Is Trump Whitehouse Fire and Fury Book Misdirection?
Focus Is Really Et and FUture stoRY
The number one best seller for this week on New York Times was Michael Wolff's book "Fire and Fury" Inside the Trump White House.
NY Times best seller list
SLAVE = SLow behAVEThe ET / HET are the Masters because the minds are quicker or smarter.The EA are the slaves because the minds are slower or less intelligent and thus must behave.
Most people find it extremely difficult to believe an operation of this magnitude could be kept a secret without the public becoming aware. Most people don't realize that EA think using EAI (EA Intelligence). In order to comprehend HET you need to use ETI (ET Intelligence). In other words, ETI can comprehend EAI but EAI cannot comprehend ETI. So without the ability to comprehend what the HET are doing, they can proceed as planned and no one is even slightly aware or tries to stop them. Not only does no one stop them, everyone actually helps them.Imagine if their goal is to get lots of people to sit around reading this book to waste everyone's time and keep them from spending time reading articles like this and trying to understand what Hetlau are. Not only is it a successful mission completed but the EA are funneling all the financial resources back to the HET misdirection machine from all the book receipts. Who could possibly ask for more? An opponent that doesn't even know you exist, who will help you defeat them, and pay you to do it. It just doesn't get any better.Having a hard time believing it. Just look at all the nonsense that surrounded the release of the book. Trump himself even sued the publisher to try to prevent publication of it. What better a way to motivate people to want to buy it when it must contain such important info he would sue to block it. No one steps back and looks at the big picture they just feed off the daily nonsense thinking they are learning something. All you have to do is apply the basic concepts of the possibility of misdirection on a global scale and it couldn't be more apparent. EA don't even relate to themselves as EA so the global viewpoint isn't really their strong suit. They're far more worried their respective political party is getting bested by the other political party. Never mind looking at the possibility a Hextocracy and Hextary are really in play.Need some other clues to see it a little better? Look what happens when you use ecronyms to read the title:FIRE and FURYFocusIsReallyETandFUture stoRYIn other words, the title translated in alien says:
The focus of the book is really ET and the story of their future.Then look at how the author's name is Michael Wolff.Without getting religious remember Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Realizing the possibility of Hetlau. Could the sheep be the unware EA and the "wolffs" (misspelling intentional) be the HET and cast of characters supporting the nonsense surrounding this book?Follow me on vocal mediaHumanoidExtraTerrestrialsLiveAmongUs.com
About the Creator
Richard Van Steenberg
HETs live among us
CTVs vectate above us
ET is at war with EA to validate their Inslavement
Sign the ExtraTerrestrialDisclosurePetition.com
Keep reading
More stories from Richard Van Steenberg and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Trump Wants Greenlanders to Join the U.S., but His Comments Are Making That Harder
Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland has been a topic of international headlines since his first public musings about the massive Arctic island. His latest statements, suggesting that Greenlanders “should consider joining the United States,” have added a new layer of controversy. What might have sounded like a lighthearted comment or a negotiation tactic is now straining U.S.-Greenland relations and raising broader questions about diplomacy, sovereignty, and Arctic geopolitics. Greenland: More Than Just Ice Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Home to roughly 56,000 people, it has rich natural resources, strategic military locations, and a unique Arctic ecosystem. While its population is small, Greenland’s geopolitical significance is anything but. The island’s location makes it a focal point for global powers. The U.S. has long recognized Greenland’s strategic importance, operating Thule Air Base, which is the northernmost U.S. military installation. Meanwhile, China and Russia have shown growing interest in the Arctic, eyeing shipping routes and resource exploration. For Greenlanders, however, the question of joining the United States is more than a strategic calculation; it’s about identity, culture, and self-determination. The Problem With Trump’s Proposal When Trump publicly floated the idea that Greenland “would be great for the United States,” the reaction in Greenland was swift and largely negative. Locals viewed the remarks as a mix of arrogance and misunderstanding. Many Greenlanders see the U.S. as a key ally but remain committed to their Danish ties and independent governance. Political analyst Maria Kjeldsen notes, “Trump’s comments, while seemingly playful, undermine Greenland’s ongoing efforts to develop its economy and assert its political voice. Suggesting annexation or membership in the U.S. oversimplifies the island’s complex realities.” The remarks also triggered diplomatic tensions with Denmark. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded firmly, emphasizing that Greenland is not for sale and reaffirming its sovereignty. “Greenlanders decide their future, not external powers,” she stated, signaling that Washington’s casual rhetoric could complicate longstanding alliances. Economic and Strategic Stakes Trump’s interest in Greenland is not purely political—it has a strong economic and strategic dimension. The island is rich in rare earth minerals, including rare metals essential for technology and defense industries. As the U.S. seeks to reduce dependence on China for these critical resources, Greenland’s reserves become increasingly attractive. Additionally, the melting Arctic ice has opened new shipping lanes, potentially allowing faster maritime transport between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Control or influence over Greenland could provide significant advantages for global trade and military logistics. From Washington’s perspective, inviting Greenland to join the U.S. may appear as a clever strategic play. From Nuuk—the capital of Greenland—it feels more like a disregard for local agency and international law. Historical Context Matters It’s important to remember Greenland’s history when assessing Trump’s proposal. Greenland has been part of the Danish realm since the early 18th century, and its people have steadily gained autonomy. In 2009, Greenland voted for self-rule, allowing it to manage its internal affairs while Denmark continues to handle defense and foreign policy. Proposals to merge with another country, even one as powerful as the U.S., evoke memories of colonial pressure and paternalistic decision-making. For Greenlanders, sovereignty is a deeply held value. Any suggestion of annexation—even framed as a positive opportunity—can be seen as undermining their hard-won autonomy. Public Opinion in Greenland Surveys conducted in Greenland suggest that the majority of the population opposes joining the United States. Concerns range from cultural preservation to legal and political complications. Greenlandic leaders emphasize gradual economic development, environmental protection, and international cooperation rather than radical political changes. Community leaders have been vocal about the tone of the conversation. Anecdotal responses indicate frustration: residents feel that foreign leaders are treating the island as a bargaining chip rather than a community with its own priorities and rights. The Diplomatic Fallout Trump’s comments risk more than just public backlash—they could affect diplomacy between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland. Allies may perceive the remarks as dismissive or disrespectful. Given Greenland’s growing role in Arctic affairs, maintaining strong relationships with local leaders is essential for cooperation on environmental, military, and economic initiatives. Diplomats are walking a fine line. They must balance U.S. strategic interests with respect for Greenlandic sovereignty. Missteps can strain decades of partnership and give rival powers an opportunity to increase their influence in the Arctic. Lessons in International Engagement The Greenland episode highlights an important lesson in international relations: rhetoric matters. Casual or provocative statements from leaders can have real-world consequences, especially in territories with complex histories and strategic value. Policy experts argue that engagement with Greenland should focus on collaboration, not coercion. This means supporting infrastructure, trade, and education while respecting political autonomy. Successful diplomacy in the Arctic relies on long-term trust, not headline-grabbing proposals. Looking Ahead As the world watches, Greenlanders continue to navigate their own path. They are balancing opportunities for economic growth with the need to preserve culture, environment, and political independence. Meanwhile, U.S. leaders face a choice: continue making provocative public statements or pursue nuanced, respectful diplomacy. Trump’s comments may have sparked headlines, but the reality is clear: Greenland’s future will be determined by its people, not external pressures. For now, the idea of joining the United States remains politically unlikely, socially unpopular, and diplomatically sensitive. In the end, Greenland represents more than a strategic prize or economic opportunity. It is a reminder that sovereignty, identity, and international respect are as important as military bases and mineral wealth. If Washington truly seeks influence, listening and partnering—rather than proposing union—may be the most effective strategy.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.