We just can’t go a single day without some kind of Trump scandal causing massive levels of outrage in both the mainstream media and Social media. The latest thing to come out is that he apparently, in reference to countries such as Haiti, El Salvador, and various African countries, asked “Why are we (America) having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Needless to say, the media is absolutely appalled by this question. How dare he make such racist comments about these countries?
But here’s the thing though.
Where exactly is the lie?
To me, it seems as if all he did was make a simple statement of fact. These countries are shitholes. That’s why their populations are so desperate to flee from them in favour of coming to the United States. But they’re also shitholes for a very specific reason. They’re shitholes because of their demographics.
I’ve said it numerous times, and I’ll say it again. A country is a reflection of its people, not the other way around. The reason why America is such a prosperous country, is the same reason why Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are. It’s because it was founded by Europeans, who created a society based on European values. If it was simply down to geographical location, then why didn’t the Native Americans have the same success with building a great nation, as their European colonisers did?
Haiti on the other hand is primarily populated by people of Sub-Saharan African descent, and just like your average Sub-Saharan African country, is a corrupt, poverty stricken shithole, with pathetic living standards. Haiti has actually been occupied by America on three occasions in the 20th century. Between 1915 and 1934, between 1959 and 1963, and between 1994 and 1995. On all three occasions, America imposed order and stability on the country, even building much needed infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, etc, during the first of these occupations. Yet as soon as they handed back control to the Haitians and departed, the country would soon after fall apart again every single time. It’s one thing to not be able to build a functioning country, but the fact that they’ve been handed a pre-built country on multiple occasions, and have failed to even maintain it, really says it all. This is much the same as what we saw happen when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, or what we’re seeing happening in real time to South Africa post-Apartheid. Functioning civilisations are seeing a power transfer from one demographic to another, and that new demographic repeatedly fails to maintain what was handed to them.
So when you take all this into consideration, then is it not a fair question to ask? Why is America taking in people from these shithole countries? How exactly does America benefit from their presence? What do they contribute? What skills or abilities do they have that can’t either be found within America itself, or from non-Shithole countries (Trump cited Norway specifically as a country he would like to see immigration from instead)?
A country is a reflection of its people, not the other way around. And after seeing what the Haitians have done to Haiti on more than one occasion, then does it not stand to reason, that they’d only end up doing the same thing to America as well?
We’re a few days removed from what was apparently the worst mass shooting in American history, beating out the previous record holder from a little under a year and half ago, when Omar Mateen went on a shooting spree in a gay nightclub. The death toll currently stands at 59, with another 500+ injured. At this moment, there’s still very little information about what exactly has happened. We know that the shooter was a white man in his 60s by the name of Stephen Paddock, but we don’t know yet why he did it.
Of course the usual cohort of drooling retards on the internet are chomping at the bit to label him as a “white supremacist terrorist”, simply because he’s a white man who killed a lot of people, and are outraged that he hasn’t been officially declared one… at least not yet. These idiots think that this is an example of a double standard that favour white people, whereby a brown skinned person of the Muslim faith will instantly be labeled as a terrorist for committing an attack, whereas a white man won’t. Of course anyone who has followed this blog will know this is a blatant lie. When the Charlottesville incident happened for example, the media instantly denounced it as an act of white supremacist terrorism, before any facts were established, and demanded that Trump specifically condemn white supremacism, rather than just hatred and violence in general. Compare this to the aftermath of the average Muslim attack, and the instant go to narrative is usually that the attacker was suffering from a “mental illness” (just read any of my previous posts about Islamic attacks and see this for yourself).
No, anyone who actually pays attention to what is really going on, as opposed to making up narratives in their heads, will realise that the media and political establishment will bend over backwards to avoid using the word “terrorist” when a Muslim attacks, but will look for any excuse possible to apply it to “white supremacy” or “right wing extremism”, no matter how poor the supporting evidence is. Inevitably, these narratives always collapse when the facts start coming out, but it sure doesn’t stop them from trying their best.
So I don’t know where this ridiculous narrative that there is an attempt to avoid labeling white attackers as terrorists, came from. I personally think that it’s just a fantasy that idiotic left wing extremists invented in order to maintain their delusions that white people are privileged oppressors and everyone else is an oppressed victim, in the face of facts that debunk this idiocy.
The thing is, terrorism has a very specific definition and while two attacks can look identical of the surface, one might fit this definition perfectly, whereas the other will not. It has nothing to do with the attack itself, but rather the motivation behind it.
If a Muslim attacker is yelling “ALLAHU AKBAR” or “DEATH TO THE INFIDELS”, then it’s pretty obvious that his motivation for the attack is political, and therefore fits the definition of terrorism. It isn’t considered an act of terrorism just because a Muslim did it. In a situation like this however, we don’t yet know his motivation, so we cannot say for certain that it does fit the definition of terrorism. Maybe it will come out that he had a political motivation and in that case, he absolutely will fit the definition, but until that information is available, we don’t know yet, and cannot definitively say that this was a terrorist attack.
However, the fact that there hasn’t been much of an attempt at all from the media or the authorities, to label this particular attack an example of white terrorism, is indeed quite suspicious to me. Normally it happens immediately, yet here we are days later and there’s nothing. There’s still no explanation for what has happened. This leads me to believe that they might know a lot more than they’re letting on, and are worried about it getting out. ISIS have made the claim that he was a recent Muslim convert, and carried out the attack for them. I’m skeptical that this is true, because ISIS seems to claim responsibility for every attack that happens, but I’m not going to rule out the possibility of it being true, until we get an explanation.
Another theory I’ve heard doing the rounds is that he was a member of Antifa, and specifically chose his target (a country music concert), because based on demographics of the people who like that kind of music, it was mostly going to be attended by white, Republican, Trump supporters, the kind of people that Antifa believe it is perfectly justified to use violence against. Again, there’s no conclusive evidence yet to support this, but much like with the ISIS theory, I’m not going to rule it out as a possibility. Either one of these narratives would be a major setback to the media and political establishment, hence why it wouldn’t surprise me that they could try to cover them up by not releasing any information about the true motivation for the attack at all. I think if he genuinely was a “white supremacist” or a “right wing extremist” that they would have already said so by now. If he wasn’t, then better for them to say nothing and allow people to think for themselves that he was one, than release the truth and reveal that he wasn’t.
Not missing an opportunity to politicise tragedies, the anti-gun crowd have been coming out and demanding more “gun control” in light of what has happened. I’m always suspicious when I see politicians talking about their concern for human life and the wellbeing of their citizens. At the same time that they’re talking about gun control, they’re waging pointless and destructive wars all over the world, and importing millions of violent and incompatible people to live among their citizens, with no regard for the dangers. Their actions suggests that they don’t give a damn about human life at all, and any talk about gun control is due to an ulterior motive.
Now just to make things clear, I’m no gun fanatic myself, but I would like to address this situation fairly. The general idea being presented is that America’s high levels of gun proliferation is what is causing its high levels of gun violence, and that restricting gun ownership would reduce this significantly. However, I think this is an oversimplification of what’s going on. Switzerland is a country with very liberal gun laws, and they don’t see much gun crime at all. America itself has always had a high level of gun ownership and in decades past, it was so safe, that even schools were able to have gun clubs.
It’s really only in recent decades that gun violence has gotten out of control in America. Therefore I believe that when you take that into consideration, as well as the situation in countries like Switzerland, that gun violence is a symptom of a problem that has occurred due to changes that have taken place in America the past few decades, rather than the problem itself. Banning guns might in theory make it more difficult for violent, dangerous people, to have access to a means to commit their violent acts, but it won’t get to the root of the problem, which can only be solved by trying to understand what has changed in America between the time when it was perfectly safe for kids to bring guns to school, and now, were there are countless shootings every day, with major incidents such as this latest one in Las Vegas, happening on an all to regular basis. Why is there so much more violence in America these days? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
This story is definitely one that I’ll be keeping an eye on over the next few days. I have a feeling that there’s a lot more to this than we’re hearing about so far. It will definitely be interesting to see what new information will come out, especially when we finally learn what the motive for the attack was. Something tells me that whatever it is, it won’t sit well with the media and political establishment, and the narratives that they would prefer to propagate.
Finally a bit of good news from America. After endless attempts from lower courts to derail this policy, that I would regard as both “common sense” and “not extensive enough”, the US Supreme Court has finally ruled that Trump’s so called “Muslim ban” (ie, a temporary ban on immigration from 6 countries that just happen to be Muslim majority, and which are considered to be potential terrorist hotspots), is in fact constitutional.
THE US SUPREME Court is letting the Trump administration enforce most of its 90-day ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
Just for the record, I think it’s absolute insanity that it even had to go this far. I think it’s absurd that the elected President can have his orders overruled by any random judge in the country, even in the lowest of courts. I do understand that there needs to be some way to keep in line and to make sure that he doesn’t violate the constitution with his orders, but the Supreme Court alone should be the one court with the power to do so.
The action today is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his presidency to date.
Controversial… even though a small majority of US citizens actually support the ban. In fact, a higher percentage of US citizens support the ban, than support Trump himself. The only reason this became such a controversy, was because of a vocal minority of lunatics complaining about it, and getting a platform to do so, from the treacherous mainstream media. The majority of people have seen the consequences that mass immigration from the Muslim world has had on Europe, and don’t want to see a similar epidemic of rapes, child grooming, acid attacks, terrorism, etc., to happen in America as well.
The court did leave one category of foreigners protected, those “with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”, the court said in an unsigned opinion. The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.
And here’s hoping they’ll decide in October that the original ban wasn’t extensive enough, and start including other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia.
A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have sharply criticised the ban, saying it unfairly targets Muslims.
No, because there are plenty of Muslim majority countries in the world, including some of the most populous ones, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria etc, which aren’t included in the ban, and non-Muslim minorities living in the targeted countries, are also subject to the ban. Doesn’t seem unfair to me and even if was, does anybody honestly care? The American people have their own needs, and those of their loved ones to worry about, and can hardly be expected to put the needs of of citizens in countries which have adversarial relationships with America, ahead of their own.
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts.
The anticipation is killing me.
The ban would apply to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Please add more.
The Trump administration said the ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before 2 October, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.
This is not going to be a happy post. The truth is, I’m very worried right now. Remember about a week ago, I wrote a post about how America was no longer calling for Assad to be removed from power in Syria? I felt very good at the time, because I believed that doing this would eliminate any possibility of a conflict developing in the region between America and Russia. Such a conflict, I feel, could have potentially escalated to the point of war between the two. If that was to happen, it would in fact be the beginning of World War 3. That is not an exaggeration. That’s why I was so relieved to see Trump agree to allow Assad to keep power.
Then this had to happen:
So as soon as Trump agrees to back off on Assad, a chemical weapon attack happens, and innocent civilians, including children are effected. From a logical stand point, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do this. With the help of his Russian allies, he’s already winning the civil war, and is rapidly approaching a total victory. There’s no logical reason for him to start committing war crimes all of a sudden, and provoking a response from the United States, after they have agreed to leave him alone. Such an action could only be undertaken by an idiot or a madman, and anyone who has actually taken the time to listen to Assad speak, will know that he is neither. Nevertheless, the media and Western shill politicians instantly jumped to the conclusion that Assad and his regime were to blame, without even waiting for an investigation to be conducted first.
Some informative comments from the video above.
A British journalist in Syria offers this suggestion as to what actually happened:
According to him, what actually happened was that the terrorists (who America had been backing against Assad, before Trump came to power) had a factory that they were using to develop chemical weapons. The Syrian air force destroyed this factory, possibly without any knowledge of what was really being developed there, and this caused chemicals to leak out and harm civilians. In contrast to what the Western media is saying, it wasn’t a deliberate chemical attack from the Assad regime on his own people.
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be buying into the lies:
Some informative comments from the video above.
I just want to make it quite clear that this war is a red line issue for me with Trump. One of the main reasons I supported him at all, was because of his insistence on ending the wars in the Middle East, and his desire to forge a better relationship with Russia, unlike Hillary who was literally campaigning on shooting down Russian planes, operating in Syria. If Trump goes back on those promises, and ends up starting a war over this, I’m done with him. I will renounce my support for him, that’s how serious this issue is to me. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail here, and he’ll do the right thing. I really really hope that he does.
I knew it was going to be true. This is how Trump always works. He deliberately makes an outrageous sounding statement that on the surface, makes him sound like a liar, or an idiot. The media goes into a frenzy, tripping over themselves to mock him for it. Then a few days or weeks later, he’s proven correct, and in the process, he causes the media to expose themselves as the liars that they are. And they keep falling into the trap every single time. They don’t call him the master of 4D chess for no reason, you know.
The latest in the fast-moving story about Susan Rice’s alleged unmasking of several aides to President Donald Trump’s campaign is that the data request was for “detailed spreadsheets” of intercepted telephone calls.
Funny how in this situation, it’s only “alleged”, but in the case of Russia supposedly hacking the election, and Trump cooperating with them when they did it, it’s always reported as a confirmed fact, even though there is no actual evidence to support it.
Unlike the Russia hacking story, there actually is evidence to support this wiretapping story, yet this is only “alleged” to be true apparently. That’s the mainstream media for you. They don’t exist to keep people informed about what’s going on. They exist to manipulate the masses to think a certain way.
A former U.S. attorney named Joseph diiGenova told the Daily Caller: “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals.”
That’s quite a bit different than data on Trump being mistakenly swept into a intelligence operation.
They were obviously just looking for dirt to use against him in the election.
“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said, to the news outlet. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
The question is, will anyone face prison time for doing this?
The Daily Caller and Breitbart reported confirmation of diGenova’s comments from “other official sources with direct knowledge.”
And one more tidbit: These spreadsheets were allegedly requested by Rice a year before the 2016 presidential election.
Like I said, just looking for dirt on him. There was no way they could have possibly been investigating a suspected Russian hacking of the election, a year before the election even happened, and before Trump was even the Republican nominee. As I’ve said before, the political establishment were out to destroy Trump right from the beginning. They were probably hoping to find some dirt they could use against him early on, to stop him from even getting the nomination in the first place, that’s how threatened they were by him.
Meanwhile, Fox News has been reporting the unmasked names of Trump’s aides were turned over to officials within the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, as well as to James Clapper, then-President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, and to John Brennan, CIA director under Obama.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser under Obama — just a slot behind Rice — was also named by Fox News as participating in the alleged White House-fueled data collection operation.
But somehow we’re supposed to believe that Obama himself was unaware of what his underlings were up to. They’re going to be the ones thrown under the bus for this, in his place.
No wonder Obama’s been largely silent on the whole Trump Tower wiretapping matter.
Doesn’t want to be on record denying his involvement, and then being caught out later and exposed as a liar as well. If he doesn’t deny it, he isn’t technically a liar.
Anyway, from looking at this story, here’s my theory on how this relates to the Russian hacker narrative. The Democrats committed a blatant abuse of power by collecting information on Trump and his people illegally, with the intention of using any information they found, against him. They did this with the full understanding that they’d get away with it, because Hillary was going to win the election and would cover it all up anyway. Unfortunately for them, they found nothing substantial that they could use against him. When Hillary lost, they panicked, because they knew Trump would now have access to all the files and intel related to the spying against him.
To protect themselves, they then made up an idiotic conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the election (with no supporting evidence whatsoever), and that Trump cooperated with them. This served two purposes. The first purpose, was to distract people from the real corruption that was going on, on their side. The second, was to give them a plausible justification for their spying, once it was inevitably exposed to the public. They could claim that Trump was suspected of engaging in illegal activities with the Russians to hack the election, and that they were really spying on the Russians, in order to protect the integrity of their democracy. Then they claim that any information found on Trump was “incidental” from when they were spying on Russia.
I hope people can see through this nonsense by now. My only worry is that people are so blinded by their hatred of Trump, that they won’t give a damn about this corrupt and illegal act, just because he was the victim. The psychological phenomenon that led to witch hunts 400 years ago, still exists in people today. I think a lot of people today, would rather see Trump go down for this Russian hacker thing, even though it’s clearly false, rather than see true justice served, and for those involved in spying on him, and inventing the Russian story, from getting their just desserts.
I remember there was a time not too long ago (before Trump announced his presidential candidacy really), when George W. Bush was widely reviled as possibly the worst president in American history, and was pretty much regarded as a laughing stock the world over, for his perceived idiocy. However, times have changed, and now Trump is public enemy number one. He’s the kind of figure who is so hated that even a complete cretin like Bush is able to score brownie points off of criticising him. Seeing this happen kind of reminds me of this scene from a Batman/Captain America comic crossover. The Joker (one of the most ruthless and sadistic villains in the genre) is so disgusted when he realises that the Red Skull is a Nazi, that he suddenly starts acting virtuous in comparison.
Former president George W. Bush described the current atmosphere in the country in dark terms, though he insisted that the current climate is not unprecedented in America’s history.
Yeah I would say things were probably a whole lot worse in late 2008 or so, after he crashed the economy and caused the worst recession in 80 years, or when he had the country gripped in a state of perpetual and unnecessary war.
Yes, think of all the hurt feelings that might have been felt. What kind of a monster would say mean, hurtful things about others? Of course, it’s not as if the other side has taken the moral highground here, what with the speculation in the media that Trump’s youngest son Barron is autistic, or the mockery directed towards his wife, our beautiful Empress, for her English language skills.
Recently, the former president has been speaking out about the political climate in Washington, carefully lodging his objections to some of President Trump’s key policy objectives and rhetoric. The latest installment comes in People this week, as Bush is on a media tour to promote his book of portraits highlighting wounded veterans.
There we go. He’s probably just speaking out against Trump in order to drum up attention for his book. I doubt a psychopathic piece of shit like Bush honestly gives a damn about the hurt feelings of any minority that Trump might have said things about.
He made a clear distinction between his objection to meddling in the affairs of his successors and speaking out on subjects that affect his post-presidential Bush Center.
“When President Obama got elected, friends would call: ‘You must speak out! You must do this, you must do that.’ Turns out, other people are doing the same thing this time,” Bush said. “I didn’t feel like speaking out before because I didn’t want to complicate the job and I’m not going to this time. However, at the Bush Center we are speaking up.”
The reason he didn’t speak out against Obama, wasn’t because of some sense of decency on his part. He didn’t speak out, because the Republican and Democratic establishment are just two sides of the same coin. They’ll pretend to be different in order to give the ordinary American people the illusion of choice, but when it really comes down to it on the important issues, they’re basically identical. Trump on the other hand, for better or worse, is not a member of that political establishment, and is pursuing policies that are counter to their interests. That’s the real reason why Bush will speak out against Trump, but not against Obama, who was supposedly the leader of the enemy party.
That’s because the Bush Center does work — naturalization ceremonies and Texas-based leadership training for Muslim women — that brushes up against some of Trump’s most controversial proposals.
On Monday, in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show, Bush was asked specifically about Trump’s policies and offered a muted critique of the current president’s approach to talking about terrorism, his plans to ban immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, and his denunciation of the press.
Countries which the Obama administration singled out as being potential terrorist hotspots by the way. The ban is also only temporary (with Syria being the one exception and having an “indefinite” length of time for its ban). Meanwhile, the countries with the largest Muslim populations on the planet such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc., aren’t banned at all.
“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said, when asked about Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people.” “We need an independent media to hold people like me to account.”
There’s still plenty of independent media out there, and even the ones that Trump has called out such as CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Huffington Post etc., are still free to operate just fine. All he’s doing is calling them out on their lies, or their manipulation of narratives to suit an agenda. It’s not as if he’s rounding journalists up and putting them in prison, for saying things he doesn’t like.
Calling for peace you say? Well it might look that way when you cut the footage off just before she tells them to go riot in the suburbs instead, where all white people live.
Or how about this video that Mark Dice made about the time those four black thugs, kidnapped a mentally disabled white guy and tortured him? CBS Radio reported it in such a way to make it sound like it was actually four white Donald Trump supporters who kidnapped and tortured a black guy instead.
According to People, Bush called the current political climate “pretty nasty” but maintained that he is optimistic about the country’s future.
“I’m optimistic about where we’ll end up,” Bush said. “We’ve been through these periods before and we’ve always had a way to come out of it. I’m more optimistic than some.”
Now I want to make something quite clear. I don’t believe for a second that Trump should be above criticism or scrutiny. In a democratic and free society, it’s important that people have the freedom to speak out and keep their elected representatives under pressure to implement the will of the people they are supposed to serve. While I do agree with Trump on quite a lot of issues, I don’t believe he deserves blind adoration.
However I do have to take exception to George W. Bush of all people, having the audacity to speak out against any alleged “racism” on Trump’s part. This is a man who launched not one, but two, highly destructive and unnecessary wars that resulted in the deaths of who knows how many, innocent Muslims. All deaths that could and should have been avoided. If Muslims weren’t radicalised already to hate America, they were sure given proper justification to do so, as a result of Bush’s evil foreign policies. Trump on the other hand has simply recognised the fact that a large number of Muslims hold views that are incompatible with America’s way of life (and the statistics availableprove this), and wants to put a stop to Muslim immigration to the US (which he is perfectly entitled to do under US law).
So who exactly is worse? The man who started unnecessary (and illegal) wars that resulted in the deaths of huge numbers of people of a certain demographic? Or, the man who wants to stop immigration from people of this demographic, which is perfectly in line with the laws of his country, and is only being done to protect his own citizens, arguably, from the backlash caused by those aforementioned wars?
The morbidly obese slob Michael Moore, famous for his series of propaganda documentaries about how terrible the institutions of Western civilisation are, has taken a break from using the capitalist model to become a multi-millionaire, all while trying to shill to us the alleged benefits of embracing full on Communism, to instead tell us about how all the women who voted for Trump only did so because of their own “internalised misogyny”. In other words, women don’t have any agency of their own and can’t be held responsible for their own decisions, in the eyes of this bloated buffoon if they vote for someone he disapproves of. Only women who voted against Trump do, and any who voted for him, only did so because they were brainwashed by the oppression they suffer from the “patriarchy”… or something like that. They’re all just “victims” of misogyny, rather than normal adults who have a different political view than him. Lets take a look at the clip.
We’ve ignored the misogyny and the sexism that is still so prevalent and ingrained, and ingrained in many of the victims, the 46% of women that voted for Trump, and the 53% of white women that voted for Trump.
It’s just incredible really how this gargantuan swine can act as if he speaks for the experiences of the millions of women who voted for Trump, and assumes they didn’t do so in their own best interests. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that maybe these women are self-confident and strong enough, not to take offence to Trump’s low-brow choices of words.
Maybe these women just support his policy on Muslim immigration, because they don’t want America to go down the same path Sweden has. Maybe they were won over by his condemnation of Mexican rapists crossing the border illegally, (something even the anti-Trump, Huffington Post admits really is happening). Maybe these female Trump voters believe that Hillary is worse for women, considering the fact that her campaign was partially financed by Saudi Arabia, arguably the country with the worst record for women’s rights on the planet. Perhaps these things matter more to these women than Trump saying “sexist things”.
I don’t know, because unlike Michael Moore, I know that I cannot speak on behalf of these women, and say for certain why they voted the way they did. But I will say that they did so, I believe, because they felt that Trump was the candidate who best represented their interests. It wasn’t because they hate themselves and all other women, no matter what Michael Moore would have us believe.
I am so happy right now. The Glorious Leader has done it. This is incredible. We have just seen history unfold before us in real time. I truly believe that what we have just seen will be talked about for generations, because this really is a game changer.
I wish I could say that my faith never faltered, but I must admit, that even though I knew the polls from the lying media were bullshit, that there were times when I worried, times when I really thought that it just wouldn’t happen. I tried to keep my faith, put on the brave face, and tell people that I discussed this topic with, that I was confident that he would do it, but the truth is I very often thought that having the entire media, political, and financial establishment against him, would be too much for one man to overcome. I often worried that the election could very well be rigged, or that the ridiculous electoral college system which isn’t based on the popular vote might screw him over completely. I also worried that the relentless smear campaign and propaganda against him might be too damaging to deal with.
Even watching the election unfold live, seeing states on the map switching back and forward between red and blue, then checking the corresponding electoral college map, to see how much each state was worth, was a completely nerve-racking experience. There were times when it really looked as if a key state worth a lot of votes might slip from his grasp completely. Even Texas turned blue a few times, as crazy as that might sound. It was very stressful and at times it seemed like he might have no hope.
I don’t normally like being wrong, but on this occasion, I can make an exception. I am delighted to be wrong.
I’m very overwhelmed with emotion right now. The past year has been a difficult one for me on a personal level. While this great news doesn’t necessarily ease the pain regarding any problems in my personal life, it at least gives me back a sense of optimism that there is still a possibility for good to happen in the world, for life to be worth living, and for Western Civilisation to stop going down the same dark path that was destroying us. With the alternative being a possibility of a nuclear war with Russia, as well as the continuation and normalisation of the migrant invasion of Europe (and that’s not including all the other lesser problems that could also have happened), I honestly think I would have become completely disillusioned with life in general if Hillary had won. I don’t have much else to say right now, as I’m feeling mentally drained from the emotional roller-coaster I just experienced from watching it all unfold live. I also really need to just sit back and process the whole thing.
I just know this much, tomorrow is a new day, and it’s going to be a very good day indeed.
Especially when I get to see all the meltdowns on Facebook. 😉
I remember about a year and half ago when Donald Trump first announced that he was throwing his hat into the US presidential race, that I really didn’t think too much about it. I figured it was just a dumb publicity stunt and although I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points he was making, and thought he was pretty damn funny with how blunt and unapologetic he was in regards to the outrage he was causing, I didn’t take him all that seriously at first. However, after seeing the types of political hacks he was competing against, as well as the passionate hatred he was inspiring in the controlled media and political establishment, I started paying more and more attention, and soon realised that there was a lot more to him than I saw at first. However, it wasn’t until roughly one year ago when I first became aware of the escalating tensions between America and Russia (something a Hillary presidency will only make much worse), that I came to this conclusion.
Donald Trump, that pompous, arrogant, obnoxious, reality TV buffoon, may very well be the world’s only hope for survival.
Once again, I am faced with a story that fills me with dread. We’re just one day away from seeing the big decision being made, and yet we’re still seeing an escalation in tension between Russia and NATO, as if a conflict between the two is inevitable. But it isn’t inevitable. There is still time to resolve these problems, if the right decision is made tomorrow.
Up to 300,000 Nato troops have been put on alert amid rising tensions between Russia and the Baltic states.
Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary-general of Nato, said the alliance hoped to speed up the response time of thousands of its troops to allow it to react to a combat situation more effectively.
And yet I still haven’t seen any evidence that Russia are the aggressors, so I don’t know what they would need to respond to. To me, it looks more like they’re getting these troops prepared, not as a response to possible Russian aggression, but rather to attack Russia themselves.
“We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways,” Mr Stoltenberg told The Times.
“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years – tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.
Can you really blame them though? With how much NATO has expanded since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the aggressive rhetoric being spouted against them from America, I honestly can’t blame them for building up their own military forces. It’s either that, or leave themselves defenceless against this aggression.
“We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among Nato allies and that is exactly the reason why Nato is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”
What propaganda? This sounds like projection to me. I’ve heard plenty of propaganda against Russia in regards to Ukraine, their actions in Syria, and their alleged (but still no evidence for) hackings in America. What propaganda is Russia spreading?
Mr Stoltenberg refused to be drawn on the specific number of troops being put on alert, but Britain’s outgoing Nato representative Sir Adam Thomson said it was likely to be around 300,000.
Sir Adam said the aim was to find a way to mobilise the troops within two months, instead of the typical time of around six months.
To me that makes it sound as if they are trying to speed up the schedule of getting this war underway. I think it’s interesting to note that even if Trump does win tomorrow, he won’t actually be inaugurated until January 20th, plenty of time for Obama to start this war that the American establishment so clearly wants, before Trump has a chance to prevent it himself.
The proposition was discussed by Nato defence ministers at a conference in October. “There are a large number of people in the armed forces of Nato allies, we are looking into how more of them can be ready at shorter notice,” Mr Stoltenberg added.
Nato is also responding to an increase in espionage, hybrid warfare and cyberattacks by Russia and other non-Nato states, according to Sir Adam.
Alleged cyberattacks which they still haven’t provided any evidence that Russia is guilty of. This is just one of the many examples of the big lie in action yet again. Keep saying something over and over, and people will eventually believe that it’s true, no matter how little proof is provided.
The alliance’s response is in part a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as a bid to reassure ex-Soviet states, like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all Nato members, who fear Moscow could try a similar tactic again.
Not a fair comparison. Crimea was historically part of Russia even before the existence of the Soviet Union. It became a part of Ukraine for administration purposes during Soviet times, when it was assumed that the Soviet Union would always be one anyway. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remained a part of Ukraine, though its population has always been an ethnic Russian majority, who favour close ties with Russia. When the Billionaire George Soros paid a group of thugs to topple the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government, and replace it with a pro-EU/America, puppet government, Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own interests, and the Crimean people voted in a landslide to rejoin Russia (though I will admit, it is debateable if such a referendum can be considered fully transparent when Russia was in control of the region). The point is, I don’t think it’s fair to compare Crimea to those other ex-Soviet states, and I don’t think Russia has any interest in annexing any of them.
Yeah, that really wouldn’t surprise me at all. In fact, I reckon if it were not for America’s protection, Russia could probably overrun all of Europe pretty quickly, even the great powers like Germany, France, and the UK.
Nearly half of Russians fear Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian conflict could lead to World War III, a recent poll found.
And I think so too, though I don’t blame Russia (whose actions in Syria I believe are justified overall), I blame America.
I really have this weird fear that even if Trump does win, the establishment might just trigger the war anyway just before he takes power, making it that much harder for him to resolve things that it would, if he was to get in beforehand. Nevertheless, I still think from the point of view of peace, he’s the better choice. If the war does kick off between now and the time of inauguration, I would rather have him be the one to come to power in the hopes that he can make peace with Putin later. Hillary, will be only too happy to continue the war if she comes to power.
The choice is in your hands America. Please make the right one.
Here’s a brief, but very interesting video. A man with a camera goes up to some young white liberal women on a college campus to ask them if voter ID laws are racist. They agree that they are. Their reason for thinking this? Well check it out.
Guy asks Girl 1 if it’s harder for black people to go online and get an ID. She responds:
“I feel like they don’t have the knowledge of how it works.”
“For most of the communities they don’t really know what is out there just because they’re not aware or they’re not informed”.
Just think about that for a second. She’s generalising an entire race of people as being somehow too dumb to know the procedure on how to get an ID. I can’t understand the logic behind that kind of thinking. What evidence is she even basing it on? In a country where internet connected devices are omnipresent, and a simple Google search can provide answers to virtually any question that you ask, why does she think that black people are in general somehow too stupid to know how to go online and figure out how to get an ID so they can vote? And more importantly, how can she not see the racism in what she herself is saying? While her intentions are not malicious, she is still looking down upon an entire race of people as being less capable of performing a simple task than her own race. It’s insane that people can think this way and not see the problem.
Then we get on to Girl 2.
“I also think there is a repression of black voting with how if you’re a convicted felon, you’re not allowed to vote.”
“repression of black voting”
“convicted felon not allowed to vote”
Just as Girl 1 was making a racist generalisation of black people being too dumb to know how to get an ID, Girl 2 is making a racist generalisation by associating being a felon with being black. Where have I heard that before?
While it is true that in America, convicted felons are disproportionately black, the fact that this girl instantly thinks of “black voter suppression” when she talks about convicted felons not being able to vote, is clearly a racist attitude on her part, because it shows that she associates “black people” and “felons” in her own mind. I just think this is all very interesting. These girls obviously have good intentions behind what they are saying, but the fact that they see black people in general as being less capable and more criminal, really says a lot about their own biases.