Michael Goodwin: FBI memo proves the ‘deep state’ is real – and the press is part of it

Now that we know what the declassified House memo says about government misconduct, we also know what it means: The Washington swamp — the deep state — is bigger, more vicious and more dangerous to American liberty than even a cynic could have imagined.

Because of the memo and previous revelations, we know that swamp creatures are embedded in the top of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Some used their power to try to tip a presidential campaign based on their personal politics.

They conducted a sham investigation of the Democratic candidate and misled federal judges to spy on at least one associate of her Republican challenger.

To block exposure of their misdeeds, these officials falsely claimed that national security would be damaged. Add that despicable lie — issued in the name of the FBI itself — to their shameful records.

Thanks to the battle over the memo, we also know with 100 percent certainty that the mainstream media is part of the swamp. The efforts by The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, to keep the memo from ever seeing sunshine were appalling.

Before it saw the memo, the Times’ editorial page called it proof of “The Republican Plot Against the FBI.” A Washington Post columnist warned President Trump he would be making a historic mistake in releasing it.

To the Trump haters, these facts don’t matter. He is, in their minds, unfit to be president, so nothing short of assassination is out of bounds.

“Presidents don’t win fights with the FBI,” Eugene Robinson wrote, seemingly endorsing the blackmailing habits of the disgraced J. Edgar Hoover.

Oddly, the campaign by those papers coincided with the celebration of their roles in releasing the Pentagon Papers nearly 50 years ago, as heroically depicted in the movie “The Post.”

Then, those papers took great risks in standing up for the First Amendment in the face of government threats and financial pressures. Now, those same papers take the side of butt-covering secrecy and demonize those who demand transparency.

Those organizations are betraying their legacies and their duties as journalists. They share with corrupt officials a hatred of Donald Trump and believe that ending his presidency justifies any and all means.

Their motives are as partisan as that of the Democrats who fought tooth and nail to scuttle the memo.

Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

The details of the memo make a strong case that current and former officials committed crimes by misleading FISA court judges in seeking four surveillance warrants against Carter Page, a bit player in the Trump campaign ­orbit.

Those details seal the sordid legacy of former FBI Director James Comey. He signed off on three warrant requests, reportedly without informing the judges that the essential piece of evidence against Page was the infamous Russian dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Months later, Comey himself told Congress the dossier was “salacious and unverified,” yet was secretly willing to use it in court against Page.

Its author, Christopher Steele, a former British spy, never went to Russia to interview his paid sources, some of whom were Kremlin officials. Did the judges know any of that before letting the FBI read Page’s emails and listen to his phone calls?

Steele was hired by the FBI, then fired when he shared his dossier with the press and lied about it. He also confided to an agent that he loathed Trump and “was passionate about him not ­being president.”

Did the agent, Bruce Ohr, whose wife worked for the same firm as Steele, Fusion GPS, tell the judges that? Did Comey? The memo says no.

Without knowing that partisan link, the court was deprived of evidence that would have called into question the surveillance request. Indeed, the memo claims that Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director removed for his conduct during the separate Clinton investigation, testified that no warrant would have been sought “without the Steele dossier information.”

Not incidentally, current FBI Director Christopher Wray and his team read the memo before it was released, and did not dispute McCabe’s claim.

To the Trump haters, these facts don’t matter. He is, in their minds, unfit to be president, so nothing short of assassination is out of bounds.

Yet it is a mistake to view the memo’s revelations through the lens of whether you like Trump, or what you think of Carter Page. The ultimate issues are no more limited to them than were other landmark moments in American history limited by the personal interests of the parties involved.

The case in which Nazis were permitted to march in the Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, Ill., was not an approval of Nazis. The issue was whether repugnant speech has the same rights as popular speech.

The Supreme Court effectively said it did in a 1977 ruling that strengthened First Amendment rights for all Americans.

Similarly, the “Miranda warning” that allows a suspect in police custody to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination stems from a case involving a hideously violent criminal. Ernesto Miranda ultimately was convicted of kidnapping and rape, yet all suspects, innocent and guilty, benefit from the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in his favor.

Rulings like those weave the Founders’ ideals of equality into the fabric of contemporary life and make America the beacon of hope to the world.

Something even larger is now at stake. Trump is the great disrupter who has overthrown the established political order like no one in modern history, and many opponents have lost their bearings in resisting his presidency.

In their rage and bigotry, they are willing to abandon fundamental principles. We only know this because he won the election; none of this shocking misconduct would have been revealed under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The claims in the memo that FBI and Justice officials acted corruptly should concern all fair-minded Americans, regardless of political preference. Those claims force us to ask whether we are a nation of laws that apply equally to all.

If not, we are no longer America. We are a banana republic where it’s acceptable for the government to use its police powers against political opponents.

The choice we face is especially stark given that the case at hand potentially implicates other top aides to former President Barack Obama. Recall that Page and others linked to Trump were accused of having ties to Russia, then their names were leaked to the media in a bid to sway the election and then to topple the president. There may be other flimsy FISA applications covering other Trump associates we don’t yet know about.

The memo is a giant step in ­uncovering what appears to be an unprecedented conspiracy, but it is not the endgame. More documents, congressional hearings, investigations and criminal prosecutions are unavoidable.

Hysterical Trump haters greeted the memo’s release by declaring that we face a constitutional crisis. They are right — and they are creating it.

The FBI plot to overthrow the presidency and commit organized TREASON in America

 by: 

Most people never thought they would see the day that the FBI would become so politicized that many of its members actively lie and commit treason in an attempt to bring down the President of the United States, but alas, here we are.

While our criminal justice system was originally established to give all Americans, regardless of their background and political ideology, fair and equal treatment under the law, that all changed when Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States. With the Department of Justice under his control, Obama was able to appoint radical leftists like Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to do his bidding, which mostly consisted of race-baiting and using the law to specifically target conservative Americans. In this way, the justice system became not only entangled in rampant corruption, but also a weapon used by the left to destroy their political enemies.

Today, even though Donald Trump has taken over Barack Obama’s seat inside the Oval Office, rogue Obama appointees that still reside in the Department of Justice are doing what they’ve always done; the only difference is that now they have the advantage of working to dismantle the conservative movement from within.

Perhaps one of the most outrageous and desperate allegations made by the left in recent history is the idea that President Trump and various members of his team colluded with the Russians throughout the 2016 presidential election, which ultimately helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton last November. Despite no concrete evidence whatsoever, the liberals, including and especially leftists within the mainstream media, have been hellbent on convincing the American people that something illegal occurred. Eventually, they were rewarded for their efforts with the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has gone on to conduct one of the most biased and politicized FBI investigations in American history.

To give just one example, it was recently revealed that a top FBI agent at the center of the investigation into the so-called “Russia collusion scandal,” Peter Strzok, exchanged several anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who was also appointed to Mueller’s investigative team. Although Strzok was suspended from the investigation for his overwhelming bias, it goes to show that Robert Mueller really didn’t take enough time to ensure that his team was fair and honest in the first place. (Related: The bogus “Trump-Russia collusion” story is nothing but a political hatchet job cooked up by Obama loyalist John Brennan.)

It’s also worth noting that Peter Strzok was the FBI’s lead investigator on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails during her time as Secretary of State. Strzok even interviewed Clinton on July 2, 2016, just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not be recommending any charges. If Peter Strzok is this biased and this willing to defend liberal Democrats, why would Robert Mueller recruit him for his team?

Of course, Peter Strzok is only one of many individuals on Robert Mueller’s team that has an obvious left-wing slant. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, for example, was involved in both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server and the investigation into the uranium one sale, neither of which conveniently resulted in legal consequences for Clinton. McCabe’s wife also received roughly $675,000 from Clinton supporters and left-wing organizations during her campaign for Virginia state senate. Other people on Mueller’s team with liberal biases include Andrew Weissmann, Justin Cooper, Jeannie Rhee, Bruce Ohr, and others.

If all of this isn’t enough to convince you that this entire investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election is just a politicized witch hunt designed to destroy President Trump and his administration, then what is?

UK: Man Snaps and Stabs Thot to Death

Eric Striker

Daily Stormer
January 25, 2018


A very good looking couple is in the news. Instead of settling down and contributing beautiful children to the world, the female half woke up one day and decided she’d rather be a coke whore.

This is a story most Millennial men are sadly familiar with.

We want love, children and families, yet today’s women don’t want it until they’ve racked up enough notches to fit around their expanding gut.

But what happened next I cannot condone [Editor’s Note: I can. -AA].

The betrayed man stalked the woman then stabbed her to death. There’s thot patrolling, but this is brutality.

This is now the number one news story in Britain, obviously because the culprit is white. Places like London and Manchester are infested with violent immigrant crime (including rape and murder), but that’s not politically correct to talk about.

I haven’t looked through all of it, but I’m sure there’s lots of long op-eds about the problem of “white toxic masculinity” and how women who feel no respect, love or accountability towards men they choose to get into relationships with are the real victim.

The Sun:

A STUDENT was stabbed to death by her ex seven minutes after messaging pals: “Feel like I’m looking over my shoulder all the time,” a jury heard yesterday.

Molly McLaren, 23, sent the WhatsApp text after Joshua Stimpson tracked her down at her gym, the court was told.

Stimpson, who had two knives and a pickaxe in his bag, put his exercise mat near hers in the empty studio on June 29 last year, jurors heard.

A jury has been shown a blood-soaked Asda knife which it is claimed Molly was stabbed to death with by “manipulative and nasty” Stimpson.

The 23-year-old was sitting in her Citroen car at the busy Chatham Dockside Outlet in Kent when Stimpson repeatedly knifed her in the neck and head just after 11am on June 29 last year, the court heard.

Police allege that a witness to the attack, Benjamin Morton, tried to pull the 26-year-old off Molly as she screamed.

Asked about whether he had been experiencing any difficulties with his thoughts, he allegedly said: “I must have or I wouldn’t have done this.”

At the start of the trial at Maidstone Crown Court in Kent today, prosecutor Philip Bennetts QC told the jury of seven men and five women: “The defendant has pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis that at the time of the killing he was suffering from diminished responsibility.

“The prosecution do not accept that he was. Psychiatrists will be called by the defence and prosecution to assist you in determining whether he was or was not suffering from diminished responsibility.

“A psychiatrist for the prosecution is clearly of the opinion that this defendant was not.”

The court heard Molly and Stimpson started dating in November 2016 after meeting through Tinder but briefly split four months later.

Stimpson was described as ‘rather demanding’ with Molly often trying to ‘put things right’. He himself said he had ‘intense emotions’.

She finally ended the relationship for good on June 17, just 12 days before she died.

In the intervening days the window firm warehouse worker began posting derogatory comments and photos about the part-time barmaid on Facebook, it is alleged.

These included lies about her using cocaine and he tagged people so that all her family could see.

Molly reported the posts to police on June 22. Stimpson, of High Street Wouldham, near Rochester, Kent, was spoken to but it allegedly continued.

The previous day Molly had told a relative she feared he would hurt her.

Describing him as “manipulative and turning nasty”, she allegedly told the relative: “I am actually scared about what he might do.

“I’m scared he might hurt me. I don’t know how on edge he is.”

Mr Bennetts said Stimpson “may or may not” have also been stalking Molly after their break-up, but he did begin to follow her.

I know a coke slut when I see one, and this guy wasn’t lying.

Here’s what really happened: she started ghosting and flaking this dude to bang drug dealers in night club bathrooms, he’s emotionally unhinged, so he started stalking her until he saw something that made him flip out.

You have to be emotionally and mentally tough to navigate this modern world. No men in all of human history have had to live through something like this.

It’s a myth that this is unique to ugly, loser or even weak men. Most men can at least process their surroundings, become jaded and callous, then enjoy the entertainment value of being man-whores while it lasts.

But certain more sensitive types simply lose their minds. Usually it manifests in alcohol abuse and sterile disposable sexual relationships, but in extreme cases it can result in violence. Millennial women are monsters, but lashing out like this only makes the problem worse.

The court would be sympathetic if he was a Pakistani, but because of his race, they will not even entertain the thought of him losing his mind in a fit of passion. The Queen is going to give him whatever the British equivalent of the chair is for this egregious overreaction to hypergamy and feminism.

You’re supposed to sit there and take it like a good cuck, because it’s specifically engineered by Jews to cause a below replacement white birth rate.


On the bright side for Mr. Stimpson, he will now get thousands of fawning marriage proposals from female admirers as a handsome and famous murderer.

This is how the world works when women are given all the power. The only thing reliable about this dynamic is that it helps destroy society.

Welcome to the United Clowndom!

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.

Straight Men Will Soon Be Called Homophobic For Not Sleeping With Gays And Trannies

by

In 2017, straight men who refuse to date biological males dressed like women were shamed on a number of occasions for being “transphobic.” We should expect that at some stage, very possibly in 2018 or 2019, heterosexual males will also begin to be attacked en masse for not wanting to have sex with men.

Obsessions over “gender fluidity” and the rise of SJW brainwashing amongst kids, including those in elementary school, mean that expressing a perfectly normal and healthy heterosexual preference is becoming increasingly hard. In Australia, one notorious transgender Marxist, Roz Ward, went so far as to make up “statistics” saying that half of all teenagers are sexually attracted to their own sex. What will the claimed figure be in 2018 or 2019 and how will that impact on guys who know they are only attracted to women?

You don’t have a right not to date transgenders

Soon your lack of a right not to date a transgender “woman” will be extended to gays.

After straight men understandably began to report transgenders messaging them on Tinder, outlets such as The Huffington Post came to the rescue, decrying the rampant “transphobia” in the dating market. In another instance of typical SJW hysteria, a contestant on The Bachelorette got into hot water for verbalizing a common enough concern of men, namely that heavily dolled-up transgender “women” regularly try to pass themselves off as biological women. With this sort of putrid political climate, it is very easy to imagine a time when not being sexually attracted to Barry or Steve will be equated with anti-gay “bigotry” as well.

Indicating the warped social totem pole that is regularly putting transgenders above women, straight females are also being shamed, albeit to a lesser extent than heterosexual men. CNN, for example, just couldn’t figure out why the majority of women weren’t open to dating this transgender “man,” as if genitalia were a completely irrelevant part of sexuality. Who would have known!

The stage is set

GQ used to be geared towards men who wanted to dress well but were still straight. Not anymore.

SJWs do not want tolerance. They want a kind of uniformity, where the groups we are meant to accept and praise actually end up dictating what someone else can or cannot do sexually. The failure of most men (or women) to want to date a transgender is a setback, for sure, but this will not stop SJWs from continuing their agenda in the same and other ways.

Even “men’s” magazines are now part of the fray, joining a series of outlets celebrating supposedly straight males who screw gay guys. GQ continued its abysmal fall in 2017 by publishing “The straight men dating men and the gay men who fall in love with them.” Salon, however, is a very unsurprising offender for its long-term pushing of straight men’s “malleable” sexualities. All we are missing at the moment are widespread calls for men to stop being “homophobic” and give themselves to other men fully.

Just wait and see

An 8-year-old boy from Montreal who is forced to sexualize himself for LGBT audiences.

As a result of the negative reception most folks gave to the idea of dating a transgender, some might say that this article is alarmist. Well, I would counter that since we have already seen the sexualization of children according to SJW ideology, it is perfectly foreseeable that straight adult males will be encouraged or shamed into wanting sex with men. If this article is proven wrong, it will be either due to blind luck or because we see positive, long-awaited developments in the West.

Remember, probably well over 50% of discussions about sexuality nowadays concern lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender experiences, despite people of these orientations comprising perhaps 4% of the population. If this is not a sign that your heterosexuality is considered abnormal or not fully acceptable by SJWs and their enablers, I don’t know what is.