So the question I'd like to see Never Trump figures asked is this:
Can a Trump supporter make a rational, legitimate argument in favor of returning Trump to the presidency, and can that argument merit reasonable debate, or are all arguments for returning Trump to the presidency presumptively illegitimate?
Do both sides support Big Pharma? Are both Pro VaXX? And do both sides want a World War? Are both sides pro Censorshop? And who wants CBDCs? Taiwan. Ukraine. The Sahal. Yemen. Israel. Libya. Iraq. Oh! And One Trillion US Dollars debt every 100 days... and Fenty. And bbq cats... 🤷
America used to be a military-industrial complex. New Amerika sold out its industrial capacity to Asia, largely China. New Amerika is a military complex, and its federal wealth relies greatly on maintaining a state of war, somewhere, anywhere.
No, Trump is Verboten. 100% evil. Better to elect a tea pot. lol. I still don't understand why. I also don't understand what rhetoric they can use on the next GOP candidate -- when they've already made Trump the Antichrist. I can't see how screaming "She's worse than Trump! OMFG!" at Kristi Noem is going to work....
“I also don't understand what rhetoric they can use on the next GOP candidate…”
I became politically aware at 14 in 1968, and the Left was vilifying Nixon as the Antichrist. (Admittedly, his early 50’s association with McCarthy did warrant at least some criticism.) 1968 was akin to 2020, albeit with 2 high profile assassinations. As with 2020, the riots burned huge swaths of poor neighborhoods that have not been, and will not be, rebuilt. But I digress.
Historically, 3 of the 4 assassinated presidents were Republican, JFK being the exception, but he was killed by a Communist. Of the 5 attempted assassinations of presidents (targeted by domestic actors), 3 were Republican (Hoover, Ford & Reagan), FDR & Truman being the Dems. Lastly, 2 presidents (Bush 41 & Clinton were targeted by foreign actors, Saddam and Osama bin Laden, respectively).
The fact of the matter is that Democrats attract people based on emotion rather than facts, and that makes them as a group MUCH more susceptible to volatile language. They are not tethered to facts as an anchor against extreme emotional reactions.
The above list of victims makes it clear that Democrats (and their apparatchiks in the media) use provocative language because it will raise their mentally ill followers’ temperature just as surely as a Bunsen burner under a beaker. Republicans, for all their dullness, focus on policy because as a rule, their followers are stable and demand facts and specific plans.
So to answer your quandary, “The inflammatory rhetoric will continue until assassinations increase.”
You are right. The guy below this is so full crap I can't even begin. You must know of L. Fletcher Prouty. "Vince Bulliosi" and "Gerald Posner" !? – what idiocy, it's sad and dispiriting after 60 years.
Of course, you have no arguments except the lies and nonsense you saw in the Oliver Stone movie. You're so sloppy you couldn't even bother to spell "Bugliosi" correctly.
And, of course, you deride people who have actually studied the matter. People like you are always like that.
Of course, you won't even watch the Munger video. It's laughable that you would study the books. People like you must never be put in charge of anything. You have no intellectual grasp, no thoughtfulness, just a very common mind which will glom onto whatever popular delusion appeals to you.
Jim Garrison was a sociopath. Clay Shaw was acquitted of all charges in less than an hour.
Complete horseshit. If you'd like to know why it is, here are some resources:
1. Reclaiming History, by Vincent Bugliosi.
2. Case Closed, by Gerald Posner.
3. Oswald's Game, by Jean Davison.
The first book is comprehensive and authoritative. It's also 1,500 pages long. The Posner book is about half that length, but no less authoritative though obviously somewhat less comprehensive. The Davison book may be out of print - it was published in 1983 - but if it is, you should be able to find a used copy easily. It's a particular gem, a psychological biography of Oswald.
There is a historian, Sean Munger, who has a YouTube channel. He has a two part, three hour long analysis of the assassination and its aftermath, the various conspiracy hypotheses. He works from the basis of the Bugliosi book. Every time I watch it, I laugh at Munger's trenchancy and his dismissiveness of conspiracy hypotheses.
Another YouTube channel is LEMMiNO. This guy takes a year or more to make his videos. His graphic recreation of what went on in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, lasts ninety minutes, and is remarkable. I'm probably limited in what I've been exposed to technologically, but the LEMMiNO video is unlike anything I have ever seen.
If you actually delve into some of this material, the preposterousness of "the CIA killed JFK" notion will make itself uncomfortably apparent to you. As one JFK conspiracy debunker puts it, why in the world would the CIA have wanted to kill John F. Kennedy? He was giving them everything they wanted!
I'm glad RFK, Jr., endorsed Trump, because if he wants a job in a Trump administration, it limits him in the loony things he can say. A couple of hours ago, I watched him with Tucker Carlson. He is certain the CIA killed JFK, because, as he put it, his uncle was shutting down his war against Castro. This would have shocked his uncle and his father, who were moving ahead with their plan to kill Castro. At the same hour JFK was being murdered in Dallas, a CIA officer in Paris was meeting with a man whom the CIA thought might be willing to kill Castro.
The authoritative Bugliosi said in an interview about his book: "Oswald revered Fidel Castro, and he was an ardent supporter of the Cuban revolution. Certainly he was not in favor of Kennedy backing the Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Castro. We know that Oswald in late September of 1963, just a month and a half before the assassination, tried to get to Havana to help Castro, and he was rejected at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City."
I haven't read Bugliosi's book, so I ask, did Bugliosi mention that J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ the day after the assassination that the "Oswald" photographed and recorded in Mexico City was not Oswald, neither looking or sounding like Oswald? The tape supposedly was lost, but Hoover's words were transcribed in in a contemporaneous memo: "We have up here the tape and photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice nor to his appearance."
(Beschloss, Taking Charge, The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964, quoted in Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ)
In fact, Hoover had alerted The State Department as early as June 1960 that Oswald's identity might have been stolen. (Stone quoting Newman, Oswald and the CIA)
There are similar doubts about almost every aspect of the Warren Commission's "official" conspiracy theory .
Watch Sean Munger's two part video about the assassination. It's a delineation of Bugliosi's book. Invest three and a half hours of concentration, and you can spare yourself the hard effort - and I am not being snide, it is grueling - of working through the 1,500 page Bugliosi book. Follow that with the LEMMiNO video.
Sean Munger points out toward the beginning that if The Warren Commission Report were this hopelessly unreliable mashup, it's unlikely that it would be far and away the most cited source of conspiracy mongers. That is, they use parts they think are accurate in their efforts to refute other parts of it.
I'm 72, so I have spent the last sixty years being intermittently entertained by conspiracy hypotheses and eventually appalled by their impact on society. I think most of us who remember the assassination will always tend to be close to incredulous that people can believe such nonsense. It was apparent by nightfall on November 22, 1963, that Oswald had killed Kennedy. Life is not a Mission Impossible movie. Have you ever looked at photos of Oswald in the Dallas Police headquarters that afternoon, or at his mugshots, made shortly after midnight on November 23? You don't see the countenance of a shocked, horrified, and completely baffled innocent. You see smugness and you see insolence.
David von Pein’s YouTube channel has a startling amount of the network video and film which was made in the Dallas Police headquarters on that Friday. There is one instance in which a reporter barks at Oswald, “Did you shoot the President?!” Oswald says mildly, “No sir, no one has said that to me yet.” Consider that reply! Also, at one point Oswald can be heard shouting some idiocy such as, “I protest these unjust charges!”
Classic psychopathy on display. He thought he was being clever. Psychopaths don't grasp that an innocent caught up in something so mammoth wouldn't have been calm, wouldn't have been legalistic, he would have been enraged.
Even in the best planned military operations in war there is almost always going to be the unforeseen or the miscalculated. D - Day had to have been the most thoroughly planned operation in military history, yet almost everything went wrong. The invasion was saved in some instances by acts which were insubordinate and could have gotten those who performed them court martialed, but the point is that all sorts of things in the most obsessively planned military operation in history had been miscalculated or not even imagined, and hundreds if not thousands of acts of individual and small group initiative saved the day for the Allies.
And anyone who thinks about it can't believe in Kennedy assassination conspiracy hypotheses. If the Kennedy assassination had been done by a conspiracy, they would never have selected a lifelong drip like Oswald to be involved in it. Enough would have been likely to go wrong with a three to five man team of the best commandos in the world.
Why would the CIA have wanted to kill Kennedy? He was giving them everything they wanted. At the very hour JFK was being shot to death in Dallas, a CIA officer in Paris was meeting with a potential Castro assassin. You do know that, don't you?
( No, he doesn't. )
The "JFK was going to break the CIA to pieces" nonsense goes back two and a half years earlier, to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy was rightly furious that the CIA had f*cked up so spectacularly, and he took his vengeance immediately, firing Allen Dulles, the CIA director, and, I am almost certain, one of Dulles' chief deputies.
"Why would the CIA have wanted to kill Kennedy?" First, they weren't about to forget the Bay of Pigs failure, which they blamed on Kennedy not agreeing to provide air support. Second, he fired Dulles, but all the top people in the agency continued to support and report to Dulles. He also fired two of Dulles' deputies, one of whom, Charles Cabell, had a brother who happened to be the mayor of Dallas. And of course LBJ put Dulles on the Warren Commission to ensure the cover-up.
Third, Kennedy had already ordered a reduction of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and planned further withdrawals. Fourth, to get missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. The military, especially Curtis LeMay, wanted to bomb Cuba. Fifth, Kennedy was talking through back channels (i.e., not through the State Department) with Khrushchev in an effort end the Cold War. Sixth, he gave his famous American University Commencement Address in June 1963 promoting world peace (". . . we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Seventh, unlike LBJ, he was hostile to the development of nuclear weapons in Israel. LBJ was slated to be dropped from the ticket in 1964, and was facing a cover story in Life magazine, slated for the weekend of the assassination, regarding Johnson's involvement in the Bobby Baker Scandal. The article never ran. Eighth, Kennedy was considered unstable, a womanizer who was sleeping with (and possibly taking drugs with) Mary Pinchot Meyer, the former wife of CIA's Cord Meyer. Mary was skeptical of the Warren Commission, and when her sister and brother-in-law Ben Bradley (Washington Post) went to look for her possibly incriminating journal after she was murdered in 1964, they found their friend James Jesus Angleton, CIA's head of counterintelligence, already there picking the lock.
That's just a quick rundown from memory. There's probably a lot more in the James Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why It Mattered. And by the way, we seem to be about the same age. I wasn't a Kennedy fan in 1963, and pretty much accepted the standard history until decades later. Lawyer Mark Lane was pretty much the only person questioning the assassination at the time, but I never read his seminal book from 1966.
Watch the excellent Tucker interview of Geoff Shepard, who was a young White House staff lawyer at the time of Watergate. It’s pretty eye opening. Was out last month & can probably be found on YouTube.
While I agree that Nixon may have been unfairly maligned, I am more concerned with the present tense.
“the soulless husk of Hillary Clinton” is a great line! She is the ultimate hypocrite. Is there any person more dirty, more corrupt, more self-serving in American politics than she and her husband? I don’t think so. It occurs to me that a good place for those Haitian immigrants would’ve been Chappaqua, New York, where Hillary lives. They despise her because, rightly so, they believe she was responsible for stealing their children.
Nixon was politically destroyed with the very scammy watergate accusations. The judges, lawyers, unlimited budget of over 100 staffers manning the court cases were unconstitutionally and breaking many legal standards, working in unison to punish Nixon, for various reasons, one being that he was a small timer from California not an elitist of the NE like most of Washington.
Really urge everyone to spend a little time looking into the injustice of what happened to Nixon and thus to our country. They got away with the approach and have perfected it over the decades since then.
Already Vance is worse--he's defamed both aging cat ladies and the pet-loving Haitians of Ohio. The horror! Clearly Trump should have picked Liz Cheney.
Their need to shut down Trump supporters reflects that they are scared shitless. If he loses, I think he should just start dropping truth bombs starting with November 22, 1963.
to the american left shriek-ocracy, legitimacy is theirs and theirs alone. like DEI as manifest destiny. rationality does not enter the picture. you're inevitably talking to a wall. best to walk away before the shrieking ensues
A couple people in neighborhoods near me have anti-Trump yard signs that reference the Capitol riot as reason not to return him to the White House. That's probably the strongest basis for labeling him a "presumptively illegitimate" candidate.
Check out Revolver News for the real story of the Jan 6 Fedsurrection. Too much to cover here, but there were probably hundreds of undercover Feds and other plainclothes police (including instigators) in the crowd.
Ray Epps, who texted a relative that day that he "organized it," started urging people to "go into the Capitol" on January 5 ( the crowd around him responded by chanting "Fed, Fed, Fed . . . ". The next day he was there in advance at the scene of the initial breach of the barrier (other barriers had been removed in advance, on video, by still unidentified people, probably Gov agents, so many in attendance had no idea they were entering closed areas). Epps whispered into the ear of an associate, who then immediately led the charge into the barrier. Later Epps is on video helping push a large sign into police. Epps claimed to have traveled from Arizona to see Trump speak, but didn't attend the speech at all. Yet Epps was lionized by the media and the Jan 6 Committee, and never spent a night in jail.
Do the people with the anti-Trump signs know that it was a lie that police were killed? All who died that day, five I think, were protestors, one shot, at least one beaten to death. The officer said to have died after being beaten with a fire extinguisher is on later video alive and well, but died the next day of natural causes, no signs of trauma.
Another little known angle is the pipe bombs found near the DNC and RNC. Supposedly they were planted the night before by a person seen on surveillance cameras but never officially identified. Supposedly they were set to go off right around the 1 pm election certification, but that was impossible, as they had only 1-hour timers. Instead, they were "found" just before the initial Capitol breach, resulting in police being pulled away from the Capitol. The agents who "found" the bombs seemed unconcerned, approaching close to take photos and allowing school children pass by unimpeded. Incredibly, VP-elect Harris was inside the DNC building at the time after Secret Service and bomb-sniffing dogs had checked the premises. Yet instead of capitalizing on the "terror threat" to the newly elected VP, Cackles has never mentioned it, claiming to be at the Capitol instead.
The more you learn, the more it smells (after all, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were the "Republicans" on the special committee). Trump wanted National Guard, but Pelosi rejected it. And of course, Trump has never been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.
Well this native born "insurgent" will never let the "Quasi-colonial administrators [who] are isolated in the American Green Zone, scratching their heads about a country they govern and detest..." take control or rest.
I think you've definitely hit the mark. The post Iraq/Afghan war headshed types who spent trillions trying to lose another stupid war, are getting the band back together, in their own country, because this time it'll be different. 🙄
Trump poses a threat to their little continuity of government scheme they've been running for quite some time now. Trump should not be - he hasn't been and would not have been vetted by those behind the curtain. It's that simple. They want him gone and they want their people in his place. He's not a threat to democracy - he is democracy - a legit candidate with few ties to the shadowy blob that has controlled every president in last 50+ years.
Everyday Republican / conservatives we’re fooled for decades into believing turncoat rinos & war mongering neocons we’re to be trusted. I can’t believe I trust a Kennedy more than most R’s. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
To say these persons are 'mentally ill' is to invite sympathy for their chosen malevolence, for mental illness is an 'outside condition' in which a person is not responsible for the things they do. It is imposed from outside by genetic, cultural, or allied conditions.
What you are witnessing is not illness, but the voluntary presence of EVIL, and each of these persons is FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the VOLUNTARY selection of malice in their lives, and oppression of others on a political basis. This is a chosen and inner condition, and it can be unchosen at any moment any of these people desire to change. They are not ill or sick in any way whatsoever, and as they drive the nation and the world ever deeper into despair, alienation, poverty, and lawlessness, I think that eventually you will come around to the reality of what you are facing: not ill persons, but persons voluntarily malicious, cowardly, cruel and rotten-hearted.
Yes, these people are evil. They are doing this with a plan. Making it look like some are mentally ill is a distraction. There is so much going on we're not aware of and they don't want us to know. The things we do know just keep us distracted.
I don't like being called an "insurgent". They are the ones who are the insurgents. We are the ones who are true to the beliefs of this country, to the Constitution, to the three Branches of Government, to the Constitutional Republic. They want a socialist dictatorship that answers to a globalist government as their ultimate goal.
I'm a "resistance warrior". I will resist their tactics, their lies, their threats, their name calling, their cancellations. I've stayed on social media and will do so until "they" throw me off. I post articles from Substack on FB, X, Linkedin so I can educate and maybe change minds. How else can we share ideas with others who won't read or hear from anyone else? We have to be brave enough to walk into dangerous territory to help free them from the propaganda they hear all day, every day. It's what educators do.
You're right. I thought about the meaning of the word "insurgent" in a different historical way, which was incorrect. I looked up the definition and you changed my mind. I don't care what I'm called and embrace the labels. I'll embrace this one adding it to my growing list.
No problem being mentally ill and evil at the same time, and the one feeding into the other back and forth.
Nitpicking aside, I agree - we should never allow the excuse that someone who is or was obviously in command of their own actions, was acting under some compulsion or other.
I spent years in the military, long ago, with people actually unstable mentally, likely due to genetics mostly. There is a difference between actual mental illness, which is relatively rare in the population, and the CHOICE of evil, which is what we're witnessing here.
Above, Deborah Gregson expresses it well. People with real mental illness act and respond incontinently and immediately, People doing evil voluntarily choose to do malice, usually due to external pressure to conform. Those mentally ill don't make pre-decisions and plans to be, or 'do', mental illness; those doing willful evil do make such plans and pre-determinations.
I see a difference between the modern propagators of this evil and most of the voters who subscribe to it. I think there’s a parallel between this and some of the public’s reaction to COVID (e.g., masked while driving alone).
On the Left at least, there’s been a race to the extreme – the party has no place for solid, rational Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Joe Lieberman, RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. Couple that with the multi-decade infection of college faculties (and K-12) with ardent disciples of Foucault, Gramsci, Marcuse & the Frankfurt School, and you get unrecoverable brainwashing. Young Democrats have no frame of reference to understand historical causes & consequences. Is there a willing naïveté among these voters? You bet. They refuse to differentiate between the lessons about sharing taught at 3-4 years old, and running a national economy. Further, they insist on believing that it is OUR fault that leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Khomeini, the Kims of the DPRK and their political descendants hate us, because WE have failed to explain our goodness well enough.
Then we have the Democrat leaders like Schumer (scored 1600 on his SATs) – brilliant and perfectly aware of his voters’ delusional condition and who eagerly exploits it as an avenue to power.
The modern Left has many attributes of a cult. Like many cults, it attracts the weak minded and exploits them. And as with cults, when apportioning guilt it is appropriate to distinguish between those who mix and distribute the Kool-Aid and those who drink it.
What demographic consistently -- and overwhelmingly -- still wears masks alone in cars, supports Kammie and the entire woke-fem cult of tyrant politics, crushes free speech and all aspects of freedom for their political opponents (while retaining endless freedoms and 'liberations' for themselves), and continues the Baalic or Molochian religion/cult of abortion (child sacrifice) without consequence nor responsibility unto themselves?
Well, that'd be women -- especially single women -- since their rise to national and international power during the Sixties and thereafter. The culture, law, and government of the U.S. and the West is ruled by females. In the ancient world, folks would have just admitted what America is: a goddess-worshipping cult-nation, dominated utterly by females and their religion of Woke. What is Tater Joe Biden if not a stooge and a frontman for the U.S. gynarchy? He does not even speak for himself, just collects his 10% and goes his merry way in his jazzy sportscar and sunglasses.
Modern men lack the stones to speak the truth about their oppressors, for they are cowards and go-alongers with obvious and outright evil. Or Eve-ill, if you will. All the political, social and intellectual abstractions amount to zilch when a nation's men willingly forgo veracity and masculinity for the comfort and security of material plenty and psychological security. Nurse Ratched Nation. KareNation.
The political numbers across the West bear out my assertions; women, especially single women, overwhelmingly vote Left, while men overwhelmingly vote Right. But women always win because weak men (and the daddies of daughters) don't have what it takes to speak and act the truth.
How's it all been workin' out for New Amerika? All good? lol cheers, m
I will blame whomever I wish to blame, based on the evidence I have received and experienced. If you or anybody else doesn't like it, too bad boomer boy, go cry to yo mammy. I will let you know if I need your advice lol. Michael
Blaming Karens suits me just fine. I neither want nor need your 'fairness sake' because all I have heard the past 40 years is YOUR tired rap. From tv, from government, from media, from corporations, from schools and colleges, from everybody. Here is one little obscure forum where I present an alternative explanation... and here you and your tired 'fairness' jive buttinski again, and you dare to present the same sad narrative somehow as fairness. You people wouldn't know fairness if it fell outta the sky like and anvil on your biased, prejudiced, canned pov. This ends my part in this exchange but by all means, feel free to ramble on alone. out.
They are evil, but once again, I see this as a mind VIRUS. They are infected. If you have seen World War Z, you know that people got infected and then they were hideous creatures that never existed before, operating under an entirely different physical set of principles, minds deadened to the extreme evil in which they participated. They were human but inhuman, people but hungry to infect other people to be like they were, driven and living in their new state of being. I think some can be rescued from the mind virus but I do not think it is curable. Those who choose to remain infected--in fact, those who love the infection and will protect it--will have to destroy themselves in the attempt to infect others. We just have to make it to the Bird Box (to use another film about a mind virus)
Again, this is like saying they aren't evil, just mentally ill or 'infected' by some outside agent beyond their control. Uh-uh. They CHOOSE to be evil, they CHOOSE to do evil, and providing excuses for their voluntary, gleeful evil is letting them off the hook, absolving them of responsibility and, later, consequence for their choices.
That's a difficult concept for most people to understand which is why most have to find excuses. It's what's gotten our social culture to this low point of depravity. I doubt that will change because their minds can't cope with the thought of what "the consequences for their choices" would be, they're too soft. So we don't have national or local stability, instead everyone just wants to "feel" safe. It's important therefore to have inner stability and peace.
An important point. It’s not an accident that Hillary is using these tactics. Many of them may not realize exactly which cog they are but they all know which machine they’re part of.
How did dumping all of that money into it work out in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did the Human Terrain Teams, Village Stability Operations, Eating Soup With A Rock, etcetera, do anything to defeat the insurgencies?
If I found out my enemies were dedicating tremendous amounts of resources to HEXING me, burning my fingernail clippings, sticking pins into dolls and so on, I'd be ecstatic.
Speculating: A lot of it is informed by the notion that "It worked well in Germany 1945 onward, so it should work in Insert-latest-warzone-here too!".
Speculation based on:
An underlying assumption of all kinds of liberalism (including libertarianism) is that all people are equal, that all technological and civilisational change is development along an imagined axis from worse to better, where better equal present-day official American ideals (since the US is the dominant cultural influence in the West). Therefore, what works in San Antonio must work equally well in Sudan, since people are equal.
Therefore, teaching afghan women to ride bikes contributes to making the Taliban lay down their arms, put on shirts and ties, and start a pork pie factory using DEI-ESG hiring practices.
And if reality doesn't comply and conform, it's because of the [insert today's bugbear].
Yes, equality is a lie. There's a reason why almost every Obama speech was filled with Equality references; it is the guiding (satanic) Light of the modern West. and it is a lie. The truth is, NOBODY is equal to anybody else. The world is hierarchical, not equalist.
there is something in shabbat 149-151 about not falling asleep alone in a dark room. luminescent mushrooms and biophotoemissive acid are better than nothing, as is carbide-acetylene torch.
====
perceiving ourselves as individuals is a cost/benefit thing, maybe. why not both? why not just grow denser communities in a healthier way, more of them and smaller? (kibbutzim/moshavot gathering the golus) within ox and hand-card distance of one another are far better than (midwest/urban) insane dichotomy.
====
why can't people just ditch the ankle monitors that people hold in their palms these days, and just get rid of the sinat chinam over who has better retail credit life insurance and how much the monthly premiums are?
american-acquired industry deficiency syndrome is to blame. teaching women to ride motorcycles in sharia-compliant dungarees simply caused the Taliban to no longer self-identify as the legitimate government of indigenous landacknowledgement lands of pashtunwali. the west killed itself.
====
are you saying that somebody is paying emirati and other foreign resource magnates to mess around with shenanigans in the kit and caboodle of antonio spanish old mexico?
====
people are equal. different kinds are equally valuable - in diverse ways, by division of labour. a waste of a good expendable cannon fodder for a man to become pregnant. a man's place is in the home, the house of torah, in wellness -- for the good.
====
cultural war is technology. cantonist decrees are technology. universal conscription and forced acculturation to not-teyman culture is technology....
technology can also be good. - to repair the world b'malkhut shaqai(sorry for my french).
====
to the extent that denazification worked in the deutschesreisch, it was because of a complete turnaround in a rememberance of events to be, haba b'yerushalayim, (purim and hanukkah, l'netzach) barukhim habaim b'tzion. when the war is over, zion's technology becomes viable, and instead of iavani/greek/helenist insanity disguised as reason,
====
the tzaddiq yesod olam -- l'takein `olam b'malkhuth shaqai (sorry for my french)
Gotta remember that the people in control are never accountable for their failures, and they’re incredibly dumb. That’s why they need the big authoritarian hammer: they can’t actually convince reasonable people that their plans are good
COIN only works if the occupying force exerts TOTAL colonial-style control over all domains of the occupied country.
COIN was an abject failure in Iraq and Afghanistan because the occupying forces refused to exert total control over every aspect of the occupied countries' existence.
In the USA today, the occupying forces DO have total colonial-style control over the occupied country--economy, society, politics, entertainment, communications.
So, COIN has a very good chance of being successful in the USA.
Actual COIN, as has been shown in several actual case studies, is devastatingly effective, ONLY when the occupiers have, and exert, total colonial control.
Case studies?
US in the Philippines, 1900s.
UK in Malaya, post-WW2
USSR in Hungary, 1950s
All were totally successful. In all three, the occupier exerted TOTAL colonial control. Just as do the occupiers of Normal America today exert total control over the occupied Normals.
US in the PI, USSR in Hungary (and the rest of Eastern Europe after WW2) weren't doing COIN(tm). They were directly ruling/administering a subject population. You might as well say that Cromwell did COIN(tm) in Ireland.
The UK in Malaysia was doing something similar, plus their opponents' population base was an ethnic minority in the country, plus they enjoyed a 50:1 advantage in troops.
US in Moroland, southern Philippines, is a textbook case of COIN.
There was an INSURGENCY against the colonial occupiers--the colonial occupiers used their total control of all aspects of the occupied country to conduct COIN. Classical and textbook.
UK in Malaya was the exact same--an INSURGENCY by the occupied against the occupiers. UK used its total control of all aspects of the occupied country to conduct COIN--again classical and textbook.
Same in Hungary with the USSR--occupier had total control, occupied began an INSURGENCY, and COIN crushed the insurgency.
Just as today, in the USA, the PC-Prog/Neocon occupiers are inciting an INSURGENCY. The occupiers have total control over all aspects of the occupied country--and they can, and will, use COIN to crush the coming insurgency.
I happen to have been on active duty in the US Army from before the beginning of OIF and onwards. The COIN Kool Aid started getting pushed around 2006 onwards-Nagl made his appearance on the Daily Show, Petraeus and McMaster were getting hyped, etc. Until then, people were obviously aware that there were insurgencies which we were attempting to counter. But they weren't calling what we were doing "COIN", with all of the contextual baggage.
I'm actually quite familiar with Soviet operations against insurgents in Eastern Europe and Central Asia before that, from reading primary sources, largely in the original. If you want to have a discussion about how what they did differed from 21st century American counterinsurgency (which I also spent a few years participating in directly, on the white SOF side), happy to do that.
I read a book written by the Australian officer that the US forces brought in to run the counterinsurgency. According to him it worked.
What isn't on that list though is that they used locals to track down insurgents and killed an absolute fuckton of them during the 'surge', often with US forces only providing support to those locals who were keen on killing insurgents.
According to him the insurgency was basically defeated in Iraq, and there was very little ongoing active conflict. The US backed government was able to function fairly well.
In your memory it probably seems like a massive shitshow though, and that's because the Obama administration withdrew US support for the karzai government when they took all the US troops out of Iraq. Karzai never had the power to rule in his own right and so the Iraqi government collapsed almost immediately, and Osama BL also got assassinated at the same time, which released the AQ in Iraq guys from the constraints of that organisation and they immediately started kidnapping and murdering Shia children in order to incite the sectarian conflict that gave rise to ISIS and everything that unfolded after that.
So COIN may work, but it's not what's listed above. Mostly it seems like choosing a winner from the local population and then killing everyone who kicks up to much of a fuss.
Of course, according to him it worked. If you read German generals' WW2 memoirs, they did just great, slaughtered great big masses of those Soviet Mongol hordes. And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for that meddling Hitler!
Also there are masses of Vietnam memoirs about how great and awesome the US forces were (usually written by people who were running some part of those forces.)
"If every bride is beautiful, where do ugly wives come from?"
I was there for the "victorious" part of OIF, too, where everyone was patting themselves on the back about how awesome everything had gone. Camp Bucca was a reeducation program that worked!
But they appear to have zero tolerance for for anything outside of their defined levels of norm. They are establishing themselves as the norm and any and all opposition as not only outside the new accepted standards of norm but as a danger to society as a whole. Because they said so.
I mean (a) what you say, but that becomes so restrictive that they look like fools although they don't realise it, (b) it's all just part of the show .. or (c) somewhere in between.. I think some of them really go for the ever-changing New Normal, I think some of them are opportunistic and would parrot any crap if they thought it would do them some good.
We are an insurgency to the uniparty. And they are coming after us, and anyone who isn't MAGA/MAHA who oppose them, hammer and tong. Their tools for suppression are multifarious and will mirror the Bolsheviks and Muslims of Turkey and the Levant of the last century. That's one of the reasons for the opening of the borders. They are flooding the country with millions of fighting age males who will be recruited into einsatzgroupen, paramilitary groups which the Nazis used so effectively against Christians, Jews, communists, gays/lesbians, political dissidents and anyone else they didn't like, on the Eastern Front 1941-45. Some will be brought into the government as employees, very similar to the Chekas, who were mostly foreigners the Soviets recruited to track down and destroy dissidents there 1918-1929. They already control most all the institutions, in particular the judiciary, but will need to use these groups for muscle in case they actually lose 5 November, no matter how massive the fraud. And they will have many more opportunities to eliminate Trump and Vance, and anyone running down ballot, who are 'enemies of the state".
having worked with a lot of illegal aliens over the years, i can say that none of them want to pick up a gun and go die for brandon or cackles. but a lot of them do want to work for the cartels. if the cabal expect these guys to protect them, they're in for a rude awakening
Yes. Been saying this for a while now. We have been colonized internally by a breakaway culture, and this is fifth generation warfare. Fortunately they suck at it and our greatest risk right now is dying of laughter.
It's unclear at this point whether 5gw techniques work *at all* or it's just a midwit pipe dream. They're great at disrupting and destabilizing, but not great at building a strong successor regime to take the reins, as we've seen repeatedly in their foreign adventures.
I highly recommend Bill Buppert's Chasing Ghosts podcast for further info on 5GW & counterinsurgency. He's also here on substack now. https://substack.com/@cgpodcast
Yes, reminiscent of 2008 when y’all were being bombarded with pro-Obama messaging, when again everyone was supposed to care about who we Americans elect.
"Cognitive security" sounds just lovely. Blessed is the mind too small for doubt, I suppose.
I wonder if anyone contributing to the (counter)-insurgency course materials understand that all those methods and efforts eventually produce only one possible outcome for anyone opposing the regime (whichever it is) no matter if they are violently inclined or not:
To hate the enemy. To rally round the mutual hatred for their enemy.
Now consider what happens if a political opposition pushed into the corner so hard than the only way out is through, and that via shared hatred, and said opposition wins.
The hatred doesn't go away. And when this struggle happens between factions /within/ the same nation or state.
There's is now a very real risk of parts of the USA slowly, then rapidly, turning into 1980s Lebanon.
I remember once seeing a museum exhibition about slavery, and on display was a book about slave "diseases" and one of the maladies was "depression and running away." So, basically, the book was about "How to Cure Your Slave of Hating Slavery." Hillary would be very happy in South Carolina in 1856.
When members of Congress talk about Trump supporters as “domestic terrorists,” what they mean is….
that Trump supporters and adjacent opponents of the current thing are “designated insurgent groups” and subject to application of integrated whole-of-government future-focused nation-building counterinsurgency techniques, operationalising short warning combined arms effects to shape intentions and capabilities of nonstate actors and threat entities.
IOW the only legitimacy permitted to those opposing the narrative regime is “legitimate targets”
I would’ve lost if I’d bet they’d still be trotting out Hillary in 2024. I’m still shocked she’s not blamed for losing to trump in 2016. But I guess those nitwits still blame Russia.
I am not sure that they trotted her out. It seems as though Hillary's strings were cut by the puppet masters after her loss in 2016. I think that she is on her own. She trots herself out any chance she gets just hoping that someone cares what she has to say.
More specifically the AWFL’s. Affluent White Female Liberal. It used to be said the most dangerous person to kids was mom’s boyfriend. But it seems only the AWFL’s want to trans/ mutilate their children.
“But it seems only the AWFL’s want to trans/ mutilate their children.“
To be semantic, they don’t REALLY care about the kids. What they want beyond all else is bragging rights about them CHOOSING to be trans, gay, whatever (preferably before birth). This is just virtue signaling pushed to its ghoulish extreme.
So the question I'd like to see Never Trump figures asked is this:
Can a Trump supporter make a rational, legitimate argument in favor of returning Trump to the presidency, and can that argument merit reasonable debate, or are all arguments for returning Trump to the presidency presumptively illegitimate?
I suspect the answers will be quite telling.
Only an insurgent would ask such a question.
Report to MiniLuv for re-education.
Like.
right
Do both sides support Big Pharma? Are both Pro VaXX? And do both sides want a World War? Are both sides pro Censorshop? And who wants CBDCs? Taiwan. Ukraine. The Sahal. Yemen. Israel. Libya. Iraq. Oh! And One Trillion US Dollars debt every 100 days... and Fenty. And bbq cats... 🤷
America used to be a military-industrial complex. New Amerika sold out its industrial capacity to Asia, largely China. New Amerika is a military complex, and its federal wealth relies greatly on maintaining a state of war, somewhere, anywhere.
The debt is ours. They get the cash.
socialize the losses, privatize the profits
No to every question
No, Trump is Verboten. 100% evil. Better to elect a tea pot. lol. I still don't understand why. I also don't understand what rhetoric they can use on the next GOP candidate -- when they've already made Trump the Antichrist. I can't see how screaming "She's worse than Trump! OMFG!" at Kristi Noem is going to work....
“I also don't understand what rhetoric they can use on the next GOP candidate…”
I became politically aware at 14 in 1968, and the Left was vilifying Nixon as the Antichrist. (Admittedly, his early 50’s association with McCarthy did warrant at least some criticism.) 1968 was akin to 2020, albeit with 2 high profile assassinations. As with 2020, the riots burned huge swaths of poor neighborhoods that have not been, and will not be, rebuilt. But I digress.
The Left has been flaming Republicans at least since 1964. (Johnson’s “Daisy” ad: https://youtu.be/2cwqHB6QeUw?si=fQE60KWR9ceQ5TRC )
Historically, 3 of the 4 assassinated presidents were Republican, JFK being the exception, but he was killed by a Communist. Of the 5 attempted assassinations of presidents (targeted by domestic actors), 3 were Republican (Hoover, Ford & Reagan), FDR & Truman being the Dems. Lastly, 2 presidents (Bush 41 & Clinton were targeted by foreign actors, Saddam and Osama bin Laden, respectively).
The fact of the matter is that Democrats attract people based on emotion rather than facts, and that makes them as a group MUCH more susceptible to volatile language. They are not tethered to facts as an anchor against extreme emotional reactions.
The above list of victims makes it clear that Democrats (and their apparatchiks in the media) use provocative language because it will raise their mentally ill followers’ temperature just as surely as a Bunsen burner under a beaker. Republicans, for all their dullness, focus on policy because as a rule, their followers are stable and demand facts and specific plans.
So to answer your quandary, “The inflammatory rhetoric will continue until assassinations increase.”
"JFK being the exception, but he was killed by a Communist."
Actually he was killed in a CIA Operation before he could dismantle it.
You are right. The guy below this is so full crap I can't even begin. You must know of L. Fletcher Prouty. "Vince Bulliosi" and "Gerald Posner" !? – what idiocy, it's sad and dispiriting after 60 years.
Of course, you have no arguments except the lies and nonsense you saw in the Oliver Stone movie. You're so sloppy you couldn't even bother to spell "Bugliosi" correctly.
And, of course, you deride people who have actually studied the matter. People like you are always like that.
Of course, you won't even watch the Munger video. It's laughable that you would study the books. People like you must never be put in charge of anything. You have no intellectual grasp, no thoughtfulness, just a very common mind which will glom onto whatever popular delusion appeals to you.
Jim Garrison was a sociopath. Clay Shaw was acquitted of all charges in less than an hour.
Complete horseshit. If you'd like to know why it is, here are some resources:
1. Reclaiming History, by Vincent Bugliosi.
2. Case Closed, by Gerald Posner.
3. Oswald's Game, by Jean Davison.
The first book is comprehensive and authoritative. It's also 1,500 pages long. The Posner book is about half that length, but no less authoritative though obviously somewhat less comprehensive. The Davison book may be out of print - it was published in 1983 - but if it is, you should be able to find a used copy easily. It's a particular gem, a psychological biography of Oswald.
There is a historian, Sean Munger, who has a YouTube channel. He has a two part, three hour long analysis of the assassination and its aftermath, the various conspiracy hypotheses. He works from the basis of the Bugliosi book. Every time I watch it, I laugh at Munger's trenchancy and his dismissiveness of conspiracy hypotheses.
Another YouTube channel is LEMMiNO. This guy takes a year or more to make his videos. His graphic recreation of what went on in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, lasts ninety minutes, and is remarkable. I'm probably limited in what I've been exposed to technologically, but the LEMMiNO video is unlike anything I have ever seen.
If you actually delve into some of this material, the preposterousness of "the CIA killed JFK" notion will make itself uncomfortably apparent to you. As one JFK conspiracy debunker puts it, why in the world would the CIA have wanted to kill John F. Kennedy? He was giving them everything they wanted!
I'm glad RFK, Jr., endorsed Trump, because if he wants a job in a Trump administration, it limits him in the loony things he can say. A couple of hours ago, I watched him with Tucker Carlson. He is certain the CIA killed JFK, because, as he put it, his uncle was shutting down his war against Castro. This would have shocked his uncle and his father, who were moving ahead with their plan to kill Castro. At the same hour JFK was being murdered in Dallas, a CIA officer in Paris was meeting with a man whom the CIA thought might be willing to kill Castro.
Ignorance is bliss - have a great life...
Wow, that's an impressive reply. I was eleven years old that day. I have probably forgotten more about the assassination than you know.
The authoritative Bugliosi said in an interview about his book: "Oswald revered Fidel Castro, and he was an ardent supporter of the Cuban revolution. Certainly he was not in favor of Kennedy backing the Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow Castro. We know that Oswald in late September of 1963, just a month and a half before the assassination, tried to get to Havana to help Castro, and he was rejected at the Cuban consulate in Mexico City."
(https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/why-vincent-bugliosi-is-so-sure-oswald-alone-kille)
I haven't read Bugliosi's book, so I ask, did Bugliosi mention that J. Edgar Hoover told LBJ the day after the assassination that the "Oswald" photographed and recorded in Mexico City was not Oswald, neither looking or sounding like Oswald? The tape supposedly was lost, but Hoover's words were transcribed in in a contemporaneous memo: "We have up here the tape and photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice nor to his appearance."
(Beschloss, Taking Charge, The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964, quoted in Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ)
In fact, Hoover had alerted The State Department as early as June 1960 that Oswald's identity might have been stolen. (Stone quoting Newman, Oswald and the CIA)
There are similar doubts about almost every aspect of the Warren Commission's "official" conspiracy theory .
Watch Sean Munger's two part video about the assassination. It's a delineation of Bugliosi's book. Invest three and a half hours of concentration, and you can spare yourself the hard effort - and I am not being snide, it is grueling - of working through the 1,500 page Bugliosi book. Follow that with the LEMMiNO video.
Sean Munger points out toward the beginning that if The Warren Commission Report were this hopelessly unreliable mashup, it's unlikely that it would be far and away the most cited source of conspiracy mongers. That is, they use parts they think are accurate in their efforts to refute other parts of it.
I'm 72, so I have spent the last sixty years being intermittently entertained by conspiracy hypotheses and eventually appalled by their impact on society. I think most of us who remember the assassination will always tend to be close to incredulous that people can believe such nonsense. It was apparent by nightfall on November 22, 1963, that Oswald had killed Kennedy. Life is not a Mission Impossible movie. Have you ever looked at photos of Oswald in the Dallas Police headquarters that afternoon, or at his mugshots, made shortly after midnight on November 23? You don't see the countenance of a shocked, horrified, and completely baffled innocent. You see smugness and you see insolence.
David von Pein’s YouTube channel has a startling amount of the network video and film which was made in the Dallas Police headquarters on that Friday. There is one instance in which a reporter barks at Oswald, “Did you shoot the President?!” Oswald says mildly, “No sir, no one has said that to me yet.” Consider that reply! Also, at one point Oswald can be heard shouting some idiocy such as, “I protest these unjust charges!”
Classic psychopathy on display. He thought he was being clever. Psychopaths don't grasp that an innocent caught up in something so mammoth wouldn't have been calm, wouldn't have been legalistic, he would have been enraged.
Even in the best planned military operations in war there is almost always going to be the unforeseen or the miscalculated. D - Day had to have been the most thoroughly planned operation in military history, yet almost everything went wrong. The invasion was saved in some instances by acts which were insubordinate and could have gotten those who performed them court martialed, but the point is that all sorts of things in the most obsessively planned military operation in history had been miscalculated or not even imagined, and hundreds if not thousands of acts of individual and small group initiative saved the day for the Allies.
And anyone who thinks about it can't believe in Kennedy assassination conspiracy hypotheses. If the Kennedy assassination had been done by a conspiracy, they would never have selected a lifelong drip like Oswald to be involved in it. Enough would have been likely to go wrong with a three to five man team of the best commandos in the world.
Why would the CIA have wanted to kill Kennedy? He was giving them everything they wanted. At the very hour JFK was being shot to death in Dallas, a CIA officer in Paris was meeting with a potential Castro assassin. You do know that, don't you?
( No, he doesn't. )
The "JFK was going to break the CIA to pieces" nonsense goes back two and a half years earlier, to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy was rightly furious that the CIA had f*cked up so spectacularly, and he took his vengeance immediately, firing Allen Dulles, the CIA director, and, I am almost certain, one of Dulles' chief deputies.
"Why would the CIA have wanted to kill Kennedy?" First, they weren't about to forget the Bay of Pigs failure, which they blamed on Kennedy not agreeing to provide air support. Second, he fired Dulles, but all the top people in the agency continued to support and report to Dulles. He also fired two of Dulles' deputies, one of whom, Charles Cabell, had a brother who happened to be the mayor of Dallas. And of course LBJ put Dulles on the Warren Commission to ensure the cover-up.
Third, Kennedy had already ordered a reduction of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and planned further withdrawals. Fourth, to get missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. The military, especially Curtis LeMay, wanted to bomb Cuba. Fifth, Kennedy was talking through back channels (i.e., not through the State Department) with Khrushchev in an effort end the Cold War. Sixth, he gave his famous American University Commencement Address in June 1963 promoting world peace (". . . we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
Seventh, unlike LBJ, he was hostile to the development of nuclear weapons in Israel. LBJ was slated to be dropped from the ticket in 1964, and was facing a cover story in Life magazine, slated for the weekend of the assassination, regarding Johnson's involvement in the Bobby Baker Scandal. The article never ran. Eighth, Kennedy was considered unstable, a womanizer who was sleeping with (and possibly taking drugs with) Mary Pinchot Meyer, the former wife of CIA's Cord Meyer. Mary was skeptical of the Warren Commission, and when her sister and brother-in-law Ben Bradley (Washington Post) went to look for her possibly incriminating journal after she was murdered in 1964, they found their friend James Jesus Angleton, CIA's head of counterintelligence, already there picking the lock.
That's just a quick rundown from memory. There's probably a lot more in the James Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why It Mattered. And by the way, we seem to be about the same age. I wasn't a Kennedy fan in 1963, and pretty much accepted the standard history until decades later. Lawyer Mark Lane was pretty much the only person questioning the assassination at the time, but I never read his seminal book from 1966.
ah..thank you, I did not know that about NIxon. It does seem that the “GOP” is just a token opposition party. Has it always been?
Watch the excellent Tucker interview of Geoff Shepard, who was a young White House staff lawyer at the time of Watergate. It’s pretty eye opening. Was out last month & can probably be found on YouTube.
Yes
While I agree that Nixon may have been unfairly maligned, I am more concerned with the present tense.
“the soulless husk of Hillary Clinton” is a great line! She is the ultimate hypocrite. Is there any person more dirty, more corrupt, more self-serving in American politics than she and her husband? I don’t think so. It occurs to me that a good place for those Haitian immigrants would’ve been Chappaqua, New York, where Hillary lives. They despise her because, rightly so, they believe she was responsible for stealing their children.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098
The vultures are circling.
Nixon was politically destroyed with the very scammy watergate accusations. The judges, lawyers, unlimited budget of over 100 staffers manning the court cases were unconstitutionally and breaking many legal standards, working in unison to punish Nixon, for various reasons, one being that he was a small timer from California not an elitist of the NE like most of Washington.
Really urge everyone to spend a little time looking into the injustice of what happened to Nixon and thus to our country. They got away with the approach and have perfected it over the decades since then.
How sure are you that McCarthy was all that bad?
If you read back issues of the NYT to get a view of trump in 50 years time, how would he look?
Already Vance is worse--he's defamed both aging cat ladies and the pet-loving Haitians of Ohio. The horror! Clearly Trump should have picked Liz Cheney.
they continually show us how little regard they have for our intelligence.
Obviously, they would say all those arguments would be totally and utterly, illegitimate.
Their need to shut down Trump supporters reflects that they are scared shitless. If he loses, I think he should just start dropping truth bombs starting with November 22, 1963.
to the american left shriek-ocracy, legitimacy is theirs and theirs alone. like DEI as manifest destiny. rationality does not enter the picture. you're inevitably talking to a wall. best to walk away before the shrieking ensues
michael stipe was always hit and miss with the lyrics but once in awhile he'd hit one out of the park https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa_Y7cE61sw
A couple people in neighborhoods near me have anti-Trump yard signs that reference the Capitol riot as reason not to return him to the White House. That's probably the strongest basis for labeling him a "presumptively illegitimate" candidate.
Check out Revolver News for the real story of the Jan 6 Fedsurrection. Too much to cover here, but there were probably hundreds of undercover Feds and other plainclothes police (including instigators) in the crowd.
Ray Epps, who texted a relative that day that he "organized it," started urging people to "go into the Capitol" on January 5 ( the crowd around him responded by chanting "Fed, Fed, Fed . . . ". The next day he was there in advance at the scene of the initial breach of the barrier (other barriers had been removed in advance, on video, by still unidentified people, probably Gov agents, so many in attendance had no idea they were entering closed areas). Epps whispered into the ear of an associate, who then immediately led the charge into the barrier. Later Epps is on video helping push a large sign into police. Epps claimed to have traveled from Arizona to see Trump speak, but didn't attend the speech at all. Yet Epps was lionized by the media and the Jan 6 Committee, and never spent a night in jail.
Do the people with the anti-Trump signs know that it was a lie that police were killed? All who died that day, five I think, were protestors, one shot, at least one beaten to death. The officer said to have died after being beaten with a fire extinguisher is on later video alive and well, but died the next day of natural causes, no signs of trauma.
Another little known angle is the pipe bombs found near the DNC and RNC. Supposedly they were planted the night before by a person seen on surveillance cameras but never officially identified. Supposedly they were set to go off right around the 1 pm election certification, but that was impossible, as they had only 1-hour timers. Instead, they were "found" just before the initial Capitol breach, resulting in police being pulled away from the Capitol. The agents who "found" the bombs seemed unconcerned, approaching close to take photos and allowing school children pass by unimpeded. Incredibly, VP-elect Harris was inside the DNC building at the time after Secret Service and bomb-sniffing dogs had checked the premises. Yet instead of capitalizing on the "terror threat" to the newly elected VP, Cackles has never mentioned it, claiming to be at the Capitol instead.
The more you learn, the more it smells (after all, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were the "Republicans" on the special committee). Trump wanted National Guard, but Pelosi rejected it. And of course, Trump has never been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.
Well this native born "insurgent" will never let the "Quasi-colonial administrators [who] are isolated in the American Green Zone, scratching their heads about a country they govern and detest..." take control or rest.
I think you've definitely hit the mark. The post Iraq/Afghan war headshed types who spent trillions trying to lose another stupid war, are getting the band back together, in their own country, because this time it'll be different. 🙄
Trump poses a threat to their little continuity of government scheme they've been running for quite some time now. Trump should not be - he hasn't been and would not have been vetted by those behind the curtain. It's that simple. They want him gone and they want their people in his place. He's not a threat to democracy - he is democracy - a legit candidate with few ties to the shadowy blob that has controlled every president in last 50+ years.
Everyday Republican / conservatives we’re fooled for decades into believing turncoat rinos & war mongering neocons we’re to be trusted. I can’t believe I trust a Kennedy more than most R’s. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
To say these persons are 'mentally ill' is to invite sympathy for their chosen malevolence, for mental illness is an 'outside condition' in which a person is not responsible for the things they do. It is imposed from outside by genetic, cultural, or allied conditions.
What you are witnessing is not illness, but the voluntary presence of EVIL, and each of these persons is FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the VOLUNTARY selection of malice in their lives, and oppression of others on a political basis. This is a chosen and inner condition, and it can be unchosen at any moment any of these people desire to change. They are not ill or sick in any way whatsoever, and as they drive the nation and the world ever deeper into despair, alienation, poverty, and lawlessness, I think that eventually you will come around to the reality of what you are facing: not ill persons, but persons voluntarily malicious, cowardly, cruel and rotten-hearted.
Yes, these people are evil. They are doing this with a plan. Making it look like some are mentally ill is a distraction. There is so much going on we're not aware of and they don't want us to know. The things we do know just keep us distracted.
I don't like being called an "insurgent". They are the ones who are the insurgents. We are the ones who are true to the beliefs of this country, to the Constitution, to the three Branches of Government, to the Constitutional Republic. They want a socialist dictatorship that answers to a globalist government as their ultimate goal.
I'm a "resistance warrior". I will resist their tactics, their lies, their threats, their name calling, their cancellations. I've stayed on social media and will do so until "they" throw me off. I post articles from Substack on FB, X, Linkedin so I can educate and maybe change minds. How else can we share ideas with others who won't read or hear from anyone else? We have to be brave enough to walk into dangerous territory to help free them from the propaganda they hear all day, every day. It's what educators do.
Resist. Keep moving forward.
I suspect we’re past the point of talking this out.
So stop caring what they call you.
Do what you must.
You're right. I thought about the meaning of the word "insurgent" in a different historical way, which was incorrect. I looked up the definition and you changed my mind. I don't care what I'm called and embrace the labels. I'll embrace this one adding it to my growing list.
Good counsel.
No problem being mentally ill and evil at the same time, and the one feeding into the other back and forth.
Nitpicking aside, I agree - we should never allow the excuse that someone who is or was obviously in command of their own actions, was acting under some compulsion or other.
I spent years in the military, long ago, with people actually unstable mentally, likely due to genetics mostly. There is a difference between actual mental illness, which is relatively rare in the population, and the CHOICE of evil, which is what we're witnessing here.
Above, Deborah Gregson expresses it well. People with real mental illness act and respond incontinently and immediately, People doing evil voluntarily choose to do malice, usually due to external pressure to conform. Those mentally ill don't make pre-decisions and plans to be, or 'do', mental illness; those doing willful evil do make such plans and pre-determinations.
I prefer the term mentally weak.
I prefer morally bankrupt.
You’re right. That’s definitely better😉
Late reply:
You are both right, you and Russel J.
Also:
Mentally bankrupt and morally weak, doesn't those combinations work too? (English isn't my native language.)
But what else do you call the D.C. sky screamer?
UGLY
Like!
I see a difference between the modern propagators of this evil and most of the voters who subscribe to it. I think there’s a parallel between this and some of the public’s reaction to COVID (e.g., masked while driving alone).
On the Left at least, there’s been a race to the extreme – the party has no place for solid, rational Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Joe Lieberman, RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. Couple that with the multi-decade infection of college faculties (and K-12) with ardent disciples of Foucault, Gramsci, Marcuse & the Frankfurt School, and you get unrecoverable brainwashing. Young Democrats have no frame of reference to understand historical causes & consequences. Is there a willing naïveté among these voters? You bet. They refuse to differentiate between the lessons about sharing taught at 3-4 years old, and running a national economy. Further, they insist on believing that it is OUR fault that leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Khomeini, the Kims of the DPRK and their political descendants hate us, because WE have failed to explain our goodness well enough.
Then we have the Democrat leaders like Schumer (scored 1600 on his SATs) – brilliant and perfectly aware of his voters’ delusional condition and who eagerly exploits it as an avenue to power.
The modern Left has many attributes of a cult. Like many cults, it attracts the weak minded and exploits them. And as with cults, when apportioning guilt it is appropriate to distinguish between those who mix and distribute the Kool-Aid and those who drink it.
Thanks, John. Thoughtful.
What demographic consistently -- and overwhelmingly -- still wears masks alone in cars, supports Kammie and the entire woke-fem cult of tyrant politics, crushes free speech and all aspects of freedom for their political opponents (while retaining endless freedoms and 'liberations' for themselves), and continues the Baalic or Molochian religion/cult of abortion (child sacrifice) without consequence nor responsibility unto themselves?
Well, that'd be women -- especially single women -- since their rise to national and international power during the Sixties and thereafter. The culture, law, and government of the U.S. and the West is ruled by females. In the ancient world, folks would have just admitted what America is: a goddess-worshipping cult-nation, dominated utterly by females and their religion of Woke. What is Tater Joe Biden if not a stooge and a frontman for the U.S. gynarchy? He does not even speak for himself, just collects his 10% and goes his merry way in his jazzy sportscar and sunglasses.
Modern men lack the stones to speak the truth about their oppressors, for they are cowards and go-alongers with obvious and outright evil. Or Eve-ill, if you will. All the political, social and intellectual abstractions amount to zilch when a nation's men willingly forgo veracity and masculinity for the comfort and security of material plenty and psychological security. Nurse Ratched Nation. KareNation.
The political numbers across the West bear out my assertions; women, especially single women, overwhelmingly vote Left, while men overwhelmingly vote Right. But women always win because weak men (and the daddies of daughters) don't have what it takes to speak and act the truth.
How's it all been workin' out for New Amerika? All good? lol cheers, m
I will blame whomever I wish to blame, based on the evidence I have received and experienced. If you or anybody else doesn't like it, too bad boomer boy, go cry to yo mammy. I will let you know if I need your advice lol. Michael
Blaming Karens suits me just fine. I neither want nor need your 'fairness sake' because all I have heard the past 40 years is YOUR tired rap. From tv, from government, from media, from corporations, from schools and colleges, from everybody. Here is one little obscure forum where I present an alternative explanation... and here you and your tired 'fairness' jive buttinski again, and you dare to present the same sad narrative somehow as fairness. You people wouldn't know fairness if it fell outta the sky like and anvil on your biased, prejudiced, canned pov. This ends my part in this exchange but by all means, feel free to ramble on alone. out.
They are evil, but once again, I see this as a mind VIRUS. They are infected. If you have seen World War Z, you know that people got infected and then they were hideous creatures that never existed before, operating under an entirely different physical set of principles, minds deadened to the extreme evil in which they participated. They were human but inhuman, people but hungry to infect other people to be like they were, driven and living in their new state of being. I think some can be rescued from the mind virus but I do not think it is curable. Those who choose to remain infected--in fact, those who love the infection and will protect it--will have to destroy themselves in the attempt to infect others. We just have to make it to the Bird Box (to use another film about a mind virus)
Again, this is like saying they aren't evil, just mentally ill or 'infected' by some outside agent beyond their control. Uh-uh. They CHOOSE to be evil, they CHOOSE to do evil, and providing excuses for their voluntary, gleeful evil is letting them off the hook, absolving them of responsibility and, later, consequence for their choices.
That's a difficult concept for most people to understand which is why most have to find excuses. It's what's gotten our social culture to this low point of depravity. I doubt that will change because their minds can't cope with the thought of what "the consequences for their choices" would be, they're too soft. So we don't have national or local stability, instead everyone just wants to "feel" safe. It's important therefore to have inner stability and peace.
That is a wise and mature POV. I will keep a watch heretofore for your comments.
Spot on
An important point. It’s not an accident that Hillary is using these tactics. Many of them may not realize exactly which cog they are but they all know which machine they’re part of.
Yeah, alright, but does COIN, you know... WORK?
How did dumping all of that money into it work out in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did the Human Terrain Teams, Village Stability Operations, Eating Soup With A Rock, etcetera, do anything to defeat the insurgencies?
If I found out my enemies were dedicating tremendous amounts of resources to HEXING me, burning my fingernail clippings, sticking pins into dolls and so on, I'd be ecstatic.
Speculating: A lot of it is informed by the notion that "It worked well in Germany 1945 onward, so it should work in Insert-latest-warzone-here too!".
Speculation based on:
An underlying assumption of all kinds of liberalism (including libertarianism) is that all people are equal, that all technological and civilisational change is development along an imagined axis from worse to better, where better equal present-day official American ideals (since the US is the dominant cultural influence in the West). Therefore, what works in San Antonio must work equally well in Sudan, since people are equal.
Therefore, teaching afghan women to ride bikes contributes to making the Taliban lay down their arms, put on shirts and ties, and start a pork pie factory using DEI-ESG hiring practices.
And if reality doesn't comply and conform, it's because of the [insert today's bugbear].
Yes, equality is a lie. There's a reason why almost every Obama speech was filled with Equality references; it is the guiding (satanic) Light of the modern West. and it is a lie. The truth is, NOBODY is equal to anybody else. The world is hierarchical, not equalist.
And for good reason or our species would've failed...if it ever made it out of the caves at all.
One could conjecture that a sadly significant percentage of the species has NOT "made it out of the caves".
there is something in shabbat 149-151 about not falling asleep alone in a dark room. luminescent mushrooms and biophotoemissive acid are better than nothing, as is carbide-acetylene torch.
====
perceiving ourselves as individuals is a cost/benefit thing, maybe. why not both? why not just grow denser communities in a healthier way, more of them and smaller? (kibbutzim/moshavot gathering the golus) within ox and hand-card distance of one another are far better than (midwest/urban) insane dichotomy.
====
why can't people just ditch the ankle monitors that people hold in their palms these days, and just get rid of the sinat chinam over who has better retail credit life insurance and how much the monthly premiums are?
====
i have no idea.
american-acquired industry deficiency syndrome is to blame. teaching women to ride motorcycles in sharia-compliant dungarees simply caused the Taliban to no longer self-identify as the legitimate government of indigenous landacknowledgement lands of pashtunwali. the west killed itself.
====
are you saying that somebody is paying emirati and other foreign resource magnates to mess around with shenanigans in the kit and caboodle of antonio spanish old mexico?
====
people are equal. different kinds are equally valuable - in diverse ways, by division of labour. a waste of a good expendable cannon fodder for a man to become pregnant. a man's place is in the home, the house of torah, in wellness -- for the good.
====
cultural war is technology. cantonist decrees are technology. universal conscription and forced acculturation to not-teyman culture is technology....
technology can also be good. - to repair the world b'malkhut shaqai(sorry for my french).
====
to the extent that denazification worked in the deutschesreisch, it was because of a complete turnaround in a rememberance of events to be, haba b'yerushalayim, (purim and hanukkah, l'netzach) barukhim habaim b'tzion. when the war is over, zion's technology becomes viable, and instead of iavani/greek/helenist insanity disguised as reason,
====
the tzaddiq yesod olam -- l'takein `olam b'malkhuth shaqai (sorry for my french)
Well, they are eating your cats 🤷
Have you never heard the phrase “in government nothing succeeds like failure?”
moshe rabbeinu asked (success-1) times, no? giving over / no limit?
Gotta remember that the people in control are never accountable for their failures, and they’re incredibly dumb. That’s why they need the big authoritarian hammer: they can’t actually convince reasonable people that their plans are good
Case in point Kamala Harris.
If they're so dumb, how did they come to be in control?
Same way companies selling shit products make money: good marketing.
amazing
COIN only works if the occupying force exerts TOTAL colonial-style control over all domains of the occupied country.
COIN was an abject failure in Iraq and Afghanistan because the occupying forces refused to exert total control over every aspect of the occupied countries' existence.
In the USA today, the occupying forces DO have total colonial-style control over the occupied country--economy, society, politics, entertainment, communications.
So, COIN has a very good chance of being successful in the USA.
This is just another version of "all these other attempts at communism failed because they were doing it wrong, but here we'll do it right."
The basic idea of COIN, to rule without ruling, is itself broken.
Not really.
Actual COIN, as has been shown in several actual case studies, is devastatingly effective, ONLY when the occupiers have, and exert, total colonial control.
Case studies?
US in the Philippines, 1900s.
UK in Malaya, post-WW2
USSR in Hungary, 1950s
All were totally successful. In all three, the occupier exerted TOTAL colonial control. Just as do the occupiers of Normal America today exert total control over the occupied Normals.
US in the PI, USSR in Hungary (and the rest of Eastern Europe after WW2) weren't doing COIN(tm). They were directly ruling/administering a subject population. You might as well say that Cromwell did COIN(tm) in Ireland.
The UK in Malaysia was doing something similar, plus their opponents' population base was an ethnic minority in the country, plus they enjoyed a 50:1 advantage in troops.
Might want to bone up on definitions and history.
COIN = Counter INSURGENCY
US in Moroland, southern Philippines, is a textbook case of COIN.
There was an INSURGENCY against the colonial occupiers--the colonial occupiers used their total control of all aspects of the occupied country to conduct COIN. Classical and textbook.
UK in Malaya was the exact same--an INSURGENCY by the occupied against the occupiers. UK used its total control of all aspects of the occupied country to conduct COIN--again classical and textbook.
Same in Hungary with the USSR--occupier had total control, occupied began an INSURGENCY, and COIN crushed the insurgency.
Just as today, in the USA, the PC-Prog/Neocon occupiers are inciting an INSURGENCY. The occupiers have total control over all aspects of the occupied country--and they can, and will, use COIN to crush the coming insurgency.
I happen to have been on active duty in the US Army from before the beginning of OIF and onwards. The COIN Kool Aid started getting pushed around 2006 onwards-Nagl made his appearance on the Daily Show, Petraeus and McMaster were getting hyped, etc. Until then, people were obviously aware that there were insurgencies which we were attempting to counter. But they weren't calling what we were doing "COIN", with all of the contextual baggage.
I'm actually quite familiar with Soviet operations against insurgents in Eastern Europe and Central Asia before that, from reading primary sources, largely in the original. If you want to have a discussion about how what they did differed from 21st century American counterinsurgency (which I also spent a few years participating in directly, on the white SOF side), happy to do that.
I read a book written by the Australian officer that the US forces brought in to run the counterinsurgency. According to him it worked.
What isn't on that list though is that they used locals to track down insurgents and killed an absolute fuckton of them during the 'surge', often with US forces only providing support to those locals who were keen on killing insurgents.
According to him the insurgency was basically defeated in Iraq, and there was very little ongoing active conflict. The US backed government was able to function fairly well.
In your memory it probably seems like a massive shitshow though, and that's because the Obama administration withdrew US support for the karzai government when they took all the US troops out of Iraq. Karzai never had the power to rule in his own right and so the Iraqi government collapsed almost immediately, and Osama BL also got assassinated at the same time, which released the AQ in Iraq guys from the constraints of that organisation and they immediately started kidnapping and murdering Shia children in order to incite the sectarian conflict that gave rise to ISIS and everything that unfolded after that.
So COIN may work, but it's not what's listed above. Mostly it seems like choosing a winner from the local population and then killing everyone who kicks up to much of a fuss.
I believe the guy's name is Kilcullen.
Of course, according to him it worked. If you read German generals' WW2 memoirs, they did just great, slaughtered great big masses of those Soviet Mongol hordes. And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for that meddling Hitler!
Also there are masses of Vietnam memoirs about how great and awesome the US forces were (usually written by people who were running some part of those forces.)
"If every bride is beautiful, where do ugly wives come from?"
I was there for the "victorious" part of OIF, too, where everyone was patting themselves on the back about how awesome everything had gone. Camp Bucca was a reeducation program that worked!
Four years later....
Related:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/09/the-rhetoric-of-assassination
The CIA’s greatest trick is convincing the public that it doesn’t operate domestically.
The amazing thing is that Trump isn’t even that revolutionary. I mean he still sits within the political norm.
But they appear to have zero tolerance for for anything outside of their defined levels of norm. They are establishing themselves as the norm and any and all opposition as not only outside the new accepted standards of norm but as a danger to society as a whole. Because they said so.
I mean (a) what you say, but that becomes so restrictive that they look like fools although they don't realise it, (b) it's all just part of the show .. or (c) somewhere in between.. I think some of them really go for the ever-changing New Normal, I think some of them are opportunistic and would parrot any crap if they thought it would do them some good.
We are an insurgency to the uniparty. And they are coming after us, and anyone who isn't MAGA/MAHA who oppose them, hammer and tong. Their tools for suppression are multifarious and will mirror the Bolsheviks and Muslims of Turkey and the Levant of the last century. That's one of the reasons for the opening of the borders. They are flooding the country with millions of fighting age males who will be recruited into einsatzgroupen, paramilitary groups which the Nazis used so effectively against Christians, Jews, communists, gays/lesbians, political dissidents and anyone else they didn't like, on the Eastern Front 1941-45. Some will be brought into the government as employees, very similar to the Chekas, who were mostly foreigners the Soviets recruited to track down and destroy dissidents there 1918-1929. They already control most all the institutions, in particular the judiciary, but will need to use these groups for muscle in case they actually lose 5 November, no matter how massive the fraud. And they will have many more opportunities to eliminate Trump and Vance, and anyone running down ballot, who are 'enemies of the state".
Danny Huckabee
having worked with a lot of illegal aliens over the years, i can say that none of them want to pick up a gun and go die for brandon or cackles. but a lot of them do want to work for the cartels. if the cabal expect these guys to protect them, they're in for a rude awakening
Well said...Some things never change...do they, Danny?
Yes. Been saying this for a while now. We have been colonized internally by a breakaway culture, and this is fifth generation warfare. Fortunately they suck at it and our greatest risk right now is dying of laughter.
It's unclear at this point whether 5gw techniques work *at all* or it's just a midwit pipe dream. They're great at disrupting and destabilizing, but not great at building a strong successor regime to take the reins, as we've seen repeatedly in their foreign adventures.
I highly recommend Bill Buppert's Chasing Ghosts podcast for further info on 5GW & counterinsurgency. He's also here on substack now. https://substack.com/@cgpodcast
Well, they're doing a fine job in the UK.....almost all our media is anti Trump, and a fair size of our brainwashed population 🙄 LOL
Yes, reminiscent of 2008 when y’all were being bombarded with pro-Obama messaging, when again everyone was supposed to care about who we Americans elect.
🙌
We here in Airstrip One had a bit of a funny turn around 2016 but we are working hard to win the victory over ourselves.
Its the same media. The owners are the same, globally…
“a common theme in which assassination attempts directed against a person are proof that the person is very bad and it’s his fault.”
Isn’t this kinda like when a rape/abuse victim is seen as “asking for it?”
Think so. Another theme I'm seeing is obviously he is staging them for attention, since two could otherwise never happen.
"Cognitive security" sounds just lovely. Blessed is the mind too small for doubt, I suppose.
I wonder if anyone contributing to the (counter)-insurgency course materials understand that all those methods and efforts eventually produce only one possible outcome for anyone opposing the regime (whichever it is) no matter if they are violently inclined or not:
To hate the enemy. To rally round the mutual hatred for their enemy.
Now consider what happens if a political opposition pushed into the corner so hard than the only way out is through, and that via shared hatred, and said opposition wins.
The hatred doesn't go away. And when this struggle happens between factions /within/ the same nation or state.
There's is now a very real risk of parts of the USA slowly, then rapidly, turning into 1980s Lebanon.
I remember once seeing a museum exhibition about slavery, and on display was a book about slave "diseases" and one of the maladies was "depression and running away." So, basically, the book was about "How to Cure Your Slave of Hating Slavery." Hillary would be very happy in South Carolina in 1856.
Are sure Hillary was not there, witches can hid their age
Yes, the “disease” was called drapetomania.
When members of Congress talk about Trump supporters as “domestic terrorists,” what they mean is….
that Trump supporters and adjacent opponents of the current thing are “designated insurgent groups” and subject to application of integrated whole-of-government future-focused nation-building counterinsurgency techniques, operationalising short warning combined arms effects to shape intentions and capabilities of nonstate actors and threat entities.
IOW the only legitimacy permitted to those opposing the narrative regime is “legitimate targets”
I would’ve lost if I’d bet they’d still be trotting out Hillary in 2024. I’m still shocked she’s not blamed for losing to trump in 2016. But I guess those nitwits still blame Russia.
I am not sure that they trotted her out. It seems as though Hillary's strings were cut by the puppet masters after her loss in 2016. I think that she is on her own. She trots herself out any chance she gets just hoping that someone cares what she has to say.
White women can’t be held accountable
More specifically the AWFL’s. Affluent White Female Liberal. It used to be said the most dangerous person to kids was mom’s boyfriend. But it seems only the AWFL’s want to trans/ mutilate their children.
I have two boys under 7. Those pro-trans women are vile and they need to be in prison if they mutilate or sterilize their child.
“But it seems only the AWFL’s want to trans/ mutilate their children.“
To be semantic, they don’t REALLY care about the kids. What they want beyond all else is bragging rights about them CHOOSING to be trans, gay, whatever (preferably before birth). This is just virtue signaling pushed to its ghoulish extreme.