New York Times: Trump’s ‘Flood the Zone’ Strategy Leaves Opponents Gasping in Outrage

I heard that TRS was fuming about Stephen Miller who is the mastermind of this blitzkrieg.

New York Times:

“One of the architects of Mr. Trump’s rapid-pace strategy is Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff for policy, who has pushed the flood-the-zone tactic. Mr. Miller believes that those he regards as Mr. Trump’s enemies have limited bandwidth for opposition, and he has told people that the goal is to overwhelm them with a blitz of activity.

“The breakneck speed is putting everyone on their heels,” said Ryan Walker, the executive vice president of Heritage Action for America, a conservative advocacy group that has developed policies embraced by Mr. Trump. Mr. Walker said he had seen a “sea change from the first administration” in terms of how quickly the new administration was working.

Some Democrats have suggested that Mr. Trump and his aides may soon run out of steam, exhausting their policy moves and eventually themselves. Mr. Raskin said Democrats needed to fight the feeling of being disoriented, weather the torrent of news and determine which policies they could actually fight in court. …”

Washington Post:

“President Donald Trump and his aides are launching a full-scale war against modern liberalism. And I’m very worried that they will be successful.

Though what exactly defines liberalism is contested, the term generally refers to the protection of individual rights, such as free speech and property ownership. But self-identified liberal politicians and liberal voters in the United States and around the world (particularly in Europe) have embraced a much broader set of values and practices that I’m referring to as modern liberalism. Those include robust higher-education systems where students and professors have a significant amount of freedom in what they teach and research; attempts to ensure equality across lines of race, gender and sexual orientation; respect for independent authorities that act as a check on elected leaders, such as the news media; enthusiasm for ethnic, racial and religious diversity, as well as immigration, free-trade agreements, and other forms of multilateralism and multiculturalism. …”

We need a hundred more Stephen Millers!

4 Comments

  1. If the issue is immigration, make common cause with Stephen Miller.

    If the issue is foreign policy, make common cause with Christian Palestinian activists like Layla Saliba of Columbia University.

    If the issue is telling the truth about the trans-Atlantic slave trade or Leo Frank, make common cause with the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam.

    Always being willing to work with anyone of any background who can help us move things in a pro-White direction – even if they don’t think in those terms.

    The big problem with the philosemitic right is that they want us to burn our bridges and completely rule out any co-operation with Blacks or Muslims or any other non-White group, with one exception: the Jews. To accomplish this, they gratuitously INSULT Blacks or Muslims and expect us to go along with it, but at the same time they shut down any criticism of the Jews, no matter how mild. The counter-jihadists gratuitously insult Muslims, but shut down any discussion of Jewish influence, no matter how respectful. Likewise, some race realists gratuitously insult Blacks while shutting down any discussion of foreign policy or Jewish influence.

    Just to give one example, during AFPAC in Detroit last year Jared Taylor used the term “Negro” to refer to Black Americans. Why gratuitously insult a group of people to their face like that by using terminology which they consider insulting?

    When the original venue cancelled on us, many of the attendees spontaneously met up in the streets of Detroit. 300 of us marched several miles through Detroit chanting “America First” and “Christ is King”, culminating with a impromptu rally across the street from the TPUSA venue, where we protested against the Israel Lobby’s influence on the American right. Donald Trump and other big names were at the TPUSA event, and they definitely heard our message. There were more college aged young men outside at our protest than there were inside with Trump. Everyone at the TPUSA event saw us and heard us.

    We dwarfed the miniscule, cowardly Antifa rally which never dared come with 2 blocks of the TPUSA venue.

    The local Blacks and the local White liberals were friendly. The local Arabs and Muslims rallied to our support. David Duke safely walked the streets in the Blackest most liberal city in America.

    After the warm welcome we received from the people of Detroit, it was disappointing to hear Taylor use the term “Negro”.

  2. Kudos to (((Miller))) for the tactic. One of the few good ones, and one of the best on Trump’s team for dealing with issue number one – the invasion. Full credit to whom it is due. Even during the “Biden” regency, Miller was still fighting the battle. That’s more than can be said for Fuentes & Co.

  3. “Some Democrats have suggested that Mr. Trump and his aides may soon run out of steam, exhausting their policy moves and eventually themselves. Mr. Raskin said Democrats needed to fight the feeling of being disoriented, weather the torrent of news and determine which policies they could actually fight in court”.

    This copium from the NYT and Rep. Raskin misses the point entirely. The innovation of rule by Executive Order is analogous to the appearance of cheap drones on the modern battlefield – it’s a form of asymmetric political warfare. Miller probably drafts a few of these babies over his morning bowl of Cheerios. On the other hand, the enemy must devote considerable resources via the courts system to counter ones they consider particularly lethal. Plenty will get through. EO’s are cheap throw away weapons that are meant to harass the enemy ahead of the coming Trumpian ground assault through Congress. I see no reason why Trump won’t be able to maintain a rate of fire at this intensity indefinitely.

  4. WaPo’s list of the values and practices characterizing modern liberalism is not bad, but of course we would choose less positively-charged words to describe each one.

    What if anything did they leave out?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*