democracy

LBJ Killed JFK: The 56th Anniversary of the Coup of ’63

56 years ago today, also on a Friday, at around 12:30pm CST, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. While most Americans consider the Kennedy Assassination a tragic day in American history, that would only be true if the Official Narrative™ of the “lone nut” assassin were true.

But the reality is it’s more than a tragedy: given that Kennedy was assassinated not by a “lone nut” but by a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the most powerful men in the country, November 22, 1963 was the day The Deep State took power and the American Republic ended in all but name.

Most Americans reject the Official Narrative™ regarding the Kennedy Assassination, which states that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nut named Lee Harvey Oswald. The Official Narrative™ claims that Americans don’t want to believe the beloved 35th President was killed for no reason at all, and so they cling to wild “conspiracy theories”–such as the “grassy knoll,” the mob, the Cubans, or the Soviets–in a vain effort to bestow some form of meaning on Kennedy’s untimely death.

But while most Americans reject the idea that Oswald was a lone nut who acted alone and that Kennedy’s death was not part of any grand conspiracy, most Americans are also quite cloudy on the truth behind what happened on Friday November 22, 1963 in Dallas. In other words, while Americans know Oswald didn’t act alone, they are not certain who was really behind Kennedy’s assassination. Americans’ feelings toward the Kennedy assassination can be best characterized as a vague distrust of the Official Story.

I’ve spent the past few weeks doing some research on the matter and I believe I now have a general understanding of what really happened: the main culprit behind the Kennedy assassination was then-Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, as well as other high-ranking government officials who wanted JFK gone.

I am certainly not claiming to be the first person to advance this theory, especially given that I have come to believe it through the work of others who have looked into the matter. But my aim here is to provide some clarity on the Kennedy Assassination for those who only know that they reject the Official Narrative™ but don’t have a coherent alternative explanation, as well as to place the JFK assassination into proper context in American history.

Obviously, Johnson stood to gain the most from the assassination: the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, LBJ was sworn in as the 36th U.S. President. Johnson’s motive was as clear as day, and it’s a wonder more people don’t view him as the prime suspect.

In any murder mystery, the best strategy is to look for the person with the strongest motive to carry out the murder, and LBJ undoubtedly had the strongest motive to get Kennedy out of the way. Not only did he personally dislike the Kennedys, he had everything to gain from getting them out of the way.

Because JFK was his superior, LBJ largely tolerated President Kennedy, and vice versa. Kennedy didn’t much care for Johnson, either.

But LBJ didn’t hold anything back when it came to the President’s younger brother Bobby, also the U.S. Attorney General.

LBJ biographer Robert Caro characterized Johnson’s feelings towards Bobby Kennedy as “hatred,”:

“You don’t want to use words like this as a historian, but hatred is the right word to describe Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,” Caro said. “They hated each other from the first time they met. Someone said the first time they met, it was like two strange dogs walking into a room and there was a low growl and the hair rises on their neck. It never stops. … (Robert Kennedy) can humiliate Johnson and he humiliates him at every opportunity and then with the crack of a gunshot, the world is reversed and Johnson has the power over Bobby Kennedy.”

Awfully convenient for Lyndon Johnson, no? It really is interesting just how well things worked out for LBJ following JFK’s assassination.

In 2011, the Daily Mail reported that in the wake of her husband’s murder, Jackie Kennedy privately expressed her belief that LBJ was behind the assassination:

“Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.

The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.

She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.”

After all, the assassination did take place in Johnson’s home state of Texas. If ever there were a place where LBJ could execute a cover-up from the ground-up, where he had the most pull and clout and connections, it was in Texas. It just makes sense.

In 2007, Rolling Stone ran a lengthy piece in which it was claimed that the late notorious former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt–a man who was part of both the JFK assassination and the Watergate burglary–admitted on his deathbed to his son that LBJ was the mastermind of the JFK assassination:

“[I]n Miami, with [E. Howard Hunt’s son] Saint by his bed, and disease eating away at him, and him thinking he’s six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man’s wheelchair and waited.

E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,” standing for Kennedy’s ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

“By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock,” Saint says. “His whole life, to me and everybody else, he’d always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn’t like Johnson. But you don’t falsely implicate your own country, for Christ’s sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that’s the last thing he would do.”

Then there’s also the story about what LBJ allegedly said to his mistress, Madelein Duncan Brown, the night before the assassination took place. Watch from the 2:36 mark:

She claims Johnson, in a rage, said to her, on the night of November 21, “After tomorrow, those sons of bitches will never embarrass me again!”

Given that Johnson was the obvious and immediate beneficiary of Kennedy’s death, and that the assassination took place in Johnson’s home state of Texas, it appears to me likely that Johnson was behind it.

LBJ had the motive, but he needed to have backing. There’s no way coup could’ve been pulled off if only LBJ wanted to get rid of Kennedy. There had to be others with the same motive. And there were.

Certainly J. Edgar Hoover, the notorious head of the FBI and arguably the most powerful man in America for nearly four decades prior, was a part of the conspiracy. Bolstering the case that Hoover was part of the plot is this:

“In 1964, just days before Hoover testified in the earliest stages of the Warren Commission hearings, President Lyndon B. Johnson waived the then-mandatory U.S. Government Service Retirement Age of 70, allowing Hoover to remain the FBI Director “for an indefinite period of time.”

In 2017, the Trump Administration authorized the release of previously classified documents pertaining to the Kennedy Assassination. One of those documents was this  particular memo from J. Edgar Hoover:

“Referring to Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general at the time, Hoover dictated: “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”

It’s not clear from the memo whether Hoover thought there might have been a conspiracy but didn’t want it to be known or whether he sincerely believed Oswald acted alone and hoped to head off public fear and confusion.”

If Oswald truly was the “lone assassin,” then why would Hoover be so concerned with convincing the public he was?

As far as a motive for Hoover, it is said that Hoover and the Kennedys never liked each other. In 1987, there was even a TV miniseries called “Hoover vs. the Kennedys,” which detailed the deep rift between the two sides. Apparently Hoover had tried to blackmail Kennedy over his affairs and feared Kennedy would fire him.

But the primary agency behind the assassination was undoubtedly the CIA. Notorious for orchestrating foreign coups and assassinations, the Kennedy assassination was the CIA’s first ever domestic coup and assassination. What, you think the CIA wouldn’t do that here if it felt its institutional interests were threatened by the President?

The thing to know about government agencies is that they inevitably become more and more self-interested over time. The “national interests” take a back-seat to the interests of the agency, and by the 1960s, the CIA, which was founded in the late 1940s as a re-organization and rebranding of the WWII intelligence agency the OSS, had become very powerful and unaccountable. The CIA had come to believe it, rather than the democratically-elected President and Congress, knew best how to manage America’s foreign affairs.

When Eisenhower, in his farewell address in January 1961, warned of the growing power of the “Military industrial complex,” that included the CIA. The Military Industrial Complex wanted to ramp-up the war in Vietnam, but in October, 1963–a month before he was assassinated–JFK signed National Security Action Memorandum 263, which authorized the withdrawal of 1,000 of the 16,000 total U.S.military personnel in Vietnam by the end of December, and said that the goals of our Vietnam military operation would be achieved by 1965.

Upon taking power, LBJ pretended to agree with the assessment of NSAM 263, but by August of 1964, the entirely fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident would provide Johnson an excuse to massively escalate the Vietnam War–just as the Military Industrial Complex wanted all along. The CIA, of course–the beating heart of the Military Industrial Complex–was heavily involved in American operations in Vietnam dating all the way back to 1955.

In the 1950s under Allen Dulles (the longest-serving CIA Director in U.S. history), the CIA overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossaddegh, deposed democratically-elected Guatemalan Prime Minister Jacobo Arbenz, carried out the MKUltra mind control project (which the media would have you believe was both a failure and a conspiracy theory), and in 1961 bungled its attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (Bay of Pigs).

President Kennedy was so furious over the Bay of Pigs debacle that he was reported by the New York Times to have said he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Instead he fired Allen Dulles, but left the CIA itself largely intact. This was likely the move that turned the CIA–and of course the hugely powerful Dulles–against him and ultimately sealed his fate. One week after Kennedy was assassinated, newly sworn-in President LBJ appointed Allen Dulles as one of the seven commissioners on the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s death–or, more likely, cover it up.

There were undoubtedly more people than just LBJ, Hoover and Dulles involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But they were the biggest names behind the coup.

What about the alleged shooter himself, Lee Harvey Oswald? He never confessed to the shooting, and on the night of the assassination, he declared his innocence and said “I’m just a patsy!

It’s one thing for Oswald to claim he’s innocent and that they’ve got the wrong guy, but it’s another entirely thing for him to say “I’m just a patsy!”

That would indicate he knew more about conspiracy to the kill the President, and was more than just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oswald proclaiming to be a patsy is a tacit admission that there was a wider conspiracy behind the killing. He knew he was set up to be the fall guy.

Oswald was correct that he was “just a patsy.” He knew there was a larger network that had set him up to take the fall. And that’s precisely why he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby not even 48 hours after Kennedy was pronounced dead. A loose-end tied-up.

Somehow Jack Ruby (real name Jacob Rubenstein) was able to kill Oswald while Oswald was in police custody. Ruby was able to make it into the basement of the police station where Oswald was in the process of being transferred to an armored car, get in with a group of reporters, and then get a clean shot at Oswald at point-blank range.

According to Ruby’s Wikipedia page (meaning information about him that the Uniparty is okay with the public knowing), Ruby was a career criminal and lowlife:

“There was evidence indicating Jack Ruby had been involved in the underworld activities of illegal gambling, narcotics, and prostitution.

A 1956 FBI report stated that their informant, Eileen Curry, reported that in January of that year, she moved to Dallas with her boyfriend, James Breen, after jumping bond on narcotics charges. Breen told her that he had made connections with a large narcotics setup operating between Texas, Mexico, and the East, and that “in some fashion, James got the okay to operate through Jack Ruby of Dallas.”

Former Dallas County Sheriff Steve Guthrie told the FBI that he believed Ruby “operated some prostitution activities and other vices in his club” since living in Dallas.

Dallas disc jockey Kenneth Dowe testified that Ruby was known around the station for “procuring women for different people who came to town.”

Is it a stretch to say that some law enforcement agency like J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI made Ruby kill Oswald? They certainly had a lot on Ruby and probably threatened to put him away for a long time if he didn’t comply with them.

Ruby was then sentenced to death by a jury in Dallas, but the decision was appealed and Ruby was granted a new trial. Before this trial could be completed, however, Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism in 1967.

Let’s get back to Oswald. As for the actual shooting itself, here are the details:

  • JFK’s limo was traveling at about 11mph.
  • Oswald was allegedly situated in the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and was 81 meters (265ft) away from Kennedy when he fired the killing shot.
  • Oswald allegedly fired the three shots from a bolt-action rifle in a span of six seconds, maintaining his aim on a moving target while using the bolt-action rifle.
  • Of the three shots Oswald allegedly fired, the first was said to have missed, the second hit Kennedy in the upper back, and the final shot hit the President in the side of the head.

Seems like an awfully tough shot. And it’s odd that the first shot was said to have missed given that you’d expect the first shot to be the most accurate, not the least. Think about it.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura tried to replicate the shot with the same rifle at the same distance and was unable to get three shots off in less than about nine seconds. And his target was stationary, unlike Oswald’s:

Now it’s certainly possible that Oswald was a phenomenal shot and pulled off the assassination himself. But an investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there was “a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President” and that the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.” That’s the official conclusion of a U.S. Congressional Committee.

The Committee claims the fourth shot missed, but if you watch the Zapruder film of the assassination, the killing headshot appears to have hit Kennedy from the front given the way his head snaps back and left:

This is why the “grassy knoll” theory is so popular.

However, even if the fourth shot missed, as the Committee claimed, the fact that a U.S. Congressional Committee went on-record and claimed there were two shooters decimates the credibility of the Official Story™. For goodness sake it is all based on the claim that Oswald was a “lone nut” who acted alone.

The purpose of this post is to get into the conspiracy to kill JFK rather than debate how the assassination truly unfolded on that fateful Friday, so I won’t spend much more time discussing the shooting itself, but if you’re interested in this subject I’d recommend checking out this video of Joe Rogan debating the “Single bullet theory”:

The thing is, it doesn’t ultimately matter whether Oswald was the lone shooter or whether there were other shooters. The heart of the matter here is whether or not Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy. Oswald may well have fired the killing shot all by himself, but the real question is whether or not you believe he acted entirely alone and was simply a lone nut.

For most Americans, the answer to that question is no. It does not seem plausible that a President could be killed for no reason at all. But that’s what Official Washington and its television propaganda department would have you believe.

Trust your instincts. Do not allow “experts” and “authority figures” to overrule your common sense and gut instincts. Do not be distracted or confused by their long and complex explanations. They try to muddy the waters by using big words and using terminology you don’t understand, but don’t lose sight of the only things that matter here: the who, how and why.

Who killed JFK? How did they pull it off? Why did they do it?

It doesn’t take an 880-page Warren Report to answer these simple questions, but they would have you believe it does.

The gatekeepers go into lengthy and absurd explanations on how a single bullet ricocheted all throughout JFK’s body and then managed to hit Texas Governor John Connally, where it also ricocheted around and then exited, whereas common sense would tell you simply: there were multiple gunmen.

This country would be so much better off if people simply trusted their common sense and didn’t listen to the spin doctors and lying “authorities.”

Most crimes are rather simple, but the gatekeepers’ job is to complicate simple matters in order to obfuscate the truth. If a President is murdered and a number of powerful people had good reasons to try to get rid of him, it’s a good bet that they were behind the murder. That’s it.

To understand why something happened, it’s important to look at the aftermath: who got what they wanted because of the event? For example, gun controllers get what they want after mass shootings: gun control. The government got what it wanted after 9/11: endless wars in the Middle East and vastly expanded surveillance powers.

It’s easy to understand these major events when you look at them this way.

It is glaringly obvious that LBJ was behind the Kennedy Assassination given that it took place in his home state and he was the single greatest beneficiary from it. Yet the Deep State and its minions in the media did an excellent job muddying the waters, casting doubt into Americans’ minds and causing us to override our common sense and instincts.

***

So how should we view the Kennedy Assassination in the context of American history? Well, if you believe that LBJ was behind it, then it cannot be viewed as anything other than a full-scale coup d’etat, which is why Mark Gorton refers to it as the “Coup of ’63“. I recommend reading Gorton’s essay, because it does a good job putting it all into context.

But again: the takeaway is that the JFK assassination should not be viewed as merely a tragedy but also a full-scale coup.

Though killed for different reasons, JFK was killed in essentially the same manner as was Julius Caesar: betrayed in a plot by other high-ranking government officials. At least the Roman Senate had the decency to own the fact that they collectively murdered the Caesar. The Cabal behind the JFK plot blamed it all on a patsy and their propagandists in the media still maintain that “lone gunman” Official Narrative™️ 56 years later.

So what is the relevance of the Coup of ’63 to today’s America?

It’s no secret that the Deep State is currently in the middle of yet another attempt to oust President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve kept their attempts to remove him strictly in impeachment, rather than assassination, territory.

(Although a story the other day suggests that someone may have tried to poison Trump.)

So this can mean a few things:

  1. Either Trump has not yet posed a serious threat to them to make them desperate enough to try to kill him.
  2. Our Deep State in 2019 has gone soft compared to the outright animals who were running the show in the 1960s.
  3. They feel like killing Trump would make him a martyr and make his political movement more powerful than ever, whereas they feel impeachment is a far better way to discredit him.

Remember, the same people that pulled off the JFK assassination also pulled off the Watergate Coup in ’74, so they’ve got experience with both ways to carry out a coup. Given the way Americans view Kennedy today (near-universal admiration and reverence) vs. the way people view Nixon today (widespread disapproval, consensus that he’s the most corrupt and nefarious President in history), it should be obvious that the impeachment route is the better way for the Deep State to carry out a coup d’etat.

(And yes, I am aware that Nixon wasn’t impeached. But he only resigned because his impeachment and conviction were inevitable and he knew it.)

So I don’t expect the Deep State to try to assassinate Trump. At least not yet–they’re not desperate enough for this yet.

But understanding the Coup of ’63 makes it much easier to understand what’s going on today with Trump. There exists a shadow government in Washington that calls the shots, and when the President is not under their control, they will go to extraordinary lengths to get rid of him.

Whatever you want to call them: the Cabal, the Deep State, the Uniparty, the oligarchs, the men behind the curtain, the puppeteers–they all refer to the same people.

November 22, 1963 was the day they officially seized power, and they still have it today.

Of course, the original conspirators are long dead, but they passed the baton on to succeeding generations of the Deep State.

Why Revolution is Inevitable in America

If Trump can’t turn this country around, it guarantees a revolution at some point in the next 10-15 years.

What I mean is, if Trump cannot get control of the border, build the wall, deport the 30 million illegals, cut down legal immigration, reverse the demographic transformation and dispossession of white people, end the opioid crisis, restore American manufacturing and industry, stop the rape of our economy by foreign trade and outsourcing, address income inequality, break up the big tech monopolies and end Silicon Valley censorship of political dissidents, then this country is done.

Now, you’re probably thinking I listed so many problems that it would be a truly Herculean feat for Trump to fix them all. And that’s true. The man walked into a nearly impossible job. But there’s no way around it: America is in some very serious shit. There is a hell of lot wrong right now. And without addressing every last one of those problems, America is finished.

By “finished,” I don’t mean the country will cease to exist. I’m not saying America will be swallowed up by the sea like a modern Atlantis. I’m not saying the Bad People will storm the National Archives and set fire to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

I’m saying the republic of free men known as the United States of America since 1776 will no longer exist, and “America” will instead refer to some dysfunctional, oppressive, “multicultural” hellhole.

That’s what I mean by “finished.” If Trump can’t solve all those problems listed above, then America is finished.

You might be able to live a somewhat normal American life if you have good money and if you build a wall around your neighborhood–or if you move out to a rural area away from society–but the America you grew up in will be dead and buried.

That’s what’s at stake. If Trump fails, America fails.

The larger point here is that if Trump can’t do ALL of those things, then they will never happen—at least not through the political system. If Trump can’t solve all the problems he was elected to solve, it will prove the system is too corrupted. It’s beyond saving. There is no reason to bother with politics and voting anymore: The Uniparty is simply too strong.

In other words, there will be no other option but revolution. The Uniparty is committed to enriching the rich by any means necessary, and the Uniparty has complete, untouchable control of the political system. Because it’s not that Trump simply changed his mind and no longer wants to solve any of those problems: it’s that the Uniparty will not allow him to solve our problems.

That’s the real problem that will eventually lead to revolution.

If Trump can’t prevail and implement the MAGA agenda as he described it in 2016, then it will mean the Uniparty is so pervasive, and its power so absolute, that it does not matter who we put in the White House: we will always get Uniparty policies.

That’s what’s at stake with the Trump presidency: the very existence of American democracy. Either we live in a country where the people decide what the government does, or we do not.

Because millions of Trump voters put the man in office to address all those problems listed above, yet the Uniparty political establishment simply will not allow him to carry out his voters’ wishes.

As it stands right now, the will of the people has been overruled by the Uniparty:

We voted for a wall >> the Uniparty doesn’t want a wall >> we don’t get a wall.

What, then, is the point of voting anymore if this is the case?

There is none.

And once voting becomes meaningless, then democracy itself becomes meaningless and revolution is inevitable.

And by inevitable, I mean unavoidable. Set in stone, locked in. A foregone conclusion.

Destiny.

I’m sorry to say it, but that’s what happens when the government stops upholding its end of the bargain in a democracy.

The agreement is this: we allow the politicians to hold power if they agree to give us what we voted for.

But now they no longer give us what we voted for.

I have to make this clear: I prefer democracy to revolt. I don’t want violence. I don’t want upheaval. I want a peaceful, harmonious, prosperous America more than anything.

I want Trump to be able to turn this country around through the traditional avenues of democracy. Again: I prefer democracy to revolt.

But while I prefer democracy to revolt, I prefer revolt to oligarchy. I would rather have a civil war than be ruled and oppressed by a corrupt oligarchy. I’m sure most of you would agree with that.

I just want what we voted for. But if the Uniparty refuses to let us have it, then what else are we supposed to do: Just roll over and allow the Uniparty to keep enriching itself while pushing the rest of the country further and further into oblivion?

The American people will never allow that.

If Trump fails to turn this country around, then that’s it.

The American people will then be faced with a choice: 1984 or Braveheart.

It’s Time for Britain to Go Full Yellow Vest

Democracy is not self-maintaining. Elites will not simply honors the voters’ decisions when they go against the elite’s wishes because That’s What The Rules say.

Without vigilance and accountability, democracies are doomed. Having blind faith that the politicians will do what you want them to is suicidal.

Right now in Britain, Parliament just voted to take the “No Deal Brexit” off the table. “No deal” was basically Britain’s only leverage in negotiating the terms of Brexit with the EU, and now that’s gone.

They are currently trying to delay Brexit from March 29 to June. The strategy is “delay and eventually derail.” If they can’t stop Brexit now, they’ll delay it to give themselves more time to hatch a new scheme.

Look at this clusterfuck:

“LONDON (AP) — British lawmakers were voting Thursday on whether to scuttle the already dwindling chances the U.K. will leave the European Union this month as scheduled, but EU officials warned they would only allow a delay if the country made a fundamental shift in its approach to Brexit.

“Allow.” That right there is why Brexit is a necessity.

Prime Minister Theresa May grudgingly granted the vote after Parliament twice rejected her EU divorce deal and also ruled out leaving the EU without an agreement. Withdrawing from the EU without a deal could mean major disruptions for businesses and people in the U.K. and the 27 remaining countries.

Yeah yeah yeah. That’s a bunch of bullshit. It’s a scare-tactic by the elite to screw the whole Brexit process into oblivion. “Major disruptions for businesses!” That’s what they said about the Brexit vote, and it never came to pass.

That was from AP, a Uniparty Globalist Propaganda outlet.

Here’s the actual story from Breitbart:

“Brexiteers have reacted with anger after the House of Commons voted to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, whilst the Tory Party is in disarray after Prime Minister Theresa May lost control of her own motion.

Veteran Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage said immediately after the vote, “A total disgrace, Parliament no longer represents the people,” adding, “This is a Parliament of outright liars. We will have to fight them again. And mark my words — we will beat them once more.”

Mr Farage later penned a piece for The Telegraph, where he confirmed what he had written in 2017 that “The great Brexit betrayal has begun,” noting, “Well, although it pains me to say it, the vote in Parliament to take no deal off the table proves that, 20 months ago, I was right.”

Now, above, when I said the Globalist Uniparty’s strategy is “delay and eventually derail,” here’s what I’m talking about:

“Donald Tusk today revealed he will urge EU leaders to agree a ‘long extension’ to Article 50 – delaying Brexit by up to two years to give the UK time to ‘rethink’ – if Theresa May‘s deal is voted down a third time next week. 

The President of the European Council’s intervention on Twitter this morning will bolster claims that the UK would not leave the EU until 2021 unless Mrs May can persuade the DUP and Brexiteers to back her divorce deal – because some in the EU want to play ‘hardball’ and push for a delay of two years. 

Ireland’s Foreign Minister Simon Coveney also said today the EU is likely to offer Britain a 21-month delay to Brexit while Taoiseach Leo Varadkar added that if the UK changes its mind it would be welcomed back ‘like the prodigal son’.

The PM’s deal will be put to another vote next week, just 15 days before the country is due to leave the EU on 29 March, after MPs including a ‘gang of four’ rebellious Cabinet members helped to vote to permanently rule out No Deal Brexit. 

May told the Commons that if she loses a third time she will forced to ask Brussels for a long delay to Britain’s departure from the EU at a summit on Thursday.”

They’ve had nearly three years to negotiate and formalize Brexit, and now they want another two years?

This is totally rotten.

It’s becoming clear that democracy is no longer in existence in Britain. The people voted for Brexit, but the politicians are resolved to deny them Brexit.

When this happens, the only solution is to take to the streets like the Yellow Vests of France–that, of course, or surrendering and admitting to be ruled by an antidemocratic oligarchy of globalists who care nothing for the well-being of the citizens of their respective nations.

 

The Elites Are Making Violence Inevitable

The Yellow Vest uprising in France has taught us that there is only one way to defeat the Western political establishment: violent revolt.

That might sound extreme and shocking, but consider that the cancelation of the gas tax is probably the first time in decades the globalists have actually lost on a political issue.

Seriously.

Every single major issue has gone their way for decades: immigration, trade, healthcare, taxes. Everything. Brexit has gone their way. Trump’s presidency has even gone their way, largely: we all got tax cuts, and that’s great, but the tax cuts primarily benefitted those at the top.

But the gas tax did not go the globalists’ way. They didn’t get their way on that.

And do you know why? It was because they felt fear. Real, physical fear.

I challenge you to name a single policy since the end of the Cold War implemented in Western Civilization (America, Western Europe) that has been either restrictionist on immigration, good for the middle class economically (don’t say Cheap Chinese Crap), pro-national sovereignty, pro-peace, or pro-traditional values.

There’s nothing.

Virtually everything has been pro-open borders, pro-mass immigration, pro-job outsourcing, anti-manufacturing, anti-Christian, anti-middle class, pro-welfare state (i.e. government dependency), pro-globalist, pro-foreign war, pro-regime change and pro-domestic culture of depravity.

Everything.

Except the gas tax.

The French people got the first policy win over the Western globalist elite in decades.

And it was because they turned to violence. It was because they threatened to topple Macron and burn Paris to the ground.

You think this has gone unnoticed? This past weekend, Yellow Vest-style protests spread to Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Germany.

Why? Because the Yellow Vests protests are working.

For the first time in decades, the forgotten, discontented masses of Western Civilization are actually seeing encouraging results, and it’s through protests and riots.

***

Back when Obama was President, I used to scoff at Democrats’ claims that our political system was broken. They were just complaining because we were using our minority powers granted under the constitution to stymie their agenda, I thought. We on the right smugly lectured them that the system was working just as it was intended to, and that the Founders wanted us to obstruct our balls off.

But now that they’re obstructing us on everything, I see they had a point.

What’s going to happen to our political system? Is it going to be endless obstruction? Some people are fine with this but consider that without any major legislative changes America will be transformed into a third world nation by way of mass immigration. It will happen barring a major change in immigration policy, a change which can only come through Congress.

Are we fated to simply take turns obstructing one another until demographics win out and give Democrats a permanent supermajority in this country? Because that’s what it seems like.

Eventually it will reach a breaking point.

Eventually people will get sick of never getting what they voted for.

And if you think the violence can only come from the right, you are fooling yourself. The media has been fomenting racial resentments for the better part of this decade and has convinced the now mostly-nonwhite left that they live in a viciously racist country where white supremacism runs rampant and oppresses minorities in every conceivable way.

Doesn’t matter if it’s not true: people believe it’s true. Millions of people. And because of it, they are full of righteous anger.

You saw what happened after Ferguson. Antifa and Black Lives Matter show that the left is increasingly seeing violence as the answer.

But overall here, I’m talking from a right-wing populist point of view. The media always derides us as angry, and eventually we’ll say, “You know what? We are angry. And we’re going to take it out on you and your kind.”

Trump’s election in America has not changed much. We still don’t have a wall, illegal immigration is at a record high, and the media still covers for Deep State criminals who have not faced any accountability for what they did in 2016 pertaining to the Steele Dossier and their abuse of government power to destroy Donald Trump. Nobody answered for Benghazi, nobody answered for Obama’s IRS harassing conservatives. The middle class is eroding and America is turning into a economically stratified nation of rich and poor with little in between.

In Britain, the Brexit vote changed nothing. Somehow, the EU is still in control. In fact, the European Court of “Justice” just ruled that Brexit can be reversed.

So what’s the takeaway? You can’t vote the globalists out of power. It just doesn’t work that way. Even when we win the elections, they still ultimately win. Nothing changes.

“We voted for the Wall.”

“Well, you still can’t have the Wall.”

“We voted for Brexit.”

“Well, you still can’t have Brexit.”

Yeah, it’s a huge mystery why people are taking to the streets.

I see a choice in the coming years between violent uprising and passive submission, and as history shows us, submission won’t happen.

No rotten, corrupt system can go on forever. Sooner or later, discontent boils over.

Again, as I keep saying, I do not prefer violence.

I wish we could get what we want democratically and peacefully. That’s the social compact that this country was founded on. But today’s elites do not believe in democracy. In fact they are actively anti-democratic.

They are not upholding their end of the social compact which states that we do not have to resort to violence and war so long as the results of democratic elections are honored.

It’s pretty simple.

They’ll cynically and disingenuously say that talking like this is undemocratic, but what else are we supposed to do when voting accomplishes nothing?

Worst of all, we increasingly can’t even voice our disapproval with the elite. Silicon Valley is making sure of that.

We sit patiently and wait for Republicans in Congress to do something about the fact that Big Tech is waging a digital genocide on right wing voices on social media, and yet nothing is done.

Hearing after hearing after hearing and not a damn thing happens. More right wing voices are banned with each passing day. Gavin McInnes is now banned from every major social media platform as of yesterday.

House Republicans dragged Google CEO Sundar Pichai before a committee today and the first thing out of his mouth was that Google is not biased against conservatives:

Are House Republicans just hoping some Big Tech CEO comes out and admits it?

What if that never happens, even thought we all know it to be true?

What is the plan then? Do we just accept it as a fact of life that we’re eventually going to be run off of social media, and that Republicans aren’t going to do shit about it?

The Hitler Youth site Vox is openly encouraging Big Tech to delete right wing voices from digital existence:

https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/1072543567653031936

So what are we supposed to do?

If we don’t stop this, we are finished. Pretty soon the only “right wing” voices permitted to remain online will be the Establishment-approved NeverTrump pussies who represent zero threat to the globalist status quo.

They’ll let us have Ben Shapiro, and that’s about it.

Big Tech will let us have YouTube clips of Shapiro using FACTS and LOGIC to OWN 20-year-old college liberals, and that’s it. They figure that’ll be enough to keep us sated.

But it won’t. Eventually they’ll push us to a breaking point. I don’t know when, but it will happen eventually.

The only way you can defeat the globalists that are destroying Western civilization is to do what they’re doing in France: revolt.

I wish it didn’t have to be like this, but people are not going to simply surrender as their beautiful countries are transformed into vastly-unequal third-world hellholes via mass immigration and job outsourcing by multinational corporations, and while their voices are silenced on social media for daring to express opposition to it all.

***

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Theresa May Is About to Kill Brexit–and Democracy in Britain Altogether

And there it is:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 1.05.30 PM.png

“We deliberately fucked-up the Brexit that you voted for. Wanna reconsider?”

The vote already happened. A second vote is not only unncessary but unacceptable.

If the people who ruled Britain believed in democracy, they would have all stepped aside in the wake of the Brexit vote–which they rightfully lost despite their campaign of fear and lies–and allowed genuine Brexiteers to take things from there.

They would have said, “The people have spoken, and rejected our vision for Britain. We will step aside and allow their vision to be carried out by those who actually supported it and believ in it.” In fact, that’s what their last Prime Minister, David Cameron, did. He was a Remainer, and when Remain lost, he stepped down because he knew he could not carry out the Brexit process in good faith.

At least he was honest about where he stood. His replacement, Theresa May, who was supposed to be the one suited to completing the Brexit deal, was in reality a closet Remainer who #Resisted the will of people and sabotaged the Brexit negotiations.

The people voted for Brexit, but the politicians have overruled them.

Thanks for playing.

The elites are killing democracy by brazenly overruling the will of the voters.

Do they see what’s going on in France? Doesn’t that give them at least a little pause?

They’re going to get themselves overthrown, and they’ll completely deserve it.

Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible Make Violent Revolution Inevitable

I’ve kept abreast with the ongoing Brexit “negotiation” (read: surrender) playing out in Britain because in two major ways, it parallels the Donald Trump saga here in America:

  • Both Brexit and Trump were democratically-achieved populist uprisings against corrupt, entrenched ruling classes that have led both nations to the brink of ruin.
  • The repudiated ruling classes in America and Europe are both trying to overturn the will of the voters who chose Trump and Brexit.

Trump and Brexit are intertwined and represent pivotal moments in the history of the Anglosphere. Brexit and Trump are part of a wider popular rebellion against the same corrupt, politically correct leftwing globalists in charge here in America, and in Britain and Europe.

If the elites are allowed to kill Brexit, I feel Britain might be “lost” forever, and that would be very bad for America. Brexit is Britain’s final stand: will Britain regain its independence, national identity and sovereignty, or will it be crushed under the bureaucratic fist of the dystopian EU superstate?

British Prime Minister Theresa May replaced David Cameron in 2016 after the Brexit vote. Cameron staked his entire Prime Ministership on Remain prevailing, and when Brexit won he was forced to resign. May was chosen as his successor, however May was never a full supporter of Brexit, and often equivocated on her position. It’s likely May was even secretly fully on-board with Remain. Still, she was determined to be the right person to lead Britain forward in the wake of the Brexit vote. She and her cabinet have been negotiating the terms of Brexit for over two years now, and at last the contours of her “deal” are coming into focus.

Regardless of her original position on Brexit in 2016, it’s undeniable by now that May lacks either the desire or the ability to do right by the British voters who chose to leave the EU. Perhaps she lacks both. The terms she has negotiated with the EU are simply unacceptable for anyone who voted for Brexit. Recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a rising Conservative star and prominent Brexiteer (and hopefully the next Prime Minister) stood in Parliament and denounced May’s “deal”:

“My right honorable friend [May], and she is unquestionably honorable, said that we will leave the Customs Union. Annex 2 says otherwise.

My right honorable friend said that she will maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. The whole protocol says otherwise.

My right honorable friend said that we will be out of the European Court of Justice. Article 174 says otherwise.

All my right honorable friend says and does no longer match.”

Rees-Mogg also said that May’s deal “is not Brexit” and that it “must be rejected.”

Nigel Farage called May the “worst and most duplicitous Prime Minister in British history” and he’s 100% correct. May is so awful it’s hard to put into words.

Fortunately, numerous members of her cabinet have submitted their resignations in protest to her “deal” and it is likely May will be out by the end of the week. Rees-Mogg is said to be supporting Boris Johnson, who publicly campaigned for Brexit before the vote, to be the next Prime Minister. Hopefully, May will be sent packing and true Brexiteers can come in and save Brexit.

What’s at stake in Britain is not simply whether it gets good terms for its departure from the EU, but whether or not democracy still genuinely exists.

In his 2016 book “Why Vote Leave,” Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MP and prominent Brexiteer, documented over a half-dozen instances where the EU outright rejected the results of elections that did not go its way:

Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 9.30.53 AM.png

Paul Joseph Watson claims that May’s Brexit deal was specifically designed to be so bad that it would lead to a second Brexit referendum vote, which the EU hopes will go its way, unlike the 2016 vote. Then, the EU–conniving, corrupted snakes that they are–will claim Remain was the will of the people.

If the voters choose Brexit and their elites overrule them, then what is the point of voting anymore? If the voters choose Trump and the swamp rises up in defiance to destroy him, then why would we ever waste our time with elections again?

Time and again we’re seeing elites reject and subvert democracy when the voters defy them. This is not how it’s supposed to work.

When voters reach the ends of their ropes, and still they are denied the right to vote for the changes they desire, things will get ugly.

The political establishment, in both America and Europe, has been telling voters to go fuck themselves for the past two years.

If the elites think Trump and Brexit are bad, wait until voters come to the conclusion that voting doesn’t actually mean shit. I say it all the time but it’s important to remember: democracy is nothing more than a way to affect political change without violence.

If the elites do not allow voters to affect change with the vote, they’re making a very dangerous wager that the voters will simply accept defeat, and accept the fact that they are not allowed to have a say anymore.

Perhaps the elites will be able to get away with it. Perhaps the voters will simply give up and get the message: the elites know best, and democracy is dead.

But perhaps the voters will be stubborn and insist on getting what they want. At that point, with voting no longer an option, what else can the people do but take up arms?

I must be clear: I do not want a violent uprising. The last thing I want is for democracy to collapse. It’s the elites, in their profound arrogance and entitlement, who are the ones setting us on a course for violence. They’re the ones breaking the social compact.

Western democracy rests on the agreement among the people that we do not have to go to war with one another so long as we are able to resolve our political question by way of the ballot. If one side does not hold up its end of the bargain, then what other option is left for the rest of us?

This is not a threat of violence. It’s a simple request that the elites start holding up their end of the social compact: just give the people what they voted for.

download.jpg