DC Tom Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 There are a lot of possibilities, certainly having more info being at the top of the list. For the purposes of this thread, and its content, there are more interesting possibilities. Speculations: A. The faction backing Trump lost to the globalists, and they forced Trump (either through deceit by staging the sarin attack, or through blackmail) to heel to the Deep State. The OP thesis has been there is a war behind the scenes, Trump may well have lost. B. The missile attack (of which 20 missiles went off target/didn't detonate) was a ruse, theater, designed to buy Trump's faction more time or perhaps provide enough rope to McMasters and the other globalists to hang themselves. The war is either over (which I'm not ready to call it quite yet) or 45 is playing 4D Chess (which would be... surprising). What? Where the hell did this come from?
TPS Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 My question on this whole "deep state", illuminati type organization is, what is the end goal? When are they satisfied that their goals have been achieved?My view of the DS, as I posted earlier, the Eisenhower view of the military industrial complex. We always need an enemy to justify the $600+ billion spent annually. It's Orwell's 1984, "there will always be war in Eurasia." I've seen estimates that the ME wars have cost us $5 trillion to date. One man's cost is another's revenue. In this view, there is no end game other than perpetual fear and war. At times, various interests coalesce, and the Iraq war is one case. The so-called Neocons produced "the project for a new American century" document in 1997, which outlined regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran. The Neocons used 911 as an opportunity to begin. Destabilizing the ME via regime change would also benefit the MIC, Israel, and other US business interest like the oil companies. The concept of the Deep State suggests that the elements aligned behind this policy are more powerful than any political party, which is evidenced by the fact that regime change has continued regardless of who is in power. Which brings us to Trump, who was critical of regime change policies, but is now on board after the alleged chemical attack by Assad, who had absolutely nothing to gain from the attack. Russia is also being pushed again as evil incarnate; how else are we going to justify the need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal? My answer, again, to your question: there is no end game; there will always be an enemy.
meazza Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) The truth is out there. Edited April 19, 2017 by meazza
wnyguy Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 My view of the DS, as I posted earlier, the Eisenhower view of the military industrial complex. We always need an enemy to justify the $600+ billion spent annually. It's Orwell's 1984, "there will always be war in Eurasia." I've seen estimates that the ME wars have cost us $5 trillion to date. One man's cost is another's revenue. In this view, there is no end game other than perpetual fear and war. At times, various interests coalesce, and the Iraq war is one case. The so-called Neocons produced "the project for a new American century" document in 1997, which outlined regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran. The Neocons used 911 as an opportunity to begin. Destabilizing the ME via regime change would also benefit the MIC, Israel, and other US business interest like the oil companies. The concept of the Deep State suggests that the elements aligned behind this policy are more powerful than any political party, which is evidenced by the fact that regime change has continued regardless of who is in power. Which brings us to Trump, who was critical of regime change policies, but is now on board after the alleged chemical attack by Assad, who had absolutely nothing to gain from the attack. Russia is also being pushed again as evil incarnate; how else are we going to justify the need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal? My answer, again, to your question: there is no end game; there will always be an enemy. Thanks for the response, it makes a person wonder that's for sure.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2017 Author Posted April 19, 2017 Thanks for the response, it makes a person wonder that's for sure. Or it makes people retreat into a bunker of denial.
Doc Brown Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 My view of the DS, as I posted earlier, the Eisenhower view of the military industrial complex. We always need an enemy to justify the $600+ billion spent annually. It's Orwell's 1984, "there will always be war in Eurasia." I've seen estimates that the ME wars have cost us $5 trillion to date. One man's cost is another's revenue. In this view, there is no end game other than perpetual fear and war. At times, various interests coalesce, and the Iraq war is one case. The so-called Neocons produced "the project for a new American century" document in 1997, which outlined regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran. The Neocons used 911 as an opportunity to begin. Destabilizing the ME via regime change would also benefit the MIC, Israel, and other US business interest like the oil companies. The concept of the Deep State suggests that the elements aligned behind this policy are more powerful than any political party, which is evidenced by the fact that regime change has continued regardless of who is in power. Which brings us to Trump, who was critical of regime change policies, but is now on board after the alleged chemical attack by Assad, who had absolutely nothing to gain from the attack. Russia is also being pushed again as evil incarnate; how else are we going to justify the need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal? My answer, again, to your question: there is no end game; there will always be an enemy. What if Bernie Sanders is somehow elected in 2020? I think he'd bankrupt our country like no any president before him, but to me he was the true "populist" in the 2016 race. Trump really doesn't have an ideology and basically will do anything to make his poll numbers go up. Sanders has been consistent in his non interventionist voting record the last 27 years. Could the "deep state" get to him as well?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2017 Author Posted April 19, 2017 What if Bernie Sanders is somehow elected in 2020? I think he'd bankrupt our country like no any president before him, but to me he was the true "populist" in the 2016 race. Trump really doesn't have an ideology and basically will do anything to make his poll numbers go up. Sanders has been consistent in his non interventionist voting record the last 27 years. Could the "deep state" get to him as well? Yes. Sanders has been in government for decades. He's not an outsider, despite the hype.
row_33 Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 Yes. Sanders has been in government for decades. He's not an outsider, despite the hype. The socialists and independents of the Northeast in Congress have been seen as an amusement item.
TPS Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 What if Bernie Sanders is somehow elected in 2020? I think he'd bankrupt our country like no any president before him, but to me he was the true "populist" in the 2016 race. Trump really doesn't have an ideology and basically will do anything to make his poll numbers go up. Sanders has been consistent in his non interventionist voting record the last 27 years. Could the "deep state" get to him as well? Trump just knew how to work the media and feed his core supporters--certainly no populist, but definitely an outsider. I thought Flynn and Bannon were key to his policies going forward, but Flynn was taken out so to speak, and Bannon is currently being marginalized. I think Bernie recognized what any politician is up against, which is why he said it will take millions of Americans to make "the revolution" happen. I don't think he was simply talking about his economic policies.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2017 Author Posted April 19, 2017 Trump just knew how to work the media and feed his core supporters--certainly no populist, but definitely an outsider. I thought Flynn and Bannon were key to his policies going forward, but Flynn was taken out so to speak, and Bannon is currently being marginalized. I think Bernie recognized what any politician is up against, which is why he said it will take millions of Americans to make "the revolution" happen. I don't think he was simply talking about his economic policies. Agreed.
GG Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 The truth is out there. I imagine so. Can you believe that the Deep State was so aligned against the President who promised a massive INCREASE in the defense budget and promised to return the military wing and veterans to their rightful status? Can you imagine how they'd act if there was a President who was outwardly anti-military?
TPS Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 DR, you'll enjoy this piece. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad
row_33 Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 What? Where the hell did this come from? Nobody knows anything. The best anecdote I've read is Ellsberg's warning to the noobie Kissinger for secrets... this excerpt from E's memoirs excerpted in Mother Jones... "Henry, there's something I would like to tell you, for what it's worth, something I wish I had been told years ago. You've been a consultant for a long time, and you've dealt a great deal with top secret information. But you're about to receive a whole slew of special clearances, maybe fifteen or twenty of them, that are higher than top secret. "I've had a number of these myself, and I've known other people who have just acquired them, and I have a pretty good sense of what the effects of receiving these clearances are on a person who didn't previously know they even existed. And the effects of reading the information that they will make available to you. "First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well. "You will feel like a fool, and that will last for about two weeks. Then, after you've started reading all this daily intelligence input and become used to using what amounts to whole libraries of hidden information, which is much more closely held than mere top secret data, you will forget there ever was a time when you didn't have it, and you'll be aware only of the fact that you have it now and most others don't....and that all those other people are fools. "Over a longer period of time — not too long, but a matter of two or three years — you'll eventually become aware of the limitations of this information. There is a great deal that it doesn't tell you, it's often inaccurate, and it can lead you astray just as much as the New York Times can. But that takes a while to learn. "In the meantime it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself. "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours." ....Kissinger hadn't interrupted this long warning. As I've said, he could be a good listener, and he listened soberly. He seemed to understand that it was heartfelt, and he didn't take it as patronizing, as I'd feared. But I knew it was too soon for him to appreciate fully what I was saying. He didn't have the clearances yet.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 21, 2017 Author Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) DR, you'll enjoy this piece. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad I figured it's worth linking the actual document too: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf Edited April 21, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
DC Tom Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 I figured it's worth linking the actual document too: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf Except you're obviously wrong, since if you read where [(b)(3): 50 USC §3024(i)] and [(b)(3): 50 USC §3024(i)] said [(b)(1) Sec 1.4(d), (b)(1) Sec 1.4(d)] in [(b)(3) 10 USC §424], it's clear that [(b)(1) Sec 1.4(d), (b)(1) Sec 1.4(d)].
Keukasmallies Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 The truth is out there. Way, way out there....
TPS Posted April 23, 2017 Posted April 23, 2017 (edited) Neocons in the media. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/media-pundits-libya-syria-regime-change No looking back after their destruction of Libya; they have a new war to sell... Edited April 23, 2017 by TPS
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2017 Author Posted April 23, 2017 Neocons in the media. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/media-pundits-libya-syria-regime-change No looking back after their destruction of Libya; they have a new war to sell... Free range slavery is where it's at.
Recommended Posts