I’ll give the case for my support for our incoming president. Some of the information here will be already known to those that follow the alt-media but this can be regarded as an intro for people that have not considered this possibility. On top of this I think this is a good summary of the bigger picture behind Trump's campaign.
As far as my own principles go, my aim and agenda is the restoration and intensification of individual liberty. I have identified a basic division of labor in this task as consisting of:
A. advancing liberty
B. opposing tyranny
I see Trump as not very good for A but very good for B. This is the shortest reason of my support for him in spite of some reservations. I have a few others that I will address at the end of this message. The B part of the equation is likely where there will be more short term compromises with the less principled among us, while the A side will see folks with a longer term vision based on sound first principles.
Making my case that Trump is good for B, I realize it may seem counterintuitive:
“But isn’t he just doing business as usual by selecting the usual suspects for the cabinet?”
This has been a bit of a debate in the liberty minded circles monitoring all of this. First, it must be understood that most of the positions “that really count” have unorthodox and radical outsiders apart from the beltway e.g. Bannon, Tillerson, Flynn, Maddis, Pompeo
With respect to the country club establishment types (Mnuchin, Preibus), The claim is that they will indeed be marching to his tune and not the other way around. Also that in the short term he needs people that “know their way around the office” More specifically, with respect to Mnuchin and Tillerson, the claims are that those two had been trying to change the system from the inside with their influence in their respective cartels (think of Tillerson as the Trump of the oil industry). Simply put, they are more like Trump and less like the rest of the DC vermin.
I am getting the information that I am basing these remarks on from two chief sources. The first one is a man named Roger Stone. Roger has been a close friend of Trump since the 80s and has given tremendously valuable info with respect to the bigger picture and context behind Trump’s aims and intentions. The picture is one of a much more lofty and long term horizon than any kind of personal publicity or power grab. Any interview on the subject of Trump with Roger Stone is valuable but I will submit this video as an example. He is also very eloquent and concise with alot of good stories.
(skip to min 8:15 for main point)
My second source has been a conduit for my info from Stone and is invaluable in his own right. The radio host Alex Jones. Folks unfamiliar with certain aspects of history or who rely too heavily on the legacy media (newsprint, tv networks) for their information may see him as hyperbolic or outlandish. I won’t stir that debate now but will simply submit that anyone who wishes to be truly informed on current events should listen to his radio show. As an example of his unexpected influence, I am submitting his interview with then primary candidate Trump. The content is now dated, but it more clearly gets to the bigger picture or “real story” for why he ran for president.
To more sharply focus on this “bigger picture,” I am also including a segment from his first thank you/victory speech in Ohio (a speech that I feel should be read by students in the future as a ringing rejection and final bookend to the principles established by Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points). This segment of his speech may seem confusing to those that rely on the legacy media, but to a certain few it is a clear signal for the forthcoming reclamation of sovereignty from the jet-setting world economic forum/UN establishment internationalist types that have been eroding it for so long.
who exactly are the people he is challenging here? George Carlin gives a general illustration.
More specific names may include:
Kissinger
Brezinski
Soros
Rockefeller
Murdoch
etc.
These are the people he is challenging, alongside the rest of the establishment types that include the Bushs and the Clintons. The fact that Trump single handedly defeated these two dynasties that have essentially run DC for the last three decades should be the biggest cause for celebration.
The left wing populist types (Sanders supporters) should be supporting him as well for these reasons and indeed the fact that he was the first candidate since basically Andrew Jackson who could not be bought or bullied. The fact that they don’t I see as trickery by the propaganda from the legacy media and academia.
A note on Hillary:
It was not just that she had all the dirty laundry and was reviled. It was that it was true and the resentment justified. The worst dirt they could dig up on trump was that he once said the word “pussy” on a bus, whereas the worst dirt on Hillary is that she is indeed, a criminal. The Clinton family and their foundation can essentially be understood as a crime syndicate and that is not hyperbole or exaggeration. More specific terms for the case for the Clintons as criminals going back to the 80s include:
Mena, Arkansas
developmetn corporation
Vince Foster
Danney Williams
Juanita Broderick
Kathleen Willey
Larry Nichols
The Clinton Foundation in Haiti
and the well publicized missing emails relating to Benghazi
A much more thorough analysis and history of the Bush/Clinton crimes is offered by two of Roger Stone’s books, links below.
I will now address my other reasons for my support of Trump that are a bit more personal and symbolic, reasons that I feel are the most important in the long run.
I regard Political Correctness as a malignant and subversive influence on society that must be ground into a proverbial fine powder by any and all capable hands. It is my conviction that the PC advocates do not have one ounce of compassion for those they claim to defend, but are simply attempting to manipulate and intimidate the defiantly individualistic among us through shame, humiliation, and appeals to guilt. PC rhetoric is simply just censorship and control by another name and it must be countered. I regard Trump’s steadfast composure and irreverence in the face of the reams of PC mudslinging as tremendously courageous and admirable. My support for him essentially started when in the first question of the first primary debate he said to Megyn Kelly:
“I don’t have time for Political Correctness, and this country doesn’t have time for Political Correctness.”
A more precise point of appreciation on this subject is his example of entrepreneurial acumen and traditional masculine virtues, features that are most always the target of the same slander and calumny from the PC legacy media or any left-wing pundit. Whether this is real (and it mostly is) or symbolic doesn’t ultimately matter. That he has flaws in this realm I also regard as inspiring in that they reveal him to really just be a “regular guy” and not a polished, sterile politician. It is precisely these points that offend many but this is why I share the relief of many more that higher principles can still be more important than temporarily hurting people’s feelings.
In closing, I am submitting a very stirring montage of tv segments of Trump going back to the 80s (its a bit long but the ones in the beginning are the most profound)
“I think its a very mean life....”
and something tells me it’ll be ok.

Much love and eager anticipation for American Greatness,
Aaron