Monday, January 23, 2017

He Is Risen… But For How Long?


By James Howard Kunstler and originally published at kunstler.com  
If the first forty-eight hours are any measure of the alleged Trumptopia-to-come, the leading man in this national melodrama appears to be meshuga. A more charitable view might be that his behavior does not comport with the job description: president. If he keeps it up, I stick to my call that we will see him removed by extraordinary action within a few months. It might be a lawful continuity-of-government procedure according to the 25th Amendment — various high officials declaring him “incapacited” — or it might be a straight-up old school coup d’├ętat (“You’re fired”).
I believe the trigger for that may be an overwhelming financial crisis in the early second quarter of the year. In, the first case, under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, it works like this:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Or else, it will be an orchestrated cabal of military and intelligence officers — not necessarily evil men — who fear for the safety of the nation with the aforesaid meshuganer in the White House, who is summarily arrested, sequestered, and replaced by an “acting president,” pending a call for an extraordinary new election to replace him by democratic means. I’m not promoting this scenario as necessarily desirable, but that’s how I think it will go down. It will be a sad moment in this country’s history, worse than the shock of John Kennedy’s assassination, which happened against the background of an economically stable Republic. History is perverse and life is tragic. And stuff happens.
Returning to the first forty-eight hours of the new regime, first the ceremony itself: there was, to my mind, the disturbing sight of Donald Trump, deep in the Capitol in the grim runway leading out onto the inaugural dais. He lumbered along, so conspicuously alone between the praetorian ranks front and back, overcoat open, that long red slash of necktie dangling ominously, with a mad gleam in his eyes like an old bull being led out to a sacrificial altar. His speech to the multitudes was not exactly what had once passed for presidential oratory. It was not an “address.” It was blunt, direct, unadorned, and simple, a warning to the assembled luminaries meant to prepare them for disempowerment. Surely it was received by many as a threat.
Indeed an awful lot of official behavior has to change if this country expects to carry on as a civilized polity, and Trump’s plain statement was at face value consistent with that idea. But the disassembly of such a vast matrix of rackets is unlikely to be managed without generating a lot of dangerous friction. Such a tall order would require, at least, some finesse. Virtually all the powers of the Deep State are arrayed against him, and he can’t resist taunting them, a dangerous game. Despite the show of an orderly transition, a state of war exists between them. Anyway, given Trump’s cabinet appointments, his “swamp draining” campaign looks like one set of rackets is due to be replaced by a new and perhaps worse set.
Trump was correct that the ruins of industry stand like tombstones on the landscape. The reality may be that an industrial economy is a one-shot deal. When it’s gone, it’s over. Even assuming the money exists to rebuild the factories of the 20th century, how would things be produced in them? By robotics or by brawny men paid $15-an-hour? If it’s robotics, who will the customers be? If it’s low-wage workers, how are they going to pay for the cars and washing machines? If the brawny men are paid $40 an hour, how would we sell our cars and washing machines in foreign markets that pay their workers the equivalent of $1.50 an hour. How can American industry stay afloat with no export market? If we don’t let foreign products into the US, how will Americans buy cars that are far more costly to make here than the products we’ve been getting? There’s no indication that Trump and his people have thought through any of this.
Trump can pull out the stops (literally, the regulations) to promote oil production, but he can’t alter the declining energy return on investment that is bringing down the curtain on industrial society. In fact, pumping more oil now at all costs will only hasten the decline of affordable oil. His oft-stated wish to simply “take” the oil from Middle Eastern countries would probably lead to sabotage of their oil infrastructure and the cruel death of millions. He would do better to prepare Americans for the project of de-suburbanizing the nation, but I doubt that the concept has ever entered his mind.
The problems with Obamacare, and so-called health care generally, are burdened with so many layers of arrant racketeering that the system may only be fixable if it is destroyed in its current form — the overgrown centralized hospitals, the overpaid insurance and hospital executives, the sore-beset physicians carrying six-figure college-and-med-school loans, the incomprehensible and extortionate pricing system for care, the cruel and insulting bureaucratic barriers to obtain care, the disgraceful behavior of the pharmaceutical companies, all add up to something no less than a colossal hostage racket, robbing and swindling people at their most vulnerable. So far, nobody has advanced a coherent plan for changing it. Loosing the Department of Justice to prosecute the medical racketeers directly would be a good start. Overcharging and defrauding sick people ought to be a criminal act. But don’t expect that to happen in a culture where anything goes and nothing matters. A financial crisis could be the trigger for ending the massive medical grift machine. Then what? Back to locally organized clinic-scale medicine… if we should be so lucky.
Saturday afternoon, Trump paid a call at CIA headquarters, ostensibly to begin mending fences with what may be his domestic arch-enemies. What did he do? He peeved and pouted about press reports of the lowish attendance at his swearing in. Maximum meshuga. I’m surprised that some veteran of The Company’s Suriname outpost didn’t take him out with a blowgun dart garnished with the toxic secretions of tree frogs.
Do you suppose Trump is going to improve? That was the hope after the election: that he’d take on some POTUS polish. No, what you see is what you get. I can only imagine that what’s going on behind the scenes in various halls of power would make a Matt Damon Bourne movie look like a sensitivity training session — grave professional men and women on all fours with their hair on fire howling into the acoustical ceiling tiles.
Don’t forget that it was the dismal failure of Democratic “progressive” politics that gave us Trump. His infantile lies and foolish tweets were made possible by a mendacious political culture that excuses illegal immigrants as “the undocumented,” refuses to identify radical Islamic terror by name, shuts down free speech on campus, made Michael Brown of Ferguson a secular saint, claims that there’s no biological basis for gender, and allowed Wall Street to pound the American middle class down a rat hole like so much sand.
You think this is the dark night of the national soul? The sun only went down a few minutes ago and it’s a long hard slog to daybreak.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Giving Forgiveness

By Margaret Manning Shull and originally published at rzim.org
The trial of Dylann Roof has made national headlines for several months, culminating in his being sentenced to death for the murder of nine African American Christians. Welcomed by the participants of the bible study without question, his sinister intentions were executed as heads bowed in prayer. As the news stories retold the testimony of those who survived, the horror was palpable. And in the aftermath of the horror, the tragedy of lives lost in this way while at a church bible study is overwhelming. It is no wonder that some of the relatives of those murdered were filled with rage.

Carlos Latuff, Forgiveness Series , 2007.
But the real wonder of the trial coverage is the forgiveness offered to Dylann Roof by the majority of the bereaved. “The hate you possess is beyond human comprehension,” Melvin Graham, a brother of one of the victims, Cynthia Hurd, told the young white supremacist seated across the courtroom. “You wanted people to kill each other. But instead of starting a race war, you started a love war.” One victim’s sister-in-law offered to come and pray with Roof before he went to prison if he wanted her to do so. In fact, five family members offered Mr. Roof a measure of public forgiveness at his bond hearing held just two days after the killings.(1)
As I read these news stories, I am in awe of these who understand—in a way I cannot comprehend—that forgiveness is at the heart of Christian faith. Certainly, I understand how an unwillingness to forgive locks us all up in bitterness, and throws away the key. It enslaves us to ingratitude, and chokes out gratefulness. It prevents us from experiencing the freedom that comes with free-flowing grace—both received and given. And I understand all too well that a desire to punish those who have hurt us can easily arise from a sense of moral superiority that deems punishment as more fitting than grace. And yet, these five family members chose to forgive a young man who appears not to recognize his need for it.
Jesus once told a parable of an unforgiving servant in response to a question from his disciple Peter. This servant owed his master a debt so large it could never be repaid in this lifetime. When his master forgave him the debt, he went out and would not forgive his fellow servants their relatively small debts. Peter had asked the question, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus answers, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.”(2) Jesus taught that forgiveness is unlimited, and forgiveness by nature is something that cannot be measured in its appropriation. When we fail to forgive, we fail to recognize our own debt, and we fail to appreciate the reality of the limitless scope of forgiving grace on our account. Peter wanted to know at what point he could cease from offering forgiveness—he wanted a hard and fast limit. But in the answer to Peter’s question, Jesus reveals that none of us are in the position to withhold forgiveness from each other. In the end, since we are all in need of forgiveness, to withhold it demonstrates a kind of ingratitude for God’s gracious action towards the debt we could never repay to God.
To be sure, dealing with human hurts and offenses—particularly the deeply grievous example of Dylann Roof—takes time. To become generous people who freely forgive is often a hard and painful process. And for some of us, the hurts we have suffered and endured may never result in reconciliation and restored relationship. Nevertheless, the cultivation of a forgiving heart frees us from bondage and opens us to the possibilities of giving forgiveness instead of punishment. These five families who have lost so much have found that way to freedom and to a quality of life with deep reservoirs of grace and mercy. For the one who understands first and foremost her own need for forgiveness, and the one who then opens his heart up to forgive others, enters into the very heart of God.


Margaret Manning Shull is a member of the speaking and writing team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Bellingham, Washington. 
  
(1) All of the information about the various responses by the family members of the victims recorded from Kevin Sack and Alan Blinder, “Anguish, Rage and Mercy as Dylann Roof is Sentenced to Death,” The New York Times, January 11, 2017.
(2) See Matthew 18:21-35

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Paid Protesters Try to Stop Trump Inauguration, Dem Party Collapsing, More Fake News from MSM


1aaaaBy Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com
250,000 protesters, many of them paid and bussed in, are going to Washington D.C. to try to disrupt or stop Donald Trump from being sworn in as the 45th President of the United States.  The police and military are ready for them as tens of thousands of armed officers and soldiers are on hand to make sure the inauguration goes ahead as planned.

Outgoing Vice-President Joe Biden was in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum and sounded the alarm about the populist movement sweeping the globe. Biden warned that the so-called “progressive” movement is at risk of collapsing around the world.  Maybe the “progressives” should try to come up with policies that actually help the majority instead of lying to get their way.  One big lie that comes to mind is Obama Care, which was called the Affordable Care Act.  It ended up being much more expensive than promised and skyrocketed health insurance rates for the vast majority of people.  Now, Obama Care is falling apart around the country, and that is one of the big reasons Democrats lost in November.
The mainstream media (MSM) is back in the phony polling business. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, all of the MSM had Hillary Clinton winning by a landslide, when, in fact, it was Donald Trump that won by a landslide.  Now, the MSM is back at it again saying Trump’s “favorability is dropping.”  It has been revealed that the latest ABC/Washington Post (WaPo) poll oversampled Democrats to get a bigger unfavorable number.  Not being honest and fair is the definition of “Fake News.”  A Rasmussen Reports poll done at the same time as the ABC/WaPo poll had a fair sample and revealed most Americans gave a favorable rating of Trump.
Finally, President Obama set a record on his last days in office commuting the sentences of criminals. He commuted more sentences that the last 13 presidents combined.  He commuted the sentences of traitors and drug cartel members, but did not pardon Edward Snowden or pre-pardon Hillary Clinton.
Join Greg Hunter as he analyzes these stories and more in the Weekly News Wrap-Up.
(There is much more in the video Wrap-Up.)

Friday, January 20, 2017

How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists

By Brandon Smith and originally published at alt-market.com
In my last article, 'How Globalists Predict Your Behavior', I outlined the primary method globalists use to measure public consent, or, public dissent. The use of macro-analytics and the hyper-monitoring of web traffic is a powerful tool at the disposal of the establishment for gauging shifts in public consciousness in real time.
For example, in early 2016 the elites were entirely aware of the rise of conservative and sovereignty movements in the U.S. and Europe. In fact, the dangers of growing “populism” were all that elitists and their publications talked about for the first six months of the year. At first, this notion seemed a little odd to me. Generally, when globalists are attempting to manage public opinion, they are careful not to reveal the slightest hint that conservative movements exist beyond an “extremist fringe”. They certainly never suggest that there is a massive undercurrent of nationalism ready to topple the globalist structure.
In fact, whenever such movements do arise the establishment is swift to obstruct them or co-opt them. I witnessed this first hand during the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and 2012 – the mainstream deliberately refused to acknowledge Ron Paul's existence, because attacking him repeatedly would have been a zero sum strategy that would have given him greater public attention and free publicity.
I saw it during the Neo-con co-option of the Tea Party, a movement that I was involved in long before Fox News latched onto it and long before mainstream RINO Republicans not only jumped on the bandwagon but hijacked the horse. In a matter of months the Tea Party became a defunct entity, a shell of its former self. Luckily, most liberty activists simply left it behind and started their own separate groups and projects rather than being absorbed into the Neo-con fold.
I also saw establishment interference on a local and state level during elections in Montana. An associate of mine was running for state office on a liberty platform and was doing rather well in the polls. He was approached by a contingent of political elites running as Republicans who told him in no uncertain terms that he could run on any platform and use any rhetoric he wanted, but if he won, he would be required to follow THEIR direction. They even encouraged him to continue arguing for constitutional government in his speeches and debates, because they felt this was the best way to “sell” his candidacy. But when all was said and done, he was supposed to stab his constituency in the back and take orders from the party leadership.
The point is, the elites dominate the political system. Nothing happens within it without their say. So, for those same elites to suddenly and openly suggest that “populist movements” were threatening to overtake the world and destroy the global economy was suspicious, to say the least.
In order to predict the behavior of globalists and the outcome of future economic and political events, it is important to understand certain dynamics. As just described, the establishment has a stranglehold on the political system. Party politics are a sham built around the false left/right paradigm. However, certain new dynamics are developing, and you must be able to track them.
The best way to do this is to watch what globalists say within their own publications. They often reveal their intentions directly or indirectly. In many cases I think in their arrogance they assume that the masses are too stupid to read these publications and grasp what is being said.
The most important element of predicting globalist actions is to know what they ultimately want; to know their ultimate goals. If you know the specifics of what any group or individual desperately wants, those people become highly predictable, because there are only so many useful paths to get to any goal.
I have used this method to great effect over the years, so I am not merely presenting a theory, I have concrete successes to back my position.
For example, just in the past couple of years I correctly predicted the Federal Reserve taper of QE, I predicted the inclusion of China in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights years in advance, I predicted the exact timing of the first Fed rate hike, I predicted the success of the Brexit referendum when most of the world and the liberty movement said it was never going to happen, I predicted that the Saudi 9/11 bill would pass, that Barack Obama would veto it and that congress would override his veto, I predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate and that Donald Trump  would be the Republican candidate for president of the U.S. and, I predicted that Donald Trump would win the 2016 election.
Except for the China SDR inclusion, I predicted all of these events many months in advance and received a heavy amount of criticism each time from people in the mainstream and even from people in the liberty movement. Hilariously, as soon as these predictions proved true, some of the same people that were fervently opposed came quickly out of the woodwork to claim they “saw it coming all along”. I suppose this is human nature, but it is a problem because it keeps people from learning how to better gauge globalist behavior and come to correct conclusions.
My goal in this article is to make EVERY liberty activist adept at predicting globalist driven events. So, here is a good place to start:
Learn To Play Chess
The elites are obsessed with chess and chess symbolism. Many of their strategies develop much like a game of chess develops. If you don't know how to play chess, I suggest you learn. You don't have to master the game, but you do need to understand the basic concepts of winning the game.
For example, if you know the target that your opponent is really pursuing, you can easily obstruct his efforts because all his movements will become predictable. If his goal is to take your Queen, and you know this, then he should never be able to take your queen. This is why the elites go to great lengths to distract their opponents (meaning us) from their true target. They want you to think they are going straight for your King, or your Knight; they want you focused elsewhere. They will use feints often.
Another core strategy of chess is the “forced sacrifice”. That is to say, the best chess players are very good at positioning one of their pieces so that it threatens two or more of your pieces. This forces you to sacrifice one piece for the sake of the others. If they do this often enough, before you know it you have sacrificed your way into defeat. The globalists ALWAYS have a primary target and a secondary target. There is always more than one move developing at any given time.
Knowing chess is key to knowing how the globalists think.
Get In Touch With Your Darker Side
Going by their behavior and their rhetoric when they are unguarded, most globalists display highly narcissistic character traits as well as sociopathy and psychopathy. It is not enough to research these traits in a clinical fashion, you have to tap into the darker side of your own psyche, and think as they think. This means being willing to entertain evil and malicious concepts. You must be willing to ask yourself - “If I were them, how would I go about getting what I want?”
Understanding devious and aberrant psychopathic intent goes a long way in making the globalists predictable. Remember, many psychopaths are actually highly intelligent and intuitive. They don't have a moral compass and have lost the voice of conscience, but in order to adapt they have learned how to fake it. They are chameleons.
ALL people are inherently capable of evil actions, just as they are inherently capable of great good. You don't have to become like the elites, but you do have to go to some ugly places in your own mind. An elitist is basically a person who went to those places and discovered that he liked it there.
Read Globalist Publications
As noted above, the globalists have their own media outlets in which they publish their “views”, such as Foreign Policy Magazine, The Economist, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. Sometimes these views are honest and sometimes they are calculated propaganda. Again, if you know exactly what the elitist targets are, then you can better discern if what they are saying is legitimate or a feint to distract you.
I predicted the success of the Brexit and the Trump win based on the knowledge that:
1) The globalists need a large scale crisis in order to drastically change public perceptions on society and governance. That is to say, they need to create a crisis so terrifying that people will be willing to accept a fully centralized global economic system and global governance as a solution.
2) The globalists have already set in motion an economic crisis that cannot be reversed. It is a crisis that they must avoid blame for at all costs once it accelerates.
3) Conservative and sovereignty principles are the primary threat to the dominance of globalism. As long as ideas of individualism, national sovereignty and decentralization exist, globalism can never truly prevail. Therefore, obstructing movements based on these principles is not enough. The globalists must also destroy any positive perceptions of our principles for generations to come.
4) As stated in the section on chess, the globalists like to use the strategy of forced sacrifice, in which they threaten two targets simultaneously, or kill two birds with one stone. I realized at the beginning of 2016 that all the rhetoric by globalists in their own publications on the “rise of populism” was staging the groundwork for the success of the Brexit and the success of Trump. What better strategy for the establishment than to allow conservative movements to take the helm of the political and economic ship just as that ship is about to sink? In this way, the globalists can have the crisis they need, while at the same time scapegoating conservatives and avoiding blame, and, destroying the image of conservative ideals, perhaps forever.
Have No Sacred Cows
This is a hard one for many people. We all have certain biases and these biases can blind us to reality. The overreaching bias within the liberty movement is a desire for heroic leadership. We have grown up on stories of heroes from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson – grand statesmen and military giants that crushed tyranny. The problem is, while men like Washington and Jefferson were indeed instrumental, they were nothing without the hundreds of thousands of unsung patriots working tirelessly for freedom on their own.
The founding fathers were not considered the founding fathers until long after the American Revolution was over. At the time, they were not thought of necessarily as heroes or even great leaders. They were just men, like many other men, gambling life and liberty on a cause that was uncertain at best.
Activists need to STOP looking around for mighty leaders and start taking leadership themselves in their own way. If we do end up with another Washington or Jefferson or Paine or Madison, etc., we will not know who they are until the fight is over and the history books are written.
The globalists take full advantage of the movement's weakness in seeking out and artificially elevating heroes. Also, when people have this bias, they end up with blinders when examining such heroes with any skepticism. Obviously I am referring to Donald Trump, here.
Sacred cows prevent accurate predictions of major events because a person will refuse to consider them as a potential negative factor.
Moving Beyond Predictions
It is one thing to be able to predict the outcome of social and political events; it is another matter to do something about them. In my next article I will outline solutions liberty activists can pursue on their own and in groups to counter globalist activity. Predicting their tactics is essential, but acting to disrupt those tactics should be the ultimate goal.
The globalists believe that even if some of us do manage to decipher their activities and methods, we will have no means to do anything about them. They see themselves as the “history makers”, as the men who act. They see us as the “history watchers”, or the meaningless masses wafting about with geopolitical tides, helpless and incapable of determining our own destinies. I believe we will become history makers in due course. One weakness of the globalists that will sabotage them is their own hubris. They see people as pawns – but what happens when a piece walks off the chess board completely and acts in an unpredictable way? It is this potential alone that will destroy the globalists in the end.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Millennials are worse off than their parents


Millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers at same stage in life



By mybudget360.com
It is now official that Millennials are worse off than their parents.  The Federal Reserve released a study showing that Millennials are as broke as we suspected.  According to the figures released Millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers did at the same stage in life.  This is a major reason why so many Millennials are living at home but are also unable to save for retirement.  What compounds this issue even more is that the Millennial generation is the most educated ever in the United States.  What we also know is that Millennials carry the vast majority of the $1.4 trillion in student debt outstanding.  This information puts our society at a fundamental crossroads in addressing the challenges faced by the young.  Do we care if the next generation is worse off than the previous one?
Millennials not doing as financially well as parents
Being young and broke seems to be a common stage in life.  The only difference is that Millennials are now getting into older adulthood and many are still struggling.
“(USA Today) Baby Boomers: your millennial children are worse off than you.
With a median household income of $40,581, millennials earn 20 percent less than boomers did at the same stage of life, despite being better educated, according to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group Young Invincibles.
The analysis being released Friday gives concrete details about a troubling generational divide that helps to explain much of the anxiety that defined the 2016 election. Millennials have half the net worth of boomers. Their home ownership rate is lower, while their student debt is drastically higher.”
This is something that we’ve discussed many times when analyzing the financial situation of young Americans.  The standard net worth of someone 35 and younger is zero dollars.  And in many cases many are worse off since they have a negative net worth courtesy of all the student debt they are carrying.
Young Americans are highly educated when it comes to college degree attainment:
college education
However many are starting to question the worth of a college degree more carefully since many times getting a college degree does not mean you will be financially secure.  It is troubling that so few colleges teach any basic personal finance course.  It almost feels as if college is purposely trying to churn out consumers versus people that want to save for their future.
Millennials now face dramatically lower homeownership rates because of these changes.  How are you going to take on a mortgage when you have a tiny mortgage in the form of a student loan already?  This trend is important because for Americans overall, the home is the largest asset that they have since it acts as a forced savings account.  Now, many young Americans are missing critical years when they could be paying down mortgage debt and building equity on a property.
What is also telling is that there are now a record number of households where the mom is now the only person working:
only mom working
We’ve talked about the two-income trap a few times in the past.  While having two incomes is great, it is largely more out of necessity than want.  Also, the cost of child care severely stunts what net income gains are made after working for many families.
The article gives an interesting example:
“Andrea Ledesma, 28, says her parents owned a house and were raising kids by her age.
Not so for her. Ledesma graduated from college four years ago. After moving through a series of jobs, she now earns $18,000 making pizza at Classic Slice in Milwaukee, shares a two-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend and has $33,000 in student debt.”
Do you need a college degree to make pizza?  Her student debt is nearly twice her annual gross income.  This is the new world for many young workers and now we know that financially speaking, Millennials are worse off than their parents.
Editors comment: How's that overpriced college education working for you now?
I'll bet the last eight years and the phony balony of 'Everyone should go to college' is making you lay awake at night thinking...

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Does a Rogue Deep State Have Trump's Back?

Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State
By Charles Hugh Smith and originally published at charleshughsmith.blogspot.com
Suddenly everybody is referring to the Deep State, typically without offering much of a definition.
The general definition is the unelected government that continues making and implementing policy regardless of who is in elected office.
I have been writing about this structure for 10 years and studying it from the outside for 40 years. Back in 2007, I called it the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance, which is a more concise description of the structure than Deep State. Going to War with the Political Elite You Have (May 14, 2007).
I've used this simplified chart to explain the basic structure of the Deep State, which is the complex network of state-funded and/or controlled institutions, agencies, foundations, university research projects, media ties, etc.
The key point here is you can't separate these network nodes: you cannot separate DARPA, the national labs (nukes, energy, etc.), the National Science Foundation, DoD (Department of Defense), the National Security State (alphabet soup of intelligence/black budget agencies: CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.), Silicon Valley and the research universities: they are all tied together by funding, information flows, personnel and a thousand other connections.
For the past few years, I have been suggesting there is a profound split in the Deep State that is not just about power or ideology, but about the nature and future of National Security: in other words, what policies and priorities are actually weakening or threatening the long-term security of the United States?
I have proposed that there are progressive elements within the sprawling Deep State that view the dominant neocon-neoliberal agenda of the past 24 years as a disaster for the long-term security of the U.S. and its global interests (a.k.a. the Imperial Project).
There are also elements within the Deep State that view Wall Street's dominance as a threat to America's security and global interests. (This is not to say that American-based banks and corporations aren't essential parts of the Imperial Project; it's more about the question of who is controlling whom.)
So let's dig in by noting that the warmongers in the Deep State are civilians, not military. It's popular among so-called Liberals (the vast majority of whom did not serve nor do they have offspring in uniform--that's fallen to the disenfranchised and the working class) to see the military as a permanent source of warmongering.
(It's remarkably easy to send other people's children off to war, while your own little darlings have cush jobs in Wall Street, foundations, think tanks, academia, government agencies, etc.)
These misguided souls are ignoring that it's civilians who order the military to go into harm's way, not the other way around. The neocons who have waged permanent war as policy are virtually all civilians, few of whom served in the U.S. armed forces and none of whom (to my knowledge) have actual combat experience.
These civilian neocons were busily sacking and/or discrediting critics of their warmongering within the U.S. military all through the Iraqi debacle. now that we got that straightened out--active-duty service personnel have borne the brunt of civilian planned, ordered and executed warmongering--let's move on to the split between the civilian Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the DoD (Department of Defense) intelligence and special ops agencies: DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, etc.
Though we have to be careful not to paint a very large agency with one brush, it's fair to say that the civilian leadership of the CIA (and of its proxies and crony agencies) has long loved to "play army". The CIA has its own drone (a.k.a. Murder, Inc.) division, as well as its own special ops ("play army" Special Forces), and a hawkish mentality that civilians reckon is "play army special forces" (mostly from films, in which the CIA's role is carefully managed by the CIA itself: How the CIA Hoodwinked Hollywood (The Atlantic)
Meanwhile, it's not exactly a secret that when it comes to actual combat operations and warfighting, the CIA's in-theater intelligence is either useless, misleading or false. This is the result of a number of institutional failings of the CIA, number one of which is the high degree of politicization within its ranks and organizational structure.
The CIA's reliance on "analysis" rather than human agents (there's a lot of acronyms for all these, if you find proliferating acronyms of interest), and while some from-30,000-feet analysis can be useful, it's just as often catastrophically wrong.
We can fruitfully revisit the Bay of Pigs disaster, the result of warmongering civilians in the CIA convincing incoming President Kennedy that the planned invasion would free Cuba of Castro's rule in short order. There are many other examples, including the failure to grasp Saddam's willingness to invade Kuwait, given the mixed signals he was receiving from U.S. State Department personnel.
Simply put, if you are actually prosecuting a war, then you turn to the services' own intelligence agencies to help with actual combat operations, not the CIA.This is of course a sort of gossip, and reading between the lines of public information; nobody is going to state this directly in writing.
As I have noted before:
If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.
As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.
Many so-called Liberals are alarmed by the number of military officers Trump has appointed. Once you realize it's the neocon civilians who have promoted and led one disastrous military intervention (either with U.S. Armed Forces or proxies managed by the CIA) after another, then you understand Trump's appointments appear to be a decisive break from the civilian warmongers who've run the nation into the ground.
If you doubt this analysis, please consider the unprecedentedly politicized (and pathetically childish) comments by outgoing CIA director Brennan against an incoming president. Even if you can't stand Trump, please document another instance in which the CIA director went off on an incoming president-- and this after the CIA spewed a blatant misinformation campaign claiming a hacked Democratic Party email account constituted a successful Russian effort to influence the U.S. election--a surreal absurdity.
Let me translate for you: our chosen Insider lost the election; how dare you!
A number of observers are wondering if the CIA and its Deep State allies and cronies will work out a way to evict Trump from office or perhaps arrange a "lone gunman" or other "accident" to befall him. The roots of such speculations stretch back to Dallas, November 1963, when a "long gunman" with ties to the CIA and various CIA proxies assassinated President Kennedy, an avowed foe of the CIA.
Setting aside the shelfloads of books on the topic, both those defending the "lone gunman" thesis and those contesting it, the unprecedented extremes of institutionally organized and executed anti-Trump campaigns is worthy of our attention.
Given my thesis of a profound disunity in the Deep State, and the emergence of a progressive element hostile to neocons and neoliberalism (including Wall Street), then it's not much of a stretch to speculate that this rogue Deep State opposed to neocon-neoliberalism has Trump's back, as a new administration is pretty much the only hope to rid the nation's top echelons of the neocon-neoliberal policies that have driven the U.S. into the ground.
Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.
If you have wondered why academics like Paul Krugman and the CIA are on the same page, it's because they are simply facets of the same structure. Krugman is a vocal neoliberal, the CIA is vocally neocon: two sides of the same coin. I invite you to study the chart above with an open mind, and ponder the possibility that the Deep State is not monolithic, but deeply divided along the fault lines of Wall-Street-Neocons-Neoliberals and the progressive elements that rightly view the dominant neocon-neoliberals as a threat to U.S. national security, U.S. global interests and world peace.
We can speculate that some of these progressive elements view Trump with disdain for all the same reasons those outside the Deep State disdain him, but their decision tree is simple: if you want to rid America's Deep State of toxic neocon-neoliberalism before it destroys the nation, you hold your nose and go with Trump because he's the only hope you have.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Ten Aircraft Carriers Aligned in a Row

By Paul Craig Roberts and originally published at paulcraigroberts.org  
Readers have asked me why 10 of 11 US aircraft carriers are lined up in a row in dock allegedly for maintanence. It reminds them of the battleships at Pearl Harbor. Readers ask if this could be an indication that the Deep State is planning a false flag attack on the carriers, as was carried out on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in order to get the US at war with the independent Muslim world, this time in order to get the US at war with Russia before Trump can restore normal relations.
I don’t think so. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was real, if provoked. The deception apparently was in the fact that Washington had warning but did not share it with the US Navy in Pearl Harbor. The Battleships were outmoded weapons, and the aircraft carriers had been removed. It would be extremely difficult to blame a false flag attack on US aircraft carriers on Russia. Indeed, if Russia wants to attack the US, the target would not be obsolete weapons such as aircraft carriers.
According to what I have been told by former(?) intelligence officers, the aircraft carriers are in dock so that their copper wiring can be replaced by fiber optics. Apparently, the Russians have the capability to shut down the operating systems of our ships and aircraft that are copper wired. In behalf of this conclusion, there were news reports that a missile ship Washington sent to impress the Russian naval base in Crimea had all its systems shut down by the overflight of one Russian jet. According to another news report, two Israeli US jet fighters were sent to express disobedience to Russia’s controlled airspace in Syria. The Russians asked the Israelis to leave, and when they did not, the Russians shut down the fire control and communication systems of their aircraft.
According to what I have been told, the Russians discovered that copper wiring permits them to disrupt the operating systems with certain radar frequencies built into their air control systems
If this account is true, and I lack the technical expertise to judge what I have been told, we are presented with a test case of what we are told are Russian and Chinese aggressive intentions against the West. With the US carrier task forces inoperative, this is a prime time for Russia to seize Ukraine and whatever else they are alleged to want, and it is a prime time for China to take Taiwan and Japan if they want it. There is no American Navy to deploy to stop them, and a nuclear threat from the clowns in Washington would mean nothing other than the complete destruction of the entire Western world, with the moronic idiots in Washington being the first to go. 
The charges of Chinese and Russian aggression are fantastic lies. China has not declared the Gulf of Mexico or the seas off the California coasts to be “areas of Chinese national interest,” but the killer bitch Hillary in the regime of the Nobel Peace Laureate declared the South China Sea to be “an area of US national interest.” This is provocation beyond provocation. No intelligent diplomat would ever make such a ridiculous and provocative claim.
Russia conquered Georgia in response to Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia, but released it and did not reincorporate the former Russian province back into the Russian Federation where it had resided for 300 years. Russia refused the requests for reincorporation from the Donetsk and Luhansk breakaway republics in Ukraine. Russia has not declared the Baltics and Eastern Europe to be areas of Russian national interest, but the US has and has incorporated them into Washington’s mercenary army, stationing troops, tanks, and missiles there with which to attack Russia. Russia has not responded in kind.
All of the aggression in the world stems from Washington. This is plain as day. How come so few see the obvious? Who else but Washington has been at war since the Clinton regime murdering people in nine countries?
Why is the entire liberal-progressive-left helping the entrenched CIA Establishment demonize president-elect Donald Trump, whose stated goal is to normalize relations with Russia? Is this an indication that the liberal-progressive-left is a CIA front? This possibility is not far-fetched. As it is a known fact that the CIA owns the American and European print and TV media, why would the CIA ignore the liberal-left “progressive” Internet media? 
The rule is that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Clearly the Establishment enemy of the liberal-left is Trump’s enemy, so why is the liberal-left allied with its Establishment enemy against Trump?
The real question is: Does the US really have an independent liberal-left?
If so, where is it? The liberal-progressive-left has served as protectors of the fake 9/11 official story that a few Saudis uninformed by an intelligence service or a state apparatus outwitted all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, airport security, air traffic control, the US Air Force and Dick Cheney himself, along with Israel’s Mossad and all the intelligence services of the US Empire, and inflicted the most humiliating defeat on an alleged “superpower” in the entire history of the world.
Anyone stupid enough to believe the official 9/11 story is not sufficiently intelligent to be qualified to be left-wing or even a sentient being.
What the Western world hurtling to its destruction desperately needs is a real left-wing, a left-wing immune to emotional disabilities that blind it to reality.