I'm not sure what you're saying here. If Trump is in fact a Maccabee type, then isn't it to be expected that he will appeal to his nationalist base for the election? In fact, one might expect him only to show his true globalist colors, and to betray his electorate, at those moments when the chips are down.
This mornings news about Trump's status is getting even more dire, as more and more Republicans are pulling away. Trump has no campaign staff other than 4 advance men. So he is making all the campaign decisions about responding to opponents and media, and we haven't yet gotten to the general election campaign.

The important thing here, in regards to a Maccabee comparison is that he has won the number of delegate votes to win the nomination, despite that he was not supposed to do so by conventional wisdom. Not even close. Now, because he has 'won' fair and square (as the masons would say) the Republicans will have to figure out some means to explain why they are going to pull the plug and replace Trump with a candidate whom the electorate has already shown tepid support, at best.

The only other option for Trump it seems, is indeed a Trump favoring 9/11. This might put him in Julius Caesar's league.
This seems to be true, but only in the sense that the globalists win regardless of whether Hillary or Trump prevails in the election?
Yes, as I just answered to Loren. They always win, because both candidates are their own. But, what you are missing is the necessary element of Machiavellian show biz to convince his base that his is really on their side. All demagogues must play this role. Remember that George Wallace was not a 'huuuge' racist, but only portrayed one for the sake of his base.
I still feel there's some possibility that Trump might turn out to be a true nationalist, but the question is whether racist nationalism is an acceptable basis to challenge the globalist empire. And we've talked before about Trump's many expected strengths in national debates with Hillary. And we can't completely discount the possibility that Hillary could get indicted. Making predictions is hard, especially about the future, and especially when you're not an insider.
Again, Trump's race nationalism appeal is phony, he is a (L)iberal who has bamboozled the race nationalists and other goobers. This just like Reagan and the Bushes snowed the evangelicals.

I agree that it is impossible for us to predict the outcome even yet. The only thing that is sure for me that all this is rigged on both sides, as usual.
It is now being reported that Trump is planning to campaign heavily in CA and NY for the general election, states where it is very unlikely for him to win. In addition he is planning on taking time off to promote his golf courses in foreign countries. This time away from otherwise normal campaigning is thought to be bad for raising funds for down ballot Republicans in states where Republicans have better chances of winning.

This morning I read that Charles Koch is now complaining about Republican and Democrat vitriol. This is rather rich, considering the nature of political discourse that his Tea Party has injected into politics across the board. Fortunately, he and his brother want to meet with Trump and Hillary to try to get them to move towards the Koch agenda, as the Kochs are concerned about how all this is affecting such as the poor.

The Kochs are so upset that they are not personally going to pay for campaign advertising this time, but rather have their companies pay for this.

How endearing?

Well, as the Supreme Court and Mitt said, corporations and dead presidents are people too.
You Can't Always Get What You Want? As an intro song? Seriously?

... The days leading into the convention had been worrisome as well to those who were looking for signs that the impulsive and unpredictable billionaire was growing into his role as the standardbearer for a party that has traditionally prided itself on its discipline.

His pick of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as a running mate had generally been hailed as a solid one, but the announcement itself was wobbly.

First, there was the intrigue of Trump’s 11th-hour waffling over one of the most important decisions that any presidential candidate has to make.

Then came the formal vice presidential unveiling itself, at a bizarre event dominated by Trump’s stream-of-consciousness ramblings about Clinton, his Republican primary battles, and a host of issues that seemed to have little to do with Pence, who stood offstage.

Even the atmospherics were off, with dim lighting and the strange choice of the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” as the music to which Trump entered the event.


The TrumPence logo:


BTW, Pence is a radical evangelical Roman Catholic, something of an oxymoron in contemporary American religious categorization. But it looks like maybe Trump wants to stick it to Pence as the logo suggests. Or is this just a different manner of being nailed to the cross?

A branding parody already:

One of the commenters on the Wired link suggested we look at it like so:


Hopefully I wont get in trouble if I only suggest the phrase that we are getting jerked off.
I thought about opening a separate thread to rag on Hillary, but I decided, at least for now, not to do so. My local paper had this column (the conclusion excerpted below) of Maureen Dowd's in it, and I encourage everyone to read it. This in light of Trump's current rampage to apparently destroy himself and further obliterate the Republican Party before the election. Dowd has written plenty about both Trump and Hillary, but the timing and content of this piece is interesting.

Before he died, Beau Biden told his father he wanted him to run partly because he didn’t want the White House to fall back into the miasma of Clinton family values.

The president made his vote-for-Hillary-or-face-doom convention speech only 22 days after his F.B.I. director painted Hillary as reckless and untruthful.

He argued that there is no choice but to support Hillary against a “self-declared savior” like Donald Trump, perhaps forgetting that Obama was once hailed as such a messiah that Oprah introduced him in 2007 as “the one,” and it became his moniker.

In the end, Obama didn’t overthrow the Clinton machine. He enabled it.

It turns out, who we choose is not really about our souls. It’s just politics, man.


In the same newspaper a letter to editor by a now former Trump supporter stated his alternative suspicions for Trump's insane behaviors, especially most recently. The first two were matters internal to the Trump world, but the third was that he must indeed be getting paid by the Clintons. Maybe so, but I suspect that both Trump and Hill are playing someone else's script.
Joe took me by surprise this week on the podcast by giving his endorsement to Trump, on the grounds that he is insane, whereas Clinton is evil and corrupt.

In an eery coincidence, Webster Tarpley responded to a similar argument coming from Green candidate Jill Stein. Tarpley's argument is that it's much safer to give the nuclear button to a known entity, however corrupt, rather than turn it over to a psychotic fascist with a popular mass movement behind him.


In defense of my ongoing position that there is no tremendous reason to favor either of the major candidates, I note that Tarpley's proof that Trump has promised to use nuclear weapons comes from this site:


But in the extensive quotes, Trump's position is identical to Hillary: he doesn't want to use nuclear weapons, but is unwilling to take them off the table. In the past, the US has never made a "no first use" pledge, so I don't see anything significantly new about this.
Looking for evidence and discussion of Trump's alleged insanity. Here is an essay by personality specialist Dan McAdams that talks about the five-factor personality model: extroversion, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, agreeableness. McAdams rates Trump high on extroversion and low on agreeableness, and fails to rate the other three parameters, but says that Trump is highly narcissistic.


This article goes a little further, quoting psychologist Howard Gardner and accusing Trump of "narcissistic personality disorder". This would be somewhere in the sociopathic / psychopathic spectrum.


Marcel Garnizo also votes for NPD, quoting extensively from the DSM-5.


Sam Vaknin, who studies this from the perspective of being a self-admitted narcissist himself, says Trump is no garden-variety narcissist, but malignant and psychopathic.


More therapists weigh in at Vanity Fair. Seems to be a consensus.

Joe took me by surprise this week on the podcast by giving his endorsement to Trump, on the grounds that he is insane, whereas Clinton is evil and corrupt.
I thought Joe was a solid Augustinian? In other words, what would Augustus do?

I still say Trump is play acting, and they are both solid Hellenizers.
The following excerpt is from a fascinating article about how Trump has disemboweled the right. Earlier it talks about the irony of the establishment oriented, neo-liberal Trump having garnered such support from the likes of Drudge, Coulter, Hannity, and the Breitbartless Breitbart media. Now Trump's campaign is allegedly being managed by Bannon, the current leader of Breitbart's empire.

Breitbart had an interesting mortal exit, a personal Brexit if you will, and the timing of it all might make the more Machiavellian oriented think that perhaps his heart attack was engineered. Perhaps Breitbart was not inclined to bend over and do the Trumpet, an homage to the Reuchlin / Roman Piso allusion.

As such, I have previously speculated that the contemporary redux of the Jewish War End Times might include being played out in political warfare terms, at least on the home front, while we are 'magically' distracted by strangeness in the Middle East.

If one pays close attention, the central dialectic of the campaign is that of globalism versus nationalism, with Trump duplicitously playing the role of Josephus while he is really in cahoots with the interests of the Clintons. But, he is saying all the wrong stuff in the right way and backed by certain media outlets that had previously been placed to attract rabid attention by those who had been correctly disenchanted with the programmatic Degradation, to Culture writ large. Meaning beyond just the 'entertainment' domain and including government, education, etc..

The one theme that Trump has stuck to to differentiate himself from Hillary is that of globalism, albeit he is softening on illegal immigration, but he has so psychologically entrained his following by now that they don't give a damn.

Of course, the Libertarian candidate is predictably for Free Trade (as opposed to Fair Trade), overtly supporting the TPP as did Hillary. Crony globalism uber alles.

Some conservatives did try to fight back against Trump, pleading with their audiences to see what they contended to be the rational point of view, but their arguments fell on deaf ears.

One of the chief problems, Sykes said, was that it had become impossible to prove to listeners that Trump was telling falsehoods because over the past several decades the conservative news media had “basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers.”

“There's nobody,” he lamented. “Let's say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it's a falsehood. The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that, 'By the way, you know it's false.' And they'll say, ‘Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.' Or they'll say, 'I saw it on a Facebook page.' And I'll say, 'The New York Times did a fact check.' And they'll say, 'Oh, that's The New York Times. That's bulls---.’ There's nobody — you can't go to anybody and say, 'Look, here are the facts.’”

“And I have to say that's one of the disorienting realities of this political year. You can be in this alternative media reality and there's no way to break through it," Sykes continued. "And I swim up stream because if I don't say these things from some of these websites, then suddenly I have sold out. Then they'll ask what's wrong with me for not repeating these stories that I know not to be true.”

Ziegler said he faced much of the same problem.

“If you are a conservative talk show host, which I am, if you don't accept that it's likely Hillary Clinton has taken part in multiple murders, or that Barack Obama is a Muslim extremist sympathizer who was probably born outside this country — if you don't accept those two things it's almost as if you're a sellout. You're a RINO. You're somehow part of the liberal elite. It's nuts. It's making my own show very difficult to do. It's almost where to the point where we are not able to function.”

He continued: “It's almost like it's a disease, and it's taken over people. I don't remember this being the case four years ago. But something has happened. Something snapped. But now all of a sudden, if a story comes out, and it's not on Breitbart or endorsed by Drudge, it can't be true. Especially if it's about Donald Trump. Which is flat out ludicrous.”

Asked why none of his criticism of Trump seemed to put a chink in the real-estate mogul's armor, Beck paused for a brief moment: "I think that people are very lost and they don't know what to do at this point."

“When this is all over, we have to go back. There's got to be a reckoning on all this,” Sykes said. “We've created this monster.”

“And look, I'm a conservative talk show host. All conservative hosts have basically established their brand as being contrasted to the mainstream media. So we have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media. And by the way, a lot of it has been justifiable. There is real bias,” he continued.

“But, at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there,” Sykes concluded. “And I am feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping the whirlwind at that. And I have to look in the mirror and ask myself, 'To what extent did I contribute?’”

From earlier:
"America is a great place to make a living off an identity crisis. I mean, these guys just sold out to the highest bidder," said Rick Tyler, the former communications director for Cruz’s presidential campaign. "If you're a conservative, you couldn't have possibly gotten on board with Trump. It's not reconcilable."

Trump, of course, was not a man known for his conservative credentials. On a host of issues normally instrumental to winning over the support of the conservative media, he had famously taken liberal positions. Even while running in the primaries, he split with the party on key issues.

Trump fired up crowds with anti-free trade rhetoric, said it was a disastrous mistake to go into Iraq, and got behind so-called touchback amnesty — all things that would normally send the conservative press into a frenzy.

But the loudest voices on the right got behind him. Drudge, Breitbart, Hannity, and best-selling conservative author Ann Coulter all supported his candidacy. Even more surprising, however, was that these very same voices were somehow able to turn the most beloved conservatives into pariahs.


"these guys just sold out to the highest bidder"

Well, perhaps they sold out to the highest bidder, but who was that bidder, and why do they all seem to be going along with supporting such a double agent. I suggest that they were all sleeper agents of globalism all along. This is all an orchestrated affair with very high stakes and to pretend that such people don't play such Machiavellian games is an insult to Machiavelli.
I wasn't sure just how to deal with this story, for several reasons. After all, perhaps the story is just a revenge piece making a claim that is not supportable, as was the tactic usually employed by the radical right media. But, when combined with the above it seems to make some sense.

What is left unstated in the article is whether or not Bannon means he was also a collectivist as, apparently was Lenin. Or, instead was Bannon merely claiming to use Lenin's tactics to accomplish his goal of taking down the state. If the whole piece is revenge propaganda, well let's remember that the Tea Party et al. has done some damage to the ability of the 'state' and the establishment Republican Party to have its way.

With the invocation of Lenin, let's all remember the famous train ride that brought Lenin to power and just who sponsored this. And equally as well, let's remember Jerry's finding of Waldner's expose regarding the double agent nature of one Karl Marx.

I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse in early 2014. We were standing next to a picture of his daughter, a West Point graduate, who at the time was a lieutenant in the 101 Airborne Division serving in Iraq. The picture was notable because she was sitting on what was once Saddam Hussein’s gold throne with a machine gun on her lap. “I’m very proud of her,” Bannon said.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

Following up on my speculation about Bannon's takeover of the Breitbart world, after the latter's sudden demise:

"We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago. Under Bannon's leadership, the site has plunged into the fever swamps of conservatism, cheering white nationalist groups as an "eclectic mix of renegades," accusing President Barack Obama of importing "more hating Muslims," and waging an incessant war against the purveyors of "political correctness."
"Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it," writes a former Breitbart News editor. "With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed."

"Andrew Breitbart despised racism. Truly despised it," former Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro wrote last week on the Daily Wire, a conservative website. "With Bannon embracing Trump, all that changed. Now Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with [technology editor Milo] Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers."

Exactly who and what defines the alt-right is hotly debated in conservative circles, but its most visible proponents—who tend to be young, white, and male—are united in a belief that traditional movement conservatism has failed. They often criticize immigration policies and a "globalist" agenda as examples of how the deck is stacked in favor of outsiders instead of "real Americans." They bash social conservatives as ineffective sellouts to the GOP establishment, and rail against neo-conservative hawks for their embrace of Israel. They see themselves as a threat to the establishment, far bolder and edgier than Fox News. While often tapping into legitimate economic grievances, their social-media hashtags (such as #altright on Twitter) dredge up torrents of racist, sexist, and xenophobic memes. ...


I should add that now the Clinton campaign is going full tilt against Trump on this newest association with the radical right, and also further belies Trump's prior assurances that he was going to pivot to a more moderate stance, albeit his odd wavering over the immigration issue.

The following is one example, and I watched a clip of Rachel Maddow doing the same:
Last edited:
My experiences with the paleo-right and the new left is that as much as they seem to be the most extreme polar opposites, as we've discussed before, there is a certain "wrapping around and meeting each other on the other side" to the extremes. In at least this they have common ground - they resent being disenfranchised by the powerful centrists.

OTOH, and maybe also because of a certain affinity, I also think the two extremes have the most incisive critiques of one another, both of which basically boil down to an absence of living their principles.

In this case, I think both of these things can be seen. Mr. Lenin had personal success leading his revolution to victory, and this is what I think Mr. Bannon responds to. As does Mr. Trump, he "likes winners."

Mr. Lenin had suffered a personal setback from the secret police, having internalized the supremacy of the oppressor, he wore his ideology on his sleeve, but in his heart was a desire to create a better secret police in order to install his ideology. He created that secret police, but then ended up with a police state labeled "socialist."

I don't think the ends justify the means so much as the means are the end
The pic below was among 22 others just released by the Clinton Presidential Library in a response to a FOIA request. If this had been voluntary release by the Clintons to marginalize the Trump message it would have to be called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Now read this is contrast to the post coming next.


The photos were made public Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from POLITICO.

Bill Clinton's June 16, 2000, visit to Trump Tower was for Rep. Ed Towns (D-N.Y.), who said in an interview earlier this year that he recalls Trump showing up at the event and conversing at length with Bill Clinton, even as donors grew impatient.

The newly-released photos underscore just how chummy GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump once was with the president and his wife Hillary.

"I remember one thing that was very negative for me: I promised the people they'd be able to take pictures with President Clinton, and Donald Trump came and monopolized all of the time," Towns said. "Donald had him in the corner and tied him up. I'll never forget that moment."

Trump eventually left but later returned and began talking with Clinton again, recalled American Urban Radio Network White House reporter April Ryan.

"Trump had [Clinton] hogtied for a while," said Ryan, who is Towns' cousin and was on hand for the event.

For those who had paid attention to such matters in the past, the Bushes, Reagan, and others were notorious for giving the bait and switch to the so-called Religious Right. As I have mentioned on another thread, back before Billy Graham and his famous Crusade, evangelicals were instructed to lay low in terms of political participation, as their reward was not only in Heaven, but that the End Times were immanent as Cyrus Scofield informed them (in his bible published oddly by Oxford University Press) - and matching the Jesuit Futurist School of the End Times.

BTW, does anybody know what the throwing of cash on the communion (or offering?) plate synbolizes?

Countless articles have been written on Donald Trump's relationship with the Religious Right, often by those who argue that his rise reveals the movement's increasing irrelevance. After all, how could social conservatives ever get behind a thrice-married failed casino mogul who is more comfortable at the Playboy Mansion than at church? He has bragged that he has never asked God for forgiveness, insisted that Jesus Christ had a massive ego (in an interview with Playboy) and, in an episode that carries obvious symbolism, threw cash on the communion plate in an Iowa church.

It's almost as if the Religious Right cares more about gaining political power than defending Christian teachings.

Trump is slated to make an appearance today at the Values Voter Summit, the annual Washington, D.C., convention organized by the Family Research Council that's the marquis event on the Religious Right's calendar. Trump's appearance at the summit isn't discordant; as his campaign has progressed, it has become clear why the movement has rallied behind him and why he has relied on its support.

Trump once told a crowd at a Christian university not to forgive their enemies but to "get even." The leaders of today's Religious Right have been preaching that message for years, treating politics as a no-holds-barred battle against opponents who they regard not just as people with different points of view, but as spiritual enemies. ...


Yes, the Religious Right is indeed seeking ever more political power, but to what real end and to whose ultimate benefit? These same people claimed they had learned their lessons from the way the Bushes had treated them, but now they are getting humped by Trump. Unless, of course, the real game is not the surface narrative, as usual.