Pages -- horizontal menu

Is Trump's Candidacy a Covert Op?

by Berry Friesen (Aug. 10, 2016)

I’ve been mulling this possibility since last August, when Trump and his supporters showed us that a Trump run for President had to be taken seriously.

I do not know the answer to my question, but in the paragraphs that follow I will outline why I increasingly am inclined to regard this “election from hell” as a covert op. 

As I said in “A Dog in This Fight?”, the empire carries out covert ops all around the world to create desired change. Why not here?

By “covert op,” I mean a secret conspiracy of agencies of the US government (probably the FBI, CIA, NSA), working together with private “security” contractors and elements of organized crime to achieve specific results in the 2016 presidential election.

For those who reject “conspiracy thinking” across-the-board, spend a couple of hours reading about how the Democratic National Committee (DNC) conspired to make sure Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Democratic nomination.  Then come back here to finish this post.

What is the purpose of this covert op (if it exists)?

Primarily, the purpose is to elect Clinton as the next President. 

She is a member of the imperial elite and can be counted on to advance the imperial agenda, both in the US and globally:  undermine independent bases of power and authority (culture, religion, nationalism, fiefdoms, etc.); use debt to shift public wealth into private hands; financialize the economy so that Wall Street rules. The military, covert intelligence agencies and proxy terror groups are the enforcers in this game plan. In Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine, Clinton has established a clear record of using such “allies” to advance private interests.  She can be trusted to authorize more violence when “needed.”

A second purpose of a covert op within this election is to restore the legitimacy of the US democracy. Many millions of Americans are convinced that the US political system has been corrupted by the moneyed elite.  Participation in voting has been weak; turn-out among the voting-age population has not reached 60 percent since 1968. 

This threatens the legitimacy of the agendas advanced by the President and other political leaders.  So this election must generate high popular participation, including more voting. 

Third, within the Republican Party is a group of mavericks who refuse to follow the imperial script (more Wall Street control, more surveillance, more use of the US military in world events).  Members of this group oppose increased surveillance, oppose war without congressional authorization, oppose energetic government action in response to crisis, and refuse to follow blindly their leadership. 

The growth in this sentiment within a major player in the system must be stopped.  Discrediting this maverick point-of-view and making it political death to go off-the-reservation (as politicians such Rep. Walter Jones or Senator Rand Paul have) is necessary in order to restore stability.

How would such a covert op be implemented?

A populist candidate who engages the disaffected would be provided the resources to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President, but then would conduct a post-convention campaign that almost inevitably produces failure in the General Election. 

Cooperation of the key players in this plan would need to be secured.  For Trump and Bernie Sanders, the opportunity to gain the attention of the nation and launch “political revolutions” would be sufficient inducement; for Clinton, certain victory would make it all worthwhile.  Major media executives who decide how to “cover” the news are already part of the imperial elite; their support can be counted on.  The same is true of the top leaders of the two major political parties.

How has it been implemented?

Mainstream media ushered Trump onto the national stage in the late spring of 2015 by amplifying his attention-seeking statements.  They kept Trump in the spotlight for a solid 15 months.  This is highly unusual behavior in response to a maverick candidate who has very little establishment support. FOX News played a major role in this (even though Trump was highly critical of FOX News), but other leading television networks and news outlets have responded similarly.

On the left, Sanders campaigned energetically and successfully in opposition to two aspects of Clinton's record:  Wall Street's stifling hold on the US economy and international trade agreements that benefited primarily the 1 percent. Inexplicably, he said little-to-nothing about Clinton's reckless use of confidential documents or her falsehoods to the American people about that conduct. Likewise, Sanders avoided criticism of Clinton's foreign policy record, which has served the interests of al-Qaeda while failing to protect US interests.

Since Trump's nomination as the Republican candidate, he has performed poorly.  Rather than building momentum on his convention success and the popularity of several of his policy proposals (opposition to international trade agreements and the extension of US military force around the world; support for the expulsion of certain groups of refugees and illegal immigrants and a return to an economy based on production, not financial manipulation), Trump instead has distracted his audience with off-topic controversies.

Prominent Republican leaders have responded to Trump’s unfocused and controversy-laden campaign by openly disavowing him.  Other Republican leaders in the foreign policy establishment—especially the Republican neo-cons—have committed their support to Clinton.  Numerous Republican officials in the “national security” establishment have declared Trump is “dangerous.” Together, this has caused a drop in support for Trump among college-educated Republicans and Independents, even while Trump’s support among the disaffected blue-color portion of the electorate remains strong.

Generally, throughout the pre-convention and post-convention phases of the campaign, Republican voices of opposition have been too-little-too-late, never attempting to cut Trump off at the pass, but always waiting to act until he is safely in the clear. 

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has continued to report about Trump’s statements in a way that attracts the disaffected while alarming those loyal to the process.

For example, Trump’s recent comment that in the event of a Clinton victory, Second Amendment devotees may have an alternative to the loss of Amendment-secured rights has been reported as encouragement to assassinate Clinton, even though it shows Trump to be referring instead to some sort of insurrection in the event of a Clinton victory.  Thus, both the disaffected and those loyal to the system have been energized.

How will this end?

If this is “a fixed fight” (as I suggest it is), then Trump will continue to engage the disaffected and alienate the rest of the electorate with outrageous antics and statements.  If there are more moderate and liberal voters driven to the polls by this approach than disaffected voters, then Clinton will certainly win.

Trump will do what is necessary to lose, in other words. That’s what the script calls for.

What difference does any of this make for you and me?

Always, our question must be how to use our time and energy.  Will we expend it on the drama and theatrics of what probably is a staged event leading to a Clinton presidency?  Or on helping to build an entirely different base of moral and political authority than our existing two-party system?  For me, as YHWH gives me breath, it will be the latter.