Susan Rice Says People Were Only Mad About Unmasking Conspiracy Because She’s a Niggerbitch

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 28, 2017

At some point in the relatively near future, everyone is going to be as sick of the blacks as I have been for a while now.

And it isn’t going to be the daily black-on-white violence that eventually causes them to snap. We’ve gamed that out. Whites will pretty much tolerate infinity violence from blacks.

What is eventually going to cause whites to snap is this type of shit right here.

This endless whining and claiming victimhood while committing outrageous crimes from a position of completely unearned privilege.

That is what’s eventually going to make whites snap.

Fox New:

Susan Rice, the Obama national security adviser under fire over her alleged involvement in the “unmasking” of Trump associates during the 2016 presidential election, suggested in a fresh interview that race and gender might be playing a role in the scrutiny she’s faced.

In an interview with journalist Michael Tomasky for New York Magazine, Rice reportedly questioned the criticism she’s faced dating back to the Benghazi controversy.

“Why me? Why not Jay Carney, for example, who was then our press secretary, who stood up more?” she asked.

Tomasky noted in the piece that Carney “isn’t an African-American woman, of course” and apparently asked Rice whether that is the key factor. Rice, in response, left the door open:

“I don’t know… I do not leap to the simple explanation that it’s only about race and gender. I’m trying to keep my theories to myself until I’m ready to come out with them. It’s not because I don’t have any.” 

But Rice mentioned other prominent female figures – like Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice – who faced “ad hominem” attacks, suggesting a correlation.

Susan Rice doesn’t understand how the term “ad hominem” is supposed to be used, because she’s a nigger. Niggers like big, fancy-sounding college words, but never use them correctly.

Ad hominem” means “against the man.” It is an argumentative fallacy. It’s what the anti-racists and feminists use against us all the time: “oh well, you just think black people have a low IQ because you’re jealous of their sexual prowesses and sports abilities.”

It avoids the argument by claiming the opponent has some personal problem.

However,  saying a politician is “incompetent” can be simply a statement of fact, relevant to a discussion of the person’s position.

She mentions Hillary Clinton, so we’ll use her as an example.

An ad hominem would be:

  • “Hillary Clinton is wrong about the long term effects of mass nonwhite immigration because she’s a serial criminal driven by psychotic ambition.”

However, neither of these would be ad hominems:

  • “Hillary Clinton is wrong about the long term effects of mass immigration because she has refused to confront the available data, which shows that multiculturalism leads to a breakdown in social cohesion, an increase in crime, personal alienation and loss of identity.”
  • “Hillary Clinton is unfit to hold high office because she’s a serial criminal driven by psychotic ambition.”

I think it was never necessary to use ad hominems against the arguments of any democrat.

Conversely, the other side has repeatedly launched personal attacks on Donald Trump, including making fun of his hair and suggesting that he has small hands while implying that means he has a small penis.

Asked about the comments, a Republican Capitol Hill source pushed back. “This is screaming out for attention… She’s saying I don’t know why they all started picking on me to begin with.

As to the suggestion of race and gender being a factor, the source countered, then “why would there be a subpoena for a white male?

That was a reference to the fact that Rice is not the only focus of the congressional probe into unmasking. Investigators have issued subpoenas to three different agencies: NSA, CIA and FBI.

Those subpoenas have asked for unmasking information related to three individuals: former CIA Director John Brennan, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, and Rice.

Aye Begorrah, John Brennan and Samantha power.

It’s incredible that Trump is not able to put more pressure on these people.

What Rice did is unambiguously criminal, which is why she’s falling back on racism. Just like Bill Cosby – the anti-black-victimhood crusader – eventually fell back on racism when he got caught up in all these rapes.

James Comey was also involved in these unmaskings, and he apparently isn’t being subpoenaed this round.

This whole thing is a circle-jerk, because it is being run by people who don’t really want it to end. People like Lindsay Graham.

For those complaining that Donald Trump isn’t shutting down the Syria situation – if he doesn’t have the power to shut down this insane conspiracy to hoax a baseless conspiracy theory against him, how can he shut down a war that being run by the CIA for five years before he took office?

Clearly, the man doesn’t have the power that a US President is supposed to have, largely because of the media’s leverage – which is why he’s focused the attack on them – but also due to this dark power of the intelligence agencies.

One thing I know for certain is that these stakes are all or nothing: either we’re going to get the President we elected, and all that implies, or we’re going to get an impeachment and a war with Russia – or, the lesser version, just an endless power struggle where the status quo roles on as Trump is incapable of gaining control over his government.

I’m not too concerned about Syria at this point, to be honest.

Putin appears to understand that Trump wants to do what he says he wants to do, but has his hands tied behind his back. And I think as a rule, as long as Putin is giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on the Syria front, we should too.

It’s largely a distraction anyway. The chance of a ground invasion remains effectively zero for the time being, so some selective targeting of irrelevant targets by the US military should only be considered relevant if it is combined with a domestic change in policy.