Shadow Government Power Play

[Musburger1]

The media has been preoccupied of late with "Fake News" and Russia. It smells of a modern era McCarthyism. We tend to think of the government as a body of Congressmen elected by citizens who oversee agencies composed of non-partisan citizens that merely wish to serve the country.

Yeah, right. Perhaps it used to be something similar to that.

In the Presidential race, I think what we saw with Clinton and Trump were two people who represented competing oligarchical interests - not necessary two political parties. And the oligarchical powers are so divided it has spilled over post-election.

Immediately after the election, we saw protests with themes such as #nevertrump, not my President, and so forth. It really never gained momentum, but the protests had the feel of puppetry behind the scenes such as one would expect in a color revolution attempt.

After that was the demand for recounts, and wailing over the fact that Trump did not win the popular vote. But that failed to go anywhere.

Following this we read that at least one Republican elector from Texas will refuse to vote for Trump in the electoral college and 10 electors want an intelligence briefing before they vote.

And now we have the bombardment of accusations that Trump is a Russian agent and that Russia hacked the election. As this continues to ramp up, the cheerleaders include not only the Democrat Party, but also the CIA, the vast majority of the media, and the neocon wing of the Republican Party headed by John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

Throwing fuel on the fire, Trump has put forth Exxon oil man Rex Tillerson. As CEO of the largest oil company in the world, Tillerson previously made deals with Russia and has a good relationship with President Putin. He is an alumni of the University of Texas, attends church, and has worked with the Boy Scouts of America; certainly grounds to question his loyalty toward America.

Usually in the background, but now in the forefront, are the intelligent agencies. Prior to the election, the FBI pushed to get Clinton's criminal behavior in front of the public. Did the agency force Comey to shine light on the case? Now we see the CIA making unsubstantiated allegations (where's the evidence) that the Russians hacked into the party security structures and influenced the election. Yet the FBI will not sign on with the CIA. Hmm.

Whoever controls media agenda, that is, whoever most successfully disseminates propaganda the public will believe, stands to gain power. The inmates (high level non-elected government employees and corporate interests) are running the asylum (the government). Don't kid yourself. Citizens don't run anything.

Trump's role in this is hard to evaluate. He certainly isn't draining the swamp and Wall Street appointees dominate his appointments.. Selecting Tillerson however, is a major change which indicates Trump is going to change the template of sanctions and NATO dominance to a policy which emphasizes inclusion and perhaps cooperation with Russia with respect to fighting terrorism and conducting business. But a great deal of the establishment from the arms dealers (Lockheed, etc.) the CIA, NATO, and the high level State Department and Pentagon employees have much invested in the status quo and are still fighting to defeat Trump. But Trump's appointment of Bolton seemingly contradict such changes. Bolton is a certified anti-Russian neocon. Could it be that Trump will accelerate the pivot toward Asia and then use Bolton as a bulldog to intimidate China while having Tillerson to shore up relations with Russia?

And then there's economic issues. Trump wants to greatly lower business taxes, but at the same time vastly increase federal spending on infrastructure projects. Today, some in his own party have said there will not be increased spending on infrastructure projects unless cuts are made elsewhere in the budget that would offset spending. As no one in Congress is willing to cut defense spending, such a deal would have to mean major cuts in entitlements or move such costs to the states which of course can not afford to take them on without drastically raising state taxes one way or another.

Bottom line, Trump is wanting to make major changes. The current system is breaking down, but Trump's changes likely would just shore up some areas by moving costs to other areas which would then steer those areas toward collapse. But the oligarchical interests currently reaping rewards from the status quo will fight to prevent change. And those oligarchical interests that would benefit from change will support Trump. And so they battle and the media is their tool. The rest of us remain in the dark, listen to the propaganda, and then decide which group we will support.

 

[Musburger1]

Lo and behold. Charles Hugh Smith's Tuesday blog tackles the same subject. (Link). Copied Below.

Is the Deep State at War--With Itself?
December 14, 2016

This is a blatantly politicized "report" that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence agencies.

The recent pronouncement by the C.I.A. that Russian hackers intervened in the U.S. presidential election doesn't pass the sniff test--on multiple levels. Let's consider the story on the most basic levels.

1. If the report is so "secret," why is it dominating the news flow?

2. Why was the "secret report" released now?

3. What actual forensic evidence is there of intervention? Were voting machines tampered with? Or is this "secret report" just another dose of fact-free "fake news" like The Washington Post's list of 200 "Russian propaganda" websites?

4. The report claims the entire U.S. intelligence community is in agreement on the "proof of Russian intervention on behalf of Trump" story, but then there's this:

"The C.I.A. presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered."

Given that the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) was so secret that its existence was denied for decades, do you really think the NSA is going to go public if it disagrees with the C.I.A.?

Given the structure of the Deep State and the intelligence community, "minor disagreements" could well mean complete, total disavowal of the C.I.A.'s report.

That this is the reality is suggested by the F.B.I.'s denunciation of the report's evidence-free, sweeping conclusion:

FBI Disputes CIA's "Fuzzy And Ambiguous" Claims That Russia Sought To Influence Presidential Election

5. The supposed interventions clearly fall under the purview of the NSA. So why is the C.I.A. going public in what is clearly a politicized report intended to influence the public via massive, sustained coverage in the mainstream media?

6. Notice the double standard: so when the U.S. attempts to influence public opinion in other nations, it's OK, but when other nations pursue the same goal, it's not OK?

7. What are we to make of the sustained campaign to elevate "Russian hackers and propaganda" from signal noise to the deciding factor in the U.S. election?

8. Russian hacking and attempts to influence American public opinion are not new. The intelligence agencies tasked with protecting American cyberspace have long identified state-sponsored hacking from Russia and China as major threats. So why, all of a sudden, are we being told the Russians successfully influenced a U.S. election?

What changed? What new capabilities did they develop?

9. And most importantly, what evidence is there that Russian efforts affected the election? Were digital fingerprints found on voting machine records? Were payments to American media employees uncovered?

Shouldn't statements purported to be "fact" or the "truth" be substantiated beyond "trust us, an agency with a long history of failed intelligence, misinformation and illegal over-reach"?

10. Doesn't it raise alarms that such a momentous accusation is totally devoid of evidence? If you're going public with the conclusion, you have to go public with at least some of the evidence.

Here's the media blitz and some skeptical response:

CIA: Russia intervened to help Trump win

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Former UK Ambassador Blasts "CIA's Blatant Lies", Shows "A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims"

Longtime readers know I have proposed a major divide in the Deep State--the elements of the federal government which don't change regardless of who is in elected office. This includes the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the diplomatic and trade infrastructure, Research and Revelopment, and America's own organs of media "framing" and "placement."

Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

More recently, I wondered if the more progressive elements of the Deep State recognized the dangers to U.S. security posed by the neocons and their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and had decided to undermine her candidacy:

Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)

In other words, it's not the Russians who sabotaged Hillary--it's America's own Deep State that undermined her coronation. It wasn't a matter of personalities; it was much more profound than that. It was about the risks posed by the neocon strategies and policies, and just as importantly, the politicization of the intelligence network.

And this is precisely what we discern in the C.I.A.'s unprecedented and quite frankly, absurd "secret report:" a blatantly politicized "report" that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence agencies. (Silence doesn't mean approval in this sphere.)

We can now discern the warring camps of the Deep State more clearly. On the one side is the C.I.A., the mainstream media, and the civilians who have feasted on wealth and power from their participation in the neocon's Global Project.

On the other side is the Defense Department's own intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear and present danger to the security of the nation.

From this perspective, the C.I.A.'s rash, evidence-free "report" is a rear-guard political action against the winning faction of the Deep State. The Deep State elements that profited from the neocon agenda were confident that Hillary's victory would guarantee another eight years of globalist intervention. Her loss means they are now on the defensive, and like a cornered, enraged beast, they are lashing out with whatever they have in hand.

This goes a long way in explaining the C.I.A's release of a painfully threadbare and politicized "report."