Trusting Trump Part 1

Part 1: The Father of the Vaccine

The purported health interventions imposed from March 2020 onwards curtailed liberty and lives. Advocates of the measures revealed their intellectual and moral failings. Public figures who propagated these edicts identified themselves as tools of totalitarianism, compromised or complicit.

Those who used their celebrity to push dangerous injections and segregation, and who vilified those who refused the shots, were condemned by the growing numbers of people resistant to their propaganda.

Proponents of the treachery faced angry recriminations from the marginalised and censored dissident community.

The divide was immediate, deep and entrenched. The trust broken, gone forever.

But with one exception. Many people were able to overlook the failings of the self-professed, “father of the vaccine,” Donald Trump.

Bizarrely, a man who continues to claim that the injections were "one of the greatest achievements of mankind," who boasts of expediting their manufacture and delivery, and who coerced many to inject themselves (-often with injurious and fatal results that he now overlooks), is regarded by many dissidents as a great hope and saviour.

To what can we ascribe this perception?

People view the world through the prism of their own experience. As many people's awareness of political corruption increased precipitously due to the medical tyranny of the 2020s, they can sympathise with someone who might appear not to have been immediately conscious of the scam being conducted.

This sympathy is exploited by the perpetrators of the deceit. The gulled public are reluctant to condemn another for the ignorance they shared and so they are often willing to take a duper for a dupe.

There is also a certain short-sightedness at work. Consciously or otherwise the dissident initially perceives that the deceit began when he became aware of it. This would assume that a scheme for worldwide subjugation, lockdown, and injection, was applied from March 2020 onwards without advance preparation. Would such a plan be put in motion without control of key figures? Alternatively would such a plan be enacted if there were those in key positions who could derail it with a few well chosen words at any moment? Or is it more likely that key figures such as the President of the United States were party to the deceit?

Klaus Schwab explicitly informs us that the World Economic Forum (WEF) has 'penetrated the cabinets' of governments around the world and that the WEF has 'stakeholders' in business, politics, governments, NGOs, trade unions, media, academia, religious leaders, and social entrepeneurs.

Leaders such as Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern, and Vladimir Putin were all WEF Young Global Leaders. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) held financial influence over academic institutions, regulatory bodies, vaccine companies and media. Anthony Fauci controlled academic and medical research.

Robert F Kennedy jr, writing in his book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci,’ details that,

"The United States historically has been the largest direct donor to WHO with a contribution of $604.2 million in 2018–2019 (the last years for which numbers are available). That year BMGF gave $431.3 million and GAVI gave $316.5 million. Plus, Gates also routes funding to WHO through SAGE and UNICEF and Rotary International, bringing his cumulative total contributions to over $1 billion, making Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO."

Fauci dispenses even more money.

“Pentagon funding brings the annual total of grants that Dr. Fauci dispenses to an astonishing $7.7 billion—almost twice the annual donations of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

“Their control of several billion dollars in annual inputs gives Gates and Fauci effective control over not only the WHO, but also the retinue of authoritative quasi-governmental agencies that Gates—often with Fauci’s assistance and support—created and/or funded, including CEPI, GAVI, PATH, UNITAID, UNICEF, SAGE, the Global Development Program, the Global Fund, the Brighton Collaboration, and governmental health ministries in dozens of African nations that are largely dependent on the WHO and other global health partnerships.”

Having gone to such lengths would these organisations and individuals risk their plans being scuppered by a supposed messiah in the White House? Treason carries a severe penalty. Is this a risk the conspirators would take with their lives?

The UK had its own version of a right-leaning, cartoonish, carefully coiffed, blonde, bombastic buffoon, in the form of Boris Johnson. Despite locking down the country, his supporters swallowed the simplistic media line that he didn't want to do it (three times -or more accurately, continuously for 18 months). Despite him being the most restrictive peacetime Prime Minister in history, people continued to view Johnson as a libertarian lover of freedom. A look at Johnson's background reveals that he shares depopulation ideals with his father as well as what would then be a contradictory advocacy of the covid shots, if those shots saved lives. His aristocratic and well connected personal background is coupled with a professional history that reveals an unlikely propensity to 'fail upwards.' In March 2020, Johnson led people to believe he had a brush with death, as Trump seems to have done recently. They have much in common.

A look into Trump's background reveals that he was compromised by his financial ineptitude which led to repeated bankruptcies in the 1990s. As a result he was bailed out and financed by Rothschild agent Wilbur Ross who later took his place as Secretary of Commerce in Trump's administration, dictating policies.

Forbes relates that:

“In stepped Ross, then head of Rothschild Inc’s bankruptcy advising team, to represent bondholders, who were pondering forcing the casino into involuntary bankruptcy and ousting Trump. Ross reportedly saw crowds pressed against Trump’s limo windows to get a peek at the mogul, and realized the value of Trump’s celebrity.”

Trumpfile.org details that,

“A syndicate of about 70 national and international banks agree to loan Donald Trump $65 million to stay afloat and save his billionaire facade. The deal includes an allowance of $450,000 per month for his own personal expenses. In return, Trump gives up control of his finances and businesses until he’s no longer on the brink of bankruptcy.”

“For the first time in his life, Donald Trump is on a leash — a $450,000-per-month leash. But with little to do for his companies, the broke “billionaire” has more time for a cheaper project he started earlier this year: becoming a tabloid star.”

The LA Times explains,

“Ross embarked on a strategy that helped Trump avoid a personal bankruptcy that could have derailed his unlikely trajectory from real-estate mogul to reality television star to president-elect.”

““Why did we make a deal with him?” one asked, according to Rosenberg’s book.

Ross insisted that Trump was worth saving.

“The Trump name is still very much an asset,” he said.

Trump himself proved to be less of a sure bet. Though the agreement allowed Trump to soldier on in Atlantic City, his casinos landed in bankruptcy court twice more.”

Trump was seeded to the American public as a potential presidential candidate in 1980, 1985, often in 1987, in 1998 on the Oprah Winfrey show, and throughout the 2000s. Hollywood familiarised the American public with him through his appearance in numerous films and television shows, aimed at a range of demographics that would later go on to vote for him. Among other productions, Trump appeared on Friends, Cheers, Frasier, the Gilmore Girls, Sex and the City, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, and also in the movies Home Alone 2 and Zoolander.

He was notably inserted into American homes on the Apprentice TV show which bolstered his image of a successful businessman. “When Donald Trump participated in his 2011 Comedy Central roast, the only material that was off the table was “any joke that suggests Trump is not actually as wealthy as he claims to be.”” The Independent Movie Database registers Trump as an actor.

As Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio noted in 2017,

“He’s an actor who’s been playing himself for his entire life, in much the same way John Wayne played himself in every role. And it’s worked so well for him, playing this role of a leader and businessman, that he transitioned seamlessly into his new role as an outspoken candidate and a risk-taker. Enough people bought the act, and he managed to get elected.”

Although by contrast Barack Obama played the role of a sophisticated figure who was congenial with his political opponents, he made an exception for Donald Trump at the White House press gala dinner. Trump was publicly made the butt of Obama's jokes and thus anointed as a champion of adversaries of the left.

In his mockery Obama specifically highlighted the disparity between his then presidential status and Trump's position as a reality television personality, ostensibly catalysing Trump's run for office. It could not have been scripted any better.

Part 2 is here.