There appears to be at least one man on the roof, possibly two (off to the left of the man who causes the flash).
I’m not sure what’s going on here and I have a few questions:
At precisely what time was this video taken?
How long after this man was seen making a flash did the fire break out?
Can we see a longer version that would possibly show that this man did, in fact, cause the fire?
Were there construction workers on the job at the time this video was taken? In other words, could this simply be a welder?
I don’t expect we’ll get any answers here, especially because “authorities” have already long since declared the fire was an accident.
We do know that the fire primarily damaged the roof of the Cathedral. Interior shots show that the altar and inside of the Church were relatively unharmed:
It looks like the damage to the inside of the church was mainly caused by burning timbers from the roof falling to the ground.
I’m no fire/arson specialist but it appears the blaze began and spread on the roof, rather than on the inside/ground floor.
I guess from the perspective of an arsonist, you’d want to set the fire on the roof of the church because it’d be tougher to put out. If the fire was inside the church on the ground level, it would be easier to come in and put it out.
Regardless of what was actually going on in that video, I still find it incredibly difficult to believe one of the most iconic and important Catholic Cathedrals in the world went up in flames during the holiest week of the Catholic year entirely by accident.
Recently I wrote a piece on this site entitled, “Why Revolution is Inevitable in America.” It focused on the long-term political problems destroying America that the Uniparty Political Establishment simply will not allow President Donald Trump to address.
This one will focus on the long-term demographic transformation underway that will also contribute to a revolution.
Another reason there will be revolution: white America’s fate is tied to Donald Trump’s success. Building the wall is about more than stopping drugs and crime: it’s about stopping the demographic transformation of this country. If the Uniparty prevents Donald Trump from building the wall, ending chain migration, ending anchor baby policies, and ending the diversity lottery, then it will mean white Americans are destined to be demographically overrun.
Right now, the Uniparty is winning. Trump is losing badly on immigration.
And so another reason revolution is inevitable is that white Americans will not go quietly into the night. They just won’t. They won’t sit back and do nothing about their dispossession as a race. Some might, but already the increasing level of hostility towards whites in American culture–media, entertainment, education, in the workplace, and in daily life–has had the effect awakening white racial consciousness in a way not seen since the 1960s.
But unlike the 1960s, today there’s much more at stake: the prospect of a nonwhite majority America was not looming at the height of the Civil Rights movement. White Americans in 2019 face a unique, unprecedented, and probably existential threat. And each day more are realizing it.
This is why white people won’t go quietly into the night. The Republican Party may have changed and reoriented itself significantly with the ascendance of Trump in 2016, but there are still massive changes to come, most significantly the shift to an explicitly white identity politics party. The stigma around white identity politics will dissolve as more and more white people simply stop giving a fuck if they’re called racist for pursuing their own interests as a people (just as every other ethnic group in this country does.)
When the phrase “it’s okay to be white” is denounced as racism, that’s when lots of white people will say, “You know what? I’ve had it. Fuck this. I tried to be understanding and tolerant, I tried to ‘check my privilege,’ but now I see what’s really going on: it’s not about respect, it’s not about equality; it’s about destroying us. They want to destroy us AND forbid us from even mentioning or noticing what’s going on. We’re not even allowed to speak out against our own dispossession. Fuck this. I no longer care if you call me a racist, because it’s been in bad faith the whole time.”
And in case you’re wondering, the phrase “It’s okay to be white” is already considered racist and forbidden:
To make matters worse, it is a white woman enforcing the anti-whiteness. It’s sad to see how many white women are Woke™, anti-white zealots, but it’s purely a result of brainwashing. Uniparty propagandists in the media and Hollywood have exploited white women’s innate desire to virtue signal and be socially accepted to turn them against their own race. As a commenter on Heartiste put it:
“Of all the crimes the foe has inflicted on us, turning white females into our class enemies was the most unforgivable.”
But this is a whole ‘nother can of worms we’ll save for a separate post in the future.
Eventually the GOP will have to become the White Party. It’s unavoidable. I’m not saying I want this to happen; I’m saying it’s inevitable. I don’t want our nation to descend into a racial civil war, just as I don’t want our nation to devolve into a revolt against an undemocratic oligarchy, but that is the situation we find ourselves approaching.
This article–like last week’s–is not a wish list. It’s a prediction.
The GOP elites can only deny the demands of the party base for so long before there is a revolt, which is exactly what we saw with Trump in 2016. The GOP Establishment had gotten so out of touch with the base that the base finally said enough’s enough and nominated Trump, who actually understood what the party base wanted.
Eventually Republican voters will replace the globalist Uniparty quislings currently “representing” them in Congress in favor of politicians who are not afraid of embracing the white identity politics label. It is inevitable: if it’s what the party base wants, it will happen sooner or later.
The next step in the evolution (or devolution, because a nation moving from ideology to identity-based politics is devolving) of the GOP is its becoming the explicitly white party.
This does not mean the Nazi Party, this does not mean the Skinhead party (although those groups will have a small presence by mere virtue of their existence: they’re certainly not going to join the anti-white party, the Democrats).The vast majority of white Americans are not Nazis, nor will they ever be.
They will simply demand a party that fights for the interests of the white race, just as the Democrats fight for nonwhite interests.
You can be pro-white without being a Nazi. This should be obviously true but the media has spent a great deal of time and effort conflating Hitlerism (i.e. genocidal racism) with being pro-white, and many Americans have been brainwashed into believing anything but racial self-loathing in a white person is tantamount to literal Hitlerism.
Even the disinterested will be sucked into the fight. Even the whites that aren’t pro-white but merely neutral-white will be forced to choose a side: pro-white or anti-white?
To give an example of what I mean about the GOP becoming the White Party, take the matter of demographic transformation: the Democrats are committed to turning America into a majority-nonwhite nation in the near future. As the white party, the GOP will simply formally oppose this. They will oppose the decrease in the white percentage of America’s population, and support its increase. It’s that simple.
Democrats will push for more and more foreign immigration, Republicans will push for less and less. It will simply be a struggle to shape the demographics of America.
It’s not about extermination or concentration camps. The pro-nonwhite Democrats are working to decrease the white population without any death camps; there’s no reason to believe the pro-white GOP would push to decrease the nonwhite population with death camps. Again, this idea that white identity politics = Literal Hitlerism is a myth ingrained in people’s brains by the media. It’s untrue.
White identity politics is no more–or less–dangerous to nonwhite people than nonwhite identity politics is to white people.
Is there a way to avoid a racial revolution/civil war? I don’t think so.
You can’t convince nonwhite people to support Trump because our politics has become replaced by racial tribalism. No sane white person would vote for the Democrats because the Democrats are committed to the destruction of the white race.
But while Trump and Republicans are obviously nowhere near committed to the destruction of nonwhite people, if the Republican Party does eventually become a vehicle for white identity politics—the antithesis to the Democratic Party being a vehicle for nonwhite identity politics—then it will be virtually impossible to convince nonwhites to vote Republican, with the exception of black people (more on this later). We’re mainly talking about Hispanics and post-1965 immigrant groups.
The main case for why white people should vote for Trump is simple: “Do you want to become a minority in your own country or not?” Those are the stakes. But you cannot make this appeal to minorities.
You can try telling them about all the good economic developments for nonwhites under Trump (record-low unemployment for Hispanics, women and blacks, etc.) but they’re not going to really care. You can tell them Trump is against endless foreign wars, wants to secure peace with North Korea, rebuild our relationship with Russia to the point it was prior to the Soviet Union, and wants to end China’s dominance of us in trade. They’re not going to care. That stuff will not sway nonwhites to support Trump. It just won’t.
Our politics is not about economics, or even “political issues” in the traditional sense, anymore. It’s about identity.
At the end of the day, no matter how great a president Trump is for trade, foreign policy and the economy, it will all be overshadowed by the racial question: “Is he one of us?”
And to nonwhites the answer is no. And so Trump will never win them over in serious numbers.
Voting Democrat has become an integral part of being nonwhite in America, because being nonwhite has become an integral part of being a Democrat in America. Nonwhites would feel like race traitors voting for Trump. There’s no logical or political case I could make to them that would change that.
The nonwhite vs. white mindset now overrides everything in politics. Nonwhites believe (totally falsely, of course) that Trump is on a mission to do one thing and one thing only: destroy nonwhites. And if they vote for him, they will be contributing to the destruction of their race.
Again, obviously this is not true. But most nonwhites believe it. Their dislike of Trump is rooted in the fact that they believe he is a racist and is out to get them.
The media, academia, pop culture and lying Democratic politicians have done this. They are the ones that have fostered and promoted racial identity politics by convincing nonwhites they’re under attack.
There is no undoing it. It’s futile to try to undo this mass brainwashing and move America to a colorblind society. The horse has already left the barn.
The only thing we can do is acknowledge that the ruling elites have turned this country into a hotbed of racial tribalism and animosity, and behave accordingly.
If the future of America is to be defined by racial struggle, white people have two options:
There is no third option for “everyone realizes racism is stupid and we all decide to be colorblind, and only quarrel over ideological political issues.” The Uniparty elite has already taken us past the point of no return. Racial grievances and resentment among nonwhites havealready been whipped up to such an extent that it is too late to undo it.
And so the question is, now that the media/Uniparty Establishment has all but guaranteed America’s future will be a racial struggle, are whites actually going to take their own side in it? Or will they just surrender and hope for mercy once they become a minority?
Just as with the struggle of the American People vs. the Uniparty, the racial struggle for white people in America has only two outcomes: fight back or be destroyed.
I can’t see how it doesn’t lead to a revolution.
I guess one way to possibly win over nonwhites is to ask them if they truly understand what it means to live a country without a white majority.
I mean just look around the world: where is there a country with a nonwhite majority where you’d actually like to live? If white people are so horrible, then why have nonwhites been flocking to white countries (i.e. America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) for the past few decades by the millions?
Why does everybody in nonwhite-majority countries want to leave and move to a white-majority country?
It’s because white countries are the best places to live. They just are. This is an objective fact. It’s not my opinion.
If you don’t believe me, take a look at the results of this Gallup poll, which asked adults around the world if they want to leave their home country, and if so, where they would prefer to go. 150 million people around the world want to move to America:
Of the over 640 million people worldwide that want to leave their home country, over half want to move to either America, Canada, Australia or Western Europe–all historically white nations built by white people.
(The only nonwhite country I could see being a nice place to live is Japan, but the Japanese do not view immigration like we do in the West. They do not believe in multiculturalism and they do not see diversity as a strength. They will never accept an outsider as one of them. You can become American, but you cannot become Japanese. So the option of immigrating to Japan is basically off the table.)
If this nation becomes majority nonwhite, it will become just like the nonwhite countries around the world: poor, dangerous, corrupt and miserable.
White countries are the best places to live. I’m sorry but it’s obviously and undeniably true. It’s an objective fact. It’s an observation, not an opinion. Even nonwhite people agree based on their migration patterns.
If you take away what made this country great, it will no longer be great. That’s just a fact. You can pretend that America’s greatness has nothing to do with it being a white country, but eventually, you’ll realize you were wrong.
In this sense, nonwhite immigrants who are already here should be for more restrictive immigration policies. They should want to keep this country great.
They should want to basically shut the door behind them when they come here, because too many immigrants will ruin it for everyone. They will soon find all the things they came here to escape have followed them.
You cannot completely transform America’s demographics and expect the nation itself to not completely transform as well.
Am I saying immigrants and minorities should want to remain minorities, and want this country to remain a predominantly white country? Absolutely.
Problem is, they’ll never go for this argument.
As for convincing black Americans to oppose demographic transformation, I guess you can ask them if they truly think they’ll be better off when this nation is 35-40% Hispanic.
While the media treats all nonwhite races as one and the same, in reality blacks and Hispanics don’t see themselves as the same. Many black Americans will tell you they’re fed up with the Democratic Party prioritizing illegal immigrants over poor blacks. And Hispanic gangs in LA have been “ethnically cleansing” blacks for decades, although you’ll never hear about it in the media.
This is not to say whites have historically treated blacks well, of course. America’s history between blacks and whites is widely known. But black people are as much a part of this country’s racial identity as white people are. It took a while for things to get sorted out, but American history has shown that black and white people can share a nation.
Yes it has been a rough road, but in the past 50 years, remarkable racial progress has been made in this country. For Pete’s sake, a nation that was at the time over 65% white and only 12% black elected a black president.
Black Americans could have gone back to Africa after slavery was over. They could have left whitey behind. But they didn’t. In fact, there was a “Back to Africa” movement organized by Marcus Garvey around the turn of the century, and it was a total dud.
As bad as life historically was for Black Americans, they never wanted to leave majority-white America, and things have consistently gotten better over time.
Even though things have appeared to get worse between blacks and whites since Ferguson in 2014, that’s largely a result of media propaganda designed specifically to turn blacks against whites.
So I guess the pitch for black Americans to support the “white party” would simply be: do you think Hispanics will treat you better or worse than whites do?
In other words, is it truly in black Americans’ interests to swamp the white majority with poor immigrants from Latin America and Asia?
If black Americans’ only goal is to destroy whitey, then by all means, keep on voting for Democrats.
But how will destroying whitey actually benefit blacks? How will making this country more like Latin America and less like America benefit blacks?
The firefighters were wearing either red or black.
I did come across this image of men in neon vests with white helmets and black sleeves:
I would say the most likely explanation for the man in the video above is that he is one of these guys in this picture. You have the white cap, the neon vest and the black sleeves. If you go back and watch the video after seeing this image above, it makes more sense.
The main point here is not to peddle “conspiracy theories” but to simply entertain all possibilities, because we cannot trust our “media” to do so.
The fact that over 850 churches in France were vandalized last year, and the fact that Paris’s second largest Catholic Church was burned by an arsonist last month, and the fact that this is the holiest week in the Catholic calendar, makes terrorism not only the prime suspect, but the most logical suspect.
We will never get the truth from the Macron government or the “media.”
The “official story” that this was an accident related to the ongoing renovations could well turn out to be true, but it’s still strange that there’s an effort to viciously attack and demonize anyone skeptical of the “official” story. Obviously the goal is to discourage anyone from challenging the “official” story for fear they’ll be socially punished.
Even if the man in the video is with the fire department, it still does not rule out the possibility of arson/terrorism. The video was taken well after the blaze commenced and firefighters were already on the scene. It’s unlikely the man who set the fire would still be wandering around in the cathedral that long afterwards.
Because the most important thing here is that nobody even asks if the burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral had anything to do with the mass Islamic immigration France has undergone over the past several decades:
BREAKING: Arson & terrorism have been “ruled out” as reasons for the Notre Dame Fire as “for now”, French prosecutor says. pic.twitter.com/9FWsoAFtgW
That was sent at 5pm US Eastern Time, meaning about midnight Paris time.
What a speedy investigation.
But we all just know it couldn’t have been Islamic terrorism, even though Muslims were photographed at the scene with huge smiles on their faces as the ancient cathedral was engulfed in flames in the background:
And in 2016, a 22 year old Muslim woman was caught trying to blow up the Notre Dame Cathedral with a car full of gas canisters. She was sentenced to prison three days ago:
Only THREE days ago in France one of three women involved in a foiled plot in 2016 to blow up a car packed with gas canisters near the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Police said the Saint Sulpice fire was “not an accident.” The Notre Dame burning is simply the latest in a string of attacks on Christian sites in France:
“While Notre Dame is undoubtedly the most well-known landmark to be affected, Paris’ second largest church, Saint-Sulpice, briefly burst into flames on March 17, the fire damaging doors and stained glass windows on the building’s exterior. Police later reported that the incident had not been an accident.
“The images of flames in Saint Sulpice church this weekend are one more example of the violence committed against Catholics,” said Philippe Gosselin and Annie Genevard of France’s National Assembly, tying the incident into a wider trend of attacks on Catholic places of worship.
February saw a series of such attacks across France. In one incident, a cross of human excrement was smeared on the wall of the Notre Dame des Enfants in Nimes, the vandals also looting the church and spreading consecrated wafers in the garbage.
The same month, the altar at Saint-Alain Cathedral in Lavaur was set on fire, while statues and crosses were smashed throughout the premises. Two teenagers were later arrested in relation to the incident.”
But yes, the mere suggestion that the burning of Notre Dame was not an accident is so far-fetched, so inappropriate, and so dangerous that Fox New’s Shep Smith lectured a French politician for even entertaining the possibility:
Shep Smith is such an arrogant pompous douche. Fox News is so horrid other than Tucker and Hannity.
For what it’s worth, that French politician, Phillippe Karsenty said this before Shep Smith erupted on him: “Of course you will hear the story of the politically correct which will tell you it is probably an accident.”
Many in France are not buying the “official” story.
Whether it was terrorism or simply negligence, the Burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral is unavoidably a sign of the decay of Western Civilization.
Choose one: Either Christendom has been overrun by Islam, or Christendom has lost the will to preserve its most sacred sites.
The Notre Dame fire is a metaphor for the attitude of Western European leaders towards their own national cultures over the past few decades.
#NotreDame Cathedral ablaze is the perfect symbol of the modern age, it's almost as if the building set itself on fire to be done with seeing native Europeans replaced and spat on, the spiritual life of Europe crushed and mocked. The continent turned into a supermarket#Parispic.twitter.com/B1wLXqEUWM
Whether it was terrorism or neglect, this is a terrible day for all of us. The sorry state of Western Civilization was on full display as that 850 year old Cathedral burned.
As for me, my two cents is that when one of the important sites in Christianity, one of the most recognizable and iconic cathedrals on the planet, goes up in flames during the holiest week of the Christian calendar, I’m sorry, but I just refuse to believe that’s a. a coincidence and b. an accident.
The modern Democratic Party requires its members to exist in a state of constant self-delusion and ignorance of its many contradictions.
For example, the Democratic Party is the party of Yay Islam! but also the party of Gay Rights and Feminism. You must perform what George Orwell called “Doublethink” to be able to hold both views.
This is because the Democratic Party is the Diversity coalition and includes many groups that compete with one another culturally. Their interests often contradict, but the whole thing is tied together by Hatred Of Whitey. As long as the contradicting factions of the Democratic Party are all focused on hating white people, they won’t have time to think about the fact that they actually hate each other.
Cher, the loopy singer and leftwing activist today most known for her weirdly written tweets, broke from the Doublethink script accidentally thought for herself on the matter of illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities, and blurted this out:
Shorter version: “America First.”
Wait a minute. How are we supposed to take care of all these poor, hungry foreigners when we can’t even take care of our own poor and hungry?
This is what happens when Democrats actually take time to think about all the lies they are required to believe.
Somebody is going to have to break it to her that she’s not allowed to say that.
And how perfect is it that Cher herself, back in 2017, tweeted this:
Until yesterday, she had existed in a state of blissful ignorance holding two contradictory ideas at the same time: America has failed in its duty to take care of its poor and hungry, yet we are perfectly capable of welcoming with open arms every illegal immigrant that wants to come here.
It’s no surprise that Cher only took this opportunity to think for herself when faced with the prospect of several thousand “Dreamers” being dumped in her own backyard.
She was all about the “Dreamers” and the sanctuary cities back when it was an abstract concept that required no personal sacrifice or changes to her way of life.
But now that it’s actually time to live up to all that “Sanctuary Cities” and “No Human Being Is Illegal” and “Refugees Welcome” virtue signaling, she wants nothing to do with her prior statements.
“Wait a minute, this doesn’t make any sense at all!”
This is what happens when Democrats–specifically older, white Democrats–are forced to back up their talk with action.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, torepudiatemorally while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party wasthe guardianof democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly toforgerit again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself–that was the ultimatesubtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink.”
I usually stick to politics and only politics on this site, but I couldn’t resist writing about Game of Thrones. I just enjoy the show too much. If you don’t care about the show then you can ignore this post because it has nothing to do with politics at all, but I’ll probably be doing a write-up like this after every episode of season eight over the next five weeks.
When Bran cuts the Sansa-Dany introduction short by informing everyone that the Night King revived Viserion and burned down the Wall, I was a bit surprised there wasn’t more of a reaction from the other characters, namely Dany. Although I guess they all already knew the Night King could revive dead creatures and turn them into his undead slaves; they probably assumed the worst after Viserion went down.
Jon riding the dragon: we all expected this to happen, but probably not in the very first episode. They foreshadowed it when Drogon allowed Jon to pet him in the last season, and on top of that, Dany’s other living dragon is named Rhaegal after Jon’s father Rhaegar Targaryen. This scene fully confirmed Jon has Targaryen blood and, more importantly, that he will be riding Rhaegal in battle at some point in the next several episodes. The dragons have to be the key to defeating the Night King, and both of the living dragons have to be involved in that. The question now is whether Rhaegal becomes “Jon’s dragon” or whether it’s still Dany’s dragon and Jon can ride it with her permission.
Whether you thought the Dragon Date scene was corny or not, it was still important. (Personally, I’m a sucker for corny stuff like that. I wish Hollywood was less self-conscious about corniness.) Dany had to know there was something special about Jon when her dragon allowed Jon to ride him. If you recall back in season two when Dany pretended to trade her baby dragons for the army of Unsullied, when she gave the dragon to the bald Valyrian dude, the dragon would not obey him at all and wanted nothing to do with him. That scene made it clear that the dragons were bound to Daenerys and Daenerys alone as she was the only Targaryen alive. But when her dragon Rhaegal accepted Jon as essentially its master, it should have been an obvious tell to her that Jon also had the blood of the dragon. Evidently she did not put two and two together.
The Sansa-Dany Hot Girl Drama: I hope this doesn’t get too drawn out. It’s pointless. There’s really no reason for it given the circumstances. The army of the dead is coming and the two hot girls have beef. It can’t last long. On the other hand, it would have been pretty lame if Dany and Sansa immediately became BFFs: “OMG, girl, I am like literally obsessed with your hair. It’s so perfect.”
Euron arrives at King’s Landing with the Golden Company: I have to admit that I really don’t care all that much about Euron and Cersei. Yes, Euron is helping Cersei assemble an army and Cersei finally gives it up to Euron after like two seasons of him begging her to let him hit it, but whatever. Their situation feels like an afterthought given the massive battle looming in the North. And it just feels like a given that when the Good Guys defeat the Night King, they will go down to King’s Landing and depose Cersei. I mean, there’s no way Cersei wins, right? And there’s no way she doesn’t eventually grow tired of Euron and kill him off after he is no longer useful to her, right? Cersei and Euron just feel like dead men walking.
Theon-Yara: Theon rescues Yara from Euron’s captivity, and they escape together. Yara plans to go back to the Iron Islands, while Theon makes it clear that he wants to go to Winterfell to help fight in the Great Battle To Come. This storyline is actually shaping up to be important because it seems like the main characters will have to retreat to the Iron Islands after probably being routed by the Night King either next episode or in episode three. They’ve mentioned several times before in the show that white walkers can’t swim, so the Iron Islands should prove essential to giving the main characters a safe haven, at least until the Night King flies his undead dragon over the water–or freezes it with his Powers of Winter.
Jon’s true identity: the fact that Jon is actually Aegon Targaryen VI, rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms, threatens to tear everything apart. Dany has lived her whole life believing she is destined to be the queen, and that she’s the last Targaryen, but in truth Jon is the rightful king and also can ride dragons. Once Jon’s true identity becomes widely known it could cause a rift among the Good Guys, where the Starks obviously will support Jon in the event that Dany does not willingly step aside and recognize his claim to the throne.
How will Dany react? How will they break the news to her. We all believe that Dany will be pregnant with Jon’s child, and I think this will be revealed before Jon can tell Dany who he really is, which will further complicate things.
Holy shit, that undead Umber kid nailed to the wall was terrifying. That scene got me. The screams are still haunting me.
At the outset of the episode I figured the last scene would be Jamie arriving in Winterfell, but I was surprised to see Bran sitting there waiting for him the second he arrived. The look on Jamie’s face said it all: “holy fuck it’s that kid I pushed out the window way back in episode one.” We were never really told whether or not Jamie knew Bran was still be alive the whole time because nobody else in the show knew either, but now Jamie knows. I don’t think Bran will be too pissed at Jamie given that without being pushed out the window Bran would have never become the Three-Eyed Raven, and also I’m sure Bran has watched Jamie’s life unfold over the past several years and knows Jamie is a changed man. Still, it will make for an awkward and tense face-to-face between the two characters. I’m not sure whether Bran will tell his family that it was Jamie who pushed him, but either way, the Starks will not trust Jamie when he shows up in their hall, so early on, Jamie will have to prove he is a. a changed man, and b. valuable to the cause. Obviously Jamie will inform them that Cersei has betrayed them and will not be sending her army to fight alongside them, which will add to the main characters’ growing list of problems.
On top of all this, the episode two sneak preview also makes it clear that Dany has major beef with Jamie given that Jamie was the one who killed Dany’s father, the Mad King, all those years ago.
Bronn: As he’s about to have a foursome with some choice King’s Landing whores, he gets blueballed by Qyburn, who informs him that Queen Cersei has a big bag of gold for him if he hunts down and kills her brothers Jamie and Tyrion. This is a big deal because while Bronn has had extended alliances with both Jamie and Tyrion, he’s also obsessed with gold and getting his own castle. I would venture to say that although Bronn always made it clear to Tyrion and Jamie that he was just in it for the money, he does ultimately consider them his friends as well, not just rich people who pay him to kill for them. Will Bronn be able to complete Cersei’s task? It would suck to see him become a bad guy because he’s such a great character, and obviously the good guys could use his talents in the Battle To End All Battles.
Arya-The Hound reunion: The first thing the Hound says to Arya is “you left me to die,” which is technically true. But the Hound also left out the part that he begged Arya to kill him and put him out of his misery when he thought he was going to die. Arya did not, which resulted in his life eventually being saved. This reunion was a little too brief given how much time the two characters spent together in the series, and how much of an impact they’ve had on each other. Arya would not be the cold killing machine with a penchant for surviving without the Hound, who assumed sort of a twisted father role for her after Ned was killed. Personally, Arya and the Hound’s relationship was one of my favorite on the whole show, and I wish they would have made this scene a little longer and more meaningful, but apparently they are not going to make their relationship a focal part of the last season, which is kind of regrettable. I’m still holding out hope they have a major scene fighting side by side before it’s all over.
Arya-Gendry reunion: Of course they’re setting this up to be a romance, and that’s a good thing. Back in season one, King Robert Baratheon wanted to marry his “son” Joffrey to Ned Stark’s daughter Sansa to join their houses, but it never worked out (to say the least). Arya and Gendry will eventually be the joining of Houses Stark and Baratheon. Whether or not Gendry is a legitimate Baratheon or not doesn’t matter. I know there’s theories out there that Gendry is the legitimate son of Cersei and Robert given that at one point in season one Cersei mentions to Catelyn Stark that she lost a son way back when, and many believe the child didn’t die but was instead abandoned by Cersei given that she resented Robert and only wanted to have kids by Jamie. Whether or not this is true is, I think, irrelevant, because assuming Gendry survives everything, he’ll be legitimized by either Jon or Dany, who will be king/queen of the Seven Kingdoms, in an effort to revive House Baratheon in the wake of the great battle. We have seen this happen before in the show, when Roose Bolton legitimized Ramsay.
Sam’s family: We knew Sam would eventually learn that Dany killed his father and brother, the only question was how he’d take it. He didn’t seem too broken up about his father’s death, remarking, in a bit of dark humor, that at least he’d be able to go back home now that his brother was in charge. But Sam was visibly distraught over the news that Dany had his brother killed alongside his father. This means Sam can never fully embrace or trust Dany, which is a problem given that he’s Jon’s best friend. What will be the implications of Sam’s newfound grudge against Dany? Is there anything Dany can do to earn his forgiveness? I’m not so sure. I think the upshot here is that Sam will be pushing for Jon to upstage Dany, and potentially means Sam will try to undermine Dany and turn the Starks against her. Sam could end up taking a forgive-but-never-forget approach to Dany, but he also could decide he’s fully against Dany. The thing is, Jon didn’t seem to really care when Sam told him that Dany had killed his brother and father. Jon essentially dismissed it as the ugly reality of war, and that it was nothing personal. We’ll have to wait and see how significant this rift between Sam and Dany ends up becoming, but I think if Bran can forgive Jamie, then Sam should be able to forgive Dany.
Tyrion: I almost forgot to mention him until I went back and rewatched the episode. He kicked the episode off with a few dick jokes at Varys’ expense, and he had his little speech in the hall of Winterfell where he mistakenly said the Lannister Army was riding up to Winterfell to help, but other than that he wasn’t really all that important, which is sad. The showrunners have kind of marginalized Tyrion’s character over the past season and it sucks because for the first five seasons, Tyrion was the best character on the show. I really have no idea what their plan for him is at this point: he can’t play a major role in defeating the Night King, and he can’t play a major role in defeating Cersei. I really don’t know what purpose he serves anymore and it sucks. However, I’m sure George R. R. Martin has a significantly better plan in the books (namely that Tyrion will turn out to be a Targaryen) and will not marginalize him in the final two.
Could Tyrion and Sansa wind up together? It’s tough to see Sansa falling for Tyrion, but it could happen. Tyrion will have to get married to someone in order to further the Lannister line, and since he and Sansa have history together, it’s plausible that they’d end up together again, this time willingly instead of forced by Tywin.
Plus, Sansa’s character has changed so much over the course of the show. At first she was the bratty girly girl who wanted to grow up to be a pampered queen after marrying a handsome Prince Charming. Marrying the dwarf Tyrion–the polar opposite of a Prince Charming–would be symbolic of her dramatic change as a character.
I hope I’m not forgetting anything.
Somehow, Bran will warg into one of the dragons. The thing is, if Dany is riding Drogon, Jon is riding Rhaegal and the Night King is riding the undead Viserion, then how and why will Bran have to warg into a dragon? I don’t think it’s possible for Bran to warg into the undead dragon, so that means it will have to be one of the “living” two. I think Dany will be knocked off Drogon at some point in the major battle with the Night King, and possibly killed in the process. Drogon will be distraught at the death of his “mother,” but the Good Guys will need Drogon in the fight, so Bran will have to take control of him.
I think Brienne will kill Jamie towards the end. Jamie will redeem himself over the next few episodes, but towards the end, when the Good Guys are going to depose Cersei, I predict that Jamie will not be able to bring himself to kill Cersei, and he will have to take her side. This will result in a fight between Brienne and Jamie, and Brienne will have to kill Jamie.
The army of the dead will consist of some characters that have died in earlier seasons. I think Hodor will be part of the army of the dead, as he died far beyond the wall.
Cleganebowl is obviously happening at some point this season, and in order to defeat his undead brother, the Hound will have to overcome his fear of fire.
I’ll have more predictions as the show unfolds but those are my main ones.
You may recall Somalian Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s recent remarks where she dismissed the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people as “some people did something.” In response, President Trump tweeted this video out:
Almost immediately, fascist liberals seized on the video as an opportunity to ban anyone from criticizing them, on the grounds that doing so is an “incitement to violence.”
.@realDonaldTrump’s dangerous video must be taken down. I have spoken with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that Capitol Police are conducting a security assessment to safeguard Rep. @Ilhan Omar, her family & her staff. They will continue to monitor & address the threats she faces. pic.twitter.com/Grb9c8S18d
*Sissy limp-wristed NPC liberal soyboy voice*: “Thith ith an inthitement to violenth!”
These liberals are un-fucking-believable. They will never–can never–stop playing the victim. “Omar’s family is in danger because of Trump’s tweet!”
Get the hell outta here.
Democrat after Democrat repeated the same talking point that any criticism of a Democrat puts a Democrat’s life in danger, and so nobody is allowed to criticize Democrats anymore:
Members of Congress have a duty to respond to the President’s explicit attack today.@IlhanMN’s life is in danger. For our colleagues to be silent is to be complicit in the outright, dangerous targeting of a member of Congress.
No one is “coming for you.” These people are so desperate to be oppressed.
President Trump understands the weight his words carry. His tweet about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar puts her life & her family’s lives at risk. Our outrage should be nonpartisan. That it’s not will only give him license to continue to incite violence.
These NPCs all repeat the exact same talking points.
Ilhan Omar is literally pro-Islamic Terrorism and somehow she’s the one whose life is at risk? Again: un-fucking-believable.
Here’s how it really is:
Of course the Left is moving to “speech is incitement.” First they did “everyone I don’t like is a Nazi”, then it was “you can punch Nazi’s”, now it is “speech is incitement” and next it’ll be “you can jail the Nazi’s over speech.”
There is no incitement to violence whatsoever in Trump’s video. None. It’s just Ilhan Omar’s own words mixed in with footage of 9/11.
And big whoop if a Member of Congress gets death threats. Every Member of Congress gets death threats on a regular basis. Every public figure gets death threats. It comes with the territory. You’re not special or sympathetic if you’re a public figure who gets death threats. Just stop.
You want to see real incitement to violence? CBS, one of the largest media corporations in America, has a primetime show coming out literally encouraging violence against white people on the ground that they’re “Nazis”:
This is how the left act. I've experienced this first hand. They feel justified to attack, you go "ok I guess we're fighting now" then they cry and act like a victim and say you are the aggressor. Every. Time. pic.twitter.com/kBATJu2aDM
There’s been a lot of accusations of incitement by elected Democrats and the media this week. Here’s a video of real incitement, elected Democrats and Media should know what it looks like since they’ve engaged in it for three years now.
“There’s no disputing Barr’s first point: Spying on a presidential campaign is a big deal, especially when it was authorized by a rival administration. Imagine if, a year from now, the Trump administration allowed the FBI to surveil officials in the Kamala Harris for president campaign. Imagine if, when caught, Trump pointed to opposition research generated by the RNC as justification for that surveillance. How would the media react to that? Like it was a major, jaw-dropping scandal. And this show would heartily agree. We wouldn’t defend it. Law enforcement should never be used as a partisan political tool, no matter who it benefits.
But the media doesn’t feel that way about Obama’s spying. They refuse to admit it was even spying. Professional dumb person, Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, attacked the attorney general for daring to bring up the topic at all. She called Barr ‘Trump’s toad.’ CNN, meanwhile, assured it’s viewers that there is ‘little evidence’ that spying occurred. But that’s a lie. There is plenty of evidence. We’ve had it for months. In 2016 and 2017, the FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman. Former Trump aide Carter Page was spied on extensively, even though it was obvious from day one that he wasn’t a Russian spy. Last year, we learned that the FBI used an informant to feed them information from inside the Trump campaign. This is all spying. There’s no other word for it.”
This is your periodic reminder that most Americans only “know” what the Uniparty Propaganda media allows them to know. Sadly, if it’s not on “the news,” then most Americans are completely ignorant to it. And they still believe themselves to be informed and free.
The US “media” stopped covering the Yellow Vests within a week of the first protests last November after it became clear the protests were against neoliberal globalism. No need to give oxygen to movements that threaten the power of the transnational elite.
Nevertheless, Act XII of the Gilets Jaunes movement is currently underway, despite the US “media’s” best efforts to pretend it isn’t:
“France’s Yellow Vest protesters took to the street on Saturday, for the 22nd consecutive Saturday of demonstrations. Tension rose in Toulouse as thousands gathered for the first time since a controversial anti-rioting law took effect on April 11.
Several hundred people had begun marching in Paris by 1pm on Saturday. Protests are also slated for Marseille, Grenoble, Lille and other cities.
On social media, Yellow Vest protesters in Toulouse were called on to keep up the fight against President Emmanuel “Macron and his world” and to “show that everything is just getting started after the results of the big debate”.
And this, right here, is why you don’t hear about the Yellow Vests anymore: because it’s a movement against Macron, the poster boy for elitist neoliberal globalism.
“Less than one hour after the start of the demonstration, clashes broke out when protesters threw stones at the police. The latter answered by firing tear gas.
Prime Minister Édouard Philippe on Monday presented the initial findings of a vast, nearly three-month-long public consultation known as the Grand Débat. Macron launched the initiative in January in response to the Yellow Vest unrest saying he “intend[ed] to transform violence into solutions”.
Which solutions? Certainly not solutions that have anything to do with the actual problems the Yellow Vests are so angry about.
No, the French government sees the Yellow Vests themselves as the problem:
“The new anti-rioting law, which was partially censured by the country’s Constitutional Council before taking effect and which has been condemned by dozens of organisations, makes it illegal to cover one’s face during demonstrations. It took effect on Thursday.
Wonder if this anti-face covering law applies to Muslims?
“Last week, “Act 21” of the protests drew 22,300 people into the streets, the Interior Ministry said, the lowest official figure since the demonstrations began in mid-November.”
That’s still a lot of people, though.
“Saturday’s showing is due to serve as merely a foretaste to larger demonstrations slated for April 20, with Macron expected to present his response to the nationwide debate in a speech in the interim.”