The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm not trying to insult you or your stuff here.

 

I know you're not, I was genuinely curious how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

You have a lot of points I agree with. But when you can boil the argument down (not yours precisely, understand, but the overall arc of the DS theory from what I've gathered elsewhere) to the IC, Democratic politicians, and liberal media outlets working to overthrow Trump via a 'fake' Russian connection, with (for the most part) conservative media and Republican politicians serving as the last bastion against global hegemony, it's ultimately become a partisan debate.

 

This is true but not at all the thesis I'm defending.

 

As said in the OP - any attempt to reduce this down to one political ideology, one agency, one corporation, one religion, one creed or any such reductionist interpretation is a waste of time and disservice to the truth. None of this from my end is meant to be right vs left. I'm politically agnostic and this theory largely rests upon the notion that the people pushing the agenda are too.

 

What is important to keep in mind is that the Deep State is not monolithic. It's not "one" entity. It's not based only in the American IC, government, or press. It's a concern of big moneyed interests that care more about preserving their empire than they do about preserving any one individual country, including our own. These interests have been spinning their chosen media mouthpieces for going on four years now in an effort to confuse, distract, and divide the country. What you're picking up on is that element of the information war (in my opinion).

 

My hypothesis has been that there is a divide between this deep state that started (publicly) back in 2012. That divide is over the controlling ideology, namely unipolarism vs multi-polarism. It's not about traditional politics or affiliations because the Deep State exists on both sides of the spectrum. That remains true to this day.

 

In short the battle is over whether or not the Deep State want a world where one super power dictates terms to the rest of the world or if they want a world where there are multiple super powers exercising control over their spheres of influence. That's what is at the heart of all of this.

 

Since the 1940s, the unipolarist model has been running the show in the Deep State. Starting in 2012, after the financial crash drained the disposable income out of the middle class in both America and Europe (thus limiting the amount of cash people were spending on various vices supplied by lesser factions of the deep state: drugs, sex, gambling), there has been global push back from those opposing factions within this deep state against that unipolar model. This has spilled over in hot spots around the globe from the Ukraine to Syria to Libya to Brexit to Trump's election victory.

 

So naturally there is going to be a lot of partisanship and bullshite rolled into that big boulder as it rolls down the slope.

 

What we are in today, right this very minute, is essentially World War Three. We're just not acknowledging it. But it's not a shooting war, or at least not exclusively. It's an information war, not between nation states but between the controlling ideologies of this Deep State. The future of this planet and how the people are to be governed for future generations is being decided now, in our lifetimes and all this "scandal" is meant to do is keep us blinded to the voice we have in the process.

 

At the heart of this is the philosophy of regime change. Take the candidates out of the equation and look at the money behind them:

 

The unipolarists backed HRC in the election. They were the "power" behind her campaign. That's not being partisan that's being real. She was running on the promise of doing their bidding as she had done as SecState. She was vetted and a proven regime change warrior. HRC promised no-fly zones in Syria - the same no fly zones she used in Libya to spark a war - and which would only be enforceable if the Russian anti-air sites were taken off line first. Which... when you do the math... means US pilots dropping bombs on Russian troops before any such no-fly zones could be instituted. That's not a humanitarian cause. It's an apocalyptic one. But the media to this day spins it as something we should do for the "beautiful babies" in Syria - while ignoring the reality that no-fly zones in Iraq and Libya accelerated the civilian casualty counts instead of reducing them.

 

A win for Hillary meant more of the same regime change mentality in State and CIA as we've seen under Obama and Bush both. She was the establishment choice for a reason. The establishment = unipolarists. And unipolarists want more regime change wars in the ME and elsewhere around the globe. This is no longer a republican or democratic talking point. The desire for endless war is present in both parties.

 

Additionally, the removal of Trump would be a huge win for the regime change mentality because the folks in line to replace him are true believers. It'd be a win for the democrats too and a loss for the republicans - which is where the partisan cheerleading comes into play, but that is just colored bubbles.

 

Now look at the other side of the coin:

 

The power behind Trump ran on the opposite plank. Not just on change but specifically on ending regime change wars. This was a DIRECT threat to the powers that be and their way of doing business for the past 60 years. That he was backed by DIA while Hillary was backed by CIA tells us everything.

 

Historically DIA and CIA are not friends. There's plenty of objective research out there that you can find that explain why the animosity exists between those two branches of the IC - but it mainly comes down to the DIA gets tired of having to risk their lives fighting the very people CIA is training a few miles away.

 

That's why one of the first things Trump actually did in office was to gut a large swath of career government workers in both State and CIA. One of his first public addresses was in Langley where he questioned the need for a "fifth column"... that wasn't an off the cuff remark by any stretch. Not when it's made in front of the wall of honor at Langley.

 

Again, that's not saying Trump is innocent or a good guy. I'm not a Trump guy. At all. And as I said in the OP this isn't about good guys versus bad guys. It's about bad guys versus worst guys. The trick being played on the public is making us blind to that by wrapping it all in partisan clothing so that we're focused on that rather than the reality.

 

The post election fallout, and the narrative this week, feels extra partisan due to the election and the strange bed-fellows it made (the neocon establishment switching to the left and morphing with the neoliberals as one weird example). One one hand you have the unipolarists trying to save their asses (and their agenda) by undercutting the new administration before it can implement true change, and on the other you have the DNC and the MSM trying to save their asses (because they have been pimping this narrative for a year now and of course they completely blew their election predictions) by falling back on the Russian narrative crafted by the unipolarists themselves.

 

For almost a year prior to the election, right here on this board, anyone who tried to rationalize the Neo-McCarthyism bubbling to the surface during the election was branded as a Putin stooge - by the right and the left. Now that mentality has metastasized, especially on the left, to the point where logic and rational thinking aren't permitted if you're daring to question the collusion narrative (which remains unproven).

 

It's designed to confuse and distract you from asking the right questions. If you're focused on dem vs republican or Russia vs the US you aren't focused on the actual issue. The reality is we are witnessing infighting between those two Deep State ideologies which have nothing to do with partisanship despite being cloaked in that kind of rhetoric.

 

This isn't about democrats and republicans. It's about the controlling ideologies of the unelected power that actually runs this country. If we the people really want a say in how this unfolds, we have to stop thinking along partisan lines or even nation state lines. We have to look at the situation dispassionately.

 

And you can't be dispassionate when you're talking politics. Not in modern America at least.

 

/ramble

Edited May 19, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[GoBills808]

 

I know you're not, I was genuinely curious how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

 

This is true but not at all the thesis I'm defending.

 

As said in the OP - any attempt to reduce this down to one political ideology, one agency, one corporation, one religion, one creed or any such reductionist interpretation is a waste of time and disservice to the truth. None of this from my end is meant to be right vs left. I'm politically agnostic and this theory largely rests upon the notion that the people pushing the agenda are too.

 

What is important to keep in mind is that the Deep State is not monolithic. It's not "one" entity. It's not based only in the American IC, government, or press. It's a concern of big moneyed interests that care more about preserving their empire than they do about preserving any one individual country, including our own. These interests have been spinning their chosen media mouthpieces for going on four years now in an effort to confuse, distract, and divide the country. What you're picking up on is that element of the information war (in my opinion).

 

My hypothesis has been that there is a divide between this deep state that started (publicly) back in 2012. That divide is over the controlling ideology, namely unipolarism vs multi-polarism. It's not about traditional politics or affiliations because the Deep State exists on both sides of the spectrum. That remains true to this day.

 

In short the battle is over whether or not the Deep State want a world where one super power dictates terms to the rest of the world or if they want a world where there are multiple super powers exercising control over their spheres of influence. That's what is at the heart of all of this.

 

Since the 1940s, the unipolarist model has been running the show in the Deep State. Starting in 2012, after the financial crash drained the disposable income out of the middle class in both America and Europe (thus limiting the amount of cash people were spending on various vices supplied by lesser factions of the deep state: drugs, sex, gambling), there has been global push back from those opposing factions within this deep state against that unipolar model. This has spilled over in hot spots around the globe from the Ukraine to Syria to Libya to Brexit to Trump's election victory.

 

So naturally there is going to be a lot of partisanship and bullshite rolled into that big boulder as it rolls down the slope.

 

What we are in today, right this very minute, is essentially World War Three. We're just not acknowledging it. But it's not a shooting war, or at least not exclusively. It's an information war, not between nation states but between the controlling ideologies of this Deep State. The future of this planet and how the people are to be governed for future generations is being decided now, in our lifetimes and all this "scandal" is meant to do is keep us blinded to the voice we have in the process.

 

At the heart of this is the philosophy of regime change. Take the candidates out of the equation and look at the money behind them:

 

The unipolarists backed HRC in the election. They were the "power" behind her campaign. That's not being partisan that's being real. She was running on the promise of doing their bidding as she had done as SecState. She was vetted and a proven regime change warrior. HRC promised no-fly zones in Syria - the same no fly zones she used in Libya to spark a war - and which would only be enforceable if the Russian anti-air sites were taken off line first. Which... when you do the math... means US pilots dropping bombs on Russian troops before any such no-fly zones could be instituted. That's not a humanitarian cause. It's an apocalyptic one. But the media to this day spins it as something we should do for the "beautiful babies" in Syria - while ignoring the reality that no-fly zones in Iraq and Libya accelerated the civilian casualty counts instead of reducing them.

 

A win for Hillary meant more of the same regime change mentality in State and CIA as we've seen under Obama and Bush both. She was the establishment choice for a reason. The establishment = unipolarists. And unipolarists want more regime change wars in the ME and elsewhere around the globe. This is no longer a republican or democratic talking point. The desire for endless war is present in both parties.

 

Additionally, the removal of Trump would be a huge win for the regime change mentality because the folks in line to replace him are true believers. It'd be a win for the democrats too and a loss for the republicans - which is where the partisan cheerleading comes into play, but that is just colored bubbles.

 

Now look at the other side of the coin:

 

The power behind Trump ran on the opposite plank. Not just on change but specifically on ending regime change wars. This was a DIRECT threat to the powers that be and their way of doing business for the past 60 years. That he was backed by DIA while Hillary was backed by CIA tells us everything.

 

Historically DIA and CIA are not friends. There's plenty of objective research out there that you can find that explain why the animosity exists between those two branches of the IC - but it mainly comes down to the DIA gets tired of having to risk their lives fighting the very people CIA is training a few miles away.

 

That's why one of the first things Trump actually did in office was to gut a large swath of career government workers in both State and CIA. One of his first public addresses was in Langley where he questioned the need for a "fifth column"... that wasn't an off the cuff remark by any stretch. Not when it's made in front of the wall of honor at Langley.

 

Again, that's not saying Trump is innocent or a good guy. I'm not a Trump guy. At all. And as I said in the OP this isn't about good guys versus bad guys. It's about bad guys versus worst guys. The trick being played on the public is making us blind to that by wrapping it all in partisan clothing so that we're focused on that rather than the reality.

 

The post election fallout, and the narrative this week, feels extra partisan due to the election and the strange bed-fellows it made (the neocon establishment switching to the left and morphing with the neoliberals as one weird example). One one hand you have the unipolarists trying to save their asses (and their agenda) by undercutting the new administration before it can implement true change, and on the other you have the DNC and the MSM trying to save their asses (because they have been pimping this narrative for a year now and of course they completely blew their election predictions) by falling back on the Russian narrative crafted by the unipolarists themselves.

 

For almost a year prior to the election, right here on this board, anyone who tried to rationalize the Neo-McCarthyism bubbling to the surface during the election was branded as a Putin stooge - by the right and the left. Now that mentality has metastasized, especially on the left, to the point where logic and rational thinking aren't permitted if you're daring to question the collusion narrative (which remains unproven).

 

It's designed to confuse and distract you from asking the right questions. If you're focused on dem vs republican or Russia vs the US you aren't focused on the actual issue. The reality is we are witnessing infighting between those two Deep State ideologies which have nothing to do with partisanship despite being cloaked in that kind of rhetoric.

 

This isn't about democrats and republicans. It's about the controlling ideologies of the unelected power that actually runs this country. If we the people really want a say in how this unfolds, we have to stop thinking along partisan lines or even nation state lines. We have to look at the situation dispassionately.

 

And you can't be dispassionate when you're talking politics. Not in modern America at least.

 

/ramble

That's a lot to unpack. I'll try to address it all later, for now let me do with a question that keeps popping up when I think about it: why Trump? Why is it so crucial he be removed? He's not going to implement any revolutionary policies that I can see are going to jeopardize the Deep State, he's probably just as susceptible to being co-opted as an Obama would be...hell, they're welcoming him with open arms in Saudi Arabia. He's warming up to China in spite of his campaign rhetoric. And Israel...his UN ambassador just said Jerusalem belonged to Israel so he's gonna be popular there as well. He's obviously friendly with Russia...who's left that wants him gone?

 

And I mean, if you were forced to name one suspected 'member' of the Deep State, just one person who you could really make a credible case for in terms of global hegemony...wouldn't it be Putin?

[Deranged Rhino]

That's a lot to unpack. I'll try to address it all later, for now let me do with a question that keeps popping up when I think about it: why Trump?

 

It is, and I'm breaking up my answers not to be pedantic but to be as organized as possible...

 

First, the caveat that this is speculative and operating from the position that the Deep State exists:

 

It's not about Trump, it's about the people behind Trump. The Deep State is not a unified entity, it's comprised of competing groups whose interest often do not align other than their desire to work behind the scenes rather than in the spotlight. The entire premise of my hypothesis here rests upon the belief that the ultimate power in this country does not reside in the federal government.

 

Trump is the figurehead for a group within the Deep State that was, quite literally imo, warring with what was the dominate faction of that same Deep State. A civil war between shadow brokers. The group backing Trump, the same group backing a lot of the nationalist movements in Europe, have been and continue to be pushing an agenda that's in direct opposition to how the Deep State has run things for the past 50 years - namely, through a singular empire dominating the geopolitical landscape. Not just militarily speaking, but culturally speaking.

 

The evidence for this divide is plentiful and listed throughout this thread.

 

Why is it so crucial he be removed?

 

It's crucial he be removed for one side of this civil war. So the answer to that one depends on which side you ask.But it's not something that was/is "conspired" to happen. That's not the case I'm making (and never has been - for clarity). We're witnessing the fallout of an ongoing civil war, not the results of pre-ordained events.

 

Think of it like a mafia war: Trump's victory didn't magically remove the other side in this battle from positions of power within the DC establishment, and certainly not from within the IC. That's why Trump's early moves were to gut jobs in State (which = CIA) and CIA directly. That wasn't "Trump" thinking he should do that, that was the people behind him (largely DIA in this case) telling him who they need to whack for this to really work.

 

Because the other side certainly was taking it's shots. It's no mistake that Flynn was the first to fall. That's not to say he was set up, again this isn't white hats and black hats - it's all grey. But regardless of that, the group behind Trump is out numbered in the establishment institutions precisely because this was (and still is) more a coup within the deep state than it was a typical election. The other side is taking the fight to their traditional outlets: The Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, and CNN - all known favorites of this particular faction of the deep state (career CIA and NSA types).

 

All this feels hyper partisan because it is hyper partisan... on the surface. The faction of the Deep State which is fighting for its life just spent 8 years with its tentacles in Obama's administration, meaning it can and has been activating the left to speak up against Trump since the election in truly unprecedented ways (the whole coverage of this past election will be written about for decades by nerdy historians like myself). The people behind Trump had the ability to stoke the fires on the right and have done so - for better and worse. But they don't have much sway in the flagship institutions because they've never had a seat at the table before now.

 

... If they can keep it.

 

He's not going to implement any revolutionary policies that I can see are going to jeopardize the Deep State...

 

If what I'm laying out is accurate, and I think there are mountains of evidence that give it weight, the people behind Trump are fighting to change the regime war driven policy of our nation (because that serves the unipolarist model they're fighting against). This is the policy we've been embarked on for 60 years - through both democrat and republican administrations - but we've been doing so in earnest for the past 16.

 

Any challenge to that philosophy is revolutionary because it, with this being a mafia war, means a lot of people who have made their nests by driving such policies are now on the endangered species list.

 

It's an existential threat, make no mistake. And they're fighting for their lives every bit as much as the other side is.

 

 

he's probably just as susceptible to being co-opted as an Obama would be...hell, they're welcoming him with open arms in Saudi Arabia. He's warming up to China in spite of his campaign rhetoric. And Israel...his UN ambassador just said Jerusalem belonged to Israel so he's gonna be popular there as well. He's obviously friendly with Russia...who's left that wants him gone?

 

He's absolutely susceptible to being co-opted. Again, don't take anything I'm saying in this thread as being pro Trump or any ideology. It's not meant as such. Because what I'm talking about are the people behind Trump, it doesn't really matter if he is. He's going to march to the tune of whoever wins this behind the scenes battle. This thing is not a done deal yet because the civil war is ongoing. It hasn't ended.

 

If Trump gets tossed out - that would be a huge swing obviously in the (former) establishment's favor. Obviously that helps the democrats too. And the MSM. Not because they're twisting their mustaches and have hatched this plot, but because they have represented the (then, in this scenario) winning side of the war.

 

I don't know, nor am I predicting, who's going to win.

 

I'm just trying to shine a light on the fight because that's what is really driving all this craziness we're witnessing.

 

And I mean, if you were forced to name one suspected 'member' of the Deep State, just one person who you could really make a credible case for in terms of global hegemony...wouldn't it be Putin?

 

Putin is very much opposed to the unipolar philosophy which has dominated the world for the past 60 years. He's clearly part of the group opposing the establishment. And it makes sense: the dominate group I'm talking about here has been trying to engineer a war with his country for the past 6 years. Trump ran on changing that policy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

Like I said, this isn't good guys versus bad guys.

 

Edit: added this clip for some perspective: from 2008

 

 

(This is not an endorsement of what Putin is claiming about Georgia, but that conflict was the opening salvo of the unipolarists trying to engineer a shooting war between the west and Russia... it mirrors the Ukraine conflict as well. Some say that's proof of Putin's tactics - and it may be - but the point is he's clearly on one side of this deep state war)

Edited May 21, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

Politico probably should have rethought this title:

 

John Podesta Unloads on Trump

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/22/john-podesta-unloads-on-trump-215173

[reddogblitz]

QUESTION ASKED — AND ANSWERED:

 

Convincing your gullible flock that we live in a republic easily annexed by a rickety former superpower is not putting your country above your party.

 

David Harsanyi:

 

 

 

To see the world from this prism, Time magazine visualizes the Kremlinizing of White House. The magazine’s newest cover merges St. Basil’s Russian Orthodox Cathedral with the White House (the substance of the feature doesn’t even really reflect the cover).

 

The true “constitutional crisis” is the concerted effort to “resist” or undermine the “norm” of a peaceful transfer of power after election.

— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) May 18, 2017

 

 

One wonders what the reaction would be if a major magazine had run a cover of the White House conflated into an Iranian mosque while Barack Obama was sending pallets of cash to the Islamic Republic? Of course, that cover would have been hysterical—and not in a funny way. Simply because the former president believed that appeasing the Iranians was in the strategic interests of the United States doesn’t make him treasonous, just a terrible president. Not the first, or last.

 

Does putting your country above party mean never being skeptical of the intentions of an intelligence community—one that has lied to the American people repeatedly over the years—that is trying to overturn an election?

 

 

 

 

The Party always comes first, comrade.

Yes, and it equally applies to both D's and Rs. Gale Sayers is right. I am third.

[B-Man]

Yes, and it equally applies to both D's and Rs. Gale Sayers is right. I am third.

 

 

 

No matter how many times it is repeated......it doesnt make it true.

 

 

There are bad apples in every group...........but equally bad ?...............not even close.

[reddogblitz]

 

There are bad apples in every group...........but equally bad ?...............not even close.

I'm sticking with equals.

[Deranged Rhino]

It might help, at least in this thread, to operate as if political parties (and the wedge issues that come with them) don't exist. Both parties are now simply tools of division because the system itself is broken but pretending as if it's not. We no longer live in a democratic republic but an expanding "democratic" oligarchy. Focusing on the things that divide us is energy not spent on the things that unite us. And without unity we cannot fix the broken system.

 

I actually think most people agree on far more things than they disagree with, certainly far more than they realize.

 

 

(stepping off my soap box)

[B-Man]

It might help, at least in this thread, to operate as if political parties (and the wedge issues that come with them) don't exist.

 

 

(stepping off my soap box)

 

 

It is your thread sir, I will defer to your wishes.

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

It is your thread sir, I will defer to your wishes.

 

.

 

I didn't mean for that to sound like a rule, more just advice. If it happens it happens, I just think we can get more out of the discussion without getting caught into that trap.

 

There's a lot of bias caught up in this from all sides, I'm guilty of it too.

[/dev/null]

 

 

It is your thread sir, I will defer to your wishes.

 

.

It's not his thread, somebody else made it happen

 

besides, everybody knows Rhino is a puppet of Soros

[Chef Jim]

It might help, at least in this thread, to operate as if political parties (and the wedge issues that come with them) don't exist.

 

I'm out...........

[B-Man]

 

I didn't mean for that to sound like a rule, more just advice. If it happens it happens, I just think we can get more out of the discussion without getting caught into that trap.

 

There's a lot of bias caught up in this from all sides, I'm guilty of it too.

 

I understand.

 

I just have always thought that the creator of a thread should have some say as to how it goes.

 

I only author a few threads, but I always "feel" protective of them, especially when they are hijacked.

[Azalin]

It's not his thread, somebody else made it happen

 

besides, everybody knows Rhino is a puppet of Soros

 

Sir, please show a little respect. He's no puppet of Soros.

 

Alex Jones maybe, but never George Soros.

[Deranged Rhino]

It's not his thread, somebody else made it happen

 

besides, everybody knows Rhino is a puppet of Soros

 

 

 

Sir, please show a little respect. He's no puppet of Soros.

 

Alex Jones maybe, but never George Soros.

 

 

I'm out...........

 

Just make a rule to only peruse this thread while you're medicinally treating your back...

 

It might start to make more sense.

[Azalin]

 

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

 

Just make a rule to only peruse this thread while you're medicinally treating your back...

 

It might start to make more sense.

A literal LOL.

[B-Man]

House IT Staffer Who Is Suspect In Capitol Police Criminal Hacking Probe Has Fled The Country To Pakistan

 

Democratic Aide Suspected Of Major Security Breach Under Government Protection In Pakistan

 

Hina Alvi, her husband Imran Awan, and his brothers Abid and Jamal were highly paid shared IT administrators working for multiple House Democrats until their access to congressional IT systems was terminated Feb. 2 as a result of the investigation. Capitol Police confirmed the investigation is ongoing, but no arrests have been reported in the case.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/22/sources-democratic-aide-suspected-of-major-security-breach-under-government-protection-in-pakistan/

 

[Deranged Rhino]

I'll just say this:

 

As we mourn those lives lost in Manchester, and as the media spins their propaganda to make you fear and hate ISIS, remember who has been actively working with, funding, training and sharing intelligence with ISIS for (at least) the past 5 years in Syria. Remember that the suspect in these attacks was known to western IC well before the attack (a common theme that's become the rule). Remember that the war on terror has always been a Trojan Horse designed to serve a much different purpose than advertised.

 

If you're pissed off today, make sure you're mad at the right people.

[HappyDays]

Update on the Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense:

 

-Rod Wheeler never produced the evidence he claimed he had and haven't heard from him since the family threatened to sue

 

-Seth's parents and brother have been actively asking people to stop connecting his death to nonsense conspiracy theories. Seth's brother wrote a letter to Sean Hannity directly:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/seth-rich-family-letter-hannity-fox-news/

 

-Fox News removed the the original story from their site and posted a statement saying it was removed because it didn't meet their editorial standards:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html

 

There is nothing for this story to fall back on. A DNC staffer was murdered and his murder is unsolved. That's the extent of the evidence.

 

Won't be long now before crazy people are mailing letters to the family accusing them of a coverup. These conspiracies always play out in the same manner.