Will The Establishment “Seashell” Trump?

By Kevin Barrett for Crescent International

On May 15, former FBI director James Comey posted a picture of seashells on social media. The seashells were arranged into the numbers 8647. Comey commented: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”

And then all hell broke loose. Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem commented on X: “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of [President] Trump. DHS and Secret Service [are] investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.”

Trump himself chimed in: “He (Comey) knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination.”

In American slang, the number 86 means “get rid of someone or something,” while “47” is understood to refer to Trump, the 47^th president. Was Comey entertaining the idea of getting rid of Trump through assassination?

Comey says no. He insists that violence was the furthest thing from his mind. And it is true that the slang term “86” does not normally imply violence. When an unruly American is 86ed from a restaurant, bar, or concert, they are escorted out by security, not killed.

Trump supporters say there is no obvious way that Comey’s team could “86” Trump from the White House prior to 2028 without using violence, since a crushing Democratic victory in the 2026 midterms that could lead to impeachment and removal seems unlikely. In their eyes, Comey’s seashell message hinted, none-too-subtly, at assassination. Comey’s status as anti-Trump ex-FBI director and presumed member of the “Deep State” heightens those suspicions.

Such dark conjectures grew even darker when someone noticed that Comey posted his seashell message “8647” on exactly the 8,647^th day after 9/11. Researchers including the late Captain Eric May, a US Army intelligence officer turned mainstream media pundit, have unearthed evidence that the criminal organization behind the neocon-zionist coup d’état of September 11, 2001 uses number symbolism to surreptitiously and deniably take credit for its covert operations. According to these analysts, the number 11 is often used because it represents going beyond the number 10, which stands for transcendence, i.e. God.

The criminals who sign their crimes with “11” are saying that they hold themselves above God. The date “September 11” (911 in numbers) was chosen not only because the US emergency phone number is 9-1-1, which gives those digits a subconscious “emergency” connotation, but also because going from 9 to 11 and skipping 10 (God) symbolizes the anti-God philosophy of the perpetrators.

Did Comey issue a deniable threat against Trump on behalf of the same neocon-zionist criminals who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington? Those suspicions were heightened by the timing. May 15 was not just the 8,647^th day after 9/11. It was also the day that Trump stopped in Qatar during the US president’s tour of West Asia—a tour that snubbed Netanyahu and Israel, and featured Trump denouncing neocons, US imperialism, and regional wars.

Even as Comey was posting his “8647” tweet, Trump was enthusiastically accepting Qatar’s offer of a $400 million luxury jumbo jet. (According to Wikipedia, Qatar has also given nearly $2 billion to Hamas.)

Was Comey’s oddly-timed 8647 message a threat from the zionist mob, or the mother of all coincidences? Even if we assume coincidence—and there is no convincing evidence that Comey is a committed zionist—it’s clear that the radical zionist faction behind 9/11 (and the series of US wars for Israel it triggered) may not welcome Trump’s Bibi-snubbing Mideast tour. Radical zionists like the Adelson crime family, which gave Trump’s campaign over $100 million, may be feeling betrayed.

If Trump is indeed going to break with Netanyahu and the Israeli extremists, as political and strategic logic dictates, he will face implicit if not explicit threats from those quarters. Zionist extremists have a history of targeting US presidents. They sent Harry Truman (and Winston Churchill) mail bombs. They most likely murdered John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert, as explained by journalist Michael Collins Piper and historian Laurent Guyénot. They tried to kill George W. Bush at the Madrid Conference in 1991, as recounted by former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky. And one of their sayanim, Andrew Adler, editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times, threatened then-president Obama’s life, on behalf of the Israeli Mossad, in a 2012 op-ed.

But Comey’s anti-Trump sentiments—if we accept the “innocent coincidence” explanation for his “8647” post—might represent a looming threat to the Trump regime not from ultra-zionists, who lean Republican, but from Democrats and their Establishment sponsors. These people, who represent about half the population and a strong majority of its elite, are unhappy about Trump Regime 2.0 for a long list of reasons, chief among them being Trump’s chaotic, half-deliberate half-accidental dismembering of the American Empire. And while some may be innocently dreaming of a world without Trump as they wander on beaches gazing at seashells, others are no doubt hatching schemes to undermine the current regime as they try to engineer a political comeback.

Most such schemes undoubtedly stop well short of murder. Killing Trump would create a MAGA martyr for the ages, with unpredictable consequences. While extreme zionists are reckless enough to entertain such bold and risky moves, the liberal Establishment generally shies away from them. So if Trump is killed by a drone allegedly traced to Iran, it will undoubtedly be the work of hardline zionists, not Establishmentarians.

The baseline Establishment position, laid out in a series of New York Times op-eds since Trump took office in January, is to pursue what might be termed a passive-aggressive strategy. (The term passive-aggressive, derived from psychology, refers to indirect resistance while avoiding direct confrontation.) Most of Trump’s liberal opponents, judging from their writings in The New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, etc., believe that challenging Trump too intensely could backfire, alienating centrists while giving Trump the excuse he needs to quash his opposition. These pundits argue that the anti-Trump party should project a moderate image while giving Trump the rope he needs to hang himself.

And hang himself (figuratively, of course) is exactly what they expect Trump to do. According to Trump Regime critics, many of the current administration’s policies are so recklessly misguided that they will put the Republicans in a terrible position in the 2026 and 2028 elections. With the economy in shambles, China pulling far ahead of the US in economic and technological might, Russia prevailing in Ukraine, former US allies deserting in droves, and a long list of national and global problems growing visibly worse, voters in 2026 and 2028 will pull the levers for Trump’s Democrat opponents, and perhaps even some anti-Trump Republicans.

According to those critics, the Trump regime’s biggest mistake has been its loonie tunes trade policy. Trump’s on-again off-again supertariffs have not only disrupted the global economy, but also exacerbated the very problem they were meant to solve: America’s relative economic decline. Just like US sanctions policies, which by over-sanctioning the world have encouraged other nations to start exiting the US-controlled dollar sphere, Trump’s erratic tariffs have forced Chinese ships with goods intended for Americans to deliver those goods elsewhere—and accept in return currencies more viable, at least in the long term, than Uncle Scam’s toilet paper dollar.

Theoretically, stiff sanctions could re-make the US a manufacturing powerhouse. In the real world, that’s a non-starter. Chinese companies are already manufacturing most of the world’s electric cars and selling them for one quarter the price of American equivalents, while most other economic sectors are heading in the same direction. Building a manufacturing capability requires long-term planning, which Trump’s unhinged unpredictability is disrupting, as well as engineering know-how that has long since migrated to China and other factory-rich nations.

So Trump’s liberal Establishment opponents have a point: The current regime may indeed damage the US economy so severely that Republicans face an uphill battle in 2026 and 2028.

And economic disaster may be accompanied by geopolitical disaster. The US empire will likely suffer severe setbacks on several fronts, as vassals like the EU and Canada desert due to Trump’s invasion threats, Russia prevails in Ukraine, China and the Global South grow stronger, and US-supported “Israel” becomes increasingly isolated.

Trump’s liberal-globalist opponents may be tempted to deliberately worsen these and other problems. The Federal Reserve, which is dominated by Jewish international banking families of a globalist “liberal zionist” persuasion, controls the money spigot and with it the ups and downs of the US economy. They may decide to ensure that both the 2026 and 2028 elections occur during steeper downturns than would have been the case under neutral currency management.

The liberal globalists may also consider deliberately creating other kinds of crises. False flag terrorism, another bioweapon-generated pandemic, and even engineered “natural disasters” cannot be ruled out.

The liberal globalists are likely salivating at the prospect of using Trump and other “resurgent right-wing nationalists” as a foil to their plans. If Trump and others like him crash and burn, discrediting opposition to liberal globalism, the globalists may find themselves in a position to capitalize on that discontent by offering “solutions” to the terrible problems blamed on Trump. (That scenario would amount to a re-run of 2020, when the COVID catastrophe was used to discredit Trump and eject him from the White House.)

Should sincere Muslims care which side prevails? Both the liberal globalists and the Trumpian nationalists are hostile to Islam. Both are ultimately controlled by corrupt forces whose power is based on usury. Both routinely lie and engage in sinful and criminal behavior.

We should follow the Empire’s internecine power struggles not by cheering for one side or the other, but in order to understand them so as to formulate an effective long-term strategy aimed at replacing the current kakistocracy (rule by the least virtuous) with rule by the most virtuous. And like the liberal globalists waiting for Trump to self-destruct, only more so, we can anticipate the kakistocracy’s collapse and be ready with an alternative. (Unlike the globalists, of course, we will not contemplate deliberately creating disasters!) And as we wait, we must prepare and communicate a strategy laying out precisely how virtuous rulers can be selected—and how just Islamic rule, suitable for a technologically-advanced age, can be implemented.

---

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate.