Trump Spooks The Deep State Spooks In His First Presidential Speech

22

Watching Donald Trump’s astonishing and unprecedented political earthquake has been thrilling to those of us sick of the leftist puppet show put on by a shadowy and unelected oligarchy. Right-thinking men and women have seen their nations fall apart while politician mouthpieces for globalist financiers spouted scripted talking points designed to demoralize and control us. The Trump train steamed right through and crushed that entire paradigm. Trump was playing 4D chess while his opponents, like rival billionaire George Soros, were playing checkers.

Now that he is president, Trump has not stopped applying this now-familiar level of strategic mastery. This was demonstrated by his choice of venue for his first speech as president: the CIA. If you’ve been following the real news throughout the campaign, you’ll know that Trump’s actual opponents have not been Hillary, CNN or even Soros. It has been the deep state – the globalist neocon/neolib network that extends across the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, defence contractors, media insiders, academics and think-tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Tavistock Insitute, Heritage Foundation and Chatham House, among others. Most members of this real power nexus which have been running the United States trained as spooks during their university days, and many were initiated into the network via the fraternities, sororities and secret societies at universities such as Yale, Princeton and Harvard. Many trained at the CIA before spreading out to other careers, which are largely fronts for their real work.

These are the people Trump has been up against, and so far, he’s beating them. Hence the ‘dossiers’ and supposed leaks by intelligence agencies against him during the election and before his inauguration. The deep state was #withher.

Despite the deep state leadership of the intelligence agencies despising him, Trump is overwhelmingly supported by the rank-and-file of law enforcement, the military and the intelligence agencies. These are right-thinkers like you and me, not creepy narcissistic globalists like their bosses. In my view, this is why Trump chose to address four hundred CIA staff directly after becoming president. He wants to get the support of the rank-and-file in military and the intelligence agencies, to neuter their hostile bosses. The most telling quote from the speech was the following:

‘We may have to get you a larger room. We may have to get you a larger room. And maybe, maybe it’ll be built by someone who knows how to build and we won’t have columns. Do you understand that? We get rid of the columns!’

I’m sure everyone in that room understood very well what a ‘fifth column’ is – a group that undermines a country from within. It’s an expression which comes from Antonio Gramsci, a socialist whose worked assisted in the development of the Western Marxist ideology the deep state has used for decades to divide and control society. Not only was Trump showing the spooks he’s smart enough to speak in code, but that he’ll get rid of their agency if they don’t cut out their white-anting of his presidency.

There are reports that President Trump’s IQ score is up in the genius range. When you watch the man make his moves, that’s very easy to believe. Here is the full speech in case you want to watch the maestro in action.

  • I thought his “columns” comments might also refer to Masonic and Freemasonry traditions and dark connections in the US shadow government.
    Plenty of fifth columnists in the CIA will be beavering away trying to undermine Trump.
    Early days yet, the next 4 years will be very entertaining.
    I am sure Soros will be funding more disruption… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e877e323bed82c9bdbe8b036db8f40da91c2f4358be7320a151e9ab6f3b6069b.jpg

    • Bikinis not Burkas

      If where lucky Soros will cark it!

      • Karen Dwyer

        Unfortunately, he has two sons who look set to continue in his footsteps…

        Maybe they will turn on each other to get the maximum inheritance, and we will be left to get in with our lives!

    • Gregoryno6

      Has George claimed his ‘reward’ from Madonna yet? I assume he did vote on the day.

      • Now that is a disturbing image.

      • Karen Dwyer

        And yet the MSM isn’t trashing Madonna for turning people off voting for Ms HRC :-)))))))

    • You may well be right. I don’t know whether Trump is initiated into any of those Bohemian Grove-type clubs, but anyone who’s familiar with Masonry would get it straight away. Nicely spotted.

    • Reasonable Leftist

      Hi Bucky, just wanted to make sure you knew that I apologized to Entropy for my personal attacks and he graciously accepted. I totally agree that my behavior was completely inappropriate and was at odds with my usual persona and reasons why I joined this community. It won’t happen again and I sincerely hope we can continue our discourse. This is just a temporary account just so I could communicate with you and Entropy. I will be going back to my original account. Cheers Dan Flynn

      • Karen Dwyer

        :-))))))))))
        No one will respect you for over-egging ingratiating behaviour, Dan. Surely there’s a middle ground?

        And go visit Moses A. on Folly of Reason. He does indeed blog regularly. And brilliantly.

        Check out his well-collated “Must read” list. It’s a delight.

        • Dan Flynn

          I’m quite happy with the level of respect towards me around here thanks Karen. I joined this forum as an ‘open Leftist’, as a way to bridge the gap between unhelpful categories such as Left and Right. We’re all human. And yep I’m familiar with Moses.
          Cheers
          Dan

          • Karen Dwyer

            It’s of no matter to me whether you’re left or right (in, out, or shake it all about … do the hokey cokey). There seems to be such a sliding scale in terminology anyway.

            You did make me laugh though (not unkindly! but out loud) and I do like a good laugh.

            I’m glad you know Moses A. of old; his own site collates articles written for such varied audiences (sites I’d never know existed) that there’s a piquancy in his writing that I enjoy whether I agree or not.

            He’s intelligent and gifted, isn’t he?

  • Grant Summers

    The man is a breath of fresh air. I hope this new era of no more bullshit lasts!

  • Dan Flynn

    It’s certainly going to be an interesting four years. For better or worse is the question.
    ‘unprecedented political earthquake ‘
    This description nails it.

    • entropy

      Here’s the question for me:

      Trump was always the most ‘interesting’ candidate. He was always going to deliver the most ‘interesting’ Presidency.

      So why would the MSM, which lives off scandal and turmoil (real or imagined), be so firmly in the boring establishment candidate’s camp, even at the clearly foreseeable cost of its own credibility?

      • Dan Flynn

        Good question.

        I’m not a consumer of MSM myself. I take my news from the Guardian, SBS, ABC (admittedly left wing), and other independent sources. These kinds of media outlets attack Trump for his views on women, immigration, climate change etc – issues we differ on somewhat 🙂 And their credibility remains firmly in tact with their readership.

        ‘So why would the MSM, which lives off scandal and turmoil (real or imagined), be so firmly in the boring establishment candidate’s camp’

        I’m not sure if MSM being anti-Trump meant that they were necessarily pro-Hillary. It’s an important distinction I think. USA media outlets like FOX news, for example, are very well known for their fierce opposition of Democrats. I thought it was quite weird to see them attack a Republican so hard. But I guess their attacks on him started well before he was taken seriously as a presidential nominee.

        Also Trump was a human headline. All he had to do was Tweet something or make a speech and the MSM, knowing how ‘outrageous’ it would be perceived by many people, would publish it, again and again. I mean, the whole ‘I’m gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it’ is pretty bizarre (in my world at least) and was guaranteed major MSM coverage and a fair amount of opposition.

        I think that Trump just pissed them off basically and they ‘thought’ most people agreed with them but as we now know, they were wrong.
        It will certainly be ‘interesting’ to see how the MSM handles itself from here.

        • entropy

          Guardian and ABC are certainly MSM, arguably SBS too (although it has comported itself much better than its competitors of late). If their ‘credibility remains intact’, it is only because of the confirmation bias of their readership. I avoid Guardian like the plague, so I couldn’t say, but the ABC has made itself a laughing stock.

          Being anti-Trump doesn’t make you pro-Hillary, but all of the surrounding context is a good indicator. We have several examples of MSM complicity with the Clinton campaign, and they’re just the ones who got caught. Even the fact that no outlet would break ranks if only to act as a point of difference for commercial reasons is telling.

          Also, I’m not sure what’s confusing about the whole ‘Mexico will pay for the wall’, thing. If the US cuts Mexican aid by the amount it costs them to build the wall, or implements a border tax, Mexico will effectively be paying it. Simple explanation, readily available to anyone on the internet, but a year later and people are still fake-laughing at the sound byte. I guess the Guardian and ABC must have missed a trick or two.

          • Dan Flynn

            ‘Guardian and ABC are certainly MSM, arguably SBS too’

            Well I guess that’s a matter of perspective, when I think of MSM in Australia I think Channel 7,9,10, The Herald Sun, The Age, Women’s Weekly.

            The Guardian is completely Independent by the way, they are subscriber based. I’m interested to know your favorite news outlets? I’ll check them out.

            ‘I guess the Guardian and ABC must have missed a trick or two’
            It might have been me that missed a trick or two.

          • entropy

            The Guardian is owned by The Scott Trust Limited. The ABC and BBC are ‘independent’ too, and many would say they’re far from balanced. Independence just seems to remove the usual commercial requirements and allows an outlet to indulge in the biases of its chosen audience.

            I don’t have a ‘favourite’ outlet as much as least favourites. The MSM used to be tolerable when the gaping holes in their reporting were plugged by someone in the comments section doing their jobs for them. Then they all removed or neutered their comments because regular punters were making their so-called ‘journalists’ look bad.

            I think the best bet is ultimately to read a variety of different sources and form your own opinions.

          • Dan Flynn

            ‘I think the best bet is ultimately to read a variety of different sources and form your own opinions.’
            Indeed.

  • Karen Dwyer

    Hi Moses, this is an interesting article (as per usual – enlarging on the commonplace and using a different metaphor or linking different viewpoints.) Also interesting footage. All I could see was black screen and subtitles, but that highlighted his words and tone of voice. He really didn’t say all that much, but he has a knack of making people feel valued. He also has a very warm voice when he is speaking to, and about, the people he holds in affection and esteem.

    Not the same tone he used during the inauguration. There he was much firmer, but husky voiced. Very easy to listen to.

    Good to be able to make assessments based on listening to and observing the full material, and not the sniping snippets from the MSM.

    • He has a quality (IMO) that is shared by all the great, um, people of history. He acts in what I would call a dialectic way – he doesn’t act linearly (cause + effect) like people usually do, he makes moves that are designed to create a reaction in others that achieves the objective he wants. In this way, he often looks and sounds stupid while his results show he’s extremely clever. This also serves to make his opponents underestimate him. Caesar had the same quality. I believe it’s the essence of great leadership, and is described in Eastern philosophical works like The Art of War.

      I’ve seen a female leader personally who had the same ability Karen, just in case you thought I was being gender-centric. We can’t have that now, can we?

  • Pingback: Trump Spooks The Deep State Spooks In His First Presidential Speech – MosesApostaticus()