The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, McGee Return TD said:

 

Regardless of who they support (isn't the deep state run by a uniparty, anyway?), do they become a part of the deep state after signing on to that letter? Following your logic B-gal, can I assume anyone who doesn't support Trump (Ds, RINOs, GOPe, or #NeverTrumpers) is unwittingly part of the deep state?

 

The term deep state is simply a nomenclature to describe what has been going on with our government from within, and from outside influences, that are not in the best interests of the United States, but rather in the best interest of the highest bidder (follow the money), or ideology (follow the money).  That is simply my definition of "deep state". Others may disagree. 

[McGee Return TD]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

When I titled this thread, I chose the term Deep State because it was a seldom, if ever, used term. It had very little baggage attached to it. Less than a few months later, that term has been used and attached to everything and anything under the sun. That causes confusion and leads to ridicule quite easily by those who want to mock rather than understand the true nature of what's happening. But the actual definition isn't as conspiratorial as you presume, in fact, denying the existence of a Deep State now, after everything that's come to light the past year+, is to admit your own ignorance. 

 

 

Indeed - which brings me back to the reason I posted in this thread today. Tom Fitton implied that those who signed onto the letter are part of the deep state, and you quoted him and decided to post it here, thus my confusion. I assumed you agreed with Fitton since you posted it in your deep state thread.

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

The term deep state is simply a nomenclature to describe what has been going on with our government from within, and from outside influences, that are not in the best interests of the United States, but rather in the best interest of the highest bidder (follow the money), or ideology (follow the money).  That is simply my definition of "deep state". Others may disagree. 

 

I get this. I just wonder if there is a subset of orignal deep state theorists (like Rhino) who are upset with the bastardization of the term.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, McGee Return TD said:

 

Indeed - which brings me back to the reason I posted in this thread today. Tom Fitton implied that those who signed onto the letter are part of the deep state, and you quoted him and decided to post it here, thus my confusion. I assumed you agreed with Fitton since you posted it in your deep state thread.

 

It's a salient point -- 300+ former prosecutors willing to ignore the facts in order to push fiction. How many of them are compromised versus true, blue partisans? Who knows. The point is that the narrative is being pushed, facts be damned, by the deep state narrative builders. 

2 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

I get this. I just wonder if there is a subset of orignal deep state theorists (like Rhino) who are upset with the bastardization of the term.

 

We are in a (dis)information war. It's non stop, and coming from all sides and camps. The subversion of the term was always going to happen -- it's SOP with the IC when it comes to building narratives. Go back to who coined the term "conspiracy theorists" in the first place (it was Langley, and its intent was to belittle and shame anyone who didn't fall lockstep in line with the narrative/"facts" being presented by the IC). Same thing here -- if they can take a term and make it into a punchline, it instantly creates divisions within the public and allows their disinformation to continue unabated. 

 

What they fear most are people who think for themselves. Which is why the current environment makes it so difficult for those who do precisely that. They want NPCs. Not intellectual debate.

[McGee Return TD]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's a salient point -- 300+ former prosecutors willing to ignore the facts in order to push fiction. How many of them are compromised versus true, blue partisans? Who knows. The point is that the narrative is being pushed, facts be damned, by the deep state narrative builders. 

 

They build the deep state narrative while Tom Fitton is literally pushing the narrative that they are deep state. I find this bit of sociology more interesting than politics to begin with, so pardon my past few questions if they were too annoying.

 

Carry on!

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

They build the deep state narrative while Tom Fitton is literally pushing the narrative that they are deep state. I find this bit of sociology more interesting than politics to begin with, so pardon my past few questions if they were too annoying.

 

Carry on!

 

They've been engineering this specific narrative (the Trump/Russia narrative) since April of 2016. The Deep State has been controlling our national narrative since before either of us were born.  

 

Fitton is just calling it out as he sees it. 

[McGee Return TD]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Go back to who coined the term "conspiracy theorists" in the first place (it was Langley, and its intent was to belittle and shame anyone who didn't fall lockstep in line with the narrative/"facts" being presented by the IC).

 

I missed this before. I've heard a lot of people say this and I've never looked into it myself. A quick Duck Duck Go search, though, provides multiple results that claim to debunk this.

 

What do you think about this link? https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-in-1967-with-memo-1035-960.t960/

 

Am I safe to assume your argument is that Langley coined the term in a dismissive way? I'd be interested to read more about this if you have some links or recommendations of where to start reading on this) I'm also of the assumption you use Langley/CIA interchangeably. Please let me know if that's an incorrect assumption. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

I missed this before. I've heard a lot of people say this and I've never looked into it myself. A quick Duck Duck Go search, though, provides multiple results that claim to debunk this.

 

What do you think about this link? https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-in-1967-with-memo-1035-960.t960/

 

Am I safe to assume your argument is that Langley coined the term in a dismissive way? I'd be interested to read more about this if you have some links or recommendations of where to start reading on this) I'm also of the assumption you use Langley/CIA interchangeably. Please let me know if that's an incorrect assumption. 

 

Conflating one thing with another is a popular trick of those who wish to deceive. CIA did not invent the term - they weaponized it through many means after Kennedy was shot, and through many agencies and media outlets. 

 

This is seen most vividly in the infiltration of disclosure and UFO communities in the 70s-90s. It picked back up again in the mid 2000s. 

 

Same has been done to the term deep state once people started using it (accurately) to describe what they were witnessing with the trump Russia narrative engineering. 

 

Trump does the same thing. He takes words and phrases used by his opponents and turns it around on them. He did it with fake news (coined by the WaPo after pizzagate) and he did it with collusion (used by the media at first so they could talk sensationally about non criminal offenses). 

 

Using their own weapons, symbols, and tactics against this group is how the group behind trump has been waging this clandestine war. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Link to the playbook directly: (worth reading the linked thread too, but source material is best)

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/presidential-obstruction-of-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump-2nd-edition/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[keepthefaith]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

So 400+ have signed the statement.  How many would disagree and not sign it?

 

Also, how is it that Trump should be prosecuted for obstruction if his inner circle rants about ending the investigation or limiting the scope were not in fact carried out? 

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm putting this here even though it can fit in several threads. I have not read this yet, but will tonight. It's a write up by Adam Carter who did dynamite forensic analysis of Guciffer 2.0. in 2016/2017. 

 

He wrote up his take on the Mueller report's handling of that matter. I hear it's good stuff: 

http://g-2.space/muellerreport/

Edited May 6, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[njbuff]

Democrats truly are the dumbest fvcks on this planet.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

So 400+ have signed the statement.  How many would disagree and not sign it?

 

Also, how is it that Trump should be prosecuted for obstruction if his inner circle rants about ending the investigation or limiting the scope were not in fact carried out? 

Thought Police... 

[B-Man]

  

JAMES COMEY IS IN TROUBLE, AND HE KNOWS IT. 

 

 

.

[Koko78]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

  

JAMES COMEY IS IN TROUBLE, AND HE KNOWS IT. 

 

 

.

 

Take the '0' off of the end of your link.

[Deranged Rhino]