I have wanted to write a post called something like “Is Trump the Real Deal?” That is a controversy right now in alternative media: some are faithful Trump advocates; others take the view that in the jaded world of realpolitik, no true outsider can win, that the Trump-Clinton rivalry was only for show, and that the Powers That Be wanted Trump to win anyway.
I do believe, categorically, that Hillary Clinton was the Deep State’s first choice. This was demonstrated by mainstream media’s ruthless daily pummeling of Trump, while kid-gloving Clinton despite her innumerable scandals; the rigging of debates; and even trotting out George H. W. Bush to announce he would vote for Hillary. The election was followed by unprecedented efforts to overturn it, including street riots, recounts, death threats to electors, and the unsupported “Russian hacking” claim.
But though the Establishment favored Clinton, is Trump a true populist outsider?
On the negative side, after pledging to “drain the swamp,” Trump has appointed a number of swamp creatures, including neocons, Establishment Republicans, and Goldman Sachs bankers; there are those who feel he is moving too slowly on his promises, some of which—such as investigating Hillary—look abandoned. Most concerning to me is Trump’s long history of Zionist connections, now crystallizing in his administration, which I may elaborate on in an upcoming post.
On the “real” side, he has axed the TPP, is keeping his pledge to halt illegal immigration, is moving to repeal Obamacare, wants to work with Putin, has spoken to Robert F. Kennedy about leading a vaccine task force, and has reversed Obama’s insane transgender policies.
Although it is reasonable to say “the jury is still out” on Trump, I’m going to focus on two things that are definite: (1) mainstream media’s continuing relentless attacks on him; and (2) the orchestrated nationwide protests.
During the 2016 campaign, a study by the Media Research Center found 91 percent of broadcast media coverage was hostile to Trump. There has been no let-up since the election. Any mistake the President makes in his remarks, however trivial, is inflated and often distorted, whereas by contrast, the media chronically overlooked Obama’s many gaffes. On February 17, the New York Times published an op-ed entitled “Is It Time to Call Trump Mentally Ill?” On February 18, it published one called “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?” With efforts to overturn the election having flopped, the plan has switched to impeachment.
The barrage of anti-Trump headlines feeds the rage of “not my President” protesters, who also feed on cash from the likes of billionaire George Soros, America’s financial angel of civil disorder. He helped fund the Ferguson riots, the post-election November riots, the January Women’s March, and the violent February Berkeley protests.
As a one-time hippie, it appears to me that Soros is using the playbook from the Vietnam War era. This necessitates digressing to that period, after which we’ll return to Trump.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am ANTI-WAR. A war, like a gun, should only be used as an absolute last resort. The “Arab Spring” wars inflicted on the Middle East over the past fifteen years, which were already planned in 2001, are abominations. But as we’ll see, the Vietnam War was undertaken for complex purposes, and was in several ways unlike America’s other conflicts.
As is still widely unknown, the hippie/antiwar movement of the sixties, like today’s Soros rioters, was billionaire-funded, in this case by the Rockefellers.
In The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, student radical James Kunen described the 1968 annual meeting of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spearheaded the war protests:
Also at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables—the meetings sponsored by Business International—tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. They are the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.1
Jerry Kirk, one-time member of SDS and the Communist Party, testified before the House and Senate Internal Security Panels:
Young people have no conception of the conspiracy strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below. . . . They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they are fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.2
In 1970, I hawked the Phoenix (Boston’s new left-wing counterculture newspaper) on the streets (they gave hawkers a really good deal). Eventually, after the Phoenix went too commercial, some of its former staff started a spin-off called The Real Paper. (The idea was that this paper would give you the real hippie news.) But who was owner and publisher of The Real Paper? David Rockefeller, Jr. His name was right on the masthead. To resolve this “cognitive dissonance,” I think most of us assumed David Jr. was “rebelling” against his capitalist father.
Me in the hippie days
Vito Paulekas was considered one of the prime founders of the hippie movement (Wikipedia even credits him with coining the phrase “freak out”). Ironically, Vito’s uncle was the father-in-law of Winthrop Rockefeller (David Sr.’s brother).3
Clearly, the Rockefellers were not adverse to the hippie movement, but embraced it.
Timothy Leary (“Turn on, tune in, drop out”), the guru of LSD and the counterculture, is suspected of working for the CIA, and eventually credited the CIA with directing the whole movement:
Just as stunning are the close links between the hippie music scene and Deep State (especially the military and intelligence communities), detailed by David McGowan in his landmark book Weird Scenes inside the Canyon. Many of the famed rock bands resided in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood of Los Angeles, a short distance from each other, and from the Lookout Mountain Laboratory, a top-secret military installation.
Jim Morrison of the Doors (whose songs I often listened to in the day) was the son of Admiral George Morrison, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Tonkin Gulf at the time of the notorious 1964 “incident” used to launch the disastrous war.
Like many sixties Laurel Canyon bands, the Doors were created suddenly. Morrison had no previous music or singing experience; none of the Doors had even been in a band before.4 Yet unlike most musicians, who must undergo years of development and struggle before success, the Doors swiftly had an array of hit songs and a recording contract. Their producer, Paul Rothchild, had served in the Army Intelligence Corps.5 Morrison’s career ended as abruptly as it began, when he died under controversial circumstances in 1971.
The defining hit of the hippie generation was probably “San Francisco,” composed by John Phillips (The Mommas & the Poppas) for his friend Scott McKenzie:
Yet like so many of the Laurel Canyon crowd, Phillips had a military background: the son of a Marine Corps captain; his sister Rosie worked at the Pentagon, as did his first wife Susie; and John himself attended elite military prep schools before going to Annapolis, from which he dropped out.6
The number-one protest song of that era may have been “For What It’s Worth” by Buffalo Springfield, who morphed into Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young:
According to rock lore, Stephen Stills and Neil Young first met on the Sunset Strip in April 1966, and formed their band. Like the Doors, they had meteoric success; within three months, they were opening for the Rolling Stones at the Hollywood Bowl and released their first single. McGowan notes that Stills was “educated primarily at schools on military bases and at elite military academies,” while Crosby was the son of a major in U.S. military intelligence.7
The most hardcore counterculture figure in the music scene was probably Frank Zappa. His father was a chemical warfare specialist assigned to the Edgewood Arsenal, in whose military facilities the family lived for a number of years. Frank Zappa’s wife Gail was the daughter of a Navy nuclear weapons research specialist, and she herself had worked as a secretary in the Office of Naval Research and Development.8
Read McGowan’s book for similar details on the various other Laurel Canyon bands (and click here to read how the “Wrecking Crew” actually played the instruments on so many of the great songs). While there may have been exceptions, I don’t believe all these rockers were simply “rebelling against their parents” any more than David Rockefeller, Jr. was when he published The Real Paper.
As McGowan observes, if the Establishment (“the Man”) had really opposed these bands, how did they land recording contracts with major labels, and why were their performances showcased on mainstream radio and TV stations across the country? Why weren’t they marginalized, and forced to languish performing as unknowns in coffee houses? When Edwin Starr’s “War” hit the top of the charts in the summer of 1970, I used to blast it out the windows of our hippie house on Franklin Street in Cambridge, Mass. No way these songs made it onto mainstream airwaves without “the Man’s” consent.
The same held true for Hollywood and even Broadway. Anti-war, counterculture productions, from Easy Rider to Hair, were featured in theaters. Yet during the entire course of the Vietnam War (1961-1975), just one major film was made sympathetic to the war effort: John Wayne’s furiously protested Green Berets, which only got produced because of Wayne’s personal determination, coupled with the pull he still maintained in Hollywood. Compare that to World War II, during which Hollywood produced scores of pro-war films over a span of four years. Indeed, pro-war movies about World War II continued unabated throughout the Vietnam period, without a peep of protest. No one seemed to notice the contradiction. Sixties movies portrayed the military of the forties as valorous and virtuous, but the current U.S. military as autocratic and paranoid—Seven Days in May, The Bedford Incident, and who could forget General Jack Ripper launching a first strike on the Soviet Union in Dr. Strangelove?
Television got in on the act, debuting All in the Family in 1971, typecasting Archie Bunker as a bigoted, knuckleheaded patriot. Watch “hawk” Archie rail against gun control while his “dove” son-in-law—and canned laughter—cue the audience on how to react:
The same pattern held for the mainstream news media, which portrayed the war in Vietnam as negatively as possible, from inventing Vietcong victories to hyper-publicizing American atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. On the home front, their cameras were always focused on the protests. In 1984-85, Accuracy in Media produced a documentary, Television’s Vietnam, which—especially in Part II—busted the MSM’s misrepresentations of the war. Since the film has been flushed down one of Orwell’s memory holes, I sent a VHS copy this week to my friend at Federal Expression for a YouTube upload. It’s long, and watching is not essential to this post, but I have embedded Part II below for reference.
None of the attacks bothered the Deep State in Washington. They had no intention of winning the war, for, as Orwell has been paraphrased, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.” As I detailed in the first post I ever wrote for this blog, the Vietnam War was orchestrated by an elite inner circle of globalists who were not interested in defeating communism. They guaranteed that U.S. victory in Vietnam would be unachievable by imposing severe limitations on the military (“the Rules of Engagement”) that were without historical precedent. (Note: General Ripper was actually right—war should be left to generals, not politicians; his ridiculous character was put on display in 1964—same year as Tonkin Gulf—to help ensure the public would approve CFR bureaucrats running the Vietnam War instead of West Point graduates.) The Talmudic Zionists at the top of the Illuminati pyramid had funded communism from the beginning, which is why the Korean War (intended to validate the UN as peace-keeper) and Vietnam were the first wars America fought where victory was forbidden.
And what was their purpose in Vietnam? Aside from lesser motives (such as elimination of the draft, a move necessary to transform the military into an international police force—difficult to do with scruples-minded draftees in the ranks—and the usual weapons profiteering), the war was used to create a national divide. Americans faced a catch-22: they could either be “doves” and join the Rockefeller-backed, drugged-up hippies; or they could be scorned as “hawks” in the ranks of Nixon’s “Silent Majority,” favoring a war rigged to be lost.
In reality, the Deep State was deceiving both sides, though few people knew the Deep State even existed. But in the great national struggle over Vietnam, one side would wind up on top. The winner was predictable from who was universally favored by Hollywood, the music industry, and the rest of mainstream media: the “doves.” When all will power to continue the war had been inevitably exhausted, and the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, the doves could shout: “We told you so!”
While communism was allowed to win militarily in Vietnam, in America cultural Marxism won. We were changed from a Leave It to Beaver society to a Woodstock society. It hadn’t been just about Vietnam; a sweeping assault had been launched on the nation’s core Christian values, as sexual liberation—previously known as “immorality”—infected American youth, along with getting high on drugs. And having been defeated by “invincible” communism, many of my generation became political leftists, in a variation on Stockholm Syndrome.
This opened a Pandora’s Box, as a host of other counterculture agendas were piggybacked onto the antiwar movement: feminism (feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA), the gay movement, the pro-abortion movement, finally morphing into today’s transgenderism, pedophilia, and open Satanism.
America is now in a huge and emotional national divide for the first time since the Vietnam War. Once again, it is funded by billionaires and inflamed by the media. As I have watched rioters fill the streets, I’m reminded of my youth. And I ask: Where were all the protesters when Bush and Obama were bombing Iraq, Libya and Syria? At least the hippies of the sixties had something of substance to protest: a war. Today’s demonstrators rail against shadows: the fact that their candidate lost (“not my President”); a comment Trump made about women in a locker room twelve years ago (while Bill Clinton’s rapes remain ignored); and a faux label of “racist.”
1986: Trump stands alongside Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali after they received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, an award given in “celebration of patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity.”
As in the hippie era, Hollywood and the music industry are partaking, with Meryl Streep bashing Trump at the Golden Globe Awards, Madonna saying she’s thought about blowing up the White House, and Sarah Silverman calling for military overthrow of the government. It wouldn’t surprise me if we soon saw a television remake of All in the Family, with a new Archie Bunker as a Trump “deplorable.”
Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele, a major whistleblower on the Deep State, has told Infowars that massive riots are planned for Washington this spring:
Steele warns that the riots might include “staged shootings by white paramilitary operatives.”9 Such a scenario could be guided into full-blown nationwide race riots, and advance the already overgrown police state.
The Federal Reserve, a congenital organ of the Deep State, could pour gasoline on the flames. The Fed, which has been holding off a dollar collapse for years through quantitative easing, could tighten the money supply and crash the markets. Such a collapse would of course be blamed on Trump. Like the doves at the close of the Vietnam War, Hillary supporters would bark: “We told you so!”
With the nation in political and economic chaos, CNN’s pundits would proclaim that Trump must abdicate “for the good of the country”—a call that would be echoed by the usual GOP sellouts like John McCain and Paul Ryan. All this could happen without Trump doing one thing to provoke it. And if he didn’t step down, impeachment would be called for, as some Democrats are already discussing, including initiation of an “Impeach Trump Leadership PAC.”
Think it couldn’t happen? Let’s remember the crescendo that capped the hippie era: Richard Nixon’s resignation over erasing a lousy 18 minutes of tape. (Gerald Ford then became unelected President, and named as his Vice President—lo and behold—Nelson Rockefeller. If Gerald hadn’t dodged the assassination attempts of Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, a Rockefeller would have become President without receiving a single vote.)
The 2016 election represented an unprecedented David-Goliath victory of alternative media over mainstream media; let’s keep that victory going. What we are witnessing now, in the scathng attacks on Trump and “fake news,” is payback. But as the Bible says of the devil, “He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Revelation 12:12)
1. James Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary (New York: Random House, 1969), 112.
2. William Norman Grigg, “Behind the Environmental Lobby,” The New American (April 4, 2005): 19.
3. David McGowan, Weird Scenes inside the Canyon (Headpress: 2014), 65-66.
4. Ibid., 130-31.
5. Ibid., 101.
6. Ibid., 16.
7. Ibid., 17-18.
8. Ibid., 14-15.
9. Robert David Steele, Donald Trump, the Accidental President—Under Siege! (Kindle edition; Earth Intelligence Network, 2016), location 108.