The intrepid Julian Assange has come forward again with information relating to the activities of the so-called 'Deep State'. In a series of posts on Twitter, Assange stated that the organized crime syndicate centered around former Presidents Clinton and Obama have been in contact with members of Vice President Pence's advisory staff. Their purpose? To elevate Pence into the Presidency through some sort of procedural removal of President Trump.
"{Hilary} Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable, hence defeatable. {Also} two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are preparing for a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees. It should be noted that both officials close to Pence and Hilary Clinton spoke of moving towards an 'impeachment' not other action." Assange wrote.
The Corporate Media quickly swept the story under the rug; which ought to raise suspicions that it is very likely true. Assange is rarely wrong anyway.
For his part, Pence denied any such collusion. I tend to doubt that the Vice-President would be a party to such a conspiracy. Pence would have everything to lose and nothing to gain by cooperating with Hilary and the RINOs. As things stand now, Pence is a shoo-in to be nominated and elected after Trump leaves office in 4-8 years. But that doesn't mean that operatives close to him can't be bought.
What Assange is stating is not out of the realm of probability. There have been Establishment Media, Academic, and political operatives working out impeachment scenarios since last November. Pence shouldn't take Assange's warning lightly. He needs immediately to jettison any and all Obama holdovers from his office and have an investigation performed on his staff to separate the sheep from the goats.
As Pat Buchanan said recently, the Trump Administration needs to make purging the Executive Branch a top priority. This kind of problem will persist indefinitely as long as the Establishment has its tentacles still within the bureaucracy.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
WHY CELEBRITIES FANTASIZE ABOUT MURDERING TRUMP
There was an interesting, though disturbing, article written by Dan Gainor today about a growing trend among ghetto-trash culture music performers making lurid songs about assassinating President Trump. This has been a noteworthy tendency among various celebrities and pundits for some time. But the danger involved in all of this is, of course, that the Corporate Media hopes to incite some violent incident against the President.
According to official numbers, public threats against President Trump are literally surpassing the authorities' abilities to contain them. Twitter and Facebook noted 12,000 public threats against Trump---a rate of almost 1,000 per day. Contrast this with Obama---who received an average of 30 per day; which itself was a 400% increase over threats against the Bush Administration.
The US Secret Service typically doesn't publicize many of its cases involving threats against the President for the very reason that they fear inspiring copycat crimes. Now when these scummy celebrities fantasize and rhapsodize about possible assassination scenarios---copycats are what they are trying to generate. We only have to go back to 1981 with the failed attempt on President Reagan to understand that unstable people will try to impress celebrities with such deeds.
Political assassinations in a democracy are almost always the handiwork of obsessed madmen. The 1952 attempt on President Truman was really the only case that had a clearly-defined political motivation. The first recorded attempt on a president occurred in 1837 against President Jackson, who escaped by a miracle. While greeting a crowd, a gunman brandishing two muzzle-loaded pistols fired point-blank at Jackson's heart and both weapons misfired. Jackson understandably led a thanksgiving prayer-service after the incident. The gunman was later judged insane and committed to a psychiatric prison.
Social psychologists have long believed that assassinations in our culture are carried out or attempted by individuals of similar character to mass-shooters. Whereas the mass-shooter is typically lashing out at some group---or humanity in general---the assassin sees the President as a unique symbol. In both cases, the killers typically are projecting their own self-hatred onto a person or group which represents to them the goodness they lack within themselves. Such is the Sandy Hook Shooting where Lanza murdered an kindergarten class, or the Roseburg Shooting where Christians were singled out. Sometimes the killers lie to themselves and concoct a plausible revenge motive to justify their crimes; such as George Sodini, Eliot Roger and others like them who usually publish long manifestoes before carrying out their plans.
Among presidential assassins, John Wilkes Booth is an example of the latter category. Booth was an arrogant and wealthy elitist theater performer---much like his kindred spirits in Hollywood today. And like them, he despised the common people as his inferiors and had a fanatical hatred for Blacks in particular. He admired the Southern Aristocracy and resented Lincoln---whom he saw as a plebian 'unfit to hold office' (does this sound familiar?). To summarize: Booth was an entitled elitist who feared his own inferiority. Lincoln represented to him the power of the common man, which Booth projected his own fears of not achieving greatness. The Civil War gave Booth the pretext, but the reality was he saw Lincoln as a threat to his own ego.
Guiteau, the assassin of President Garfield, was an even more clear-cut case. President Garfield was a Civil War hero, a brilliant scholar, and a Christian leader with a model family. Guiteau was the exact opposite: a complete loser with delusions of grandeur. The Kennedy Assassination saw almost exactly the same parallels between Kennedy and Oswald.
President McKinley was assassinated in 1901 by an Anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. Czolgosz was the son of Polish immigrants who became radicalized and renounced the Church during an economic recession in the 1890s in which Czolgosz was unemployed. He believed that an economic conspiracy was holding him and others down---he was chronically unemployed since his radicalization. McKinley however began life as the son of an ironworker (and not coincidentally Czolgosz originally worked in a steel-mill). McKinley came from pioneer stock, just as Czolgosz came from immigrant stock. Yet McKinley's rise to the highest office in the land stung the ego of the unbalanced Czolgosz. It's noteworthy that both turned to politics: McKinley in a constructive way, while Czolgosz went into revolutionist theories. McKinley was elected by popular consent; whereas Czolgosz' groups tried shooting their way into power.
These historical profiles are important for understanding the motivations behind those who advocate violence against President Trump. What they imagine they see in President Trump is a living embodiment of what they can never be. Most of our current so-called Cultural Elites didn't attain their statuses by hard work and popular appeal as Trump did. Most got there by fraud and force and subconsciously they see Trump's earned achievements as testimony against their own despicable characters. What's more: Trump achieved this by going against the Elites' stated philosophies---which show them up as frauds even more. During the Obama years, the Elites hated Putin for the same reasons; and it's no accident that Trump's enemies are always trying to connect him with Russia.
So bear the facts in mind when the media lashes out at Trump. They call Trump a dangerous threat who must be destroyed, when in reality they are consumed by their own evil. This is why the Left has gotten more violent over time and why these threats and violent outbursts will increase---not lessen---as Trump achieves more and more. The enemy that Trump's opponents are fighting is really within themselves; and they can't escape their own guilty consciences.
What we must do under these circumstances is to understand their motivations. We're not talking here about disagreeing with the Administration over something like his China Policy or Immigration Reform. There's nothing political about what these celebrities are doing in encouraging violence against the President---it is sheer criminal motivation and nothing more.
According to official numbers, public threats against President Trump are literally surpassing the authorities' abilities to contain them. Twitter and Facebook noted 12,000 public threats against Trump---a rate of almost 1,000 per day. Contrast this with Obama---who received an average of 30 per day; which itself was a 400% increase over threats against the Bush Administration.
The US Secret Service typically doesn't publicize many of its cases involving threats against the President for the very reason that they fear inspiring copycat crimes. Now when these scummy celebrities fantasize and rhapsodize about possible assassination scenarios---copycats are what they are trying to generate. We only have to go back to 1981 with the failed attempt on President Reagan to understand that unstable people will try to impress celebrities with such deeds.
Political assassinations in a democracy are almost always the handiwork of obsessed madmen. The 1952 attempt on President Truman was really the only case that had a clearly-defined political motivation. The first recorded attempt on a president occurred in 1837 against President Jackson, who escaped by a miracle. While greeting a crowd, a gunman brandishing two muzzle-loaded pistols fired point-blank at Jackson's heart and both weapons misfired. Jackson understandably led a thanksgiving prayer-service after the incident. The gunman was later judged insane and committed to a psychiatric prison.
Social psychologists have long believed that assassinations in our culture are carried out or attempted by individuals of similar character to mass-shooters. Whereas the mass-shooter is typically lashing out at some group---or humanity in general---the assassin sees the President as a unique symbol. In both cases, the killers typically are projecting their own self-hatred onto a person or group which represents to them the goodness they lack within themselves. Such is the Sandy Hook Shooting where Lanza murdered an kindergarten class, or the Roseburg Shooting where Christians were singled out. Sometimes the killers lie to themselves and concoct a plausible revenge motive to justify their crimes; such as George Sodini, Eliot Roger and others like them who usually publish long manifestoes before carrying out their plans.
Among presidential assassins, John Wilkes Booth is an example of the latter category. Booth was an arrogant and wealthy elitist theater performer---much like his kindred spirits in Hollywood today. And like them, he despised the common people as his inferiors and had a fanatical hatred for Blacks in particular. He admired the Southern Aristocracy and resented Lincoln---whom he saw as a plebian 'unfit to hold office' (does this sound familiar?). To summarize: Booth was an entitled elitist who feared his own inferiority. Lincoln represented to him the power of the common man, which Booth projected his own fears of not achieving greatness. The Civil War gave Booth the pretext, but the reality was he saw Lincoln as a threat to his own ego.
Guiteau, the assassin of President Garfield, was an even more clear-cut case. President Garfield was a Civil War hero, a brilliant scholar, and a Christian leader with a model family. Guiteau was the exact opposite: a complete loser with delusions of grandeur. The Kennedy Assassination saw almost exactly the same parallels between Kennedy and Oswald.
President McKinley was assassinated in 1901 by an Anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. Czolgosz was the son of Polish immigrants who became radicalized and renounced the Church during an economic recession in the 1890s in which Czolgosz was unemployed. He believed that an economic conspiracy was holding him and others down---he was chronically unemployed since his radicalization. McKinley however began life as the son of an ironworker (and not coincidentally Czolgosz originally worked in a steel-mill). McKinley came from pioneer stock, just as Czolgosz came from immigrant stock. Yet McKinley's rise to the highest office in the land stung the ego of the unbalanced Czolgosz. It's noteworthy that both turned to politics: McKinley in a constructive way, while Czolgosz went into revolutionist theories. McKinley was elected by popular consent; whereas Czolgosz' groups tried shooting their way into power.
These historical profiles are important for understanding the motivations behind those who advocate violence against President Trump. What they imagine they see in President Trump is a living embodiment of what they can never be. Most of our current so-called Cultural Elites didn't attain their statuses by hard work and popular appeal as Trump did. Most got there by fraud and force and subconsciously they see Trump's earned achievements as testimony against their own despicable characters. What's more: Trump achieved this by going against the Elites' stated philosophies---which show them up as frauds even more. During the Obama years, the Elites hated Putin for the same reasons; and it's no accident that Trump's enemies are always trying to connect him with Russia.
So bear the facts in mind when the media lashes out at Trump. They call Trump a dangerous threat who must be destroyed, when in reality they are consumed by their own evil. This is why the Left has gotten more violent over time and why these threats and violent outbursts will increase---not lessen---as Trump achieves more and more. The enemy that Trump's opponents are fighting is really within themselves; and they can't escape their own guilty consciences.
What we must do under these circumstances is to understand their motivations. We're not talking here about disagreeing with the Administration over something like his China Policy or Immigration Reform. There's nothing political about what these celebrities are doing in encouraging violence against the President---it is sheer criminal motivation and nothing more.
TRUMP PROPOSES DEEP CUTS TO UN FUNDING
The Trump Administration's upcoming 2018 Budget proposal is predicted to contain an over 50% reduction in taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations. Under the proposal, Secretary of State Tillerson will have discretionary powers over how the cuts will be implemented; whether immediately or gradually phased-out. However, at a March 9th UN Assembly Meeting, members were told by US representatives to "expect a major US financial constraint" in the near future.
US taxpayers fork over about $10 billion annually to UN general funding alone. Some UN programs like the World Food Program are funded separately through the US Department of Agriculture; and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which is funded through the US State Department. Trump's Budget though calls for 37% cuts to the State Department---and that agency already spends $1.5 billion on UNHCR.
The Corporate Media outlet Foreign Policy Magazine---a subsidiary of Wall Street Media conglomerate Graham Holdings---lashed out at the Trump Administration proposals. With the characteristic objectivity of the MSM, writer Colum Lynch howled:
"State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50% in US funding for UN programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks!"
Well, not exactly. What Trump is doing is reversing a three-decade long policy of using the UN as a vehicle to export American Cultural Marxist. Conventional wisdom among many Conservatives is that the UN is an organization of cultural elites seeking to impose a globalist agenda on the US. In reality, it's been the other way around: American Liberals and Neocons have been using the UN to promote their own agendas both here and abroad. Trump's proposed cuts are really not so much a retreat as they are a reset. Reduced American spending will actually---in the long run---give the UN leadership more independence and latitude in its operations.
Why would that be so? Simply because disproportionate US funding of UN programs often come with social-engineering strings attached. This was particularly bad during the Obama Administration when countries on the brink of famine were basically being extorted by the US to change their policies on things like legalizing abortion and homosexual marriage---often over the objections of those countries' leaders and populations. Then their ambassadors had the added humiliation of being obliged to bow and scrape in front of people like Hilary Clinton and John Kerry at the UN. And we wonder why all these countries which we aid end up hating America? They don't like American Liberal arrogance any more than we do.
Thus we hear from Richard Gowan of the Council on Foreign Relations---a group responsible for creating many 'swamps' in need of draining worldwide---lamenting that "we are basically talking about a breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it." And thank God---it needs to break down. Russia has proven in Syria, Donbas, and elsewhere that humanitarian aid can be more effectively run with or without the UN. Getting American Cultural Marxist bureaucrats out of the way can only improve the UN's efficiency in administering international humanitarian aid.
But we in the US can expect instead a sudden interest from the Corporate Media in ongoing humanitarian disasters---disasters which they dutifully ignored for the last eight years---which will all naturally be blamed on Trump. A word to the wise: beware of this kind of propaganda because it's bound to happen.
Yes, there is a need for the United Nations and for US participation in that group. But there is no need for it to be an extension of the US State Department, the CIA, and other international troublemakers. Trump's new approach to the UN will likely eventually bring the UN back to the global respect it hasn't had since the 1950s.
US taxpayers fork over about $10 billion annually to UN general funding alone. Some UN programs like the World Food Program are funded separately through the US Department of Agriculture; and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which is funded through the US State Department. Trump's Budget though calls for 37% cuts to the State Department---and that agency already spends $1.5 billion on UNHCR.
The Corporate Media outlet Foreign Policy Magazine---a subsidiary of Wall Street Media conglomerate Graham Holdings---lashed out at the Trump Administration proposals. With the characteristic objectivity of the MSM, writer Colum Lynch howled:
"State Department staffers have been instructed to seek cuts in excess of 50% in US funding for UN programs, signaling an unprecedented retreat from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks!"
Well, not exactly. What Trump is doing is reversing a three-decade long policy of using the UN as a vehicle to export American Cultural Marxist. Conventional wisdom among many Conservatives is that the UN is an organization of cultural elites seeking to impose a globalist agenda on the US. In reality, it's been the other way around: American Liberals and Neocons have been using the UN to promote their own agendas both here and abroad. Trump's proposed cuts are really not so much a retreat as they are a reset. Reduced American spending will actually---in the long run---give the UN leadership more independence and latitude in its operations.
Why would that be so? Simply because disproportionate US funding of UN programs often come with social-engineering strings attached. This was particularly bad during the Obama Administration when countries on the brink of famine were basically being extorted by the US to change their policies on things like legalizing abortion and homosexual marriage---often over the objections of those countries' leaders and populations. Then their ambassadors had the added humiliation of being obliged to bow and scrape in front of people like Hilary Clinton and John Kerry at the UN. And we wonder why all these countries which we aid end up hating America? They don't like American Liberal arrogance any more than we do.
Thus we hear from Richard Gowan of the Council on Foreign Relations---a group responsible for creating many 'swamps' in need of draining worldwide---lamenting that "we are basically talking about a breakdown of the international humanitarian system as we know it." And thank God---it needs to break down. Russia has proven in Syria, Donbas, and elsewhere that humanitarian aid can be more effectively run with or without the UN. Getting American Cultural Marxist bureaucrats out of the way can only improve the UN's efficiency in administering international humanitarian aid.
But we in the US can expect instead a sudden interest from the Corporate Media in ongoing humanitarian disasters---disasters which they dutifully ignored for the last eight years---which will all naturally be blamed on Trump. A word to the wise: beware of this kind of propaganda because it's bound to happen.
Yes, there is a need for the United Nations and for US participation in that group. But there is no need for it to be an extension of the US State Department, the CIA, and other international troublemakers. Trump's new approach to the UN will likely eventually bring the UN back to the global respect it hasn't had since the 1950s.
Monday, March 13, 2017
TILLERSON TO VISIT EAST ASIA
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is scheduled to visit Northeast Asia this for the Trump Administration's first major diplomatic effort abroad. Tillerson will visit Tokyo, Seoul, and Beijing---mostly to begin undoing the damage wrought by Obama's Pivot to Asia.
The US Corporate Media is ignoring the significance of this trip; mostly out of petty spite because Tillerson refused to wine and dine them and allow taxpayers to pay their travel expenses. The Media Elites argue that they can't afford both free websites and maintaining foreign news bureaus anymore; despite the fact that the BBC and RT News manage to do both on much smaller budgets. So instead of informing the public of geopolitical developments, we get on-air breakdowns like this.
Thanks also to the Corporate Media, few Americans have any idea just what a foreign-policy disaster Obama created in Asia. The situation that Obama inherited from Bush and the one that Trump inherited from Obama are radically different. When Bush left office in 2009, the US was the undisputed power in the Pacific. Today, China has the upper hand; with Russia and Japan rapidly closing in on our 2nd-place position. Bush had brought North Korea to the negotiating table; Obama tried to force regime-change there and ended up causing it in South Korea instead. And we're just talking about North Pacific disasters here; Trump still has to deal with the South Pacific where Obama made matters even worse.
The Trump Administration, though, can bring American power and prestige back to the Pacific, but the situation isn't going to turn around overnight. Tillerson's challenge is going to be to assess the situation and offer the countries he's visiting a new deal. President Trump has spoken of a rising confidence and optimism in America; this is what his Administration needs to impart to Asia if the US is going to be a global partner there. Each area has some unique issues.
JAPAN: Tillerson's first stop is Tokyo. Obama's mismanagement of policy with Japan has led to a resurgence there of neo-Fascist Imperialism and militarism. Japan's female Defense Minister---an admitted Nazi sympathizer---boasted yesterday that the Japanese Empire now has the world's 6th largest military. Japan is also suspected of supporting terrorist movements abroad; and human rights have eroded during the last eight years. The government is extending political tenures and press censorship will increasing unaccountable spying and police powers.
Pro: The US still has considerable economic and military leverage over Japan.
Con: The Far Right is increasingly entrenched in power and the opposition parties are deeply anti-American.
Challenge: Tillerson is going to have to put his foot down on the Japanese leadership and remind them that the post-WW2 paradigms are still in effect. Okinawa is another problem he's going to have to address. A good solution may be to set up a summit between American, Japanese, and Okinawan leaders to address the ongoing problems around the US base there.
KOREA: Tillerson next goes to Seoul where he'll be obliged to meet with an Interim Government; the president whom Obama supported having been forcibly ejected from office last week after impeachment trials. To say that Obama left the Korean Peninsula in a mess is an understatement.
Pro: (NK) Most of North Korea's militaristic posturing is bluff; the country is much weaker and more willing to negotiate than its leadership lets on.
(SK) America still has some economic and military leverage over South Korea.
Con: Neither side likes nor trusts the US very much.
Challenge: About the best that Tillerson can hope for here is not to make matters any worse. He should offer support to the new South Korean and maybe win some support by encouraging them to 'drain the swamp' as well. As to North Korea, he needs to abandon the hardline Obama approach and try a more 'carrot-and-stick' model. President Kim has said on many occasions that he respects (and probably fears) Trump, so he may be more willing to negotiate if offered something in return.
CHINA: China right now is holding most of the cards, but Trump's main advantage is that President Xi is somewhat more moderate than his predecessors. Xi also has a personality and temperament very similar to Trump's: both are nationalistic but both are business-oriented people.
Pro: Obama's downfall in Asia was so sudden and so complete that China was largely caught unprepared---especially militarily---to capitalize fully on their windfall.
Con: China has been expending considerable energy during the American transition of power to correct the deficiency above. China is also a one-party state and Xi's main opposition are neo-Maoist hardliners.
Challenge: Tillerson is going to have negotiate from a position of weakness; but needs to impress on China that cooperation and not competitiveness is mutually beneficial to both countries. The long-term goal here will be to lock China into fairer and greater trade deals---and possibly joint military cooperation that will reduce the hardline-faction's influence. De-militarizing the region can free up resources that both countries desperately need.
In short, undoing the disastrous Asian Pivot is a long-term problem, but not insolvable. All of Trump's vaunted negotiating skills and Tillerson's business acumen are going to have to brought into play to fix the damage alone. The key here is not follow Obama's course in any way, shape, or form. A period of peace and free trade is what the Pacific Rim needs most of all.
The US Corporate Media is ignoring the significance of this trip; mostly out of petty spite because Tillerson refused to wine and dine them and allow taxpayers to pay their travel expenses. The Media Elites argue that they can't afford both free websites and maintaining foreign news bureaus anymore; despite the fact that the BBC and RT News manage to do both on much smaller budgets. So instead of informing the public of geopolitical developments, we get on-air breakdowns like this.
Thanks also to the Corporate Media, few Americans have any idea just what a foreign-policy disaster Obama created in Asia. The situation that Obama inherited from Bush and the one that Trump inherited from Obama are radically different. When Bush left office in 2009, the US was the undisputed power in the Pacific. Today, China has the upper hand; with Russia and Japan rapidly closing in on our 2nd-place position. Bush had brought North Korea to the negotiating table; Obama tried to force regime-change there and ended up causing it in South Korea instead. And we're just talking about North Pacific disasters here; Trump still has to deal with the South Pacific where Obama made matters even worse.
The Trump Administration, though, can bring American power and prestige back to the Pacific, but the situation isn't going to turn around overnight. Tillerson's challenge is going to be to assess the situation and offer the countries he's visiting a new deal. President Trump has spoken of a rising confidence and optimism in America; this is what his Administration needs to impart to Asia if the US is going to be a global partner there. Each area has some unique issues.
JAPAN: Tillerson's first stop is Tokyo. Obama's mismanagement of policy with Japan has led to a resurgence there of neo-Fascist Imperialism and militarism. Japan's female Defense Minister---an admitted Nazi sympathizer---boasted yesterday that the Japanese Empire now has the world's 6th largest military. Japan is also suspected of supporting terrorist movements abroad; and human rights have eroded during the last eight years. The government is extending political tenures and press censorship will increasing unaccountable spying and police powers.
Pro: The US still has considerable economic and military leverage over Japan.
Con: The Far Right is increasingly entrenched in power and the opposition parties are deeply anti-American.
Challenge: Tillerson is going to have to put his foot down on the Japanese leadership and remind them that the post-WW2 paradigms are still in effect. Okinawa is another problem he's going to have to address. A good solution may be to set up a summit between American, Japanese, and Okinawan leaders to address the ongoing problems around the US base there.
KOREA: Tillerson next goes to Seoul where he'll be obliged to meet with an Interim Government; the president whom Obama supported having been forcibly ejected from office last week after impeachment trials. To say that Obama left the Korean Peninsula in a mess is an understatement.
Pro: (NK) Most of North Korea's militaristic posturing is bluff; the country is much weaker and more willing to negotiate than its leadership lets on.
(SK) America still has some economic and military leverage over South Korea.
Con: Neither side likes nor trusts the US very much.
Challenge: About the best that Tillerson can hope for here is not to make matters any worse. He should offer support to the new South Korean and maybe win some support by encouraging them to 'drain the swamp' as well. As to North Korea, he needs to abandon the hardline Obama approach and try a more 'carrot-and-stick' model. President Kim has said on many occasions that he respects (and probably fears) Trump, so he may be more willing to negotiate if offered something in return.
CHINA: China right now is holding most of the cards, but Trump's main advantage is that President Xi is somewhat more moderate than his predecessors. Xi also has a personality and temperament very similar to Trump's: both are nationalistic but both are business-oriented people.
Pro: Obama's downfall in Asia was so sudden and so complete that China was largely caught unprepared---especially militarily---to capitalize fully on their windfall.
Con: China has been expending considerable energy during the American transition of power to correct the deficiency above. China is also a one-party state and Xi's main opposition are neo-Maoist hardliners.
Challenge: Tillerson is going to have negotiate from a position of weakness; but needs to impress on China that cooperation and not competitiveness is mutually beneficial to both countries. The long-term goal here will be to lock China into fairer and greater trade deals---and possibly joint military cooperation that will reduce the hardline-faction's influence. De-militarizing the region can free up resources that both countries desperately need.
In short, undoing the disastrous Asian Pivot is a long-term problem, but not insolvable. All of Trump's vaunted negotiating skills and Tillerson's business acumen are going to have to brought into play to fix the damage alone. The key here is not follow Obama's course in any way, shape, or form. A period of peace and free trade is what the Pacific Rim needs most of all.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
'ELITE' MEDIA OPERATIVE FLIPS OUT AT WHITE HOUSE
Jon Decker, a Corporate Media reporter formerly of Reuters and NPR but now employed by News Corp, suffered an embarrassing attack of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) shortly before Thursday's White House press briefing. While announcing members of the press during a self-congratulatory ritual that the media elites perform before each briefing, Decker saw that Lucian Wintrich of the aggressively pro-Trump The Gateway Pundit had been invited.
According to witnesses, Decker suddenly lost it; began screaming accusations of racism at Wintrich and tried to push him physically out of the briefing room before being restrained and eventually calmed down by White House security personnel as shocked onlookers watched in disbelief. Wintrich has since filed a police report on the incident.
Decker has been embedded at the White House for the last 22 years and is a board member of the White House Correspondents' Association. He was briefly in the news in 2008 after being bitten by Barney, the Obama family dog. His behavior and character is fairly typical of the Beltway Media 'Elite' who are deeply loathed by many Americans. Although Decker's salary isn't publically available, a typical WHCA member reportedly earns around a quarter-million dollars per year.
During the 2016 Presidential Elections, then-candidate Trump promised White House press credentials to Gateway Pundit editors. Ironically, Wintrich himself is the first (admitted) homosexual to be given access to the White House Briefing Room. The Corporate Media usually celebrates every homosexual 'first' but in this case, their hatred for Trump short-circuited even their Political Correctness. Hopefully, the responsible parties in the White House will revoke Decker's press credentials after this incident to enforce a sense of civilized behavior and decorum that should be part of these events.
Over the last three decades, many social commenters have decried the lack of civility in our culture, and more and more we're seeing exposed now the true face of those individuals who've been shaping that cultural narrative. Jon Decker's face itself is almost a visual representation of that segment of society:
Ask yourselves if Decker even looks like the type of man you'd want your sons to grow up to be---let alone shaping your children's attitudes, opinions, and character. A far cry from what we used to see from the Media:
Granted Uncle Walter wasn't liked by everybody, but he was at least nationally respected and always a gentleman. What men like Decker fail to understand is that journalistic respectability and credibility is something that has to be earned from the public and not imposed upon them by some top-down Wall Street fiat. Decker claimed in his self-defense that Wintrich and The Gateway Pundit are 'fake news' and not worthy of public respect; it may be so, but that is for the public to decide and not for News Corp to impose by violence and intimidation.
The Corporate Media is going to self-destruct with this kind of behavior. They had better begin some serious self-examination, engage in some 'swamp draining' of their own or very soon they may be seeing Breitbart News and The Gateway Pundit occupying positions of public trust once held by The New York Times and The Washington Post. That may not necessarily be a positive development either.
Reform is going to have to come from within the Media itself. They need to purge the overpaid incompetents from their ranks and bring back things like objectivity, professionalism, and a sense of public duty. Some editorial balance in the opinion pages would be beneficial too. Whether they can accomplish this or not remains to be seen.
According to witnesses, Decker suddenly lost it; began screaming accusations of racism at Wintrich and tried to push him physically out of the briefing room before being restrained and eventually calmed down by White House security personnel as shocked onlookers watched in disbelief. Wintrich has since filed a police report on the incident.
Decker has been embedded at the White House for the last 22 years and is a board member of the White House Correspondents' Association. He was briefly in the news in 2008 after being bitten by Barney, the Obama family dog. His behavior and character is fairly typical of the Beltway Media 'Elite' who are deeply loathed by many Americans. Although Decker's salary isn't publically available, a typical WHCA member reportedly earns around a quarter-million dollars per year.
During the 2016 Presidential Elections, then-candidate Trump promised White House press credentials to Gateway Pundit editors. Ironically, Wintrich himself is the first (admitted) homosexual to be given access to the White House Briefing Room. The Corporate Media usually celebrates every homosexual 'first' but in this case, their hatred for Trump short-circuited even their Political Correctness. Hopefully, the responsible parties in the White House will revoke Decker's press credentials after this incident to enforce a sense of civilized behavior and decorum that should be part of these events.
Over the last three decades, many social commenters have decried the lack of civility in our culture, and more and more we're seeing exposed now the true face of those individuals who've been shaping that cultural narrative. Jon Decker's face itself is almost a visual representation of that segment of society:
Ask yourselves if Decker even looks like the type of man you'd want your sons to grow up to be---let alone shaping your children's attitudes, opinions, and character. A far cry from what we used to see from the Media:
Granted Uncle Walter wasn't liked by everybody, but he was at least nationally respected and always a gentleman. What men like Decker fail to understand is that journalistic respectability and credibility is something that has to be earned from the public and not imposed upon them by some top-down Wall Street fiat. Decker claimed in his self-defense that Wintrich and The Gateway Pundit are 'fake news' and not worthy of public respect; it may be so, but that is for the public to decide and not for News Corp to impose by violence and intimidation.
The Corporate Media is going to self-destruct with this kind of behavior. They had better begin some serious self-examination, engage in some 'swamp draining' of their own or very soon they may be seeing Breitbart News and The Gateway Pundit occupying positions of public trust once held by The New York Times and The Washington Post. That may not necessarily be a positive development either.
Reform is going to have to come from within the Media itself. They need to purge the overpaid incompetents from their ranks and bring back things like objectivity, professionalism, and a sense of public duty. Some editorial balance in the opinion pages would be beneficial too. Whether they can accomplish this or not remains to be seen.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
THE MANOSPHERE'S REPUGNANT MARRIAGE RULES
A Red Pill writer who runs a blog called Toad's Hall has been running a series lately titled Theology for Men of the West, in which he argues that the cultish teachings of the Red Pill and Game philosophies represent authentic Christianity. He's written a long article on Biblical Marriage which purportedly illustrates the Red Pill blasphemy that Game/PUA is taught in the Bible.
According to Mr. Toad, the modern Church is in a state of apostasy and adultery because it requires a priest or pastor to solemnize the marriage union and because it treats the wife as the spiritual equal of the husband. Following the PUA narrative, Toad insists this is false; because marriage occurs during the sexual act alone. In fact, he explicitly states that "Churchians believe that sex is only allowed following such a ceremony and indeed, churchians claim that sex is only moral and licit when it occurs within such a union." He's taken the common cultural misconception that 'sex equals love' up to a new level whereby 'sex equals marriage.'
One would logically assume that such a position would lead to old-fashioned shotgun weddings, but Mr. Toad would disagree since he holds that the actual marriage ceremony has no religious significance. In fact, the issue altogether by claiming that the woman's "consent is not required. This means that whether she knew that she was being married or not; whether she wanted to be married or not; with that act {of sexual intercourse initiated by the male} she is married. And the churchians will screech over this truth."
This Philosophy reduces Christian men to a sociological level even more degraded than Pagan cultures---it is actually the philosophy of a savage. And even worse, he's quite clear that this can include forcible rape. "Even the woman who was raped was married by that act."
Following this barbaric method of mate-selection, the woman's allegedly Biblical duty is submission to her husband. Mr. Toad tells us that "The standard for Christian commitment is thus: the husband makes a permanent but not exclusive commitment to the wife; the wife makes a permanent and exclusive commitment to her husband." Although, how anyone makes a commitment devoid of consent, he doesn't explain.
That is the reason why Churches solemnize marriage and why often marriages are controlled legally as well: because it is a binding spiritual or legal contract; depending upon how it is interpreted culturally. One has to presume under such a contractual arrangement that both parties are capable of consent and have entered into the arrangement of their own free will---which presumes a measure of spiritual and/or legal equality. To abandon this concept as a principle is to revert back to the prehistoric level of the ape.
"The commitment standard of the man is permanent," he further informs us, "His commitment is non-exclusive, which means that at his discretion, he can bring other women into the relationship. The commitment standard for the woman is permanent, and she is bound to her man for as long as he lives. Her commitment is exclusive, which means that he is her one and only. Sex with any other man is the crime of adultery. The relationship between the man and the woman is one of master-servant or ruler-subject. The man is to rule his women and have complete authority over them, over every aspect of their lives, in everything."
As much as Islam is maligned in the West, Islamic teaching---outside of the vicious Wahhabi-Jihadist cults---don't even go to this extreme; less so does Christianity teach this. While traditional religions teach female submission as part of gender polarity, the Red Pills define it thus:
"The woman is to submit to her man in everything, no exceptions. Her submission is not dependent upon her opinion of his behavior or upon his actual behavior. If a man is displaying bad behavior, the woman is to submit to him without a word and win him over by her chaste and quiet conduct." However this chastity doesn't extend to the martial bed, Mr. Toad claims, because "Sex is to be on demand and the woman's body belongs to the man...sexual activity...is all at the discretion of the man."
This doesn't mean, of course, that such men aren't actually to love their 'wives'. Mr. Toad defines such love as: "This love is defined as holding wives accountable for good behavior and requiring their obedience. When they transgress, he is required to rebuke and discipline them. Part of this accountability is his obligation is to review any and every agreement she makes with others...The woman is required to live with the man in order that he might meet his responsibility to hold her accountable for her behavior."
This is simply Idolatry, because a woman's first duty is to God, not to a husband---and certainly not to some random stranger who's taken her by force. But Mr. Toad makes the astounding and blasphemous that the Christian God not only condones such behaviors on the part of men, but engages in it Himself: "God claimed that He had two wives" by which he perverts a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah alluding to God's Covenant with Israel.
It's noteworthy that the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran recently issued a decree condemning Islamic husbands who treat their wives like chattel-property---yet we don't hear a peep out of Christian leaders condemning these blasphemies even though they are clearly infiltrating our own churches. But in Iran, religious instruction is still taught in public schools, so the Ayatollahs have the advantage of being able to shame men into better behavior. In our country, many people grow up with no religious instruction, and being presented with this kind of garbage as 'Christian' either converts them into abusive thugs or causes them to reject Christianity with contempt. Christian prelates and pastors cannot continue in this state of denial and must begin speaking out.
According to Mr. Toad, the modern Church is in a state of apostasy and adultery because it requires a priest or pastor to solemnize the marriage union and because it treats the wife as the spiritual equal of the husband. Following the PUA narrative, Toad insists this is false; because marriage occurs during the sexual act alone. In fact, he explicitly states that "Churchians believe that sex is only allowed following such a ceremony and indeed, churchians claim that sex is only moral and licit when it occurs within such a union." He's taken the common cultural misconception that 'sex equals love' up to a new level whereby 'sex equals marriage.'
One would logically assume that such a position would lead to old-fashioned shotgun weddings, but Mr. Toad would disagree since he holds that the actual marriage ceremony has no religious significance. In fact, the issue altogether by claiming that the woman's "consent is not required. This means that whether she knew that she was being married or not; whether she wanted to be married or not; with that act {of sexual intercourse initiated by the male} she is married. And the churchians will screech over this truth."
This Philosophy reduces Christian men to a sociological level even more degraded than Pagan cultures---it is actually the philosophy of a savage. And even worse, he's quite clear that this can include forcible rape. "Even the woman who was raped was married by that act."
Following this barbaric method of mate-selection, the woman's allegedly Biblical duty is submission to her husband. Mr. Toad tells us that "The standard for Christian commitment is thus: the husband makes a permanent but not exclusive commitment to the wife; the wife makes a permanent and exclusive commitment to her husband." Although, how anyone makes a commitment devoid of consent, he doesn't explain.
That is the reason why Churches solemnize marriage and why often marriages are controlled legally as well: because it is a binding spiritual or legal contract; depending upon how it is interpreted culturally. One has to presume under such a contractual arrangement that both parties are capable of consent and have entered into the arrangement of their own free will---which presumes a measure of spiritual and/or legal equality. To abandon this concept as a principle is to revert back to the prehistoric level of the ape.
"The commitment standard of the man is permanent," he further informs us, "His commitment is non-exclusive, which means that at his discretion, he can bring other women into the relationship. The commitment standard for the woman is permanent, and she is bound to her man for as long as he lives. Her commitment is exclusive, which means that he is her one and only. Sex with any other man is the crime of adultery. The relationship between the man and the woman is one of master-servant or ruler-subject. The man is to rule his women and have complete authority over them, over every aspect of their lives, in everything."
As much as Islam is maligned in the West, Islamic teaching---outside of the vicious Wahhabi-Jihadist cults---don't even go to this extreme; less so does Christianity teach this. While traditional religions teach female submission as part of gender polarity, the Red Pills define it thus:
"The woman is to submit to her man in everything, no exceptions. Her submission is not dependent upon her opinion of his behavior or upon his actual behavior. If a man is displaying bad behavior, the woman is to submit to him without a word and win him over by her chaste and quiet conduct." However this chastity doesn't extend to the martial bed, Mr. Toad claims, because "Sex is to be on demand and the woman's body belongs to the man...sexual activity...is all at the discretion of the man."
This doesn't mean, of course, that such men aren't actually to love their 'wives'. Mr. Toad defines such love as: "This love is defined as holding wives accountable for good behavior and requiring their obedience. When they transgress, he is required to rebuke and discipline them. Part of this accountability is his obligation is to review any and every agreement she makes with others...The woman is required to live with the man in order that he might meet his responsibility to hold her accountable for her behavior."
This is simply Idolatry, because a woman's first duty is to God, not to a husband---and certainly not to some random stranger who's taken her by force. But Mr. Toad makes the astounding and blasphemous that the Christian God not only condones such behaviors on the part of men, but engages in it Himself: "God claimed that He had two wives" by which he perverts a passage from the Prophet Jeremiah alluding to God's Covenant with Israel.
It's noteworthy that the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran recently issued a decree condemning Islamic husbands who treat their wives like chattel-property---yet we don't hear a peep out of Christian leaders condemning these blasphemies even though they are clearly infiltrating our own churches. But in Iran, religious instruction is still taught in public schools, so the Ayatollahs have the advantage of being able to shame men into better behavior. In our country, many people grow up with no religious instruction, and being presented with this kind of garbage as 'Christian' either converts them into abusive thugs or causes them to reject Christianity with contempt. Christian prelates and pastors cannot continue in this state of denial and must begin speaking out.
Friday, March 10, 2017
FEATURE FRIDAY, MARCH 10th EDITION
There are few more iconic American institutions than the Texas Rangers. The Rangers were founded in 1823, by the future president of the Texas Republic, Stephen Austin. They played a role throughout all of Texas' history and still exist today in spite of the pervasive political correctness to which all of our national institutions have succumbed.
Our feature for this weekend is the story of a Texas Ranger, from 1983, Lone Wolf McQuade. It stars another American icon (and Trump supporter) Chuck Norris. McQuade is a lone Texas Ranger and Vietnam vet with an exemplary record who's compelled against bureaucratic obstruction, political correctness, and little popular support to do his job. Over his objections, he's assigned a partner, Kayo (played by Robert Beltran). Kayo is a cub whose training involves unlearning most of what he was taught as well as learning the realities of the job from McQuade.
As is typical in an atmosphere of political correctness, ruthless criminal organizations flourish, and McQuade and Kayo soon find themselves up against a vicious arms and narcotics ring that doesn't hesitate to attack even the Army or federal agents. It's up to McQuade alone to finish the job, though he finds along the way a wonderful romantic interest in Lola Richardson (played by Barbara Carrera). Lola's character is quite interesting; she's at first the moll of the posturing and arrogant chief villain, but her head and heart are won by McQuade's genuine masculinity and she turns to him instead. Needless to say, this turn of events makes the battle quite personal between hero and villain.
The storyline and general theme of Lone Wolf McQuade was a very popular one in the late 1970s to late 1980s---at the very end of Hollywood's run as a great entertainment medium. The theme is emblematic of a culture in its waning days: a middle-aged hero, often a loner, working for a once-great institution, with a lot of achievements in his background. These heroes are caught between two opposing forces: an encroaching politically-correct and self-serving bureaucracy on one side and a well-organized and utterly ruthless criminal gang on the other. Their love interests are typically alienated women who are attracted to genuine masculinity and don't run with the popular herd. The cultural message this all conveys is fairly obvious: and for this reason is hated by the modern Hollywood cultural elite.
Nonetheless, films of this era have never waned in their popularity with men. Besides Chuck Norris; Clint Eastwood, Fred Williamson, and Sylvester Stallone are associated with this genre. The reason these films have never lost their luster is because the social predictions they made largely came true; and many men today relate emotionally to the lead characters. J.J. McQuade has been through a divorce, butts heads with his superiors---yet still does his job because it's the right thing to do. The film has a brilliant angle here that's often overlooked by critics: there's an intergenerational dynamic at play. At the beginning of the film, McQuade attends the retirement ceremony for his friend and mentor, Dakota (played by L.Q. Jones) who, despite his 'over 2,000 felony arrests' is told by his superior, "I can't say as I'll miss you" at the celebration's ending. At the other end of the generational scale, McQuade has to train up the young cub Kayo, whom he has to rescue in the opening of the film. (Kayo appears at the end as a toughened veteran).
As we would expect in a film where Chuck Norris plays the hero and David Carradine the villain, there's no shortage of action scenes. Actually Lone Wolf McQuade is a better-than-average film of this genre. The story is convincing, and there are several twists and a fair degree of suspense in the plot. McQuade's character lacks the unfeeling cynicism of some of Eastwood's portrayals, the 'superman' quality of Stallone, or the brooding, soul-searching type portrayed in Williamson's films of the era. McQuade is an archetypical all-American male; a tough guy with a tough job doing what he does best---without pretense or politics---and that is all. And that's what makes his character so alluring.
The popularity of the film led to the television series, Walker, Texas Ranger, which ran on CBS throughout most of the 1990s.
Lone Wolf McQuade is probably best seen on DVD, although it occasionally appears in some of the public-access venues.
Our feature for this weekend is the story of a Texas Ranger, from 1983, Lone Wolf McQuade. It stars another American icon (and Trump supporter) Chuck Norris. McQuade is a lone Texas Ranger and Vietnam vet with an exemplary record who's compelled against bureaucratic obstruction, political correctness, and little popular support to do his job. Over his objections, he's assigned a partner, Kayo (played by Robert Beltran). Kayo is a cub whose training involves unlearning most of what he was taught as well as learning the realities of the job from McQuade.
As is typical in an atmosphere of political correctness, ruthless criminal organizations flourish, and McQuade and Kayo soon find themselves up against a vicious arms and narcotics ring that doesn't hesitate to attack even the Army or federal agents. It's up to McQuade alone to finish the job, though he finds along the way a wonderful romantic interest in Lola Richardson (played by Barbara Carrera). Lola's character is quite interesting; she's at first the moll of the posturing and arrogant chief villain, but her head and heart are won by McQuade's genuine masculinity and she turns to him instead. Needless to say, this turn of events makes the battle quite personal between hero and villain.
The storyline and general theme of Lone Wolf McQuade was a very popular one in the late 1970s to late 1980s---at the very end of Hollywood's run as a great entertainment medium. The theme is emblematic of a culture in its waning days: a middle-aged hero, often a loner, working for a once-great institution, with a lot of achievements in his background. These heroes are caught between two opposing forces: an encroaching politically-correct and self-serving bureaucracy on one side and a well-organized and utterly ruthless criminal gang on the other. Their love interests are typically alienated women who are attracted to genuine masculinity and don't run with the popular herd. The cultural message this all conveys is fairly obvious: and for this reason is hated by the modern Hollywood cultural elite.
Nonetheless, films of this era have never waned in their popularity with men. Besides Chuck Norris; Clint Eastwood, Fred Williamson, and Sylvester Stallone are associated with this genre. The reason these films have never lost their luster is because the social predictions they made largely came true; and many men today relate emotionally to the lead characters. J.J. McQuade has been through a divorce, butts heads with his superiors---yet still does his job because it's the right thing to do. The film has a brilliant angle here that's often overlooked by critics: there's an intergenerational dynamic at play. At the beginning of the film, McQuade attends the retirement ceremony for his friend and mentor, Dakota (played by L.Q. Jones) who, despite his 'over 2,000 felony arrests' is told by his superior, "I can't say as I'll miss you" at the celebration's ending. At the other end of the generational scale, McQuade has to train up the young cub Kayo, whom he has to rescue in the opening of the film. (Kayo appears at the end as a toughened veteran).
As we would expect in a film where Chuck Norris plays the hero and David Carradine the villain, there's no shortage of action scenes. Actually Lone Wolf McQuade is a better-than-average film of this genre. The story is convincing, and there are several twists and a fair degree of suspense in the plot. McQuade's character lacks the unfeeling cynicism of some of Eastwood's portrayals, the 'superman' quality of Stallone, or the brooding, soul-searching type portrayed in Williamson's films of the era. McQuade is an archetypical all-American male; a tough guy with a tough job doing what he does best---without pretense or politics---and that is all. And that's what makes his character so alluring.
The popularity of the film led to the television series, Walker, Texas Ranger, which ran on CBS throughout most of the 1990s.
Lone Wolf McQuade is probably best seen on DVD, although it occasionally appears in some of the public-access venues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)