Quote:Donald Trump's first act as president was a visit to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where he addressed gathering of CIA employees. His journey directly in "the swamp" took place almost immediately after his inauguration, and was clearly an urgent first priority.
Serenading Langley
The CIA is a headquarters of the Deep State and the Shadow Government. It is the nexus of criminality, and of the Bushes and Clintons, and the world-managing elite. The CIA enjoys a virtually unlimited black budget and virtually unlimited power that is beyond the reach of law, and beyond the control of the White House.
Yet here was Trump ingratiating and sweet talking the agency that, under order of John Brennan (on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Bushes), actively engaged in unprecedented efforts to destroy him.
Trump swooned, in sickly sweet fawning fashion:
"Nobody feels stronger about the CIA and the intelligence community than Donald Trump. Nobody.I am so behind you. You're going to get so much backing, you're going to ask Please Mr. President, don't give us so much backing'. We're gonna do great things. We have not used the real abilities we have, we've been restrained. We have to get rid of ISIS. Radical Islamic terrorism has to be eradicated off the face of the earth. It is evil. This is a level of evil that we haven't seen. You're going to do a phenomenal job, but you're going to end it. This is going to be one of the most important groups towards making us safe, toward making us winners again, toward ending all of the problems, the havoc and fear that this sick group of people has caused. I am with you a thousand percent! I love you, I respect you, and you will be leading the charge."
Is Trump naïve, uninformed, or playing some Orwellian game?
How many people attending his speech, the people he expects to "lead the charge" are, in fact, key managers of Islamic terror assetsthe very creators and managers of ISIS?
The CIA is, in fact, the very "sick group of people" responsible for orchestrating international terrorism and untold atrocities. How does Trump plan on the CIA "ending" Islamic terrorism when it is the institution he "loves and respects" is the institution that foments and continues to spread this "fear and havoc?
Does Trump know that the CIA is, in addition to being the world's leading manager of terrorism, also the propaganda ministry of the United States? Does Trump realize that the CIA controls the corporate mainstream media organs that relentlessly and savagely attack him around the clock, and that many of the individuals that he is glad-handing may well be the very same individuals who are orchestrating the vicious propaganda and ongoing coup attempts directed at him and his presidency?
Was Trump's fawning speech an admission of surrender, and that he will change nothing except the top leadership (switching out Brennan for Mike Pompeo), because he believes nothing needs to be changed?
What did he mean when he said that the CIA had been "restrained"? In what way is the CIA, which is more powerful and more aggressive today than at any other time in its unsavory history, "restrained"? The magnitude of terrorism, violence, criminality and war has reached unprecedented levels, to the brink of world war. Will the CIA therefore be allowed, under Pompeo and Trump, to continue engaging in even more terrorism, false flag operations, regime destabilizations and coups, assassinations, narcotrafficking, financial fraud, corruption, media control and disinformation, and treasonon an even greater "unrestrained" scale?
Trump openly supports enhanced interrogation and torture, which means he supports methods perfected and utilized by the CIA. To head off political pressure, Trump says he will allow Defense Secretary Mattis, who is against torture, to "overrule" him, and allow Mattis to decide on a case by case basis whether to torture prisoners. Is Trump's unapologetic enthusiasm for torture an example of what he expects to be among the "unrestrained" abilities and "great things" he wants the CIA to display?
As written by former CIA veteran Victor Marchetti in the classic expose, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, the CIA does not "function primarily as a central clearinghouse and producer of national intelligence for the government". Its basic mission is "that of clandestine operations, particularly covert actionthe secret intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Nor was the Director of CIA a dominantor much interestedfigure in the direction and management of the intelligence community which he supposedly headed. Rather, his chief concern, like that of most of his predecessors and the agency's current Directorwas in overseeing the CIA's clandestine activities".
There is also the management of entrenched CIA businesses, which include looted and laundered trillions in secret bank accounts and shell companies, and the management of a vast network of CIA political assets throughout Washington and in the corporate world. What, if anything, does Trump intend to do, for instance, about the massive CIA enterprise that remains in the control of the Bush/Clinton network, which is bitterly opposed to Trump?
While there may be CIA operatives and employees, including current and former veterans who do not support the criminal operations of the agency, these rank and file operatives have not dictated CIA policy since its creation. These "good guys" are the minority, and their reform and whistleblowing efforts have largely been in vain, and met with deadly force.
Is there any sign that that Trump and Pompeo seek to reform the CIA at all, into an institution that answers to its own government? Or do Trump and Pompeo merely seek to somehow co-opt this above-the-law apparatus, retaining its worst elements, towards their own designs (whatever they may be)?
Trump's "war on terrorism": waging war with itself?
Trump promises a total war against Islamic terrorism and ISIS.
How does Trump wage a total war against Islamic terrorism when the agency of which he is "the biggest fan", that he "supports one thousand percent", is responsible for the creation and ongoing use of Islamic terrorism, as military-intelligence assets for Anglo-American geopolicy? Does Trump realize that the CIA is funding and arming ISIS, Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda?
Trump's "War on Terrorism": Going After America's "Intelligence Assets"?
Does Trump understand that the CIA is responsible for decades of false flag terror operations, including 9/11? (On 9/11, Trump seems to believe a variation of the consensus official narrative blaming outside Islamic terrorists, possibly the Saudis, and George W. Bush for failing to kill Osama bin Laden. Therefore, the CIA is blameless. He holds this view, despite firsthand experience that goes against the official story.)
Does Trump's total "war on terrorism" include waging war against the vast network of CIA assets that are currently engaged in destabilization operations across the Middle East? What is his plan for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Al-Nusraall of which are CIA fronts?
How can the existing networks remain in place without disaster? Will Trump pit officially sanctioned US military forces against the CIA proxies that have been working on orders from the Obama administration?
Will Trump shut down ongoing military and intelligence operations throughout the region? How will he cut off the funding of terrorists (sources which include Washington and the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel)? What will be done with the hundreds of proprietary cells and CIA-aligned foreign intelligence networks?
Many have compared Trump's professed anti-establishment goals to President John F. Kennedy's fatal efforts to take down the Deep State and the CIA. More specifically, if Trump dares dismantle the CIA and the imperial foreign policy that has been in place since the end of the Cold War, he would place himself in the same dangerous position as JFK faced during the Bay of Pigs operation against Cuba. JFK paid with his life for ruining the CIA's game. Imagine the repercussions for Trump, if he ends the conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia.
The incompetence excuse
It is difficult to predict Trump's plan based on his rhetoric, which has been consistently inconsistent. According to his web site, Trump's primary issue with the Bush/Cheney/Obama/Clinton/Biden (McCain) Middle East program is that he believes that his predecessors recklessly squandered opportunities and unwittingly or stupidly allowed ISIS to happen. It was correct, in Trump's view, to go into Afghanistan to avenge 9/11 (which he believes was an act of an outside enemy, not a false flag operation), but wrong to go into Iraq. But, according to Trump, once in Iraq, the US should have taken the oil, prevented the oil from going to ISIS, and done a better job preventing the rise of ISIS.
Similarly, Trump seems to believe that (1) Libya was needlessly destroyed by Clinton and Obama, and that Gadhafi could have been removed more surgically, without letting terrorists run wild, and (2) Syria could have been toppled surgically by Obama, who "lacked the courage" to go in. Here also, Trump's narrative is that mistakes allowed ISIS to spread. Now, however, Syria is too much of a mess and must be cleaned up differently.
The overarching problem, in Trump's limited view, again is that "mistakes" created power vacuums from which ISIS, unwittingly set loose by Obama/Clinton's incompetence.
Nowhere in this Trump narrative is there mention of the CIA's creation and ongoing management of Islamic terrorismincluding Al-Qaeda and all fronts of the Islamic Stateon behalf of Anglo-American interests around the world. No inkling that Islamic terrorism is, in fact, the key component of American geostrategy..
If Trump grasps any aspect of these amply documented facts, he has so far shown no signs of it. It is not known if he is naïve, uninformed, selectively biased, or if he has been deluded or manipulated by the many "advisers" that he trusts. Or if he has some plan that has yet to be revealed.
The disinformation ministry to stop itself?
Trump promises to wage war against radical Islam on an ideological and cultural basis. This suggests that Trump and Pompeo wish to counter Muslim extremism with counter-propaganda.
This ignores that fact that the CIA itself is a leading disseminator of radical Islamic thought. The CIA, and its international proxies, is behind extremist rhetoric and propaganda, including material broadcasted over the media and the Internet. Trump does not seem to grasp that radical Islam is a symptom, and not a cause. And it is merely a tool, and a weapon used to carry out the geopolitical agenda of the (amoral and non-religious) world elite.
The real enemy is not religion, but those who manipulate and distort religion for war purposes. The real enemy therefore is again the CIA itself, and its propaganda.
Just as it is foolish to allow the CIA to continue arming, funding and guiding ISIS terrorists in the field while also "fighting" them, it is foolish to have the CIA create anti-extremist propaganda while Langley is still guiding the extremist rhetoric being utilized by the terrorists.
If Trump fails to stop the CIA itself and its entire "war on terrorism", including its propaganda, he stops nothing.
Trump's resource warriors
The "war on terrorism" and the conquest of the Grand Chessboard is, in essence, a resource war that has been waged over geography involving oil and gas supplies, and oil and gas distribution routes: pipelines, sea transport, etc. Will Trump continue this, and how?
Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State is telling as well as ominous. Tillerson's ExxonMobil has been a major beneficiary of the "war on terrorism", and a major player in energy deals connected to 9/11 and all subsequent conflict.
Tillerson was executive vice president of ExxonMobil Development Company, and oversaw many of the company's Caspian Sea holdings.
ExxonMobil was one of the members of Dick Cheney's secret task force, the US National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). As detailed extensively in Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon, the NEPDG's targeting of Middle East and Central Asian energy fields served as a virtual map of battle for the "war on terrorism" and a central motive behind 9/11.
In addition, according to Ruppert, who detailed the case in "The Elephant in the Living Room" (From the Wilderness 3/30 02), ExxonMobil engaged in bribery. Major bribes totaling $1 billion were paid by ExxonMobil and BP Amoco to Kazakhstan's then-president Nutsulstan Nazarbayev to secure equity rights in Kazakh oil fields during the 1990s. Dick Cheney, then-CEO of Halliburton was a sitting member of the Kazakh state oil advisory board. The activities of Cheney's NEPDG as well as the numerous bribery scandals, have been aggressively covered up.
Tillerson must certainly know about all of this. Does Trump? Is this the kind of foreign policy agenda he and his national security team embraces? If so, it is pure globalism of the most rapacious kind.
More questions
Trump wants better relations with Russia. Cooperation between Trump and Putin has temporarily headed off imminent superpower conflict towards World War 3 over Syria. This conflict would have exploded in earnest if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.
But what do better relations with Russia mean in terms of the geostrategy, and energy? Recall that Russia has been intimately involved with its own vast energy agenda throughout Central Asia and the Middle East. Russia was reluctantly cooperative with the Bush/Cheney administration throughout the Afghanistan and Iraq conquests. Deals were made. Russia could have, but did not, militarily oppose Bush/Cheney.
Is Trump going to revert to something similar, in which he and Tillerson (who has longstanding ties to the heads of state of all nations, including Russia) cut Russia in on deals-a cooperative superpower "management" of Syria and the rest of the Grand Chessboard?
What are Trump's plans for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.?
How will Trump balance the competing interests of Russia and Israel? How will Trump and Pompeo deal with the Mossad? Israel and Netanyahu have belligerently demanded regime change in both Syria and Iran, and continue to engage in provocative actions to force reactions out of the Syrian and Iranian governments. Trump is staunchly pro-Israel. Given that stance, and his lack of opposition to the Israeli lobby, what are the chances that he will push a policy in Syria that goes directly against the demands of Tel Aviv?
But what are Trump's views on China's numerous cooperative deals with Russia throughout the world, including the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, etc.? How will Trump balance warmer relations with Moscow while adopting a more belligerent policy towards Beijing.
A lone voice of reason
Shortly after his election win, Trump met with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, is firmly and boldly against the regime change in Syria. She is a staunch and open critic of the CIA's direct and indirect arming and funding of all Islamic terrorists and against support of countries that support terrorists. She calls the Syrian conflict an illegal war that must stop.
On January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced HR 258, the Stop Funding Terrorists Bill, which would "prohibit the use of American government funds to provide assistance to Al-Qaeda, Jabhat, Fatah al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and to countries supporting these organizations, and for other purposes". This bill aims squarely, boldly, at the CIA.
More recently,Gabbard visited Syria and met with Assad. She has been willing to accept political flak from all sides to change the course of US policy. She has also met with the families of veterans and other American citizens affected by the Syrian conflict.
According to Gabbard, " my visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America's interest, and it certainly isn't in the interest of the Syrian people. As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, Why is the United States and its allies helping Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.' I had no answer."
Having met with Gabbard, who may have been considered for a cabinet position at some point, Trump has no excuse: he has been advised by someone with an authoritative point of view that is deeply critical of the CIA and its use of terror proxies.
Does Trump agree or disagree with Gabbard?
To drain or not to drain the CIA swamp
Nothing in his rhetoric suggests that he is against the "war on terrorism". In fact, he is gung-ho for it, with relish. He simply has his own opinion on how it should be carried out.
It seems highly unlikely that Trump can or will reverse the central geostrategic agenda that has been the cornerstone of imperial policy since the 1970s.
Nor does it seem likely that Trump can or will eradicate the criminal element from the national security apparatus that has stopped all challenges to its primacy since the end of World War II. Langley has not been successfully cleaned up or reformed since its inception. If his fawning words are to be taken at face value, Trump is in love with the CIA, and wants the CIA to love him. At the very least, he is going overboard to win them over.
Former CIA operative Robert Steele believes that Trump has already been penetrated by the CIA, and names White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus as a mole. Trump, however, has shown nothing but ardor for Priebus, "his superstar", since the election. Priebus is not the only figure behind Trump who demands scrutiny. The entire Trump administration is crawling with neocons and "former" neocons. How many of them have ties to Langley? Trump is surrounded by enemies, within his administration as well as outside. He must protect himself from all of these individuals, if he is even bothering to identify them.
But because Trump appears unlikely, unwilling, or unable to eradicate the true root of "terrorism"the CIA itself and all military-intelligence agencies that utilize and control terroriststhe world faces a future of continued zero-sum/endless "anti-terrorism", as the CIA continues sending terrorists to commit violence and murder, at the same time that the commander-in-chief continues to sends the CIA out to go after them, in a surreal and idiotic waste of resources and lives.
Nothing is clear except this:
If Trump does not drain the swamp that is the CIA, he will not end Islamic terrorism, nor dismantle globalism. He will fail to make America great.
If he does not end the "war on terrorism" entirely, humanity itself remains in grave peril.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Donald Trump winds up "the" organization of US imperialism
by Thierry Meyssan
Donald Trump has just undertaken the most important reform of the administrative structures in the United States for more than 69 years. He has just put an end to the imperial project and is reshaping his country into a State like any other.
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 31 JANUARY 2017
Quote:With a view to reshaping the system of governance established in 1947, President Trump has published a Memorandum on the Organization of the National Security Council and the Council of Homeland Security) [1].
The principle that had been applied till now was to deal with "National Security" under the joint authority of the White House, the Chief of Joint Military Forces and the CIA which was established in 1947.
From 1947 to 2001, the National Security Council was right at the heart of the Executive. The President shared power over it with [two other officials]: the Director of the CIA, (appointed by the President) and the Chief of Joint Military Forces chosen by his peers. Since 11 September 2001, the Council was in fact placed under the supervision of the "Government of continuity" of Raven Rock Mountain.
Hereafter, it will not be the norm for the Chief of Joint Military Forces to be represented at meetings but only when an item on the agenda requires his input. In addition, the CIA loses its place on the Council where it will eventually be represented by the National Director of Intelligence.
So, the CIA, which was till now an arm the President could use to lead covert operations, finally becomes an Intelligence Agency in the proper sense of the term. This means, that its mandate is to study international actors, to anticipate their actions and to advise the president.
The annual report on its activities indicates that in 2015, the Council ordered political assassinations in 135 countries.
During the transitional period, President Trump had solemnly declared that the United States would no longer organize any more regime changes as it had done or tried to do since 1989 by using Gene Sharp techniques.
Furthermore, President Trump has assigned a permanent seat to his chief strategist as well as his chief of staff.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]8931[/ATTACH]
The former Security Council Adviser, Susan Rice, has strongly reacted on her Tweeter account. Most of the former CIA directors have already entered the fray in protest.
[1] "Presidential Memorandum : Organization of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network, 28 January 2017.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Quote:A former Foreign Office mandarin who dragged the Queen into the row over Donald Trump's state visit is paid to advise a defence company that has taken a huge financial hit from the new president.
Lord Ricketts, permanent secretary at the department from 2006-10 before becoming David Cameron's national security adviser, questioned whether the US leader was specially deserving of this exceptional honour'.
He hit out at Theresa May's ill-judged' move, saying it had exposed the Queen to a furious row about Mr Trump's controversial travel ban on seven Muslim countries.
The invitation had put the monarch in a very difficult position', he said.
But it emerged that his intervention happened to coincide with President Trump announcing that a contract with US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin would be slashed.
On Monday, the White House forced the company to cut its price for supplying 90 new F-35 stealth fighter jets by $600million (£478million). The full cost of delivering the tranche of state-of-the-art aircraft was $9billion (£7.2billion). Britain is set to buy 48 of the jets.
Last night critics expressed concern that Lockheed's top British strategic adviser was undermining President Trump's trip to the UK because of his treatment of the defence manufacturer.
But Lord Ricketts, 64, strenuously denied there was any conflict of interest and insisted he had spoken out only as an ex-FCO official who had been in charge of the department's Royal Visits Committee.
The Prime Minister's invitation to Mr Trump sparked an outcry in the UK, with more than 1.6million people signing a petition calling for it to be scrapped. Lord Ricketts, who was given a peerage in Mr Cameron's resignation honours list last August, intervened in the row with a letter to The Times.
He told Radio 4 yesterday: I think if you did it two or three years into the Trump presidency, the controversial early policy announcements would have been out of the way, things would have settled down.
It would have been possible, I think, to have invited the president... to come on an official visit to have political talks, to have whatever programme he wanted, go and have tea with the Queen, but without the full panoply, the full accolade of a state visit quite so quickly.'
Lord Ricketts became a strategic adviser to Lockheed Martin UK in September last year just eight months after quitting the diplomatic corps. He has listed his role with the firm in the Register of Lords' Interests but is not required to set out his remuneration.
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith last night lashed out at the former top bureaucrat.
He said: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I have to say it is abusing his old role by coming forward at this point to suggest the Government has put the Queen in an invidious position by holding a state visit for the president.
Not only did he backtrack on his initial idea that the visit should be cancelled, he also failed to declare his interest in a company that President Trump has lectured about the ludicrously over-priced aircraft. There looks to be a conflict of interest.'
Tory MP Philip Hollobone said: The Queen has not been put in a difficult position at all. She hosts visits for heads of state from around the world, from the most important countries, and she has done that throughout her reign. Britain does not agree with all the policies of these countries. Questions are being asked about why Lord Ricketts intervened now and whether there is a potential conflict of interest.'
Lord Hague said: A Queen who has been asked over the decades to host tyrants such as presidents Mobutu of Zaire and Ceausescu of Romania is going to take a brash billionaire from New York effortlessly in her stride.'
Lord Ricketts told the Mail last night: My intervention was purely personal, drawing on my experience at the Foreign Office. I had a personal point to make into this debate and as a former senior civil servant, I was stating my view in public. There is absolutely no conflict of interest.'
A Lockheed Martin UK spokesman said: Lord Ricketts was speaking in a private capacity and his views are not those of Lockheed Martin.' Mrs May's spokesman said she did not accept' the adviser's view.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
The European neoliberal order - a.k.a., the European elite - pulls out its hair in angst and febrile detestation at the cause of its future demise and babbles balls in its fevered delirium.
Which is a rather theatrical way of saying:
EU chief, Donald Tusk, names the US as an "external threat" to the EU, along with "Russia, China, radical islam, war and terror."
Given the EU's hitherto promotion of widespread corruption, corporatism and conflict, I have to say that it's really rather enjoyable to watch the hitherto back-slapping bigoted buggers of the European gravy-train contemplate their imminent rapture.
Quote:
Trump administration an external threat to EU, president Donald Tusk says
PUBLISHED31/01/2017
[*=right]SHARE[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Donald Tusk mentioned the Trump administration as part of an external 'threat' together with China, Russia, radical Islam, war and terror
European Union (EU) chief Donald Tusk says that the first weeks of Donald Trump as US president are contributing to the "highly unpredictable" outlook for the bloc.
In a letter to 27 leaders, EU council president Mr Tusk mentioned the Trump administration as part of an external "threat" together with China, Russia, radical Islam, war and terror.
[LIST=|INDENT=-1]
[*]SHARE
[/LIST]
The letter was not sent to the UK, which is poised to leave the bloc.
Echoing statements from many European capitals, he said that those global challenges "as well as worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable".
He said that "particularly the change in Washington puts the European Union in a difficult situation; with the new administration seeming to put into question the last 70 years of American foreign policy".
Mr Trump has questioned the Nato alliance linking North America and Europe, and hopes for a major trans-Atlantic trade deal have already taken a deep dive amid worries of US protectionism.
"We should remind our American friends of their own motto: United we stand, divided we fall," Mr Tusk said in the letter and also told a news conference in Tallinn, Estonia, after meeting with the three Baltic prime ministers before the Malta summit.
Britain was not part of the letter since it is poised to leave the EU and is only scheduled to attend part of the leaders' meeting in La Valletta.
The decision to leave was the biggest setback for the EU in decades and Mr Trump did not endear himself with many EU leaders by saying that Brexit "will be a tremendous asset and not a tremendous liability".
Mr Tusk wrote to the leaders that "in politics, the argument of dignity must not be overused" before adding that "today we must stand up very clearly for our dignity, the dignity of a united Europe - regardless of whether we are talking to Russia, China, the US or Turkey".
He further insisted any disintegration would not be beneficial to the restored nation states but instead lead to "their real and factual dependence on the great superpowers: the United States, Russia and China".
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
01-02-2017, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2017, 04:53 PM by David Guyatt.)
Tracy Riddle Wrote:[quote=David Guyatt]
For those who don't know, Stone also accepts the official story of 9/11 (see his Untold History book and miniseries), as does Sy Hersh. As far as I know, so does Chris Hedges.
Now, I think very highly of Stone and Hedges most of the time, and sometimes Hersh is very good too. But these posts are essentially appeals to authority. If your Favorite Leftist is skeptical about the Russian hack story, that somehow proves something and you can basically stop thinking for yourself. Well, I like to think for myself, and I've never met a researcher who I agreed with 100% about everything.
As usual Tracy, you misrepresent my intention, and I wonder why that is…
All of the journalists (and others) I have posted articles from in this thread concerning the present contagion sweeping across America's left because of Trump, are the same ones I read regularly and have been reading for years. In regard to all sorts of subjects. I read them because I respect their independence. Repeated independence. Hitherto Trump, you have had no axe to grind in this respect. Trump winning and Hillary losing seems to have changed everything.
None of these people are hack journalists, none are employed by major media outlets, many have paid a deep price for taking a stand outside of the crowd. Several are former US and British intelligence officers in perdu by the state they formerly served, one other is a former UK Ambassador whistleblower likewise detested by the establishment of his nation.
What they all possess besides that independence I spoke of above, is a large dollop of critical thinking combined with a very clear sense of social fairness and justice. Many, although not all, are on the left. But that is, as far as I've been able to see, is because that is where the outposts of social justice largely reside.
I doubt anyone of them accords entirely to my views and perceptions of things because we all share human fallacy and weaknesses - so I can't get my knickers in a twist because Chomsky, Hedges, Stone and others don't 100% accord with my view of the world when it comes to JFK, 9/11 and other deep subjects. I know for the most part that they are good people trying to bring not just rationality, honesty and integrity to bear on the subjects they write about, but more importantly they highlight the underlying issues of social fairness.
In this whole thread the meme you have been supporting is that Russia is responsible for hacking into the DNC computers (and other nefarious attributions besides). This story has zero evidence in support of it. Almost everyone I know in deep politics know this to be true.
But who needs evidence when the deep state says something is so (and that something is wholly based on a political and economic agenda as obvious as a full moon) and yet uncritical minds accept their distortions at face value.
If that is what you regard as "think(ing) for myself" then be my guest. I want no part of it.
This image is being circulated by people who should know better - who do know better. For me, this single image reveals what I regard as the contagion that is presently possessing America. It's unhealthy and dangerous. It could lead to civil war.
I rather suspect that is the intention, because the old guard, the neocon and pocket-stuffers, have decided to fight to the death to retain their privileges, power and their rapacious and ruinous ideology. They, of course, won't be up front nor visible atop white steeds brandishing the swords of justice when or if the shooting starts. They never are.
It's always other people's blood they spill; always other people's money they steal.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
QUOTE: "As usual Tracy, you misrepresent my intention, and I wonder why that is…"
Oh, because I work for the deep state, David! Darn, you caught me!
QUOTE:
"Hitherto Trump, you have had no axe to grind in this respect. Trump winning and Hillary losing seems to have changed everything."
Then you really haven't been paying attention, David, because on this forum I have criticized Hersh and others on the Left for their positions on JFK, 9/11 and other subjects that you no longer seem to think are very important. If people aren't able or willing to honestly and critically examine those events, then you have to wonder how credible they are about other subjects.
For many on the left, the "blowback" position on 9/11 has been, for 15 years now, a very safe and politically convenient position to adopt, and it allows them to quit thinking about it anymore. For others, the "lone nut" solution on JFK lets them happily play in the ideological sandbox of "JFK was just a Cold Warrior playboy and wasn't going to withdraw from Vietnam." Again, an excuse to not think critically.
QUOTE:
"But who needs evidence when the deep state says something is so (and that something is wholly based on a political and economic agenda as obvious as a full moon) and yet uncritical minds accept their distortions at face value."
Again, there are many pieces of circumstantial evidence that I've already discussed, and no one here has explained or refuted. For example, if Seth Rich was a source for the "leak," why can't Assange just reveal that? The man is, after all, dead and no longer threatened by the deep state. I don't claim to know the full story of what happened during last year's election, but you have to be pretty blind not to see all of the pro-Russian people around Trump, their ties to Russian oligarchs and state elements. You also have to be very naive to think Putin wouldn't take advantage of a situation like that, or to gather private dirt about prominent politicians in Western countries.
Cyber warfare and interference in elections are dirt-cheap weapons for a country that still struggles financially and militarily.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:QUOTE: "As usual Tracy, you misrepresent my intention, and I wonder why that is…" Oh, because I work for the deep state, David! Darn, you caught me!
You're revealing yourself to be very foolish, Tracy. But since you seem to need it, and for the record, I regard you as being no more than lacking in critical thinking and someone who has a large and obvious political bias and a heightened national prejudice. The worst I'd ever suggest is that you're a fact free zone when it comes to your political proclivities and someone who believes in conspiracy theories. You're certainly far from being alone in any of these respects.
Quote::
Quote:"Hitherto Trump, you have had no axe to grind in this respect. Trump winning and Hillary losing seems to have changed everything."
Yet again you're seem to designedly miss the essential point the above sentence was intended to make.
Show me where - on this forum - you have criticised the suspension of habeus corpus, or the posse comitatus act, or the suspension of the US Constitution, or the enacting of COG, or the US policy of perpetual warfare that has been engaged in since 9/11? Or showed regret for the millions killed and maimed by these wars? Show me where you criticised Obama for extending drone warfare? Show me where you have attacked Obama and others for treating whistleblowers with such venom? Show me where you have taken exception to the massive police and the state extension of illegal surveillance activities by the US IC?
Go ahead Tracy, show me the links and the quotes. Because I don't remember you making a stand on any of these issues. 9/11 and JFK yes, but not these.
Quote:Then you really haven't been paying attention, David, because on this forum I have criticized Hersh and others on the Left for their positions on JFK, 9/11 and other subjects that you no longer seem to think are very important. If people aren't able or willing to honestly and critically examine those events, then you have to wonder how credible they are about other subjects.
My advice to you is that you need to get a grip and to stand back and take a breather. Everyone has curious and irrational beliefs and most have glaring blindspots they don;t see. If you consider yourself to be without blemish then you have a right to cast the first stone. But you're not.
Meanwhile, my position hasn't changed on 9/11. Nor on JFK. The fact that is that I don't have, and will never have, an obsession for either of these two subjects. I find the ability to obsess on such minute detail decades later - like being trapped in Groundhog day - to be curiously American. I can think of nothing similar here in the UK or in Europe either.
Anyway, relentlessly examining the minutiae of both subjects is for me largely (but not exclusively) incredibly tedious and boring. Especially about the assassination of JFK, about which I've never made a secret. My position is that we all pretty much know what happened and (more or less) why and have known for a very long time. I doubt that the US government will ever reveal the full truth. Move on I say.
Quote:Again, there are many pieces of circumstantial evidence that I've already discussed, and no one here has explained or refuted. For example, if Seth Rich was a source for the "leak," why can't Assange just reveal that?
Ask him. Wikileaks has both a Twitter and a Facebook presence. My guess is that he has a very good reason for keeping his cards close to his chest - especially given his circumstances - but I doubt he's going to tell you. But it's a guess, obviously. So how can anyone be expected to explain it? Nor is Assange under any obligation to either.
I grant that it's an interesting question and I also am curious why he offered that $20,000 reward, but that is as far as it goes. Actively trying to large that up to Assange being a Russian asset is just foolishness - like the Moon being made from cheese.
Quote:... you have to be pretty blind not to see all of the pro-Russian people around Trump, their ties to Russian oligarchs and state elements. You also have to be very naive to think Putin wouldn't take advantage of a situation like that, or to gather private dirt about prominent politicians in Western countries.
You have to be naive to make a conspiracy theory about Russian hacking the DNC servers -- as you and many others have repeatedly done -- and then try to elevate that bogus argument to the status of fact... when there are no facts - and where the available information points to a partisan strategy thought up by Clinton's campaign team to deflect the damage of the Clinton emails that reveal her to be the thoroughly detestable person she is.
Quote:Cyber warfare and interference in elections are dirt-cheap weapons for a country that still struggles financially and militarily.
Shrug.
The nation with the greatest cyber warfare presence in the world is the US. Remember the US Stuxnet attack on Iran for example?
You'd also do well to cast your gaze homewards when it comes to "struggles" in military matters. Think of the US Navy's super-duper littoral combat ships that keep failing and needing to be towed home by tugs --- or the $1.8 trillion non-performing F35, or $900 hammers, or $500 for bog standard toilet seats, not to forget the missing $6.5 trillion that can't be accounted for by the Pentagon. Sort out your own house first.
Continuing to cast your shadow at Russia in the light of these disasters seems to me to be indefensible. But I suppose it is in the DNA by now; afterall the US has been projecting its shadow at Russia for a hundred years. Why change habits of a lifetime?
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:QUOTE: "As usual Tracy, you misrepresent my intention, and I wonder why that is…" Oh, because I work for the deep state, David! Darn, you caught me!
You're revealing yourself to be very foolish, Tracy. But since you seem to need it, and for the record, I regard you as being no more than lacking in critical thinking and someone who has a large and obvious political bias and a heightened national prejudice. The worst I'd ever suggest is that you're a fact free zone when it comes to your political proclivities and someone who believes in conspiracy theories. You're certainly far from being alone in any of these respects.
Quote::
Quote:"Hitherto Trump, you have had no axe to grind in this respect. Trump winning and Hillary losing seems to have changed everything."
Yet again you're seem to designedly miss the essential point the above sentence was intended to make.
Show me where - on this forum - you have criticised the suspension of habeus corpus, or the posse comitatus act, or the suspension of the US Constitution, or the enacting of COG, or the US policy of perpetual warfare that has been engaged in since 9/11? Or showed regret for the millions killed and maimed by these wars? Show me where you criticised Obama for extending drone warfare? Show me where you have attacked Obama and others for treating whistleblowers with such venom? Show me where you have taken exception to the massive police and the state extension of illegal surveillance activities by the US IC?
Go ahead Tracy, show me the links and the quotes. Because I don't remember you making a stand on any of these issues. 9/11 and JFK yes, but not these.
That's hysterical. I've been a member of this forum for almost four years and have posted on countless subjects besides 9/11 and JFK, and I don't need to go rummaging through 2,550 posts to prove a goddamn thing to you.
To the rest of you, it's been interesting and educational, but I'm done with this place...
Tracy Riddle Wrote:QUOTE: "As usual Tracy, you misrepresent my intention, and I wonder why that is…" Oh, because I work for the deep state, David! Darn, you caught me!
You're revealing yourself to be very foolish, Tracy. But since you seem to need it, and for the record, I regard you as being no more than lacking in critical thinking and someone who has a large and obvious political bias and a heightened national prejudice. The worst I'd ever suggest is that you're a fact free zone when it comes to your political proclivities and someone who believes in conspiracy theories. You're certainly far from being alone in any of these respects.
Quote::
Quote:"Hitherto Trump, you have had no axe to grind in this respect. Trump winning and Hillary losing seems to have changed everything."
Yet again you're seem to designedly miss the essential point the above sentence was intended to make.
Show me where - on this forum - you have criticised the suspension of habeus corpus, or the posse comitatus act, or the suspension of the US Constitution, or the enacting of COG, or the US policy of perpetual warfare that has been engaged in since 9/11? Or showed regret for the millions killed and maimed by these wars? Show me where you criticised Obama for extending drone warfare? Show me where you have attacked Obama and others for treating whistleblowers with such venom? Show me where you have taken exception to the massive police and the state extension of illegal surveillance activities by the US IC?
Go ahead Tracy, show me the links and the quotes. Because I don't remember you making a stand on any of these issues. 9/11 and JFK yes, but not these.
That's hysterical. I've been a member of this forum for almost four years and have posted on countless subjects besides 9/11 and JFK, and I don't need to go rummaging through 2,550 posts to prove a goddamn thing to you.
To the rest of you, it's been interesting and educational, but I'm done with this place...
You always need to support your claims and allegations. DPF is a researchers forum and evidencing what you claim has been a central feature of this place since it started.
On the subjects I listed above I don't believe you've ever posted once protesting the suspension of your rights (not my rights mind you, we're discussing your rights), and it comes as little surprise to me that you're unable to do so again today. Every time I've asked you to evidence your opinions in this thread you've been unable to.
C'est la vie.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
David Guyatt Wrote:You always need to support your claims and allegations. DPF is a researchers forum and evidencing what you claim has been a central feature of this place since it started.
On the subjects I listed above I don't believe you've ever posted once protesting the suspension of your rights (not my rights mind you, we're discussing your rights), and it comes as little surprise to me that you're unable to do so again today. Every time I've asked you to evidence your opinions in this thread you've been unable to.
C'est la vie.
Oh, the irony! You and others here sound like Vincent Bugliosi with your constant refrains of "no evidence, no evidence." You have posted no evidence whatsoever - nothing but editorials from leftists still stuck in a knee-jerk, reflexive Cold War mentality ("Russia good, America bad"). Unlike you, I have no emotional or ideological investment in this. I don't first make up my mind about an event based on a political bias, and then go searching for the facts to support my views. Which is exactly what you and others on this forum did when this story first appeared. Your minds are already closed to any other possible conclusion other than "Deep State did it, media lies, Russia is always blameless." What preposterous childishness!
If you think I haven't posted about other subjects, or criticized the Obama regime, then I suggest you look through the other sub-forums a little. I posted much more frequently in the first couple of years after I joined. Frankly, one reason my participation has dropped off has been because of disappointment in the often shallow (or even non-existent) analysis I see from many members here (not to mention the way certain people are allowed to endlessly troll parts of the forum with self-indulgent crap).
![[Image: PANews%20BT_P-08a38e93-b3b0-4e96-9037-1c...834_I1.jpg]](http://cdn-04.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article35412157.ece/89cc0/AUTOCROP/h342/PANews%20BT_P-08a38e93-b3b0-4e96-9037-1cddbd33a834_I1.jpg)