There’s a lot to unpack there, but I now think two things are true at once, Trump is a globalist, and America first.
As a global dominant leader, yes.
Also yes.
That’s the current debt clock secret window, it makes you think the fed will be destroyed, but what about the
That is not exactly apples for apples, but it changes how we might or should perhaps look at this.
BRICS is still relevant. It is trying to get out from under the old U.S. dominated monetary system, and BRICS itself has no common currency. But suppose the important thing is not preserving the old dollar system at all.
Suppose you let the old system break apart.
Countries regain more monetary independence. New payment systems develop. BRICS and other blocs can truthfully say they escaped the old arrangement. America can truthfully say it is no longer forcing everybody through the old machinery.
But then the new systems interoperate through an underlying dollar-based digital monetary backbone.
The nations remain nations.
The currencies can remain currencies.
The systems can appear decentralized.
Yet the common layer underneath them can still leave the United States sitting at the center.
In that case Trump is not trying to return America to what it once was.
He is trying to make America the global leader of what comes next.
That also changes how I am looking at Revelation.
BRICS may be part of the mechanism that produces the horns rather than being the horns themselves.
Suppose the old U.S. dominated monetary system is challenged successfully enough that countries acquire greater independent monetary sovereignty. The world becomes genuinely multipolar. Then a new system appears that allows those sovereign powers to retain their national identities while interoperating through a common monetary backbone.
In other words, decentralization could actually be the prerequisite for the final centralization.
Revelation says the ten horns are ten kings who “have received no kingdom as yet,” but later receive power with the beast. They become “of one mind” and “shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”
That wording matters.
They have to possess something before they can give it.
So perhaps we should not be looking for ten nations that are already subordinate to one world system. Maybe the sequence is the opposite:
old centralized order weakens
→ sovereign powers emerge or regain real independent authority
→ those powers receive their “kingdoms”
→ a new common system appears
→ they voluntarily give that newly held power into the beast.
Each nation can remain a nation.
Each ruler can remain a ruler.
Nobody necessarily has to announce a world government.
They only need to agree upon the same operating system.
And then Revelation says something even stranger: those same horns eventually hate the whore, make her desolate, and give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God are fulfilled.
So if Jerusalem/Israel is the woman we have been testing, the foreign powers carrying and protecting her are not necessarily her permanent protectors. The system that carries her can eventually become the system that destroys her.
That makes the present alliances much less reassuring than they first appear.
It also makes the “one hour” language interesting. The kings receive power “one hour with the beast,” and Babylon’s destruction is repeatedly described as occurring “in one hour.”
Maybe these ten kings are not the permanent rulers of a successful new world order at all.
Maybe they are the brief final coalition through which the old order is concentrated, the woman is made desolate, and the beast reaches maximum power immediately before it runs into the one kingdom it cannot overcome.
So I am no longer asking whether Trump is a nationalist or a globalist.
He may be both.
America First may mean America at the center of the global system.
The old empire can appear to be dismantled while the machinery for a much less obvious empire is being assembled underneath it.
Everybody gets their sovereignty back.
Then everybody plugs into the same machine.
…
And that raises a much stranger question.
You think you are reading this on a computer or phone screen.
Instead you are looking at an interface.
There is no actual window behind this window. No folder. No desktop. No button. No trash can. Those are representations placed between you and an underlying machine so complicated that most of us could not meaningfully interact with it directly.
You see the representation.
You understand the representation.
You act upon the representation.
And something you cannot see underneath it responds.
That way of thinking did not appear out of nowhere. The personal computing revolution grew partly out of the same 1960s Bay Area culture experimenting with psychedelics, consciousness, cybernetics and new ways of interacting with information. Stewart Brand, who took LSD and became one of the major links between that counterculture and personal computing, even worked on Douglas Engelbart’s 1968 demonstration of the mouse, windows, hypertext and other concepts we now take for granted.
What you see can be useful, functional and real in consequence while still not being the underlying thing , just the interface for the thing underneath it.
start tracking these again
