On September 5th, an anonymous op-ed piece was published in the New York Times, with a very revealing title and byline: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration: I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
We truly do live in interesting times. To me, the fact that this anti-Trump Op-Ed piece has been published is so humorously provocative I don’t know where to begin. But perhaps we should start with the explanation by the New York Times’ Editorial Authority as to why they were willing to publish an opinion piece that dresses down POTUS from an anonymous source who they nonetheless claim to be the real deal:
The Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
Of course following the link to comment on their vetting process only two days after the op-ed came out leads to a page which informs us: “Sorry, but this form is no longer accepting submissions.” But that’s besides the point. Of interest here is using our discernment to determine whether the act of publishing this itself is justifiable.
I will give the New York Times and their anonymous cohort credit for their clever ploy: we are told that this information comes from a ‘senior official in the Trump administration.’ This certainly gives the statements about Trump a decent degree of credibility, if you trust the newspaper itself. But whether or not this informant is truly a senior staffer is not of paramount importance. It is well known that Trump is surrounded by Deep State flunkies on both sides of the aisle, and plenty of people in the political game who deal with Trump would know enough through first and second-hand experience to put together the picture of Trump constructed in this article.
To say that their identity is hidden because the informant’s “job would be jeopardized by its disclosure,” is certainly reasonable enough. And this gives this informant much greater latitude to make personal criticisms of Donald Trump and his administrative style, while lauding praises on himself and his like-minded colleagues who are apparently keeping the ship of state from colliding into an iceberg.
But I believe one could reasonably hold the New York Times accountable for their willingness to provide a platform for an anonymous source who is given the credibility to make such demeaning and derisive comments towards a sitting president. The ‘game’ has certainly changed from years ago when there were efforts to respect the office of POTUS as a matter of principle in the name of keeping a country unified. Suffice it to say, those rules of civility no longer apply, and maybe it’s because Trump is seen as such a threat to the Deep State.
This is not to say that some of the statements made are not based in reality; there may be some truth to the contention that his leadership style is ‘impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective,’ at least to Deep State operatives within his administration. Even many Trump supporters are aware that their leader, just based on his public persona, is probably not the most intellectual, nuanced, or discerning mind ever to grace the seat of the Oval Office. But again, that is not of fundamental importance here. What is important is that this still represents journalistic bias in favor of a particular viewpoint. Certainly, an ‘expert’ proponent of Q-Anon and Trump’s fight against the Deep State would not be offered both anonymity and credibility by this rag. But more on that later.
Deep State Agenda
Let’s examine this New York Times op-ed and see if it checks off all the boxes of serving as an extension of the Deep State agenda.
Mainstream Media efforts to bring down Trump. Check. We have written widely about the consistent barrage of opposition to Trump from the Mainstream Media (with the exception of Fox News) grounded in the Deep State’s desire to remove Trump from power because he and his allies are actually working to take down the Deep State. By having information coming from a White House insider who claims to be part of a ‘resistance’ against Trump, it not only isolates Trump while lauding Deep State elements of the Republican party, it tries to give us reason to believe that if Trump were not there and this group had the power, all would be good with the Republic. Those suggestions that intelligent, patriotic cabinet members were strongly considering invoking the 25th amendment to oust Trump only serves to reinforce this notion.
Promotion of the Deep State paradigm. Check. The piece was clear in framing ‘reality’ back into Deep State norms of perception. For example, the globalist characterization of who is ‘good’ and who is ‘bad’:
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
By ‘like-minded nations’ we can simply read ‘Deep State-controlled nations.’ The article also lauds Deep State stalwart John McCain, and criticizes Trump for his “mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the ‘enemy of the people.’” Mainstream Press good. McCain good. Deep State-controlled nations good. Sanctioning Russia good. Trump bad. Yep, all boxes checked here.
Denial of the existence of the ‘Deep State’. Check. Again, in patting himself and his cohorts on the back as being the ‘adults in the room’ in Oval Office meetings, the informant tells us that their efforts to steer decision-making policy back in the right direction “isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.”
Just for the sake of an objective appearance, the writer does make one concession. Still, the implied credit here goes to those Republican members of ‘the Resistance,’ not Trump himself:
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
Reality TV Playing Out Live
A transcendent fight between the Deep State faction supported by their Mainstream Media minions and an Alliance that directs Donald Trump and is galvanized by 4Chan informant ‘Q-Anon’ is playing out right in front of our eyes. In fact, we could liken it to the most multifaceted Reality TV show we could imagine. It would certainly put ‘The Apprentice’ to shame for being too one-dimensional.
And speaking of ‘reality’ TV: who could have imagined that when an episode of the Simpsons from the year 2000 aired, it would look into the future and prognosticate the Presidency of Donald Trump? In this clip, President Lisa Simpson’s administration puts the blame on former President Trump for tanking the economy as a result of ‘investing in our nation’s children.’ My, my, the Deep State was even at it back then.
Fighting For Our Perception Of Reality
The fight is one for perception: the Deep State’s controlled perception is that things are exactly as they seem and have always been presented accurately by mainstream media, with no validity to a ‘Deep State’ or to ‘Q’. Interestingly, this New York Times op-ed piece seems to be muscling into the conspiracy-tinged ‘insiders as part of the resistance’ game, only to characterize the insiders as sober and capable patriots who espouse Republican ideals where Donald Trump is the lone enemy.
The version of reality espoused by Q-Anon and a growing number of awakening citizens is that this controlled Deep State perception has actually been deception, and that things are not and have never been as they seem, by powerful design. Q’s motto ‘the Great Awakening’ indeed seems to encompass the very reason this game is playing out between the good guys and the bad guys, as I alluded to so many times in my Lucifer series. Both sides together are necessary elements in the awakening of humankind, and fortunately we are alive at a time when the story is about to reach its climax.