TrumpHate rises to new heights. Will it work?

The Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki has resulted in the greatest outpouring of TrumpHate to date. Truly stunning. The #NeverTrumpers (basically neocons) now joined at the hip with the liberal/left have finally found the issue they think they can win on. Sure, the image of children being taken from their parents was effective with the people who already hated Trump. But this may not be a winning formula—certainly not Trump’s base—when 70% of voters rank immigration as “very important” for their vote. But the idea of “Trump the traitor” may well have legs.

Democrats and NeverTrump neocons are smelling blood in the water. They can pretend that they are patriotic nationalists (despite all the open borders “abolish ICE” comments from top Democrat politicians and neocon horror over Trump’s America First foreign policy (neocons have a very different idea of what country should come first, and predictably, they shed crocodile tears about Trump on separating illegal families (along with the ADL) without saying a word about Israel’s draconian immigration policies or gratuitous murder of Gazan children).

But more than all that, the “Trump the traitor” rhetoric appeals to quite a few mainstream Republicans who would not fall for the liberal line on immigration but who are definitely part of the hate-Russia crusade—some of them just exhibiting a reflex left over from the Cold War, while others are in thrall to the to the Israel Lobby’s hatred of Putin because of his pro-Iran, pro-Syria policies. (Sascha Baron-Cohen’s recent Showtime stunt is an indication of how reflexive support for Israel can make Republicans advocate ridiculous policies like arming 5-year-olds with guns.)

I should also mention Putin’s treatment of certain Jewish oligarchs who have attempted to influence Western policies toward Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning moment in the Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying that Bill Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5 billion in Russia (“the way the money was earned was illegal”) without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where the money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed $400 million [poorly translated; likely $400,000] to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While the charges back and forth are impossible to for me to evaluate, Browder’s firm, Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other accusations of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act, signed by President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said to be involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate, from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking system.

Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront of hostility over Putin’s treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the view that Browder et al. are completely innocent victims of Russian evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin’s actions toward the oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP toward Russia. It’s no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the hate-Trump chorus throughout the American establishment.

Put all that together, and it’s a powerful array against Trump. We’ll see what the polls say, but there’s no doubt that many pro-Trump voters will be troubled by accusations of treason and appeasing Russia in a way they wouldn’t about hostility toward Trump’s policies on immigration. As usual, this media furor is couched as a moral imperative. And although the public (especially Whites) are getting less and less susceptible to moralistic rhetoric, I suspect that this is not so much the case with accusations of disgraceful, treasonous behavior by the president.

In any case, I hope Trump survives this hatestorm. His policies on immigration have been a breath of fresh air (I know, they could be even better but they are way better than any administration in memory—since Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback). And immigration is really the only issue.

36 replies
  1. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    “TrumpHate” — do we have to guess which corpsie has the registered trademark? — seems more one pole of a dialectic than a unitary phenomenon. Tweedle Duh (family Drumpf) ostensibly bested Tweedle Demon (may she forever go unnamed) for POTUS 2016. [NOTE: I voted for NOBODY for POTUS 2016.] Great drama! May the better election hackers win!! If you play both sides, and if you know the fix is in, you stand to win! And, seems to me, TPTB did win.

    In the aftermath (cue the Rolling Stones!), we still have gripping soap opera for the idol [sic] class. Diversion upon diversion as (((they))) plunder and pillage, busyness as usual. In the meantime, and in mean times do we live, America the Beauty suffers gang rape and witting environmental destruction. Among the legion, Bernays and company excelled. Hats off to (((them))). Cheating, lying, gouging, they won a war without rules fair and square, correct?

  2. JRM
    JRM says:

    Soros is persona non grata in Russia. When the globalist interests of a George Soros intersect with a globalist EU and true-believer globalists like the Democrat and Republican parties of the USA, of course Trump is behaving as a “traitor”. Trump actually warned the UK just recently that their immigration policies endanger their very identity. For an American President to actually speak those words aloud is nothing short of astounding given the entrenched and absolutist dogma of globalist, anti-White cultural correct-think.

    It is amusing to see “no borders” Democrats suddenly waving the flag and feigning a patriotism they haven’t actually felt in fifty or more years. What’s next, BLM and Open Society members shouting “U-S-A! U-S-A!” together while “MoveOn” advocates urge we put Joseph McCarthy on the two-dollar bill?

  3. Pat Kittle
    Pat Kittle says:

    I turned on the radio this morning and first thing I heard was hysterical jabbering Jews outraged that Trump, without his [Jew] “advisors,” met with Putin for 2 hours.


  4. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    Sascha Baron-Cohen’s venomous behavior follows the usual Yiddish employment venues of acting, fiction writing, magic shows, film fantasy, songsters, rag pickers, psychoANALysts, over-priced restaurateurs, alcohol distributers, “educators” and sundry occupations which specialize in commercial deception. He in fact only duped those fools who were already duped, infected by the Erezt Israel poison. More insulting than Don Rickles. It comes as no surprised that mischling Peter Sellers was his idol.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Your wonderful spelling of psychoANALysts reminded me of the Jewish shrink who was directed to draw up a personality assessment of Adolf for FDR.

      Never having been within a thousand miles of Hitler, nor knowing any of his intimates, he relied on his innate Jewish brilliance, their unequalled logic, and perhaps projected personal predilections, to state, inter alia, that Hitler could only attain sexual satisfaction by defecating on women’s breasts.

      Freud, for his part, enriched our culture by scientifically explaining that we subconsciously resent flushing the toilet after, since we regard that being lost down the drain as part of our immediately preceding self.

      A small group of infallible, sage Rabbis minutely studies the monthly effluents of women.

      Compared to the abovementioned two experts, this latter group, one might say, are wholly a cut above.

      • Right man for the job
        Right man for the job says:

        I never exhibit reticence at flushing a toilet. My inspiration for doing so comes, inter alia, from reading the Talmud and other Yiddish literary gems, or seeing some hideous, screeching JAP parading around at an anti-Mexican wall rally after coming from a “Build Walls to Protect Yisrael” march.

  5. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Any “national security community” that presides over a multi-decade replacement of The People, by those who vote against the founding principles of the polity, must hang together for the disarmament of The People if a President takes his job seriously, lest that “national security community” hang separately — as the traitors they are, executed by The Executive Branch.

  6. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    You gotta love when the media and its behind the scenes puppet masters tell the people who to hate, who to like, and when to do either, and the very fact that the sheep out there never question anything, simply going along for the ride. Let’s hate Russia and Putin now! Ok! Sounds good. Who’s my new enemy this week?

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Fenria – actually in the Daily Mail (largest British paper, once right wing but recently switched to left, but still has right wing readers so it has to pose as a conservative paper) – while the Daily Mail was on message with the rest of the MSM on Trump, in the comments under the article, there were 3000 ish green arrows supporting the top comment that is was good for Trump and Putin to make peace, and only 300 ish giving red ticks for this top-tated comment.. So the readers like the idea of no war and did not want to ‘hate Russia’ as instructed by the MSM.

      On the other hand, sadly, the next day they had an article mentioning the ‘T’ word (traitor) and suddenly the same sheeple were easily turned against Trump in the comments (ie which comment got most greens – this time anti-Trump ones).

      However, this suggests that a good tactic for Trump/ the right would be to continue using the T word themselves against the left, as it seems so powerful, eg call Hillary a traitor more often.

  7. Dave
    Dave says:

    There’s one thing the media could do that would shake my loyalty to Trump: If the media, which hates regular Americans, despises all that is good, and adores every perversion, ever *praised* Trump for anything, like they so often lauded John McCain, that would be an “oh s**t, Trump f***ed up!” moment for me.

    • Pat Kittle
      Pat Kittle says:

      Actually, the (((media))) do praise Trump.

      (((They))) praised him when he betrayed his campaign promise to get us out of the Syrian War (for Israel).

      (((They))) praised him when he kept his campaign promise to sabotage the Iran nuke agreement.

      (((They))) praised him when he moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

    • Pat Kittle
      Pat Kittle says:

      It’s one thing to call the media “fake.”

      It’s quite another to know (((who))), (((why))), & (((how))) it’s fake.

      Still, a growing sense that it’s fake is a start.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        The realization that the originators of “fake news” belong to a certain Tribe will come in due time. It is the same realization that “neo-cons” or “international bankers” or Alex Jones’ “globalists” or David Icke’s “Rothschild-Zionists” all point to the same ethnic group of manipulators. Gatekeeping in this respect will ultimately fail.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        ‘a growing sense’ because despite attempts to monitor the internet this is actually a hard thing for the left + allies to achieve, and so therefore it it thanks to the internet that more people are becoming aware of a lot of things.

        Compare how many people today can EASILY get alternative news with a few clicks on their keyboards, whereas in the 90s you would have to buy specialist books, so most people would never read anything or hear or see anything that was off-message. The narrative was 99.9% controlled (Eg on the Jish contribution to immigration into the West).

        So basically we have had 30 years of ‘free speech’ in the sense that it is easily accessible for those who want to find it despite some sites & social media accounts being closed down. The MSM is controlled – actually far more than 30 years ago – but we can easily look up anything we want to learn more about just by straying off the MSM whilst on the internet, and this is leading to increasing distrust of the MSM.

  8. Horst D. Flemmer
    Horst D. Flemmer says:

    I saw the original interview between Trump and Putin and found the very questions posed by some so-called journalists highly offensive towards Trump. Unfortunately he did try to answer them to the best of his knowledge and elevated them thusly to weapons to be used against him. The sorry spectacle of some of republicants big shots proves again how deep the deep state really is. Have they no shame? The fact that Hillary made 32000 E-Mails disappear is of no concern to them but Trump`s ironic remarks that the Russians could help him to find them, seems to be the crux of the matter.Trump`s kowtowing to Israel`s interests does not help him. It shall be very interesting to
    see where this will lead to and ends.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Since your “approval” is capricious, willy-nilly, and inane, who then gives a shit what you say? For the sake of TOO and its broader appeal, you should either withdraw totally to a wiser person of wisdom and experience, or self-medicate yourself to a constant stupor.

      Your idiocy staggers me, giving a boy a man’s job.

  9. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Should we worry about the warmongering of corporate media and Democratic Party members given their past?

  10. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    Kevin MacDonald: “crocodile tears about Trump on separating illegal families (along with the ADL) without saying a word about Israel’s draconian immigration policies or gratuitous murder of Gazan children).”

    This is one issue on which I disagree with TOO and most commenters – the current sympathy displayed by the R generally for the mslm Palestinians, as exemplified by the phrase ‘Gazan children’.

    Can you not see that there is no difference between yourselves saying ‘what about the Gazan children?’ on the one hand, and the lefties saying ‘what about the refugee children?’

    Your tears for the Gazan children are just as ‘crocodile’ as the tears of the left for ‘Syrian refugee children’, your tears are just as big or bigger, as we all know you do not want to invite these ‘children’ friends of yours over to the West whereas the Left really do want to invite their Syrian ‘children’ friends over to live with us.

    After everything the R says about the 3rd world, suddenly one particular primitive 3rd world tribe becomes the focus of your sympathy and you start worrying about their children? How does that make you look?

    What is wrong with observing that primitive mslm tribes want Israeli land in the ME (even though the mslms already have 100 x what the Js have) and there is a similar scenario in the West where primitive 3rd world tribes want land in the West?

    This is how conservative minded people see the situation:

    1) The Js have wealth and safety and prosperity in Israel (never mind the source) and civilised society and are under attack from tribes in the 3rd world who want to conquer them and take their land.

    2) The whites in the West have wealth and safety and prosperity and are under attack from the 3rd world who want to conquer us and take our land (and women).

    The scenarios are identical. This is how most people see it, and in this observation – they are correct – this is how it is. This is why people like Trump, Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, Pat Condel (apart from Trump, the rest are all influential campaigners/bloggers/Youtubers for the R) end up sympathising with Israel. How do you think these people react when the R says ‘poor Gazan children’? Answer – they do not like it and it puts them off the R. It makes the ordinary person think the R are taking the side of primitive mslms (and in fact you are) and they DO NOT LIKE IT. You are touching a massive nerve here by siding with the mslms. In fact you are alienating your main block of potential supporters.

    Why not say: ‘We whites/Westerners fully sympathise with the way Israel is under attack from mslms who want their land. We sympathise because we are in the same position. And therefore we would like to help the Israelis to secure their border with a wall and to defend their national identity and culture and to exclude foreigners who are hostile to them. But first we have to make one condition before we offer our support. Namely, that the Js in the West desist in their efforts to remove all our own walls and to bring mslms to the West. This is an act of hostility by the Js, and while the Js remain hostile to us we cannot offer any assistance for their plight in Israel.”

    A BAD tactic for the R is to side with the ‘Gazan children’ and their tribe/religion

    A GOOD tactic for the R is to make support for Israel’s border wall conditional on ‘Israelis’ ceasing to campaign to remove the borders of the West, which has to be regarded as an act of hostility

    A GOOD tactic is also for the Israelis to no longer be allowed to influence Western policy any more than Russians are allowed to. This would be turning the newly-found principle of ‘no interference’, only just discovered since Trump won, this would be turning the new principle against ALL our enemies and not just the Russian ‘enemy’. Get rid of Russian interference – whether real or imagined – and get rid of Israeli interference at the same time. But while selling this idea it would be terrible tactics to alienate right-thinking people by siding with any mslm tribe anywhere in the world – even one that is Israel’s enemy neighbours.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Logically you are right, but politics is not always “logical”. The Jews have a double standard : multiculturalism for the West, but monoculturalism for Israel. We should “punish” them with the same kind of double standard : monoculturalism for the West, but multiculturalism for Israel. Thus we should accuse the Jews of “colonialism” and “racism” in Palestine and continue to do so until they protest our “double standard”. But then we should only stop with this practice if they stop with theirs and beg our forgiveness. Until that time we should nag them to the max.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Although you are correct I fear you will alienate many potential supporters of the R who are put off the R because of the way you end up on the side of a group of muslims in Palestine. For many conservative people who do not know about the JQ (ie the same stage that you were in once) anyone who sides with any muslim group immediately is put in the category of ‘bad people’.
        I myself was a ‘strong’ supporter (only in comment sections) of Israel until (1) I interacted with Js on BB and found them to be actually quite hostile to the West and bursting with grievances against us despite us (conservative bloggers) being extra friendly to them (2) Someone on BB made the comment ‘Kevin MacDonald gets it’ and I looked up his Youtube videos.

        A better approach would be (I know it would never happen) if Western countries sent the boats full of immigrants to Israel, and these govts said they had read all the statements from top Js – including from the Board of Deputies – about welcoming immigrants to the West, and were treating Israel as part of the West in this respect, so they too must share in the burden of helping immigrants that they so enthusiastically support.

  11. T
    T says:

    K Mac writes: ‘The Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki has resulted in the greatest outpouring of TrumpHate to date. Truly stunning.’

    ‘Stunning’ is the correct word for it. Both Trump and Putin, each of whom have quite questionable credentials as nouveau ‘nationalist’ (having until relatively recently been both in their own way decided internationalists) are now suddenly both ‘Hitler’, and Trump is declared to be guilty of treason, according to a thoroughly corrupt corporate media. Meanwhile, the Dem party which for the past fifty years hasn’t known what the word ‘traitor’ meant nor even acknowledged the concept’s existance have now suddenly rediscovered it in regards to Trump. As you allude much of the Republican leadership are in general not a whole lot better on this regarding Trump being only just behind the Dems in the warped mentality.

    We’re only a few steps away from having the scenario play out described in Orwell’s 1984 of the speaker during ‘hate week’ while in mid-sentence and without skipping a beat switching who the super-state’s enemy was and people barely consciously noticing, and just going along.

    The Dems in the US and the Labour like partys in the UK and Western Europe are prepped to be the core of a modern Bolshevik party. They also seem prepared to bring about a Red October II and fight a Russian Civil War type of conflict in the West should anyone resist. The US main stream media is only just short of being in outright Pravda mode and would support these modern would be ‘red’ revolutionaries.

    …at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.’

    ‘On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns — after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces — at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.’

    • T
      T says:

      Thomas Jefferson, as the author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776) and a principal writer along with two others of The Rights of Man (1789) was a Founding Father of both the American and French Revolutions. Even as early as the 1790’s in regards to the nascent Red Republicanism of the French Revolution (which he had had no small part in unleashing) he was seeing what the results would be for ‘millions and millions’ of people and for humanity as a whole.

      Jefferson concluded that the French people were not yet “virtuous” enough to accept a sudden republicanism after so many years of superstition and despotism and that Louis XVI could have been retained as a limited monarch, thus staving off “those enormities which demoralized the nations of the world, and destroyed, and is yet to destroy, millions and millions of its inhabitants.”

      ‘After succeeding Benjamin Franklin as American minister at Versailles, witnessing the first chapter of the French Revolution[1], and conducting foreign affairs as Secretary of State, Jefferson could not escape the immediate effects the French Revolution had on his career. Like most Americans, when the French rebelled against Louis XVI, he generally praised their action, hesitated over it, and finally recoiled from it.

      Some Americans, notably George Washington, never forgot that the motive of King Louis XVI in sending officers to serve in the American Revolution was not devotion to anti-monarchical principles but a plan to regain territory that had been lost to England after the Seven Years War. For this reason, Washington sought to keep America nonaligned between England and France by maintaining a policy of neutrality. French commercial losses suffered during the war strained diplomatic relations, but Alexander Hamilton’s efforts to repay on a regular basis the debts incurred to France helped establish cordiality. Many Frenchmen found models for French social reform in American institutions. Lafayette was a pivotal figure in this enchantment with liberal ideals. In his library on the Rue de Bourbon, he displayed a picture frame, half of which contained the Declaration of Independence, and the other half empty. When asked about the empty half, Lafayette replied that it would hold the “French declaration of rights.”

      Jefferson saw the stirrings of discontent with the established church and state as natural consequences of the example America had set in its state and federal constitutions. Even if Jefferson did not at first see America as the torchbearer of liberty to the world, his experience in France gradually convinced him of the world-ranging implications of the political creed he penned in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. When the Bastille fell in 1789, Lafayette-recognizing the indebtedness of the French Revolution to Americans-sent the key of that prison to Washington. Jefferson, who had recently returned from France to become Secretary of State (Lafayette was at this farewell dinner in Paris), was actually more enthusiastic about the revolution than was France’s minister to America, Jean Baptiste de Ternant. Jefferson thought the French experiment would confirm the American one and possibly spread to other parts of the world. When the National Assembly in France, conscious of the model offered by the Declaration of Independence, issued Lafayette’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, it was supposed to be adaptable to any country. Jefferson’s political advice at this time was to persuade Louis XVI to issue a charter of rights-a modest proposal that would have left the monarchy intact.

      Only after his return to America in 1789 did Jefferson’s rhetoric about the revolution become more heated, largely as a symbolic aspect of his larger domestic battles with Hamilton, whom Jefferson saw as an anglophile. Hamilton, like Jefferson, thought French republicanism would spread to other countries, but he thought the prospect to be destabilizing. He warned Washington that any new government in France would not have the same claim upon America as had the one that actually supplied help to America in its time of crisis. Jefferson argued that people can alter their form of government without giving up prior claims to other nations. Meanwhile, by 1790 a propaganda war had broken out over the future of the French Revolution. Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Man in response to Edmund Burke’s defense of ancient establishments in Reflections on the Revolution in France. Jefferson recommended Paine’s book to its American publisher as an answer to the controversy that had arisen in America over the French Revolution. When Jefferson’s recommendation was published, he had to apologize for what was taken to be an attack on Vice-President John Adams’ Discourse on Davila, a work in which Adam’s denounces France’s experiments with freedom.

      Because reports of events came slowly to America, there were great misunderstandings on all sides of the debate. In 1792, the news that France had declared war on the alliance of kings led Jefferson to believe that France had been forced to take pre-emptive steps. He was not aware that Lafayette had concluded that his government was out of control. While leading French troops against the Austrians, Marquis de Lafayette had defected from the army. His letters from jail posed delicate problems for an administration that wanted to help an old ally without committing America to either of the sides Lafayette had already taken. Jefferson pinned his hopes on Brissot de Warville, a leader of the Girondin faction, who spoke of “our” revolutions and republics (Washington deleted “our” from one of Jefferson’s documents addressed to France, however.) The execution of aristocrats by popular tribunals led to nervous arguments in America and Jefferson’s famous letter on which he falls into arguing that the revolution’s glorious ends justified apocalyptic means: “My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to the cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam & Eve left in every country, & left free, it would be better than as it now is.”

      When Jefferson wrote these words, he did not know that Louis XVI had been executed on January 21, 1793. By the end of the year, Jefferson’s feelings about revolutionary France had cooled, mainly because of the embarrassing efforts of Genet to undermine Washington’s neutrality policy-efforts Jefferson thought might discredit him and his allies. Jefferson later denounced the atrocities of Robespierre; he wrote that he would have voted for removing the king but not for killing him. The notorious XYZ Affair, whereby Talleyrand and the French Directory attempted to exact tribute from American diplomats, further alienated him from the Jacobins’ successors. Thomas Paine had even tried to arrange to have Louis XVI conducted into exile in America. Americans began to realize that revolution meant one thing in a country deposing its ruler and another in colonies seceding from an empire. The death of the king raised the stakes of this revolution, for its sympathizers as well as its participants. Jefferson concluded that the French people were not yet “virtuous” enough to accept a sudden republicanism after so many years of superstition and despotism and that Louis XVI could have been retained as a limited monarch, thus staving off “those enormities which demoralized the nations of the world, and destroyed, and is yet to destroy, millions and millions of its inhabitants.”

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      The difference between the West today that is choosing communism and the West as portrayed in 1984 that ‘chose communism’ or Russia when they ‘chose communism’ – the difference between now and then is that then the message the people received then was much more controlled, so the people might have, to a certain extent, ‘been excused’ as they went along with communism out of ignorance. Furthermore there were no existing communist countries to test out communism, nowhere to disprove the claims about a paradise on earth.

      Today it is different as (1) the people have seen communism & socialism in action and its outcome (2) The people still are fully informed if they just leave the MSM for a few moments and make a few clicks on their keyboards on the interent. The full warning about their fate is out there, despite Facebook etc closing many accounts.

      This is the difference between now and then, today the people are taking this path without any excuse that ‘they never knew’ what fate was planned for them.

      This is what makes it so incredible. The people of the West can see the water pouring into the luxury liner in which they live, they can see the pirates from Africa boarding their ship. (They can see primary schools in London on TV with 100% immigrant children) AND YET THEY VOTE FOR MORE!

      The people still have full and free democracy, and they could easily vote to (a) stop the nonsense (b) reverse it – but they choose not to and this is inexplicable, unless we explain it by saying most people have a political awareness no greater than a dog’s or a cat’s.

      The most glaring example of this recently was France rejecting Le Penn and voting for more immigration instead.

      Perhaps the explanation of why people vote against their own OBVIOUS best interests is that the part of the brain activated when voting is not the logical or thinking part, it is a part that taps into our animal behaviour wiring, in which logical thinking is deactivated. We can see why humans are like this, as imagine an alternative scenario, where everyone thought about things. When two tribes were about to have a war, if tribe A had half its members thinking “perhaps tribe B have a valid point about that river and that lake”, whereas tribe B where whipped up into a fury where everyone in tribe A was regarded as a total villain, then which tribe would win, A (being logical and reasonable and thinking about it) or B? Ans, ‘B’ – the one that switches off logical thought and where th people all unite for the great ’cause’ of whatever the War was about, which must not be more than one or two sentences long (‘Hitler wants to rule the world’). So tribe B wins as they are ‘culture followers’ not thinkers.

      This explains why the men of Britain and Germany were so keen to go to war with each other – instincts activated. As the men queued to sign up there was not one conversation in the line about the rights and wrongs and the details. Each side accepted the simple slogans they were given by their governments, and no discussion went beyond these, as if you rejected what the culture had decided were the causes of the war in two sentences, you were a ‘Lord Haw Haw’ traitor.

  12. T
    T says:

    There was a 48 pg book written and published in the US in 1896 by one Ingersoll Lockwood, the Lockwood’s having been a prominent New York state family very much plugged into the NY state and US establishments. The book’s title was 1900; or, The Last President and it contains many of the ingredients of today, (though at times a bit inverted) within its pages, ie a populist president, the last of the US, is elected, the election resulting in mobs of ‘socialist’ and ‘anarchists’ rioting and burning down sections of cities, ie NY City, a specifically mentioned ‘Fifth Avenue Hotel’, many reforms taking place by executive orders, weak Republicans, and the final breaking up and dissolution of the United States culminating in the blowing up of the capitol dome.

    Within the realm of a manipulated and faux Hegelian dialectic between Capitalists and Marxists, ‘left’ and ‘right’, they tell us beforehand what it is they are planning to do.

    …that shattered dome glorious even in its ruins, a single human eye, filled with a gleam of devilish joy, looked up at it long and steadily, and then its owner was caught up and lost in the surging mass of humanity that held the Capitol girt round and round.

    ‘That was a terrible night for the great City of New York — the night of Tuesday, November 3rd, 1896. The city staggered under the blow like a huge ocean liner which plunges, full speed, with terrific crash into a mighty iceberg, and recoils shattered and trembling like an aspen.

    The people were gathered, light-hearted and confident, at the evening meal, when the news burst upon them. It was like a thunder bolt out of an azure sky: “Altgeld holds Illinois hard and fast in the Democratic line. This elects Bryan President of the United States!”

    Strange to say, the people in the upper portion of the city made no movement to rush out of their houses and collect in the public squares, although the night was clear and beautiful. They sat as if paralyzed with a nameless dread, and when they conversed it was with bated breath and throbbing hearts. In less than half an hour, mounted policemen dashed through the streets calling out: ‘Keep within your houses; close your doors and barricade them. The entire East side is in a state of uproar. Mobs of vast size are organizing under the lead of Anarchists and Socialists, and threaten to plunder and despoil the houses of the rich who have wronged and oppressed them for so many years. Keep within doors. Extinguish all lights…’

    ‘…The glorious revolution is in its brightest bud. Since the President called upon us to convene in last March, we have with the strong blade of public indignation, and with a full sense of our responsibility, erased from the statute books the marks of our country’s shame and our people’s subjugation. Liberty can not die. There remains much to be done in the way of building up. Let us take heart and push on. On Monday, the regular session of this Congress will begin. We must greet our loved ones from the distance. We have no time to go home and embrace them…’

    ‘The New Year, the New Century was born, but with the last stroke, a fearful and thunderous dis-Charge as of a thousand monster pieces of artillery, shook the Capitol to its very foundations, making the stoutest hearts stand still, and blanching cheeks that had never known the coward color. The dome of the Capitol had been destroyed by dynamite. In a few moments, when it was seen that the Chamber had suffered no harm, the leader of the House moved the final passage of the Act. The President was led away, and the Republican Senators and Representatives passed slowly out of the disfigured Capitol, while the tellers prepared to take the vote of the House. The bells were ringing a glad welcome to the New Century, but a solemn tolling would have been a fitter thing, for the Republic of Washington was no more. It had died so peacefully, that the world could not believe the tidings of its passing away. As the dawn broke cold and gray, and its first dim light fell upon that shattered dome glorious even in its ruins, a single human eye, filled with a gleam of devilish joy, looked up at it long and steadily, and then its owner was caught up and lost in the surging mass of humanity that held the Capitol girt round and round.’

    • T
      T says:

      The ‘single human eye’ looking over the blown up capital dome in The Last President is a clear reference to freemasonry. ‘The glorious revolution is in its brightest bud’ is apparently referring to England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 of which much of the American Revolution of 1776 is said to have derived. And is ‘since the President called upon us to convene in last March, we have with the strong blade of public indignation, and with a full sense of our responsibility, erased from the statute books the marks of our country’s shame and our people’s subjugation. Liberty can not die…’ an allusion to the Ides of March where Julius Caeser was assasinated by the knives of the Roman Senate? The Civil War which followed marked the final transition of the Roman Republic to dictatorship. If a president was assassinated a scenario such as that could play out in the US.

      Ingersoll Lockwood also wrote a couple of children’s book which interestingly has a young boy character, a Baron Trump, one of which involves his adventures with his dog Bulger in Russia where he makes an underground journey to enter a world within a world.

Comments are closed.