Author: VD

Trump administration bypasses opposition media

Do you know, I think I’m starting to sense a pattern here. One more and even the Lifestyles section of the New York Times will recognize it as a trend.

Just a few hours after Trump warned during his CPAC speech that “we’re gonna do something about the media”, he did just that after the White House barred a number of news outlets from covering Sean Spicer’s Q&A session on Friday afternoon.  Spicer decided to hold an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room according to press reports.

Among the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were various news organizations that Trump has singled out in the past including CNN, The NYT, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News.

Several non mainstream outlets were allowed into Spicer’s office, including Breitbart, the Washington Times and One America News Network.  Several other major news organizations were also let in to cover the gaggle. That group included ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters and Bloomberg, however AP and Time have boycotted the event.

Good. Now let him revoke their press credentials. As Glenn Reynolds says, all they are is activists with a byline. They’re not neutral. So treat them like the damned enemy they are.

Now is the time to act. Now is not the time to play fair. Let them whine and cry. What are they going to do, call Trump a Nazi racist bigot again?


This is an unacceptable development by the White House. This is how they retaliate when you report facts they don’t like. We’ll keep reporting regardless.
– CNN

Go ahead. Double-down, by all means! The God-Emperor will keep shunning you. And even more people will refuse to watch you.

Black Bloc cries

Antifa isn’t so tough when the authorities aren’t amenable and they have to actually face the consequences of their criminal actions:

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday indicted more than 200 people arrested during the presidential inauguration on felony rioting charges, spotlighting their intent to sabotage peaceful protests with violence and destruction.

Called out for individual acts of vandalism, violence and destruction, prosecutors alleged Tuesday that 214 protesters engaged in “black bloc” tactics on Jan. 20 during President Donald Trump’s swearing-in, causing damage to vehicles and property. Six police officers were also hurt during the riots as they exchanged flash-bang explosives with protesters hurling rocks and firecrackers at them.

D.C. police have stressed that the vast majority of protesters were peaceful, but that these 214 people — the other 17 people arrested during the inauguration were released from custody — showed up specifically to disrupt the event.

“Black bloc” protest tactics, which have been used by some protesters for decades, include dressing in black or dark colored clothing while concealing one’s face using scarves, masks and sunglasses. Some of the protesters brought with them hammers, crowbars, bricks, rocks, flares and firecrackers.

The funny thing is that they’re crying about how even though their “backers” bailed them out, they’re still facing stiff fines and up to 10 years in prison. The idiots never learn that they’re just expendable tools, doomed to be cast aside as soon as they’re not useful anymore.

Why Russia does not pursue war in Ukraine

Alexander Dugin’s explanation of Russian reticence also explains NATO’s absurdly aggressive posturing:

We wanted to demonstrate to Europe that Crimea is ours, but that we were ready to discuss everything else. This was rather immoral, and I’m not sure if it really yielded any result. Nevertheless, we broadcasted this message, and those at the top were tasked with demonstrating our peaceful intentions. The shelling of Donbass cities, the murdered people, the mockery of the people of Novorossiya (not to mention the militia) – to me this price seems excessive for such a demonstration, so I have always been an opponent of the Minsk Agreements. They cannot be a solution to the situation, and this is obvious. No one on any side believes in them.

We tried to wink at Europe, to show that “we are wonderful” and say “throw out the Americans.” They [the Americans] were the ones who brought the situation to such a critical point. This wasn’t successful and couldn’t be. The influence of the Atlanticist elites in Europe is quite strong, but we still tried to do this.

As regards Ukraine, Poroshenko demonstrated the same thing. This was not a game with America, but with Europe. Poroshenko says: “I’m sitting down with the Russians at the negotiating table. Look how democratic and decent enough we are to be ready even to discuss peaceful agreements with “terrorists,” because we so want to be in Europe.” That is, Poroshenko didn’t want to report before America, but before Europe. We and the Ukrainians competed in a certain diplomatic battle to attract Europe to our side. But this wasn’t successful – they didn’t believe us up to the end, and they didn’t believe us after Crimea, but after Syria this already became clear. It’s all about confidence and power. My declared ourselves a sovereign and strong regional power, and let others understand that now it is necessary to perceive us as such. Not our diplomacy, but our real strength. Historically it has turned out that if we are strong, then they’ll consider us, but if week, then there will be no consideration. Therefore we didn’t persuade Europe, and we couldn’t convince by such ridiculous negotiations. But then they were convinced by our air strikes on ISIS and other terrorists in Syria.

Poroshenko didn’t convince them, and he couldn’t convince them because Europe, from the very beginning, did not really engage in the Kiev Maidan. The Americans promised that everything in Ukraine will be really fast, and the Europeans won’t incur any responsibility for what’s happening. Moreover, the Americans forced European leaders (especially Hollande and Merkel) to participate in the Maidan. The “young partners,” or, more precisely, the vassals of Washington naturally don’t have greater freedom of action.

When Europe turned out to be an accomplice of the US and started to impose sanctions, then it realized that deliveries of gas were being put into question. Then Europe shrunk back in horror from the Russians and Ukrainians, preferring that everything be turned back to how it always was. The Normandy Format and the Minsk talks essentially revolved around whether or not it would be possible to turn back, or at least extend the status quo. Now, as long as the Minsk Agreements are recognized by everyone, there is already simply no other exit for Poroshenko and Washington except by breaking them unilaterally and beginning the final battle for Donbass.

For the Americans, this is a way to distract us from Syria, opening a second front which is the only way by which Poroshenko can maintain power. It’s nothing personal: they’ll impose this war on us.

We will shy away from this war and cling to the Minsk Agreements for the same reasons. We don’t need a second front and need a falling, not strong, Poroshenko so that Ukraine will collapse before Donbass will be once again annexed by the Nazi state. We will shy away from direct conflict, and I can even assume that comments like mine will be censored by major media outlets. But we have seen this and it is such.

Our bet is not to allow the Ukrainians to impose war on us and not give them the opportunity to take control of the border.

The only way Russia is going to attack Ukraine is if an invitation to NATO is extended or if Donbass unexpectedly falls. Russia does not want Ukraine, because Ukraine is an expensive disaster. That’s why all the neocon warmongering about Russia is complete nonsense; the Russians are attempting to build up their strength, not expend it.

Which, of course, is why the neocons who hate Russia even more than Iran are seeking to try to start a war with both. Which, of course, would be disastrous for the USA; one hopes Trump recognizes that there is nothing in it from a national interest perspective.

Bannon-Priebus interview at CPAC

Interview of Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus by American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp

SCHLAPP: On that front — on that front, I also think it’s a perfect moment to thank all of you for helping us elect what will be one of the greatest presidents that ever served this country. It’s because of your work…
(APPLAUSE)
… that he made it happen.
BANNON: And Matt, I want to thank you for finally inviting me to CPAC.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHLAPP: Yeah, there’s no — the — what was the name of the — the…
BANNON: The uninvited.
SCHLAPP: The uninvited.
BANNON: I know there are many alumni out here in the audience.
PRIEBUS: I didn’t like the uninvited.
SCHLAPP: Here’s what we decided to do at CPAC with the uninvited. We decided to say that everybody’s a part of our conservative family.
PRIEBUS: That’s right.
SCHLAPP: And that’s what Donald Trump has done to so many of us around the country politically. And you guys have put together an amazing operation. You know, I know you all know this, but the last time a president came to CPAC in his first year, it was Ronald Reagan.
(APPLAUSE) St. Ronald in 1981. And you’ve put together this — the president has put together the most conservative Cabinet we’ve ever seen according to our CPAC ratings and I think a few of us are pretty happy about what looks like is going to happen on the Supreme Court too, so it’s a…
(APPLAUSE)
Now, let me ask you two. I’m looking in the back of the room as well, but let me ask you two.
PRIEBUS: Is that the opposition party?
(LAUGHTER)

SCHLAPP: Let me ask you two, we read a lot about you two.
BANNON: It’s all good.
SCHLAPP: But I bet not all of it’s accurate — I bet not all of it’s accurate. I bet there’s some things that don’t get written correctly. Let me ask each one of you, what’s the biggest misconception about what’s going on in the Donald Trump White House?
PRIEBUS: Well, in regard to us two, I think the biggest misconception is everything that you’re reading.
(LAUGHTER)
We — we share an office suite together. We’re basically together from 6:30 in the morning until about 11:00 at night.
BANNON: I have a little thing called the war room, he has a fireplace with nice sofas.
PRIEBUS: And it’s — it’s actually something that you all have helped build which is, when you bring together — and what this election showed and what President Trump showed, and let’s not kid ourselves, I mean I can talk about data and ground game and Steve can talk about big ideas, but the truth of the matter is Donald Trump — President Trump brought together the party and the conservative movement.
And I’ve got to tell you, if the party and the conservative movement are together, similar to Steve and I, it can’t be stopped. And President Trump…
(APPLAUSE)
… was the one guy — he was the one person and I can say it after overseeing 16 people kill each other, it was Donald Trump that was able to bring this — this party and this movement together. And Steve and I know that and we live it every day. Our job is to get the agenda of President Trump through the door and on pen and paper.
BANNON: You know, but we’ve known it since August 15th and I think if you look at the opposition party and how they portray the campaign, how they portrayed the transition and now they’re portraying the administration, it’s always wrong. I mean, on — on the very first day that Kellyanne and I started, we reached out to Reince, Sean Spicer, Katie.
It’s the same team that, you know, every day was grinding away on the campaign, the same team that did the transition and if you remember, you know, the campaign was the most chaotic — by the media’s description, most chaotic, most disorganized, most unprofessional, had no earthly idea what they were doing and then you saw them all crying and weeping that night on — on the 8th when…
(APPLAUSE)
… when — and the reason it worked — the reason it worked is President Trump. I mean, Trump had those ideas, had that energy, had that vision that could galvanize a team around him of disparate — look, we’re a coalition. You know, a lot of people think — have strong beliefs about different things, but we understand that you can come together to win and we understood that from August 15th and — and we never had a doubt and Donald Trump never had a doubt that he was going to win.
BANNON: And — and I think that that is the power of this movement.
PRIEBUS: And — and on top of that — first of all, President Trump laid out his vision — what was it? — four or five years ago here at CPAC.
SCHLAPP: That’s right.
PRIEBUS: And it was that vision — it’s nothing different. If you go back and watch the tape of President Trump four or five years ago, that was the Trump agenda.
One of the things that I used to say all the time — and Governor Walker and everyone gets sick of me saying it, but I think that President Trump found it — which is what this country, what all of us, were starving for the whole time because we’re so sick of politics and politicians.
In spite of the fact that we love being here, we — we actually hate politics. But what we were starving for was somebody real, somebody genuine, somebody that was actually who he said he was.
(APPLAUSE)
BANNON: Yep — yep.
PRIEBUS: And the — the — the media attacked us on the campaign; remember, attacked me, you can’t spend the money on Trump, go give it to the Senate. Attacked us on the transition, we — President Trump put in the best Cabinet in the history of Cabinets I think.
Now — feed ridiculous stories and all we do every day and all President Trump does every day, is hit his agenda every single day, whether it’s TPP, whether it’s deregulation, whether it’s Neil Gorsuch, whatever it is, his promise is coming through every day.
SCHLAPP: He’s even — he’s even leaving bathrooms alone, that’s kind of a nice, refreshing thing for a lot of people as well.
(APPLAUSE)
BANNON: They happen to think it’s a state issue.
SCHLAPP: Of course. BANNON: But — but — I think — let’s go back to the point that Reince made for a second. President Trump, when he was running, he made a — and this is the other thing that the — the mainstream media or opposition party never caught is that if you want to see the Trump agenda it’s very simple.
It was all in the speeches. He went around to these rallies, but those speeches had a tremendous amount of content in them, right? I happen to believe, and I think many others do, he’s probably the great public speaker in those large arenas since William Jennings Bryan. This was galvanized.
And remember, we didn’t have money. Hillary Clinton and these guys had over $2 billion. We had a couple hundred million dollars. It was those rallies and those speeches, all he’s doing right now is, he’s laid out an agenda with those speeches for the promises he made. And our job every day is just to execute on that. It’s to simply get a path to how those get executed.
And he’s maniacally focused on that, and I think that’s one of the powers of the transition where many, many people try to come in and try to convince President Trump, hey, you won on this but this is what you want to do.
And he’s like, no, I promised the American people this, and this is the plan we’re going to execute on. And Reince said — and by the way that’s what you’ve seen; the executive orders, what the Supreme Court — the way he’s gone through the Supreme Court. And by the way the other 102 judges that we’re eventually going to pick, it’s just a methodical — and that’s what the mainstream media won’t report.
Just like they were dead wrong on the chaos of the campaign and just like they were dead wrong in the chaos of the transition, they are absolutely dead wrong about what’s going on today because we have a team that’s just grinding it through on President Donald Trump promised the American people. And the mainstream media better understand something, all of those promises are going to be implemented.
SCHLAPP: That’s awesome. It’s been a…
(APPLAUSE)
You know, Steve you’re a really likable guy. You should do this more often.
PRIEBUS: He’s not so bad.
SCHLAPP: He’s not so bad.
PRIEBUS: Most of the time.
BANNON: Yes, exactly.
SCHLAPP: So, what are 30 days of action, and you guys have touched on some of that action. Each one of you, tell me the one or two things that have happened the last 30 days that you think are the most critical. And what is the one thing that you just — like you said Steve — maniacally focused, that has just got to happen early in the administration to really turn this country around? Start first with the first 30 days and then what’s that focus after that.
PRIEBUS: So, I mean, there’s a lot that — that’s happened…
SCHLAPP: A lot.
PRIEBUS: … in the — in the first 30 days. Whether, you know — and you look at the our — the world — our world order and — and some of the things that are going on that I think are — will be dealt with soon, but the first thing I think is Neil Gorsuch, for a couple things.
Number one, we’re not talking about a change over a four year period. We’re talking about a change of potentially 40 years of law, number one. But more important than that — more important to that, it established trust. It established that President Trump is a man of his word. We always knew that. But when he said here’s 20 names on a piece of paper back in July, remember and he said I’m going to pick my judge out of these 20 people that are on this piece of paper and he did it, that’s number one.
PRIEBUS: Because Neil Gorsuch represents a conservative — represents the type of judge that has the vision of Donald Trump and it fulfills the promise that he made to all of you and to all Americans across the country. Second thing, deregulation, what hasn’t been talked about a lot is that President Trump signed an order that puts in place a constant deregulatory form within the federal government. And what it says is, for every regulation presented for passage that Cabinet secretary has to identify two that person would eliminate. And that’s a big deal.
(APPLAUSE)
And then lastly, immigration;, protecting the sovereignty of the United States, putting a wall on the southern border, making sure that criminals are not part of our process. These are all things that 80 percent of Americans agree with and these are all things that President Trump is doing within 30 days.
SCHLAPP: Steve?
(APPLAUSE)
BANNON: I think the — I think the same thing; I think if you look at the lines of work, I kind of break it up into three verticals of three buckets. The first is kind of national security and sovereignty and that’s your intelligence, the Defense Department, Homeland Security.
The second line of work is what I refer to as economic nationalism and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, Lighthizer at — at Trade, Peter Navarro, Stephen Miller, these people that are rethinking how we’re gonna reconstruct the — our trade arrangements around the world.
The third, broadly, line of work is what is deconstruction of the administrative state. And if you…
(APPLAUSE)
So I think — I think the three most important things, I think one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history was his immediate withdraw from TPP. That got us out of a…
(APPLAUSE)
… got us out of a trade deal and let our sovereignty come back to ourselves, the people, the mainstream media don’t get this, but we’re already working in consultation with the Hill. People are starting to think through a whole raft of amazing and innovative, bilateral relationships — bilateral trading relationships with people that will reposition America in the world as a — as a fair trading nation and start to bring jobs. High value added, manufacturing jobs, back to the United States of America.
On the — on the national security part, it was certainly the first — I think the first two E.O.s that you start to see implemented here of the last couple of days under General Kelly. And that is, do rule of law is going to exist when you talk about our sovereignty and you talk about immigration. General Kelly…
(APPLAUSE)
… and Attorney General Sessions are adamant — you know, that and you’re gonna start to see I think with the defense budget we’re going to talk about next week when we bring the budget out and also with certain things about the plan on ISIS and what General Mattis and these guys think I think you’ll start to see the other part of that.
But the third, this regulation…
SCHLAPP: Yeah.
BANNON: … every business leader we’ve had in is saying not just taxes, but it is — it is also the regulation. I think the consistent, if you look at these Cabinet appointees, they were selected for a reason and that is the deconstruction, the way the progressive left runs, is if they can’t get it passed, they’re just gonna put in some sort of regulation in — in an agency.
That’s all gonna be deconstructed and I think that that’s why this regulatory thing is so important.
SCHLAPP: We had Dr. Larry Arnn (ph) on the…
(APPLAUSE)
… stage earlier today. And he brought up the fact that we’re promulgating more laws and regulations that we ever had before. And most of that are from these independent agencies that are just on autopilot. You guys can stop that.
And also, coming from the federal bunch as conservatives, we know that a lot of times we fight out the political wars over issues we care about and then all of a sudden, liberals on the bench like a lightening bolt out of the sky just change things.
And so what you guys are saying about changing that order is amazing. You know, we all — we all consume a lot of news; we watch and read a lot of things, there’s been a great democratization in news. People get their news now from literally hundreds and thousands of sites.
What — what would each of you say, what is the — there’s all these polls that are being put out again, is Donald Trump doing a good job, is Donald Trump doing a bad job. I know what you all think. We’ve been hearing it all — all day.
What is it that they keep getting wrong and do you think it ever gets fixed? What does the media keep getting wrong about this Trump phenomena and what’s happening out there in the country? And is there any hope that this changes?
PRIEBUS: I think there’s hope that it’s going to change. I mean we — we sit here, every day and — and the president pumps out all of this work and — and the executive orders and the punching through of the promises that he made to the American people.
So we’re hoping that the media would catch up eventually. But we’re so conditioned to it, I’m personally so conditioned to hearing about why President Trump isn’t going to win the election. Why one — why a controversy in the primaries going to take down President Trump.
I lived through it, as chairman of the party. And — and it really hit me because it was maybe the summer of 2015 and you remember, the media was constantly pounding President Trump. And the polling kept getting better and better and better, for President Trump.
But it was when I went home and got out of this town. And I went back to Kenosha and I talked to my neighbor and I said, “Bob, what do you think?” And he goes, “Man, I really love that Trump.”
(LAUGHTER)
PRIEBUS: And I said, “Sandy — Sandy, what do you think?” She says, “We’re for Trump.”
And it was, as you all lived through it too, because you all had different people you were for, but you kept running into your neighbors and you kept running into people that you know. And what did they keep telling you? They kept telling you “Trump, Trump, Trump.”
And so…
AUDIENCE: Trump, Trump, Trump…
SCHLAPP: So tomorrow — tomorrow, OK? Just be patient.
PRIEBUS: But I knew, and so it was back then, with my family and my sister, who is a doctor out in San Diego. And it just kept — everyone around me — that nothing — it was impenetrable. Because it goes back to what I said before, which is that the country was hungry for something far more — far bigger than one story or on-off issue. It was something that people wanted in this country, that was real, something that was going to change the direction that we were heading. And it was President Trump that was the answer.
BANNON: The reason Reince and I are good partners is that we can disagree. It’s not only not going to get better. It’s going to get worse every day.
(LAUGHTER)
And here’s why. By the way, the internal logic makes sense. They’re corporatist, globalist media that are adamantly opposed — adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has. President Trump really laid this out, as Reince said, many years ago at CPAC. It’s really CPAC that really originally gave him the springboard. It’s the first time at Breitbart we start seeing him, and saw how people, you know, his speeches resonated with people.
And then he would go out to these smaller town halls later and really he got traction with the same message he’s bringing today. Here’s the only — here’s why it’s going to get worse: Because he’s going to continue to press his agenda. And as economic conditions get better, as more jobs get better, they’re going to continue to fight. If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. Every day — every day, it is going to be a fight. And that is what I’m proudest about Donald Trump. All the opportunities he had to waiver off this; all the people who have come to him and said, “oh, you’ve got to moderate.” Every day in the Oval Office, he tells Reince and I, “I committed this to the American people; I promised this when I ran; and I’m going to deliver on this.”
(APPLAUSE)
How novel.
SCHLAPP: How interesting. I remember I was being asked by some reports — they were like why is Trump doing X, Y or Z? And I said, because he said he would do it on the campaign trail.
(LAUGHTER)
It’s really not that complicated, is it?
But no, there are — there are…
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLAPP: … OK, I like that one. There are some — there are some parts of this, though, that are fitful. The American Conservative Union which puts on CPAC was created after Barry Goldwater lost in 1964, in an effort to take all different kinds of voices from the right in the conservative movement and bring them together.
So there is this question. There are those folks that consider themselves, you know, classical liberals or conservatives or Reagan conservatives. There are other folks that consider themselves libertarians. There are other folks that are part of this new Trump movement. And Trump brought a lot of new people. There’s probably in this — people in this crowd that wouldn’t have been in this crowd before.
So there’s a lot of diversity here. We all know it when we’re at the bar at the end of the day. And can this Trump movement be combined with what’s happening at CPAC and other conservative movements for 50 years? Can this be brought together? And is — this is going to save the country?
PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, it has to and we have to stick together as a team. I think that what you’ve got is an incredible opportunity. We’ve got an incredible opportunity to use this victory that President Trump and all of us, and you, and everyone that made this happen, put together.
And work together. Continue to communicate. It’s very similar. Some of the core principles of President Trump are very similar to those of Ronald Reagan. When you look at peace through strength and building up the military, I mean, how many times have you heard President Trump say, “I’m going to build up the military; I’m going to take care of the vets; I’m going to make sure that we don’t have a Navy that’s decimated, and planes that are nowhere to be found.”
Peace through strength, deregulation. You think about the economy, the economic boom that was created. And some of it is going to take a little time, I mean, to get the jobs back; to get more money in people’s pockets. Those things are going to happen.
And in the meantime, we have to stick together and make sure that we’ve got President Trump for eight years. And he’s somebody that we know that we’re going to be very proud of as these things get done. But it’s going to take all of us working together to make it happen.
BANNON: You know, I’ve said that there’s a new political order that’s being formed out of this. And it’s still being formed. But if you look at the wide degree of opinions in this room — whether you’re a populist; whether you’re a limited government conservative; whether you’re libertarian; whether you’re an economic nationalist — we have wide and sometimes divergent opinions.
BANNON: But I think we — the center core of what we believe, that we’re a nation with an economy, not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a — and a reason for being.
And I think that is what unites us and I think that is what is going to unite this movement going forward. President Trump tomorrow is coming I think really to express his appreciation.
SCHLAPP: Absolutely. The vice president’s coming tonight.
BANNON: The vice president’s coming tonight and the reason he understand in CPAC there are many, many, many voices, but he’s here to say appreciation and to drive this movement forward. This is really where he got his launch, you know, with his ideas in the conservative movement…
SCHLAPP: Absolutely.
BANNON: … what seven, six years ago — five years ago and he wanted to show his appreciation.
We’re at the top of the first inning of this. And it’s going to take just as much fight, just as much focus and just as much determination. And that one thing I’d like to leave you guys today with is that, we want you to have our back. But more importantly…
(APPLAUSE)
We know — by the way, President Trump — we never doubted that for a second, but also and more importantly, hold us accountable. Hold us accountable to what we promised, hold us accountable for delivering on what we promised.
SCHLAPP: Let me just ask as we — as we close this out. It’s time for — you know you guys have been so sort of kumbaya here it’s kind of time for a little bit of a group hug.
(LAUGHTER)
Let me ask you — OK, I’m sorry I’m going to do the Barbara Walter’s thing for those of you who remember Barbara Walters.
Let me ask you, what do you — you’ve worked really closely with Steve.
PRIEBUS: Right.
SCHLAPP: You say your offices — I know what two offices they are, they are really close to each other. What do you like the most about him?
(LAUGHTER)
Hold on, let him think.
PRIEBUS: I love how many collars he wears, interesting look.
(LAUGHTER)
One thing — we’re different, but where we’re very similar is that I think that he is very dogged in making sure that every day the promises that President Trump has made are the promises that we’re working on every day, number one.
Number two, he’s incredibly loyal. And number three, which I think is a really important quality as we were working together to see to it that President Trump’s vision is enacted is that, he’s extremely consistent.
That, as you can imagine, there are many things hitting the president’s ear and desk every day. Different things that come to the president that want to move him off of his agenda and Steve is very consistent and very loyal to the agenda and is a presence that I think is very important to have in the White House and I consider him…
(APPLAUSE)
… but — and secondly — and a very dear friend — a very dear friend and someone that we — that I work with every second of the day in — and actually we cherish — I cherish his friendship.
BANNON: Yeah, you know, I can run a little hot on occasions.
(LAUGHTER)
And — and Reince is indefatigable I mean, it’s low key, but it’s determination. The thing I respect most and the only way this thing works is Reince is always kind of steady, he’s got Katie and some other people around him, it’s very steady.
But his job is, by far, one of the toughest jobs I’ve ever seen in my life. To make it run every day and to make the trains and you only see the surface. What’s going on underneath it, planning what’s three weeks down the road to the — to the degree that we’re planning it, of all these E.O.s and legislation and — you know, whether it’s the tax reform bill, Reince is indefatigable in saying, we’ve got to drive this forward, we’ve got to drive this forward.
And I think it’s one of the reasons we have such a — and by the way this started back in August when we had this campaign where we were outgunned, out manned, you know, outspent. And it was because President Trump had a message, he had this charisma and he had people like here at CPAC and we just put our heads down and that when we — and Reince has been unwavering since the very first moment I met him.
SCHLAPP: Well it’s a great honor to have you both here.

Trump administration to bypass courts

Now that multiple US courts have revealed themselves to be less interested in the law than testing their powers against the executive branch, the God-Emperor is simply routing around them:

ON TUESDAY, THE Department of Homeland Security released a pair of memos laying out how the agency intends to implement President Donald Trump’s executive orders on domestic immigration enforcement. In addition to calling for a massive increase in the number of immigration agents and the deputizing of local and state law enforcement across the country — described in the documents as a “force multiplier”— the memos dramatically expand the range of people who can be deported without seeing a judge.

“I see now what the plan is,” Greg Siskind, a Tennessee-based immigration attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association board of governors, told The Intercept. “Their plan is basically to have everybody thrown out of the country without ever going to court.” Additional immigration attorneys and legal experts who spoke to The Intercept shared Siskind’s concerns, describing various elements of the DHS directives and the executive orders they reflect as “horrifying,” “stunning,” and “inhumane.”

“This is the broadest, most widespread change I have seen in doing this work for more than two decades,” Lee Gelernt, a veteran immigration attorney and deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, told The Intercept. “After 9/11 we saw some extreme policies, but they were largely confined to particular areas around the relationship between immigration and national security. Here what we’re seeing are those types of policies but also much broader policies just dealing with immigration generally.”

“I expected bad based on Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric,” added David Leopold, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney and past president of AILA. “Then when I read the executive order, I expected really bad … but I’m absolutely shocked at the mean-spiritedness of this.”

We’ll see how it works out in practice, but if the plan has these anti-American lawyers this upset, it looks to be a pretty good start. The pre-1965 demographic balance isn’t going to be restored overnight, and 80 million foreign residents aren’t going to be repatriated by the end of this year, but the journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step.

Let the Soros-funded lawyers file their complaints with the amenable courts after Pedro and Wang-Meng are returned home to Guatemala and Vietnam. We’ll see how long their altruism lasts when there are real costs of time, money, and opportunity associated with it. It appears that portrait of Andrew Jackson hung in the White House after the inauguration was exactly what we suspected; it was provided as fair warning.

Of course, this plan isn’t mean-spirited at all. This is kindness. Mean-spirited is what is going to come if these necessary efforts to make the USA American again are somehow stymied. And it will only get worse, considerably worse, from there. Because the God-Emperor is not going to let America or Western civilization die under the feet of tens of millions of unnecessary and unwanted invaders.

It’s time to go home.

“America is not only for the whites, but it is for all. Who is the American? The American is you, me and that. When we go to America we will become Americans and there is no a race or nationalism called America and the Americans are those Africans, Indians, Chinese, and Europeans and whoever goes to America will become American…American is for all of us and the whole world had made and created America. All the people all over the world had made America and it shall accordingly be for all of us. I will never feel ashamed when I claim for my right in America and it will not be strange when I raise my voice in America.”
– Col. Moammar Gadhafi, 12 January 2005

Obviously Moammar was an American born in Libya, more American than any descendant of the Pilgrims who doesn’t believe that America is a Judeo-Christian Proposition Melting Pot of Immigrants.

CUCK, CPAC cucked, cuckingly

CPAC conservatives are going to beat the Left by fighting the Alt-Right.

In a hard-hitting speech, the head of a major conservative organization argued that the so-called “alt-right” is actually just a cover for a “hate-filled left-wing fascist group” seeking to undermine conservatism.

Speaking at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington, D.C., American Conservative Union Executive Director Dan Schneider sought to cast the loosely organized movement with ties to white nationalists that played a role in last year’s elections out of the conservative coalition.

“There is a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks and we must not be duped,” he told thousands of grassroots conservatives. “Just a few years ago, this hate-filled left-wing fascist group hijacked the very term ‘alt-right.’ That term has been used for a long time in a very good and normal way.”

The speech was the latest salvo in an ongoing war among conservatives about what to do about the alt-right, which was galvanized by President Trump’s populist campaign for the White House. Some members of the American Conservative Union’s board, including President Matt Schlapp, rallied around Trump despite concerns about his breaks from conservative ideology.

Seriously, who listens to these idiots anymore? We’re not trying to worm our way into their ranks. We reject conservativism and we reject conservatives just as we reject noble defeat, futility, and failure. Do you know how to confirm that Milo truly isn’t Alt-Right? Because he agreed to speak at CPAC. I’d no more agree to speak there than to a meeting of Whigs or Popolares.

Conservatism is mortally wounded. It is conceptually cancer-stricken. It clings desperately to its pseudo-ideology in a world of identity. It is an outdated and irrelevant posture, nothing more.

UPDATE: Did a Darkstream on Periscope about the cucks and cons attacking the Alt-Right. Longest, best-attended one yet! The replay is here.

CNN Leaks by Project Veritas

I doubt there will be anything too explosive being released, but I expect the CNN Leaks will confirm what we all know about media bias:

Project Veritas released 119 hours of raw audio in a WikiLeaks style dump, with over 100 more hours still yet to be released. The audio was secretly recorded in 2009 by an anonymous source inside CNN’s Atlanta headquarters who we are identifying as Miss X. The tapes contain soundbites from current and previous CNN employees Joe Sterling, Arthur Brice, and Nicky Robertson, as well as numerous others. Project Veritas is also offering a $10,000 award for content that exposes media malfeasance. The tapes show CNN’s misrepresentation of polling data:

Miss X: “I read a CNN poll that was taken on June 26 and 28th, and I know that the hearing for the case, the fire fighters case was on the 29th, so the poll was done right before it, and those are still the poll results we’re reporting, so I asked someone in DC who does the poll results about why we hadn’t updated it, and said there were a few newer polls from last week and the week before and there’s CBS news polls and a Rasmussen poll, and he said we don’t use Rasmussen, and I said does CNN plan to do another poll if we’re only using that. He said we’re not going to be doing another poll, those are the results we’ll be using. So I don’t see how that’s reporting all sides because that poll said hold for release until Friday the 10th.”

Arthur Brice: “Who did you talk with?”

Miss X: “Paul [CNN’s Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser].”

Arthur Brice: “Yeah, he’s your director. Yeah, he’s pretty high up in the food chain. I agree. I think it’s dishonest to use outdated information if new information shows something that is in variance with what you’re reporting. It’s just, it’s dishonest.”

The same apathy towards reporting accurate poll numbers was seen in the way CNN released inaccurate poll numbers about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.

Miss X: “This wasn’t released until two weeks after. So can we say a newly released poll?”

Joe Sterling: “No, you can’t say that. You can’t say that at all. This isn’t a newly released.”

Miss X: “But it says newly released on Friday.”

Joe Sterling: “I know, how did we write about this? Did we write a wire about this? “I don’t think we stand to change how people think of her [Sotomayor]. Geez, I mean if someone picked this up it’s not going to change – it’s not going to change anybody’s opinion.”

 One would hope there is something rather more damning than that in all those hours of recordings.

A sympathetic call

Unsurprisingly, Stefan Molyneux has one of the more intelligent and sympathetic takes on the Milo takedown, and while I don’t concur with all of his conclusions, I note that he draws attention to an important element that most people, myself included, may have missed. I think Stefan is probably right to see this as the most significant aspect of the whole situation, and that Milo has the opportunity to transform what has been a terrible time for him into his finest moment if he is willing and able to do what so many before him have not, and name the names of those who have been, and probably still are, preying on young men and boys today.

It’s a very powerful observation: “You can still protect the children of the future from the predators of the past.”

That being said, there is a reason that so many who have been witness to such ugliness, from Elijah Wood to Corey Feldman and Allison Arngrim, have not been specific, and are reluctant to identify the responsible parties. What that reason may be, I don’t know, but I think it would be absolutely wrong for those of us who have not been victimized to demand that Milo do what those others could not. What we can and should do, however, is to continue to offer our unconditional support for him, and encourage him to listen to his conscience and to speak the truth without fear, whatever it might be.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that another survivor of child abuse, Moira Greyland, the daughter of confirmed child molesters Walter Breen and Marion Zimmer Bradley, was one of many Castalia authors who emailed me to offer her support for Milo.

I know you’re busy. Can you let Milo know I am pulling for him and so are a crowd of other writers over here?

She also wrote a piece that can be read here. As adults, we are, in part, the consequences of the childhood experiences that shaped us. We all bear the psychological scars, and not infrequently from experiences we thought were positive at the time. Think of the narcissistic attention-seeker who has never recovered from being the pretty girl in 7th grade, or the glory-days jock who simply can’t move past the game in which he scored four touchdowns, for example. But some of us were shaped in more difficult and dangerous molds than others.

When I grew up there were five little boys that I knew—all from different family circumstances, all of them, bright and smart and fun. One of them was my first official crush, and I must have been all of five years old, and so was he. There was a snow pile in the schoolyard, and we were king and queen of the mountain. The others I knew, too, and I even “dated” two of them, even though date is a chaste word. Once it was ice-skating and once it was a movie. We were always friends, but dating wasn’t in the cards, for what is now obvious reasons. But then it wasn’t obvious.

I learned later that when these little boys were little, they were visited upon by a friend, an older male, someone perhaps who was attracted to their brightness and wit.

They were funny boys. They knew what the convention was, and they tried to form attachments to girls. But they weren’t able to overcome what had happened. They felt that their lot in life was settled, that the map to their destiny was drawn by someone else, without their having a say in the matter.

Four of those little boys are now dead. Three died very young, one older but still young. One a suicide, and the others in situations that were brought on or complicated by The Disease. None of them married. None of them had children. They left their mothers behind, questioning, grieving, inconsolable, loving. Think of it: five families were prevented from being formed.

This is precisely why I reject the notion that homosexuality is to be celebrated any more than drug addiction or smoking is. Some of you may recall that my band, Psykosonik, was signed to Wax Trax! Records. What you may not know is that the men who signed us to their label, Jim and Dannie, were both gay. Jim died at 47, less than three years after signing us. Dannie died in 2010, at the age of 58.

GabTV: Darkstream

GabTV is rapidly improving; the video quality on the latest is much better now that my Internet upload speed has been increased. This is the Darkstream from the other night; my next appearance on GabTV will be on Friday night; we’ll probably do the February Brainstorm on Monday night.

Note that you have to be logged into Gab to watch it. The interesting thing is that over 400 people watched it live, twice as many as watched one of my recent Periscopes. That means that once they get the native app going, and have comments inside the screen, I can switch over to GabTV entirely if I wish. That being said, I’ll be doing a Periscope tonight at the usual time.

Why listen to TED Talks?

When you can be exposed to the ideas they’ll be discussing years in advance by reading my columns and this blog.

“How do we make sense of today’s political divisions? In a wide-ranging conversation full of insight, historian Yuval Harari places our current turmoil in a broader context, against the ongoing disruption of our technology, climate, media — even our notion of what humanity is for. This is the first of a series of TED Dialogues, seeking a thoughtful response to escalating political divisiveness. Make time (just over an hour) for this fascinating discussion between Harari and TED curator Chris Anderson.”

“I think the basic thing that happened is we have lost our story. Humans think in stories and we try to make sense of the world by telling stories,” the historian said. “And for the last few decades we had a very simple and very attractive story about what was happening in the world. And the story said that the economy is being globalized, politics is being liberalized, and the combination of the two will create paradise on earth. And we just need to keep globalizing the economy and liberalizing the political system, and everything will be wonderful.”

“2016 is when a very large segment of the Western world stopped believing in this story,” he said. “For good or bad reason it doesn’t matter, people stopped believing the story, and when you don’t have a story it is hard to understand what is happening.”

“The old 20th century political model of left vs. right is now basically irrelevant and the real divide today is between global and national, global or local. All over the world this is not the main struggle.”

Such amazing insight, such as the idea that global government might be more akin to China than Denmark! How very fascinating! I’ve never paid any attention to TED for just this reason; it’s third-rate pop intellectualism marketed to pseudo-intellectuals to make them feel smart. The amazing thing is that it has taken them this long to begin suspecting that Fukuyama might have been wrong. And they still haven’t figured out that Huntington, and Powell, and Wallace et al were right.

Out of curiosity, I did a search on “globalism” in my latest book, the first volume in the trilogy of my collected columns, and this was the first one that came up.

From The Collected Columns Vol. I, Innocence & Intellect, 2001-2005


One world… one big, bloody problem
February 4, 2002

It’s not hard to understand why globalism is so persistently seductive to people of genuinely good intent. Long a staple of hack science fiction writers and the producers of Saturday-morning cartoons, the notion of one central and benevolent government for all humanity appears like a light shining in the darkness of a world that is still wracked by warfare, terrorism, famine and disease despite the past century’s incredible advances in technology.

Of course, it was pointed out several thousand years ago that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

In fact, if humanity’s past record is a reasonable guide, globalism may represent the single deadliest threat to mankind in our long, murderous history. The Economist has reported that in the last century, more people died at the hands of their own governments than in all the wars and civil wars combined—170 million deaths vs. 37 million. However, the implications of this fact for global governance have not often been considered.

Supporters of globalism are optimistic that under the aegis of a single government, the world will experience peace, one way or another. But even if we put aside the questionable notion of an enforced peace, which the Balkan conflict demonstrated is merely a matter of putting off today’s violence for tomorrow, it must be understood that an end to war is not synonymous with an end to violence and bloodshed.

Just as soldiers going into battle for the first time tend to think in terms of what they will do to the enemy instead of what the enemy will do to them, globalists envision one-world governance as an efficient means of imposing their views on others. This is why political activists of nearly every stripe tend to embrace globalist institutions even if they oppose a specific aspect of globalism. Thus the radical environmentalist who protests the World Economic Forum nevertheless supports the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.

But there is no guarantee that a one-world government will respect the laws, customs, and institutions of the traditional freedom-loving West. Indeed, the institutions which are most deeply enmeshed in the globalist movement show strong signs that it will instead imitate the autocratic habits of its intellectual predecessors. For example, the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 29, section 3, that:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Jawohl, Reichsfuhrer Annan! Consider also the possibility that a coalition of Arab and African states might take control of the global government in the same way they’ve been able to exert undue influence over the U.N. General Assembly. Then everyone could enjoy the religious freedom enjoyed by Jews and Christians living in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan .

Unfortunately, that’s far from the worst possibility. Two of the governments responsible for the worst civilian massacres in history, Russia and China, boasting 62 million and 37 million murders, respectively, hold permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council. And for those who argue that Russia isn’t the same government as the Soviet Union, I have only one thing to say: If they’re not, then what is Russia doing on the Security Council?

Even in medieval times, intelligent people understood that the fact that one king was a wise and benevolent ruler didn’t mean the next one wouldn’t be a complete psychopath. For those of you without historical reference, I’m talking about a situation like the one depicted in the movie “Gladiator,” wherein Emperor Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his son Commodus. The peril of central power is why America’s founding fathers decided to ditch the whole concept and did their best to break it up, scattering it as far and as wide throughout the land as possible.

Regardless of how global governance is implemented, it is sure to attract every evil, power-seeking individual and organization like pedophiles to a public schoolyard. The intrigues and conspiracies will make Byzantium’s internecine power struggles look like a student-council debate by comparison. Every would-be Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Mugabe will be converging on a single institution, and the most ruthless of them will be the winner.

The National Socialists had a saying that still sounds ominous now, 50 years later. “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!” One world, one government may not sound so scary yet, but it should. Because one thing is certain. Totalitarian government doesn’t improve with size.