February 1, 2019
If you knew what the Reds were really up to, you would shut your filthy commie mouth, hippie. Freedom ain’t free.
So according to neocon Jews, Vladimir Putin is gassing his own people or meddling or something or whatnot, so we’re starting a new arms race against Russia.
Here’s the Pompeo announcement video:
Here’s Trump’s official statement on the issue:
The reason that the thing in Venezuela matters so much is that it is a clear escalation of this Jewish confrontation with Russia.
So it is definitely not a coincidence that right in the middle of the Bolton-Pompeo-Abrams assault on that South American shithole, the administration is announcing extreme wartime measures against Russia.
The treaty that Trump announced a pullout of this morning is from 1987. We were literally in the Cold War at the time it was signed, but both sides were saying “yeah, let’s just try to at least chill.”
Basically, what the Trump administration has done is escalate tensions with Russia to their highest point in all of history, or at least since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And we are risking a World War popping off on at least three separate fronts now:
- The Ukraine
And then of course we have NATO forces all along the EU border with Russia, doing massive “drills” apparently preparing for some kind of insane land invasion.
But obviously, none of this is enough to prove to CNN or their agent Robert Mueller that Trump isn’t a secret KGB agent.
Because they don’t actually believe that story.
But Trump is too disconnected and confused, too surrounded by absolutely poisonous people, to ever get ahold of the fact that if he nuked Moscow, Jake Tapper would be on during the event talking about how “this plays right into Putin’s hands.”
Then Mueller would put him in prison for forgetting the order in which he entered the nuclear launch codes.
After the statement this morning, The Guardian criticized him for doing exactly what Jews want:
It is clear that Trump himself did not write this statement. It is formally worded with none of the president’s verbal tics, and it is sharply critical of Russia.
It leaves open the possibility that the INF treaty could be saved within the six months before US withdrawal takes effect. But it sets a high bar, requiring Russia to destroy “all of its violating missiles, launchers, and associated equipment”.
That has been Washington’s position all along by the US negotiator Andrea Thompson. She has not been prepared to examine a compromise involving inspections of the suspect Russian missile and possible tweaks to limit its range.
Trump claims that “our NATO allies fully support us”. That is not entirely true. The allies agree that Russia is violating the INF treaty but do not agree with the US walking out of the treaty, which they believe still restrains Russian freedom of action in deploying missiles.
Western European countries are fearful this will lead to a new arms race on European soil, a rerun of the tense 1980’s. Some Eastern European countries meanwhile would host new US medium-range missiles as a guarantee that the US would come to their defence.
Trump says his administration remains “committed to effective arms control” but neither he nor Mike Pompeo addressed the question of extending the New Start treaty, the last arms control agreement currently constraining the arsenals of the big nuclear weapons powers. It expires in 2021.
Yes, of course it is going to lead to an arms race in Europe. That is the only conceivable reason you would do this – if you were attempting to escalate a war type scenario.
I don’t doubt that certain European governments are hesitant about this, but they will all play ball. They always do.
With the way things are going now, we are looking at a situation where there will be shooting between US and Russian forces in South America and various troop movements and border events in Eastern Europe before the 2020 election.
Tulsi Gabbard, anyone?
I know there is zero chance she will be able to win, but it feels like supporting her would be the best potential vehicle to oppose this new war agenda which has probably completely taken over the Trump administration (I’m not saying for certain he can’t fix it, we’re not past the point of no return yet, but we are rapidly approaching it).
And maybe, if we could get enough energy behind her, she could run third party. It wouldn’t matter if she split a vote, because in the scenario I’m imagining, no one will even know whether it will be better if Trump or a Democrat wins.
If Trump loses to Kamala (or whoever), we would still technically have the demographics to elect a real Nationalist on the Republican ticket in 2024.
So… I’m just spitballing here, but stay with me a minute.
- Trump goes full war
- Anti-war populists support Tulsi
- Kamala wins and goes full war plus full homo shutdown of all freedoms (but has a slight backstop keeping her from going total tyranny in the Supreme Court)
- Tucker and Tulsi share a 2024 ticket
I can’t think of a better plan than that, save for a nuclear war, which I support.
Understand that being anti-war is not Tulsi’s only conservative position. She also has a history of anti-homosexual activism and support for the Second Amendment. Also, she obviously isn’t white, but she’s not some weird alien. She’s half Samoan. I don’t think any of us are talking about kicking Samoans out of Hawaii.
So what you could do is combine the non-repulsive elements of the Bernie socialism platform – free healthcare, free college, workers rights, huge taxes on corporations, etc. – with Tucker’s nationalist-populism. I think giving in to some of these millennial socialist demands is the only way we are going to have any chance of unifying the white vote in the post-Trump era, pretty much no matter what, and the details of that can all be worked out and it doesn’t really even matter.
I would still prefer nuclear apocalypse, but this is something I’m willing to run with and it might just all fall into place.