“The
argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies...
is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that
the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading
to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to
replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be
none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the
same basic policies.” (Carroll
Quigley)
As a writer and researcher
of Marxist propaganda and psychological manipulation of human behavior, I have
been critical of President Trump. I have written many articles suggesting that
Trump is not the conservative many people believe him to be. I have highlighted
his support for red flag gun laws, his unconstitutional bump stock ban and the
fact that many of his polices advance leftist objectives. The new NAFTA
for example, strengthens global governance of trade in the region pushing us
closer to globalist vison of a North American Union. Another example is the
fact that education secretary, Betsy Devos, has signed us onto the U.N.
education initiative which pushes the objectives of sustainable development
onto our children.
The mainstream media does an
excellent job of portraying a constant conflict between Trump and the liberals so
that most people believe Trump is working for them. The more the Democrats
object to Trump the more his base supports him, even though he is advancing the
leftist agenda. A good example is the NAFTA deal and the U.N. education plan Devos
signed. Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, for example, which really
had no force of law behind it, solidifying in his supporter’s mind that he is
working against leftist objectives. He then went on to support the new NAFTA
and Devos signed on with the U.N. Both policies push the same objectives as the
Paris Accord. Another example is Trump pulling out of the U.N. Arms treaty
after banning bump stocks and supporting red flag gun laws.
I have written many times
about the dangers of that treaty however; it was never ratified and had no real
force of law. Trump pulling out of it, however, assures his second amendment
base that he is on their side while he is still pushing anti-gun policies
himself.
Psychologists have figured
out long ago that people can be easily conditioned. In most cases, the
convictions that people hold are not easily broken. My book, Psychopolitics
in America: A Nation Under Conquest discusses this in detail. What people
are taught tends to stick with them. In the case of Trump, Americans were
taught early on that he was the last hope America had. After eight years of
Obama and the prospect of a Clinton presidency Americans believed it.
Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals that
people can be brought to accept almost anything if they are brought to a point
of absolute desperation and face no prospects for the future. Hillary Clinton
wrote her college thesis
on Saul Alinsky. I would also like to remind everyone that she was also an
attendee at Trumps wedding. Front row seats.
In March of 2017, shortly
after President Trump took office, I wrote this
article highlighting the fact that he was deploying troops to Syria in
accordance with the Project New American Century war doctrine. The links used
in that article have been taken down and little remains to be found, except for
this article describing what the Project New American
Century is. Essentially, it was a plan designed to take out seven middle
eastern countries; Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and IRAN.
These
wars were planned more than twenty years before their execution, using the September
11 terror attacks as the pre-text for initiating them. President Obama dropped
bombs in five of these countries during his term in office proving the
quote by Quigley to be factual. There are certain policy objectives that will
be met whether a leftist Democrat is in office or a so-called conservative
Republican.
Earlier this month President
Trump deployed a carrier strike group and a fleet of B-52 bombers to the
Persian Gulf in response to a series of threats made by Iran. Most of his base
support this move even though war with Iran would devastating consequences. Russia,
China and Iran have been forming a military alliance to counter what they
view as, western aggression.
Is Trump’s deployment to
Iran in response to a genuine threat or is it in fact a continuation of war plans
that were written up years ago to change the land scape of the middle east and
project U.S. power in the region?
Interesting article. I'll have to research your argument in depth to validate or eradicate the idea that you're putting forth. None the less, great read and something to ponder.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty I am not sure any of this can be validated beyond speculation. I mean, the PNAC was a real thing and Bush, Obama and Trump have all pushed forward its objectives. Does Trump know he is, or is he following orders from someone else? I am only expressing opinions on possibilities and have no more proof than what I offered here.
ReplyDelete