This is the only viable conclusion I can make based on the following:
-
Trump is not a savior and is part of the establishment (Israel support, Warp Speed, Epstein ties, tycoon and Hollywood background etc.) He has powerful interests behind him and he's just a front to them. The guy's a grifter and an actor (like Zelensky)
-
Powerful entities don't want Trump since the 2016 election and when all failed, they tried to kill him Kennedy style (whoever shot at him, the bullet was real and would have killed him had he not moved his head, this is obvious)
My theory is that there is infight within the global elites and there are two opposing factions. As for their motives, I'd speculate they are geopolitical in nature.
The Trump faction is partial to the neocon idea of US hegemony which is obviously slipping away because of the obvious subversion the country is going through for the past few decades in all spheres - economical, financial, cultural, societal and infrastructural. This faction sees the rising threat from nationalist states like China and Russia and understands it will lose its position if the US doesn't revert back to the Kissinger era realpolitik. This is the good old imperialist way of thinking that people like Cecil Rhodes had. It also matches what Oswald Spengler predicted for the 21c - resource wars between nation states, Caesarism and despotism (endless wars as in 1984).
The other faction is the classic NWO corporate socialist technocrats who seek to depop, deindustrialize (net zero circular austerity economy) and to abolish nation states, subjugating all people under a centralized international beast system modeled after the UN and the EU. Basically Huxley's Brave New World.
Both factions agree on the means used but the ends are essentially different.
The counter to that is that there are no factions and everything is staged to steer us in the NWO scenario but I see many holes in that theory.
Role implies "taking a part", which distracts one from being a partial (perception) within whole (perceivable). Taking a part implies consenting to the suggestion of another partial, while ignoring that only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) partials (life).
Dozen implies "collecting units", while book implies "to bind". If one collects units (taking partials); then one binds self (ones choice) to another (chosen one).
One cannot focus on a book without confining self in-between a cover. That cover implies ones ignorance of perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information).
What if one cannot keep up (life) while losing (inception towards death)? What if letting go resists the temptation to keep, and what if resistance could be grown to sustain self within loss?
What if full (whole) doesn't roll together (con-trol), but directs (inception towards death) apart (life)? What if the opposite of full isn't empty, but ones opportunity to grow self within a full offer? How could one be empty if all moves through one, hence fully fueling one?