attack will be revealing who the perps actually are.

42 comments:

  1. But when you listen to interviews from 10, 20, and 30 years ago, it's clear that he is the least flexible or mutable person who has ever taken high office. At least on the very important matters like trade, re-industrialization, immigration, healthcare, and foreign policy, all fitting into the broad theme of nationalism and populism.

    In 2012 Trump was criticizing Romney for "mean-spirited" attacks on illegal immigrants:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-Ronald-Kessler/2012/11/26/id/465363/

    B.B.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In those quotes, he sounds more like he's criticizing Romney for tone, not substance. He had to make it sound caring -- caring for our own people, for those here legally, and those who want to come in "through that big fat beautiful door in The Wall".

    He didn't mean we needed open borders, amnesty, ramped up legal immigration, etc. He's talking about how the framing and tone alienated citizens of Hispanic and Asian background.

    From The America We Deserve (book spelling out 2000 platform):

    "America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally.

    "The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.

    "It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave."

    More on history of views:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm

    ReplyDelete
  3. " Trump is not cucking on regime change: Another boomerang operation
    After the false flag chemical attack in Syria, the neocons and oppositional Dems are crying for regime change."


    Trump never cucks. His response to #NeverTrump is $^11 NeverCuck. "Boomerang" sounds good, it's apt.

    There have been many such minor operations recently. One unnoticed one involves the U.N. in the D.R. Congo., where Israel mines diamonds. It sounds a bit complicated, but important as a battleground.

    Regime change can itself be called false flag- it's always 'for the people and democracy', not preserving elite power. So it's "flag change" first, in that they go after status symbols, as if that is a cheaper way to wage war.

    The WMD meme is too old to work now. It's a Boomer paranoia, I think. Younger people grew up running over NPCs in Grand Theft Auto, and in a generally violent media atmosphere, with many unpunished law violations. So the chemical stuff sounds like "war is happening." Yeah, so?

    ReplyDelete
  4. blackpill cuck4/5/17, 9:07 PM

    I'd like this to be true, but I find a simpler explanation much more convincing. Mattis is Secretary of Defense, McMaster is National Security Advisor, and Trump's foreign policy is simply theirs. By the same token, Sessions' DOJ is acting as you'd expect Sessions' DOJ to act, only Sessions is great on immigration, so you don't have to concoct 4D chess explanations for his actions.

    We'll see, and potentially very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Giz5r9O0hk

    This vid is great. Rep. Ron Paul is actually good in his anti-war activism, something libertarians have done since the 60's. It's partly for selfish reasons, but that's ok with me. Paul is focused on the facts, and very cautious about how little is known about who-did-what. He's kind of better of not staying in Congress- retirement is bliss.

    The regime change issue is about hegemony, I have read- if Assad, Duterte, Putin, or anyone at all can resist the global neoliberal hegemon, then it loses its power. That's accelerating right now, causing these desperate moves, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If it were simply due to Mattis, the Trump admin would never have come out so publicly and uniformly against regime change, just last week -- Sec State Tillerson (in Turkey, no less!), UN Ambassador Haley, and Press Sec Spicer in the White House briefing.

    Not to mention Trump himself saying this all along.

    So it's actually you who's pursuing an epicycle theory -- Mattis and fellow travelers were sitting on the sidelines with their thumb up their asses during Trump's pronouncements for over a year, as well as all three of those high-ranking pronouncements just last week, and are only coming off the sidelines after a publicity stunt by the enemy.

    They would never have let Trump's vision get as far as it did just a few days ago.

    It is true, though, that Trump cannot just muscle his way through military affairs like other areas. Ultimately his authority rests on being Commander in Chief over the armed forces. He wants to basically stay on their good side, whereas the judiciary, legislature, and deep state can go kiss his ass.

    But the fact that he managed to get out the "no regime change" message through so many high offices, suggests that Mattis and colleagues and fellow travelers are not blocking Trump's basic vision for foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, Trump shot down Mattis' first two picks for Deputy Sec Def -- Flournoy, an Obama appointee, and even worse the Muslim Brotherhood enabler Patterson.

    Trump got a Boeing executive (Shanahan) into the position instead of a neocon or other warmonger.

    Doesn't look like Mattis gets his way when it is opposed to Trump's vision.

    ReplyDelete
  8. After taking in lots of actual evidence, this is likely what happened: It seems the Assad regime bombed what they thought was a weapons depot, and it actually had some chlorine gas that went flying. Seeing an opportunity, the White Helmets staged some photos with "victims", maybe some real but probably not. Then the press claimed it was a Sarin gas attack. Ta-da.

    The marketing then is 100% false flag but there was probably an attack. Its just that Assad's attack (bombing a weapons depot) is within the bounds anyone's civilized rules of engagement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4386682/Bannon-says-report-quitting-total-lie.html

    I assumed a story like this would come out very shortly. There is huge demand among liberals for "Bannon out, Bannon demoted" stories, and when such "exclusives" come from liberal outlets, my first instinct is that they're fantasies. So, wait and see knowing the vast majority of the time there will be a clean-up very shortly.
    David Martosko is someone who would not only get genuine scoops, but would know what's what.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Basically, Trump had a college freshman's view of international affairs and now McMaster and Mattis are in there telling him how things actually work. If the US is not pushing to expand it's influence, others are going to fill that space. There's no middle ground where everyone plays nice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "If the US is not pushing to expand it's influence, others are going to fill that space."

    Good -- we've been pushing to expand our influence for over 40 years with not only zero results, but massive loss of blood and treasure.

    Internally weak and fractured nations cannot impose their will abroad -- they can't even do it at home. We can't even secure our borders against Islamic terrorists streaming into the immigration system, but somehow we're going to implement a sphere of influence in the powder keg of the Middle East -- sure.

    Time to start spending those trillions of dollars and man-hours on AMERICA, just like the God Emperor himself said back in 2013.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russian Limbaugh

      Exactly.

      Terror attack at home?

      "Sorry, nothing we can do about it. Diversity is strength."

      Dead arabs in arabia?

      "We must act! For humanity!"

      You have to be deaf dumb and blind not to see. Hell, even the damn conservative treehouse (((mostly))) gets it.

      Delete
  12. "a college freshman's view of international affairs"

    Heh, silly Trumpkins, step aside for the sophisticated view whereby a weak, fractured, debtor nation with no military victories for 70 years is going to impose its will on the Middle East.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To temper the whitepill outlook, even if Trump ultimately has no intention of regime change, floating these possibilities can do serious damage to his support base and coalition unity.

    His supporters are rallying *against* him on this, while his enemies are rallying *for* him. And it's not on a minor issue -- big important stuff that people will remember.

    Sapping the energy out from your support base means you're less able to accomplish the coalition's agenda. Look at how Bernie's people totally abandoned him after he started cucking for Clinton -- whether it was genuine or not, didn't matter. It left them with the impression that he'd changed on a fundamental issue, and they felt betrayed.

    As with Bernie, Trump's people are more likely new to politics, and certainly new to Trump-as-politician. He's not a long-serving pol with a loyal following. Pretty damn loyal considering how rapidly it came together, but it will implode if they *perceive* him as likely to draw us into another Iraq War, whatever his true intentions or ultimate actions turn out to be.

    So, don't construe my post here as a Panglossian rationalization -- as though what Trump's doing is the best imaginable solution. It's just not the disaster you're thinking of. It'd be better still if he just told the warmongers and Salafi propagandists point-blank that we're not going getting suckered into another Iraq War, especially given the track record of jihadists staging chemical attacks in Syria to draw us into deposing Assad so they can spread Islamic anarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To restore the energy to his support base, there must be a massive win on some other big topic after the fog of war clears away.

    Wealth tax on the 1%, universal healthcare, probably not the infrastructure deal (needed, but not one that's going to knock our socks off), The Wall, dropping nukes on the Arabians in revenge for 9/11 and creating ISIS -- something big to replace all the air getting sucked out of his support base by this talk about regime change, even if it's only dissembling.

    People are responding to immediate perceptions of his intentions, not cool-headedly thinking through whether regime change would fit into his long-stated plan for foreign policy, and specifically his Twitter campaign against regime change in the same country not even four years ago.

    If that's how people react, he and his team have to take that into account, and not risk sapping the coalition's energy and unity with further high-risk dissembling maneuvers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "we've been pushing to expand our influence for over 40 years with not only zero results, but massive loss of blood and treasure."

    This is ridiculous. The results are massive - the US runs the world and opponents are fractured and weak - because of US intervention. Of course if you're a petty cynic all you're going to focus on are the failures. Of course there have been failures, as there always will be. That doesn't mean you just give up, especially with rising powers like China trying to eat your lunch.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "the US runs the world and opponents are fractured and weak"

    Iran's disparate ethnic groups are united in expanding their influence throughout Greater Iran -- already including Mesopotamian Iraq de facto, and soon the rest of the Fertile / Shia Crescent.

    But at least "our allies" in Arabia are spreading violent Islamic chaos throughout the Arabian Desert, taking potshots at the sedentary civilizations nearby before getting wiped out before the year's over, and sending hijacked airplanes into our skyscrapers and Defense ministries.

    The sweet taste of victory...

    ReplyDelete
  17. As a further testament to declining US power, Iran, Russia, and China, the three main powers that touch and/or occupy the MacKinder heartland, are informally allied. They not only back Assad, but China and Russia are working on banking and trade policies that will bypass use of the dollar as a reserve currency in Asian trade.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This has nothing to do with running the world

    America gets no national benefit from regime change in Syria. Israel does. Lockheed Martin and other military contractors do. Those with interest in the BTC pipeline and a Mosul-Haifa pipeline do.

    The average American? Zero Benefit.

    These merchants of destruction always try to appeal to western exceptionalism when their pictures of dead babies and guilt don't work. Take it somewhere else, Hymen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 202-456-1414
    White House switch board
    I was on hold for exactly 20 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There's an argument about how building up the neocons' and warmongers' hopes, only to dash them at the last moment, will destroy and demoralize the enemy.

    But the flipside is that he puts his base of supporters on-edge, questioning his integrity and honesty and basic sanity, only to be relieved at the last moment.

    A "phew!" on his supporters side is not the same as an "All right, USA! USA!" It's a net negative -- ending at only minus 10 instead of minus 100 when they thought the possibility of regime change was sincere.

    Demoralizing the enemy has already been done. They are so batshit crazy and paranoid that they've gone all-in on this Russia BS. They have no control over any level of government outside of New York and California, their main issues are being stolen from them, and they have nobody to run in '18 or '20.

    They're toast. And while it's fun to grind their faces into the dirt even more, it's not worth it if it comes at the expense of freaking out your base and delivering relief rather than enthusiasm.

    Enthusiasm that would fuel more intense commitment of existing supporters, and bring in further supporters, would have come from a call for neutrality and avoiding a rush to judgment because look what happened last time we did that. The Iraq War, there's another beauty.

    If neocons and Dems pressure him, he gets on his high horse about not wanting to send American blood and treasure to be wasted in the Middle East yet again, all because we rushed to judgment about WMD and it turned out to be fake news.

    That's how to build up more emotional energy with the base and potential converts.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tillerson pretty clear on wanting Assad out of govt, plans under way to make it happen:

    https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/850060992822128640

    Hopefully they've struck a deal with Russia not to go to war over this (Putin saying support for Assad was "not unconditional").

    Assad cannot go into exile in Russia, or else Russia will be branded as "harboring the monster who gassed his own people," making it impossible to get along with the West.

    So maybe Assad goes to Iran instead -- anyone who hates Assad already hates Iran, and vice versa. It leaves no egg on the faces of Russia or America, and gives Iran good image with their people and others in Shia Crescent -- they got to rescue an ally from the grips of the Western interventionists.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There's an argument about how building up the neocons' and warmongers' hopes, only to dash them at the last moment, will destroy and demoralize the enemy.

    There's always an argument that Trump is engaging in 10D chess of some kind.

    Bottom line is Trump is a "cuck" to the Jews.

    He's in love with his Jewish son in-law, always puts Jewish men in charge of his money and now has a foreign policy team that could very well have been selected by Bill Kristol and every other Jewish neo-con.

    Good that Trump beat Hillary and Jeb but he's still a fairly dumb, lazy old guy who will do what he's told and that means to serve the Jewish people and the Mil-industrial complex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump in love with his son-in-law is a liberal meme, not a meme from the minuscule more-conservative-than-thou wing.

      You tried.

      Delete
    2. This is what liberals have been reduced to with their near total loss of power: fake news, dreamcasting, and moby trolling the influencers.

      Delete
  23. Hopefully such a move would decouple regime change and US military intervention (the immediate concern). There'd be no Iraq War: The Resurrection.

    But who takes his place? Regime change has a bad track record. Seems like that would still destabilize the country and region more than if he stayed in office while we call for neutrality as long as the investigation is ongoing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Trump vetoed both of Mattis' picks for Deputy Sec Def.

    Two weeks before Netanyahu's joint press conference, Trump sent a warning shot across the bow -- Israel should not be announcing more settlements, which will not help the peace process.

    What other President ever told Israel to knock it off with their settlements?

    The Jews do not control the mil-industrial complex, but are beneficiaries of it. If the MIC's goals and those of Israel ever diverged, we would shut down Israeli society so fast it'll make ya head spin.

    To the extent that Trump is pushed in a neocon direction, it's because of the high-ranking adventurists in the military, not some flabby Jew sitting in a think tank that couldn't even derail Trump from winning votes in the primary.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Now I wonder if Assad agreed to fall on his sword for the greater good -- provided the deal did not include military intervention from US.

    If he merely steps down, he looks weak in the eyes of the jihadists. His successor looks weak as well -- a strong replacement would come in the form of a coup or landslide election, not stepping in after the previous one stepped down.

    If he does something crazy and destructive before he leaves office (dropping bombs where chemical weapons are already on the ground -- prob not dropping chem weapons himself), he looks like an unpredictable madman in the eyes of the jihadists. His successor will play the Good Cop to Assad's Bad Cop, and jihadists learn not to fuck with Syrian strongmen. (All while Russia / US wipe out the jihadists on the ground.)

    I know it sounds like moving the goalposts for what counts as cucking, but the main thing all along has been no military intervention, especially against Russia, and no allowing the jihadists to come to power (which would've happened if Obama or Clinton did the regime change, without having wiped out ISIS beforehand).

    ReplyDelete
  26. LMAO forever at anyone still peddling the "Trump cucks for the Jews" narrative just because of Kushner. Remember how after the "wave of anti-Semitic bomb threats" Trump publicly said that it seemed like a possible false flag, then sent FBI agents to Israel to reveal that yes, it was a Jewish false flag? Yes what a cuck he is.

    Meanwhile here in reality, when we look at what Tillerson actually said it's this: we're going to leave Assad alone for now as we crush ISIS and make sure Syria is stable and secure, then we're going to apply diplomatic pressure to get him to step down once the risk of the region falling into chaos in his absence is reduced. That's it. That's the actual message. No part of that makes any mention of using the US military to depose Assad. People freaking out about this are just OD'ing on blackpills deliberately at this point. As for people who are pissed that the US would ever oppose BASED ASSAD, bear in mind that we'll probably just push them to hold elections. If Assad were to win, what do you think Trump would do, bomb Damascus? It would honestly be an amazing quadruple-bankshot troll of the neocons, though I have no idea if it's the least bit plausible. Anyway: who cares, it's Syria.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is what liberals have been reduced to...

    I'm not a liberal, I'm a realist/nationalist type.

    In a war between Bannon vs Kushner I'm with Bannon.

    Trump overvaluing a non-accomplished, lightweight ethnocentric Jew like Kushner is not what I voted for that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Under the theory that Assad's exit was planned, where does the US media campaign that "Assad can stay" fit in?

    To reassure Trump's base that they were sticking to a campaign promise. When the "chemical attack" makes the news, it gives them cover to say, "Well, this changes things, and now we need a way for Assad to exit stage left, without drawing the nation and region into further chaos of course".

    I still don't like the overall effect, though -- the neocons start off with a little hissy-fit, then end up creaming their jeans. The Trump supporters start off reassured, then get really worried, then end up reassured again.

    Net winners in emotional energy, I-told-ya-so, and momentum: neocons and Dems. I think most of them, aside from the real hardcore warmongers, will have no trouble perceiving and spinning this as a win for them since they got regime change in Syria, even if they didn't get their full wish of outright war against Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What other President ever told Israel to knock it off with their settlements?

    And yet what followed? Did Israelis remove or extend settlements recently?

    The Jews do not control the mil-industrial complex, but are beneficiaries of it. If the MIC's goals and those of Israel ever diverged, we would shut down Israeli society so fast it'll make ya head spin.

    I don't believe it. The media, the think tanks, and THE MONEY as well as deep seated judeocentrism in America is going to be with Jewish ethnic politics.

    To the extent that Trump is pushed in a neocon direction, it's because of the high-ranking adventurists in the military, not some flabby Jew sitting in a think tank that couldn't even derail Trump from winning votes in the primary.

    True in many ways I don't mean to trivialize MIC adventurism but Trump does seem to "cuck" to Jews as much as any non Evangelical I've ever seen.

    The Jared and Ivanka show is a big part of his life and mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Although our side will come away as net losers in this particular battle against the globalists, it's only one battle in a very long war for nationalism, and it's not as though we lost anything in absolute -- we just get meh rather than creaming our jeans like the globalists get.

    But success is always relative in a zero-sum game.

    Let's try to get passed this thing ASAP and move onto a series of big wins, hopefully beginning with an expedited approval of the Muslim ban from SCOTUS now that Gorsuch is going to take his seat.

    And if Trump wants to prove his military might, let's see the National Guardsmen or US armed forces start to enforce our own border, help out ICE, and deport the illegals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope, and I'm thinking, Larry Schweikart is right.

      It is on us to apply pressure so that Trump, yet et al., can say, "See look at all this outrage,we can only push the American people so far. Assad's a bad guy, really bad to his people, but..."

      Delete
  31. "I'm not a liberal, I'm a realist/nationalist type.

    In a war between Bannon vs Kushner I'm with Bannon.

    Trump overvaluing a non-accomplished, lightweight ethnocentric Jew like Kushner is not what I voted for that's all."

    You may be a hothead that goes nuclear on your allies, but I don't believe you. You mentioned Jews a lot in your comment, but there was no emotion there, let alone hatred, just matter-of-fact. Instead, you reserved *that* for your supposed ally, Trump.

    But the tells, man, the tells...
    Liberal men love the idea of Trump being cucked, it's a major sex fantasy for them. Kind of like how they came up with Trump being in love with his son-in-law. Strange fantasies. Unique fantasies. You indulged in both more than once in just your two comments. Also, liberals, even Jewish liberals, aren't keen on Jared Kushner: it's no skin off their nose to throw him under the bus as you're doing here in your campaign to try and demoralize us.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is just sick!

    "You know when Bill Kristol's pushing it that it's going to be a total fucking disaster."

    You may be a hothead that goes nuclear on your allies, but I don't believe you. You mentioned Jews a lot in your comment, but there was no emotion there, let alone hatred, just matter-of-fact. Instead, you reserved *that* for your supposed ally, Trump.

    Trump isn't my ally. I see him as an opportunist with some nationalist tendencies who was "radicalized" by an Ann Coulter book.

    I give Trump credit for Sessions, big time.

    Miller and Bannon are good...the rest. Not so good.

    His military/foreign policy team ARE HORRIBLE!!

    Might as well be the Jeb Bush administration.

    ReplyDelete
  33. -- But the tells, man, the tells...

    Perceptive. I agree.

    PA

    ReplyDelete
  34. How many people who voted for Trump voted for this?

    You like being aligned with these people?

    Not me.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "His supporters are rallying *against* him on this, while his enemies are rallying *for* him. And it's not on a minor issue -- big important stuff that people will remember."

    Plenty of people won't even notice- the Iraq War has been forgotten, and Afghanistan is ongoing, yet ignored. It's the post-biological aspect of postmodernity- destruction, even violent death, being treated as ok, because our values are 'complicated.'

    His supporters are rallying for him to do the right thing. His enemies are rallying for him to fail. They do not change their positions re: Trump based on current affairs. Trump himself determines people's attitudes more than what his actions do.


    "Sapping the energy out from your support base..."

    I won't lose any energy, I'll just pray more, worry some, and maybe start contacting Trump's phone/ email lines. Maybe I should already do that. The support base that matters most is too committed to give up, no matter how badly Trump blunders or even fails in reelection. As political-military dependents of his, not vassals economically, but needing his protection, they have no other options, and no way to live apart from Trump. So I do not worry much, only that Trump's goals will be delayed a few weeks/ months. Procrastination/ obstruction is a real harm, but not major.


    -

    "Wealth tax on the 1%, universal healthcare, probably not the infrastructure deal (needed, but not one that's going to knock our socks off), The Wall, dropping nukes on the Arabians in revenge for 9/11 and creating ISIS -- something big to replace all the air getting sucked out of his support base by this talk about regime change, even if it's only dissembling."

    Trump says he wants to use M'Infrastructure as a carrot to bait Democrats and les cucks into supporting either Obamacare repeal or tax reform (effectively repealing Bush-era and earlier tax cuts, reversing the regressive taxation trend into a new, progressive scheme), with a 'legislation bundling' approach. He said this in an Oval Office interview yesterday. I read about it in the WSJ, IIRC.

    Nuking the Arabians... with small nukes, would be reasonable. Large nukes, kind of excessive- they're not imperial Japan. And the retribution in Europe, anywhere with many violent Islamists (not to blame peaceful Muslims), would be terrible. I have wondered if conquering Mecca, regulating its huge crowds for safety, but leaving it open to Muslims on hajj, makes sense.
    Leaving the Saudis nominally in charge would be funny, at least for them to lose their 'chief Muslim country' status, and most Muslims would be glad, once they got used to not being assaulted by Wahabbism (which is roughly comparable to white identity mormonism).

    -

    "taking potshots at the sedentary civilizations nearby before getting wiped out before the year's over"

    Any evidence of this military outcome?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "the flipside is that he puts his base of supporters on-edge, questioning his integrity and honesty and basic sanity, only to be relieved at the last moment. A "phew!" on his supporters side is not the same as an "All right, USA! USA!" It's a net negative -- ending at only minus 10 instead of minus 100 when they thought the possibility of regime change was sincere."

    I would be very encouraged by the Troll-in-Chief scoring an epic touchdown against his enemies, even if it involved a trick play which made it look like he would touchback. I think Trump supporters have waited for decades already, and will continue waiting.


    "Assad cannot go into exile in Russia, or else Russia will be branded as "harboring the monster who gassed his own people," making it impossible to get along with the West."

    The important thing is to have a bromantic photo shoot with Trump, Assad, Putin, etc. being their shitlord selves, but casually playing golf, bowling in the White House basement- something fun! For later, I propose something classically SWPL-bourgois, once Assad is rehabilitated through ISIS's defeat, like wine tasting at Trump Winery in Virginia, or a group summer vacation on the beaches of Crimea. The epic trolololol would perhaps end the Nobel Peace Prize era of tyrants grandstanding about their pure consciences. Assad could also switch to trollicious polygamy, but his wife might be upset.


    "So maybe Assad goes to Iran instead..."

    No, that's a big defeat, not ok. Ever since Syria's territory was invaded, mostly by Arabs, but also Chechens excited to go after Putin's allies, Assad has needed a victory that includes enough territorial conquest, at least symbolically. I think handing over some of eastern Iraq, and splitting off Kurdish territory into a Syrian protectorate, to reward the Kurds's valiance in fighting ISIS and not insult them with 'Iraqi-Kurdistan,' (Iraq
    oppressed them, so they want to secede, but it needs to be a protectorate, not like East Timor or Eritrea, failed 'independent' states) would be easiest. This debalkanization would be healthy because the Kurds and Allawites are both ethnic/ religious minorities.

    Assad could leave to many places, but one-man-invading a SWPL territory would be awesome. How about Mar-a-lago, the land of 'crisp lettuce' (what Dr. Michael "Savage" Weiner complimented Trump on when visiting there)? That's my fave idea- Assad posting 'on perpetual vacation' pics to Instagram, playing sports like a frat bro with shitlord celebrities, generally trolling via lifestyle status and shit-eating grins. He can also remain his people's leader, from afar, but much better than "Trotsky" or bin Laden were.

    Pardoning Assad, in the U.S> where he should live, and preferably in the UN. Security Council is the essential move to re-secure Trumpkins' comfort in ongoing battles. While it's common for 3rd world leaders to visit 1st world big cities for high-end shopping, Vegas casinos, etc., that's allowed through anarchy, meaning no travel restrictions, and tyranny, meaning foreign aid theft. Assad would smash the 'only liberal
    sweethearts allowed on Western turf' rule. Assad should also become a naturalized American citizen, so as to 'let go of his long, strenuous presidency' and this will very much help South Africans fleeing genocide receive refugee status in the U.S. and the rest of the Anglosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "no Iraq War: The Resurrection.

    The War on Terror continues. Afghanistan is being lost, in great part because now Russia supports the Taliban, and we are busy with internal divisions, slowly approaching civil war.


    Bannon's resignation, so to speak, indicates he is needed to strategize other, higher priority plans. That's great!!! Bannon truly is *a strategist.* I think he's in charge of the auto-coup corps, meaning Blackwater-type mercenaries.

    A few shitlibs will still wear pussyhats to their deaths though- they are tragically, but not sadly, suicidal. It's not sad because this is a lower death toll than the alternatives. This, more than usual mentally ill people harming themselves, is the best we can get, compared to a full civil war.

    "The Jews do not control the mil-industrial complex, but are beneficiaries of it. If the MIC's goals and those of Israel ever diverged, we would shut down Israeli society so fast it'll make ya head spin."

    Yet the Palestinians get tons of U.N. aid, mostly from the U.S, and Obama earmarked many hundreds of millions for the terrorist pseudo-state before Trump immediately overturned that. So I think Palestinians rely on aid more than Israel does, so it makes sense to just give 'Palestine' to the Jews.

    Modern Palestine can't exist because terrorists from families who only recently moved to these territories can't run a country- they're aggressive but not civil, and act like the tribal people they come from. Without a big enemy deep within its boundaries, Israel does not need hyperdefensive military spending and subsidies from the U.S., Germany, and Jews.

    I think Trump and his Jew allies realize they must say 'no settlements,' because they really mean, those Israeli villages aren't contested settlements, they're just under assault by terrorists. The U.N. being the Union of (aggrieved, 3rd world, foreign aid-dependent) Nations is a bigger problem than NATO being underfunded, by the way.


    "To the extent that Trump is pushed in a neocon direction"

    Aren't necons pervs, which is why Trump is accused of doing nasty stuff with prostitutes? I think that's the intent behind the attempted association- make Trump vile, thus violent. Its a weird line of reasoning they have.

    "Assad agreed to fall on his sword"

    A cute, SWPL-icious, pina colada umbrella can be his sword :) . Posting exactly such a caption, "cheers to Syrian victory," with a hot pink umbrella in his drink, would be precious.

    ReplyDelete
  38. There's reports that some intelligence officials are considering going public on the official story being a hoax. But there's a lot of conflicting stories out there now. Who knows what's actually going on...

    https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/4617-philip-giraldi-says-ic-military-doubt-assad-gas-narrative/
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/former-cia-officer-intelligence-confirms-russian-account-syria

    ReplyDelete

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."