The first confrontation between the Trumpenreich and the permanent government.

If Trump, vivat rex, appeals to the supreme court and wins, a Pyrrhic victory. But do not fear, there will be many more confrontations.

if he appeals to the supreme court, loses and cucks out, then he is, like Reagan, just another speed bump in front of the progressive steamroller.

If he appeals to the supreme court, loses, and ignores them, a huge victory.

When Kevin Rudd attempted to slow the exponentially increasing flood of “refugees” to Australia (most of them not from war torn countries but from India and Bangladesh) the courts aggressively overruled him, expanding their authority. When Tony Abbott actually stopped the flood of “refugees”, the courts aggressively overruled him, further expanding their authority. “Refugees” remained stopped, eventually resulting in courts suddenly and quietly accepting a diminution of their authority to merely judicial matters.

Trump’s confrontation has not started as auspiciously as Tony Abbott’s confrontation, but then Tony Abbot had the benefit of Kevin Rudd in front of him. Kevin Rudd had promised to stop the “refugees” and failed, and then Tony Abbot promised to stop the “refugees” and thus had implicitly promised to ignore the courts, and had a mandate to do so.

So far, Trump is acting more like Kevin Rudd than Tony Abbott, which worries me. But Trump is twice the man that Tony Abbott was, and ten times the man that Kevin Rudd was. So I hope and expect that this will change when the time is right to strike down his enemies.

The solution I would really love to see is congress fire the United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit and institute a new bench of solid Trump judges, as the constitution explicitly provides for. But congress is full of cucks.

Trump is going to exhaust all legal remedies. He will appeal this to the supreme court once his judge gets put on the bench.

As commander-in-chief, Trump can, legally, declare martial law, formally adjourn Congress, send all judges to military prisons, and govern by executive degree. That might be unwise at this time, but a good confrontation with the judiciary with the judiciary acting in a blatantly unlawful manner could bring us a good step closer.

188 Responses to “The first confrontation between the Trumpenreich and the permanent government.”

  1. peppermint says:

    * despite wall to wall legacy media and educational institutional opposition, Trump has a majority of young Whites, meaning a massive supermajority of young White men
    * His Majesty certainly has pretty much all the smarter Whites. The Left is an intellectual ghost town and boneyard.
    * low-T young White liberal men are crying through their smug face wondering when they’ll be proven right about anything the way Mommy Professor said
    * His Majesty has paved the way instead for open nationalism on normiebook meaning everyone with normal T levels who isn’t committed to cuckstainty and the legacy media and educational institutions, so everyone before they get to college and many in college and even lots if people after college now is now a Trumpist

  2. viking says:

    The wall is bullshit yeah I want it as promised 30-50″ tall concrete and continuous.But thats for the actual camp of the nigger saints in a decade or so.
    But what I really want is what i was promised as is now clear was reneged on when during that softening and we all hoped we saw a wink was in fact a lie.
    He promised to stop all immigration. to stop all muslim immigration. to stop all refugees . to stop the H1B1 program. to deport them all even the children. to rescind all obamas immigration orders. to end chain migration. to end anchor babies and overturn the illegal birthright citizenship.To prosecute those who hire illegal aliens. To make e verify the law of all hiring under pain of criminal prosecution. to end sanctuary cities.To end all social services for immigrants.

    ITs really clear hes going to do none of that

    • jim says:

      The call for bids says thirty feet tall. If we wind up with a twenty foot tall wall, will not be unduly disappointed.

      Trump promised extreme vetting. Predictably the judges responded by discovering in the US constitution a universal human right of all people everywhere to come to the US and live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat. He anticipated this, and is going to have to deal with the judiciary, which will take a while. Wait for Gorsuch’s confirmation. The confrontation with the Judiciary will begin in ten days or less after the nomination. It will continue for about ten months or so, ending in Andrew Jackson / Tony Abbott victory over the judiciary, and then we shall see what his immigration policy is really like.

      • Kevin C. says:

        “The confrontation with the Judiciary will begin in ten days or less after the nomination. It will continue for about ten months or so, ending in Andrew Jackson / Tony Abbott victory over the judiciary”

        See, I think you’re wrong here. All the evidence I see says that if it does come down to that sort of confrontation, Trump will *lose*, and the judiciary win. We’ll see eventually who is right.

        • jim says:

          The approval rating for the judiciary is lower than that of used car salesmen. Recall that the bad guys in “Dirty Harry” were not child murderers. The bad guys were the judges.

          When Tony Abbot went Andrew Jackson on the judiciary, not a dog barked. When Duterte threatened to murder judges, his popularity soared.

          Well, that is not quite true. There were a bunch of press conferences where a bunch of lefty journalists yapped at some representative of the government, usually a man in uniform, the press saying “The judges have declared you and everything you do illegal and anathema, what are you going to do to comply”, and the man in uniform giving them a non answer that indicated he did not think much about what the judges declare.

        • peppermint says:

          In 2000, SC chose the prez, in 2012, SC affirmation made Obummercare law and then SC made gay marriage a thing. SC is purely political at this point with everyone arguing not whether a judge is smart and knows the law or judicial philosophy but whether he’s going to do their political objectives. As such no one will shed a tear for them when they are all executed.

          • peppermint says:

            PS there are a lot of young people who would break into the national archives and wipe their butts with the original constitution but for oldfags they need to appease to have a majority

            • Kevin C. says:

              “PS there are a lot of young people who would break into the national archives and wipe their butts with the original constitution”

              You mean like the ones indicated by this poll:

              “The GenForward poll reported by The Associated Press found that 57 percent of young adults see Trump’s presidency as illegitimate, including three-quarters of black respondents and large majorities of Latinos and Asians.

              The breakdown of those results showed that 53 percent of young white respondents consider Trump a legitimate president, but a majority in that group, 55 percent, view his job performance negatively.

              Overall, 22 percent of young adults approve of the job he is doing as president, while 62 percent disapprove.”

              • Cavalier says:

                Well, firstly,


                Secondly, who cares what the polloi think.

                Thirdly, Trump hasn’t taken power yet. When he takes power, he’ll be as universally loved as any one of Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, or Churchill.

                Strong horse, something something.

              • Cavalier says:

                Just in case it wasn’t clear, mentally insert “>nonwhites” above “>people”.

              • Cavalier says:

                Also, Hitler and Mussolini, until they lost. And Mao, to whom Chinese peasants are still sacrificing animals, as some sort of demigod.

              • jim says:

                The reason I expected Trump to win is that I did not believe the polls, and continue to not believe the polls.

                Trump has near universal support among young white males, and when push comes to shove, and the way the wind blows push is going to come to shove fairly soon, that is all that will matter.

              • pdimov says:

                “GenForward is a survey of the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The GenForward Survey is the first of its kind—a nationally representative survey of over 1750 young adults ages 18-30 conducted bimonthly that pays special attention to how race and ethnicity influence how young adults or Millennials experience and think about the world. Given the importance of race and ethnicity for shaping the diverse perspectives and lived experiences of young people, we believe researchers make a mistake when they present data on young adults in a manner that assumes a monolithic Millennial generation and young adult vote.”

                “Thus, to fully understand how young adults think about elections and politicians, issues such as terrorism or gun violence, as well as their economic futures and race relations, we have to apply an intersectional lens and pay attention to characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.”

                Sounds very scientific.

  3. TTAAC says:

    Ann Coulter: “Trump is president, not some lowly dist ct judge. He should assert the constitutional authority of exec branch & ignore these lawless orders” (; “Courts have gone mad. If @SenateMajLdr & @SpeakerRyan refuse to impeach these insane judges, @realDonaldTrump must ignore unhinged rulings” (

    • jim says:

      The time approaches

      • viking says:

        youre delirious Gen Kelly just bragged to democrats that he will enforce DACA because its a law its not its an exec order still not over turned by cuck trump.Must give dreamers time to spawn anchor babies. today my yemen deli guys shows me letter he got from state dept about his wanting to import his yemeni family state dept assures him he has the right to import his entire family Nothing has changed but a couple photo ops of arresting some bad hombres BFD

        • jim says:

          That Trump is mouthing off at the judiciary in ways that are likely to make every judge in the country hate and despise him fervently, indicates that he is planning a coup that takes power away from the judiciary.

          • Mackus says:

            Well, it’s always possible that General Kelly has both private and public position. And Trump knows his private one.

            • Brit says:

              He referenced breaking up the 9th circuit in his latest rally

              And of course, even the left are noticing his current obsession with Andrew Jackson

              • jim says:

                I suspect that the average leftist is unaware that Andrew Jackson said of the Supreme Court: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

                • Cavalier says:

                  Andrew “I killed the bank” Jackson was a pretty cool guy.

                • viking says:

                  well jim the thing is trump could do that the law is crystal clear the president has absolute authority over all immigration for any and all reasons he could send marines to the airports and no one could fault him.
                  but not only does he not do that he continues to allow chain migration, dreamers, H1B1, refugees, regular immigration, and all the rest. And all this while constantly reassuring the press they will love his immigration policies, and how we all love immigration. so you keep spinning your wold fantasies but the reality is he promised and could have stopped all immigration day one and has in fact done jack shit
                  meanwhile his administration thats not still obama operatives is full of GOP cucks and israeli intelligence opps. His entire platform is in the garbage can, and he doesnt even realize it because he never had the capability off seeing it as more than disconcerted bloviating

                • jim says:

                  Trump needs to secure the loyalty of the high ranking army officers and the spy agency officers before he goes after the deep state. When what he does stops leaking, and what the democrats do starts leaking, then it will be time.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “When what he does stops leaking, and what the democrats do starts leaking, then it will be time.”

                  And if that day never comes? You keep insisting that Trump is just biding his time, laying the groundwork, and so on.

                  On Feb. 16th:
                  “Give him time. I predicted he would start to move around March or so. I would not get worried until some time in August.”

                  On Feb. 25th, in reply to me:
                  “I expect an escalating confrontation with the courts with Trump ignoring the courts, and the courts proclaiming him and his entire administration anathema, and attempting to do an impeachment from the bench, with Trump winning in October or November of 2017.

                  If he does not decisively settle matters with the courts before the mid term elections, then I will get worried.”
                  and the next day:
                  “As for the wall, I expect that ditches will be dug and concrete poured by 2017 May first, and that Trump will take a victory lap around a largely complete wall in the 2020 election.”

                  March 6th, on repealing and replacing Obamacare:
                  “Worrying, but early days yet.”

                  March 12 (on Ryancare):
                  “We have not seen Trump’s plan yet. It is not over till it is over.”

                  March 15th:
                  “They are not howling yet because they think it will come to nothing. Maybe they are right, but I think they are wrong. Howls will start in due course, around December or January.”

                  “The time approaches”

                  So, when does it *stop* being “early days”, Jim, and start looking like the autocoup/purge/coronation isn’t going to happen? No concrete for The Wall in May? This August? The election this November? January 2018? Or, if 2020 rolls around and the swamp remains undrained, the courts not humbled, and the CIA still leaking in favor of blue empire, will you still be saying “just wait, God Emperor Trump’s plan will come to fruition any day now”?

                • jim says:

                  It is now March 19 and 400 companies have submitted bids on the wall.

                  Trump’s budget allocates funds for wall building starting during 2017. Companies bidding on the wall are expected to produce demonstration samples by this time in April – which means that my February 25th prediction that concrete would pour by May first will be fulfilled, though maybe that is only demonstration concrete, and the real concrete will not pour till after May first. Some concrete will pour before May first, and the real concrete not long after.

                  As for the purge, Trump recently compared himself to Andrew Jackson, which indicates the purge is coming. As to when it comes: Shortly after Gorsuch is confirmed, Trump will prepare some drama, confrontation with the courts will begin, and when we see that drama, it will then be possible to make predictions about the purge.

                  A 30-foot prototype is expected within a month.
                  “Does that build the whole wall? No. It doesn’t. But it gives us a start on the program, and you see some of the wall being built this year,” Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said March 16.

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “Shortly after Gorsuch is confirmed”

                  The same Gorsuch who reportedly called Trump’s criticism of the courts “disheartening” and “demoralizing”?

                  “”Judge Gorsuch and I actually talked about that,” [Sen. Ben] Sasse [R-Neb.] said on MSNBC Feb. 9. “And frankly he got pretty passionate about it. I asked him about the ‘so-called judges’ comment because we don’t have’ so-called judges’ or so-called presidents or so-called senators. And this is a guy who kind of welled up with some energy and he said any attack on any of, I think his term to me was brothers or sisters of the robe, is an attack on all judges. And he believes in an independent judiciary.”

                  Former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who is assisting Gorsuch in his Capitol Hill meetings, had a slightly different take. She said in a statement to NBC that Gorsuch said any attack on the judiciary is “disheartening” and “demoralizing” — speaking generally rather than responding directly to Trump’s recent comments.”

                  And recall that “Conservative” Supreme Court Justices, once confirmed, pretty much consistently move Left, as seen recently with Chief Justice “Obamacare both is and isn’t a tax” Roberts. To quote FiveThirtyEight,
                  “A typical justice nominated by a Republican president starts out at age 50 as an Antonin Scalia and retires at age 80 as an Anthony Kennedy. A justice nominated by a Democrat, however, is a lifelong Stephen Breyer.”

                  Or how about the argument that Gorsuch could push the court *Leftward* (see, essentially by causing “moderate swing vote” Anthony Kennedy to permanently side with the more lefty Justices in opposition, pointing to Kennedy’s recent siding with the (pro-abortion) left in the WWH v. Hellerstedt case?

                  And on the recent cases like the judge in Hawaii, let me point to Prof. Josh Blackman’s “When Judges Revolt” (
                  “Judges in Washington, Maryland, and Hawaii are signaling that they are not going to treat President Trump as if he were any other President. The sorts of analyses we’ve seen are absolutely insane under long-standing law.
                  But maybe I am wrong to assume precedent applies to Trump. In a must-read post, Ben Wittes and Quinta Jurecic assert that because courts think Trump is unable to follow his oath of office, the usual rules do not apply to him. We are witnessing, they note, a “revolt of the judges.””

                  From that Wittes and Jurecic piece (
                  “It goes, not to put too fine a point on it, to the question of whether the judiciary means to actually treat Trump as a real president or, conversely, as some kind of accident—a person who somehow ended up in the office but is not quite the President of the United States in the sense that we would previously have recognized.”
                  “But also there is a third possibility, and we should be candid about it: Perhaps everything Blackman and Margulies and Bybee are saying is right as a matter of law in the regular order, but there’s an unexpressed legal principle functionally at work here: That President Trump is a crazy person whose oath of office large numbers of judges simply don’t trust and to whom, therefore, a whole lot of normal rules of judicial conduct do not apply.

                  In this scenario, the underlying law is not actually moving much, or moving or at all, but the normal rules of deference and presumption of regularity in presidential conduct—the rules that underlie norms like not looking behind a facially valid purpose for a visa issuance decision—simply don’t apply to Trump.”

                  As plenty across the political spectrum noted (even the likes of Dershowitz), much of the “reasoning” in the Hawaii decision is basically that actions that would’ve been constitutional if ordered by Obama are “unconstitutional” when ordered by Trump (because “animus”). Note that Wittes and Jurecic *approve* of this judicial revolt. Blackman, meanwhile, defends the “traditional judicial posture” — that the president is really the president — but, with regards to the Supreme Court, says “Tragically, I suspect my view will not prevail.”

                  As for Trump going Andrew Jackson on the Sumpreme Court after it sides against him (Gorsuch or no), well, we’ve already had the media laying the ground for the counterattack. Like, from The Atlantic last month (
                  “In fact, Jackson, whose portrait hangs in Trump’s office, provides no historical support for Trump’s unprecedented personal assault on the motives of judges evaluating the constitutionality of his executive orders. Jackson criticized Marshall on constitutional, rather than political, terms, and he ultimately required Congress and the states to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution, rather than threaten to disregard it.”

                  And at the WaPo (
                  “After the Supreme Court and Justice John Marshall struck down a Georgia law that allowed for the seizure of Native American lands, saying it violated federal treaties, Jackson ignored it or at least initially declined to get involved — depending upon the account. He is remembered to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,” though there is debate about the accuracy of that quote.”
                  And, after mentioning both Lincoln and Jefferson’s fights with the Court,
                  “If Trump were to ever go down this road, [Prof. Daniel P.] Franklin said, the ultimate arbiter would be the other branch of government. He said Trump could be held in contempt of court, and it would then be up to the House of Representatives.

                  “[Contempt of court], in my opinion, is a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ in the meaning of the Constitution, and he would be subject to impeachment,” Franklin said. “Whether or not the House of Representatives would see it that way is another question. It is at that point their call.”

                  Before we got to that point, though, we’d likely see wrangling between the judge and not Trump but the government officials working beneath him, said Joel Nichols, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas.

                  “The key to whether court orders are going to be obeyed isn’t about what President Trump does, but about how the judges respond to noncompliance and whether other non-Trump players decide to obey their orders,” Nichols said.

                  A judge would have to issue a “show cause” order if officials didn’t seem to be obeying the order. If they still didn’t obey, they could be held in contempt, and federal marshals could be dispatched to force them to do so or face jail time — which could also constitute a crisis.”

                  Isn’t that pretty much the way I said the Left was likely to respond to Trump defying the liberal courts? That the courts would “encourage” the people of the executive branch to defy and disobey Trump, using the U.S. Marshals to make instructive examples if need be? And that the Media would pressure Congress, most notably the cuckservatives desperate for “respectability” (and being those “the crocodile eats last”, as it were), to use it as grounds for impeachment?

                  Frankly, I guess it comes down to being a lot more pessimistic about the possibility of any sort of Jacksonian defiance of the courts anymore; deference to the black robes has been ingrained too deeply for too long. I”m skeptical that there’s really any good way forward anymore, and have yet to see any good, solid evidence to dissuade me of that skepticism.

                  (Side note; the inability to do “blockquotes” for the longer quote passages is kind of a pain here.)

                • jim says:

                  The same Gorsuch who reportedly called Trump’s criticism of the courts “disheartening” and “demoralizing”?

                  That is why I said that Trump confronts the judges after Gorsuch is confirmed, and did not say that once Gorsuch is confirmed, Trump will not need to confront the judges.

                  Trump is signaling that he is going to go Andrew Jackson on our vile, evil and criminal judiciary. What more can you ask for short of helicoptering them to the Pacific?

                • Kevin C. says:

                  “Trump is signaling that he is going to go Andrew Jackson”

                  So you say, but I think you are, at least to some degree, reading into Trump’s actions “signals” that aren’t really there. That, no, he’s not going to defeat the judiciary, let alone launch an “autocoup” and “helicopter” people. He’s not a “God-Emperor”, a “King”, savior of Western Civilization, or even an American Pinochet. Trump is preferable to the cuckservatives, and definitely better than Hillary, but his election is not so much a solid victory as, at best, a brief reprieve in the Leftward movement. Last November, we won breathing space, and little to nothing more than that.

  4. Ben says:

    Any confirmation Gorsuch made those statements?

    • SteveRogers42 says:

      On the surface, yes — but consider this: Maybe it’s a slick little head fake to convince a few Dem Senators that “he’s really one of us” and “he’ll grow in office”, thereby easing their opposition to his confirmation. Trump has used this type of reversal and deception throughout the campaign, and it’s not a stretch to say that he might have advised Gorsuch on this tactic.

  5. lalit says:

    Jim, Looks like Moldbug (Or Ramsey Paul) have influence with Trump’s White house.

    Dare we believe that Bannon reads your blog? Would not be surprised. We are in for interesting times, eh what? Perhaps you are being tapped for Grand Inquisitor after all!

    • Alrenous says:

      When a proggie journalists writes “the source said,” they mean they prayed to The Source and wrote down what they subsequently heard.

    • Samson J. says:

      When you need a man in Canada, Jim, you know who’s been a loyal reader.

    • Erik says:

      It gets sillier. (of )

      > Yarvin declined to cooperate when I reached out to ask about his alleged contact with Bannon, instead choosing to try to troll me into believing a Twitter user called @BronzeAgePerv is his contact with the White House.

      • lalit says:

        Hahahahaha! Moldbug it totally playing with that reporter the way a Cat plays with a mouse it is about to kill soon. Get a Load of this

        “I know nothing about BAP personally, except that he lifts. DM him. He may not give you any info but he always responds,” Yarvin said. “Apparently there’s a big underground movement of right-wing bodybuilders — thousands. Their plan is to surface spectacularly this April, in a choreographed flash demo on the Mall. They’ll be totally nude, but wearing MAGA hats. Goal is to intimidate Congress with pure masculine show of youth, energy. Trump is said to know, will coordinate with powerful EOs…”

        My respect for Moldbug has just gone up exponentially. Roosh may have been a moron to speak to the MSM, but Moldbug is the real thing. He totally owned that Reporter and made him his bitch. Respect!

  6. Starman says:

    The God-Emperor’s EO’s purpose was to ferret out enemies within the Justice Department (conveniently for the newly confirmed AG Jeff Beauregard Sessions III), identify leftist judges masquerading as “conservatives” (ex. Justice Robart, a Bush appointee), and to enable the God-Emperor to pin the blame for the next Islamic terrorist attack on The Cathedral (depending on the size of the Islamic attack, a veritable Reichstag Fire in-the-making).

    • viking says:

      Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard (1818-1893) was a U.S. military officer who later served as a Confederate general during the Civil War (1861-65). A native of Louisiana, Beauregard resigned from the U.S. Army in February 1861 and ordered the first shots of the Civil War during the bombardment of Fort Sumter in April 1861.

  7. JJ says:

    I definitely want to see him win this battle and probably most if not all future battles I can foresee at the moment.

    But, if Trump effectively expands and affirms his power as described here, what does that mean for future administrations?

    There is no guarantee that a leftist as bad or even worse than Obama or Hillary won’t seize the throne in 2020, and inherit those executive powers expanded by the Trump administration, along with the benefit of hindsight with Trump’s gameplan to power recorded in history.

    Ideally, the actions Trump takes over the next 4 years would limit the chances of a D win in 2020, but a lot of those changes (demographic shifts caused by immigration policy reform), even if successfully implemented, could take several years in order to effect change significant enough to secure the election for Trump.

    When you look at how young people voted this last election, combined with the constant onslaught over the next ~1,400 days straight from the media, a 2020 victory could be more difficult for Trump to secure than the 2016 victory was.

    Are we just buying time with our fingers crossed?

    • jim says:

      Trump has not expanded executive powers yet, and if he does so, I expect him to ensure that Democrats can never win another election ever.

      • JJ says:

        How might he achieve that? So far, what comes to mind is this…

        * Expose voting fraud, and use that to justify nationwide voter ID laws
        * Implement immigration reform that will effect dramatic demographic changes
        * Take out Soros

        He does that, and he still is up against (((powerful interests))) pushing the leftist agenda, the media, and academia. Most likely, women and non-whites will still be allowed to vote. Same for millennials and gen Zers, who have effectively been irreparably damaged by the university system and popular media.

        • jim says:

          Voter ID, immigration reform, crippling the State Department and disabling Soros should win us 2018 and 2020. Maybe 2022 and 2024 After that, will have to cancel elections or disenfranchise women. Probably will have to cancel the 2024 election or disenfranchise women for 2024, which is going to be hard.

        • peppermint says:

          2018 plan:

          * Watch Democrats collapse as low-IQ anti-Whites take all the top spots
          * Expose Democrats as pedophiles
          * Slap the jewniversity system around to lower its status
          * Create jobs for White men

          2020 plan:

          * Nationalize twitter
          * Find a competitor or nationalize facebook
          * Dismantle the jewniversity system
          * End jus soli citizenship

          2024 plan:
          * Expel Caliphornia from the Union
          * Execute the entire Democratic party, the jewniversity system, and all major media personnel
          * Retire Congress and the Supreme Court, except for the Lord Chief Justice who performs administrative functions for His Majesty
          * Declare the Northwestern states to be a special protectorate off-limits to mud “people”

          • Corvinus says:

            So, your current fetish, along with Jim, is fantasy war porn. Good to know, Peppermint. I suppose you need something in your life to keep you occupied.

            • peppermint says:

              it’s not just my fetish lol, dhimmicrats have been overindulging in it of late for the following reasons

              * the SJW wing of the dhimmicrat party and the Clinton machine don’t want to accept that they lost and cede control over the party. So they come up with excuses
              * to accept Trump is to knowingly and consciously normalize hard-core White Nationalism, which makes the person accepting it worse than Hitler

              Thus they have permanently destroyed the legitimacy of their lügenprëssë and pulled out everything they had against Trump’s first few actions, and against his cabinet nominees that they would have needed three Royalist senators to stop.

              So Jeff “KKK in the DOJ” Sessions got in by a wider margin than Betsy “Common Core Implosion” DeVos, who needed a jump start from Mike “Deus Volt” Pence.

              Remember: dhimmicrats memed those nicknames.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                (It’s not a coincidence that “lugenpresse” sounds so much like “Judenpresse”, is it?)

                (And speaking of which, where he hell did commenter ‘B’ go?)

                • peppermint says:

                  B got butthurt about the Syrian government surviving and left

                • TTAAC says:

                  I thought Jim banned him.

                • jim says:

                  I have never banned anyone. I have stopped some threads because they became repetitious.

                  B had the irritating habit that we would argue about some fact, then he would cite some source that supposedly supported his position, and it did not. And then we would argue about what the source in fact said. I would quote the source saying X, and he would paraphrase the source as saying not X, and after a few repetitions I would say enough with the repetition.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jim: Looks to me that both Russia and Turkey are expecting and preparing for a conventional tank and air battle between Russian and Turkish forces on the outskirts of Aleppo, although they are both trying to avoid this and keep the proxy fig leaves in place.

                  B: I will bet you two bottles of Ardbeg that in the next two months there will neither be Turkish conventional forces anywhere near Aleppo nor any ground confrontation between Russian and Turkish conventional ground forces

                  Jim: If I win, chances are that the world blows up and I cannot collect. They are flirting with World War III. As I said, probably not World War III this time, probably not next time, probably they will find a way to avoid war between Russia and a Nato partner, but if such confrontations keep happening sooner or later one of them will slip out control.

                  : Chances are that there will not be actual battle, but they are threatening each other with actual battle.

                  : The Turks put their tanks there to say that “if Aleppo falls, it might lead to World War III, so don’t take Aleppo.” The Russians put their anti air there to say: “We don’t want trouble, but if you are looking for trouble, we can supply.” And are going right on interdicting Turkish forces trying to prevent the fall of Aleppo.

                  : Nobody has blinked yet. Chances are someone will blink. Care to make a prediction on who will blink first? If you cannot predict who is going to blink first, there is a good chance nobody blinks, and we get conventional war between a Nato Partner and Russia without the fig leaf of proxies.

                  : Either Russia stops interdicting Turkish forces (Russia blinks) or Turks let Aleppo fall. (Turkey blinks.)

                  : I will bet you a bottle that either Aleppo will fall to Syrian government forces, within a year, or Turkish regular military will openly cross the border to stop it from falling, thereby risking World War III. In other words, will bet a bottle that regardless of whether Turkey blinks, the Russians will not blink.

                  This bet was made on November 27, 2015, the offensive to retake Aleppo started November 15, 2016. Jim was more right than would usually be considered reasonable, but he surely knew that the final offensive would begin shortly after the American election regardless of winner.

                • jim says:

                  Well strictly speaking I was wrong, since Aleppo fell on the thirteenth of December 2016, which is after the twenty seventh of November. I was right in spirit, but wrong on the exact wording that I offered and thus would have lost the bet.

                  But to the best of my recollection, although I offered the bet, we never agreed on the details. But if he did agree to a bet on those exact terms, then I owe him.

                • TheBigH says:

                  >Well strictly speaking I was wrong, since Aleppo fell on the thirteenth of December 2016, which is after the twenty seventh of November. I was right in spirit, but wrong on the exact wording that I offered and thus would have lost the bet.

                  You where wrong on the time table for Aleppo because the Syrian army was very low on man power and couldn’t really start on Aleppo until they’d cleaned up a bunch of other pockets first.

          • pdimov says:

            The sooner birthright citizenship is ended, the better. Preferably yesterday.

            Also, repeal Hart-Celler.

    • viking says:

      The dems already do what ever they want. This is why I say democracy is not the problem they make end runs around the peoples will all the time. We are so used to it we dont notice it if trump only matches them in tricks he could undo the last 50 years without making a precedent.You do remember them actually arguing congress has the right to make you eat brocolli

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        People make end-runs around democracy because its *better* to make end-runs around democracy. The end-runs were solutions to problems *caused* by trying to govern though real democracy.

        Power always seeks outlets to express itself, to achieve what it always and already intended to achieve. If the most elegant and expedient outlets are barred in some way, it will simply diffuse through other vectors, but warped and mutated by the process.

  8. chedolf says:

    Jim – “When Tony Abbott actually stopped the flood of ‘refugees’, the courts aggressively overruled him, further expanding their authority.”

    Have any links to news articles or blog posts that discuss the specifics?

  9. Andreas says:

    I think you all might find this very interesting. The imminent self-coup theory looks very plausible.

    • peppermint says:

      To;dr Bannon didn’t disavow Moldbug and Moldbug doesn’t like democracy which implies that Bannon is a Nazi sympathizer, nationalism confirmed for opposition to democracy on the grounds that democracy violates NAP and isn’t universally preferable.

      If it was Slate, it would say he was a Nazi White Nationalist, but Politico needs to act balanced by saying he’s a technocrat neoreactionary, the softest form.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      I always find it funny how proggist writers compulsively project their own ‘point deer make horse’ onto their rivals.

      How is it possible that out of that whole corpus of moldbug tract, the one thing he zeroes in on to characterize and associate him with is the quote “To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable [sic] demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army,”, and divorced from its largely critical context at that, a classic example of reductionary journalistic implicature: ‘these guys are literally orwell, im a heroic rational truth-teller standing up for good honest really real reality. now excuse me, i need to write up some articles saying googles wuz kangs, how skypes are our greatest ally, and how trannies are not archetypic failures’.

      (The essence of narcissism: identification without realization; ‘i may not *actually* be [high-status thing], but i am *just the same sort of person*’)

      Can such things be dismissed *merely* as another expression of cross-tribe conflict, with the arguments *consciously* and instrumentally massaged as a matter of pure cynical consequentialism? Certainly that may be a part of it on some level, certainly. But as they say, necessary, but not sufficient. The whole reality goes deeper than that.

      Reason is as ever a tail wagged by the dog of intuition. A mans world is that which concerns him, and his choice of words and topics, themselves, are illuminating. The man who brings up something first, who repeatedly brings something up, is telling you *what consumes his thoughts*. Like the gun grabber who illustrates hoary fantasies of people snapping over some petty slight and spraying each other with bullets, *they are imagining themselves doing just that*, they are *exactly the sort of person they themselves speak of*.

      The hacknalist in question here zeroed in on that particular quote, because that is precisely the one thing in the whole edifice that is *the most familiar and recognizable too them*, that they can *personally relate to and identify with*.

      The question of political virtue is, in fact, essentially a question of epistemological virtue; so often people hold the ideologies they hold, come to hold and come again back to hold, because they quite literally have difficulty conceiving of the reality of anything else beyond it; nothing else makes sense to them because they do not *see* it in the first place.

      Such is the fate of the prog narcissist signaling their aspirational identity as a heroic rational truth-teller.

    • viking says:

      That IS VERY INTERESTING, Anton on NSC. Well we have some great readers in Bannon and the generals maybe others,but trumps a TV guy.Not easy to explain things verbally to a reality TV star

  10. viking says:

    Hes not king and no police army will follow him unless until he conquers washington., We may be close but are not at point where a military coup is possible. What is possible is a political coup. If trump can get congress to back his plays he wins. Its true at least half the guys with guns are dying to follow the right orders, its not true they will defy congress and courts. if you own guns ask yourself at what point you personally would start shooting. Congress plus president overrules courts.He has all he needs but the cucks are cucks even he and bannon are cucks so they dont get the existential nature of the situation and will likely cuck.But maybe just maybe they get it enough to fight the GOP.I can see a path but its narrow. They have to triangulate the GOP cucks against the deplorables.Force the cucks to sack up. But imagine the response imagine what it will take to withstand the cathedral response do you really see Ryan and co standing tall?

    • peppermint says:

      If Paul Ryan was the only guy they needed, he would have the visibility to survive. If Congress was a bunch of faggots who dated niggers in college, it might even be possible. But too many people know they’re going down with His Majesty no matter what they do. See, even townhall gets it:

      You appear to be somehow a republican, which is odd, because you usually appreciate the importance of personal loyalty and accountability for decisions. Fortunately, there is a place for republicans even in the Royalist Party. Just keep in mind that the people love the Emperor who in our hour of extraordinary need is defending the res publica when no one else could.

      • peppermint says:

        ps. am I supposed to capitalize who used as a pronoun when referring to His Majesty?

      • viking says:

        I suppose I have no fixed political philosophy at this point, some sort of conservative since the 70s always a realist about race and gender and certainly a hierarchist by nature. In short i anticipated moldbug by 40 years as have all sorts of people. I have no moral opposition to a theoretical monarchy that works i just think its pretty clear long term it wont work which is why we got rid of it. Reaction has a lot of meritocratic ideas that seem to me are not much different than what we have now jews and asians running our nations so cant support that other hand neo nazis pretty stupid, GOP certainly cucks, libertarians works again until race and immigration get into the mix.My biggest concern is that its something that will actually work in time which means theoretical daydreams are utter faggotry while rome burns.I guess Im not convinced we need to dump democracy entirely, while MM has some good critiques of it i dont see us doing away with it or if we did it working out, i think we ought to fix it. I dont see proles being the problem I see non whites being the problem, but i dont see how we get out of this in the USA short of civil war. That said trump was worth a try I am still hopeful but unlike you all my hope cant convince me that hes not an idiot with a decent instinct but hes in a shark tank and idiots dont last in that environment. Maybe youre right maybe enough people realize this is the last chance and will help in. I dont see much sign of the GOP hlping trump I see them only trying to get some stuff out of him while keeping their distance.I dont see any machiavellian moves from Trump and Co I see bumbling. Hope you all are right. BTW a short term strong man may be the only way out. I simply dont think monarchy works long term or that euroman will accept a king i wouldnt no men i know would. only internet fgas who i imagine are not very manly in real life seem to like this idea. That doesnt mean we wouldnt support a general to retake our nation maybe chase the niggers out, which BTW trumps no racist just a little bigotted he too desperately wants to be accepted by the elites to hols any subversive veiws

        • jim says:

          I guess Im not convinced we need to dump democracy entirely

          How do you propose to solve the problem that inevitably at some point the people will lose the confidence of the government, whereupon the government will dissolve the existing people and elect a new people?

          • viking says:

            Theres a lot of problems with monarchy i have raised here and all over reaction not a single answer yet whats proposed is monumental.
            Im not really sure what it is youre asking precisely
            The people have lost the confidence of the government, the government has been electing a new people for 50 years. But heres what I see. Its elites that have been doing this while proles have, despite insane reeducation and propaganda pressures resisted the dispossession and all of leftism rather valiantly, despite centuries of pressure proles remain obstinately reactionary.So how is democracy the problem its not the mobs screaming for more leftism its the elites, elites that MM proposes to give title to the levers of power because, dont laugh he imagines they will run the NYTs and Harvard more responsibly if they own it – or something something crypto locked sewers.The whole “Cathedral” thesis is basically elite run propaganda and end runs around democracy. Again the elites are already an aristocracy that does whatever the fuck they want, if they ever get out voted after one of their reducation campaigns they simply use the courts or have a revote.Now the one thing democracy does is make all this elite shit technically illegal, but if the elites were actually kings and lords it wouldnt be illegal.
            Its not that I dont see the problems with democracy nor do i think they are minor problems. I think though talk of kings is preposterous its never happening short a civil war at which point all sorts of options come in to play. We do need someone like you imagine Trump to be to just beat down the illegal practices of the left and restore the law and deport the illegals, or its definitely civil war. But civil war might be better we still would have hundredfifty million non whites citizens we cant survive that and we cant remove them legally only war can do that.
            But that aside as i have already said many times leftism is not possible without debt and redistribution, all leftism flows from the magical thinking of infinite resource. Outlaw government debt would probably be enough to get the leftiest lefty getting real reactionary about spending the limited funds wisely, because it would be his own money. But i think we could do even better and have the IRS determine every year if we are a net tax payer or not and only taxpayers would be allowed to vote on how the taxes are spent, this would pass the chimp brain fairness test.basically you cant spend other peoples money not your neighbors not your great grandchildrens shit would get real. This I see as much more realistic compared to telling the lads in north idaho to bow to their new king

            • Cavalier says:

              >insanely reactionary and untouched virtuous minds
              >not enormous, enormous whores (women) and mouth breathing, tattooed, muh dick losers (men)


              you made some good points in your comment about a week ago in response to my plumber’s daughter comment, though

              • viking says:

                Im not sure what youre getting at sounds kind of just insults. Is your point proles are disproportionately stupid? Yeah I know that Im not suggesting we dispense with hierarchy I am simply pointing out that leftism is a top down not bottom up phenomenon, democracy isnt failing because mouth breathing proles as you describe your co ethnics are in the street demanding free shit, the left has been desperate to get them to do that for 150 years and all they demand is to be free of niggers, to practice their superstitions, beat their wives,etc. The cogelites you so value had to import niggers to get their free shit meme going.And they have had to operate the most intence social deconstruction project in the history of tyrannical governments its orders of magnitude more intense propaganda and mind control than any yet seen.And still most whites voted trump.

                So Im simply saying if your goa;l is actually save western nations and peoples not play stalin 2.0 with some made up internet government. Then you should face facts that democracy is already here and could be modified while the chance of monarchy are zero .zero
                and besides the problems not democracy its leftism which is an elite phenomenon. I know some jew told you he had it all worked out and if you signed on you would be even cooler than brooklyn hipsters because you would be anti brooklyn hipsters.But moldbugs not the end of history, it isnt different this time. And yeah you might actually have to fight and get you leg blown off. sorry other generations have done it you millennials will just have to sack up

                • Cavalier says:

                  Democracy is a problem because it facilitates the election of a new people, because it is unresponsive to the needs of the people, and because in its true form it is a power vacuum just waiting to be filled by the nastiest thing possible.

                  Look at democracy and you may find that it is an elite phenomenon, and not merely an elite phenomenon but a the-most-powerful-elite-faction The question is: why? The answer is not: altruism and a marrow-deep belief in people power.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Also, I’m not a Millennial, and you’re deluded if you think I’m going to go off to lose my leg in some not-locatable-on-a-map shithole backwater when the real enemy of my people and a future for white children is in my own backyard.

        • peppermint says:

          The gene pool, i.e. nation, is far and away the most valuable thing in a country.

          But it is a common good, and it must be guarded in some manner, preferably by a hereditary steward, i.e. king.

          There have been a number of attempts at enumerating what particular authority the king has over the individuals of the nation, and these attempts have ultimately devolved that political authority to others. Thus we say that the king has absolute political authority and hope for a good king, because other forms of government eventually succumb to tragedy of the commons.

          In a republic, the franchise devolves into democracy, or the patricians import foreigners to replace the plebs, or the best outcome is for someone to set himself up as king.

          In a democracy, the people in charge waste the public treasure, as by starting stupid wars that end in ruin, and import foreigners to replace the deplorables to cement their power, or the best outcome is for someone to set himself up as king.

          Buildings in a city belong to their owners, but the building owner owes certain obligations to the city as represented by the mayor, such as the obligation not to unduly destroy the value of the building and other buildings around it. Individuals belong to the nation more than buildings belong to the city, and the king is the steward of the nation as the mayor is steward of the city.

          The most important thing the government needs to do to protect the nation is prohibit miscegenation, which, of course, the governments of democracies and republics approve of.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Genetic infrastructure as national commons.

            My man that is a very helpful and powerful model that you have there. Thanks very much.

          • viking says:

            you need to read your history king dont give a fuck about their people

            • Cavalier says:

              The king’s job is to crack aristocrat skulls, i.e. predatory moneylenders, university professors, newspaper journalists, Puritans, economists, bureaucrats, and so forth. To this end, he allies with far (the people) against near (the aforementioned aristocrats). This is why the Crown is loved, and the aristocracy, less so.

              Ideally, the Crown and the aristocracy lock horns in a perfectly balanced power struggle, as the victory of either is catastrophic to both, and the people (commoners). In England, the aristocrats eventually won everything, starting with the Magna Carta, and were eventually so successful they cucked themselves out of existence and handed it over to the haute bourgeois, who carried on for a while before eventually collapsing before the onward march of Whig history.

              • viking says:

                sounds like high and low against middle.Look this is pointless theres never going to be kings in the west again, but id there were it would hardly look like king arthur’s court.The point to meritocracy is it solves a problem of human capital [which BTW the west excels at] and spoiled stupid rich kids inheriting the world.Democracy like capitalism is evolutionary in theory, it adapts to new situations with the best tools decided by a market. When it doesnt do that somethings wrong fix it. are you going to throw out capitalism and evolution because frankly they are not working very well any more either.

                • jim says:

                  Look this is pointless theres never going to be kings in the west again,

                  Kings have been around a very long time, and keep showing up in history over and over again. Democracy, not so much.

                  Democracies, unlike monarchies tend to be short lived and catastrophic. If American democracy has had a long run, its longest run ever, it is because the priesthood managed the outcomes.

            • jim says:

              Whereas our rulers, unlike Kings, care so much about the people they are dissolving the existing people and electing a new people.

            • peppermint says:

              It is true that the recent record of kings isn’t good. We have had a series of traitor kings in Europe, made king because of their bloodline which was separate from the nation and then acting against the interest of the nation.

              John Charles of Spain is the worst, as a Catholic monarch, he turned Falangist Spain into a heavily indebted country whose young men do heroin and have gay sex all day. The Iron Guard let the exiled king back into Romania so he could have them executed and turn the country over to the Soviet Union. The list goes on.

              There is a strong theoretical argument for having a king – but the king should be chosen as the man who has the loyalty of the soldiers and is willing to defend the nation. If we were to find a descendant of George Washington and make him king, he would probably seek out some communists to surrender to. Trump is our king, Putin is Russia’s king, Spain and England have traitors who must be overthrown by the true king.

              • Cavalier says:

                The “first founder” of our country had a lifetime TFR of 0, which is kind of ironic, really, when one takes a moment to think about it.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          (How do you expect to be taken seriously here if you can’t even be bothered to use your “return” key?)

      • SteveRogers42 says:

        As a Royalist, you should appreciate Trump’s 5D chess maneuver to form an alliance with another dynastic house: SecEd Betsy DeVos’ brother is Erik (Blackwater) Prince. I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that Trump wanted to make a huge deposit in the favor bank with a guy who has a proven track record of putting together an off-the-books mercenary army staffed by former SF snake-eaters. This possibility may seem outlandish to many, but Shakespeare would understand it immediately.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          > As a Royalist, you should appreciate Trump’s
          > 5D chess maneuver to form an alliance with
          > another dynastic house: SecEd Betsy DeVos’
          > brother is Erik (Blackwater) Prince.

          Dude no shit! I’m the worst-informed person on earth. I didn’t know that.

          Well that settles it. Mr. Prince is definitely who you want in your corner, that’s or damned sure.

          • SteveRogers42 says:

            A lot of people are unaware of that. For some reason, it’s a fact that flies beneath the public radar.


            (At George Soros’ house): “Knock-knock”

            GS: “Who’s there?”

            EP: “Erik”

            GS: “Erik who?”

            Bam-bam-bam! “That’s who”

            • Jack Highlands says:

              Nice. I was aware of it looking into each one of Trump’s main candidates as they arose, but I never considered the tremendous potential usefulness for Trump. I was an avid reader of Buchanan and Raimondo in the Iraq War days, and Blackwater was a very distasteful name then, so my prejudice had remained.

              • SteveRogers42 says:

                My friend, to say that we live in “interesting times” doesn’t begin to cover it. If someone had told me ten years ago that Donald Trump would be proving himself worthy of a spot on Mt. Rushmore in 2017, I would have had him committed. Old friends we had thought eternal will prove to be false, and firm alliances will be forged with those whom we had feared and despised.

                As a case in point, I find myself agreeing with every word Roseanne Barr has to say. Truly, this is madness…and yet…

  11. Mister Grumpus says:

    You guys you guys. Look:

    12 months ago most of us couldn’t believe in our hearts that Trump would pull off his election. We pined and hoped and dreamed, but secretly, “in the upper room” if you will. And even if he would win, we couldn’t believe that he would do anything even CLOSE to what he’s done already. I couldn’t even “go there” mentally in private.

    Also, if he would win, I (for one) had no idea that the Left would go as bug-nuts as it already has, just two weeks in. “Racist” didn’t cut it, now it’s “Nazi-Nazi-Nazi”, and next, shit, what? What accusation is a ratchet-up from “Nazi”? “Satan” is dead, and “murderer” is nearly a compliment now. So what, suicide vests triggered in mute silence?

    So anyway. You guys speak for yourselves and I’ll speak for myself:

    For the last 12 months, my imagination has been empirically proven to be simply out-classed and insufficient, both for Trump and for the Left. My Mister Reasonable haven’t-been-laid-in-forever nice-guy assumptions are being BTFO’ed out both ends.

    No one but Trump is as well-prepared for navigating this insane situation and coming out on top. No one! We simply HAVE to trust him to know what to do.

    His mind is 100% owned by this present crisis. He and his young wife, his kids and his grandkids have No Way Out now. No way out! Either he-and-his are hunted to extinction for the next 50 years, like they’re Romanov’s or the freaking Munich Bombers, or he charges in and busts right through these motherfuckers like the Alien.

    • peppermint says:

      we’re talking about what’s possible, and some of these defeatists don’t understand how any of this is possible because they’re too monarchist to be Royalist

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Can you elaborate please? Too monarchist to be royalist? Huuuuuuh?

        [confused caricature nigger face]

        • peppermint says:

          monarchism was a big thing a few years ago once it was understood that power should be accountable and secure and that means monarchy, and then some monarchists decided that consequently any talk of the people having any power is inherently leftist. Later on the importance of families and patriarchs was fleshed out.

          But what I was hoping to mean by capital Royalist was worshiping our particular God-Emperor, who is fashier than the monarchists and libertarians of NRx would like, and they don’t like fashiness because they don’t understand it and how it’s possible.

          • peppermint says:

            a significant advantage His Majesty has over previous fashy movements is He doesn’t have to pretend to be egalitarian to keep noble traitors out

            • Steel T Post says:

              Traitors can face this:

              “We’ll destroy his career.” -President Donald Trump, Feb 7, 2017

              Funny watching Bolshies chimp out over that, after they’ve destroyed so many careers. Back pay has accumulated; arrears are about to be reconciled.

      • Starman says:

        (((Defeatists))), such as (((Kevin C.)))…

        • Kevin C. says:

          First, not that I can prove it via text, but 100% Judenfrei. The surname is Irish, but it’s more the Teutonic depressiveness from the maternal side, the sort of attitude reflected in myths like Fimbulvetr and Ragnarök, of the world falling into eternal dark winter where the gods themselves all die.

          Trump won us a pause in the leftward ratchet, yes, but anything more is premature at the least. The left has been winning for over 300 years; a single election alone will not turn it around, and we’ve got a very long way to go. And you’re all taking the WH40K jokes *way* too seriously.

          • jim says:

            And you’re all taking the WH40K jokes *way* too seriously.

            When the left goes bug-nuts, War Hammer 40 000 becomes reality. Trump, vivat rex, will win, or die.

            Trump may well cuck out, as the Romanovs cucked out. But if he does, the left will kill him and kill his children as they killed the Romanovs and their children.

            You assume that Trump and his loyalists will not do things that a short time ago would have been unimaginable. You may be right, but the left is already doing things that a short time ago would have been unimaginable.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              (Important people read this blog. Let’s watch and see if the Romanovs analogy grows legs out there.)

              • Steel T Post says:

                Whites vs. Reds; Fash vs. Bolshie. Same as it ever was.

                Back Nov. 8th, I thought we had avoided Civil War for a while. Now, not so much.

                And I think the Finnish Civil War is most illustrative of the upcoming, with the rural urban divide being pronounced there. They lost just over 1% of their population in 5 months of fighting. The urban Reds started fighting really dirty first (Red Terror), then the rural Whites beat them at their dirty games (White Terror). Look up the monthly stats on that shit. It was extremely ugly.

                • jim says:

                  Whites won because they had the assistance of a quite small body of regular troops. Ill trained militias were not very useful for either side.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                Woo shit!

                The “Romanov” likening was picked up (who knows from where, hmm?) by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.

                Here we have Daily Stormer, quoting Grabien News, mentioning Rached Maddow and Chris Matthews:

                “On Trump’s Inauguration Day, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow likened Trump’s election to “Hitler’s rise.” Her colleague Chris Matthews described Trump’s inaugural address as “Hitlerian.” Matthews also mocked Trump’s family, likening them to the Russian imperial family, the Romanovs. He’s so fond of this metaphor he now uses it all the time.”


                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  (Fuck a duck if I’m the one who started this “Romanovs” thing.)

          • Starman says:

            @Kevin C.
            Spandrell is negative and he is our prime blackpiller.

            But can anyone imagine Spandrell denying that the Left is organizing violence against everyone they disagree with (even cuckservatives!)?

            You just denied that upthread.

    • jim says:

      I knew Trump was going to win, but I totally did not expect the left to go bug-nuts. I thought they would just go quiet for eight years, and then go bug-nuts.

      Yes, Trump is now in a position where he wins or he dies and his wife dies and his children die, like the Romanovs. And I think that pretty soon a lot of people are going to be sharing that position with him. If he loses, he will be like Pinochet, who upon unwisely restoring democracy was never forgiven for saving Chile. If Trump accepts unfavorable judicial and “democratic” outcomes, his enemies will not stop at anything. If he plays by democratic and constitutional rules, the left will not.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Shit got THIS real in two weeks.

      • Alrenous says:

        I thought it would happen with Trump’s wall or other significant efforts. When he countered their efforts at stonewalling, their dismay would lead to panic, and the sclerosis would prevent them from rolling with the punch. The bureaucracy is too rigid and complacent to lay low anymore. Instead it seems they anticipated this and decided to get rolling immediately.

        The responsibility-laundering command chain cannot force anyone to take a bullet for the team. Especially when the economy is in white-knuckle grip / batten-down-the-hatches mode, nobody is going to voluntarily give up their job. Their only real option is to go hard out of the gate.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        > If he loses, he will be like Pinochet, who upon
        > unwisely restoring democracy was never forgiven
        > for saving Chile.

        Dammit man. Ain’t that just the motherfucking way, too?

        I keep forgetting that The Trumpenfuhrer is 70 years old, and has thus watched plenty of these mass-purity-death-spirals go down in real time, throughout his life. Both from the outside (just reading and watching the news like anybody) and also from the inside (teetotalling and sober, across the nightclub and restaurant tables from arrogant and blabbing Cathedral elites).

        Meanwhile I have to play remedial-classes back here in the 40-and-up Short Bus with the occasional blog-post while I should be working. But my man? My man really understands how this shit happens. He knows how hot fire can get, and he knows what smoke smells like.

        Every time I think about what Trump is-doing or should-do, I need to somehow remember to stop and remind myself that he is 10-times as knowledgeable and fluent than I’m assuming he is. (But Dunning-Kruger is a bitch, so it’s a lifelong struggle.)

        I’ve been told that when Winston Churchill had his teeth fixed one time, he intentionally had them done a little funny-looking. That way, he would look a bit dumber to his adversaries than he actually was. Which of course reminds me of a certain hairstyle I know.

    • SteveRogers42 says:

      Well said.

  12. Jack Highlands says:

    @Kevin C: your statements referring to the chain of command in the police and military are reasonable and I think the truth is that none of us know how this will play out if it comes down to reorganizing the American state, ie reorganizing America’s rulers’ credible monopoly on violence.

    But I do think we need to keep in mind that a great majority of America’s gun owners presumably support Trump.

    And a great majority of the police and military ranks presumably support those gun owners.

    And whatever portion of the police and military command that does not support these aforementioned groups, presumably fears them.

    • Kevin C. says:

      “But I do think we need to keep in mind that a great majority of America’s gun owners presumably support Trump.”

      And that might have mattered in 1776, or maybe 1860, but we’re a long way from there. The “Age of the Gun” is over. It didn’t matter how many peasants gathered how many pitchforks, set a few knights in armor on destriers against them, and the knights always won. Modern military technologies have shifted away from the citizen militia or mass mobilization infantry rifleman model back toward expensive, capital-intensive elites. (And before you mention our failure to win in the Middle East as somehow “proving” folks with civilian rifles can “defeat” a modern military, read Moldbug on Vietnam. The enemy that’s countered our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan wasn’t Ahmed Muhammad the inbred camel-jockey, it’s the State Department. Because State hates the Pentagon more than it hates or fears inbred camel-jockeys, but it hates “America’s gun owners” more than it does the Pentagon.) Read Max Boot on Guerrilla Warfare (hint: it usually fails), or pretty much any recent books on military logistics, and how much depends on the contractor engineers to maintain and repair, and how much said companies are dependent upon government largesse (in short, whoever can pay Lockheed Martin and co. generally wins).

      “And a great majority of the police and military ranks presumably support those gun owners.”

      The key word is “presumably”. Which is to say, it’s a *presumption*. One of which I am somewhat skeptical, given the paucity of hard, quantified evidence in support. I ask you, what if it’s not a “great” majority, but only about half, so that “whatever portion of the police and military command that does not support these aforementioned groups” has rough parity? That paints a different scenario, does it not?

      • Cavalier says:

        P.S. asymmetrical warfare is also horseshit

        P.P.S. the means by which asymmetrical warfare supposedly works is basically volonté générale in its latest reincarnation

      • Jack Highlands says:

        I’m not qualified to speculate much on the tactical implications of my line of reasoning, except to note that Van Creveld and Lind’s 4GW ideas seem to suggest continuing efficacy for citizen militias (though your capital-intensive elite soldiers are certainly the developed world’s answer for 4GW and may well be an effective counter).

        But as to your question regarding my presumables, it seems to relate only to my last one: ‘whatever portion of the police and military command that does not support America’s gun owners (the informal militia) and America’s rank-and-file police and military (the formal militia), presumably fears them.’

        So you see, I never stated what proportion of command supports the militia, I only implied that 100% of command either supports them or fears them. And that may be enough to stall them into compliance.

        • Cavalier says:

          The apparent efficacy of citizen militias, a.k.a. goatfucking Akbars with AKs, stems from the fact that no one in USG is sufficiently willing to carpetbomb Mecca.

        • Cavalier says:

          But they were perfectly willing to firebomb Dresden, and would do it again given half a chance. That should tell you something.

        • Kevin C. says:

          “I only implied that 100% of command either supports them or fears them”

          And I’m saying that that is almost certainly wrong, especially the “fears” part. I’m asking you what if it’s more like: ~50% of “command” supports “the militia” (as you call them), and the other ~50% not only don’t “support” them, they *don’t fear them either*? Or if it goes the other way, with like 40% support, and 60% who don’t support (and don’t fear). What happens then?

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Just as we seem to have identified an important question (how much does the command fear the militia), I’m going to reframe. Your answer is ‘not much’. I’ve decided that’s probably right. So the reframe is this: if the command does not fear the militia, why not?

            I suspect your answer would be along the lines that they the command is sufficiently and realistically confident in its power that they need not fear the militia, though of course, I welcome your actual thoughts.

            In any case, my answer is that the command is sufficiently deluded about its power that it does not fear the militia as it ought.

            I offer as evidence the hubristic elite ignorance and false confidence about every single important political event in America for the last twenty months.

            And at the heart of that is their false interpretation of humanity: egalitarianism. Of course, I know they don’t truly believe in egalitarianism: in all probability James Alefantis believes he is sufficiently superior to Haitian orphans to justify child sacrifice. But my point is that they believe in it enough, and more importantly they believe in its rituals enough, to make colossal mistakes. For instance, the mistake that effective militia cohesion can be maintained while a bunch of Alefantis-types lead masculine men around in high heels. Or that women and open homosexuals should have any role at all in the military of a healthy state.

      • peppermint says:

        wait, are we still arguing about whether, if Trump loses the election, the US civilians would be able cause enough damage to prevent the US military from being used to suppress nationalist uprisings in Europe?

        Or are we arguing about whether or not, in the hypothetical where enough Royalists in congress decide to commit treason and sign their own death warrants, and furthermore Trump’s generals don’t just stage a coup, the gun owners could still crash the country?

        Cucking is not coming back. There’s no longer anything to be gained by cucking except for certain senators who can still play both sides.

        • Kevin C. says:

          “where enough Royalists in congress decide to commit treason and sign their own death warrants”

          Are you really claiming to believe, as your statements here indicate, that you truly belive that if (when) the Democrats retake the White House they’re going to literally kill every Republican in Congress? That if the likes of McCain and Murkowski were to “cross the aisle”, and help oust Trump, the Dems will shoot them in the head for it?

          If that’s really what you’re saying, then, frankly, you’re out of your Goddamned mind!

          • jim says:

            We are already getting organized physical violence against perfectly ordinary bland cuckservatives. So, yeah. I expect that if the we ever allow the Democrats to retake the house, they will kill every Republican.

            The latest definition of “fascist” includes not only dismantling Obamacare, but even noticing that it has already collapsed and is thus hugely unpopular with most of its supposed beneficiaries. We are all fascists now, and you agree that fascists need killing, right?

            Because if you don’t agree, that makes you a fascist also.

            Used to be that noticing that whites and blacks were different made you a fascist. Then noticing that men and women are different made you a fascist. The latest is that noticing the failure of Obamacare makes you a fascist, and therefore subject to violence by all decent right thinking people.

          • Starman says:

            @Kevin C.
            “Are you really claiming to believe, as your statements here indicate, that you truly belive that if (when) the Democrats retake the White House they’re going to literally kill every Republican in Congress? That if the likes of McCain and Murkowski were to “cross the aisle”, and help oust Trump, the Dems will shoot them in the head for it?

            If that’s really what you’re saying, then, frankly, you’re out of your Goddamned mind!”

            And Grima Wormtongue has now revealed himself…

      • jim says:

        what if it’s not a “great” majority, but only about half,

        I am quite sure it is close to 99% of the actual fighting men, warriors, people who are expected to personally engage the enemy. Among those with less direct roles in fighting, in particular naval people, nurses, logistics, etc, much lower.

        But the pointy end of the spear is as close to 100% Trump and a 100% second amendment as makes no difference.

        • Kevin C. says:

          “those with less direct roles in fighting, in particular naval people, nurses, logistics, etc, much lower.”

          As the saying goes, “Amateurs study tactics, armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics.” The “pointy end of the spear” may be what does the damage, but the tip of a spear goes where the shaft of the spear points it. And is subordination, and obeying the orders of a superior, not still a thing?

          • jim says:

            , but the tip of a spear goes where the shaft of the spear points it.

            When the spear is composed of people, rather than wood, the shaft of the spear follows the tip of the spear.

            And is subordination, and obeying the orders of a superior, not still a thing?

            If you are in the army, your superior is president Trump, and men he appoints. If Trump says “ignore the courts” the courts will be ignored.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              > If you are in the army, your superior
              > is president Trump, and men he
              > appoints. If Trump says “ignore the
              > courts” the courts will be ignored.


              Just yesterday Don — Vivat Rex — was reading the law to the Sheriffs’ Association that obviously lays-out why his travel ban is legit, and the sheriff’s were getting the picture at two or three different levels.

              So if and when the Ninth Circuit rules “Yeah but still no, so fuck you anyway, because we’re judges, and all the right people like us and don’t like you”… well there you go. Either Don cucks-out and looks forward to his son getting eaten by crocodiles…

              …OR he simply has to tell them “Well actually fuck YOU, now watch THIS”, and his approval ratings shoot up.


              Then it’s on!

      • SteveRogers42 says:

        Who bitch dis is?

  13. Kevin C. says:

    “If Trump, vivat rex, appeals to the supreme court and wins, a Pyrrhic victory. But do not fear, there will be many more confrontations.”

    Sure, and they’ll most likely end up like your second possibility:

    “if he appeals to the supreme court, loses and cucks out, then he is, like Reagan, just another speed bump in front of the progressive steamroller.”

    What makes you think that being anything more than “just another speed bump” is even possible?

    “If he appeals to the supreme court, loses, and ignores them, a huge victory.”

    Only if the Supreme Court “suddenly and quietly accepts a diminution of their authority” as the Australian court did. What if they don’t? First, I’d point out that the Judicial branch is *not* lacking an enforcement arm; they have the United States Marshals Service: “The Marshals Service is attached to the Judicial branch of government, and is the enforcement arm of the federal courts.” For just one possible scenario, the Court can appeal to the “Nuremberg principle” — that “just following orders” is not a defense, and that one must *disobey* an “unlawful” order — and call upon the officials and bureaucrats of the Executive branch to disobey the Trump orders that the Court has declared illegal, possibly encouraged by sending the US Marshals after a few high-profile officials who *do* side with Trump over the courts. If Trump says to the disobeying bureaucrats “you’re fired”, well, it can take _several years_ ( to fire a fed thanks to the _civil servant protection system_ ( — which is specifically “meant to prevent against politically motivated firings”, and you can be sure that any attempt by Trump to remove the insubordinate will be spun as politically motivated — while getting to stay in the workplace until procedures are complete, and that’s not counting union protections and court appeals. And you can be sure that the courts will rule that Trump’s firings of disobedient “subordinates” are illegal, and thus void, and that the bureaucrats aren’t really fired. So “fired” bureaucrats still go to work, their coworkers act as if they still have the job, etc. If Trump uses the “security apparatus” i.e. men with guns to physically remove the “fired” employees, the same folks who called the (forced?) resignations at State a “_trial balloon for a coup d’état_” (” ) will scream “autogolpe!” (self-coup), giving the #NeverTrumpers and cuckservatives in Congress (which you admit “is full of cucks”) the excuse to cross the aisle and join the Democrats in impeaching and removing Trump. After which, in order to ensure that “never again” will there be another Trump, things will be massively pushed leftward, with increased punishments for insufficient leftism, toward left singularity.

    “So I hope and expect that this will change when the time is right to strike down his enemies.”

    On what evidence do you base this hope and expectation? And if it does not change?

    “once his judge gets put on the bench.”

    What makes you think he will, that the Democrats won’t filibuster and Bork any nominee until we end up with the only sort of “conservative” who ever actually ends up on the court anymore, another John “Obamacare both is and isn’t a tax” Roberts?

    “with the judiciary acting in a blatantly unlawful manner”

    Except most American people, especially in the “Blue” areas, accept what they’re taught in public school, which is that the Courts are the ones who get to determine what the laws actually mean, which is to say, the Court determines what is legal and what is illegal, and thus (*pace* Nixon), “When the Court does it, that means that it is not illegal”. So plenty will accept that the judiciary cannot act in a “blatantly unlawful manner” because their manner is lawful by definition.

    • Starman says:

      This whole thing will be decided by men with guns. And Trump is very good at persuasion, especially persuading the men with guns. The God-Emperor has been courting the police and military for years.

    • jim says:

      “if he appeals to the supreme court, loses and cucks out, then he is, like Reagan, just another speed bump in front of the progressive steamroller.”

      What makes you think that being anything more than “just another speed bump” is even possible?

      Tony Abbott put the judges in their proper place. Duterte put the judges in their proper place. Trump, vivat rex, is twice the man that Tony Abbot was.

      In the unlike event that the judges attempt to use the Marshals to enforce their will (against forces enormously larger, and using marshals that probably support Trump overwhelmingly) Trump can just issue a presidential pardon.

      Or, Duterte style, give the supremes a helicopter ride to the pacific.

      • Starman says:


      • Eli says:

        I think we are nearing a fork: either power is going to be evolving to be concentrated in the judiciary branch (a la current situation in Israel), or the President (possibly, future King) is going to become the focal point, holding its reins.

      • Kevin C. says:

        “Tony Abbott put the judges in their proper place.”

        For now. But Abbott’s been replaced by Turnbull, after all.

        “Duterte put the judges in their proper place.” Again, *for now*; until the next Democrat president initiates “regime change” in the Philippines to “protect human rights”, or possibly the State Department simply implements the Goldberg Plan ( on their own.

        “Trump, vivat rex, is twice the man that Tony Abbot was.”

        But also in the belly of the beast, as it were. Fighting the concentrated, fortified heart of Anglo-American leftism, rather than the more peripheral institutions Abbott faced. Trump may be twice the man that Abbott was, but his opponent is far, far more than twice the obstacle that Abbott’s was.

        “against forces enormously larger”

        That if Trump deploys, will be called an self-coup, which equals impeached Trump.

        “marshals that probably support Trump overwhelmingly”

        [Citation needed], as they say. What’s your evidence for this (other than that you wish it is so)?

        “Trump can just issue a presidential pardon.”

        While he’s still president, yes. But after he’s impeached, no.

        “Or, Duterte style, give the supremes a helicopter ride to the pacific.”

        Frankly, it’s pretty much insane to believe such could ever happen in the US. The Left giving folks on the right “helicopter rides”, yes, but the other way around? Far more likely that when plans for the choppers are discussed in the Oval, some Secret Service go Praetorian Guard because “muh democracy” and “human rights” and “due process”; or at least, are conveniently away from post when “lone gunman” attacks.

        • Starman says:

          @Kevin C.
          “That if Trump deploys, will be called an self-coup, which equals impeached Trump.”

          And who is going to enforce the impeachment, eh?

          • Kevin C. says:

            The presidential impeachment procedure is laid out in the Constitution, is it not? If Congress, following the procedure, says Trump is no longer President, then the Constitution says Trump is no longer President. Won’t, then, those who take seriously their Sacred Oath to defend the Constitution be required by said oath to “enforce the impeachment”?

            • jim says:

              If Congress, following the procedure, says Trump is no longer President, then the Constitution says Trump is no longer President.

              Congress is full of Republicans, most of whom will probably be killed if the left regains power.

              Therefore unlikely to impeach Trump even if he gives the supreme court free ? rides.

            • Starman says:

              Congressmen and Judges who believe the Constitution is a “living document” will be in for a surprise when the warriors who take their Sacred Oath will treat impeachment papers and court orders as “living documents.”

        • Starman says:

          @Kevin C.
          “Far more likely that when plans for the choppers are discussed in the Oval, some Secret Service go Praetorian Guard because “muh democracy” and “human rights” and “due process”; or at least, are conveniently away from post when “lone gunman” attacks.”

          That’s why the God-Emperor has His own personal security force (whose role in protecting Him is expanding) and inner council… or should I say… Privy Council for His Majesty…

        • Starman says:

          @Kevin C.
          “‘marshals that probably support Trump overwhelmingly’

          [Citation needed], as they say. What’s your evidence for this (other than that you wish it is so)?”

          Did you just ignore me?
          The God-Emperor has been courting the military and police for years. As a military veteran with friends and family who are police (including US Marshals) and other military, I see the support for the God-Emperor among my fellow Prætorians is overwhelming.

          • Kevin C. says:

            Not to denigrate your lived experience, but anecdote ≠ datum. Are your “friends and family who are police (including US Marshals) and other military” a scientifically-representative sample? And are they concentrated more amongst the, shall we say, ranks who mostly take orders, or the ranks who mostly give orders? Any black or female or gay soldiers or cops in that mix?

            Talk is cheap. Actually defying orders of a superior officer, a superior officer backed by the courts, the media, the entire Cathedral apparatus, is another. What’s the penalty for mutiny these days?

            • jim says:

              Any black or female or gay soldiers or cops in that mix?

              There are no female or gay soldiers, and very few black soldiers. There are women and gays who are awarded the title of “soldier” as a form of flattery, but real soldiers secretly laugh at them.

              This becomes hilariously obvious when female firemen or female policemen are sent to do something dangerous.

              Sending women to this stuff is loathsome, despicable, vile, immoral, disgusting, contemptible and shameful, because men are the expendable sex, and women are the precious sex, and when you actually send women to do a man’s job, the result is invariable and predictable: Ancient instincts take over, and women and men revert to their ancient social roles, frequently with the result that the fire is not put out, or the bad guy gets to wander around for a few hours killing people at his leisure while the female policemen try to fuck him.

              Just check out some incidents where female cops were among those sent to take down a terrorist.

              Similarly, several hundred firemen, and absolutely zero female firemen were killed in dealing with the 9/11 fires and rescues, because every single female fireman, every single one, entirely without exception, ran away. And if female “soldiers” do not always run away, it is usually because they are trying to fuck the enemy. When the shit hits the fan, biology overpowers reason, socialization, social expectations, and training. Men can be trained to be soldiers because fighting in groups is natural for men. To train men to be soldiers you have to release, rather than suppress, ancient instincts. We are killer apes. This just does not work for women. The kind of stimuli that causes men to bond with their comrades and slay the enemy cause women to betray their comrades and fuck the enemy. Send a mixed sex group of cops to shut down a terrorist or put down a violent riot and observe what happens. It is hilarious. Women can no more be warriors than I can be a mother.

              • Starman says:

                “There are no female or gay soldiers, and very few black soldiers.”

                When the MS-13 subhumans threatened the White Minutemen with violence. The Minutemen told them to show up for battle. MS-13 didn’t show up because there was no Civil Rights Commission to protect the MS-13 bean indios from the White Minutemen in the remote areas of the US Southern Border.

              • Robert Brockman says:

                How do we explain the curious cases of Mariya Oktyabrskay, Aleksandra Samusenko, and Lyudmila Pavlichenko?


                Lyudmila in particular has the eyes of a stone killer. Is there something different about the Russian ladies? Miss Oktybrskaya seems to have demonstrated a degree of loyalty to her husband which was … difficult to ignore.

                • Robert Brockman says:

                  (I agree that the vast majority of American female soldiers are fake, and very obviously so.)

                • jim says:

                  According to the same Soviet press as reported these women, Nikita Izotov supposedly mined 607 tons of coal in a single shift with a pick and shovel.

                  The Soviet press regularly reported workers who achieved entirely improbable feats of production Stakhanovites, as examples to be emulated by all the other workers. When war came, they reported the equivalent warriors in much the same style.

                  It was deemed politically necessary to have some female war heroes, therefore female war heroes were created. Not only do I doubt that these women performed the highly improbable feats attributed to them, I doubt that they ever existed.

                  No reasonable person would believe that Stakhanovite accomplished the remarkable feats of production attributed to him. Why believe these women did?

                  These women were reported in the same way by the same papers that reported that Nikita Izotov mined 607 tons of coal in a single shift with a pick and shovel.

                  If female warriors existed, you would have examples where the truth was more easily discovered, and lies less likely – for example you would have some female heroes of 9/11

                  Whenever we are able to observe the actual conduct of female soldiers, female policemen, and female firemen, in the face of actual danger, it is hilarious.

                  Some women are reasonably brave in the face of moderate danger, for example medics evacing warriors from the battlefield, and deserve due credit for serving their country, but when the shit gets heavy, the women break and run, as they should, for women are the precious sex. Or they break and fuck, which they should not.

                  In the ancestral environment, if a woman was captured by the enemy, she would probably wind up as someone’s property, which would likely improve her reproductive success, since her owner would have confidence in the paternity of his children, whereas a man captured by the enemy was probably killed, and if enslaved, castrated. So women have an alarming tendency to be overcome with sexual lust for the enemy in combat and in situations of conflict and danger, which is euphemistically described as Stockholm Syndrome or Traumatic Stress Disorder.

                  After 9/11 four hundred and eleven emergency workers in New York City died while responding to the emergency. Many of the job categories, like medics, normally contain a good proportion of female workers. But on 9/11, no females responded to the emergency. They ran away. All of them. As women should, because women are the precious sex.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Not only do I doubt that these women performed the highly improbable feats attributed to them, I doubt that they ever existed.”

                  Pavlichenko most likely did exist.

                  “Pavlichenko was sent to Canada and the United States for a publicity visit and became the first Soviet citizen to be received by a US President when Franklin Delano Roosevelt welcomed her to the White House.[9] Pavlichenko was later invited by Eleanor Roosevelt to tour America relating her experiences.[9]”

                  Oktyabrskaya seems mostly fictional. You’ll need Google Translate to appreciate the full extent of the story.


                  As a general rule, heroes that survived generally did exist, their careers may have been embellished, their biographies may have been embellished or made up, but they were real people. Heroes who died heroic deaths may or may not have existed.

              • Robert Brockman says:

                There is a statistical problem with inferring lack of courage from FDNY female firefighters on 9/11. The % of female firefighters (0.3 %) was so low that we would only expect 1 or 2 to have been involved with 9/11 at all.

                Apparently one female police officer was killed trying to evacuate people from the building — she was apparently a bit older.

                • jim says:

                  What was her name?

                  While the bulk of those killed were fire fighters, there were quite a few other categories of emergency worker, some of which I would expect to have reasonable proportions of females.

                • Robert Brockman says:

                  Apparently three female first responders died while attempting to rescue others: Captain Kathy Mazza, Officer Moira Smith, and EMT Yamel Merino. There seems to be sufficient physical evidence for bravery in these cases: identifiable bodies found near those of civilians they were trying to rescue, a picture of one of them with a wounded survivor before going back into the buildings to rescue more people.

                  It should not be surprising to us that a small percentage of women are capable of bravery despite strong genetic and cultural pressures to the contrary.

                  A strong indicator for sorting out the fake women warriors from the real ones is in the facial expressions. I met a female paratrooper once who was obviously not a real warrior: checking her FB pictures of her and her male comrades indicated that her male comrades all had the 1000-yard-stare-I-kill-people look and she did not.

                  What makes me think Lyudmila is the real deal is this look, something in her eyes screams “I am a stone killer” to me. Could be the Soviets were good enough propagandists to fake that look, but my bet is not. Roza Shanina had the look too, though not as much. I’ve not seen women with this look outside of pictures of Russian lady snipers from WW2.

                • jim says:

                  I stand corrected. The first two women, and probably the third, died because they remained to face danger that they were helping others flee from.

              • SteveRogers42 says:

                This never gets old:


                Or this:


                “I said kick in the door, not knock.”

            • jim says:

              Talk is cheap. Actually defying orders of a superior officer, a superior officer backed by the courts, the media, the entire Cathedral apparatus, is another.

              But for a soldier, and for federal cops like the FBI and the secret service, his superior officer is ultimately Trump, vivat rex, and people Trump appoints. So if Trump orders disobedience to the courts, his superior officer will order disobedience to the courts – or he will have a sudden change in superior officers.

            • SteveRogers42 says:

              Military NAMs, women, and fa&&ots are overwhelmingly concentrated in the non-combat specialties, and their influence on the course of events will be minimal. The closer you get to the tip of the spear, the paler and maler the trigger-pullers become. The last “datum” I saw indicated that the SEALs are 2% black, Army SF is 5% black, and USAF SpecOps exactly 0%. Would be willing to bet that the demographics of fighter and ground-attack pilots shake out the same way in all the services.

              Don’t even bring up the concept of female cops. U-S-E-L-E-S-S, they are not our very best.

        • jim says:

          Far more likely that when plans for the choppers are discussed in the Oval, some Secret Service go Praetorian Guard because “muh democracy” and “human rights” and “due process”;

          When Tony Abbott was elected on a platform that implicitly required the military to ignore the judges, a lot of leftists said the military would disobey orders. On the contrary, they obeyed orders that they had long wished to hear with immense enthusiasm.

          The relationship between the Judiciary and the men with guns resembles the relationship between political commissars and army officers in the Army of the Soviet Union. From time to time it became evident that the military commissars hated the political commissars with an intense white hot hatred. See for example the jokes that LIC (Low Intensity Combat) actually means Lawyer Infested Combat.

          It is clear that Tony Abbott’s commands came as a huge relief to the Australian military. From the jokes about Lawyer Infestation, I would expect the same to be true of the US military.

          • Kevin C. says:

            “the relationship between political commissars and army officers in the Army of the Soviet Union.”

            And yet, who generally ended up commanding whom between those two?

            “I would expect the same to be true of the US military.”

            The same US military where Army cadets submitted to marching a mile in bright red high-heels ( to “raise awareness”? The same military with an ever-growing female fraction? And how many “minorities” are there in the command ranks who owe said rank to Left-wing politics? And who is in command matters for a lot. After all, what soldier ever advanced their military career by refusing orders from above, except where Leftist politicians and media approved such refusal?

            • peppermint says:

              Yes, they submitted, to a lot of stuff. And when they get different orders from His Majesty’s Gen. Mattis, they’re not going to try to advance their career for the leftists who hate them, rather, they’re going to execute the traitors who do.

            • peppermint says:

              The left really, really wishes they could get those niggers and faggots to stage a coup, but also knows that will be exactly the excuse His Majesty needs to solidify His authority over everything.

            • Starman says:

              @Kevin C.
              It’s quite clear that you have no idea what it’s like to be a member of the Prætorian class. The Prætorians would overwhelmingly obey the God-Emperor’s general, General Mattis, over that of limpwristed traitor civilians. You have no idea who Mattis is. The pajama boy judges (whose court orders will eventually be regarded as “living documents,” the same way these pajama boys regard the Constitution as a “living document”) and pajama boys like you would melt on the first day of boot camp.

              • Cavalier says:

                We need those guys, but that doesnt make them any less schmuckish for voluntarily signing up to be grunts in the era BT (Before Trump). The enlisted are by and large unimpressive, and the commissioned are stacked with foreigners and women, but maybe with some work your precious rentacop class can have some dignity again. Maybe even some golden epaulettes.

                • peppermint says:

                  the question was one of loyalty, not competence. Those women, niggers, and faggots would love to stage a coup, but being women, niggers, and faggots, are unlikely to be able to.

            • SteveRogers42 says:

              Submitting reluctantly to the inevitable is a lot different than enthusiastically supporting. Here is how the Army’s future platoon/company commanders reacted to Trump:


        • peppermint says:

          The biggest threats to America today are in order McCain, Graham, Collins, and Murkowki. Congressional Republicans aren’t going to impeach because they’re going down with His Majesty regardless of whether they commit treason, so it will never reach the traitors in the Senate.

          Pardons, national security letters, and a cabinet of military men aren’t the kind of tools you use very often, but you make sure everyone knows you have them. Trump is God-Emperor because He wields the authority of kings with the expertise of the gods.

          The media is already accusing Him of autogolpe and calling for impeachment. It’s more likely that senile judges like Ginsberg will be impeached for behaving overtly politically rather than slowly await death and replacement by the God-Emperor. Gorsuch and His next few picks are one arm of dismantling judicial power, the other is for His Majesty’s Royalist Congress to assert itself against the court. What if the Court ruled against the immigration restrictions and Congress backed Him up with a law? He could use the same tricks as Obamacare did to get that law.

          • Kevin C. says:

            “Congressional Republicans aren’t going to impeach because they’re going down with His Majesty regardless of whether they commit treason, so it will never reach the traitors in the Senate.”

            Really? Doesn’t the Inner Party need an Outer Party to maintain the illusion and diffuse opposition by convincing them the way to act on it is to vote for the person with an “R” after their name? Don’t the Harlem Globetrotters need a Washington Generals to trounce? How better for “establisment conservatives” to signal to the Democrats that they are fine with being kayfabe-maintaining jobbers than to help remove Trump? And also thereby take back the GOP for the Cuckservatives?

            “senile judges like Ginsberg will be impeached”

            They couldn’t even manage to impeach Samuel Chase.

            “What if the Court ruled against the immigration restrictions and Congress backed Him up with a law?”

            What if Congress *didn’t*?

            • peppermint says:

              » implying that congressional Royalists are under any illusion that any of them will be allowed to live, let alone stay in congress or move up to the senate

            • jim says:

              “Congressional Republicans aren’t going to impeach because they’re going down with His Majesty regardless of whether they commit treason, so it will never reach the traitors in the Senate.”

              Really? Doesn’t the Inner Party need an Outer Party to maintain the illusion and diffuse opposition by convincing them the way to act on it is to vote for the person with an “R” after their name?

              Not any more. Originally fascists were no platformed, and more and more people were classed as fascist. Then Milo, a Jewish progressive faggot who supports equality for women and blacks was no platformed. Then regular mainstream Republicans are no platformed and face riots by goons sent in by George Soros and the State Department. Just lately Lady Gaga got in trouble for not demonizing and insulting her audience with sufficient ferocity. Today, Republicans face riots by people trying to kill them, and if they ever give up power they will surely be killed as fascists, even as they cry “Democrats are the real racists” from the tumbrils on the way to the guillotine.

              By the way, I love Milo like a brother. He is a great guy and very entertaining. But if I become Grand Inquisitor, I will, with great regret, tell him he is a danger to public morals, he has to repent, stop being fabulous, declare himself born again heterosexual, and go back in the closet, or else he will be thrown from a very high building. Milo is very courageous in being insufficiently left for 2017. I hope he will not be similarly courageous in being insufficiently right for the restoration.

              The number of people classed as fascists or racists has been expanding very rapidly, and the consequences for fascists have become more and more severe. We have now reached the situation where something like fifty percent of Americans qualify as fascists or racists, including even thoroughly cucked Republicans.

              • Starman says:

                And this is how rebellions start. In the Qin dynasty, two army officers and their troops were late due to flooding. Since being late and starting a rebellion were both punishable by death, they chose rebellion instead of submitting to an execution.

                • Cavalier says:

                  pretty soon you’ll be telling us about point deer make horse

                • Starman says:

                  Point Deer, Make Horse…
                  Trump’s 3 Month ban on 7 Muslim countries was a point deer make horse test on the Permanent USG…

                • Cavalier says:

                  Garden-variety exercise of entirely legal executive power isn’t point deer make horse. Point deer make horse is something like “all men are created equal”, or accepting the literal truth of the Shoahcaust, or this:


                • Starman says:

                  The Chancellor used Point Deer Make Horse to identify which bureaucrats will side with and which bureaucrats will side with the Emperor.

                  Trump used his “Point Deer Make Horse” to identify those loyal to him and those loyal to The Cathedral.

                • Cavalier says:

                  All deer-horses are loyalty tests, but not all loyalty tests are deer-horses.

                • EH says:

                  Perhaps a better example of point-deer-make-horse was his saying the Russians must give Crimea back to the Ukraine, which of course anyone should know is not going to happen. Those who agree are marked as toadies or enemies.

            • Starman says:

              @Kevin C.
              Once again, you ignore the Prætorians prime role in this. THEY will decide whether the God-Emperor should be obeyed, or obey the limpwrists in (((The Cathedral))). The Prætorians have the guns, training and discipline.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Once again, you ignore the Prætorians prime role in this. THEY will decide whether the God-Emperor should be obeyed, or obey the limpwrists in (((The Cathedral))). The Prætorians have the guns, training and discipline.”

                Are you one of these worthy Praetorians? If yes, why don’t you get this party started, you know, like your main man Anders? Now, he took to heart the advice you keep giving but don’t put into actual practice.

                Typical armchair warrior.

                • jim says:

                  “Once again, you ignore the Prætorians prime role in this. THEY will decide whether the God-Emperor should be obeyed, or obey the limpwrists in (((The Cathedral))). The Prætorians have the guns, training and discipline.”

                  Are you one of these worthy Praetorians?

                  If he was, would be unwise to say so at this time. If not, recall my frequent exhortation that now is the time for blackshirts, not brownshirts. Right wing violence must be orderly, legitimate, and occur under the command and supervision of the King.

  14. viking says:

    Yes in theory we own both houses and could pass any law recall any judge we could arrest google. But this is why Trump is not king he has won an election despite both parties and all the other principles. If he had conquered even his own party he could do almost everything we want, which is certainly not clear is the same thing he wants.He may still conquer them and become king, I hope he does. What it looks like to me is the cucks will not fight, they have no faith he will win and hope to navigate to safety. They might even impeach him for Pence. Cucks like these need to be brought before the inquisition. They need to be publicly interrogated on what they believe. The left understands this which is why the left interrogates the cucks publicly and gets them to cuck a doodle doo.All trump has is the deplorable vote right now, but that vote is disproportionately cuckservative he can take the cucks down with him if thats the game they want to play.He better play it quick because a consensus will form that Trump was a big mistake and all good men will find work arounds.Do you know how you become worthy to be king? You conquer your enemies and competitors.

  15. peppermint says:

    Sooner or later, the God-Emperor would have to go up against the constitution. If the constitution had stayed written, He would have been as unable to kill it as the putative omnipotent being to microwave a burrito so hot even it can’t eat it. But the constitution was stupid enough not only to take physical form but he embodied as eight faggots in dresses. They can be executed by Bannon’s national security letter or conversion therapied into submission by the electricutioner Mike “Deus Volt” Pence, as pleases His Majesty. They are also subject to being BTFO by His Majesty’s tweets – so-called constitution, unaccountable activist judges, etc. People respect them because people respect them because no one is ever seen disrespecting them, and they did, in fact, embody the consensus of christcucks and Jews when they ordered that interracial marriage would be legal. Christcucks wanted it theoretically legal, except for their leaders, who, along with the Jews, wanted it practiced.

    For years afterwards, christcucks would dutifully recite that all lives matter, and it was so common a sentiment as to be made into a movie: if all lives matter, surely you don’t object to your daughter seeing a fellow soul and brother in Christ and American?

    This time rank and file conservatives don’t like gay marriage or Obamacare – these insults to the concept of law surpass any past decisions – and would easily be convinced that them striking down a blatantly legal order of the God-Emperor would be the final judgement on them.

    (Obamacare said penalty. Roberts amended it to be a tax assessed on people that’s waived for policy owners. Thereafter everyone kept saying penalty. Result is SC rubberstamps Obama agenda, reducing its power while maintaining the illusion of nonpartisanship, and is the final boss. I expect Roberts will pretend to have always been a Royalist when the time comes to grovel)

  16. peppermint says:

    Realy? I think it will just prove that the Supreme Court is purely political, crucially denying the unelected body legitimacy. Then Trump can get GoRush and others in and start cranking out Royalist decisions.

  17. vxxc2014 says:

    Yes refugees first.

    Yes meatspace remains more important than cyber space. You’ll take your last breath in meatspace. fix refugee problem first.

    Cyber can remain an actual place for real argument as well as safety valve…just like free speech. Most of the time it means SHIT except you feel as if you just did something by speaking.

    In fact real shitting is much more productive than speech. Shitting actually rids one of dangerous waste while returning phosphates to nature.

    Trump shouldn’t spend a moment doing anything with Twitter but continuing to own it – he does.

  18. jim says:

    That is going to be another confrontation with the courts. So let us get the rapeugee ban done first.

    • Alraune says:

      Does a flood the zone strategy not work with the courts like it does with the press?

      Legit question, haven’t considered this.

      • Alrenous says:

        It doesn’t. The press is in the attention business. Trump flooded their market, driving down the value of any particular bit of attention-whoring.

        The courts aren’t as dumb as the public. Trump can try to flood the courts but they’ll just put the suits on a waiting list. In any case, Trump only needs to prove once (again because voters are dumb) that the courts are partisan, antinomian, anti-patriotic, anti-democratic, or whatever. But he does need to prove it thoroughly.

        • Starman says:

          If there’s one thing we know about the God-Emperor, he’s good at persuasion. Especially when it comes to persuading military and police commanders and their rank and file.

  19. Johan Schmidt says:

    Another important action Trump can take right now is to declare Twitter, Facebook and Reddit to be regulated public utilities.

    • Steel T Post says:

      And Twitter claims to be exactly that, so at least Twitter wouldn’t have an argument against.

Leave a Reply