Dumping Flynn

Dumping Flynn looks weak and will encourage the left to go after more scalps. And the people that were after Flynn are seeking war with Russia and Syria. War is easy, peace is hard, for it is always easier to create disorder than maintain order.

But, on the other hand, Flynn was expendable. On studying his career, I find he was a neocon, and an advocate of Coin (counter insurgency warfare). There is no such thing as counter insurgency warfare. There is only warfare. The stronger force wins, the weaker force loses, unless a large outside power (the Soviet Union or the United States State Department) has its thumb on the scales. In warfare, you don’t worry all that much about hearts and minds, for if you have to choose between being loved and being feared, you choose to be feared. If choosing to be loved was a realistic option, it would not be war. It would be social work.

If every time someone shoots at you from a girl’s school, you incinerate the school with girls and teachers inside, people stop shooting at you from girl’s schools. Or, more likely, the girls decide to skip attending school for the duration of the war.

The reason the Taliban has defeated the US in Afghanistan is that the US forces are infested with lawyers, the political commissars of the State Department, while the Taliban is not. The Taliban has the close equivalent of lawyers, priests, but their priests are interested in winning, they are warrior priests, while the State Department, the Blue Empire, is more interested in defeating the Pentagon, the Red Empire, than defeating the Taliban. If one side is fighting by police rules, and the other fighting by warrior rules, of course the warriors will defeat the police.

So quite possibly Trump initially chose Flynn as a compromise candidate, to sooth his enemies until his Pentagon powerbase is more secure, and is merely ditching him earlier than planned.

The hard core Trumpist position is that Russia should be allowed to be Russia, rather than being forced to accept progressivism, but Muslims should be smacked around till they stop making war on us. To get the Pentagon behind this position, he needs to do a Grenada – decisively defeat some penny ante bunch of Islamic extremists, preferably in cooperation with Russia. Maybe set up safe zones in Syria with the cooperation of the Russian and Syrian government.

179 Responses to “Dumping Flynn”

    • viking says:

      Well a capable person could use this but Trump not so much. Of course a capable person would not have this happening to them.

      • peppermint says:

        (1) join the left in their refrain of this will be the end of Trump
        (2) ???
        (3) a republican ethno-state

      • jim says:

        Kind of think that the fact that Trump defeated the mainstream media to make himself president, and accurately predicted how his campaign would go, is pretty good evidence that he is a very capable person.

        He has come through worse crap, and it usually turns out he has a plan, and it works.

        • viking says:

          Kind of think Trump was elected despite his best efforts because hes a big fuck you to the system. the deep state has him isolated and are now taking him apart.
          No one would be happier than me if Im wrong but I cant pretend what I see.

          • jim says:

            Trump told us in advance how the campaign would go, and all unfolded as he predicted. He did not bumble into the presidency, he did not luck into the presidency, he knew his rise would be accompanied by great drama, and accurately described the drama years in advance.

            I find it hard to believe that he did not expect the permanent government to strike back. Pretty sure he made his catch phrase “You’r fired” in preparation for the events that are now unfolding.

        • SteveRogers42 says:

          Yup. He made billions of dollars in real estate development, while dabbling in publishing and entertainment, then entered a brand-new field at age 70 (!) and defeated the combined forces of the Democrats, the Establishment Republicans, and the MSM. Has a beautiful family, including a third supermodel wife on his arm. If this is “incapable”, I pray that God will allow me to be a stumblebum like Donald Trump.

          Also, none of his detractors ever seem to consider the possibility that the man who literally “wrote the book” on negotiation skills has developed the ability to “seem less than he is” in order to lull opponents into a false sense of security. I’m reminded of the scene in Casablanca where the Gestapo officer taunts Bogie with a line about “bumbling Americans”. Claude Rains pipes up with “Quite right. I was with them in 1918 when they bumbled their way into Berlin.”

  1. Mister Grumpus says:

    I can’t help but be worried about the “first scalp” frame, but also, I just HAVE TO remember that PDJT is the among the cleverest, most cunning and longest-time-preference mofos alive. As he wrote himself: “Hire great people, and then don’t trust them.”

    I’m not as smart as these people, but I AM smart enough to know that PDJT didn’t suddenly just wake up stupid all of a sudden.

    I’m betting — AND wishfully thinking — that this is PDJT throwing bacon onto the field, and taking notes on which dogs most ravenously pounce upon it. The Permanent Government is powerful and dangerous, obviously, but they’ve also been winning (unopposed) for SO LONG now that they’ve lost their patience and self-criticism, and are therefore vulnerable to getting long-conn’ed by a proper Keyser Soze. Or at least that’s what I’m hoping.

    • Cavalier says:

      “PDJT”

      God-Emperor Trump, mein Freund.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        GEDJT.

        • EH says:

          Gidget? Donald don’t surf. (Though we think he should)

          That Clash song has some good lyrics:

          Everybody wants to rule the world
          Must be something we get from birth …

          We’ve been told to keep the strangers out
          We don’t like them starting to hang around
          We don’t like them all over town
          Across the world we are going to blow them down

          The reign of the super powers must be over
          So many armies can’t free the earth
          Soon the rock will roll over
          Africa is choking on their Coca Cola

          It’s a one a way street in a one horse town
          One way people starting to brag around
          You can laugh, put them down
          These one way people gonna blow us down

          Charlie don’t surf he’ll never learn
          Charlie don’t surf though he’s got a gun …

  2. Mister Grumpus says:

    As for PDJT signaling the pre-pre-sale of conflict with Russia over Crimea, I’m expecting/hoping that’s another bacon-toss onto the field too. Canvassing his own government for the people who THINK they’re winning again and can’t resist the juicy succulent temptation to gloat and victory-lap themselves right into the helicopter.

    “Yo Vlad. I need some help with this one. It’s gonna get noisy for a while but we’ll be the real heroes before the credits roll.”

  3. Tommy Judea says:

    In the Taliban, everyone is a priest, a sacrificer: “Allahu akbar, chop chop”. Jihad is the great sacrament of an otherwise rather bookish religion. No doubt that has its advantages in warfare but also the problem of holiness spirals. A serious program of divide and conquer could work against them though in entails a willingness for long-term war.

    • peppermint says:

      》Jihad is a sacrament, and Jihad against dar al-Harb

      》eating Jesus, carrying the Cross, praying for your enemies, seeing non-Christians as brothers and renouncing conquest of them

      Islam is superior to christcuckoldry, but Whites are superior to muds. Best case scenario is Whites abandon christcuckoldry, become White Sharia space marines, curbstomp muds.

      • Tommy Judea says:

        Nuts! Christianity is obviously superior if you want to live in a nation rather than an empire or isolated tribe, if you want your sovereign to treat you with true reciprocity rather than according to the whims of his desires, his power over you being proof that God wills it. There is nothing in Christianity that outlaws just war against an enemy. And earlier generations saw no trouble invoking the truth of Christian revelation to stomp out cults of human sacrifice around the world. Your choice is basically binary: eat “Jesus” and fight for a world without human sacrifice (or become a Jew), OR eat your enemies.

        Cuckoldry is a sign that the true faith no longer holds.

        • peppermint says:

          》sovereign to treat you with reciprocity
          You mean like the US government has over the past 150 years or the traitor-king of Spain just did?

          》his power over you being proof that God wills it.
          So basically, you crave dhimmitude the way women crave rape.

          Well, I guess my insults are just a cross for you to bear, faggot. You should thank me for helping you get brownie points with ((Yahweh)), and when I rape a baby in your wife, you should revere it as a gift of ((Yahweh)) and a chance to prove that you understand that ((Jesus))’ kingdom is not of this world and neither are you.

          Blessed are the White Sharia rape gangs, they shall inherit the Earth.

          • Tommy Judea says:

            Clueless, when it comes to solving the prisoner’s dilemma, which is the point of religion. Your utopia will last about as long as any Sharia gang’s.

            • jim says:

              Solving prisoner’s dilemma is hard. Pretty obvious that today’s Christianity does not solve it, or even help with it. How did older versions of Christianity solve it or help with it?

              If we are going to survive, need to invent, or reinvent, a religion.

              Assume the King makes you archbishop. What are you going to do about prisoner’s dilemma?

              • Tommy Judea says:

                In the beginning was the word… and the word was God.

                In reaction to classical empire we had, in the West, the discoveries of the Jews and Christians that you could rework traditional ancestor worship and equalitarian religion (primitive trbal religion) as a response to the limits of multiculti empire in maintaining a meaningful reciprocity between ruler and ruled, emperor and slave. You could choose new forefathers and prophets and their models of reciprocity in which an ideal relationship of sovereign and subject is postulated, say on the model of God and Abraham in covenant.

                Very long story, very short, the search for that ideal has been continual and seen many successes and failures. But if we were to point to the strengths of Western civilization in human self-understanding, political/military power, a global science and markets, etc., we couldn’t well explain these without the Judeo-Christian imperative to maximize reciprocity between sovereign and subject on the model of the One God’s covenants. Those who love their king will go to great lengths to expand their national power around the world, and it is the Christian re-membering of the original human basis for reciprocity that allows this. Victorian Britain for example is a success of Christianity even if it carried forces of national and religious dissolution with it. No human order ever exists without contradictions that can lead to failures.

                I don’t know if the future requires a return to more orthodox, non-leftist, Christianity rather than a more radical abstraction or re-membering of our traditions in some new kind of religion.

                If the king makes me archbishop, i’m going to tell him that, first, he must remember that he is the head of the church and of the nation, and that power creates its own tradition. Power is not “downstream of culture”. Religious truth must strive to serve the sovereign. Since Anglicanism has failed, he is going to have to start from scratch, with not enough religion yet to go around and no way to simply invent it out of thin air. First, he is going to have to convene the existing religious leaders, including the leftist political religions, and make clear that since his kingdom has emerged from the civil wars as the one that can hold the central power in this territory, all existing religions must act in a way that respects that sovereignty. So certain things will be outlawed, and all religions owe him some significant degree of support.

                Since the king is the emissary of God, and since “God” was the first word of humanity, and shared language is the basis of all human reciprocity since it never stops trying to name God, we have the tools to develop new disciplines of attending to duties and reciprocities, i.e. new acts of faith. Since shared faith is the real road to human self-understanding, we are going to emphasize humanistic education and outlaw the social sciences whose purpose is to question what we must take on faith, i.e. central authority, God, the mysteries of shared Being that cannot be reduced to logical or falsifiable propositions in game theory. Those who will say this “commandeered” centrality is a crime, that we need social science to question, because they cannot get over the paradox that any representation of the sovereign as rooted in tradition only creates that tradition through the commandeering act of representation, will be sent to schools where love of paradox is taught. Socially awkward young men who cry “fag” when they hear of such will be sent to the army boot camp where sergeants will pound respect for the paradoxes of power into them.

                The archbishop will see his role as helping the king remember what he owes his people and what the people owe the king and this will entail a thickening of the new religion as we proceed from the civil war, a thickening that will be founded on a Western identity so that the best in our traditions can be reworked by those duly enrolled in the disciplines of sovereignty and see the need to build myths and rituals around it. In time we can muse on the degree to which we are now still Christian but won’t allow overly dogmatic answers. There will be no way to measure it anyway.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hey numbnuts, you’re writing ideas here, not a goddamn sermon. Get to the point.

                  Thickening of religion is the kind of metaphor I expect from a priest. What makes a good priest is different from what makes a good archbishop. Priests cajole the laywomen to do the right thing for themselves and in the eyes of God by dating niggers. Archbishops expel anyone exuding the stench of non-Jewish racial pride which smells like virulent anti-Semitic hate.

                  I assume humanistic education means either Renaissance or some other Greco-Roman modeled program, which you would call Judeo-Christcucked. If so, while Aristotle didn’t himself look into biology to understand human behavior, hyelomorphism is the closest he could get to realism, and he would surely appreciate modern evolutionary logic.

                  I know exactly what religion we need – biological nationalism as the weltanschauung, esoteric Kekism as the practice, White Sharia as the religious law.

                  Biological nationalism is manifestly true and pre-evolutionary pseudoscience already swept your humanistic education off the field, and you can’t even blame Jews, since you worship them.

                  The word Judaeo-Christianity came from the enumeration of what religions were allowed in America as opposed to forbidden mahometanism, bizarre spiritual cults, and atheism. It has since replaced every other origin story for American ideas, because of the mono-megalo-mania of Jews and those who worship Jews, and pretty much entirely lost, except that it’s penumbra of spiritualism and all lives matter is the biggest obstacle to 14w.

                  Esoteric Kekism is a middle finger to spiritualists and also stands for anonymous shitposting and checking dubs. Anonymity and respect for random posts is essential to the development of political theories. Everyone should have an altar to Kek and no one should respect a fag in a dress trying to get their wife to tell him their innermost secrets.

                  White Sharia Law is the legal doctrine that White men are supreme over muds and women as well as a middle finger to christcucks.

                • peppermint says:

                  Now answer the 14 goddamn questions you fucking faggot

                • Tommy Judea says:

                  Keep screaming, and maybe one day you will kill someone, get some pussy and settle down. (Then you won’t have to keep shouting fag to convince your dubious friends). You will get a little fat and then, boom, out of nowhere some eighteen-year-old gangsters will remind your decadent ass of Sharia law. So, no hope for you!

                • peppermint says:

                  Hypothetically, if I had a daughter who tried to shame my family, I would be happy if a White Sharia rape gang set her straight.

                  Now answer my fourteen simple questions you raging homosexual.

          • Tommy Judea says:

            P.s.

            》his power over you being proof that God wills it.
            So basically, you crave dhimmitude the way women crave rape.

            Clueless, if you don’t see that a religion in which Allahu Akbar means my killing you is proof that Allah wills it (otherwise I’d fail cause Alla wills everything, and does not bind himself in covenants with man) is a religion that can’t build much in the way of a civilization that, among all the other things, would be able to put technically and morally sophisticated militaries in the field, send fire up your Jihadi ass at a button’s push…..If the history of Arab military greatness doesn’t convince you, i Don’t know what will…. Sharia gangs fill decadent vacuums, nothing else. I admit that true religion is hard to grasp as it has many failures in supposed followers, like the present-day West. But a thinking person can distinguish a religion’s failures from its truths. The “truth” of Islam is, if I kill you, Allah, for some reason, wills it. And anyone who thinks that is the solution to the prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t think, which is why Islam has outlawed thinking, so why do you even pretend to…?

            • peppermint says:

              You’re a faggot openly worshipping your greatest racial enemy and shamelessly using his name an your last name, calling me clueless when you don’t see the contradiction between rule by right of conquest and rule by some kind of consensus of reciprocity from the sovereign. Answer the following questions:

              (1) If I rape a baby into your wife, will you command her to abort?
              (2) Does she have the obligation to abort if you comand her?
              (3) Do women have the same moral agency as men?
              (4) If a priest told you your daughter was married to a nigger, would you recognize that marriage?
              (5) Would it be acceptable to pay a White man to rape a baby into her to cuck the nigger?
              (6) Do nigger have the same moral agency as men?
              (7) Do we have an obligation to set up bible study groups for niggers?
              (8) Do we have an obligation to feed the hungry niggers, clothe the naked niggers, and permit our women to comfort the imprisoned niggers?
              (9) Is it good to worship filthy rat kikes?
              (10) Team Esau or Team Jacob?
              (11) Do all lives matter?
              (12) Is meme magic real?
              (13) Is personal immortality possible?
              (14) Is there anything more important than the 14w?

              Esoteric Kekism, Biological Naziism, and White Sharia Law have clear answers to these questions. Various forms of cuckoldry also have clear answers.

              • Tommy Judea says:

                Of course all sovereignty is the fruit and right of conquest. You are confused if you think my invocation of reciprocity means anything else. A sovereign conquers and then he has to rule. And rule, whether you are a pagan, Christian, Nazi, Jew or Muslim, an emperor, a leader of a nation, or tribe, involves you in processes of reciprocity: you were with me in the war of conquest, i will give you and your descendants, this title and privileges and expect of you certain things in return. …

                All possibly conceivable human society is a series of gift exchanges, i.e. reciprocity. A sovereign who wants to be powerful wants to maximize exchange, reciprocity, without that leading to divided power, e.g. an empire bound to fall apart. How to do this? There is no quick answer to a fundamental question. I only point out that historically Christian countries achieved a lot more than Muslim ones. Anyway, nothing in your snark suggests you have a good grasp of the problem: your obsession with cuckoldry shows you to be a man who would take few risks to maximize reciprocity, to make your society collectively strong if that were to make the individual man’s position more uncertain and paradoxical, that might make each man potentially feel less secure than a tribal chief unusually good at killing potential rivals (though most tribesmen are deeply insecure) or an emperor commanding many divisions (but no emperor is loved and defended like some Jewish and Christian national sovereigns have been). But uncertainty need not be destructive, i.e. a loss in the prisoner’s dilemma, if each man is strong in his shared national faith.

                A patriarchal hierarchy works if all men feel they have a stake in it. Hence monogamy and a religion that tries to secure what from some perspectives doesn’t look as secure as having ten wives. By the way, men who have ten wives often loan them out to men with whom they want political or commercial alliance, though they claim the children for their own (since the women do the work of feeding them). They don’t live in fear of cuckoldry: it makes them stronger! But then they are what you call noggers. And yes there are limits to what that kind of reciprocity can achieve. Your fear of cuckoldry is the product of a loss of faith in the kind of faith that once sustained the unavoidable uncertainties of monogamous reciprocity, a reciprocity that breaks down in a multiculti society of strangers always on the move.

                But you think you have clear answers to the uncertainties…. The only faggots i truly respect are the ones who openly admit that the Nazis were a homoerotic cult. That shows an openness to truth i don’t see in a man who advocates Nazism but seems to live in fear of faggotry. If you are not going to hate women, you have to learn to live with the possibility she might cuck you and you have to do that in a way that makes you more productive, more attractive, not less. That means engaging other men in rules that maximize reciprocity, punishing adultery with extreme prejudice, etc.

                A civilization that maximizes its power by maximizing reciprocity, its system of exchange, lives with paradoxes. One of the greatest achievements of Western civilization is allowing women to choose their husbands (paradoxical because women only crave “rape” from the men they want, and the proof of such a man, is not, first of all, in the willingness to rape), not that that gives her a right to expect her family won’t disown her if she makes a stupid choice and marries outside the nation/faith. As for rape and abortion I suspect you know damn well what Jewish law has to say about that. And we’re still alive and, in Israel, reproducing unlike any other Western people. Maybe that has something to do with the way both sexes are valued and empowered while being treated as most definitely different and bound accordingly by laws. No doubt your family’s survival would be on shakier ground if I raped your wife than if you raped mine. But you would go down with all the righteousness of the German nation that can’t stop trying to commit suicide since it became “Enlightened”.

                Now, Jim’s question to me deserves a much more serious answer and i’m going to try to offer a first small step of one later, knowing full well that if we had an answer it would be known, but that we can only approach it today by first steps to a piecemeal recovery of faith in a future for Western civilization. Islam claims to be the aboriginal truth of all men; it destroys all memory of what came before it when it conquers. As such it can be no answer for someone who wants an identity as a white man unless he is truly so shallow to think whiteness is nothing but a quirk of biological evolution. The West must recover an identity by remembering many things from its past, including the pre- and post- Christian past. I’m not saying this memory has to be Christianity in any specific form, but if he thinks there are no human truths in Christianity to remember and rework, he is lost.

                But please forgive my impudent curiosity. I really want to hear you explain esoteric kekism, and the white part of White Sharia law.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “And we’re still alive and, in Israel, reproducing unlike any other Western people.”

                  And now it all makes sense.

                  P.S. Not a Western people.

                  P.P.S. “By the way, men who have ten wives often loan them out to men with whom they want political or commercial alliance, though they claim the children for their own (since the women do the work of feeding them). They don’t live in fear of cuckoldry: it makes them stronger!”

                  Thanks for the great belly laugh.

                  P.P.P.S. Q: How was copper wire invented?

                  A: Two Jews fighting over a penny.

                • peppermint says:

                  Paragraph 1: spin the hamster wheel

                  Paragraph 2: defending monogamy on the weakest grounds possible without reference to White particularity or the incentives created by strict monogamy

                  » All possibly conceivable human society is a series of gift exchanges, i.e. reciprocity.

                  what the fuck is this shit

                  » Your fear of cuckoldry is the product of a loss of faith

                  faggot cuck bitch

                  Paragraph 3: » If you are not going to hate women, you have to learn to live with the possibility she might cuck you

                  faggot bitch cuck

                  Paragraph 4: » Nazis were a homoerotic cult.

                  fuck you kike. men doing stuff together with no women around is normal and faggots and kikes go to bogs and ovens

                  Paragraph 5: » One of the greatest achievements of Western civilization is allowing women to choose their husbands

                  that White women have the right to say yes or no is the style of marriage that evolved with the White race, not an achievement of lawyers, and certainly not any kind of social progress you bitch faggot SJW cuck

                  Paragraph 6: » so shallow to think whiteness is nothing but a quirk of biological evolution.

                  supernaturalist faggot

                  now answer the 14 goddamn questions you niggerloving faggot cuck bitch

                • Alfred says:

                  Comment section has done a lot for my jewdar senses.

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  @Alfred: Well, when the pseudonymous last name is ‘Judea’, he’s not making hard.

                  Saw this recently, can’t remember if it was here or elsewhere: ‘if our morality is Judeo-Christian, do we worship Judeo-Christ?’

      • oogenhand says:

        Islam is too soft on Christians. Muslims consider Christians to be People of the Book.
        Odinists consider Christians to be apostates. And you do want to capture White virgins, don’t you?!

  4. TTAAC says:

    “So quite possibly Trump initially chose Flynn as a compromise candidate, to sooth his enemies until his Pentagon powerbase is more secure, and is merely ditching him earlier than planned.”

    Unlikely. As you yourself have pointed out, Trump values loyalty, and Flynn has been loyal to him since the very beginning of his Presidential campaign–long before his cabinet picks got onboard. The National Security Adviser is among the closest advisers to the President, very frequently surpassing the Senate-confirmed heads of Defense and State in authority and influence, and even acting as an alternative conduit of classified information to Presidents (like Nixon) skeptical of the CIA. (Flynn, the former chief of the DIA, may well have been chosen precisely for this purpose.) It would make no sense for Trump to “compromise” on a position so crucial, particularly when the NSA’s significance is closely related to the fact that he is the President’s man–not subject to the consent of the Senate. Moreover, if Trump DID want to compromise, he probably wouldn’t have chosen someone who has openly declared Islam a “cancer.”

    Without getting into your theories on counter-insurgency (which, I must concede, ARE more credible than your theories about Obama being a Kenyan non-citizen, women not being harmed or impregnated by rape, and there being no gas chambers at Auschwitz, no famines in British-controlled India–later retracted–and zero wrongful lynchings in American history), I don’t think Flynn is a neocon (“renegade Jew” Bill Kristol is cheering right now), but rather a dove on Syria and a hawk on Iran. That is somewhat similar to Israel’s position (they’ve dealt with Assad or his father for decades and are not pushing for “regime change” in Damascus; however, they are more concerned about being encircled by Iran or Hezbollah than they are by al Nusra on their border), yet given the close alliance between Russia, Syria, and Iran it doesn’t necessarily make sense as U.S. policy.

    Trump initially vowed to enforce, rather than renounce, the JCPOA until Low Energy Jeb and Little Marco forced him to change his position; even then, it was always obvious that walking away from the nuclear deal on day one would be untenable. Trump also noted in one of the debates with Hilary that Iran was fighting ISIS, but the administration appears determined to crack down on Iran’s support for the Houthis in Yemen (longtime Iran hawk “Mad Dog” Mattis was recently pushing for the U.S. to interdict Yemen-bound weapons from the Iranian navy). Sometimes Leftists will note the inconsistency of working with Iran in Syria while fighting them in Yemen, but they are equally inconsistent: Loudly screaming “Hands off Iran!” while fervently advocating for the overthrow of Iran’s closest Arab ally, the “butcher” Assad. (Only neocons support “regime change” in BOTH Damascus and Tehran.) It’s almost enough to make me think there is some underlying logic to the Republican and Democratic positions on Iran that is not apparent to an outside observer such as myself.

    It’s not clear to me that the alt right is any more united on Iran than the Trump administration is. (((Moldbug))) apparently considered Iran a serious threat, but maybe he had ulterior motives. Other alt rightists on Social Matter have loudly praised Iran for protecting the Shi’ites of the Middle East. (You’ve asserted as an axiom without evidence that Carter “installed” Khomeini into power.) What, exactly, do alt rightists think about Iran and its nuclear program, besides being aware that Persians are nowhere near as dumb as Arabs?

    But, to get back to the topic, we don’t want Trump surrounded by neocon advisers. Unlike W., the former isolationist governor of Texas, Trump is wise to the problem, hence the Elliot Abrams bait-and-switch at State. Flynn’s departure actually strengthens the neocon balance-of-power in the administration. In addition, the Deep State obviously despises Flynn, or it wouldn’t have illegally leaked transcripts of his conversation with the Russian ambassador. So this isn’t good news.

    • jim says:

      If you believe there was one clearly wrongful lynching of a black man in all of American history, name him.

      And if women, rather than their husbands, were significantly harmed by rape, they would try harder to avoid it and would make more fuss about the rapeugees. You don’t see businessmen wandering in dark alleys with a bulging wallet hanging out of each of their two top pockets. Revealed preference.

      What, exactly, do alt rightists think about Iran and its nuclear program, besides being aware that Persians are nowhere near as dumb as Arabs?

      Not really our problem. Let the Israelis worry about it. I am more worried about Iran’s tendency to succumb to progressivism and Cathedral soft power, than its nuclear program. That is pretty much why they installed Khomeini and it is working, somewhat to my surprise. I thought Muslims were better at resisting the Cathedral.

      • TTAAC says:

        As you know, even if your “revealed preference” is accurate, it would not follow that women aren’t harmed by rape (let alone that Todd Akin was right).

        The white woman that accused Emmet Till recently admitted she made it up. Is there really any reason to doubt that many black lynching victims were also wrongly accused?

        Scott Alexander’s “Thrive/Survive Theory of the Political Spectrum” provides a more compelling explanation for the “Progressive” features of Iranian society than “Cathedral soft power.”

        • jim says:

          As you know, even if your “revealed preference” is accurate, it would not follow that women aren’t harmed by rape (let alone that Todd Akin was right).

          Female anatomy indicates that Todd Akin is right. The cervix is a pair of lips, that are normally closed. What are lips for, but to allow the entrance of some things and deny entrance to other things? A woman’s cervix opens when she is sexually excited and in her fertile period.

          Evolutionary psychology predicts that women will vigorously resist, but not vigorously avoid, rape, which is what I observe in practice. And you can see it on You Tube videos. Given this predicted and revealed preference, how does rape harm the individual woman, rather than harming the men who should have charge of her sex life?

          The harm done by rape, is the same as the harm done by seduction. It is theft against the men who should have charge of her sexual and reproductive services. It is not harm against the individual woman.

          The white woman that accused Emmet Till recently admitted she made it up. Is there really any reason to doubt that many black lynching victims were also wrongly accused?

          Not a lynching. A lynching is done openly by high status people in front of a crowd. That was a murder, done furtively by a low status person in secret. She made up that Emmet Till hit on her violently, she did not make up that he hit on her. When you hit on someone else’s wife, it is dangerous, irrespective of your race.

          • TTAAC says:

            To repeat: If Emmet Till was wrongfully accused, then why should we assume that all of those lynched were rightfully accused? What difference does a crowd make?

            There was a very famous case in California where a convicted serial rapist of Hispanic background (caught in the act by a police officer) abducted an 11-year-old blonde girl by knocking her out with a stun gun while she was walking to a bus stop on her way to school (the abduction had several witnesses, including the girl’s stepfather, who attempted to pursue the rapist’s car on his bicycle). The rapist drove her to his house three hours away from the crime scene, and upon arriving he raped her immediately. The girl spent much of her first thirty four months in captivity in handcuffs, after which she was allowed somewhat greater freedom. She lived in a soundproofed warehouse in the rapist’s backyard; she subsisted almost entirely on fast food, and was never allowed to see a doctor or a dentist. The rapist, who was out on parole at the time and was visited by parole officers on many occasions, kept the girl as his sex slave for 18 years, during which time she was impregnated twice, giving birth to two daughters. Evidently pregnancy by rape does happen.

            Maybe this is an extreme example and the girl developed a sort of Stockholm Syndrome during her prolonged captivity, but I doubt she was ever particularly aroused by her rapist. In an interview from last year–seven years after she was discovered–she stated that she had never been on a date in her life and–while she wished she could–she was unsure if she would ever be capable of being in a romantic relationship with a man. I chose this case primarily because there can be no argument about whether the girl consented to any of it.

            (Based on the testimony of the rapist’s earlier victim–who reemerged after this story went viral and attended the rapist’s trial for kidnapping, rape, and false imprisonment–I have no doubt that she is still haunted by the experience. But, hey, I guess she asked for it by picking him up as a hitchiker.)

            • jim says:

              To repeat: If Emmet Till was wrongfully accused, then why should we assume that all of those lynched were rightfully accused? What difference does a crowd make?

              If I had killed that man in the elevator, as he feared that I might, would that constitute a lynching also? If not, why not? These things happen all the time, they are happening today, it is one of the major causes of murder, right now today, they are not lynchings, and race has nothing to do with it.

              In primitive societies men killing men over women is the major cause of death, and we have not changed all that much. No one cares about race nearly as much as they care about sex. I am reminded of the conversation that Napoleon Chagnon had with a tribesman over the academic theory that primitive tribes fought each other for hunting grounds. “We like meat, but we like pussy more”.

              Evidently pregnancy by rape does happen.

              It happens when women rather enjoy rape. Why do you think he eased the restrictions on her?

              • Jack Highlands says:

                Jim, I understand your point, but there’s nothing to be gained by invoking supernatural biology. There’s no reason to think the cervix is much of a servant to the frontal lobes at any time, let alone in the middle of a rape. A woman can no more control her reproductive system when she’s being fucked then I can control mine two seconds before I ejaculate in her.

                Also, those swimmers are damned determined. Even if she could tighten up that cervix squeakier than a mouse’s fart, there are 10^8 swimmers per cum, and it only takes one.

                • peppermint says:

                  You seem to be suffering from a dualistic spiritualism in which you posit a spirit and will separate from the flesh. In reality sex is pre-rational behavior and women like being raped.

                  Women don’t have control over the cervix the way they have control over their breathing, but they actually have limited control over anything.

                  If a woman believes she’s being raped by a low-status man and she belongs to her husband, she won’t be as turned on by it as if she believes her husband is her equal partner or whatever and the man who’s raping her has a right to be angry.

                  That is why we must tell our women that they are living under White Sharia Law.

          • viking says:

            Gotta say JIM if some niggers raped your deceased wife it would wipe that shit right off your face. I really cant for the life of me imagine what youre trying to accomplish except youve smack talked yourself into a corner.

            • peppermint says:

              Is there a purpose to that insult?

              • viking says:

                What this Minime jim?
                Its not an insult at all its simply pointing out to him in terms he can understand that this line of reasoning is stupid, it may play well to little neckbeard fags who never had a girlfreind but to those of us with wives daughters sisters and mothers its pretty disturbing and moronic sounding even to those of us who understand sexual dimorphism.

                • peppermint says:

                  White Sharia Law is the doctrine that if you fingerbang a thot behind a dumpster the only crime that could possibly be committed is her refusing to follow you home and make you a sammich.

                  White Sharia rape gangs exist to bullycide thots into being the Aryan princesses they wanted to be as children. Too many young women become thots or settle for being Arab princesses and pimped out.

                  If women didn’t want to be raped, they wouldn’t get raped by sand and dirt niggers. Sand and dirt niggers are retarded. If somebody’s doing the raping, it better be Whites. White men should raping thots behind dumpsters, grooming and raping thots, then taking them home as a wife, since the ideal partner count of a White woman is one and only a cuck would let someone else have a woman he’d claimed by grabbing her by the pussy.

                  Women want sexually aggressive men because that is a symbol of social power to protect their children and confident men because that is a symbol of competence. White men are beaten into behaving as unconfidently and unaggressively as possible. This confuses women. They would be much happier under White Sharia Law.

                  The only people who countersignal White Sharia Law are feminists, christcucks, boomer and genxer cucks, faggots, and of course mud “people”.

                  The defining act of marriage is the man has sex with the woman in a way that could result in a babby being formed. If the woman let the man rape her, that’s her consent. They can even have a party later that their whole families are invited to.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “thot”

                  What, are you a nigger speaking niggerspeak now?

                  “then taking them home as a wife”

                  just wife up that slut, lol

                  “if the woman let the man rape her, that’s her consent”

                  dude, consent is furnished by the parents

                  “The defining act of marriage is the man has sex with the woman in a way that could result in a babby being formed.”

                  haha no

                • peppermint says:

                  Thot is a great word because male feminists say that they have thoughts but in reality the most they have is maybe a thot now and then, and female feminists like being told they have thoughts but in reality they are thots.

                  White women have always had the final say on whether or not to accept a marriage proposal or elope, and usually had to put up a dowry and show their cleavage to get a good man to take them.

                  Babby forming sex has always been the defining act of marriage. Consent to babby forming sex is by definition marriage. There is literally no other definition and never has been, and marriages in the past could and have been annulled because after the wedding there never was consummation or the couple tried but weren’t able to form babby.

                • peppermint says:

                  The function of coeducation and wymyn’s studies departments in particular is to create thots

                • Cavalier says:

                  Thot is a great word, and niggers are based because they talk explicitly about alphadynamics, which insight they have because their sociosexual behavior puts bonobos to shame.

                  White women may have often been given more mate choice than other species of women, but the parents always had the final say, unless the woman in question ran off to become an actor.

                  The defining act of marriage is the generally irrevocable ownership, and legal subordination, of wife to man. The implicit purpose of marriage is to furnish the man with legitimate heirs, and of course if the wife is unwilling or unable to perform this most basic biological function, the marriage is eligible for annulment by the man. A romp in the hay doesn’t equate to marriage unless marriage is extracted from the man, either by female sexual agency (limited, though greater in white women, especially Hajnal white women), or by the father and his trusty shotgun.

                  There have always been bastard children.

                • peppermint says:

                  You’re talking as if women are furniture subject to all manner of contracts. B made a similar assertion that somehow a marriage could have arbitrary legal terms and even be bought out after the fact or whatever.

                  Marriage is pre-civilizational and certainly pre-lawyer.

                  That’s what White Sharia Law corrects.

                  If a father or other relative or guardian fails to prevent a woman from becoming a thot, she can be taken by the first Space Marine who takes an interest, and catladies can fund charities that provide dowries and domestic training to reformed thots.

                  The normal case is for the woman’s guardian to help her find a suitable suitor and put up the dowry. She has final say over which suitor to accept, takes the guardian’s dowry, and the guardian formally relinquishes all rights over her at the wedding. Hopefully the husband treats his father in law well.

                  Consent is decided by the woman, either consent to a suitor chosen by her guardian, or consent to the first Space Marine to take an interest by being a thot.

                • Cavalier says:

                  title

                  There are, or were, various forms of marriage, but the one thing they all have in common is the production of legitimate children. It is in no way unreasonable to assert that no legitimate children == no marriage.

                  You can have societal enforcement of tribal law with neither civilization nor lawyers. (Though there’s no way to know which meaning of “civilization” you’re using.)

                  “If a father or other relative or guardian fails to prevent a woman from becoming a [worthless slut]”

                  ftfy

                  Dowries occur in times of female surplus, when eligible mates are thin on the ground and cost of woman-ownership is high, and when such a man is so spoiled for choice that the father needs to pay him to take his little girl off his hands.

                  We live in no such times.

                  There’s something else that’s wrong with your argument, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Maybe that a Space Marine has no incentive to wife up a [worthless slut], and won’t—he has better options. Unless we’re talking about harems, in which case your cherished “white particularity” goes out the window.

                • jim says:

                  Dowries occur in times of female surplus, when eligible mates are thin on the ground and cost of woman-ownership is high, and when such a man is so spoiled for choice that the father needs to pay him to take his little girl off his hands.

                  We live in no such times.

                  If Daddy’s little girl does not get married quick, she is going to get pregnant, and dad will be stuck with the cost of supporting her. Except that today Uncle Sam the big Pimp looks after her, so no problem. Remove Uncle Sam the big pimp, the supply of marriageable females markedly increases.

                • peppermint says:

                  Dowries exist because the woman’s guardian wants her to have the best possible husband and future, and furthermore the dowry is a wedding present for the couple.

                  The opposite custom, in which a woman is sold like a nigger, is disgusting. What profit a man to take money and lose his genetic future?

                  The woman shows off her cleavage and her daddy’s car to her suitors. Then daddy gives the car to her husband and they drive off into the sunset.

                  As to forced marriage of thots, if I had the option of forcing the women I slept with into marriage, I would have slept with less women, which is a good thing, and I’d probably be married by now, which is also a good thing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “As to forced marriage of thots, if I had the option of forcing the women I [fucked] into marriage, I would have [fucked] less women, which is a good thing, and I’d probably be married by now, which is also a good thing.”

                  By your definition of marriage, you’ve married every woman you’ve ever [fucked]. By even the strictest possible interpretation of your definition of marriage, you could easily have forced a woman into marriage by simple failure (or “failure”) of berth control.

                • jim says:

                  Not so.

                  Under present circumstances, impossible to marry every women you fuck. Indeed, very difficult to marry even one of the many women that I fuck. Right now there is a woman whom I would very much like to marry, because I seem to have gotten her pregnant, and it is not easy.

                  It would make me very happy to once again have a woman in my bed every night, cooking my meals, keeping my house clean, hanging out with me and keeping me company. It would make me very happy to have a young child of mine around the house. But all of these things that I very much want are very difficult. I now see why my sons are having so much trouble. Under present circumstances it is very difficult for men and women to cooperate for reproduction and family formation, and I am struggling with those difficulties right now. Even when you are old, fat, and bald, as I am, and casual sex becomes increasingly difficult, casual sex is still a whole lot simpler than family formation.

                  We need to make casual sex more difficult and dangerous, and family formation a lot easier and safer, for right now I am experiencing how difficult and dangerous family formation is in the modern world. I do not trust her, and she does not trust me. If only we could make enforceable marital contracts, we would make one in an instant.

                • Cavalier says:

                  This was Peppermint’s definition of marriage:

                  “Babby forming sex has always been the defining act of marriage. Consent to babby forming sex is by definition marriage. There is literally no other definition and never has been”

                  By this standard, marriage is not a societal agreement, nor a legal contract, nor is there any difference between legitimate and illegitimate children. Also, prostitution defies reality, and town bicycles are a modern fiction.

                  “because I seem to have gotten her pregnant”

                  Congratulations.

                  “Even when you are old, fat, and bald, as I am, and casual sex becomes increasingly difficult, casual sex is still a whole lot simpler than family formation.”

                  If she’s pregnant, do you not already hold the strategic-evolutionary upper-hand?

                • peppermint says:

                  Right now casual sex is too easy, including with mud “people”, and women are subtly and not so subtly encouraged to have casual sex with mud “people” and not to get married.

                  We need to make White men more desirable by decriminalizing non-abusive “spousal abuse”, while making mud “people” less desirable by having then executed for the crime of touching a White woman, the opposite of the current situation.

                  We need to keep women off the cock carousel by banning “education” of women. Many women my age were virgins until stuffed into the university system, and many more had only slept with the one guy who in the past would have married them prior to university education.

                  Instead of White men being terrified that the woman will accuse him of sexual harassment, rape, and abuse if he talks to her, has sex, or indulges her kinky fantasies of someone taking her control over the situation away, We need to make the woman afraid that if she sleeps with a man she thinks is beneath her he’ll trap her in marriage.

                  Cucks would countersignal this calling it White Sharia. Only cucks countersignal White Sharia.

                  Andrew Anglin’s practical strategy is to ban abortion of White babies and eliminate child support this forcing women into marriage, and ban abortion of all babies to ban abortion of White babies. Those measures may be helpful and are practical, but what we really want, and need, is White Sharia.

                  Explicitly calling for White Sharia makes liberals explain why goatfucker Sharia is okay for goatfuckers but Whites need feminism.

            • peppermint says:

              The usual way of doing things is to wrap a political point in an insult forcing the counterparty to respond to either the insult or the point, this is called bantz. Even when there isn’t a counterparty around, it’s useful to include insults in your general speech so dropping them can be seen as conciliatory.

              The Left knows this, of course, but the Left can’t do bantz, not because they lack insults, but because they lack points. Instead, they wrap vague accusations in insults and get enough Facebook likes or studio audience laughs that it has the impact of speaking power to truth.

              Speaking power to truth is funny because laughing is how people express their relief about a release of tension, and when power asserts itself, it resolves the challenge and everyone knows what’s expected again. Naturally, speaking power to truth isn’t an actual joke, so it’s only funny once, only kind of funny, and only funny to people who acknowledge the power.

              That’s why Jewish humorists, and their goyische talk show hosts, are revered by the Left but ignored by non-Leftists.

              • peppermint says:

                I once took a college course from a revered professorkin about what humor is. He babbled, recited a few jokes, and we wrote papers about Freud and dreams. That was fifteen years ago and the nature of humor should have already been known by then.

                Professors and christcucks must be killed.

              • pdimov says:

                I read somewhere, don’t remember where, in a blog comment probably, that the Left only has one insult, “you’re stupid”, and only one joke, “he’s stupid.”

          • jay says:

            There are real instance of trauma caused by the mismatch between the response of the body in females and her mind who hates what is happening to her.

            Women do get broken psychologically by rape and they are unmarriagable afterwards.

            • jim says:

              Bullshit. Women like to be raped. They like to resist with all their might, and they like their resistance to fail. And the harder they resist, the more they enjoy their resistance failing.

              It does not traumatize them in the slightest. Traumatizes their husbands though.

              • Jack Highlands says:

                Well, it pseudo-traumatizes them.

                When a desirable women with self-esteem is raped, there’s no trauma, because her hamster spins it into non-rape (is the casting couch coercive rape or a step along the way, and as for violent rape, the more desirable the woman, the less likely she is to put herself at risk, though of course it can happen.)

                When a woman with low self-esteem is raped (even if she is reasonably desirable), she will carry it ever after as a badge of victimhood, thus trauma. But she would have played the victim role anyway, because low self-esteem. Thus pseudotrauma.

                Note too that women with low self-esteem are the very ones most likely to commit, at their most desirable age, the mega shit-test of putting themselves at risk for violent rape.

                The high self-esteem chicks don’t too that because their whole lives consist of endless minor shit tests to their orbiters, forcing their less desirable sisters to risk it all on a few giant shit

              • viking says:

                very high correlation between old fat and bald and alimony child support. At the very least move to a state where default is shared joint physical custody, or slip her a ru46

            • TheBigH says:

              >There are real instance of trauma caused by the mismatch between the response of the body in females and her mind who hates what is happening to her.

              Gang rape is commonly used by primitives tribes to turn a women from her old life. After being gang raped the women is assigned to a man and she assumes loyalty to her new tribe. Probably what happened to Patty Hurst.

              >Women do get broken psychologically by rape and they are unmarriagable afterwards.

              Women who are unmarriagable only if the rapist is allowed to live. Once dead her bond with the rapist is broken and she more akin to a widow.

              • peppermint says:

                White Sharia Law also permits a woman’s husband to cut the hand off a man who grabs her by the pussy, but doesn’t extend this permission to the father of an unmarried woman, because when he can’t control her it’s time for that responsibility to shift to her husband.

        • jim says:

          Scott Alexander’s “Thrive/Survive Theory of the Political Spectrum” provides a more compelling explanation for the “Progressive” features of Iranian society than “Cathedral soft power.”

          Fails to explain the progressive features of Islamic decline around 1000BC, puritans in the period 1640-1660, French Revolution, etc. There have been outbreaks of leftism for at least 2000 years, maybe all the way back to the fall of the Bronze age civilizations, if “The Admonitions” is a report on events in Egypt happening at the time the papyrus is carbon dated to.

        • jim says:

          I was in an elevator with my girlfriend. It was not altogether obvious that we were together. A man smiled at her and said “Hi”. I put my hand lightly on her shoulder and stared at him stone faced. Pretty sure he was wondering if he would leave the elevator alive.

          These things still happen today, they are not lynchings, and race has nothing to do with it.

        • peppermint says:

          …was recently pressured into saying that she totally made it up because it was becoming embarrassing for commies…

      • Mackus says:

        If Iranians look pretty damn white, then Iranian Shiitism acts pretty damn christian, with its organised religious hierarchy and actual theological canon (unlike Arab Sunnis).
        Not terribly surprised they have similar strengths and vulnerabilities as Europeans.

    • peppermint says:

      》 Obama being a Kenyan non-citizen,

      Obama is probably a Kenyan because his father is presumably a Kenyan and prior to today’s racial politics people took the nationalities if their fathers. He is not an American because Americans are White. He is not a citizen because he is a Kenyan anchor baby.

      》women not being harmed or impregnated by rape,

      Women are not harmed by rape unless the rapist wants to harm the woman in addition and don’t get impregnated unless they are excited by being raped, which does often happen, but not always.

      》 and there being no gas chambers at Auschwitz,

      The shower room was not a gas chamber, but the gas chamber they used the zyklon-B to fumigate the clothing was a gas chamber

      》 zero wrongful lynchings in American history

      While it is true that all niggers deserve to be lynched, the ones that were actually lynched were guilty of serious crimes in addition to being niggers and the carpetbagger courts refused to prosecute for great Jesus. Leo Frank was also lynched because he committed a capital crime but the Jews got his sentence commuted.

  5. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Can one find a single modern major general who *isn’t* a COIN advocate (at least nominally)?

    • jim says:

      COIN is the red empire capitulating to the blue empire, so yes, they all advocate COIN nominally – much as they all advocate women in combat etc.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Not just an idle question, by the by. Genuinely curious is anyone can find at least one general who’s ‘off the reservation’ in terms of strategic vision on that front.

  6. Styr says:

    Trump is done?

    Alas, it only took a few weeks to nil the election result, thru SJW judges, sabotaging prog civil service drones, Soros-sponsered mayhem makers and non-stop onslaught of hysterical mass media agitprop.

    They wont stop until Trump is

    a) neutered cucked figurehead parroting prog talmudismo, or

    b) impeached & removed

    • jim says:

      How many announcements have we heard that Trump is done?

      • TTAAC says:

        “NY Times says Trump campaign had repeated contact with Russian intelligence”

        Whether there is any substance to the claims or not, this is looking pretty dire.

        • Mackus says:

          Those buzzwords don’t mean anything to 99% of people.
          Media were saying that Trump is Russian spy for so long, most people don’t even notice if this is anything different from their usual stuff.

        • jim says:

          It always looks dire. Can’t stump the Trump.

        • pdimov says:

          They would, wouldn’t they?

        • peppermint says:

          Suppose Putin was on the phone with Trump every day. How does that give the Left power over His Majesty?

        • TTAAC says:

          @Mackus: #TrumpImpeachmentParty was the number one trend on Twitter until fairly recently; Dan Rather is saying this could be worse than Watergate. The public will catch on that the charges are “4 realz” this time if the media beats them over the head with it often enough. (Indeed, months of innuendo have only conditioned it to believe, even without any hard evidence.) The Left was able to force Nixon out over a relatively minor and contrived scandal. Is it inconceivable they could do the same to Trump, even if we assume this is over a completely fictitious scandal? If the media no longer has the power to manufacture consent for impeachment, that is worth noting and celebrating. But this cannot go on much longer: It is clear there will be no putting off a major confrontation to determine once and for all whether Trump is the “legitimate” President.

          (Personally, I’m kind of surprised there hasn’t been even one serious attempt to assassinate Trump, despite all of the assassination porn in the media. Then again, Trump’s decision to supplement the Secret Service with his own private security that has been loyal to him for many years may provide a deterrent to any inside jobs.)

          • peppermint says:

            Suppose Trump was on the phone with Putin every day. How does that get the Royalist Congress to impeach Him?

            Especially now that the new leftist “strategy” is to call the pussy-grabbing cheeto the Republican Administration, call Royalist congressmen to harass and threaten them, and publicly call for Royalists to be beaten in the streets.

            Remember: this Russia hoaxing was initially an SJW countercoup to secure their control over the dhimmicrat party and related institutions when Michael Moore was calling for a socialist coup. Everyone who has an IQ over 100 and isn’t a hardcore dhimmicrat or Jew puppet knows it’s completely baseless.

            This will utterly destroy what remains of the reputation of the legacy media institutions within a few months.

            And while everyone is talking about totally pointless Russia hoaxes, the Israeli situation, and Flynn getting fired, and the utterly groundless political action of the Ninth Circuit,

            His Majesty is deporting beaners that the courts would have a better case for.

            • pdimov says:

              Trump isn’t done at all, but the fact that any CIA analyst can access the NSA database and leak the results to the press, and that some are willing to do so, with nobody from within stopping them, is a bit of a problem.

            • TTAAC says:

              Supposing that RINOs will not betray Trump in a feeble attempt to appease the Antifa mobs, and that 2018 and beyond is our major problem, it still seems plausible that any future Democratic-controlled Congress will impeach and convict Trump as soon as it has the votes to do so (if not because of the Russians, then because of Trump’s “conflicts of interest,” ect).

              That said, the more immediate problem is the unprecedented level of Deep State leaking and undermining of the elected government. This cannot go on very much longer.

              • peppermint says:

                Yes, the dhimmicrats will impeach as soon as they have the votes. Problem is, saying that is the easiest way to ensure that they’re not going to have the votes. They should be courting the RINOs, not telling them they deserve to be punched no matter what they do, but they can’t, because they’re fundamentally just signaling and incapable of organizing.

                The meme war is also not organized, but there are organized groups affiliated with the meme warriors, such as the Trump Administration, and they aren’t saying out loud everything they’re planning.

                What was so amazing about Trump was that he was largely saying out loud what he would do and the media laughed just like in the movies.

                He didn’t say he was going to deport these particular beaners, though, and the legacy media never asked him because it was unthinkable.

                He didn’t say he was going to force concessions for China by talking to Formosa because that was unthinkable.

                He didn’t say he was going to insult the Jews’ holy hoax before telling Netanyahu to hold off on the settlements but it’s not America’s problem what kind of solution the conflict has.

                He didn’t say he was going to call for legacy educational institutions to be defunded.

          • jim says:

            If they impeach Trump, then in the end they will kill him and kill his family and kill the Republicans. The Republicans are going to have to stick with Trump or hang by the neck. So impeachment is unlikely unless the Democrats regain congress.

            If Trump goes, it is the Romanovs all over again, and the Republic goes the way of the e Russian Provisional Government.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Word. If it was me I’d have thrown up my hands and given up 1000 times over by now. Which is why I think Trump is such a hyper-level badass. The learning opportunity has only begun!

  7. It’s a revolving door- not a big deal

  8. Jack Highlands says:

    Flynn is simply not a man with organizational, ideological, political or even strategic consistency. Trump’s personality radar, among the best in the world, would have smelled that a long time ago. Flynn shot himself in the foot weeks after the election, and compounded that inexorably within days of the inauguration.

    The main reason Flynn was forced out as head of Defense Intel was disagreement with the Obama admin over Syria; he viewed Assad as stable and the Russian position as preferable to the Turkish. So far, so Alt Right. Then he goes into private consulting after his ouster and starts working for Turkey. Even that could have been strategic (help convince Turkey of its errors), but he was completely contradictory on Erdogan.

    It’s not clear whether he’s a neocon, though he wrote a book with Ledeen, because it’s not clear he’s an anything, except he definitely still is a registered Dem. He was not on board the Trump team from the start – he became a major figure only after New Hampshire – but he did perform admirably for Trump at the convention, in spite of not being picked for VP (another reason why Pence was the last guy he should have misled).

    His shifting positions and lack of loyalty would be huge red flags for Trump. It wouldn’t surprise me if Flynn himself was part of Grumpy’s bacon being tossed out to see who pounces.

    The main loss would be all his inside knowledge as a former head of Defense Intel. Wasn’t worth the price.

  9. I agree that there are problems with the over-lawyered COIN strategy. But I’m not sure it’s always as simple as just needing more brutality. Partly it depends what you’re actually trying to accomplish with occupation. If killing every person there is a viable outcome, sure, that’s always available. But there are some occupations for which that wouldn’t be considered a good outcome, and you don’t need to be a touchy feely type to realize that killing everyone brings PR problems that can bite you in other areas.

    Put it this way – if a willingness to do nasty things were all that was needed for the US to pacify Afghanistan, I would have expected that the Soviets (who were far less squeamish about brutality) to have had a better time in their own invasion of the place. But in the end, neither the US nor the Soviets knew exactly what they were trying to do there in concrete terms once they invaded the place, and eventually got sick of the thankless task of trying to administer an unruly desert hellhole. Admittedly this is a very simplified version of the history of each invasion, but I’d be curious how you think the Soviet invasion fits your theory.

    • pdimov says:

      Fighting US-backed mujahideen who are not even Afghani hasn’t much in common with trying to administer Afghanistan.

      • Administer is a loose word – I don’t mean they were eager to set up the ministry of old age pensions, but more that they wanted to be in charge and not get shot at all the time.

        But it’s a good point that the US backing may be the key difference.

      • TTAAC says:

        The mujaheddin were almost all Afghans. The relatively few Arabs that turned up well into the conflict were useless at anything besides fundraising, and mostly just got in the way. (The Afghans caught on quickly, and adopted a policy of immediately killing any Arab that got in the way.)

        • pdimov says:

          Even so, the Soviets were economically against the USA and the Arab states. This scenario is not about pacifying a country. It’s a proxy war.

          Whereas America was against its own key ally Pakistan. Which is also not entirely about pacifying a country. 🙂

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Soviets controlled more of Afghanistan with 115,000 troops than the US controlled of South Vietnam with 540,000 troops. Also the Soviet troops were way worse quality. The Afghan war proves you can annoy another country by financing an insurgency but not that the insurgency has any chance of winning if the other country is not in the process of falling apart (as the Soviet Union was doing). The reasons Soviets lost were due to bureaucratic incompetence and not being willing to put a few extra divisions on the line.

          • pdimov says:

            Hard to win in Afghanistan if Pakistan is against you.

          • jim says:

            Also, the Soviet Union was simply losing the logistic capability to feed and arm its troops.

          • peppermint says:

            post-WWII experience demonstrates that even with more firepower than god you can’t turn muds into Whites without slavery and generations of rape.

            Had Afghanistan been a White country, suppressing the enemies of the left would have caused communists to take over and finish the job.

            Had Vietnam been a White country, sweeping the foreign-aided commies off the field would have enabled the government to suppress commies.

            If Iraq was a White country, it would now be ruled by a parliament, ISIS wouldn’t exist, and it would be filled with Somali rapefugees.

    • peppermint says:

      The problem in Afghanistan is we wanted to kill a few specific people, spread our glorious ideology, get a puppet government to look like it’s in power, and not actually rule because that’s imperialist.

      The Soviets had the same war aims and used the same strategy and we’re defeated in the same way.

      We could invade to rule and even impose an ideology of our choosing provided it is an ideology that doesn’t say they have rights over us and we’re the worst kind of evil if we don’t respect those rights.

      At some point we will invade with White rape gangs imposing White sharia law to build White settlements, but there is no reason to do that for the next few decades.

    • SteveRogers42 says:

      How did the Allies beat Germany and Japan? Did we do SWAT-type entries on individual houses trying to “arrest” bad Germans and avoid inconveniencing good Germans? Did we try to win the hearts and minds of the Japanese people? Or did we bomb their cities around the clock, starve them out with naval blockades, and crush their field armies with every means at our disposal?

      At the end of WW2, the fanatically-indoctrinated populations of Germany and Japan were so beaten-down and intimidated that insurgency was unthinkable, and thus counter-insurgency was unnecessary.

      That is how the US/UK/Russia beat two incredibly-powerful military machines, which were backed by brave, hard-working, well-educated populations. Contrast to today, when our trillion-dollar Dept. of “Defense” has spent over a decade trying to put COIN doctrine into operation against degenerate 85-average-IQ pederast Arabs, who are possibly the worst soldiers in the world.

      If Western nations are ever interested in winning a war again in the future, they need to retire the playbook we’ve been using, pull the “how-to” manual from WW2 down off its dusty shelf, open it up to page one, and begin.

      • Cavalier says:

        Germany and Japan were each 80 million, both with no significant colonies, versus Russia (100 million), England (50 million + 500 million colonial subjects), and America (150 million).

        In addition, both Germany and Japan were strongly net-food-negative, and had no real solid access to oil fields and other raw material resources vital to the maintenance of industrial civilization. In contrast, Russia had loads of oil, Britain had monopolized Middle Eastern oil, and America had its “special relationship” with Britain, plus its own stock of oil. And then there was the American Midwest, the best farming real estate on the planet.

        It wasn’t exactly a fair fight.

        • TheBigH says:

          >In addition, both Germany and Japan were strongly net-food-negative, and had no real solid access to oil fields and other raw material resources vital to the maintenance of industrial civilization. In contrast, Russia had loads of oil, Britain had monopolized Middle Eastern oil, and America had its “special relationship” with Britain, plus its own stock of oil. And then there was the American Midwest, the best farming real estate on the planet.

          >It wasn’t exactly a fair fight.

          You’re right about Japan, but at Germany’s height they had the access to enough French food and enough oil from Romania for their military machine. Germany’s primary problem was socialism. Food problems happened because of the socialization of the food distribution system caused farmers to sell mostly on the black market which resulted in starvation else ware. Instead of having multiple factories compete to deliver finished using the same plans, war goods from each company where assigned based on contract which encouraged no competition once the initial design was finished. This kept prices on things like tanks and other goods far too high and retarded innovations like the assembly line. Then late into the war they lapsed into slave labor production with government running the factories which consistently produced substandard products.

          If Germany had run the economy like the US government ran their war economy they would have won the war.

        • SteveRogers42 says:

          No argument with you on these points. Despite their disadvantages, the Axis powers could have won the whole thing, if the breaks had gone their way.

          What I’m saying is that the Allies made sure it wasn’t a “fair fight”, because unfair fighting is how you win wars. Contrast with the ongoing fiascos in the Sandbox, where we are either unable or unwilling to finish off a bunch of medieval throwbacks in man-dresses. The U.S. Army of 1945 would have finished off any and all hostile Iraqi forces in 6 weeks, and would have done it in such a manner that we wouldn’t have heard a peep out of them for the next 70 years.

          When it’s time to go to war, we should eschew “fair fighting”. Whether you call it COIN, “nation-building”, or whatever, it’s a recipe for failure.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Hard for the Axis to win. Even if Hitler had conquered Russia America would still have nukes. The only scenario where he wins is a successful Barbarossa followed by either developing air superiority over England and then invading it, or developing a nuke before America, neither of which is that likely.

            • peppermint says:

              * he was close to air superiority over England. If he had developed that, Normandy would not have been possible.

              * he was close to defeating the USSR and might have without Normandy or with a few different strategic decisions

              * Stalin was actually not much of a commie, and was consequently murdered after the war

              * Heisenberg was working on nukes but was unsuccessful. If he had nukes, he would also have had the technology to deliver to America.

              * Without England, America would have had to figure out how to get nukes in maybe across the Middle East

              Those are a lot of ifs. And don’t forget, WWII was sold to Americans based on their Christian duty to be brothers to all races and make the world safe for democracy and human rights.

              Now that the left has foolishly destroyed their most important weapon against White minds, we’re going to do what Hitler couldn’t and make the world safe for Whites. Up until fairly recently it was kind of casually assumed that no even small scale organization of Whites would be possible without if not the cuckold commissary then at least pretending to worship the Jews.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Hitler wasn’t close. With a UK alliance he might’ve been. That would’ve taken someone smarter than Hitler.

              • TheBigH says:

                >* he was close to defeating the USSR and might have without Normandy or with a few different strategic decisions

                Another 6 months to a year and so the USSR would have run out of men to fight with. Delaying US entry into the war by a year probably would have resulted in a German victory.

                >* Heisenberg was working on nukes but was unsuccessful. If he had nukes, he would also have had the technology to deliver to America.

                Nope. Building a working heavy bomber is a 4-6 year process due to all the bugs that have to be worked out and Germany didn’t have any in the pipeline thanks to mismanagement at the Luftwaffe. Germany certainly could have built the bomb but baring any effectively way to deliver them they’d be little more than very large land mines.

                • peppermint says:

                  They had a suborbital rocket bomber but they didn’t have a bomb worth delivering with it

                • jim says:

                  Nazi bombers could deliver a two ton bomb. Most of today’s thermonuclear weapons weigh 300 to 400 pounds. If Hitler had had nuclear weapons, he would have been able to deliver them.

                  The V-2 rocket delivered a two thousand pound bomb, sufficient for one enormous thermonuclear weapon, or a spray of five standard sized thermonuclear weapons, cluster bomb style

                • TheBigH says:

                  >Nazi bombers could deliver a two ton bomb. Most of today’s thermonuclear weapons weigh 300 to 400 pounds. If Hitler had had nuclear weapons, he would have been able to deliver them.

                  http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

                  The first nuke that might have been able to fit a German 2 engine bomber was the Mk-5 which wasn’t operational until 52.

                  Thermonuclear warheads are a lot smaller and lighter than older bombs because they don’t require nearly as much uranium and plutonium so I don’t know why you’ve included them in this discussion given their much later date of invention.

                • jim says:

                  Thermonuclear warheads are a lot smaller and lighter than older bombs because they don’t require nearly as much uranium and plutonium s

                  Thermonuclear bombs require at least three times as much uranium or plutonium than a fission bomb.

                  They have a conventional fission bomb, which explodes inside a case of ordinary uranium. The compresses a second fission bomb to a much greater level of compression than can be achieved by conventional explosives, resulting in much more efficient fission, and thus higher temperatures. The temperature of the second fission bomb is hot enough to fuse deuterium, which releases high energy neutrons that fission the case of ordinary uranium.

                  A fusion bomb contains two conventional fission bombs wrapped in a case of natural or depleted uranium.

                  Early bombs were heavy because they were not much worried about reducing their weight.

                • TheBigH says:

                  >They had a suborbital rocket bomber but they didn’t have a bomb worth delivering with it

                  The V2 would have been an outstanding gas attack weapon. I still don’t know why Hitler didn’t equip it with sarin gas.

                • pdimov says:

                  “I still don’t know why Hitler didn’t equip it with sarin gas.”

                  Things make more sense if one thinks of Hitler pursuing peace with Britain, not trying to win. Which was obviously a mistake.

                • peppermint says:

                  Hitler didn’t understand that Britain was pretty much wholly controlled by the Jews and Churchill was a Jew puppet. He probably thought Churchill was patriotic because Churchill wrote negative things about niggers and sand niggers.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Sure, he probably had like a 50% chance of victory after defeating France (which was already lucky) which plummeted to like 20% once he attacked Russia and declared war on America, which was a really stupid move. I’m pointing out that if he had defeated Russia that number would go back to 50%, but is still unlikely. It’s not as if winning Stalingrad or Typhoon would result in automatic German victory given the massive Anglo superiority in resources.

                • jim says:

                  As long as Hitler was at peace with Russia, did not have a resource problem. War with Russia needed a quick victory, or else he had an oil shortage, and an army runs on oil. The size of Russia makes quick victories difficult.

                  Hitler was winning the battle of Britain until Churchill lured him into bombing London. Then he was screwed. Had Hitler refused to allow himself to be distracted, could have made a victorious and one sided peace with the British empire. And after recovering from one war, could then have taken Russia.

                  Also, socialism. Making trade into a state monopoly made trade not work, which meant the Germans were blockading themselves. If he had refrained from socialism, refrained from being distracted during the battle of Britain, and avoided war with Russia while he was already at war with powerful enemies, then Hitler would have won.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  That’s a lot of ifs, hence my point.

                  I don’t think he was ever close to winning the Battle of Britain. The US Air force took over a year to get air superiority over Germany and France, and the US had way more resources relative to Germany than Germany ever had relative to England.

                  Also, Royal Navy could still have intercepted the German supply routes, amphibious landing is inherently difficult. I think both world wars were basically driven by Anglos, Germany was always the weak party which would lose once it started having a couple defeats.

                • Brit says:

                  An ex-RAF from the war told me that the Germans had bombed nearly all the airfields. If they had focused on targeting the airfields using those precision dive-bombers they would have won

                • TheBigH says:

                  >An ex-RAF from the war told me that the Germans had bombed nearly all the airfields. If they had focused on targeting the airfields using those precision dive-bombers they would have won

                  They tried but without total air superiority the dive bombers where decimated even with fighter protection.

                • jim says:

                  Britain was losing its capability to put planes in the air, until Hitler was distracted by bombing London.

                  With a German airforce over Britain, and no British airforce over the channel, he could have landed troops in Britain, or threatened to do so and demanded peace on favorable terms. “let me keep mainland Europe, and I will let you keep Britain and your empire”

                  With peace with Britain, and trade with the empire, he could have successfully made war on Russia.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Ya not really. RAF had more fighters when Hitler started city bombing than at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.
                  Source: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=90394&sid=74ef05eab9e5b9b03b624e576c396f55

                  Anglos could not invade France in 1943 despite having total naval superiority and more air superiority than Germany had in 1940. German navy and ability to supply troops was pretty much non existent compared to England.

                  However, it is plausible that heavier losses would have lead to the fall of Churchill, who was a disaster for the British (peace with Germany and letting the latter annihilate the Soviets would have clearly been better).

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Britain was building aircraft more quickly than Germany and shooting down German aircraft more quickly than it was losing aircraft.

                  Even the possibility of Germany destroying the airfields being used by Fighter Command at that time is not a possibility of crippling Fighter Command, just forcing it to move north, where it could still cover the Channel.

                  Germany simply did not have the ability to force Britain out of the war, and it surely knew that. It also surely believe in 1939 that it very likely would not knock France out of the war quickly or with few casualties. It is hard to see why Germany started WWII – possibly in the false belief that Britain and France would make a white peace following a victory over Poland. Ultimately Germany seems to have been well manipulated by the Soviets, the only initial aggressors to come out ahead.

      • pdimov says:

        How you win against Germans and Japanese is not how you win against Afghans, Kurds, Chechens or Basques. HBD matters. (This is not an argument for COIN, which everyone knows doesn’t work.)

  10. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Jim, looks like Trump does not have the full loyalty of the Red Empire with all these leaks. If they can take out the National Security Advisor they can take out quite a few others. Another couple months until your predicted mini-coup or major reshuffling, I’m definitely looking forward to this.

    • jim says:

      I thought that these leaks are coming from the CIA, which is blue empire.

      Yes, there are alarming internal divisions in the red empire, and it is huge problem and a major weakness. But the immediate problem is that the blue empire is hanging on to power.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        I remember you had a post talking about how much the CIA loved Trump. I found it suspicious then and it’s pretty clear now that the CIA is disloyal. I also question how loyal the NSA is, it seems like only the army and marine corps can be plausibly relied upon, and that assumes you get rid of a lot of the senior officers.

        • jim says:

          Trump appealed over the heads of leadership to the CIA rank and file, and made references to “columns” that some people interpret as reference to fifth columnists.

          CIA is blue state, has been blue state for a very long time, and has been well known to be blue state for a very long time. CIA is hostile, CIA rank and file generally support Trump.

          • viking says:

            If that were true these loyal spis would go to trumps new cia head and rat out the commies but instead they leak to the new york times that they wont tell trump the intelligence they gather because he is too stupid dangerous and would probably tell our enemies or tweeet it.If there is any hope for this lucky break its bannon etc but it looks like no one can control trump and the deep state is running an inteligence game to take his guys out and then him

            • viking says:

              If trump were even a real president let alone a king he would send marines to langley and start waterboarding they have openly moved on the president of the united states several times, they are legally treasonous and are carrying out a coup and not even hiding it because the press is on board as well as the cuckserves. even the more sober press is distuberd by the blazonness half a dozen articles in past few days have pointed out this is tantamount to deep state coup

              • jim says:

                Give him time. I predicted he would start to move around March or so. I would not get worried until some time in August.

                For the president to actually govern is something like a coup against the permanent government. Coups require preparation.

            • jim says:

              I am sure the fifth columnists are indeed being ratted out, but for the president to rule is requires a coup, and coups take time and preparation. It is far too soon to conclude that Trump is cucking out.

      • SteveRogers42 says:

        Many things about the Flynn deal don’t make sense. Flynn was a career Intel professional who would have known better than to discuss sensitive matters on an unsecure line. The whole “lied to Pence” trope is a red herring because VPs are often out of the “need-to-know” loop (Truman had never heard of the atom bomb until FDR’s death.) Is this whole thing a smoke screen to allow Flynn to pursue some priority investigative angle that he would be unable to give his full attention to as NSA?

        It’s a big swamp, and it’s gonna take a lot of draining.

        • TTAAC says:

          On reading the initial NYT report (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html) again, I agree that the story is fishy. “Former and current administration officials said that Mr. Flynn urged Russia not to retaliate against any sanctions because an overreaction would make any future cooperation more complicated. He never explicitly promised sanctions relief.” In other words, this is routine stuff that happens during every Presidential transition, and Flynn chose his words carefully. (You could make a better case that Trump violated the Logan Act by trying to undermine the UN resolution on Israeli settlements–although, of course, the Obama administration publicly denied being its architect.) In addition, Trump obviously approved Flynn’s message, even boasting about it on Twitter the next day (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/814919370711461890). NYT continues: “Current and former administration officials familiar with the call said the transcript was ambiguous enough that Mr. Trump could have justified either firing or retaining Mr. Flynn. Mr. Trump, however, had become increasingly concerned about the continued fallout over Mr. Flynn’s behavior, according to people familiar with his thinking, and told aides that the media storm around Mr. Flynn would damage the President’s image on national security issues.”

          If that’s really the reason Trump dumped Flynn, he made a mistake. Far from being appeased, the Left smells blood in the water. It will be even harder, not easier, to improve relations Russia. Flynn being “expendable” is scarcely the point.

          • jim says:

            Left is getting cocky.

            But don’t underestimate Trump.

            • SteveRogers42 says:

              No, sir! He has proven himself to be a literal genius in his chosen field(s) of endeavor, and he’s got huevos the size of bowling balls.

          • SteveRogers42 says:

            Is it possible that Flynn was dangled out as bait (either with or without his knowledge) in order to get the “leakers” to expose themselves? If so, this would further the cause of swamp-draining.

            At any rate, this turmoil has made many people realize that there actually is a “Deep State” and that its interests are usually inimical to those of RealAmericans.

            Appreciate the depth of research and quality of conversation on this site.

            • TheBigH says:

              >Is it possible that Flynn was dangled out as bait (either with or without his knowledge) in order to get the “leakers” to expose themselves? If so, this would further the cause of swamp-draining.

              Trump mints luck. Stuff like this almost always turns in his favor. That’s good instincts rather than master planning.

          • TTAAC says:

            I should probably note that–unsurprisingly, given how it was “loaded up with caveats” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/15/two-explosive-reports-on-trump-and-russia-zero-on-the-record-sources/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.162a54e99fb3)–the whole “Russian contacts” story is falling apart (https://www.axios.com/exclusive-spicer-arranged-sat-in-on-cia-gop-intelligence-push-back-2288082248.html): “Top White House officials tell us they’re authentically confident that the Russia smoke won’t lead to fire, and are even happy to have their opponents distracted by the issue. ‘For over six months, we have heard about these alleged contacts with Russia,’ the official said. ‘And yet, … with all the leaks have have come out, there’s no ‘there’ there.’ Pompeo and Burr told the journalists that the Times story wasn’t true but provided no details, frustrating the competing reporters, according to the official: ‘Both of them said: All I can tell you is the story is not accurate.'”

            cf. “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” The New York Times, October 31, 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html). Unlike Jim, I am inclined to accept the consensus view that Russia most likely did hack the Democrat’s emails even though the U.S. government failed to make the case in its shockingly incompetent reports on the matter (the JAR being a collection of out-of-date malware and random IP addresses and the ICA attempting to prove Russia’s motive by referencing RT’s hostile spin and a well-known misquotation of Putin). However, unless there is classified human intelligence we don’t know about, the CIA’s mind-reading ability is even less credible than the technical attribution of the hacks to Russia. It is worth reiterating that as of October 31–just over a week before the election–the NYT reported: “Even the hacking into Democratic emails, FBI and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the election rather than electing Mr. Trump.” Considering that the RNC was also targeted–albeit unsuccessfully–by hackers and that 200 Republican emails from Colin Powell’s personal account were successfully hacked and posted on DC Leaks.com (which U.S. intelligence claims is a Russian front), it is far from obvious that the hackers were working to benefit the GOP; if the goal was to swing the election, one might also question why the DNC emails were released in July, rather than closer to November. In sum: What caused the intelligence community to radically alter its assessment 180 degrees between October 31, 2016 and December 9, 2016–when the CIA told the Washington Post “that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the Presidency, rather than just to undermine the U.S. electoral system” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.8c4980222f09)–if not the fact that their candidate lost?

            But I digress. As explained below, it looks like the next target will be Sessions, not for actually doing anything wrong but as the next step to appointing a special prosecutor. Hopefully, Trump will have learned from the Flynn debacle that dumping Sessions would be foolish and counterproductive, and only fan the flames of Russia hysteria.

      • TTAAC says:

        We don’t know where the Flynn leak came from. I’d hate to think there are wreckers in the FBI, which is pretty consistently Red Empire.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      Naturally, there are a few GOPe loyalists in the Red Empire, and these might as well be Blue Empire: they too will need purging. Not many, because Republican-type civil servants mostly lean GOP grassroots, not GOPe, but the number would not be insignifant. Cucks, phags, yes-men and lunatics like McConnell, Graham, Ryan and McCain (respectively) have not been enjoying significant power without accumulating some civil service followers.

  11. Alrenous says:

    I like it when proggies scent blood, because they overextend and it’s easy to start amputating.

    I would have looked for a dubious candidate I could use as bait, or else a confederate who could pretend to be upset when I ‘ousted’ them.

    • Steel T Post says:

      Exactly. And their over-extension was blatantly illegal. Flynn getting scalped is going to be a blessing in disguise, but it won’t be apparent for some months. It gives Trump the excuse to hammer the seditious operatives.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Already started. GEDJT tweeting about the illegal and un-American leaking of intelligence (counter-Trump operations) information to the NYT, but withholding from GEDJT himself.

        King of long time preference that guy. What a difference a week makes, at least for us proles.

        • Alrenous says:

          People being stupid is boring, so let’s keep on the theory Trump’s not…
          So Flynn is being dumped, but it’s because he reneged on being a shill. “Dude, you’re no good to me except as bait, GTFO.”

  12. ramonaQ says:

    Obama’s last minute expansion of who the NSA can share its surveillance data with makes sense now. His plan was to bring down the Trump regime with leaks.

  13. ramonaQ says:

    I know people can go overboard with the “Trump is playing 4d chess” analysis, but I’m beginning to wonder about this.

    It’s become increasingly clear that Flynn didn’t have to go. He didn’t break the law and there was nothing he said that couldn’t be defended. So why did Trump let him go? My guess is that he was becoming a liability because of his hawkish views and that they want the intelligence community and media to hoist themselves on their own petard. Bannon seems to be very adept at heightening conflict in order to make the enemy misstep.

  14. peppermint says:

    How to get into a dhimmicrat or republicuck administration: help a nigger get away with raping a White preteen girl.

    How to get into a Trump administration: be a great general or businessman

  15. peppermint says:

    White Sharia Law:
    * If kidnap marriage of thots is accepted practice, only the most desperate no-prospects women will become thots. Consequently thotdom will be low status and no woman would ever want it.
    * A woman who controls her own sexuality is extremely unhappy and confused and her loins ache for a rapist to take power over her. Explicitly and implicitly assigning White men power over their women will prevent those women from engaging in self-destructive behavior.

  16. […] takes a look into the Trump Administration’s Dumping Flynn. He wasn’t that thrilled about Flynn’s neoconservatism or advocacy of COIN, […]

  17. TTAAC says:

    The latest “scandal” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-spoke-twice-with-russian-ambassador-during-trumps-presidential-campaign-justice-officials-say/2017/03/01/77205eda-feac-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.bafde69b5b52) has arrived (from the same people that brought you “Russia hacked Vermont’s electric grid!”): Last September, Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian ambassador Kislyak in his official capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; he also attended a Heritage Foundation event in July that was attended by 50 ambassadors, some of whom (including Kislyak) he briefly spoke with as he was leaving the podium. Considering that “Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak,” this is one more example of smoke without fire. Nevertheless, since we can’t trust the attorney general, we need a special prosecutor to “investigate”–even though no crime has been alleged (in fact, telling Russia to dig up dirt on Hilary would not necessarily violate any laws if it were all true–as seems highly unlikely).

    BTW, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi wrote a good piece (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-there-more-to-the-flynn-story/) on the Flynn affair in The American Conservative yesterday; former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy’s “Why Was the FBI Investigating General Flynn?” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445045/general-michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-fbi-investigation-phone-call-russian-ambassador) in the National Review is also well worth a read. The real scandal here is the Obama administration’s DOJ and FBI initiating an investigation into Flynn for transparently political reasons–ultimately leading to the destruction of his career by way of conflicting anonymous leaks. Recall that Flynn chose his words carefully and did NOT promise Kislyak (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html) that Obama’s punitive sanctions would be lifted (and they haven’t been!): Flynn merely made a boilerplate statement that any Russian overreaction could make it harder to repair ties in the future, a scenario similar to many others that have occurred as a matter of routine during every Presidential transition. Flynn committed no crime–and there was certainly no basis for considering him a foreign agent–yet treasonous Obama mole Sally Yates (who Trump fired for refusing to defend his executive order on immigration) justified the FBI “grilling” Flynn on the preposterous basis that he was vulnerable to “Russian blackmail”–which The New York Times mindlessly reported without noticing that Yates’s reasoning made no sense. Beyond the fact that Trump obviously approved Flynn’s actions, openly tweeting (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/814919370711461890) about Putin’s “great move” delaying any retaliatory measures the next day (no, it’s not unusual for the VP to be out of the loop), if the Trump administration (through FBI/NSA) already had recordings of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, by definition the Russians had nothing they could use to “blackmail” Flynn to his superiors.

    In other news, Cuck Central is reporting that W. came out of retirement to call Trump a racist (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/george-w-bush-trump-name-calling-racism-235487) and demand an investigation into “Russia ties” (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/george-w-bush-trump-russia-connections-235437), after eight years of never criticizing Obama.

  18. J says:

    Jim wrote: “Right now there is a woman whom I would very much like to marry, because I seem to have gotten her pregnant, and it is not easy.”

    Poor Jim. Metaphorically speaking, you should leave Sodom because the Angel of Death is on the way. Nothing is worth what you are going through. Get out of where you are.

  19. peppermint says:

    (0) SJWs continue to control the dhimmicrat party having warded off a mutiny after losing with this hoax
    (1) Flynn does nothing wrong
    (2) gets dropped, following which dhimmicrats on the fence assume either there’s something there or they can make hay while the sun shines
    (3) the whole thing was always a hoax and today they look retarded lying about never having met Russian ambassadors or government officials, as well as looking like kooky conspiracy theorists and sore losers

  20. TTAAC says:

    Eli Lake in Bloomberg View reports that unmasking of Trump associates “incidentally collected” speaking with foreign officials was requested by Susan Rice, contradicting her past denials (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel): “Rice’s multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice’s unmasking requests were likely within the law. […] Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.”

    Rice was one of Obama’s top advisers, previously described as “Obama’s Right-Hand Woman.” There might well be a direct link from Obama, to Rice, to the felonious leakers that brought down Flynn.

Leave a Reply