People ask me about the news sources to which I pay attention. They ask me “how did you know this was going to happen?” I confided in a co-worker in January of 2020 that the brewing pandemic was about taking Trump out of office, and as the news developed over the following weeks, my colleague remarked that it was all spookily as I’d predicted. Let me state clearly that I am no Nostradamus. I have no special gift of foresight. I am also far from infallible. I’ve been wrong innumerable times. I’ve also been right a number of times when it mattered. I don’t here pretend that I know what’s next, but only some idea of that which could be next. In January of 2020, watching and reading the reports come in, and the way the reports were being presented in media, I knew an operation of some sort was afoot. At first, it was a sinking feeling in my gut, but by the time the “15 days to stop the spread” was announced, my mind was in four-alarm fire. I’m at three-alarm now, edging toward the fourth, and other trusted voices are beginning to voice it too. That could be confirmation bias, but it might also be that they’re independently seeing the same or similar things, and that their gut reactions to them are similar. On Saturday, I warned of the real, undeniable threat posed to President Donald J. Trump by this “arrest” business. For two days running, Bongino has echoed that concern. Today, at the Conservative Treehouse, Sundance wrote of a similar concern, if not directly, then at least by implication. We may see a hammer fall, or a series of them. I do not believe this is coincidental. I want you to pay clear attention to what I am saying: Do NOT be provoked into hasty acts of ill-considered reaction, but DO prepare to take such actions as may become necessary. I pray that I am wrong, and that I’m misreading events, but I believe the unraveling of the republic has been engineered and may now be imminent. The pictures of Trump’s arrest are certainly fake, but the danger to him is still real.
The most important domestic news sources I follow are as follows:
- Dan Bongino
- Sundance and selected commenters at The Conservative Treehouse
- The Gateway Pundit
- Revolver News
- Citizen’s Free Press
- Bannon’s War Room
- Real America’s Voice
- One America News
- President Trump
- John Solomon
- Select Leftists and DCMafia Mobsters in Social Media and in Mainstream Media who I shall not name lest they catch on
- Select others depending on context and specific subject matter
Some of you are now asking: “What are you on about, Mark?” On Saturday, Sundance at CTH wrote the following near the conclusion of an inspiring post(to which I would refer you in full here):
“Do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.”
Initially, this posting made me feel somewhat guilty for having posted as I had, only a few hours before. While I’m virtually certain it was not aimed at me, I nevertheless felt that I should perhaps revisit my words, to rethink whether I might be over-the-top in my worries. Was I seeing a bogeyman that was a mirage created by the heat waves of my own biases? To understand a little about my thinking, you should probably understand my general orientation with respect to such things. The specifics of what I do are much less important than the methodology I use to do them. I engineer and maintain systems that serve a particular type of organization. The most important aspect is, to use the euphemism: Business continuity. In terms of methodology, it’s very similar to concepts of “continuity of government,” and this means optimizing systems to continue operations under any circumstance, perhaps diminished in capacity, but nevertheless to continue. This means an extraordinary gaming-out of potential scenarios under which our systems and our organization might be forced to operate. It means examining all of the parameters, and trying to game out all of the dynamic aspects of all of the moving pieces. We don’t operate in a static world. If one small thing changes within a system, or the environment within which that system operates, it can wildly affect the outcome of events. Trying to plan for how to respond to the myriad possibilities is in large measure what my day-job is all about.
With that in mind, as I’ve continued to think about my posting on the Martyrdom of Donald Trump, gathering new information and adding it to the pile of considerations, sorting through it all, to separate wheat and chaff, I keep coming back to the base assumptions. Bongino touched on this Wednesday in the second hour of his radio show, but I don’t think I can put enough emphasis on the point. When considering a set of scenarios, you make some baseline assumptions. Some of them are so basic that we don’t bother to repeat them. Those things are like these: We’re on Earth, man is mortal, the sun will rise tomorrow morning whether clouds or smoke obscure it or not, and time continues to tick away. That’s all obvious stuff, and pretty rock-solid. The problem comes in when we begin to subsume things into this ubiquitous list of conditions that do not belong there. An example:
“In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” – President John F. Kennedy in an address at American University, Washington, DC, 10 June 1963
Is this a set of assumptions that are equally true? Pick it apart, and you’ll realize it is not. Yes, we inhabit this small planet, and yes, we are all mortal, but if live in East Palestine, Ohio, versus Davos Switzerland, you most assuredly do not breathe the same air, and it should go without saying that there are innumerable people who do not cherish their children’s futures. Another example of this had been all the discussions about how the people of the Middle East want freedom and self-governance just as much as we do. Not only was that contention a bad set of assumptions about a region’s populace, but it had been also a lethally flawed and bankrupt argument about our own culture. We are surrounded by people who want neither political freedom nor anything like self-governance.
You might suggest that this is obvious, and perhaps to you and I, it is, but there are plenty of less-engaged people who take such assertions at face value. They’re always stunned when it turns out that their government had lied to them, or that their spouse had been shagging the pool-boy. I go to such pains to point this out because in so many contexts, we fail to examine our various assumptions before evaluating a circumstance or scenario. It’s quite easy to do. People do it all the time. “But this is America!” Or: “But this shouldn’t be possible in 2023!” Or more simply: “But I’m an American!”
Now this is must all be applied to our current scenario. People make foolish assumptions about the motives of others. People make even more foolish assumptions about the willingness of others to attend to and adhere to their motives. Let us think this through: What is the motive of people who wish to indict President Trump? On the surface, we are told it is simply “to enact justice.” Nobody really believes this announced public motive, not even the most mind-numbed of the leftist sheep. Dan Bongino likes to point out the “and then what?” question. Think of it this way: “I’m going to run over there and grab that tiger by the tail.” Bongino would ask: “And then what?”
“We’re going to indict and arrest President Trump[on a bunch of phony charges that have legally expired if they were ever valid.]”
“And then what?”
In a sane world, the answer would be that Trump would beat the charge and be vindicated, but all of this is based on some assumptions that don’t hold up to inspection: They’re seeking justice. They’ll play fairly and within the law. If they lose under the law, they’ll follow the law and then leave him be. Do you believe any of these assumptions? If they were seeking justice, they wouldn’t even be considering charging him. Even now, the story has broken that they’re concealing exculpatory evidence. So much for playing fairly and within the law. If they lose, you think they will simply give up and go away?
If you believe any of those assumptions, I’d urge you to be present during the pool-boy’s next visit, lest your naiveté continue to abuse you.
Let’s go back to the beginning. If justice isn’t their motive, then what other motives might they have? Money? Power? If it’s one of those, to what end? One could argue that political means can deliver both, and I believe it’s fair to say that the objectives are political. They must know that by parading Trump in cuffs will serve his narrative about the state of our country, but not theirs. Bongino points out rightly that if Trump is right about the existence of a “deep state,” then no better evidence for it might be constructed than the concocted political prosecution and arrest of Donald Trump. In short, arresting him and dragging him into an arraignment actually ends up serving his political aims, because it’s tantamount to a confession that they’re everything he has said they are.
These people are diabolical, but they are not stupid. They know how this will be seen by the public at large. They know they have a weak case that will likely be overturned in the long run, and that any such thing again only serves President Trump’s political aims, but not theirs. Our assumption here is that this a nakedly political prosecution, and it certainly is, at the surface, but there’s much more to this. You see, I’m not nearly the only person war-gaming all of this. They’ve war-gamed it too. This is meaningful, because it means that they’re willing to go forward with this indictment and arraignment irrespective of its political costs to them. Since these are people who are willing to do most anything for the sake of politics, this should serve as an alarm that something is wrong with our assumptions about why they’re willing to go forward with this indictment and arraignment.
From here, I diverge into two possibilities. Let us deal with the first. The first is that they are irrational actors, and are motivated by revenge of some sort toward Trump and his legion of supporters. While I have no doubt but that there is an extensive rank-and-file element that fits this description, the people driving this train are not irrational actors. They may exploit irrationalism on their side, such as the BLM and Antifa rank-and-file, but they’re not irrational. Bongino asked “Is Bragg stupid, or does he just not care?” He forgets another alternative: Bragg is neither stupid, nor irrational, and he’s doing all of this as a planned operation.
If we consider this third alternative, it makes more sense. All of this makes more sense if we understand that the object of this entire situation is not to arrest Trump to humiliate him politically, since it won’t, but will instead serve to increase his credibility: The so-called Deep State is definitely after him. It isn’t to actually enact some form of justice, because it cannot, since this entire situation is the negation of justice but not service to it. If, as I surmised on Saturday, this is intended to intentionally place Trump in a situation where he can be gotten-to, and Bragg is doing it for that purpose, then all of it makes sense.
Remember, the political actors involved have demonstrated repeatedly over the last two decades that obtaining and exercising political power is their primary object, and that they have no compunction whatever about wiping people out, even right in front of our eyes. What makes you think they are any less willing to eliminate Trump? After all, if you assume that their objective with this prosecution is to embarrass him, you must ask: To what end? Theoretically, it would be to cut into his support among the American people. If you’ve already ascertained that this would not be the result, but that instead, you might well strengthen his political standing with the electorate, why would you proceed? You would not.
If the aim of this is to serve the political power objectives of the left, the immediate objective being to prevent Trump from being re-elected to the presidency, but the indictment and arraignment will not, in and of themselves, serve that political end, why would you do it? There it is. It’s right there. Your assumptions must include that these people are willing to play within the law, or that they have lawful means in mind, or that they will rely upon lawful actors and lawful processes. As I said on Saturday, let me repeat now: It doesn’t matter how it comes to pass that Donald Trump does not run for the presidency in 2024, so much as it matters to them that he does not run.
The salve they will offer for that gaping wound consists of this: “Well, at least you still have Ron DeSantis.”
All of this plays out as DeSantis creeps closer to a campaign launch.
Naturally, this assumes a purely domestic political agenda, but what if this is larger than purely domestic motives? After all, the United States has long served as the stumbling block to larger global agendas, from our first amendment to our second; from our due process to our standard of living. Bongino touched on this Wednesday, and gave reference to another story brought to us by Sundance over at the Last Refuge. It seems things are breaking-down severely in France. While another round of protests in that country surprises no one, this may be different. Macron’s raising of the retirement age from 62 to 64 effectively by fiat may have struck a larger nerve in France. The situation there now seems to be escalating, and as the country begins to break down, the last norms of civil conduct being discharged in favor of civil disobedience and worse, one begins to wonder what would happen in the aftermath of a tragic event here in the United States.
Remember, Bragg works for Soros. Soros has been working hard to undermine the US for a long time. That’s the primary reason behind his funding of the various District Attorneys around the country. It’s why he funds Antifa and all of the NGOs, including the ones collaborating to create an invasion at our Southern border. They have been busy seeding chaos in our country for many years, and his only interests in US domestic politics is how it serves his global agenda. If his aim has been to destroy the dollar all these years, ever since he successfully broke the bank of England, he knew he would have to strike at our soft underbelly. He knew he would need to convince some number of us to destroy ourselves. Look around. How much of the chaos you see in media or witness with your own eyes daily was actually birthed by some Soros-funded operation? There is a growing library of what I term “little dirtbag videos,” of some scumbag assaulting an old man, or attacking a child, or otherwise preying upon our civil society, almost all of which occur in some Soros-backed criminal sanctuary like New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, or other locale.
The whole of our society is fracturing, and coming apart at the seams. Many people now long for some sort of vigilantism. Others speak openly of civil war. We are being pushed toward the brink. What would it take to shove us over the edge? A banking collapse? The tragic in-custody assassination of a beloved and hated former president?
The warning signs are there. When they start creating fake images of Trump’s arrest, they’re trying to engender more hatred and rage amongst the left, or maybe even more outrage among us. Either way, this isn’t a good thing, and it’s being carried out with careful planning.
On Wednesday morning, as I began to peruse all of my usual news sources, I naturally headed over to the Treehouse to see what Sundance had to say. There it was, and I was both relieved and dismayed, in the first instance because somebody else was seeing similar darkness, but in the second instance because it’s a terrifying sort of confirmation. Said Sundance:
“At a certain point you have to wonder if the scale of the “dual justice” visibility is not intended to provoke a political crisis. If this is the motive, we are heading to a very dark place.”(emphasis mine.)
It wasn’t too much later that I listened to Bongino’s radio show, during which he repeated certain aspects of his concern for President Trump’s safety that had featured prominently in his podcast earlier in the day. Here’s Wednesday’s Bongino podcast from Rumble:
Bragg indicts and arrests Trump? And then what? He’s taken into custody to be fingerprinted, and be arraigned. Then what? Trump is assassinated going into, during or upon release from custody? And then what? The whole of the MAGA following goes out on a mass general strike. Then what? The cities begin to fail for lack of… everything. Then what? We make France’s current troubles look like a picnic at the beach. Then what? George Soros and his cohorts finally win. That’s one possible scenario.
Pay attention to Israel too. Things are starting to look pretty sporty over there at the moment.
In the last twenty minutes of Bongino’s radio show, he ran with a breaking story about the fact that the DA may have been hiding exculpatory evidence in the Trump case, perhaps as many as 600 pages of documents. I suspect this is the underlying cause for the delays now being reported widely, including here by Sundance.
In short, the wheels may be coming off already, but this could also be a delay for another unstated reason. They may eventually still carry out all of this, and to the worst possible effect. The problem is what I said nearer the top of this post: Things are dynamic. Monkey-wrenches get dropped(or thrown) into machinery. Sometimes that results in a full stop, or sometimes just a delay. Sometimes, there is another material change in the underlying environment, or the broader set of circumstances. The point is that it’s always fluid, and you must be able to adapt your thinking and your assumptions to new information, new inputs, surprise events, and anything else that might crop-up. The hardest thing for which you must account is all the things that you do not know, or worse, that you do not know that you do not know.
What I can say with certainty at this moment is that Trump is in extreme danger. Whatever dark imaginings I might have, I’m not inclined to abandon them until their potential has expired. It’s how I’m built, for better or worse. I must also stress that I am not in the predictions business, for a whole host of reasons. What I do is to prepare for changes to the circumstances in which I operate. Let me stress this to you. What I am telling you is that this is a time to have one’s head on a swivel and to be prepared for whatever happens. The point of this exercise is to be able to sort through what is to be done if a given event occurs. Specifically, what will I do if/when [event] happens? If there are preferred outcomes, are there ways to influence events so that the outcomes are closer to my preferences? What are those things? The entire purpose of war-gaming all of this out is to react with well-planned actions, rather than with ill-considered, ad hoc reactions, and to perhaps influence events before they happen, or while they occur. Why do you think President Trump posted about this on Saturday morning? Yes, he was informing all of us, but it’s also true that he’s trying to influence events, as he should.
As this goes to press, Mark Levin is throwing gasoline on the bonfire that should become Alvin Bragg’s non-case case. He’s also warned that we should be wary of so-called legal analysts who will try to immediately shift to telling us the Georgia case or the DC Special Persecutor case is a “much better case.” For reasons he’s made abundantly clear on Wednesday’s show, we should lend no more credibility to these cases than the current spectacle in NYC. Even if the New York case implodes, and Trump avoids being persecuted in that venue, do not doubt that they will try again and again, because I don’t believe they’re after a simple political outcome. On the other hand, in light of the new information of Wednesday afternoon and evening, if Bragg continues, you can be virtually assured that he’s after something more than President Trump’s legal scalp.
UPDATE: Sundance at CTH, ever on top of things, got the very letter Levin read on-air this evening. See HERE.