(That said, these articles don't seem to have provided much evidence that anything more violent than protesting is actually being done by these groups. Not to say there isn't any evidence of such, but the articles posted so far didn't make a very compelling case. One of the more solid things they mentioned was the possible link between the murderer of Heather Heyer and the neo-Nazis used in the CIA coup in Ukraine, which again points to the far right being the main operatives in state-sponsored violence, consistent with how Gladio worked.)
What really troubles me more is the relatively awful political analysis being done in these articles. The constant singling out of George Soros as the sole bogeyman, and the idea that a billionaire like him is some kind of radical leftist, is pretty laughable but I expect nothing less from the Washington Times. Ditto for the Engdahl's claim that recent Democrats like AOC and Ilhan Omar are subversive radical leftists — they are actually quite flawed, yet still manage to be better than almost everyone in Congress — or are somehow representative of the Democratic Party overall — when it in fact remains corporate-controlled and hostile to anyone even vaguely leftist.
Even more worrying is this trope, however: For the last 4 years, the "alternative" media has been filled with assertions that Trump is the victim of attempted deep state plots against him. There is so little self-awareness on the part of these people who rail against Russiagate — the notion that Trump is some kind of novel existential threat to democracy whom the intelligence services are heroically working to oust — that their own version of the truth — the notion that Trump is some kind of novel existential threat to the corporate/imperialist state whom the intelligence services are disgracefully working to oust — is merely the other side of the same coin.
The fact that both purported sides (the "anti"-Trump "liberal" media and the "alternative" press) of the issue reinforce the idea of a fundamental divide between Trump and the deep state should be a major red flag. In reality, Trump is just another deep state puppet in a long line, and appearances to the contrary are part of a professional wrestling-esque propaganda operation. He was installed against the will of the electorate through the same corrupt e-voting systems that gave us Bush in 2000 and 2004, Scott Walker in 2012, Clinton the Dem nominee in 2016, etc. On domestic policy, he has governed like a standard Republican president, working to slash regulations on big business and cut social programs. He posed as a critic of trade deals like the TPP while having no real opposition to the way that they allow corporate domination over national sovereignty (a good indication of what a "New World Order" actually is). On foreign policy, he posed as anti-war, yet bombed Syria right at the same time Hillary Clinton was advocating it in response to a likely false flag blamed on Assad (which even Obama didn't do in response to the prior such false flag in 2013), overtly armed anti-Russia forces in Ukraine (which even Obama didn't do), has continued the proxy war in Yemen, assassinated a top military official in Iran earlier this year (!), and acts like he would withdraw from Afghanistan but is hamstrung by Congress despite being the commander in chief.
Why, given a record like this, would the deep state want to remove Trump? And if the deep state now wants him removed, then who exactly was rigging this deep state-controlled voting infrastructure to install him in the first place? The most rational answer is that they don't want to remove Trump at all.
Larry Chin's article briefly makes the case that this is because Trump's administration has been subverted from within by the deep state, but that notion is also ludicrous:
In addition to being assaulted from outside (Purple Revolution, Russia/hack, Robert Mueller, impeachment threats, etc.), he is being sabotaged and subverted from inside the White House, and from inside his innermost circle, by the likes of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Dina Habib Powell and the West Wing globalists including Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn, and Steve Mnuchin.
McMaster has purged the administration of Trump loyalists and populists, and replaced with Bush/Obama/Clinton/Deep State operatives, and runs foreign policy with vice president Mike Pence.
Pence routinely issues statements contradictory to Trump’s own ideas. He has not been the focus of any mainstream media criticism. This Bush loyalist is in perfect position to become president in the event of Trump’s removal (by whatever means that occurs).
The neocon generals—Mattis, McMaster, Kelly—“oversee” and control Trump on all matters, treating him like a child. Kelly controls all information to and from Trump.
Putting aside the fairly laughable claim that part of the conspiracy to subvert Trump from within includes his own daughter, at what point can Trump be said to have responsibility for what the rest of his administration is doing? His "innermost circle" is made up of people he appointed. Is he just too much of an idiot to know what's going on, and they're using him as the public face while they implement their own agenda? Probably yes, at least in part, but that is no different from Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, both of whom were obviously "deep state" presidents. Whatever Reagan, Dubya, or Trump claim to stand on the campaign trail for hardly matters. Hell, Dubya campaigned as a non-interventionist, and look how that turned out. What their administration actually does matters. So if Trump is being used as a puppet while the real decision-makers accomplish their agenda, well, there's absolutely nothing unprecedented about that. The deep state isn't scared of a president who has nothing more than rhetoric against them; to the contrary, they encourage such things because it is a very useful tool to mask what's actually going on.
In an era where more people are starting to wake up to the endemic corruption in our political system, we are likely going to see more puppets like Trump falsely sold as outsiders. And in order to legitimize that image, we will likely have the establishment waging an illusory war on those puppets, pretending that they are some unparalleled threat who needs to be removed from office. Then this fake war will fizzle out (like Russiagate did), and the establishment will have gotten the puppet to faithfully enact its agenda in the meantime but pretend to be disappointed with the outcome. It is going to keep going on like this as long as enough people fail to realize that the puppet and the establishment on the same team.