Peter Lemkin Wrote:There are dangers ahead because of the past 'mistakes' [being generous] and current ones. Civil unrest and societal collapse are realities. That said, there are those who will react with unrest [demonstrations, strikes, etc.], and those who will foment unrest, hoping to bring about some apocolypse they feel will 'cleanse' the 'nation' and come out better on the other side [I shiver to think what their 'other side' looks like!]. I'm in favor of the former reaction and movement to change the entire system, replace it with a bottom-up one from the now top-down one; from a People and Earth centered philosophy from an Elite and Corporate centered one. Bannon is the most dangerous person in Washington now, IMHO. He has Trumpf's ear and that alone is frightening. A more Rasputin type character I am hard placed to think of...he even makes Rumsfeld look like a nice guy next to his President.
Well, I'm with you entirely in regard to the first option. Using any sort of apocalyptic measures to effect change is madness and abounds with unknown and unforeseen dangers; likewise meddling with the Collective Unconscious for a group-think consensus as the neocons have and are doing is also utter madness in my opinion.
Let's hope and pray that the madmen don't prevail.
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.
Paul Rigby Wrote:From the same class that brought us Oswald-did-it-and-you're-a-loon-if-you-think-otherwise...
This bit I agree with and add the following nuance -- the same Globalist Proto-Autocracy (a/k/a the WASP Eastern Liberal Establishment) that orchestrated the murder of JFK in the capital of the Dominionist Proto-Autocracy Dallas TX.
Hell, W. Averell Harriman put Jackie and the kids up that night, the sinister bastard.
It was the least he could do. A chivalrous man. A compassionate man. A man of honour.
Yeah, a real square G.
Prescott Bush worked for Harriman.
Harriman died in 1986.
His widow, Pamela Churchill Harriman, groomed Bill Clinton for the White House.
So for 20 years after his death Harriman proteges occupied the US Presidency.
As horrible & nightmarish the Globalist Proto-Autocracy is -- it's still the lesser of two evils... I need a hip and two knee replacements. Thanks to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion I can get those done over the course of the next three years. Trump is pushing for the Medicaid expansion to end this year.
Say fuck all you want about the evil Democrats at least they've delivered health care to lots and lots of us.
Quote:The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation.
When do the unlimited powers of the Intelligence/Security agencies threaten America's domestic and global national interests? The CIA and its political enablers claim the agency's essentially unlimited powers, partially revealed by Wikileak's Vault 7, pose no threat to America's interests, since they are intended to "defend" American interests.
This is the rationale presented by neocon CIA allies in both political parties: the CIA can't possibly threaten America's interests because the CIA defines America's interests.
This is the wormhole down which civil liberties and democracy have drained. It is an extraordinarily defining moment in American history when the director of the FBI publicly declares that there is no such thing as "absolute privacy" in the U.S.
In effect, privacy is now contingent on the level of interest the Security State has in the private conversation/data. If we read the U.S. Constitution, we do not find such contingencies: civil liberties are absolute. Post-1790 presidents have temporarily mooted civil liberties in time of war, and the CIA-led camp of the Deep State has justified its unlimited powers by effectively declared "a state of war is now permanent and enduring."
So what's left to defend if America has become the enemy of civil liberties and democracy, i.e. become a totalitarian state ruled by Security Services and their political henchmen and apologists?
I have long suggested that the tectonic plates of the Deep State are shifting as the ruling consensus has eroded. Some elements of the Deep State--what I call the progressive wing, which is (ironically to some) anchored in the military services-- now view the neocon-CIA (Security State)-Wall Street elements as profoundly dangerous to America's long-term interests, both domestically and globally.
Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)
I have suggested that this "rogue Deep State" quietly aided Donald Trump (by subtly undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign) as the last best chance to save the nation from the neocon's over-reach that the Establishment's Wall Street-funded leadership (Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al.) has overseen--including granting the CIA and its allies virtually unlimited powers unhindered by any effective oversight.
Does a Rogue Deep State Have Trump's Back? (January 18, 2017)
This profound split in the Deep State has now broken into open warfare. The first salvo was the absurd propaganda campaign led by Establishment mouthpieces The New York Times and The Washington Post claiming Russian agents had "hacked" the U.S. election to favor Trump.
This fact-free propaganda campaign failed--having no evidence didn't work quite as well as the NYT and Wapo expected-- and so the propaganda machine launched the second salvo, accusing Trump of being a Russian patsy.
The evidence for this claim was equally laughable, and that campaign has only made the Establishment, its propaganda mouthpieces and the neocon Deep State look desperate and foolish on the global and domestic stages.
The desperate neocon Deep State and its Democratic Party allies went to absurd lengths to undermine Trump via the "Boris and Natasha" strategy of accusing Trump of collaborating with the Evil Russkies, even going so far as to briefly exhume former President G.W. Bush from deep-freeze to make a fool of himself, saying the Trump-Evil Russkies connection should be "investigated."
Now the rogue elements have launched a counterstrike--Vault 7. Here is one example of how quickly the CIA's over-reach has been absorbed by the body politic:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9013[/ATTACH]
I highly recommend reading Wikileak's summary of Vault 7: Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.
We now know that the CIA maintained a special program (UMBRAGE) to mimic Russia-based hackers and create false trails back to fictitious "Russian hackers." A number of highly experienced analysts who reviewed the supposed "Russian hacks" had suggested the "evidence" smelled of false trails-- not just bread crumbs, but bread crumbs heavy-handedly stenciled "this is Russian malware."
The body count from Vault 7 has not yet been tallied, but it wouldn't surprise me if former President Obama and his team eventually end up as political casualties. Non-partisan observers are noting all this over-reach occurred on Obama's watch, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that one of Obama's last executive orders stripped away the last shreds of oversight of what could be "shared" (or invented) between the Security Agencies.
Indeed, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have placed all their chips on the increasingly unviable claim that the CIA is the squeaky clean defender of America.
Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties?
If there are no limits on CIA powers and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing.
The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation. Citizens who define America's interests as civil liberties and democracy should be deeply troubled by the Establishment's surrender of these in favor of a National Security State with essentially no limits.
Americans tasked with defending America's "interests" globally should be asking if a CIA/NSA et al. with unlimited power is detrimental to America's soft and hard power globally, and toxic to its influence.
The answer is obvious: a CIA with unlimited power and the backing of a corrupt Establishment and media is more than detrimental to America's soft and hard power globally--it is disastrous and potentially fatal to America's interests, standing and influence.
Those of us on the sidelines can only hope that the progressive wing of the Deep State, the rogue elements who see the terrible danger of an unlimited National Security State, will succeed in undermining the powerful political support for this toxic totalitarian regime.
"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:The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation.
When do the unlimited powers of the Intelligence/Security agencies threaten America's domestic and global national interests? The CIA and its political enablers claim the agency's essentially unlimited powers, partially revealed by Wikileak's Vault 7, pose no threat to America's interests, since they are intended to "defend" American interests.
This is the rationale presented by neocon CIA allies in both political parties: the CIA can't possibly threaten America's interests because the CIA defines America's interests.
This is the wormhole down which civil liberties and democracy have drained. It is an extraordinarily defining moment in American history when the director of the FBI publicly declares that there is no such thing as "absolute privacy" in the U.S.
Charles Hugh Smith is as befuddled as most, so let's help him out.
Quote:In effect, privacy is now contingent on the level of interest the Security State has in the private conversation/data. If we read the U.S. Constitution, we do not find such contingencies: civil liberties are absolute. Post-1790 presidents have temporarily mooted civil liberties in time of war, and the CIA-led camp of the Deep State has justified its unlimited powers by effectively declared "a state of war is now permanent and enduring."
So what's left to defend if America has become the enemy of civil liberties and democracy, i.e. become a totalitarian state ruled by Security Services and their political henchmen and apologists?
Answer: internecine warfare within the National Security State.
Peter Dale Scott has nailed it balls to the wall -- the clash of these "power hungry factions" (as Prof. Scott puts it) will weaken them both.
Quote:I have long suggested that the tectonic plates of the Deep State are shifting as the ruling consensus has eroded. Some elements of the Deep State--what I call the progressive wing, which is (ironically to some) anchored in the military services-- now view the neocon-CIA (Security State)-Wall Street elements as profoundly dangerous to America's long-term interests, both domestically and globally.
These are not monolithic entities, Mr. Smith. The CIA, the Pentagon, DEA, FBI, NSA, DIA are faction ridden -- both the Globalist Proto-Autocracy and the Dominionist Proto-Autocracy are well represented in all these organs of State Security.
If these agencies war with each other there can be appreciable rollback of the National Security State -- as realized in the 2015 Surveillance State Repeal Act.
Quote:Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)
I have suggested that this "rogue Deep State" quietly aided Donald Trump (by subtly undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign) as the last best chance to save the nation from the neocon's over-reach that the Establishment's Wall Street-funded leadership (Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al.) has overseen--including granting the CIA and its allies virtually unlimited powers unhindered by any effective oversight.
Quote:The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation.
When do the unlimited powers of the Intelligence/Security agencies threaten America's domestic and global national interests? The CIA and its political enablers claim the agency's essentially unlimited powers, partially revealed by Wikileak's Vault 7, pose no threat to America's interests, since they are intended to "defend" American interests.
This is the rationale presented by neocon CIA allies in both political parties: the CIA can't possibly threaten America's interests because the CIA defines America's interests.
This is the wormhole down which civil liberties and democracy have drained. It is an extraordinarily defining moment in American history when the director of the FBI publicly declares that there is no such thing as "absolute privacy" in the U.S.
In effect, privacy is now contingent on the level of interest the Security State has in the private conversation/data. If we read the U.S. Constitution, we do not find such contingencies: civil liberties are absolute. Post-1790 presidents have temporarily mooted civil liberties in time of war, and the CIA-led camp of the Deep State has justified its unlimited powers by effectively declared "a state of war is now permanent and enduring."
So what's left to defend if America has become the enemy of civil liberties and democracy, i.e. become a totalitarian state ruled by Security Services and their political henchmen and apologists?
I have long suggested that the tectonic plates of the Deep State are shifting as the ruling consensus has eroded. Some elements of the Deep State--what I call the progressive wing, which is (ironically to some) anchored in the military services-- now view the neocon-CIA (Security State)-Wall Street elements as profoundly dangerous to America's long-term interests, both domestically and globally.
Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)
I have suggested that this "rogue Deep State" quietly aided Donald Trump (by subtly undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign) as the last best chance to save the nation from the neocon's over-reach that the Establishment's Wall Street-funded leadership (Bush, Clinton, Obama, et al.) has overseen--including granting the CIA and its allies virtually unlimited powers unhindered by any effective oversight.
Does a Rogue Deep State Have Trump's Back? (January 18, 2017)
This profound split in the Deep State has now broken into open warfare. The first salvo was the absurd propaganda campaign led by Establishment mouthpieces The New York Times and The Washington Post claiming Russian agents had "hacked" the U.S. election to favor Trump.
This fact-free propaganda campaign failed--having no evidence didn't work quite as well as the NYT and Wapo expected-- and so the propaganda machine launched the second salvo, accusing Trump of being a Russian patsy.
The evidence for this claim was equally laughable, and that campaign has only made the Establishment, its propaganda mouthpieces and the neocon Deep State look desperate and foolish on the global and domestic stages.
The desperate neocon Deep State and its Democratic Party allies went to absurd lengths to undermine Trump via the "Boris and Natasha" strategy of accusing Trump of collaborating with the Evil Russkies, even going so far as to briefly exhume former President G.W. Bush from deep-freeze to make a fool of himself, saying the Trump-Evil Russkies connection should be "investigated."
Now the rogue elements have launched a counterstrike--Vault 7. Here is one example of how quickly the CIA's over-reach has been absorbed by the body politic:
I highly recommend reading Wikileak's summary of Vault 7: Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.
We now know that the CIA maintained a special program (UMBRAGE) to mimic Russia-based hackers and create false trails back to fictitious "Russian hackers." A number of highly experienced analysts who reviewed the supposed "Russian hacks" had suggested the "evidence" smelled of false trails-- not just bread crumbs, but bread crumbs heavy-handedly stenciled "this is Russian malware."
The body count from Vault 7 has not yet been tallied, but it wouldn't surprise me if former President Obama and his team eventually end up as political casualties. Non-partisan observers are noting all this over-reach occurred on Obama's watch, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that one of Obama's last executive orders stripped away the last shreds of oversight of what could be "shared" (or invented) between the Security Agencies.
Indeed, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have placed all their chips on the increasingly unviable claim that the CIA is the squeaky clean defender of America.
Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties?
If there are no limits on CIA powers and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing.
The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation. Citizens who define America's interests as civil liberties and democracy should be deeply troubled by the Establishment's surrender of these in favor of a National Security State with essentially no limits.
Americans tasked with defending America's "interests" globally should be asking if a CIA/NSA et al. with unlimited power is detrimental to America's soft and hard power globally, and toxic to its influence.
The answer is obvious: a CIA with unlimited power and the backing of a corrupt Establishment and media is more than detrimental to America's soft and hard power globally--it is disastrous and potentially fatal to America's interests, standing and influence.
Those of us on the sidelines can only hope that the progressive wing of the Deep State, the rogue elements who see the terrible danger of an unlimited National Security State, will succeed in undermining the powerful political support for this toxic totalitarian regime.
Up to a point this is a very interesting and perhaps potentially insightful piece. However, the thing I can't quite wrap my head around is how any 'progressive wing' of the Deep State could choose someone like Trump and his team. They may not be neocons in the 'historic' sense, but they [to me] have equally dangerous and damaging agendas - if keeping their fingers on a somewhat different scriptbook. I'm not rooting for any side of the Deep State. I'm rooting for finding a way to end it entirely before it ends all of us. I don't care to choose my poison - I don't want any, thanks. I can believe there has and I see signs of internecine warfare in the Deep State, but again, can't figure how they'd come up with a monster to battle a monster. The lesser of two monsters meme just doesn't make my day......and I remain totally unconvinced that the current 'team Trump' is a lesser evil at all. Different, yes. Less evil, no.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Up to a point this is a very interesting and perhaps potentially insightful piece. However, the thing I can't quite wrap my head around is how any 'progressive wing' of the Deep State could choose someone like Trump and his team. They may not be neocons in the 'historic' sense, but they [to me] have equally dangerous and damaging agendas - if keeping their fingers on a somewhat different scriptbook. I'm not rooting for any side of the Deep State. I'm rooting for finding a way to end it entirely before it ends all of us. I don't care to choose my poison - I don't want any, thanks. I can believe there has and I see signs of internecine warfare in the Deep State, but again, can't figure how they'd come up with a monster to battle a monster. The lesser of two monsters meme just doesn't make my day......and I remain totally unconvinced that the current 'team Trump' is a lesser evil at all. Different, yes. Less evil, no.
Peter, doesn't make my day either but one monster is gonna fix my body and the other monster won't.
Besides, there is no "rogue Deep State."
Smith labels Fascism progressive.
Trump is far more dangerous -- he's at war with rural poor folks as we speak. The people who elected him!
One interesting answer to this question is to be found in this piece by Wayne Madsen:
Quote:In 1975, the concept of a "CIA within the CIA" prompted Emily Sheketoff, a House Select Committee on Intelligence staffer who was investigating the CIA, to inquire about a "CIA within the CIA," from Robert Gambino, the chief of security for the CIA. It was Gambino who briefed Jeb Bush on his non-official cover assignment in Venezuela, prior to the ex-CIA director's son's departure in 1977 for Caracas to head up the Texas Commerce Bank's operations in the country. Gambino scoffed at the notion of a "CIA within the CIA" in an October 30, 1975 memo. Based on Gambino's ties with ex-director Bush while Jimmy Carter's director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, was in charge of the CIA, Gambino serves as "exhibit number one" when it comes to the "CIA within the CIA." In fact, Sheketoff flat out stated to Gambino that she believed the CIA's Office of Security was then the major component of the hidden CIA.
Quote:Even before he was inaugurated on January 20, President Trump faced a virtual "CIA within the CIA" that is bound and determined to derail his intelligence and foreign policy agendas. Past presidents have faced opposition from the Central Intelligence Agency -- John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter are prime examples -- but the opposition was sub rosa and not out in the open as it is today.
A number of former CIA officers have taken to CNN and MS-NBC to voice their opinions that Trump is a threat to U.S. national security. In addition to venting their own spleens about Trump, they are publicly airing the views of hundreds of their former colleagues currently serving within the CIA.
The conventional punditry in Washington is stressing, without evidence, that Trump's presidential campaign was helped by "Russian intelligence officials." A dodgy British memorandum, created by a former MI-6 spook named Christopher Steele, and embellished by the Jeb Bush campaign, which hired him to dig up dirt on Trump, is being used as "proof" of Russian interfered in the U.S. election. However, what is being overlooked is that "Russian intelligence" may be a substitute for "Russian-Israeli mafia." The Russian-Israeli oligarchs, many of whom are exiled in Britain, Switzerland, and Israel, have no love for Trump and his previous pro-Russian views.
It recently emerged that Ukrainian parliament member Andrey Artemenko met in January with Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to deliver a proposal that would have "leased" Crimea to Russia for 100 years in exchange for a pullout of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. The "peace plan" appears to have been a red herring since there is no documented evidence of regular Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Artemenko is a shady figure who has been involved with the scandal-plagued Federation of International Football Association (FIFA) and who is a member of the party of the corrupt former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
It was Tymoshenko's criminal conviction and imprisonment by the government of president Viktor Yanukovych that helped propel the "Euromaidan" revolution and coup that drove Yanukovych into exile in Russia. Artemenko is also close to the former Ukrainian boxer Vitali Klitschko, the current mayor of Kiev, who recently attended the Munich Security Conference along with Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and such anti-Russian U.S. delegates as Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, neocon Robert Kagan, and Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, the chief architect of the Euromaidan revolution. At Munich, where the CIA was working overtime to cultivate new relationships and reinforce older ones, the plotters of neo-Cold War intrigue in Ukraine were all present. The CIA would have known about Klitschko's ties to Artemenko and Artemenko's meeting on the Ukraine peace deal with Trump's lawyer Cohen.
Trump, who has surrounded himself with shady characters like Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Hungarian-American fascist Sebastian Gorka, may not be a "puppet" of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as alleged by detractors. Instead, Trump appears to be an unwitting stooge of the Russian-Israeli mafia that wants a green light to depose Putin and replace him with one of their own, someone, for example, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Khodorkovsky, now in exile, is leading the Russian-Israeli oligarchs in their attempt to undermine Putin. International hedge fund tycoon George Soros was also in Munich, rubbing shoulders with Klitschko and his own puppet, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The intrigue on display in Munich may be complicated, but the end result may be a two-for-one deal for the Russian-Israeli gangsters: the overthrow of Putin and the impeachment of Trump. The result would be a Russian president who would complete the privatization of Russian industry and infrastructure to benefit the exiled mafia oligarchs and a committed "Christian Zionist," Pence, in the Oval Office.
As delegates were packing up to leave Munich, there was another interesting development in nearby Vienna. An Austrian appeals court approved the extradition to the United States of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash to the where he faces corruption charges. After the Euromaidan coup in 2014, Firtash was arrested by Austrian police on an FBI warrant. Firtash was a close political ally of Yanukovych. Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort was a business partner of Firtash. In 2008, Manafort and Firtash were part of a business team that sought to buy Manhattan's Drake Hotel and demolish it to make way for a new skyscraper called the Bulgari Tower, a deal that may have involved the Trump Organization. The Drake deal involved another Trump adviser, Richard Gates. While she was prime minister, Tymoshenko sued Firtash over the Drake deal. Now, an ally of Tymoshenko, Artemenko, has his fingerprints on a Ukrainian peace plan shopped to Trump's lawyer Cohen.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9014[/ATTACH]
Also in Munich with Pence, Mattis, Kagan, and Nuland was Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, who gave the Trump Foundation $150,000 for a Trump video speech to Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy (YES) annual meeting in Ukraine in 2015. Pinchuk, a friend of John McCain, is close to both Poroshenko and Soros and a vocal opponent of Putin.
No one is clean in these machinations but they could very well serve as a basis to impeach Trump under the emolument clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes any personal profit by the president based on foreign links an impeachable offense.
There are forces within the CIA -- the "CIA within the CIA" -- that want a return to the days of Boris Yeltsin, when everything and everyone in Russia was for sale and Russia gladly followed the diktats from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Two things stand in their way, Putin and the Putin-admiring Trump, the latter not seeming to want to "get with the program" of returning to the status quo ante in U.S.-Russian relations.
In the 1975 cinematic thriller "Three Days of the Condor," Robert Redford, who plays Joe Turner and whose CIA codename is "Condor," works at a CIA front operation in Manhattan's Upper East Side called the "American Literary Historical Society ALHS." Condor returns from running a lunch errand to find that all his colleagues have been shot to death. The plot centers around a "CIA within the CIA." The producers of the film, which was based on a 1974 novel by James Grady titled "Six Days of the Condor," must have had an inkling about a "CIA within the CIA."
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9015[/ATTACH]
In "Three Days of the Condor," a CIA front in Manhattan is wiped out by a "CIA Within the CIA." There is more fact than fiction in the 1975 cinematic thriller.
In 1975, the concept of a "CIA within the CIA" prompted Emily Sheketoff, a House Select Committee on Intelligence staffer who was investigating the CIA, to inquire about a "CIA within the CIA," from Robert Gambino, the chief of security for the CIA. It was Gambino who briefed Jeb Bush on his non-official cover assignment in Venezuela, prior to the ex-CIA director's son's departure in 1977 for Caracas to head up the Texas Commerce Bank's operations in the country. Gambino scoffed at the notion of a "CIA within the CIA" in an October 30, 1975 memo. Based on Gambino's ties with ex-director Bush while Jimmy Carter's director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, was in charge of the CIA, Gambino serves as "exhibit number one" when it comes to the "CIA within the CIA." In fact, Sheketoff flat out stated to Gambino that she believed the CIA's Office of Security was then the major component of the hidden CIA.
An intelligence game is now being played out by Langley and it involves unsavory mafiosi in Ukraine, London, and Langley, Virginia. In essence, a "CIA within the CIA" is attempting to stage a "soft coup" in the United States and they have a number of willing accomplices in the media and within Mr. Trump's own inner circle.
"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,"
Paul Rigby Wrote:One interesting answer to this question is to be found in this piece by Wayne Madsen:
Quote:In 1975, the concept of a "CIA within the CIA" prompted Emily Sheketoff, a House Select Committee on Intelligence staffer who was investigating the CIA, to inquire about a "CIA within the CIA," from Robert Gambino, the chief of security for the CIA. It was Gambino who briefed Jeb Bush on his non-official cover assignment in Venezuela, prior to the ex-CIA director's son's departure in 1977 for Caracas to head up the Texas Commerce Bank's operations in the country. Gambino scoffed at the notion of a "CIA within the CIA" in an October 30, 1975 memo. Based on Gambino's ties with ex-director Bush while Jimmy Carter's director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, was in charge of the CIA, Gambino serves as "exhibit number one" when it comes to the "CIA within the CIA." In fact, Sheketoff flat out stated to Gambino that she believed the CIA's Office of Security was then the major component of the hidden CIA.
Quote:Even before he was inaugurated on January 20, President Trump faced a virtual "CIA within the CIA" that is bound and determined to derail his intelligence and foreign policy agendas. Past presidents have faced opposition from the Central Intelligence Agency -- John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter are prime examples -- but the opposition was sub rosa and not out in the open as it is today.
A number of former CIA officers have taken to CNN and MS-NBC to voice their opinions that Trump is a threat to U.S. national security. In addition to venting their own spleens about Trump, they are publicly airing the views of hundreds of their former colleagues currently serving within the CIA.
The conventional punditry in Washington is stressing, without evidence, that Trump's presidential campaign was helped by "Russian intelligence officials." A dodgy British memorandum, created by a former MI-6 spook named Christopher Steele, and embellished by the Jeb Bush campaign, which hired him to dig up dirt on Trump, is being used as "proof" of Russian interfered in the U.S. election. However, what is being overlooked is that "Russian intelligence" may be a substitute for "Russian-Israeli mafia." The Russian-Israeli oligarchs, many of whom are exiled in Britain, Switzerland, and Israel, have no love for Trump and his previous pro-Russian views.
It recently emerged that Ukrainian parliament member Andrey Artemenko met in January with Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to deliver a proposal that would have "leased" Crimea to Russia for 100 years in exchange for a pullout of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. The "peace plan" appears to have been a red herring since there is no documented evidence of regular Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Artemenko is a shady figure who has been involved with the scandal-plagued Federation of International Football Association (FIFA) and who is a member of the party of the corrupt former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
It was Tymoshenko's criminal conviction and imprisonment by the government of president Viktor Yanukovych that helped propel the "Euromaidan" revolution and coup that drove Yanukovych into exile in Russia. Artemenko is also close to the former Ukrainian boxer Vitali Klitschko, the current mayor of Kiev, who recently attended the Munich Security Conference along with Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and such anti-Russian U.S. delegates as Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, neocon Robert Kagan, and Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, the chief architect of the Euromaidan revolution. At Munich, where the CIA was working overtime to cultivate new relationships and reinforce older ones, the plotters of neo-Cold War intrigue in Ukraine were all present. The CIA would have known about Klitschko's ties to Artemenko and Artemenko's meeting on the Ukraine peace deal with Trump's lawyer Cohen.
Trump, who has surrounded himself with shady characters like Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Hungarian-American fascist Sebastian Gorka, may not be a "puppet" of Russian President Vladimir Putin, as alleged by detractors. Instead, Trump appears to be an unwitting stooge of the Russian-Israeli mafia that wants a green light to depose Putin and replace him with one of their own, someone, for example, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Khodorkovsky, now in exile, is leading the Russian-Israeli oligarchs in their attempt to undermine Putin. International hedge fund tycoon George Soros was also in Munich, rubbing shoulders with Klitschko and his own puppet, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The intrigue on display in Munich may be complicated, but the end result may be a two-for-one deal for the Russian-Israeli gangsters: the overthrow of Putin and the impeachment of Trump. The result would be a Russian president who would complete the privatization of Russian industry and infrastructure to benefit the exiled mafia oligarchs and a committed "Christian Zionist," Pence, in the Oval Office.
As delegates were packing up to leave Munich, there was another interesting development in nearby Vienna. An Austrian appeals court approved the extradition to the United States of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash to the where he faces corruption charges. After the Euromaidan coup in 2014, Firtash was arrested by Austrian police on an FBI warrant. Firtash was a close political ally of Yanukovych. Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort was a business partner of Firtash. In 2008, Manafort and Firtash were part of a business team that sought to buy Manhattan's Drake Hotel and demolish it to make way for a new skyscraper called the Bulgari Tower, a deal that may have involved the Trump Organization. The Drake deal involved another Trump adviser, Richard Gates. While she was prime minister, Tymoshenko sued Firtash over the Drake deal. Now, an ally of Tymoshenko, Artemenko, has his fingerprints on a Ukrainian peace plan shopped to Trump's lawyer Cohen.
Also in Munich with Pence, Mattis, Kagan, and Nuland was Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, who gave the Trump Foundation $150,000 for a Trump video speech to Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy (YES) annual meeting in Ukraine in 2015. Pinchuk, a friend of John McCain, is close to both Poroshenko and Soros and a vocal opponent of Putin.
No one is clean in these machinations but they could very well serve as a basis to impeach Trump under the emolument clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes any personal profit by the president based on foreign links an impeachable offense.
There are forces within the CIA -- the "CIA within the CIA" -- that want a return to the days of Boris Yeltsin, when everything and everyone in Russia was for sale and Russia gladly followed the diktats from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Two things stand in their way, Putin and the Putin-admiring Trump, the latter not seeming to want to "get with the program" of returning to the status quo ante in U.S.-Russian relations.
In the 1975 cinematic thriller "Three Days of the Condor," Robert Redford, who plays Joe Turner and whose CIA codename is "Condor," works at a CIA front operation in Manhattan's Upper East Side called the "American Literary Historical Society ALHS." Condor returns from running a lunch errand to find that all his colleagues have been shot to death. The plot centers around a "CIA within the CIA." The producers of the film, which was based on a 1974 novel by James Grady titled "Six Days of the Condor," must have had an inkling about a "CIA within the CIA."
In "Three Days of the Condor," a CIA front in Manhattan is wiped out by a "CIA Within the CIA." There is more fact than fiction in the 1975 cinematic thriller.
In 1975, the concept of a "CIA within the CIA" prompted Emily Sheketoff, a House Select Committee on Intelligence staffer who was investigating the CIA, to inquire about a "CIA within the CIA," from Robert Gambino, the chief of security for the CIA. It was Gambino who briefed Jeb Bush on his non-official cover assignment in Venezuela, prior to the ex-CIA director's son's departure in 1977 for Caracas to head up the Texas Commerce Bank's operations in the country. Gambino scoffed at the notion of a "CIA within the CIA" in an October 30, 1975 memo. Based on Gambino's ties with ex-director Bush while Jimmy Carter's director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, was in charge of the CIA, Gambino serves as "exhibit number one" when it comes to the "CIA within the CIA." In fact, Sheketoff flat out stated to Gambino that she believed the CIA's Office of Security was then the major component of the hidden CIA.
An intelligence game is now being played out by Langley and it involves unsavory mafiosi in Ukraine, London, and Langley, Virginia. In essence, a "CIA within the CIA" is attempting to stage a "soft coup" in the United States and they have a number of willing accomplices in the media and within Mr. Trump's own inner circle.
It was a "FBI within the FBI" who torpedoed Clinton -- way more than wikileaks.
The National Security State has long been riddled with factions serving different masters.
Mark Hackard on Donald Trump and the Russian Scapegoat
Published on 9 Mar 2017
Mark Hackard returns to Our Interesting Times to discuss his article "The US Establishment's Russian Scapegoat Veils the Real Enemy Within." We talk about the Establishment's attempt to delegitimize the Donald Trump presidency by spreading disinformation regarding alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin and the irony of US officials accusing the Kremlin of meddling in the 2016 presidential race. We also discuss the real history of Soviet active measures in the West and how the CIA has historically controlled the press and manipulated the media. Mark is an independent foreign policy analyst. He studies the intersection of political culture, religion, and strategic issues, which he approaches from a traditionalist-conservative perspective. Mark's online project is Soul of the East, a website dedicated to introducing the English speaking world to valuable aspects of Russian political and religious thought.
"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,"
11-03-2017, 07:07 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2017, 07:22 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
Cliff Varnell Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Up to a point this is a very interesting and perhaps potentially insightful piece. However, the thing I can't quite wrap my head around is how any 'progressive wing' of the Deep State could choose someone like Trump and his team. They may not be neocons in the 'historic' sense, but they [to me] have equally dangerous and damaging agendas - if keeping their fingers on a somewhat different scriptbook. I'm not rooting for any side of the Deep State. I'm rooting for finding a way to end it entirely before it ends all of us. I don't care to choose my poison - I don't want any, thanks. I can believe there has and I see signs of internecine warfare in the Deep State, but again, can't figure how they'd come up with a monster to battle a monster. The lesser of two monsters meme just doesn't make my day......and I remain totally unconvinced that the current 'team Trump' is a lesser evil at all. Different, yes. Less evil, no.
Peter, doesn't make my day either but one monster is gonna fix my body and the other monster won't.
Besides, there is no "rogue Deep State."
Smith labels Fascism progressive.
Trump is far more dangerous -- he's at war with rural poor folks as we speak. The people who elected him!
Cliff, You have made it clear you worry [with good reason] that under the current administration you will have to pay more or perhaps have no medical coverage other than using emergency rooms. This, sadly, will happen to tens of millions of persons soon it looks like. Yes, the Democrats are often better on several domestic issues and the Republicans don't even pretend to care except for their own small percentage of the rich and powerful. [oh, they pretend during an election cycle - but not after]. However, the foreign policy and the ratcheting up of the National Security State is bad [no horrible!] under both. FWIW, while I'd like to see the end to both of the heads of the two-headed monster, my guess is if we survive this administration, the Democrats will win a resounding victory. However, this will only fix a few things...your and others health care [in part - only a single payer system as in Europe will really work], allow the EPA to function again, undoing all the many wrecking crew actions of this current horror show. But, the National Security State will still be untouched and growing - and this is the problem. People will think the problem was fixed, but only superficial things will have been. To you your healthcare is not superficial, but in the grand scheme of things there are ways to get even better healthcare [national single payer] and get rid of the National Security State too. If one only settles for the lesser of evils one is left with an evil - and one so 'evil' it threatens life and liberty both inside and outside of the US. If people don't look beyond the superficial changes and differences between the two parties that are one Party - the American Business and National Security State Party, we are sunk and having health insurance when you're likely to be put in a DHS prison camp for protesting is a false victory.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
