The American “Coup d’etat”

Artful Revealer

Artful Revealer

Star
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,489
vancityeagle said:
pretty much.



No his one identity is not "the national one" Far from it. He addresses the right wing, people who buy into his version of reality in the "culture war" He pushes white nationalism, division, hatred of half of the country, hatred of liberals which he calls "the radical left'. That is not addressing a national identity, its doing the exact opposite. He is in fact SPLITTING/DIVIDING the national identity into opposing factions which he wishes to engage a destructive conflict.


The dividers are those telling their people that the other side want to "burn the country down" and that we need to "stop them". Calling others "unamerican" simply because they have legitimate criticisms. That is divide and conquer. Trump is the divider in chief. That is all he has done since stepping into the whitehouse. That in fact has been his greatest achievement.

Trump IS identity politics on steroids. "Build a wall" "keep them out" "Islam hates us" "They hate our country" "They are rapists and criminals"

If you cannot see this you are seriously a fool. Or just a disingenuous piece of shit.



No it is not. It is just a power realignment and nothing more.

Taking the UK away from the EU and handing her over to Trump's USA and Russia.


working for the general interests of the people of a nation, and opposing negative outside influence.

Simply opposing outside influence isn't by itself "nationalist"

You could have a completely soverign nation that is an authoritarian police state serving the oligarchy. That wouldn't be nationalist.
Click to expand...
You're perceiving a parallel reality to mine, so an argument would be a waste of time.

I was pro-Gaddafi too. My Gaddafi/Libya thread was basically a solo echo back in 2011. But you clearly only support Marxist nationalists (although Gaddafi was technically Bakuninist), either way, left-wing, while my support for a head of state transcends his political colour and is for anyone who stands up for his country.
 
Artful Revealer

Artful Revealer

Star
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,489
Here's a post I wrote from 2013 (that's 3 years before Brexit and before I knew Trumpian politics) that might shed some light on my perspective:

Source

Mass migration is a divide & conquer mechanism with a huge success rate. They'll create any target of frustration that deflects people's attention from the actual problem of the economic crisis: the monetary system. Immigrants aren't stealing jobs from the native population. They've been brought here during the 60s & 70s to increase the pool of cheap labour, and no one has closed the gates since because it's a very profitable business for the patronat and corporate world. Anyone who targets immigrants hasn't understood yet that they too are victims of our globalized economical empire.

But I still think the main purpose of mass migration into Europe is to change European civilization and dechristianize the West, and the economic crisis serves to expand our elites' hegemony over indebted nations and make them subject to their supranational institutions in their move towards a global government. Which makes sense, cause national resistance needs to disappear entirely for that global government to succeed. Changing the demographics of a nation serves to divide that nation's people, it changes the nation's dominant cultural traditions, norms and values, takes away the people's common identity and thus destroys the people's unity. That's why it's necessary for European member states to decrease migration patterns and quit the EU and eurozone. It's also a reason to support Syria against the insurrection of 29 different nationalities which have nothing to do with the Syrian people, organized by that same elite. It was the reason why we should've supported Qaddafi instead of letting Libya turn into a country where tribal and racial wars are destroying the entire country's infrastructure. And so on ...

That's why I'm a nationalist. Not because of racial supremacist reasons, or even ideological supremacist reasons, but because the nation, how artificial it may be, provides the political and social structures to defend the people against globalism.
 
Artful Revealer

Artful Revealer

Star
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,489
Another one re Gaddafi in April, 2015 (in response to Jess):

Source

The alleged Christian Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't feel the same way. She wanted Gaddafi's blood and nothing less. Just the thought of bloodthirsty Islamofascists on US payroll ripping his body apart like hyenas on a wounded lion gets her over the mountain. You seem more concerned about Clinton being called a bitch, which she is, than the brutal execution of a hero, which he is.

Well, my eyes did tear up on October 20th, 2011. It happened because I knew the country in Africa with the best living standard and lowest poverty rates was doomed to terror and hell. That the pivotal person behind an independent African currency, African Monetary Fund, first ever African satellite, the Great Human River Project meant to irrigate the desert sands was gone. That the leader of panafrican independence and hope was gone, butchered like a stray dog. That you, or anyone else for that matter, would even consider the possibility of voting for Clinton, Secretary of Foreign Affairs at the time and bearing huge responsibility for what happened, is a smack in the face of all people in the North-African region.

I've made my case for Gaddafi plenty of times on the old boards, dating back to 2011. It was usually met with scorn, just like the stuff I posted on Syria, but four year laters anyone would be blind not to see what really happened. By now the obvious is readily accessible on the web, if only one takes the time to search for it. If you consider the fact that Libya was still world's poorest country in 1951 and you see what it was after 40 years of Gaddafi you wouldn't be so cynical.
 
V

vancityeagle

Star
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
2,506
Artful Revealer said:
Another one re Gaddafi in April, 2015 (in response to Jess):

Source

The alleged Christian Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't feel the same way. She wanted Gaddafi's blood and nothing less. Just the thought of bloodthirsty Islamofascists on US payroll ripping his body apart like hyenas on a wounded lion gets her over the mountain. You seem more concerned about Clinton being called a bitch, which she is, than the brutal execution of a hero, which he is.

Well, my eyes did tear up on October 20th, 2011. It happened because I knew the country in Africa with the best living standard and lowest poverty rates was doomed to terror and hell. That the pivotal person behind an independent African currency, African Monetary Fund, first ever African satellite, the Great Human River Project meant to irrigate the desert sands was gone. That the leader of panafrican independence and hope was gone, butchered like a stray dog. That you, or anyone else for that matter, would even consider the possibility of voting for Clinton, Secretary of Foreign Affairs at the time and bearing huge responsibility for what happened, is a smack in the face of all people in the North-African region.

I've made my case for Gaddafi plenty of times on the old boards, dating back to 2011. It was usually met with scorn, just like the stuff I posted on Syria, but four year laters anyone would be blind not to see what really happened. By now the obvious is readily accessible on the web, if only one takes the time to search for it. If you consider the fact that Libya was still world's poorest country in 1951 and you see what it was after 40 years of Gaddafi you wouldn't be so cynical.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. As much as Hillary is a witch, and as much as she was behind the Libya thing (on a very surface level) she was merely the avatar of the operation.

The agenda to get Gaddafi has nothing really to do with Clinton, and it predates her involvement in politics. Just like much of what I talk about predates Trump.

As much as it made my blood boil to see Clinton laughing about the savage murder of Gaddafi, pinning his demise on her would be nothing but trying to score cheap political points. This is way above Clinton, Obama, or even Trump.
 
V

vancityeagle

Star
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
2,506
Artful Revealer said:
You're perceiving a parallel reality to mine, so an argument would be a waste of time.

I was pro-Gaddafi too. My Gaddafi/Libya thread was basically a solo echo back in 2011. But you clearly only support Marxist nationalists (although Gaddafi was technically Bakuninist), either way, left-wing, while my support for a head of state transcends his political colour and is for anyone who stands up for his country.
Click to expand...
I support any real nationalist.

I've never come across a right wing nationalist, because that is basically an oxymoron.

The right wing is about conserving elite power, thats why they are called conservatives.

That is diametrically opposed to nationalism. Again u seem to think all nationalism is being pro-soverignity. Again the slavocracy the United States was hundreds of years ago WAS soverign, but it wasn't nationalist. Not in any sense of the word.
 
Artful Revealer

Artful Revealer

Star
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,489
vancityeagle said:
Here's the thing. As much as Hillary is a witch, and as much as she was behind the Libya thing (on a very surface level) she was merely the avatar of the operation.

The agenda to get Gaddafi has nothing really to do with Clinton, and it predates her involvement in politics. Just like much of what I talk about predates Trump.

As much as it made my blood boil to see Clinton laughing about the savage murder of Gaddafi, pinning his demise on her would be nothing but trying to score cheap political points. This is way above Clinton, Obama, or even Trump.
Click to expand...
The reply was in the context of Hillary's presidential run. It wasn't a case to show Clinton was the mastermind.
 
Artful Revealer

Artful Revealer

Star
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,489
vancityeagle said:
I support any real nationalist.

I've never come across a right wing nationalist, because that is basically an oxymoron.

The right wing is about conserving elite power, thats why they are called conservatives.

That is diametrically opposed to nationalism. Again u seem to think all nationalism is being pro-soverignity. Again the slavocracy the United States was hundreds of years ago WAS soverign, but it wasn't nationalist. Not in any sense of the word.
Click to expand...
Nationalism defends the sovereignty of the nation. The sovereignty of the nation isn't dependent upon nationalism.

Can you have nationalism and open borders?
 
Wigi

Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
891
Let's be clear Trump is one of the smartest trick to come from the deep state in modern history. He's pretending to be against open society and globalism so why he's full throttle with corporate globalism?
Why he becomes mad when us corporations gets taxed by foreign nations ? With forced lockdown imposed on european countries it appears that many local shops will be replaced by US supermarkets, how is that ok?
Why Amazon is buying buildings and warehouses from bankrupt companies in my country?

Apparently Trump was fine with Blackrock :
international-adviser.com

Vanguard and Blackrock exposed to US child detention camps | International Adviser

Blackrock has blamed index tracking products for its large stake in a contractor involved in child detention centres in the US, while Vanguard, along with several active investors, has been silent on its exposure to the political controversy.
international-adviser.com international-adviser.com

m.marketscreener.com

BlackRock : hits record $6 trillion assets, helped by Trump tax law

BlackRock Inc charged past a record $6 trillion in assets, its profit beating Wall Street forecasts, as investors flooded into the relatively low-cost funds of the world's largest asset manager....
m.marketscreener.com

Meanwhile people had to smash their HQ in Paris to make them think twice before suggesting reforms of french pensions.

Enough mental gymnastics this is not ok, the way Trump is in favor of vaccines isn't ok, nato still exist because of Trump, even Macron said nato is on life support so Trump just had to say yeah we stop that entirely but of course he wants american imperialism. A guy like Orban would have ended nato.
Seriously how many catchphrases we had? Trust the plan, smoking gun e-mails, laptop from hell, kraken released. All talk but nothing really ground shaking. Ok Biden investigation now what, what's next? It's always like that and it's so tiresome.

My theory is the scotus don't want to investigate fraud with voting machines because it will expose decade of corruption from both left and right wing politicians. It would expose the entire democratic system as a fraud which is something we all knew without clear evidence since the day we realised there was a deep state .
 
Red Sky at Morning

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
14,468
Trump's allies slam Mitch McConnell for congratulating Biden

President Donald Trump early Wednesday told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that it's "too soon to give up" on the election after the Kentucky Republican congratulated "President-elect Joe Biden" from the Senate floor.

"Mitch, 75,000,000 VOTES, a record for a sitting President (by a lot)," Trump tweeted to McConnell. "Too soon to give up. Republican Party must finally learn to fight. People are angry!"

Trump's comments were shared with a news report from The Daily Mail about Republicans turning on McConnell after his floor speech.
Trump's allies slam Mitch McConnell for congratulating Biden


https://mol.im/a/9057747
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top