The New York Times Anonymous Op-Ed. From dismissive to alarmed.

Al Kircher
Sep 9, 2018 · 5 min read

When I first read the anonymous Op-Ed essay published by the New York Times, it seemed to me like just another development in the mainstream, Trump derangement media circus. This was because it was both anonymous, and made of all the canned lines we’ve come to expect from a publication known for supporting establishment lies to justify far off, forever wars brought to you (and millions of innocent souls on the business end) by the U.S. Military Industrial Gravy Train. In the article, NYT provides a link for asking questions. I took the bait and rattled one off before I had thought it through. I haven’t looked to see if the Op Ed editor, Mr. Dao has answered. Somehow I doubt it:

Mr. Dao: Clearly you believe there is value in publishing an anonymous op-ed by a “senior official in the Trump administration” or you would not have done it. You address this by saying it was “the only way to deliver an important perspective to [your] readers”. Yet the anonymous “senior official” repeats the exact talking points and narrative available to us in the NYT every day. If it is an important perspective, the NYT has already delivered it very effectively for the past two years. So, my question is two-fold. What is the real reason for using an anonymous “high level official”? And, rhetorically, if he/she is, like the other White House staffers so much smarter than the President, then why is it the letter displays no original thought whatsoever?

Later, after I listened to Tom Woods interview ex CIA analyst, Philip Giraldi on the same subject, who said that based on his experience, the author may have been CIA or an actual member of the Trump administration as claimed. Believing Mr. Giraldi is worth listening to on these matters, the interview changed the way I read the article, particularly with regard to the following:

…Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

… President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un…

In this case showing “a preference for dictators” means attempting to cease the U.S.’s aggressive stance toward these two nuclear armed countries and pursue improved, more peaceful relations with both.

…Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly…

According to “Mr. Insider”, unelected, anonymous individuals, in many cases successfully, are directing U.S. foreign policy away from the attempt at a more peaceful stance and toward one more likely to result in war…another one, or two.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

As is the case with the Russia DNC hack, and the Russiagate investigation, there is no evidence that the Russian government was involved in the Skripal poisoning. So, the reasoning behind the warlike stance of the unelected anonymous individuals is based upon lies and even false flags.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

It was not long ago, those who used the term “deep state” were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. It was only on May 23rd of this year that Mike Pompeo said there is no such thing. More recently on July 19th, the Washington Post published an opinion entitled God bless the ‘deep state’, re-framing the debate from “the deep state doesn’t exist” to “the deep state is good”. The more recent “anonymous op-ed” simply seems to be another installment in a broader trend.

I have expressed skepticism as to whether the author of the “anonymous op-ed” really is inside the White House (Mike Pence has been a popular suspect) or just someone at the New York Times re-writing the standard two-year old talking points. So, let me propose some plausible speculation (or some good ‘ole conspiracy theory if you like). We know the mainstream media and government officials at the highest levels of both, have been cozy for many years. Given the very open agenda on the part of the deep state to take down the current elected president undemocratically and the voluminous assistance given to it by mainstream media, it is entirely plausible the op-ed was written in cooperation between a senior administration official and NYT as part of a broader campaign to re-frame the otherwise villainous deep state into the one and only, valiant savior of the American People and their beloved Republic. But not just that. In conjunction with it, the power of the self-styled “steady state” actually redirecting U.S. policy away from the elected to the unelected, away from at least the prospect of peace and toward even broader and deeper wars.

We don’t know for sure what is happening here but given available facts, we have to consider the above scenario a serious possibility. What does it mean for we regular folk to take this seriously? I don’t exactly know. Vote if you see it as your civic duty but under such circumstances, would voting be effective? I would simply urge anyone who has read this far and not dismissed me as some sort of Right Wing, Q-Anon, Trump supporter to turn off CNN and Fox, keep reading, stay informed, agree and disagree with the best facts and logic you have and by all means, keep talking!

Al Kircher

Written by

@Voluntrarian on Twitter

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade