Sign up
The Tea Party Community is a conservative hub for sharing ideas, unifying a movement and organizing strategies to keep the United States of America in her rightful place as the greatest nation on earth. "We The People - Don't Tread on US!"

Why I support President Trump

*Warning! True to point - Pathos - I'm going to call people names in this.  Proceed at your own risk*

As it may or may not come as a surprise to some, I’m behind the President.  It’s not a blind 100% sycophant view, I’m never 100% behind anyone, as a matter of principle.  I’ve served in both military and intelligence capacities, and thus I can tell you that there’s a long list of reasons as to why it’s sound to always maintain a level of suspicion, but let’s just leave it as a principle for brevity.  I’m behind him for both the implications of his story and the focus of his divisiveness, which I strongly approve of.  I do not criticize his Twitter rants, I applaud them.  So here goes:



Trump was a media mogul and so he’s known the behind-the-scenes culture of the media complex for a long time.  He could’ve run Democrat and would’ve won easily.  Trump had all the connections and he had all the friends.  It would’ve been a steamroll.  He didn’t.  He ran Republican, but he did more than that.  He tied himself to policy positions and commentary that are divisive and true.  The most important aspect of what he highlighted was not the treachery of the Left, many have been screeching about that for a good long time, but about the impotency of the Right.  As he was a media mogul, he knew the cultural implications – how could he avoid it? He was in their midst, top of the food chain, born into the effective “ruling class” of America.  That’s an important position to be in if you’re looking for perspective.  He has that perspective.  He has that behind-the-scenes knowledge.


He also understands his audience.  This is key.  It’s why he ran his campaign the way he did and why he uses divisive “fishing” strategies to assess the situation.  Throw it out there and see what happens.  If you stand for nothing, you’re not divisive – if you stand, truly stand for something, that’s inherently divisive to those who are aggressing.  You’re getting in their way.  You’re saying, “no.”  This is the dichotomy on the Right that he’s highlighted, and he highlighted this by using the Left to hang themselves.


The strategy is simple as it is effective: piss them off.  When you anger people, they focus on you.  As he has proven time and time again: when running for public office all press is good press.  Never apologize and keep on the offensive.  An ancient political saying, "the first to anger is the first to fall."  In short, aggressors establish the rules - keep them REACTING.  Strike at their throat and keep hitting.  He has no real power in the culture war than to state the obvious, but now that he’s in a position of authority that holds serious weight.  It’s important because he’s right when he calls the media complex out.  He’s right in highlighting the hypocrisy and he’s right to call the media an enemy.  Those are correct.  They’re cultural, not political, positions.  That means he gets it.  He understands that what’s happening to this country isn’t inherently political, but it will be.


He’s not misdirecting while pretending to be holier-than-thou because he has no solutions.  He’s acting on the solutions: War on the Media, Nationalism, America First politicking, Trade Deals, Protectionist policies designed to offset Chinese dominance in manufacturing and industry which they have and will continue to try to use against us (why do you think we have special visa programs that specifically benefit their corporate espionage programs?), and the list goes on.  He pulled us out of the wealth redistribution scam of the Paris Climate Accord.  He signed an EO to cut two regulations for every new one created, and he averages 16 – we’re up over $10 billion in savings a year on the cutting of unnecessary bureaucratic overhead alone.


I’m an All-American Pragmatist – meaning the results very much matter.  Some observed disloyalty to a purist philosophy is of little consequence.  I don’t care.  Especially when that philosophy has no practical meaning.  I’ll get into that in a bit.


To be fair, there is a list of negatives, too, but there isn’t a President in history I wouldn’t have had a mixed-bag with, as I’ve explained above.  He surrounds himself with swamp globalists while saying he’s fighting swamp globalism – that’s my biggest red flag against the guy.  Who a leader surrounds them self with is very important, as indicators go, and his isn’t very inspiring.  Also, the spending.  While he’s cutting the regulatory overhead and cutting bureaucracy – he’s feeding into insane pet projects to get what he wants.  I’m imagining this as give-and-take, but my concern is that he’s taking the advice of the swamp creatures he’s employing, and our debt is a major concern.  If he’s employing the “best” in politics, that’s because they’re scumbags.  That’s what it means to be good at politics – the maneuverability in politics is deception.  We need to start cutting major swaths of bureaucrats – like eradicating the entirety of the Department of Education – because he’s not going to be President forever.  It only takes one bad apple with the power that office now has.


Both my list of positives and negatives are summarized, of course, but – overall – recognizing that the major issues we face are both cultural in nature and requiring of an actual conservative stance, I strongly approve of his message, if not his big-government proclivities. There is that word: ‘stance.’  To stand for something you must have the willingness to stand.  That implies something: defined limits and the guts to enforce those limits.


American “conservatism,” if we can call it that, has historically not been anything, at all.  A bunch of philosophical intellectuals with their balls tucked in so deep their bodies mistake them for tonsils.  This is important because the problem with “conservatism” is the romanticizing of intellectualism.  Intellectuals will always try to steer the commentary into a debate and the realm within which they are most comfortable – they’ll condemn anything else because outside of that box they’re powerless and they don’t like that feeling.  Conservatives cucked out, in short.  A lot of high-minded BS that they talk about, rant about, and try to persuade people to observe.  Where is the practicality?  Just look at their arguments!


Their only option is debate and discourse.  There are no alternatives.  When the left advances they step back and try to engage them.  They accommodate them because they’re only willing to take it so far and the left KNOWS THIS. They despise Trump because he DOES take it far.  He highlights the truth: “the left/media are enemies.”  That’s not exactly a new observation, folks, but a president saying it.  Muah! On point.


It’s like a parent setting limits for a child.  Sooner or later the child is going to test those limits. When there are no consequences they push more and more.  If there are no consequences, they’ll have the run of the place in no time.  You can thank the “conservative” disposition for the purple-haired brony bastards who now set the narrative in the cultural context.  The “conservatives” are the parent.  The Left are the kids.  The cultural crap hole we’re quickly becoming is the result.


So why do I keep putting “conservative” in quotes?  Because that’s all it is – if you have no limits or consequences, if there is nothing to enforce, then you truly stand for nothing.  You must be willing to make a stand, or you don’t conserve anything.  You’re a windbag, a bag of hot air, a waste of time – both impractical and useless.  I’m a pragmatist and, as such, that puts you low on the list.  In fact, it serves the cause of the Left by establishing a culture of constant disengagement and retreat on the Right.  It’s no wonder we’ve fallen so far.  The cultural proclivities speak for themselves.  It is, point blank, cowardice.  Therefore, romanticizing the intellectuals is a very stupid thing to do.  Might as well cut Liberty’s throat yourself and be done with it.  What’s the point of pretending to stand for something you’re never going to defend until it’s too late to do anything about it, maximizing your disadvantages while minimizing your likelihood of success? 


Start wearing Che Guevara t-shirts you pussies.  Or should I say enablers?  All the same…


They cry, “then when is too far!”  Why isn’t the onus of establishing that distinction on you?  You’re the party that keeps making the case for retreat.  Why do we have to define what the limits are when we’ve already established that limits were crossed?  But, okay, if you haven’t decided on them yet – I’ll establish them for you.  You can never trust a pussy to set limits because by the time they do they’ll be gawking up the barrel of a gun beside a shallow grave.  Too late high-speed.  Too late.


The lines that have already been crossed that justify my call for mobilization proceedings (IE: time to prepare yourselves, establish networks of communication, stalk up on ammo, and keep your powder dry):  the mainstream development of Democratic Socialism in American Politics, the rise of the modern Social Justice Warrior, proposals of open border policies, proposals for non-state actors to have the right to vote, proposals against the Electoral College and Supreme Court, proposals to limit free speech via label of Hate Speech.  Note that these focus on the cultural.  The cultural influences the grassroots and the grassroots influence the politics.  So, these are indicators. 

Bad indicators.


Indicators matter.

Time to start mobilizing.  Better to be prepared without the need to be than discover the need to be without being prepared.


The red lines, any of which are crossed are more than enough justification: The legal establishment of open-border policies, the undermining of the integrity of our voting system by appealing to foreign actors (via legislation), open suppression of free speech by government action or intervention, Courts justifying violation of free speech and limit “hate” speech (if you need an example of where this goes, look at the UK, but if the courts establish it, for any reason, it’s time to get serious), stacking or alteration of the Supreme Court, eradication of the Electoral College, severe wealth redistribution via treaty, or appeal (and active utility of) foreign security forces via treaty on US soil.  These all require legislative or physical action – it’s a high standard, but the standard should be high considering the consequences.


The list of both could probably be expanded on.  The former justifies mobilization, which is why I think we need to get a move on because all the indicators suggest we should be taking things a bit more seriously in the cultural context – cultural trends tend to be a predictor of the political.  IE: brace yourselves winter is coming. The latter is a list of indicators, too, and if they’re crossed it’s time to get mean.  Refuse and what the hell do you stand for?  Not the Republic.  Not for the value of US Citizenship.  Which means, not the life, liberty, and private property that citizenship is supposed to secure and protect.  Not conservatism, by any means, because you’re not conserving anything – you’re surrendering. 


Cuckservatism isn’t an answer, it’s a complaint.


To stand for something means you must have the spine to stand.  If you do not have the spine then you do not stand for anything.  You’re assessing life via the comforts of an armchair.  You’re part of the problem.


The Donald, for what it’s worth, highlighted this by highlighting the problems with our cultural trend, the media complex, Hollywood, etc.  He set the tone for putting the foot down and highlighting the complete impotence of modern conservatism.  The principles aren’t the problem, the people who supposedly “stand” for them are.  It was a lesson we needed to learn.  That and his stopping the Progressive agenda of stacking the Supreme Court is definitely more than worth it on those merits alone.


The distinction of importance here: the progressives aren’t really the problem.  They’ve always been nuts.  We’ve always known it.  The problem is the pussies who pretend to be patriots.  That’s the problem.  Time to start setting the stage for intervention if things continue along this trend.  Those who squawk about how monstrous we are by committing to establishing an effective infrastructure to smash the Anti-American Sentimentalists have been enabling this garbage the whole time.  Trying to debate a population of people who’ve designed tactics designed specifically to undermine the effectiveness of debate because they have no intentions and no respect for debate is stupid and self-defeating.  Keep chasing your tail. The left is in it for the power or are too stupid to know the difference.  Not my problem.


Give me Liberty or I give you Death.  Either way, I die free.


We need to start being more proactive.


Because of this, I’m going to reboot the Band of the Red Hand and try to attempt to leverage it as a coordinating element decentralized.  Not designed to set any tone.  Just to set the coordination, get people in touch with each other, have group chats, and set baseline SOPs and discuss.  Mostly, if anything ever goes down, having multiple POCs and horizontal connectivity in the form of communication.  Certainly, if people are interested in maneuvers I’ll be suggesting, I’d be more than happy to make those happen – hold rallies – and stir the pot precisely to focus the narrative on what the Left is and what many “conservatives” are not.


It worked for Trump, for a reason.  It can work here, too.  Originally the Band of the Red Hand was based on a concept of National Libertarian Interventionism.  The idea there is a precursor to what my All-American Pragmatism is now.  It was about a ¼ of the way into the journey that I originated the concept (that’s when I realized we need to stop sitting on our butts).  No doubt, as I proceed in my studies, I’ll continue to refine the idea.  If you’re interested and have your own conservative groups that would like to join I’ll add the links below.  I’ll post new videos on YouTube and Bitchute to explain the refined form.  The new version will be a decentralized loosely organized movement that focuses on communication and establishing sound practical standards.


The point, at this moment, isn’t to engage the Left so much as to organize.  That organization makes a point in and of itself.  It means the Left is pushing too far and they should seriously consider whether or not they want to proceed.  Like when Gandalf, in the Lord of the Rings, says to Balrog, “You shall not pass!”  Balrog steps back for a second like, “Hmm, he said ‘no.’ What’s my next move?”  Balrog chose to advance and he paid for it.  Let’s hope the Left do not make the same choice.


Hope all we want, it’s stupid to depend on their choices.  Better to be safe than sorry.



So, the links:





Keith Jennings is online.
Little Billy Night-Night? Is that you?!
Jack Hogue
sounds like you with your head in your ass
Keith Jennings is online.
Nah, Marcus is smarter than you even with his head up your ass!
Lisa Alabama
Another insightful piece, Marcus. Blunt and specific, just what some doctors ordered.
Keith Jennings is online.
What specifics?
Lisa Alabama
Sorry, I’m not gonna copy and paste individual points.
Keith Jennings is online.
Okay. maybe I missed them. How about just the end game then?
Lisa Alabama
Maybe we read and comprehend differently. I also read end to beginning after I’ve read something once. It’s a fault, I know. LOL
Keith Jennings is online.
I read it twice too, but still don't know what the plan is!
Lisa Alabama
Well, the piece is about why Marcus supports Trump, I don’t see where that involves a plan of any sort. Maybe my foot hurts worse than I thought. :D
Keith Jennings is online.
I wasn't specifically referring just to this piece, but his overall movement. Support of Trump is only part of it, I hope!
Lisa Alabama
Anyway, I thought his reasons for supporting Trump were pretty specific, but that’s just me.
Keith Jennings is online.
Not what I meant. The end game for the movement. Trump won't be around forever!
Keith Jennings is online.
Besides, there's much more there than just that!
Lisa Alabama
Ok, I was commenting on this specific piece. Sorry to misunderstand you.
Keith Jennings is online.
The paragraphs after 'The Donald' one, for instance!
Keith Jennings is online.
'It means the Left is pushing too far and they should seriously consider whether or not they want to proceed.'

Maybe the next step if they decide to?

'Make them pay' how?
Keith Jennings is online.
Anyway, I'm sure Marcus will be willing and able to clear those questions up for me himself when he gets a chance!
Marcus Lzuru
Wasn't expecting this many posts. I'll read and get on the inquiries.
Wren Zeitgeist-
I like Trump. He insists on saying what he thinks. No beating around the bush. It gives a sense of permission when Obama gave his permission for racial prejudice, riots, insincere humility, and unconstitutional attacks on Americans and oh, by the way, the press.

Cogent piece. Send it to the New York ...
Marcus Lzuru
Keith, as I’m sure you know, I observe the doctrine of Escalation of Force precisely because it avoids… the END game, in that context. Or that’s the hope – you escalate to avoid the actual FORCE part, if you can. The movement I intend represents something along those lines. American Pragmatism is...
Keith Jennings is online.
'Hit them' how?
Marcus Lzuru
With your fist? End of a rifle. Cut a tire. Sledgehammer. Depends on what they do. Hit em' with CS gas? Streets or politicking? Both represent violent force - cucking isn't an answer.

I do believe in expressing to them our philosophical view that we see it as aggression, first, however. There...
Keith Jennings is online.
Sounds like the other side of the coin from Antifa!
Marcus Lzuru
Yeah, and the Founders were terrorists. You can squeal all you want, but sooner or later you have to recognize that it's just bitching.
Keith Jennings is online.
Funny how occasional six word sentences or questions from me are bitching, but your endless, redundant name calling effort at painting anyone who disagrees a lesser patriot are important deep thinking efforts at saving this country. I've pulled the mask off and anyone can see what this is really abo...
Arwen Undomiel
Well stated, as usual Marcus. I won't argue either way but I did just want to address one small point, mainly because today has been a shit day for me and I'm feeling no desire to be benevolent.

You wrote:

"Cuckservatism isn’t an answer, it’s a complaint.

To stand for something means you must have the...
Marcus Lzuru
I can agree with what you're saying. I don't like RINOs. So I empathize, but Frodo and Company were actually doing something. And I'm not just referring to Never Trumpers. Trump alone isn't the indicator here, I just mentioned why I support him and rolled that into why that's important (what tha...
Keith Jennings is online.
Keith Jennings is online.
'A conservative is someone who understands that the first part of the laws of nature and nature's God is the right of self-preservation, in other words, the right to possess and use whatever physical means are necessary to DEFEND our lives, our liberty, and our property. '
Keith Jennings is online.
'But let me leave you with a question: How ma(n)y of those who are in public office today, or who are running for public office, are actual conservatives?

I would assert that there are few. And until we change that, hope for America ebbs away.'
Marcus Lzuru
Aye, that's a nice summarized view. That's predicated on something called the Non-Aggression Principle, but you can arrive to that conclusion from multiple directions. It effectively derives from the epicureans and their Natural Law. And it is defense, as long as you're willing to acknowledge tha...
Keith Jennings is online.
Not my summary, but one that fits the principles of the founding. The founder's we're terrorists line is straight bullshit. They made it clear what their intentions were, what offenses we're no longer tolerable and how much they were willing to pay in taxes to a government who no longer represented ...
Keith Jennings is online.
'"It means the Left is pushing too far and they should seriously consider whether or not they want to proceed."

What's the next step if they decide to?

"Make them pay" how?'
Keith Jennings is online.