Alt Tech Trailblazer Gab Unleashes The Exodus Protocol

by Brett Stevens on February 7, 2018 made waves in Silicon Valley by being outside Silicon Valley, both in physical location and mental state. Instead of trying to make walled gardens where people could experience digital safe spaces, Gab aimed to re-create the Wild West of the early internet, where there was always something shocking — and actually useful, non-Crowd-converged information — around every corner.

Now, Gab hopes to make waves again with an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) and new censorship-resistant, blockchain-inspired P2P protocol known as The Exodus Protocol. As Gab explains:

Our vision is to evolve beyond one application by empowering developers from around the world to build on top of an open peer-to-peer social media protocol. We are calling this the Exodus Protocol and will be building on top of existing open sourced peer-to-peer technology to create a new peer-to-peer social media protocol of our own. We recognize that existing blockchain technology has many limitations including latency, cost, scalability, and a rapidly evolving ecosystem. While we are excited by the future potential of many projects in the blockchain space, we believe that building on top of existing peer-to-peer protocols such as the Dat Project, IPFS, and existing cryptographic peer-to-peer protocols are the best immediate path forward to getting the Exodus Protocol off the ground.

Peer-to-peer connections and exchanges of value are paramount to our vision for the Exodus Protocol. With this in mind, we’ve determined that an ICO (Initial Coin Offering) is the crowdfunding approach that aligns most directly with Gab’s market offering. We believe that, like many of our users, investors in Gab will be supportive of a crowdfunding campaign that champions a decentralized and truly democratic approach to raising capital. The crypto community inherently understands the importance of defending a free and open exchange of ideas on the web. Our aim is to empower everyone, not simply VCs or the 1%, to participate in our ICO. Unlike many ICOs, Gab has an existing product, customers, brand, and track record of success. We are seeking partners who share our longterm vision for the future and want to help us build a protocol that defends the freedom we love for generations to come.

The primary objective of this ICO fundraising campaign is to establish an Open Developer Ecosystem for the Exodus Protocol. We will follow these key steps to make this happen:

  • Incentivizing developers to build on top of the Exodus Protocol
  • Recruiting select developers who have been scorned by ‘Big Social’
  • Providing an open source protocol that any developer can contribute to or build on

The Exodus Protocol stands for bringing people together of all races, religions, and creeds who share in the common ideals of Western values around individual liberty and the free exchange of ideas.

Much like Neoreactionary ((((((Curtis Yarvin))))))’s Urbit, The Exodus Protocol aims to “re-decentralize” the internet in order to recapture its “Wild West” nature.

When the internet was first introduced to consumers, it represented a radical departure from the paradigm to which they were accustomed: “channels” on a one-way medium, such as how television was beamed to their homes and they could choose what to watch out of what was available at the time from the large corporations and government that provided it as what were effectively monopolies.

By contrast, the internet operated in three dimensions. The user was the channel, and selected information from what was available 24-7; as the famous saying goes, the internet also “routes around” damage or obstructions, so if something was not available one place, it popped up in another.

In an echo of what would be later called “peer to peer” technology, the internet operated on the principle that any computer on the net would forward little bits of information called packets to any other, so that if one computer was unavailable, others would send the information along so it reached its destination. This was the opposite of a single broadcaster offering channels.

Industry hated this model, as did most consumers. They wanted something easy to tune into. For the smarter consumers, the internet was a lifeline that saved them from being enslaved to the same lowest common denominator stuff that won out because the most warm bodies thought it was fine.

That old internet provided better information than we could find anywhere else. Professors, lone inventors, radical dissidents, random geniuses, and other content creators invested many hours into constructing web pages offering a wide variety of information and perspectives. This made the internet the greatest research library in history.

This in turn caused collapse among industries based on scarcity. Cookbooks made money because finding recipes was hard; when everyone could slap their grandma’s orange chocolate chip cookies recipe online, the cookbooks became less valuable. Movie and music reviews exerted Darwinistic pressure on the industry by quickly calling out the worst of the worst.

Technical information, hacks and knowledge about products, and descriptions of basically every place on Earth hit the internet. This both democratized knowledge by making it freely available and encouraged elite contributors to put their viewpoints out there, which allowed regular people to make connections between different ideas and enhance their own understanding.

Its darkside was that it killed all secret places, local culture, and exclusive activities by revealing them to people across the globe. The best local bar was now an article on a large website; your favorite record store became an eBay superstar; those out-of-the-way places to take a date were now flooded with people who read about them on AOL or Yelp.

This democratization killed off industries based on the “channel” paradigm. Your travel agent was a channel; now, you just went online to book hotels and flights. Manufacturers were a channel; instead of using their booklets, you found someone else who had fixed the gadget and took their advice. Experts and gatekeepers of all kind were under assault.

Around the year 2000, industry finally found a way to recapture the internet: centralize it. Instead of having consumers go to many different sites, have them do all their searches through Google, read all their factual data from Wikipedia, buy all their products from Amazon, and spend all their time on Facebook and Twitter, which shot up in the Google results and so quickly crowded out other, better information just like Wikipedia did.

It took another decade, but soon the “nu-internet” had eclipsed the old. There was no point spending hours creating content to put on an independent website when no one would see it because it got pushed to page seven of the Google search results by Facebook pages, Wikipedia nodes, Amazon products, and iTunes offerings. The old content dried up; the new stuff, which was pulped and sugared like baby food, took over.

This even affected intelligent users because they simply could not find their way to the “underground” content outside the Googlesphere. Instead, they had to hack through the same content that everyone else had, and this meant that this content had to be made inoffensive, to keep the consumers happy, and manipulative, to keep money flowing into the FAANG companies.

While this meant a decrease in the diversity of the internet and the loss of much of its great information, companies loved it: they had greater control over their brands, and now they had the exclusive power of “channels” again. Consumers went to a handful of sites about any product or brand, and never looked beyond it, so they could be controlled.

At the same time, many of us were seeing a trope we recognized from the early days of computing: yesterday’s heroes become tomorrow’s villains, mainly because once a company succeeds and hires lots of people, it needs to squeeze more money out of its product and it does that by manipulating consumers to use its products more and avoid those of its competitors.

The Google ecosystem, once legendary for email and a search engine that indexed more pages than any other, now became a way to force people to use Google’s advertising, to manipulate search results to benefit advertisers, and to crowd out any pages that did not follow the Google way. Even their recent switch to demanding encrypted pages reflected a desire to exclude non-conformists.

As a result, the big story of the 2010s has been the revolt against the newly-centralized internet, and a desire to return to the days when choice and actual diversity defined the internet, so that people are again incentivized to put quality content online. Gab, Urbit, BitTorrent and other decentralized, peer-to-peer notions are leading that charge.

Combining antitrust law with libertarian ideals of freedom of association leading to competition, Gab addresses this change as the future of the internet, which as large giants like Facebook and Google reveal themselves to be just as manipulative as the old monopolists, and compulsively forcing us into “channels” instead of three-dimensional user space, seems necessary:

Google’s exclusion of Gab from the Google Play store in April 2017 was arbitrary, anti-competitive, and in clear violation of federal antitrust laws.

This analysis was made under the narrowest and most conservative interpretation of the Sherman Act, rather than under any broad view of the market power created by network effects or by making free speech an intrinsic good. Nonetheless, it’s impossible not to consider the larger issues of internet censorship.

Gab has been directly impacted by the digital gatekeepers of the centralized internet as we know it, and we take this to be a dangerous attack on free speech across the board. Those who support free speech on social media should support the Exodus Protocol as a revolutionary new means of communication and connection protected from censorship, regulatory interference and/or intimidation.

While Gab’s fight against BigTech’s control on speech may not immediately topple the giants, it is a critical first step in showing that these companies cannot arbitrarily use their market power to stamp out pro-free speech competitors.

As mainstream social networks continue to censor certain views and crack down on what they choose to be ‘objectionable content,’ consumers’ hunger for alternative platforms will only continue to rise. In addition, the trend of ‘cutting the cord’ will also continue as the popularity of streaming content over the internet increases.

The Exodus Protocol is well-positioned to outlive, outlast and benefit from this fragmentation of the mainstream social networking ecosystem into smaller niche communities with shared values and ideals.

They point to the rise in ad blocking as a symptom of the need for this change, but we might also point to the flight away from Facebook and Twitter by many of their more advanced users, creating a “MySpace cycle” where companies die as their most savvy users flee once the crowd arrives.

The internet succeeded, and by succeeding, it failed, because in attracting large industry and a clueless consumer base, it removed what made it successful and replaced it with what people were familiar with. That excluded those who form the cutting edge of user experience, and catapulted users back into the bad old days.

Gab is attempting to fix this with its social media platform and new features that advanced users desire:

This past week we filed our Offering Circular with the SEC for review, becoming one of the first companies in the world to do so. We expect to hear back from them sometime over the next several weeks.

Our Testing The Waters campaign has reached a phenomenal $4.7 million dollars in reservations for our ICO out of our goal of $10 million total. This is truly a people-powered revolt against Big Tech and Silicon Valley and we are excited to continue on this journey with you to defend individual liberty, free speech, and the free flow of information on the internet.

In the last quarter alone we have shipped many new product improvements and features. We’ve also expanded our engineering and design teams and are in the process of revamping the entire user interface of Gab to make it easier to use for everyone.

Here are just some of the many things we have shipped this quarter:

  • The ability for creators to make money via tips/subs‬
  • Longer posts up to 3,000 characters, formatting (bold, italic, underline)
  • Totally overhauled Android app
  • A brand new mobile site‬ experience
  • Favorite topics feature
  • Revamped search feature‬
  • A new Gab Shop with stickers, shirts, and more

We also recently passed a big milestone of 400,000 total Gab accounts.

In my view, the social media site is a jump-start to something much larger, which is a decentralized internet where independent contributors can be recognized outside of social media sites, which end up being conformist by their very nature as mass media with the ensuing demands for content to be inoffensive and dumbed down.

This could be the birth of a useful internet again.

Responding to the Cult of Sargon

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 11, 2017

Sargon bringing a friend home to meet his wife, colorized 2018

As we reported yesterday, Sargon of Akkad has declared himself the leader of a cult – “The Liberalists,” he’s called it – and declared that one of the main purposes of his cult is to fight us, the Alt-Right.

I don’t have to tell you what comes next.

I am going to lay down some basic points to cut through this gibberish he is pushing. Not that you don’t all already see through it. But I want to catalog it together for you, so you’ve got all the angles you need when addressing Sargon or the members of his new cult.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

He appears to be hinging his entire cult doctrine on some sort of as-of-yet undefined form of radical individualism.

This is not something that most people actually even comprehend – and I am one of those people.

He’s doing an emperor’s new clothes thing here, acting like there is some fundamental distinction between his beliefs about the individual and our beliefs about the individual, but he doesn’t break that down into any detail, because the only thing he is actually saying is that he believes that nonwhites should be treated as individuals and we do not.

In an all-white country, we wouldn’t infringe on people’s rights or outlaw private property. In fact, people would have a lot more rights than they have now. The only rights that would be curtailed are the new rights that have been given to people by the Jews over the last few decades, such as homosexuality and miscegenation – and the reason we would be curtailing these rights is that giving individuals these rights infringes on the rights of other individuals to not have to deal with the consequences of these actions.

In a white America, individual families would have the right to go out in public and not have to see men kissing one another.

Because the idea that an no individual’s decisions affect other individuals in harmful ways is nonsensical. It is just a goofy, dumb claim.

Beyond sexual things, I don’t really have any idea what he is on about. The only form of extreme “collectivism” that I can really imagine is a Marxist collective, where hierarchy is removed through economic scheming. We do not want to ban the free market (nationally, obviously globalism is negative), we don’t want to take away private property.

We want people to be able to think freely, we just don’t want foreign groups in our countries aggressively pushing for the interests of a foreign people.

Furthermore, the concept of a “collective” is basic human nature and the idea of an “individualist” is really a myth. Every individual person exists as a part of a society, short of a hermit living alone in a cave. Everyone is in a collective now. Sargon just formed a new one. What happens when you use multiculturalism and sexual deviancy to remove the main collective of a cohesive dominant culture is that people form new, smaller collectives, and society atomizes.

Churches, universities, hobbies, etc. are all collectives.

We all remember high school, where the kids who made a point to be different tended to all be similar to one another. When I was in high school at the turn of the millennium, there were gothics – they all claimed to want to be different, yet they all dressed alike and were interested in the same things.

This goes back to our basic biology, which is tribal in nature. Our brains are hardwired to come together with a group and to adopt the same symbols, beliefs and behaviors of that group. You cannot disprove that, because it is an obvious fact. And again: the hilarious thing here is that Sargon’s own “scene” (now an official cult) proves this point. What were called the “skeptics,” which he is now calling “the Liberalists,” all think the same things.

“What if the Child Consents?”

Sargon made a name for himself by deconstruction what SJWs were saying. He was simply attacking them, breaking down why everything they are saying is stupid.

Picking apart something someone else is saying – in particular when it is something as stupid as what SJWs say – is very different than advocating FOR something.

It appears as though he hadn’t really put too much thought into what he was advocating for until he realized that the Alt-Right was advocating for something and that in order to address what we are saying he has to be advocating for something. He had vague ideas relating to the philosophy of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but even though I have my disagreements with this particular philosophy, it doesn’t even really work in the way he is trying to use it. These were white men who would appalled at the idea of a multi-racial society.

All of these men he cites were a product of white society and formed their philosophy in that context.

So, in order to fill-in the blanks of his advocacy position, he simply decided to adopt modern extremist libertarian positions – specifically because that critique can be used against any system whatsoever. In his debate with Richard Spencer, he was asking him to solve problems that have existed for centuries in relation to the structure of governments, the social order and the management of economies.

But how far is he willing to go with “freedom of the individual”?

For instance, does he believe in legalizing hard drugs? Voluntary indentured servitude?

That parents have a right to starve their children to death?

Does he want to eliminate all social safety nets?

Most importantly: what if the child consents?

Of course, he will claim he is not an anarcho-capitalist, but that is the line of argument he is using when he claims that the Alt-Right can’t work because no ordered system ever can work.

The reason he can’t use the purely classical liberal line against the Alt-Right is that any of those arguments can be easily addressed. Again: we have a position on individual rights, private property and free markets that is very easy to grasp and very difficult to argue against, so he’s started using arguments from a system he claims he doesn’t even support just to give his critique the illusion of substance.

Pointing this out demonstrates that he is not actually proposing anything – that his only concern is with not being a racist. And it is easy to point out by simply forcing him to address the extremist libertarian positions he is arguing from.

No One Wants to Die for an Abstract Concept

Sargon seems to underestimate just how serious the state of the world is for most people. Our society has effectively already collapsed.

And the last thing anyone wants to fight for is some weird abstract idea that no one really even understands.

Sargon is saying “yes, race exists and yes, multiculturalism has had a negative effect on white people – but we can’t address that issue because of this abstract concept. Instead, we have to fight to preserve the abstract concept.”

Well, fighting for abstract concepts is for people who are not backed up against the wall. It is simply the realm of the hobby to go to war over a philosophical ideal.

In the 1960s, people fought for all of this “liberation” that Sargon is defending because there was no risk. The baby boomers lived very comfortably, so fighting for “freedom” was just like a game.

Things have changed. We are now in an extreme situation, where people are very alienated, they are struggling just to survive. People are ready to put their entire being into a fight for a better future.

The only things that are actually worth giving your entire being to fight for are things that exist in real life.

At one point in his recent stream with Mister Metokur, Sargon did mention along with his desire to fight for an abstraction that he doesn’t want trannies teaching his kid to cut his dick off. That is the only real life thing he mentioned. The rest of it was vague abstractions, which again, he hasn’t defined.

Presumably, he also wouldn’t want a daughter to be sex trafficked by a Pakistani rape-gang. He doesn’t want his house burned down by a roving pack of Africans. He doesn’t want to be forced into third-world living conditions. He doesn’t want to feel like a stranger in his own home, being surrounded by people that speak hundreds of different languages. He doesn’t want Britain to become an Islamic state. And he doesn’t want to be arrested for talking about any of these things.

So even if you eliminate race from your perception entirely, the effects of race do not just magically disappear. And the idea that vague notions of “individual liberty” and other abstract ideas are going to hold this multiracial circus show together is utterly nonsensical. We are dealing with real life problems that require real life solutions.

And when you are living with real life, reality is the only thing that matters.

What is the Point of Multiculturalism?

Sargon still has failed to explain the positive of why you would want brown people in your country. Instead, he only puts forward negative arguments against people arguing for white countries – it’s mean, it’s immoral, but they have rights now because they are already here, you can’t even tell for sure if someone is 100% genetically white, etc.

But the question remains: can he name a single benefit derived from having nonwhites in our countries?

Because if not, his entire negative argument of why it would be wrong to remove them is meaningless.

He seems to at least tacitly admit that multiracialism has detrimental effects (even if he claims that these effects somehow have no relationship to race), but hinges everything on the alleged immorality of removing them.

Imagine if you get shot and you’re bleeding out, but there is a lot of traffic on the road to the hospital: is your solution going to be to stay and home and bleed to death? And then if a family member is like “hey, you’d better do something, you’re going to bleed to death,” do you start arguing with them about how it is impossible to get to the hospital and so you just have to make the best of bleeding to death?

If we accept that multiculturalism is an extreme disaster, then we need to work on fixing the situation – not to find some impossible method of dealing with an unbearable situation.

That’s All I’ve Got

Hopefully in the near future Sargon will be releasing an agenda of some kind. It is currently frustrating to critique him given that he has put so little forward with regards to his vision for society. But this is what we’ve got right now.

Andy Warski has announced that Richard Spencer and Sargon will be having a second debate – this time with Mike Enoch included.

So that is going to be good.

Honestly, I’m not sure how Sargon will be able to continue with this agenda after that. I think the “I’m sorry I performed so poorly in the debate – I am now the leader of a cult” trick will only work once.

In the Midst of Psychological Collapse, Sargon of Akkad Declares Himself Leader of Bizarre Cult

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 10, 2018

Sargon has issued an apology for his poor debate performance against Richard Spencer – and during that apology, declared that he is now the leader of a bizarre cult!

Basically, Sargon had nowhere to go other than down, down, down, having been brutally destroyed by the Alt-Right’s worst debater – so he decided to go up! Up straight to the top! Of a cult!

And get this: he’s calling it “The Liberalists”! He frames this like he’s forming a political movement, but no one announces a political movement and gives it a name! You do that with cults!

He says that he’s going to do real life meet-ups, and try to convert people to his beliefs. If that was as simple as your plan was, you could just go do it – there is no need to announce it with a declaration of a name.

After having declared himself leader, Akkad then decided to go up against the number one guy on the internet famous for making people look stupid.

Mister Metokur was mocking Sargon’s freshly minted cult on Twitter and Sargon sent one of his minions to pull him into a stream

The stream was nuts.

Sargon declares that his purpose in forming the cult is to bring down his enemies – which include not only blue-haired feminists, but also the Alt-Right!

When Metokur asked him why he views the Alt-Right as enemies, he said it is because we say bad things about him. So he is forming a group of radical individuals to defend his honor. Also, he wants to stop trannies from brainwashing his son, which is tacked-on presumably to make the rest of it seem less confounding. But the Alt-Right already has a plan to solve that issue.

So the idea that he needs to form an organization in order to fight this particular issue is nonsense. He could just join the Alt-Right like everyone else if this was a genuine concern – and every legitimate concern he mentions is one that we would agree with. And I don’t say that to say “only the ones I agree with are legitimate,” but just that the rest of what he says is either “destroy my enemies” or something utterly vague and undefined.

The idea that his defeat by Richard Spencer didn’t prompt this move to form a group to defeat his enemies is evidenced by the fact that the video itself is framed both as an apology for losing the debate and a declaration of leadership.

The guy is off his bloody rocker, and the effect of having tens of thousands of people on the internet attacking him as pathetic for being unable to defend his own stated positions has rattled him to his core and he’s unable to hold it together.

He is used to winning, because he fights the lowest of low-hanging fruit in the form of SJWs. Him going against Spencer thinking he could do him the same way as he does Anita Sarkeesian was like a professional baby-kicker deciding to go fight a Gundam and attempting to use the same moves on it he uses to incapacitate babies.

He sees the writing on the wall – that his movement is collapsing due to it not being very interesting intellectually and not offering any actual solutions to anything.

And despite his belief in individualism, no one is actually an individual in real life – there is basic evolutionary biology involved here – so we have such an extreme upper-hand, being in accordance with the order of nature, that we can just grab all of his followers.

And there is the core of it: he believes that it might be possible to keep his followers by trying to rally them into a movement similar to the Alt-Right.

It’s a Hail Mary.

Because his only other option would be to join the dark side himself. But he would rather just collapse his career than do that.

This play, though admittedly the best he could have made, obviously won’t work.

I can’t think of anything else he could have done, to be honest, but he didn’t have to give it a name so everyone would accuse him of forming a cult and he didn’t have to make his first in-depth explanation of it on a stream with fucking Metokur.

He is not well.

I Still Don’t Know What He is On About

To be perfectly honest, I still don’t really have any idea what he is even advocating for.

He talks about John Locke, and basically that is an obsolete philosophical system that only currently remains in the public mind because it is useful for the system to have it there – radical individualism has been fully disproved by evolutionary psychology, and just basic reality itself, which demonstrates that people will naturally form groups and define their identity in relation to the group, which ironically is what he just announced he is doing. But more importantly, Locke wasn’t advocating for flooding Britain with brown people from everywhere.

Regardless of the idiocy of summoning up a dead philosophical system to make his arguments, his basic vague points about individual liberty, freedom of association and property rights I think everyone in the Alt-Right – and anyone else who isn’t a radical progressive leftist for that matter – would just take for granted. Because these things are obvious necessities of any society.

So the point of disagreement comes down solely to the race issue, and he isn’t able to explain why it is that anyone would want to live around third world parasites. We have done a pretty darned good job explaining why we don’t want to live around them.

So instead of addressing the core premise of “we want our own country,” he goes into bizarre hypotheticals about the logistics of actually removing these people from our countries.

The reason that he mixes discussion of individualism with discussion of race isn’t because they are actually related, but because he is callously trying to confuse his followers into believing they are related. Even if you believed the philosophy of Locke, he didn’t apply the tabula rasa to brown people. That philosophy was a product of a white European society and only ever intended to apply to such a society. So if you actually did believe that, you’d be pushing just as hard as anyone to have these people removed.

In order to apply Lockean individualism to brown people, you have to place it in the context of Boasian anthropology – the “race doesn’t exist” theory. And I assume that Sargon is unwilling to promote that particular theory, as if he were, he wouldn’t need all the weird logistics hypotheticals he threw at Spencer.

Bottom line: all of this reeks of a man who had a taste of power desperately attempting to hold onto that power in the face of a challenge to it. He cannot directly defeat the challenge, so he is using dishonest, snakelike tactics.

I will tell you this though: I sure do love the internet.

Steve Bannon Attempting to Walk-Back Inflammatory Comments

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 8, 2018

I have already said I think he must have been drunk when he made these statements, because even if he wanted to say them, why would he say them to a book author instead of the press directly?


Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said Sunday he regretted not responding sooner to comments attributed to him that were critical of Donald Trump Jr. in an explosive new book on the White House.

“Donald Trump, Jr. is both a patriot and a good man,” read Bannon’s statement, which CNN obtained Sunday from a source close to Bannon. “He has been relentless in his advocacy for his father and the agenda that has helped turn our country around.”

The statement later adds: “I regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president’s historical accomplishments in the first year of (Trump’s) presidency.”

Along with the above statements made to Axios, he released a media statement saying he was actually talking about Paul Manafort when he said “treason.”

The Guardian:

The Guardian revealed last week that Bannon, formerly Trump’s chief strategist, said a Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr and Russians during the 2016 presidential election campaign was “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”.

In his statement given to the Guardian and other outlets on Sunday, Bannon did not apologise for any of his remarks to the author Michael Wolff, which included strident criticisms of the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump – whom he called “dumb as a brick” – and her husband, ((((((Jared Kushner)))))).

But he said he should have been quicker to clarify that his remarks about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower referred to Trump’s then campaign chairman, who was also present.

“My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate,” Bannon said. “He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.”

This is pretty garbled. Apparently he is saying he was misquoted? As in, words that he did not say were attributed to him?

If that was the case why didn’t he immediately come out with the statement?

The White House is saying Steve will never be invited back into confidence.

The Hill:

A White House official told Politico that it was “unlikely” Stephen Bannon would return to his former status in President Trump’s circle after Bannon released a statement reiterating his support for Trump.

Bannon called Donald Trump Jr. a “patriot” and a “good man” in a statement earlier Sunday, adding that he regretted not addressing comments attributed to him in a new bombshell book about Trump’s White House.

However, Politico reported that several Trump administration officials said the statement did not change the views of Bannon by those close to Trump.
Bannon said in the statement that his support for Trump was “unwavering” and that “President Trump was the only candidate that could have taken on and defeated the Clinton apparatus.”

Trump releasing a blistering statement claiming that Bannon “lost his mind” after the comments attributed to Bannon first emerged.

The former chief strategist is quoted in Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” as saying the Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer was “treasonous.”

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV,” Bannon says in the book.

I think it’s fair enough to dump the guy.

The question now is whether or not Breitbart will dump him, and I think that if they are able, they will.

It’s all very sad. I don’t understand why someone would destroy their career and their legacy this way.

I guess the lesson is: if you’re totally plastered, go home. Don’t talk to reporters you may pass on your way home.

Iran’s Attorney General Names CIA Mastermind Of Iran Protests

Iran’s Attorney General is accusing a US-Israeli-Saudi think thank of masterminding the Iran protests:

“TEHRAN, Jan. 04 (MNA) – Attorney General Montazeri on Thu. revealed that the mastermind behind the eruption of protests in the country was a US-Israeli-Saudi think tank that had been plotting for the rallies since four years ago.

Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, Iran’s Attorney General, revealed the details about a think tank responsible for the week-long protests in several cities across the country, saying “the mastermind of the project was an American named Michael D’Andrea, former Chief of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center [current head of the Agency’s Iran Mission Center], and an operations room composed of three sides, namely the United States, Zionist regime and Al Saud, was formed for leading the unrest. The project was funded by Saudi Arabia and mainly planned by D’Andrea and an intelligence officer affiliated with [Israel’s intelligence agency] Mossad.”

He went on to add that the think tank conducted years of research and finally decided on launching campaigns inside Iran under the titles, ‘no to price hikes’, ‘no to paying bills’, and the campaign of the retired and those who lost their money in bankrupt financial institutes.

The think tank finally decided on executing the Libyan plan, i.e. moving from the margins toward the center, he added. …”

Last June, The New York Times ran an article about Michael D’Andrea called “C.I.A. Names the ‘Dark Prince’ to Run Iran Operations, Signaling a Tougher Stance”:

“WASHINGTON — He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.

Now the official, Michael D’Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.’s Iran operations, according to current and former intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the president took against Iran during his campaign.

Mr. D’Andrea’s new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said. The agency also recently named a new chief of counterterrorism, who has begun pushing for greater latitude to strike militants. …

But he has invoked his hard line on Iran in other ways. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has described the deal as a failure, and Mr. Trump has appointed to the National Security Council hawks eager to contain Iran and push regime change, the groundwork for which would most likely be laid through C.I.A. covert action.”

Asked whether Mr. D’Andrea’s appointment was a sign that the C.I.A. planned to take up a more aggressive line toward Iran, Mr. Eatinger said, “I don’t think it’s the wrong read.”

What do you think?

Is this Ayatollah Mike behind the Iran protests? I would say there is a pretty damn high chance given the timing and the 24/7 shilling for regime change by American politicians.

Note: Can you tell the difference between Donald Trump and Marco Rubio’s foreign policy?


US Intelligence Reportedly Gives Israel Green Light to Assassinate Iran’s Top General

According to reports circulating widely in Israeli media today, the United States has quietly given Israel the green light to assassinate Iran’s top military officer, Iranian Revolutionary Guards al-Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. The leader of Iran’s most elite force also coordinates military activity between the Islamic Republic and Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, and Hamas – a position he’s filled since 1998 – and as Quds Force commander reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and oversees Iran’s covert operations in foreign countries.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have vowed to crack harshly down on protests currently gripping multiple major cities across the country, now in their fifth day, and after a particularly bloody night which saw 12 demonstrators killed – some of them reportedly shot by security forces.

The report, though unconfirmed, originated in a Kuwaiti newspaper and is now going viral through a Times of Israel story. The Times of Israel summarizes the context as follows:

Thursday’s report by al-Jarida, which has been known to publish improbable-sounding stories about Israel, was widely picked up by Israeli media. There was no immediate reaction to the report from Jerusalem or Washington.

Three years ago, Israel came close to assassinating Soleimani near Damascus, al-Jarida quoted unnamed source as saying, but the Americans tipped off the Iranians against the background of intense disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem.

That was during the Obama administration, which, according to reports at the time, was so focused on securing the 2015 Iran nuclear accord that it chose to overlook and even obstruct efforts to clamp down on Iranian-backed terror organizations. It’s not clear if the reported tip-off was related to efforts to secure the Iran deal.

And concerning the current go-ahead for new assassination plans reportedly given by US intelligence to the Israelis:

The source was quoted by the paper as saying that Soleimani’s assassination would serve both countries’ interests and that US authorities have given Israel the go-ahead to carry it out.

Israel has been known to conduct high-risk secretive assassinations in foreign countries over the past years and decades. One notable headline grabbing operation, reportedly by Mossad agents, occurred in 2010 and resulted in the assassination of a top Hamas commander who had checked into a high end Dubai hotel after flying in from Syria.

An eleven man Israeli hit squad had entered the hotel while dressed in tennis gear and carrying tennis rackets, and were later reported to be traveling on fake Irish and French passports. After conducting surveillance the Mossad agents got Hamas’ Mahmoud al-Mabhouh to open his hotel room door and quickly suffocated him without arousing suspicion from other hotel guests. By the time the body was discovered, the assassins had flown out of Dubai to various locations around the world and were never seen again.

And in 2015 a secret document revealed by The Intercept as part of the Edward Snowden leaked NSA archives confirmed that Israeli agents had assassinated a top Syrian general and personal aide to President Assad in 2008 while the general dined at his family home near Tartus, along the Syrian coast. The daring operation involved Israeli naval commandos and snipers targeting Gen. Muhammad Suleiman’s house from the waters of the Mediterranean and shooting him in the head and neck. Israel considered him responsible for coordinating weapons and supplies between Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, as well as overseeing an alleged nascent nuclear development program at Syria’s Al Kibar facility which had previously been bombed by Israeli jets.

Six months prior to Syrian General Suleiman’s murder, a top Hezbollah officer was killed by a joint CIA-Mossad operation in the heart of Damascus. According to former intelligence officials who confirmed the assassination plot to the Washington Post, a car bomb planted near a Damascus downtown restaurant instantly killed Imad Mughniyah – Hezbollah’s international operations chief who was believed to have masterminded several terror attacks targeting Americans.

So concerning these latest reports unconfirmed reports that Iran’s Qassem Soleimani might be in Mossad’s crosshairs, while such a high risk operation against a top Iranian official would be unlikely to succeed, it is certainly not without precedent.