As most people know, I write and blog about "strange stuff" and "high octane speculation." And today is no different, although I depart from my normal format to put all my cards on the table and let people know what I'm thinking about the events of the past few months. They are, for anyone paying attention, bizarre. Similarly, I suspect that most people paying attention are inclined to view them as "connected somehow." Even for those not convinced of any connectivity, I suspect that these events exhibit at least a kind of "minimal strangeness" that raises the eyebrows.
Last Thursday, during my New and Views from the Nefarium, I remarked upon the strangeness of the timing of all these things. On account of that timing, I really was not concerned at all to raise "conspiracy theories," but rather, "conspiracy questions". I began by pointing out that due to not feeling well, I had not watched the President's State of the Union address. I awoke to find my email inbox stuffed to the gills with emails, and among these were a couple of emails that had pointed out a strange remark he had made. I listened to the portions of the speech, but like the klutz I am, deleted the emails, and then realized how very strange indeed the remarks were. They were right up there with President Kennedy's now famous remarks about secret societies, only that President Kennedy made his remarks to a gathering of businessmen, while President Trump made his from the podium of the U.S. House of Representatives no less. The interesting thing is, both sets of remarks could be taken to indicate the existence of some sort of dark international cabal.
But before we proceed further with my reflections, I would like to thank all the people who responded to my request during the News and Views to send me a link to the President's strange remarks. The response to that News and Views both for this content and to the wider picture I was suggesting was overwhelming. Here is one video link to the President's remarks, and the remarks in question begin at 1:02:00, and the specific remarks that caught my and everyone else's ears that I heard from were at 1:02:52:
The actual text of the speech, which I have pulled from ABC News, reads this way (and I have included the intriguing context, with emphasis in boldface, and the remarks in question in italics):
As we rebuild America's strength and confidence at home, we are also restoring our strength and standing abroad. Around the world, we face rogue regimes, terrorist groups, and rivals like China and Russia that challenge our interests, our economy and our values. In confronting these dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unmatched power is the surest means of our defense.
For this reason, I am asking Congress to end the dangerous defense sequester and fully fund our great military. As part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully never having to use it, but making it so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression. Perhaps someday in the future there will be a magical moment when the countries of the world will get together to eliminate their nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. Last year I also pledged that we would work with our allies to extinguish ISIS from the face of the earth.
But in the actual speech, President Trump says this:
For this reason, I am asking Congress to end the dangerous defense sequester and fully fund our great military. As part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully never having to use it, but making it so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression from any other nation or anyone else.
Of course, we all are familiar with the President's habit of speaking off the cuff and ex tempore, or embellishing prepared remarks, such as here. So one could write this off as yet another example of this habit, and hence, there is nothing really significant about them.
However, in the wider context of "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" - i.e., extra-territorial actors - the remarks become much more laden with significance and implications. There is, in fact, in law a doctrine that maintains that utterances made in times of stress are very revealing, and that special weight may be according to them when assessing their significance and potential evidentiary value. To whom, then, is the President referring? And more importantly, is he maintaining that there is a nuclear threat from such entities, and that the U.S. response would be nuclear if such groups were to resort to nuclear weapons? And again: the context of terrorist groups suggests an extra-territorial actor or actors, hidden as players on the world stage.
Then came the "equal time" Democratic response, which, again, I did not watch, being laid up in bed, but I did hear portions of it the next day on numerous radio shows, most of which focused, in my opinion, on non-issues and avoided the biggest point about it: it was given by a Kennedy. It was, and is, the symbolism of this response that in my opinion was the real substance of the message. It was in my thinking a warning: remember what happened to that President when he tried to "drain the swamp." In this context, the President's "off-the-cuff" addendum to the prepared text of his speech may not have been so "off-the-cuff" and may have been a deliberate "drop in."
Then the train crash occurred, with several members of the Republican Congressional delegation on their way, on a chartered train, to the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, a well-known "bunker" facility which some allege is still a part of the Continuity of Government plans. During my News and Views I voiced my concern that this may have been a deliberate attack that was attempting to derail the train, an attack which went wrong. To this component of Thursday's high octane speculation I received yet another deluge of material so overwhelming I'm still trying to digest it. Some offered the opinion that a truck could indeed derail a train if the train were traveling fast enough. Others, who live in the area where the accident occurred, informed me that the crossing was indeed hazardous; still others informed me that there were helicopters overhead and that the train had slowed to go through the junction (thus preventing a potential derailment); and yet still others informed me that the trip itself was nothing significant, and that it was a component of regular congressional trips to the facility (which would make it relatively easy to schedule such an event). And yes, still others wrote suggesting that the reason the train had slowed was that there was indeed "inside information" that some sort of attack might be made on it. Even more recently I have heard that the congressional delegation and their families were on the train when congress is supposed to be in session, and that in spite of injuries to some, they continued to the site on buses.
Needless to say, all these speculations and allegations only served to keep my "suspicion meter" in the red zone about the whole incident, especially in the context of "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" and the need for nuclear deterrent against both. Indeed, it's worth recalling that the President didn't name these groups in his off-the-cuff addendum, but only in the context to it. In the remark itself, he was (deliberately?) vague and yet crystal clear: "anyone else." Some have offered the opinion - and I won't even mention their initials as is my normal custom - that there was indeed a continuity of government operational aspect to the congressional train trip. Why? Because tomorrow is the Stupor Bowl in the Twin Cities, and rumors have been flying fast and furious that it could be the scene of a "false flag" of rather dramatic proportions, along the lines of the movie version of Tom Clancy's famous novel The Sum of All Fears. Need I mention that in the movie version, a nuclear attack is made on a football game? And that the culprits are an extra-territorial cabal (of neo-Nazis, no less)?
Now, put all this into the wider context of the Las Vegas shooting, the clear indications that the narrative there is badly mangled, and that a certain body of evidence exists - by no means conclusive but at the minimum provocative - to maintain that certain Saudi princes were present that day, and escorted from other Vegas casinos under armed security, and a Saudi coup a week later that arrested significant players not only in the Saudi regime but in global communications technologies and big banking - Prince Al Waleed bin Talal comes to mind - and the picture becomes even murkier. Add into this the President's executive order of Dec 21, and the recent release of Al Waleed, and the picture becomes even murkier: was he released because his Saudi internment was just "round one?"
I might and indeed could expand this context even more, and gain an even murkier picture (mysterious mid-air plane collisions in Great Britain over a Rothschild estate, for example). I won't, because I think my point has been made: the timing of events, the details surrounding them, the symbolism contained in some of them, is I would aver at least strong enough to suggest that my old scenario of some very deep in-fighting in the "deep state" is taking place, and that 2018 may shape up to be a very bumpy year.
See you on the flip side...