Reagan's presidency showed us what a modern puppet can accomplish: by exploding the budget and playing secret world policeman, Reagan was canonized by people who had believed they were restricting the budget and focusing on their own interests. Bill Clinton injected the same hopelessness-inducing drug into the left, expanding the police state and using foreign scabs to crush labor. Interestingly, their most successful work (using pronouns of ownership to refer to an actor's handlers' handlers' achievements) wasn't in what they physically accomplished, but in how they managed peon reactions. Reagan's insane military glut impressed (what modern Americans call) conservatives, and by talking about military spending, he caused them to embrace insane hyper-spending on anything and everything, so long as it fell under the military portion of the budget. Affirmative action training and testing and technology programs, free schooling for various hostile foreign nationals, billions in taxpayer dollars redirected to dumbass foreign aid programs, billions of taxpayer dollars' worth of dangerous modern weapons technology handed out to frothingly rapey jihadists: all things that conservatives hate except when they're called "military expenditures," and all things that Reagan did for eight years, not only to contemporary rightist applause, but to current veneration.
Clinton's insane poverty-inducing/poverty-punishing, union busting, handouts to the wealthy, domestic military engagements with urban minorities, and mass killings in Europe and the Middle East, were all things that leftists claim to hate, yet by framing them as modern, young, anti-Republican, and un-racism, it all worked out.
By the same token, George W. Bush's wacky superexpansion of the federal government--as flagrantly Zionist as Clinton's, George H.W. Bush's, and Reagan's matching actions--and his corresponding embrace of Hispanic cities and a non-ideological conflict with enemies who were only circumstantially Muslim and/or brown-skinned, passed by with major rightist acclaim. He was to the American right of his time what Obama was to the American left of his time (the operative adjective being "American," and the directional designation important only for the self-esteem of the identifier), namely, a plausible consideration of Zionist leechery and warfare. 8 more years of annuity payments to Yahweh's Chosen, not only in the uncountable quantities of labor and goods necessary to support Mammon ("Israel's acquisitionist governmental policy"), but the spirits ("emotional and psychological well-being") and shells ("flag-draped caskets") necessary to support Moloch ("Israel's aggressively exterminationist governmental policy").
The only constant throughout all of these presidents has been the American war machine attacking those targets, and only those targets, that the Israeli mind machine desires. Saudi Arabia attacks the U.S.; the U.S. invades Afghanistan. The U.S. has an opportunity to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves and strike a deal with a powerful secular Arab state as a hedge against Islamic fundamentalism; the U.S. incites a massive war between Iraq and Iran. Israeli aircraft attack a U.S. Navy vessel and murder several American sailors; the U.S. sits on its hands. ~
We're not here to complain about this--it's inevitable, given how low-functioning Americans are--but to talk about the future. Donald Trump's 2016 election loss would have indicated his disfavor with Mammon and Moloch, which we discussed in The Utility of a Trump Loss. Prior to Trump's formal placing, the work of intelligence community operatives, as discussed in part in Hollow Scarecrows, suggested that the candidate was another of the updated "wow!" candidates designed to appeal to younger voters and halt the U.S.' bleeding formal illegitimacy through lack of voting participation. No more Walter Mondales; bring out a trailer-park saxophonist, a cowboy, a metrosexual African, and so forth.
Now that Trump has won, he's already done everything that his supporters didn't want. He wants more foreign scabs to depress American living standards; he wants affirmative action; he wants degenerate entertainment; he wants a growing African community; he wants a mindless consumer society (albeit one where more people have jobs to buy more stuff, rather than going without or welfaring it); he wants to take as much of America's wealth as possible and give it to Israel to continue expanding and pissing Arabs off at the American people; he wants to protect the people of Syria (but not, as always, the people of Saudi Arabia--that was the big clue about ISIS, too, remember?); and, he wants to do all of those things on the blood of brave American soldiers.
As this one said above, boringly predictable. What we're here to talk about, though, is the way that the justifying commoners' narrative needs to run. Yes, the Trump-supporters need to believe in him, and they desperately need to, ergo they will act like it's completely okay that all of Trump's children married Jews, that Trump is the biggest goy Zionist beneath the firmament, and that Trump is putting Jews in charge of the U.S. economy again, embracing the central banks behind the twentieth/twenty-first Terran centuries.
While watching Obama say things, the American left rationalized this process by saying, "Yeah, but it's Bush's fault, plus there are more toys and domestic sexual expansion," in various forms. At other points and places, people, even Americans, have expected results. Americans' tolerance levels recently allowed the person they feel to be the single most powerful person in the world take nearly a decade to not end worldwide military operations, and to attempt to increase them. Under Bush, Americans' tolerance for taxation and social violence had an 8-year hold, albeit one that left them less impressed with Bush when he left office than they are currently with Obama. Tolerance levels have increased in just those two terms.
The Bonus Army in 1932 (World War I veterans upset about jobs, benefits, and other post-Wilsonian lies) showed that Americans in the 1920-1930 period were unable to tolerate a ten-year delay in tangible benefits after being screwed over by occupation forces. By Bush II, around 90 years later, Americans--both veterans of the ZioWar and tax drones--were unable to march on Washington, but had dropped presidential approval to "only" ~30%.
Accordingly, what we should see throughout the Trump version of this process is a similar progression of load capacity. From open revolt against ZioWar and associated banking to the mild, but still physically-expressed, disapproval of the WW1 bonus army, took 156 years (1932-1776). Resistance to the Bank crumbled in 1913, and with schools and broadcasting under occupation control, Americans were promptly willing to march into Europe to peel away some of the layers around Palestine. At that point, they were, as a whole, dutiful, if unhappy, slaves, and even though rationalization later kicked in and made the war seem positive, they were unhappy enough with the Bank's domestically concurrent lies (remuneration for killing and dying) to do the Bonus Army thing.
By Bush II, war was almost entirely embraced. Even the people who were "against" it weren't willing to do anything to stop it beyond displaying posters or blogging, whereas beforehand, it would've been the yeoman farmer's duty to gather companions and overthrow the occupation forces who were stirring up trouble in the name of their homeland. Obama's masterstroke eliminated even posters and blogging, because to be against the American Golem meant being against gays or blacks, which had become far more important. If Trump can match Obama's achievement, he can at least maintain the same rate of change. Ergo if he's at least a 5/10 American president, he'll have the American self-identified right saying, "Yeah, Trump is Israel's slave, but that's actually our plan, to use him as part of an incremental means of change." So another land war in Asia, the cash and tech keep flowing to Israel, some low-performing groups are potentially barred entry to U.S. territory in order to increase the functionality of the remaining laborers and free up more money for war/Israel, and the bulk of the Trump supporters will still celebrate and defend Trump because of some palliative care offered during the process.
Look at who the Democrats put up against Trump in 2020, also. If it's some boring background character who's an evil robot anyway, like Gore or Kerry against Bush in 2000 or 2004, or McCain or Romney against Obama in 2008/2012, we'll be able to anticipate an intended run of 8 years for Trump. If it's someone more commonly-to-be-considered dynamic, maybe something different. It'll be interesting to see if they'll select a new one just to make it seem that 2 terms isn't some new kind of inviolable standard; to portray the narrative as voters regularly deciding upon leaders, they really should slip in a few 4-years-only candidates. A good way to do it would be to publicize Trump health problems leading up to 2020, have Pence lose to a half-Hispanic Democratic ticket, and then leave rightists proudly supporting the troops for liberating Syria from ISIS, while blaming future electoral defeats on brown racism.
The screaming and repeated publication of Jews against Trump was likely set out not just so that rightists would be tempted to vote for him. Two birds with one stone: once Trump does invade somewhere, Democrats won't be able to blame the resulting war on Israeli interests, as they were starting to do during Bush II's time onstage; instead, the Jewish opposition to Trump will seem to prove that Jews were against the new war, and make Democrats feel--as they did with Obama--that, by compromising on some new heartless murderer, they are nonetheless choosing a less-heartless person than the damn Republican who formally initiated the last invasion. And now, since the Jews are on record (their own record, of course; that's why the "75% of American Jews voted against Trump" statistic is being thrown around so much, just like the media so carefully reports Jewish warnings about Trump, even as Trump lays out a more pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli policy than Bill Clinton) as having been "against" Trump, the cui bono of the next trillion-dollar massacre will be irrelevant to informed liberals. BDS can vanish as white people get blamed--rightfully so, the idiots--for whatever the military has done.
Literarily, we're witnessing a shift in the presentation of new characters. Trump is a different kind of Mary Sue: a persona made famous not by being friendly with the main characters, but by being their enemies. The show is so bad, so disliked, that having a cast member who is instantly reviled by everyone else on the show is the blessing of success. Right now, what with Cohen and Mnuchin, the American occupation government has revealed that they're not yet skilled enough to compose an entire sub-cast of hated Mary Sues. We should see that in the future, though--an entire team of replacement politicians, all avowedly genetically nationalist, and media-loathed as a group, rather than as individuals.
From this perspective, we can see the true utility of ISIS. ISIS, like the Taliban, was arranged to provide a longstanding enemy--a thing everyone knows is bad and needs to be dealt with, which continually does nothing effective against Saudi Israelia, but which makes the news consistently for years, as though it is America's job to eternally pacify Israel's backyard--for Trump. The grand mystery is now out; the mystery of why Islamic fundamentalists suddenly got the cash and the weapons right then (after Reagan there was a lull in the creation of more formal, modernized Islamic military forces), and why Israel didn't get the U.S. to instantly destroy them, and why Obama "failed" to get authorization for war in Syria (even though he got it everywhere else he wanted, and even though he didn't have to ask for it anyway), and how the Bank won't reveal where ISIS gets its funding: all of the dark symphony now makes sense. And like 90-minute seat-renters in show business, we'll get to see the good guys and the bad guys, just like before, but with updated social references.
I, for one, am looking forward to it. I'll sit in the side rows near the rear, muttering about how the show is a complete sucking ripoff, all the characters are fake, and the tickets are overpriced. But here I am, buying a nine-dollar soda and seeing it for the tenth time. Sit closer to me, sweetie. Feeling cold? C'mere, you...this should help.