Trump Plays the Globalists' Game

Tim Owen

I’ve been a solid Trump supporter for some time now.  He seems to understand the dynamics around globalism. He understands how the money system is rigged against ordinary people. He understands how the mainstream media is controlled by the power elite to control public opinion and divert and deflect so the people are shielded from the truth. He also seemed to understand how the US/NATO war machine was used to cement the power of the elite, advance globalism and crush alternatives, and how it happily supported, both directly and indirectly, extremists of every stripe to undermine and destroy any resistance to the globalist cabal. It’s a three-headed monster of the financial system, the military machine and the media, and Trump gets it… or does he?

Earlier this week the US took unilateral action against Syria, supposedly in response to a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Assad government against its’ own people. I’m not going to say with any certainty that this was not the work of Assad’s forces, but simply point out two things. Firstly, it makes absolutely no sense for him to do this. They have been successfully pushing back ISIS forces for some time now, with the help of both the Russians and the Americans, so why would Assad do this? Secondly, it now seems highly likely that the 2013 sarin gas attack, which the globalists wanted to use as an excuse to invade Syria and oust Assad, was a ‘false flag’ attack. So, it would not be at all unreasonable to doubt the authenticity of information being pumped out by CNN, the BBC and MSNBC etc that this was the work of Assad. Let’s be generous though and assume that the gas attack was the work of the Assad forces. Trump was quite clear during his campaign that he was opposed to the 2003 Iraq war. He strongly counselled Obama against invading Syria in 2013 on the basis of the previous gas attacks (not to mention reminding of the need for Congressional approval).  So, why has he decided to play the globalists game and take military action at this time?

There’s been a lot of analysis and speculation in the past two days about the upsides to the military intervention for Trump - kill the Russian puppet narrative - send a message to the Chinese - and the Iranians - set the table for negotiations with Assad in the future. Scott Adams’ summed it up well in his blog. The 4D chess school, if you like. I suspect however that the reasons for this action are more concerning for Trump enthusiasts like me. Think of this as the the "you become the swamp" school. The key elements of this perspective are:  Large parts of the government in the US, including key functions such as the National Security Council (NSC), are still dominated by globalist/neo-con types. A significant number of the members of the NSC are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (as globalist as it gets). In other words, Trump is surrounded by advisers who support the war-mongering, global control agenda of the neo-cons which Trump so steadfastly criticised on his way to the White House. Secondly, Trump is a big fan of the military and of having a strong military. You can’t help thinking that he rather likes the idea of using the undoubted muscle which the US has in this department. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to see the rationale of having a beefed-up military - which Trump is undoubtedly supporting - unless it’s going to be flexing those muscles. Thirdly, is Trump’s son-in-law, Jarred Kushner being allowed to exercise too much influence and does that reflect an overly-strong pro-Israel bias in the Trump White House which could mean continued US aggression in the Middle East?

I haven’t disembarked from the Trump Train just yet, but I have to say I much preferred his campaign rhetoric about foreign military intervention than I do his actions in the past week.