The Donald Trump Thread

A good analysis of Trump's missile strikes at Syrian state army by pananarchist and pansecessionist Keith Preston.

I especially liked this:

Specifically, it would appear that President Trump has capitulated to the wider neoconservative/neoliberal consensus in favor of undermining and destroying governments around the world, particularly those in the Middle East, which refuse to be incorporated into the international geopolitical paradigm represented by the Washington Consensus. Syria under the leadership of President Assad has long since rejected such incorporation.
Click to expand...
Trump's recent behaviour is, indeed, seems to be a full and unconditional capitulation, a surrender to the imperialistic Deep State of the USA which will never be satisfied with power it has grabbed already, and will ever seek for more. No single man can change the imperial system from within. Not even POTUS. Sooner or later we will witness a revolution and overthrow of the goverment - by destroying people's last hope of changing the system in a legal way, Deep State types are making civil war scenario inevitable.
 
I think the question is what is the proper use of military force and when should it be used?

John Schindler has talked about this, how he opposed excessive use of this force by Bush but also decried the unwillingness of Obama to utilize military power when (arguably) necessary. Will try to find the article.
 
Steve Pieczenik (who was once interrogated by Assad's father) is pissed about the looming ground invasion of Syria and the nonsense of the neocons.

Threatens McMaster Mathis and Trump with legal action and retaliation if they continue with this insanity.

 
Obumpa's Assad CW speeches comparison

New boss same as old boss.

If there's any very small ray of hope it's that Trump's body language communicates a lot less enthusiasm about betraying the American people than Obama's. Maybe there is still a Jiminy Cricket in there somewhere that will reassert itself, but I'm not optimistic.
 
I suppose it was wishful thinking to believe an outsider could stand up to the shadow government backed by the intelligence community, three branches of blackmailed tools, and a compliant news media. If they can't blackmail you, and you aren't intimidated by threats of faked blackmail evidence, then by the time you realize what you are up against, they can threaten to kill you and your family - and you know they can get away with it because they briefed you on all the suspicious deaths that were murders. When everyone else will do what they are told, what can one person do?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if the Syria gas attack was a false flag op, but it seems like a good time to repost this:

Jim_Smith said:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-03/false-flags-are-just-conspiracy-theor-admitted-fact

False Flags Are Just a Conspiracy Theor ... Admitted Fact
Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria.
...
(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.
...
(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland.
...
(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings
...
(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits
...
(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran
...
(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece ... and blamed it on Greece
...
(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.
...
(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.
...
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
...
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy.
...
(25) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9 civilians. Official documents from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the British government) show that the mastermind of the bombing was a British agent, and that the bombing was designed to inflame sectarian tensions.
...
(31) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa subsequently admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

​
Click to expand...
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
Heh - Why Kushner and not Bannon?
Click to expand...
From what I've heard, Kushner is a lifelong Democrat Zionist neo-lib. Bannon was one of the few remaining Trump advisors opposed to War in Syria which is why there reportedly heated debates between Bannon and others on the NSC and Kushner leading to Bannon getting demoted off the NSC just prior to the strike.

Also wasn't Trump a mastermind, a Trickster? Now it seems he's manipulated by whoever is in the room with him at the time?
Click to expand...

I repeatedly said he was the Trickster buffoon and we couldn't be sure whether he was lucky or wise. I said I was unsure of his character; but hopeful that he was sincere. And regardless of how he performed in office, I supported him at that time for the narrative for which he stood. I'm still glad I voted for him and glad he won because it validated a narrative and it invalidated the mainstream media. The mainstream media is again invalidated even in his betrayal because they instantly dropped their fiercest attacks and their Russian scare at the first sign that he had been captured by the Zionist Neocons. Once he attacked a sovereign nation violating his oaths and conscience, he became one of them - a blood brother.

If the same people who got him elected on an anti-globalist platform can rally together and get him impeached for his betrayal, that would be an even stronger validation of the narrative and a powerful signal that we're not fucking taking anymore imperialist globalist mind control false flag bullshit.

I think he was truly internally conflicted about the Syria strike and knows it was bullshit but was coerced into it. When there was the first inkling of a possibility that he could become president, a CIA taskforce was created to study him and profile him and learn where were all his weaknesses, buttons, levers, and skeletons in the closet. A plan was formulated for how best to control him. He made it through the campaign and inauguration in tact which says a lot... But after a couple months in office he succumbed to it, and maybe no person living could stand up to it. We don't know. I was hoping for at least a Trump kamikaze into the Deep State hull before capitulation: him getting on TV and telling everyone about all the lies... but it wasn't to be. Perhaps he's been told that if he crosses any of the Deep State's "red lines" they will press the nuclear button, and he feels like he has to go along for now to avert that. We can only make educated guesses.

Read listen to John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". This is how the Deep State takes down heads of state that don't cooperate: Profile them, attempt to corrupt them or blackmail them, and - if that fails - assassinate them. I guarantee you the same program was used on Trump and he was very close to getting the last resort.

For historical reference:

Hurmanetar said:
It's not so much about backing the buffoon as not believing the bullshit war propaganda.
Click to expand...

Hurmanetar said:
Steve said:
Trump's the monkey. The rest of the world's the soldiers!
Click to expand...
Lol That's exactly what I kept trying to say... :)
Trump is sort of like the anti-structure Trickster to the globalists' effort at oppressive mega-structure. He's the buffoon who wanders into the globalist party and bumbles around and at first everyone thinks he's here for entertainment and then his antics get more and more boisterous and destructive and you're not sure whether he's lucky or wise, but you're sure he's making a mess of all their plans. In this game he's the Jack and the Jacks are Trumps.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hurmanetar said:
I support Trump only because he is scoring points in the narrative war and because he is not a globalist. I think he sincerely wants to improve the situation in the country whereas any globalist puppet like Hillary wants to bring America down so that we cannot challenge the globalist system. I think the narrative war is important regardless of whether or not he actually can improve the situation in the country.

For example: Trump mentioned in the debate that the Fed is being political. They're keeping interest rates down through the election to keep the markets pumped up, and as soon as they raise rates there will be a huge crash as bubbles implode. If you are a puppet, you do not challenge the power of the Central Banks. That was probably Gaddafi's and Saddam's cardinal sin.

Even though Trump is a low-vocab asshole who may have been spiritually bankrupt for much of his life (perhaps he still is, I don't know enough to judge), what he is doing now I believe is at the very least gutsy and important. Whether it is for vain ambition or empathetic desire to help people (I assume a combination of both) it doesn't matter at this point because he is changing the narrative and challenging some very dangerous people.

Change the narrative, change the culture, change the world.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am starting to feel pleased that I didn't have a vote in the US election. I would certainly have voted for Trump, and would now feel very guilty. He got elected on his stated policy of disengagement with the rest of the world, but he now seems hell bent on war with Russia, and maybe China too :(

I guess we may all be entering non-physical reality sooner than we had expected.

David
 
malf said:
We'll never know for sure. Perhaps a leadership team with stronger, clearer foreign policy would have been more helpful.
Click to expand...

I'm only saying that because the hype against Russia was high right up until Trump won in early November. If Hillary had won her policy of imposing a no fly zone around Aleppo would have stirred the already hot pot. She made it clear that she would face up to Russia, which I think, was a very bad sign. If you ask me, she was a right nutter. Turns out Trump just took a few months to reach the same point. It's interesting what the domestic reaction of his supporters might be.
 
malf said:
We'll never know for sure. Perhaps a leadership team with stronger, clearer foreign policy would have been more helpful.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that US foreign policy has been absurd and irrational for decades now!

They deliberately provoked the Gulf of Tonkin incident that turned into the Vietnam war. They lost the war because they were helping to support a very unpopular dictator in the south of the country.

They helped install the Shah or Iran, who was hated so much, Iran became extremely hostile to the US.

The helped equip and train Islamic guerillas to attack and oust the Soviet regime in Afghanistan, without any thought or concern as to what would follow there. What followed was the Taliban!

They armed and supported Saddam Hussein until the day he invaded Kuwait. Then they let him stay in power until 2003, when they invented accusations of weapons of mass destruction to justify another attack on that country. In 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, they did absolutely nothing.

Etc etc in Libya, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine, Greece, South America,..........

They are also pushing various weapons systems into Eastern Europe as hard as they can go.

President Eisenhower warned about the 'Military Industrial Complex' and he was right.

See also:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/04/pipelines-tomahawks-and-the-syrian-gulf-of-tonkin/

David
 
Last edited:
David Bailey said:
The trouble is that US foreign policy has been absurd and irrational for decades now!
Click to expand...

We could go back further... Spanish-American War? Same. exact. pattern. of affairs over a hundred years ago.

Begins with a bang up false flag:
"The United States Navy battleship Maine was mysteriously sunk in Havana harbor;

The anti-war president is goaded into war:
"...political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid."

U.S. backs the rebels:
"Revolts had been occurring for some years in Cuba against Spanish rule. The U.S. later backed these revolts upon entering the Spanish–American War."

Mainstream Media arouses popular support:
"In the late 1890s, U.S. public opinion was agitated by anti-Spanish propaganda led by newspaper publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst which used yellow journalism to call for war." "You furnish the pictures; I'll furnish the war." -Hearst

The popular intelligent empathetic cynics rage... Mark Twain:
"We have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit's work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world."

The leaders exhibit schizophrenic justifications simultaneously admitting the war was about resources and empire while hypocritically claiming a humanitarian need to stop the devastation and destruction... Theodore Roosevelt:
"Our own direct interests were great, because of the Cuban tobacco and sugar, and especially because of Cuba's relation to the projected Isthmian [Panama] Canal. But even greater were our interests from the standpoint of humanity. ... It was our duty, even more from the standpoint of National honor than from the standpoint of National interest, to stop the devastation and destruction. Because of these considerations I favored war."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top