Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpted article, by Mounk, comparing Trump to his contemporary populist 'peers'. Mounk touches on the point that these 'players' are acting for effect. As I have recorded several times on this thread, various people who know Trump have commented that the Trump we see as candidate and President is not the Trump that they know. Like Trump's elite background, Mounk points out Viktor Orbán's association with George Soros. These 'players' are Lifetime Actors, following well known scripts, the 'target' audiences always behaving the same, it's simply mass psychology.

After the excerpted text Mounk goes on to discuss that, unlike his populist authoritarian peers, Trump has failed to deliver for the oppressed peeps on three big matters (trimming corporate advantages, healthcare (where he even acknowledged universal HC as superior), and infrastructure), while delivering a huge coup for the financial elites.

From:https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rian-populists-hes-just-much-worse-at-it.html
...
From Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to Jaroslaw Kaczyński in Poland and from Viktor Orbán in Hungary to Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, many populists around the world have remained sufficiently popular for a long enough span of time to concentrate vast powers in their own hands. Trump has some important commonalities with them. Like them, for example, he is a master at riling up his base with lofty promises of big improvements and urgent warnings about imminent dangers.

But the ways in which Trump differs from his populist peers are even more important: So far, he has been far less interested than them in rewarding his base with tangible material improvements. He has been far less strategic about abolishing independent institutions. And he has also been far less effective at hammering home a consistent worldview that recasts any harm to him as a threat to the whole nation.

This is heartening: Unless Trump suddenly starts to learn on the job—something he has stubbornly resisted doing for the past 18 months—he is unlikely to emulate the successes of Chávez, Kaczyński, and cohorts.

But it is also scary: If American institutions have, so far, stood up to Donald Trump, the reason for this seems to have at least as much to do with his personal failings as it does with the structural differences between the United States and countries like Poland or Venezuela. If Trump, or one of his successors, should learn to emulate the playbook developed by authoritarian populists around the world, he too could concentrate enormous powers in his own hands.

The appeal of populist leaders is nearly always based on the idea that they have little in common with the traditional elite. By conventional measures, this is simply untrue: Trump, as we know, grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and golden draperies in his crib. He’s not alone. Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s xenophobic prime minister, for example, studied at Oxford University thanks to a scholarship from George Soros, a man he has done more than just about anybody else to vilify.

But despite their relative privilege, there is one thing that really does distinguish Trump and Orbán from other elites: their willingness to say things that are considered utterly unacceptable by other people in their social circles.


It is a mistake to think that Trump is committing an unintentional gaffe when he calls Mexicans “rapists,” or that Orbán is slipping up when he calls migrants “poison.” But nor do they express such ugly sentiments because they expect a majority of the population to agree with them. Rather, they are setting out to shock their fellow elites because they know that the opprobrium which they thereby provoke serves to demonstrate that they truly stand apart from the political class.

Trump is a master at this art of verbal provocation, and it is impossible to explain his success without understanding that. When his willingness to refer to “shithole countries” doesn’t lead his supporters to abandon him, many commentators conclude that Americans must secretly share his racist views. This is undoubtedly true of a certain part of his base. But the fact of the matter is that even many people who disagree with the sentiment, and would never say something similar themselves, see it as proof that Trump is for real.

This manufactured sense of authenticity is Trump’s biggest strength; indeed, he may be even better at exploiting it than his populist peers. But in other ways he has, thankfully, fallen far short of their performance.

Mounk then goes on to discuss Trump's institutionally corrosive main focus on seemingly vanity tactics, rather than the more effective strategical approaches of his contemporary populists. In this section he then mentions the Mueller investigation, and the danger that is posed as Mueller edges ever closer to Trump and the inner circle. I have suggested that this will be the flashpoint, as the Beastly dramatis personae of Trump, real or acted, cannot allow such affronts to his legacy.

...
If he puts even more pressure on those career officials whose first commitments are to the Constitution rather than to the president, and fills top vacancies with his own loyalists, he may well succeed in doing to the FBI and the Department of Justice what he has already done to the congressional committees that were supposed to investigate his campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. That would not only mean that his own crimes could no longer be fully investigated—but also raise the possibility of a politically motivated prosecution of his main adversary in 2020.

As the investigation by Robert Mueller starts to inch ever closer to Trump’s family and friends, his incentive to fire the special counsel, and provoke a massive constitutional crisis, will only keep on rising. The threat he poses to the separation of powers remains all too real, then. But because these measures are so clearly bound up with Trump’s immediate self-interest, they have also provoked much more fervent pushback than they would have done under different circumstances. As in so many other areas, Trump’s attack on the core institutions of the American republic is being constrained as much by his own incompetence as it is by the Constitution or the political opposition. ...

And then Mounk finishes with the following conclusion. But perhaps Trump is 'merely' following slightly different script than the others, because the end game for his handlers is that of the larger global stage?

...
Trump may be the one populist leader in world history who is too narcissistic to succeed at the narcissist’s game of turning himself into a beloved people’s tribune.

If Trump really does depart the White House in shame a little less than three years from now, it will be tempting to interpret his demise as final proof of the resilience of the American political system. Even in the face of an uncouth barbarian intent on breaking every single rule and norm of liberal democracy, some commentators will then pronounce, the American republic has proven to be unassailable. There was never anything to worry about in the first place.

That would be a grave mistake. For the truth of the matter is that even though he has proven astoundingly incompetent at following the authoritarian playbook, Trump has already had a remarkably corrosive impact—from undermining the independence of the FBI to consolidating his hold over the Republican Party.

Far from showcasing the strengths of American institutions, the past years have demonstrated that a rank amateur can push them close to breaking point. This implies that a would-be authoritarian with a much greater dose of professionalism could prove depressingly popular and dangerously effective. And so the true task for those of us who are worried about the threat populism poses to the survival of liberal democracy goes well beyond beating Donald Trump: It is to make sure that he is never succeeded by the kind of strongman leader who has the discipline and the intelligence to enact the populist playbook here in America.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
While a few Christian fundamentalists, and my Rationalist self, have identified Donald Trump as a KAOS type of Samson, there is yet another perspective, albeit well trodden as regards previous American Presidents. Namely that Trump is a type of Cyrus, the first emperor of the first empire (by conventional historical standards for the term), that of Persia. Ironic that Iran, aka 'Persia' is counted as a major enemy of the Anglo-American-Israeli alliance today.

The following excerpted NYT op-ed by Samuel Goldman discusses the history of such identifications for Trump and his predecessors. Harry Truman even asserted that he was indeed 'Cyrus', regarding the foundation of the current state of Israel just after WWII.

From: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/trump-jerusalem-embassy-israel.html

For American evangelicals, there is a term of praise for President Trump that falls like a question mark on most everyone else: “You are Cyrus.” That’s what the Christian pro-Israel activist Mike Evans promised to tell President Trump after his announcement that the United States would move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Mr. Evans, who plastered Jerusalem with billboards praising the embassy decision, isn’t the only one to draw a connection to the ancient Persian king. In a 2016 book called “God’s Chaos Candidate,” the minister Lance Wallnau asked, “Could Trump be God’s Cyrus?”

Even some Jews have gotten into the act. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the connection in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this week, predicting the rise of a new Cyrus. Last week, the Mikdash Educational Center, an Orthodox group, produced a “temple coin” that superimposes an image of Mr. Trump over one of Cyrus.

Obscure though it may seem, pro-Israel activists who suggest that Mr. Trump is a counterpart to Cyrus are drawing on a deep well of religious history that nourishes his current evangelical support. For centuries, American Christians have argued that United States foreign policy should follow biblical models. The desire to see America and its leaders as instruments for the fulfillment of divine intentions remains an important cause of their longstanding sympathy for Zionism and the State of Israel.

Goldman understates the issue (highlighted above) with American Christians, as it was indeed the Old Testament narrative of the Conquest of the Promised Land that was used to motivate and Justify the conquests of both North, Central, and South Americas, as well as the colonizations of much of the rest of the globe.

King Cyrus, who is credited with allowing Jews to return to Jerusalem from exile in the Babylonian empire, represents the possibility that a nonbelieving leader and state could be used by God to reunite the chosen people and the promised land.

The prominence of the Cyrus trope has revived fears about religious influences on United States foreign policy that have swirled around Republican presidents for decades. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were both accused of allowing their policies toward Israel to be influenced by interpretations of the Book of Revelation that foresee a literal Battle of Armageddon.

Prior Republican Cyri [sic], ostensibly normative Christians, pandered to the Evangelicals and Pentecostals with mostly empty rhetoric, the clearly apostate Trump has made sure to mostly press the right buttons so far with them. Was the original Cyrus a normative Zoroastrian or more like Trump in his religious beliefs? At this point it's hard to know other that our harboring the usual suspicions about the elite use of Religion as a tool of control of the masses. Also, many skeptics and scholars of Religion consider that Zoroastrianism was indeed a major theological contributor to pre-rabbinic Judaism.

Goldman goes on to provide another interesting tidbit regarding the foundation of Zionism, predating Herzl by 5 years.

And encouraging presidents to take up the mantle of Cyrus is also something of an American tradition. The Chicago-based preacher William Eugene Blackstone — who described himself as God’s “errand boy” — visited the White House in 1891 to present President Benjamin Harrison with a petition. It called on him to use his influence to extract Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and promote a Jewish state. The petition was signed by 413 prominent citizens, including the Supreme Court’s chief justice, Melville Fuller; the future president William McKinley; and the tycoons J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller. Its cover letter explicitly compared the president to Cyrus, offering him a “privileged opportunity” to serve as patron of the Jewish people. For this service, five years before the publication of Theodor Herzl’s “Der Judenstaat,” Louis Brandeis reportedly described Blackstone as the real “father of Zionism.” ...

Of course, Shlomo Sand's (The Invention of the Jewish People) provided a detailed historiography of the layered intellectual foundations of the contemporary Zionist movement that trace back to the early 19th century. This with the desire to piggyback upon the rise of the modern European nation-states who had crafted their own unique national foundational narratives, aka establishing their respective subcultural niches within the Western Cultural tableau.

It is also within the same general timeframe as Blackstone that other elites sponsored Cyrus Scofield and his reinterpreted Bible, where he articulated the Biblical justification for the Jesuit originated Futurist School of the End Times (almost 500 years ago). This legerdemain accomplished by providing a rather wildly non-literal, and non-fundamentalist redefinition of Jesus's gospel use of the word 'generation' - in regards to the destruction of the Temple (occurring in the "generation" of the disciples - aka 40 years time per common contemporaneous usage).

Without Cyrus Scofield's reinterpretation there would be little or no political support within the evangelical Christian community for such as Zionism, and liddle or nothing for Cyrus Trump to leverage to his benefit.

Interesting to note that, morally similar to Trump, Cyrus Scofield was involved in a massive financial swindle, and before that he abandoned his wife and daughter, all before becoming a prostituted theologian 'for the next new age'.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is from the opening section of a long article about Trump's relationship to the Christian evangelical movement, and the latter's evolutionary history since its foundations in the early 19th century.

I have commented about this transformation and this article more here.

...
Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.
Trump supporters tend to dismiss moral scruples about his behavior as squeamishness over the president’s “style.” But the problem is the distinctly non-Christian substance of his values. Trump’s unapologetic materialism—his equation of financial and social success with human achievement and worth—is a negation of Christian teaching. His tribalism and hatred for “the other” stand in direct opposition to Jesus’s radical ethic of neighbor love. Trump’s strength-worship and contempt for “losers” smack more of Nietzsche than of Christ. Blessed are the proud. Blessed are the ruthless. Blessed are the shameless. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after fame.
And yet, a credible case can be made that evangelical votes were a decisive factor in Trump’s improbable victory. Trump himself certainly acts as if he believes they were. Many individuals, causes, and groups that Trump pledged to champion have been swiftly sidelined or sacrificed during Trump’s brief presidency. The administration’s outreach to white evangelicals, however, has been utterly consistent.
Trump-allied religious leaders have found an open door at the White House—what Richard Land, the president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, calls “unprecedented access.” In return, they have rallied behind the administration in its times of need. “Clearly, this Russian story is nonsense,” explains the mega-church pastor Paula White-Cain, who is not generally known as a legal or cybersecurity expert. Pastor David Jeremiah has compared Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump to Joseph and Mary: “It’s just like God to use a young Jewish couple to help Christians.” According to Jerry Falwell Jr., evangelicals have “found their dream president,” which says something about the current quality of evangelical dreams.
Loyalty to Trump has involved progressively more difficult, self-abasing demands. And there appears to be no limit to what some evangelical leaders will endure. Figures such as Falwell and Franklin Graham followed Trump’s lead in supporting Judge Roy Moore in the December Senate election in Alabama. These are religious leaders who have spent their entire adult lives bemoaning cultural and moral decay. Yet they publicly backed a candidate who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, including with a 14-year-old girl.
In January, following reports that Trump had referred to Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries,” Pastor Robert Jeffress came quickly to his defense. “Apart from the vocabulary attributed to him,” Jeffress wrote, “President Trump is right on target in his sentiment.” After reports emerged that Trump’s lawyer paid hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels to cover up their alleged sexual encounter, Graham vouched for Trump’s “concern for Christian values.” Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, argued that Trump should be given a “mulligan” for his past infidelity. One can only imagine the explosion of outrage if President Barack Obama had been credibly accused of similar offenses.
The moral convictions of many evangelical leaders have become a function of their partisan identification. This is not mere gullibility; it is utter corruption. Blinded by political tribalism and hatred for their political opponents, these leaders can’t see how they are undermining the causes to which they once dedicated their lives. Little remains of a distinctly Christian public witness. ...
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
While Michael Moore's claim might seem to conflict with some of my focus on Trump, it actually does not. Moore's quite plausible claim mandates that all of this is a a Machiavellian manipulation, which is my central thesis.

I don't think Trump, or his lawyer Cohen, are so stupid as to behave as recklessly as they do, unless it's all such as "shiny keys".

Liberal documentarian Michael Moore slammed heavy "corporate media" coverage devoted to "Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia" and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels on Monday, calling the stories “shiny keys to distract us." ...
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/379278-michael-moore-russia-stormy-daniels-stories-are-shiny-keys-to-distract-us
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Moore's thesis here is that the West Virginia teacher's strike should have gotten more coverage. He sees it as a great victory for the teacher's union.

There's been a lot of coverage of this strike at wsws.org, but they would disagree that the result was a "victory". On the contrary, they say that the union leadership betrayed the teachers by accepting a measly one-time five percent pay increase, and that is to be funded by an austerity program, rather than through taxes. The settlement failed to address the teachers' most important demand, which was for better health coverage.

So, as we've seen before, the media filter operates on multiple levels. The mainstream media doesn't mention the strike at all. Moore doesn't mention that the strike is widely seen as a failure, or partial success at best. I noticed that as he described the strike, there were some boos from the audience, along with cheers and applause.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I suppose that one could just as well argue that in lieu of Russia and Stormy that Trump's other behaviors and actions would still suck all the media oxygen out of the air. He also seems to have had some union support for his tariffs as well, albeit this is mostly closing the barn door after all the cows have left.

BTW, I couldn't detect the boos, maybe my computer's audio hardware is insufficient?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpt is the opening of an article discussing the extreme one-way street on privacy with Donald Trump.


Donald Trump has little regard for the privacy of the masses. During the 2016 campaign, he bought access to psychological profiles of millions of voters created by scraping and studying their Facebook accounts without most of them having granted permission. He signed a bill repealing FCC rules that limited the ability of Internet service providers to sell data on our browsing habits. Like his predecessor, he presides over surveillance agencies that collect metadata on the private communications of hundreds of millions of Americans whether they like it or not. And his administration pays a private corporation for access to billions of photographs that reveal where and when particular cars drove on public roads and highways.

Yet even as President Trump exploits information so private that gathering it would have been unthinkable a generation ago, he engages in unprecedented efforts to prevent voters from getting a full, accurate picture of matters bearing on his public life. ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/all-the-presidents-ndas/555884/
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I don't think Trump, or his lawyer Cohen, are so stupid as to behave as recklessly as they do, unless it's all such as "shiny keys".
...
There wouldn’t even be a lawsuit were it not for the fact that, last month, a company that Cohen set up to make the payment to Clifford obtained from an arbitrator a temporary restraining order directing Clifford to remain silent, or risk a million-dollar penalty.
[...] More than that, the President’s lawyers seem not to have considered what Clifford’s next move would be: challenging the arbitration. They had, in effect, engineered something of a win-win situation for her. Practically speaking, in order for Trump to hold Clifford to the agreement, he has to fight her in court—a process he began Friday—and come out and admit to the deal publicly.

CNN and the Journal reported that one of the lawyers who obtained the
order was Jill Martin, another Trump Organization employee. (She was the point person in the Trump University fraud case.) A statement from the company said that, like Cohen, Martin had handled the matter only “in her individual capacity.” This paints a picture of the Trump Organization as a place where anything that the company isn’t quite supposed to do might be done as a personal favor, perhaps dressed up as an act of friendship or loyalty. It is a further sign that the special counsel Robert Mueller’s subpoena of Trump Organization business records, reported last week, might turn up a true morass.

The Trump White House appears to function much like the Trump Organization, in terms of the blurring of lines. Recent weeks have brought a compendium of stories about Cabinet members treating public money as a personal privilege—thirty thousand dollars for Ben Carson’s office dining set, forty thousand for Scott Pruitt’s soundproof phone booth, a million for Steven Mnuchin’s military flights. With the President’s sons meeting with foreign political figures while travelling the world on business trips, with his daughter playing a diplomatic role with leaders of countries where she has commercial interests, and with his son-in-law seemingly marked as a potential recipient of foreign bribes by all and sundry, it’s important to know who pays whom, and for what.

The Trump team’s response to the Clifford debacle seems to have been driven by the President’s vanity, temper, and resentment. All of those have also been on display in his larger response to Mueller’s investigation, from his firing of James Comey, the F.B.I. director—an action that exposed him to possible obstruction-of-justice charges—to his apparent desire, last week, to fire Andrew McCabe, Comey’s former deputy, just days before McCabe’s retirement, in a petty attempt to deny him his full benefits. For a man who has built a career on bluffing and intimidation, Trump is surprisingly clumsy when it comes to those tactics, and oblivious of their costs. ...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/26/what-went-wrong-in-the-stormy-daniels-case
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This story is said to originate from an anonymous source close to "those working in the White House", which means "not actually working in the White House". So I'm not sure it has enough credibility to be even worth mentioning. But, I can't help myself.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/pastor-begley-melania-trump-demanded-spiritual-cleansing-white-house-removal

While commenting on President Donald Trump's very public support for Christianity, as well as the frequent Bible studies and prayer gatherings held at the White House, evangelical Pastor Paul Begley said first lady Melania Trump demanded that the White House be spiritually cleansed and that pagan, demonic items and artificats from the Obama and Clinton years be removed.

Melania Trump reportedly said, "I’m not going to go into that White House unless it has been completely exorcised," according to Pastor Begley. One thing was left, a cross on the wall. "They cleansed the White House," he said. "They had people in there anointing it with oil and praying everywhere.” ...

“I have to say, when the president allowed 40 pastors to come in to the White House and anoint him with oil and lay their hands and pray on him—seven times he’s done this—that is unheard of,” Begley said. “We haven’t ever – the guy’s got flaws, we all do. But at least he is humble enough and recognizing that he needs God enough that he keeps bringing them in for the prayer."

"And I’ve got to say this, it might have started with the first lady," said Begley. "I’m just being honest with you."

“The first lady, in that five hours when the Obamas and the Trumps went down to the Capitol and Trump was being sworn in as the 45th president of the United States,” Begley claimed, “Melania Trump said to her husband – she said, ‘I’m not going to go into that White House unless it has been completely exorcised.'”
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Sounds like agitprop to keep the rummies going. But maybe I'll have to repent whatever the case!!!

upload_2018-3-21_17-8-54.png
MissScarletwithaRevolver
I hope it is true and if it is it is good news because it means that the Trumps are fully aware of the evil and darkness that has been invited to infect our country's institutions. I do think DJT has triumphed over all of the evil people working against him because he has so many of us praying for him and for truth to be revealed. Finally, the Light is winning but darkness is not dead yet. They are getting desperate and therefore at their most dangerous. Keep praying!
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/pastor-begley-melania-trump-demanded-spiritual-cleansing-white-house-removal

There are some pretty hilarious comments by the 'believers', one even comments on the Satanists' hypocrisy. How dare they believe in one and not the other, but ... who the Hell is that Lucifer guy? Not the deepest thinkers.

Euro2000
Hasn't Chelsea Clinton been seen wearing an upside down cross? As well as she tweeted a New Year's message to the Church of Satan.

Look at the stars Hillary Clinton most associates with, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga, they are all acknowledged Satanists. Lady Gaga says, thank Lucifer, rather than God.

The Left's hierarchy mock Christians for their belief in God, yet they believe in Satan. Hypocrisy, is the very least of this deception.

When I look at how Hillary lost, I think it was prayer that kept her out of the White House.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Sounds like agitprop to keep the rummies going.
Looks like you nailed that one. Melania says it isn't true. I guess that settles it, unless more whistleblowers come forward. Preferably with some video tapes.

https://wtop.com/national/2018/02/first-lady-did-not-hire-exorcist-for-white-house/

A spokeswoman for the first lady says multiple reports that Melania Trump had a ceremony to rid the White House of demons before moving in is false.

Stephanie Grisham said the reports that were shared widely on social media are “not true in any way.”

The stories originate from a broadcast with Indiana pastor and radio host Paul Begley, who said that Mrs. Trump said at her husband’s presidential inauguration that she would not move in to the White House until the residence was exorcised.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Never understood at the time was the sudden turning of Saudia Arabia and the UAE on Qatar, the latter which hosts 11,000 American troops and CENTCOM at a huge air base. Ironically, our troops are now there in order to please Al Qaeda's demand that US troops not be on the 'sacred' (Saudi) soil once trod by the prophet Muhammad. But now, with George Nader, we know the reason for this action. It's about 'Pay-to-Play', which is apparently good when Trump and Kushner do it, and bad when Hillary does it. As the article excerpted below reminds us, Trump made a big deal about 'Pay-to-Play' during the election campaign.

Sounds like "high crimes and misdemeanors" to me. Of course, when such as 9/11 and Al Qaeda is mentioned we're entering the 'weird' Hall of Mirrors.

...
Remember how Robert Mueller has given Nader immunity? Wonder why!

As Rachel Maddow reported Wednesday night, it’s been downright odd watching the Trump administration deal with Saudi Arabia, and suddenly turn against Qatar, starting with Trump’s very first trip abroad as president, where he grinned from ear to ear because the Saudis let him play with their big glowing balls. Recently, it was revealed that the Qataris had told the Kushner Companies to fuck off when they came hat in hand begging for a handful of half billion dollar loans, and we’ve wondered if that contributed to why the Trump administration turned on Qatar last summer, supported the Saudi blockade against that country (WHICH IS AGAIN WHERE CENTCOM IS, and also 11,000 US TROOPS), and suddenly accused Qatar of being a big state sponsor of terrorism — something the Saudis NEVER HAVE EVER DONE on an Indian summer morning in September of 2001 in lower Manhattan.

Now, we’re learning there was also a yearlong lobbying operation/Tinder date between a big RNC money man and a lobbyist for the UAE and Saudi Arabia, that may have involved dirty foreign bribe moneys, that seems to have been pushing Trump toward the same objectives. And this stuff is all so significant that Robert Mueller is ALL THE WAY UP ITS ASS.

Weird, right? ...

https://wonkette.com/631553/robert-mueller-just-wondering-if-trump-taking-bribes-from-handful-of-arab-kingdoms-totally-normal

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
On a day when President 'Samson' Dennison (aka Donald J. Trump) broadens the front of his trade war by announcing $60 billion in further tariffs against China (which has announced reciprocal American targets), crashing the stock market by another 740 points, he further bolsters his new war cabinet, replacing General McMaster with uber neocon hawk John Bolton. This shortly after putting hawk Mike Pompeo in as Secretary of State in place of Rex Tillerson. On this same day, Tillerson sets the contrasting dovish outgoing tone by telling everyone at the Trump ravaged State Department to perform one act of kindness per day, complaining about the 'meann-spiritedness' of Washington D.C..

General McMaster garnered fame by his book critiquing the conduct of the US military brass during the Vietnam War, in going along with the political agenda of the war rather than taking measures to avoid the disaster.

In near the same time frame Trump is demonstrating that he wants to go his own defiant way with regards to the Russia investigation and other matters. There are rumors that he wants to can Chief of Staff General Kelly and then not replace him, so that Trump can run the WH more like he ran the Trump Org, ... like a dictator.

He campaigned that he would fight to keep us out of stupid wars, yet such as a massive trade war can also lead to a literal war.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Speculation is rampant, including in the MSM, about what the implications of the individual and collective changes to the Trump administration mean. One popular speculation is that these massive changes (in terms of policy perspective as well as individuals) serves to provide more distraction from the ratcheting up of the Mueller investigation into such as Trump's business activities with the Russians and now with Saudis and the UAE, if not others, ... and the resurrection of Trump's girlie problems.

However, perhaps the girlie problems serve to provide motivational cover for the personnel changes, of which John Bolton provides a policy direction 180 degrees opposite from what Trump had campaigned on, at least in some important aspects. Bolton is an America First nationalist, however, he has always been a neocon warhawk, note his associations with PNAC and JINSA below. Interestingly, Bolton is a hawk regarding Russia, and it will be interesting to see if Bolton sees fit to cross Trump here. Both McMaster and Tillerson got the boot soon after doing so. In 2016 Bolton advanced the notion that Russiagate was an Obama Administration 'false flag', yet he did not generally change his aggressive stance regarding the Russians, whereas Trump has been a Russia dove.

...
John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948) is an American diplomat and attorney, who is currently the National Security Advisor-designate of the United States. He is expected to begin his tenure as National Security Advisor on April 9, 2018.

A nationalist[1][2] and conservative,[3][4][5] Bolton served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 as a recess appointee by President George W. Bush.[6] He resigned in December 2006, when the recess appointment would have otherwise ended,[7][8] because he was unlikely to win confirmation from the Senate in which a newly elected Democratic Party majority would be taking control in January 2007.[9][10] On March 22, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his appointment as National Security Advisor, to take office on April 9, 2018.[11]

Bolton is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),[12] senior advisor for Freedom Capital Investment Management,[13] a Fox News Channel commentator, and of counsel to the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis.[14] He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney.[15] Bolton is also involved with a number of politically conservative think tanks, policy institutes and special interest groups, including the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Project for the New American Century, Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, the Council for National Policy, and the Gatestone Institute,[16] where he serves as the organization Chairman.

Bolton has been called a "war hawk" and is an advocate for regime change in Iran and North Korea and has repeatedly called for the termination of the Iran deal.[17][18] He was a supporter of the Iraq War and continues to support his decision.[19] He has continuously supported military action and regime change in Syria, Libya, and Iran.[20][19] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

Another speculation is that the shakeups to the Trump legal team signal a change in strategy for Trump to become more confrontational with respect to the Mueller investigation, perhaps to force an end to the investigation, one way or the other. Launching large-scale military action will also provide cover to pressure an end to the investigation, and Bolton and Pompeo can help out here.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Caitlin Johnstone suggests that John Bolton may be "an actual, literal psychopath", based mostly on information from this Vox article:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/22/17153338/john-bolton-national-security-adviser-trump-hr-mcmaster

In 2002, Bolton’s staff prepared a speech alleging that Cuba had an active biological weapons program. This wasn’t true, and the State Department’s lead bioweapons analyst at the time would not sign off on the claim. Per the analyst’s sworn testimony to Congress, Bolton then called the analyst into his office, screamed at him, and then sent for his boss. In this conversation, per the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, he derisively referred to the analyst as a “munchkin” and attempted to get him transferred to a different department.

This was cruel and unprofessional, but also dangerous. Carl Ford, then the assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, testified that Bolton’s assault on the analyst had a “chilling effect” throughout the department, freezing out dissent on proliferation issues beyond Cuba. John Prados, a fellow at George Washington University’s National Security Archives, came to an even broader conclusion in a study of declassified Bush administration documents: Bolton bears a significant amount of blame for the politicized intelligence used to justify the decision to attack Iraq.

“Although Bolton’s actions did not concern Iraq directly, they came to a high point during the summer of 2002 — the exact moment when Iraq intelligence issues were on the front burner — and they aimed at offices which played a central role in producing Iraq intelligence,” Prados writes. “Analysts working on Iraq intelligence could not be blamed for concluding that their own careers might be in jeopardy if they supplied answers other than what the Bush administration wanted to hear.”

None of this got Bolton fired. In fact, it got him promoted: In March 2005, President Bush nominated him to be US ambassador to the UN, one of the most important diplomatic positions in the entire government.

Bolton’s Senate confirmation hearing turned into a vicious fight, largely over his role in shaping the faulty prewar intelligence about Iraq. But his management style, as exemplified by the munchkin incident, also became a huge issue. When Ford was called to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he bluntly said Bolton’s personality should disqualify him from holding high office. Ford called him a “bully” who “kisses up and punches down,” among other things.

“I’m as conservative as John Bolton is,” Ford told the committee. “But the fact is that the collateral damage and the personal hurt that he causes is not worth the price that had to be paid.”

Multiple people who had worked with Bolton came out of the woodwork to speak to these issues. Perhaps the most harrowing such account came in an open letter written by a former federal contractor named Melody Townsel, recalling a time that she raised issues surrounding the use of funds in a contract Bolton was working on. He didn’t take it well:

Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel — throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.

All in all, according to then-Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, testimony from at least five people confirmed multiple instances of Bolton behaving abusively toward subordinates and retaliating against intelligence professionals who challenged his policy positions. For these reasons, Bolton could not be confirmed by the Senate — which was, at the time, controlled by Republicans.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Bolton has now been discovered to be part of a fabric involving Cambridge Analytica, the NRA, and the .... Russians. The latter two's connection of which I have posted on this thread about before. The NRA seems to have used CA data to contribute a massive $30 (to $70 considering dark money) million dollars to the Trump campaign, much of that money seeming to come from a Putin connected Russian oligarch, Alexander Torshin. Torshin is supposedly a money laundering fox in the Russian henhouse.

Bolton made political videos promoting gun rights for Russians. Of course, there is a parallel thread involving evangelicals, the NRA, and Russophilia.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-trump-russia-nra-connection-heres-what-you-need-to-know-w515615
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following WSJ (a Murdoch publication) op-ed posits that Trump is indeed following a strategy and related tactics in dealing with his authoritarian and other 'peers'. Not only is he playing the chaotic reverso-man to such domestics as the Republicans, but to Putin and Xi Jinping as well. The last line of the excerpt suggests that some hardliner Trump appointments allow him to be something of a Good Cop -- at times (never predictable).

...
Let’s pause here to say that some politicians have been politicians for too long, and in the wrong way, if they think chiding a foreign dictator about democracy over the phone somehow advances U.S. interests. It is only done for U.S. domestic political consumption. Let’s stop lying to ourselves about this.

Mr. Trump may be misguided. He may not get the results he wishes. But when a 71-year-old man tells you how to expect him to operate, maybe that’s how he’s going to operate.

Take China. This column is no cheerleader for trade wars, believing the U.S. can prosper whatever foolish policies Beijing undertakes in its descent into authoritarian dysfunction. But Mr. Trump clearly believes trade threats create opportunities for his bargaining skills. As this week’s tariffs were cooking away for the past year in the legal lab of Mr. Trump’s U.S. trade adviser, what was Mr. Trump doing? Buttering up Xi Jinping. Talking up the two leaders’ brilliant rapport. Congratulating Mr. Xi on his achievements.

“In Beijing, Trump declines to hit President Xi Jinping on trade,” complained a Washington Post headline as recently as November.

There is an obvious method here. Now do you get why Mr. Trump finds it useful to surround himself with hard-liners like Peter Navarro on trade or John Bolton on foreign policy while he presents himself as the sole avenue to a consensual solution? ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-never-speaks-ill-of-putin-1521844128

The op-ed goes on to discuss the Deep State AngloZionist (without employing those 'naughty' terms) conspiracy of such as Comey and Brennan against Trump.

I believe it likely that such as the 'Western' European sphere has participated in generating this narrative against Trump and the alleged innocent wet noodles of the East European (essentially Russia) bloc. However, if such as Putin was a spaghetti dish, it would indeed be a dish served in 'the style of a whore', spaghetti alla putinesca. Since Postflavians are essentially Pastafarians (Pastaflavian sectarians?) at heart, we must be such discerning pasta connoisseurs as to distinguish and forsake the pollyannish assertions of abject Russophiles and other Trumpistas like American evangelicals and the NRA. These former who naively or cynically claim that Russia (and the former Soviet Union), either in the historical past or post-Yeltsin, has ever done anything untoward in contributing to the various tensions with the evil West.

Poor Trump, who only wanted better relations to break out with Russia, has instead been forced to witness the long stormy relationship start to spiral out of control. Heavens!!! Well, either he is indeed playing three dimensional chess or the Deep state is sabotaging him, or ... maybe under the covers they are in league? In league with each other, and ... with that over-cooked Russian spaghetti dish. FWIW, Pastaflavians are normally only all-in for al dente, with a few exceptions. But here, perhaps we can be accused ourselves of being pollyannish, the world's realpolitik always operating on Machiavelli's and Sun Tzu's underlying rules.

I view the so-called Western and Eastern European schism as just as contrived, yet more subtle (all under the Christian banner) as the creation of the Mosaic cultural inversion, the 'Arya' cultural inversion between the Vedas and the Avestas. Perhaps like 'revenge' a dish best served cold. As with the Russian pasta in the "style of a whore", the Jewish foundational narrative has the tribe of Judah being founded via intercourse with a 'seeming' whore, no doubt a metaphorical allusion as well.

Imagine if the late uber-Norman Nicholas DeVere was correct, especially to the extent that his Arya clan had indeed long insinuated itself into all the offices (or pasta kitchens) of
Western Civilization (its western and eastern branches) and even some of the Asian 'East' long, long ago. And that they indeed sponsored the Veda/Avesta schism, the Amun/Aton schism, the Mosaic Inversion, and that the mediated (pun intended) the rise of Cyrus (the first messiah of the Jews). If so, might this help validate such as Flavio Barbiero's assertion that the Constantinian era break between the Western and Eastern Roman Empire was an intentional synthesis? And if so, might the result be a very old and cold pasta dish being served to us today?

The Russophile 'Saker' identifies some in the evil West as 'Francs', who in other's historical parlance have called these as being 'Normans'. The DeVere clan (which he claims are the real and only Arya) being associated with Oxford, we also find at the center of the current Russian collusion controversy the now infamous Cambridge Analytica, an offshoot of a British firm, SCL Group, ladling its dark putinesca sauce to American and Russian side dishes. Did Poor Liddle Trump ever have a chance?

Oh Stormy:

You were the sunshine, baby, whenever you smiled
But I call you Stormy today
All of a sudden that ole rain's fallin' down
And my world is cloudy and gray
You've gone away
Oh Stormy, oh Stormy
Bring back that sunny day

Yesterday's love was like a warm summer breeze
But, like the weather ya changed
Now things are dreary, baby
And it's windy and cold
And I stand alone in the rain
Callin' your name
Oh Stormy, oh Stormy
Bring back that sunny day

Oh Stormy, oh Stormy
Bring back that sunny day
http://www.metrolyrics.com/stormy-lyrics-classics-iv.html

All hail the Aton!!!
 
Top