Blog

Orlok/Shutterstock

We Risk Being Collateral Damage In The Neocon Lust For War

So much so that I've upped my personal preparations
Friday, October 28, 2016, 9:40 PM

The winds of change are now swirling so rapidly that it's hard to make sense of what’s happening. And adding to the confusion is an all-out effort by the establishment to convince the masses that, despite the multiplying signs of instability, "everything is fine".

The deceptions surrounding us are now constant and impossible to avoid. How much longer will it take until a critical mass of the populace starts to see through the delusion?

The stock and bond markets are rigged by central banks and their allies to go ever higher, enriching an elite few at the expense of everyone else. The mainstream media over-reports the inconsequential, and under-reports the most important things.  It’s truly astonishing what is not being reported on, presumably in an effort to minimize attention on some really important matters (Yemen, Russia’s increasing concerns over western actions, Wikileaks on HRC, etc).

If it all weren’t so serious, it would be humorous because the chicanery is now so over-the-top obvious. 

The elites often commit crimes without any consequences.  It's so bad, we've seen the architects of wars based on lies get promoted to positions of greater power, now telling new lies on an even grander scale. (In DC, the polite term du jour is “fabrications”. But we’re all friends here, so let's use proper language: lies are lies.)

Meanwhile, whistleblowers end up facing the full weight of the law. And the little people face harsh, draconian consequences for even the most minor of infractions.

As James Howard Kunstler succinctly puts it: Racketeering is ruining us.

If you can make a lot of money doing it, in the US that’s A-OK with the powers that be. Who cares about the collateral damage, as long as Uncle Sam and his cronies get their cut?

The Winds Of Change

But this all is going to come crashing down, because it has to. Not because of a sudden case of enlightenment by the elites, but because of math.

Simple math, too. 

While there are lots of sub-equations we could parse through, the parent of them all is this one: Endless exponential growth on a finite planet is impossible.

It’s really that simple. And what’s transpiring now is nothing more complicated than what happens when a culture’s main growth narrative no longer matches the limits of its reality.

Unfortunately, it’s possible to fool people for just long enough into thinking it’s a workable plan. Give something a couple of decades in the sun (cheap, plentiful petroleum, for example) and entire institutions, political and monetary systems and dogmas will be fashioned around it. 

This kind of self-delusion is not new for humans. It's no different than if an ancient tribe was luckily blessed with 40 years of dependable rains which they attributed to a specific set of rituals.  It’s not too long before correlation becomes confused with causation. And when the expected rains start ceasing to arrive, the rituals get more convoluted and increasingly desperate measures are called for to appease the angry gods.

Eventually, finally, people slowly wake up to the fact that their rituals and the weather never had anything to do with each other. But by then, society has usually torn itself apart, unable to align the contradictions. 

This is what’s happening now. The narrative we live by is breaking down, and increasingly, our desperate ruling elites simply don’t know what to do.  People are confused and so they want to either return to the past “Make America Great Again!”) or they want to cling to the present (“Stronger Together"…as in don’t rock the boat, preserve the status quo!).

Neither will work of course because the rains have ceased for reasons that have nothing to do with America's elaborate but quirky rituals (the current presidential race being a prime example of such).

And this is why, despite the fact that our true challenges are rooted in the mathematics of resource depletion, our undoing will come when the social fabric tears apart.

Which is why the current unrest escalating all over the globe is so important to track. As we watch less-resourced societies begin to fail in advance, we better understand the nature of the reckoning heading our way.

Among the many conflicts that are boiling over, the one that concerns me the most -- by far -- is the West's very intentional efforts to demonize Putin specifically, and Russia generally.

The tactics being used are no different from those used to disparage Saddam and his regime right before the invasion of Iraq.  We’ve been down this path before; the playbook is literally exactly the same.

Blatantly obvious propaganda is being used, most heavily by the very same (and unrepentant) main stream media outlets that were used the last time around -- when we ended up commencing a 'pre-emptive' war based on ginned-up intelligence that turned out to be wholly false. We owe it to ourselves not be so easily led this time around.

The Winds Of War

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

~ H. L. Mencken

Now, I'm sensitive to the idea put forth by some that this whole Putin demonization is merely the latest use of a hobgoblin intended to help get HRC elected president.

Obviously if this is true, it goes well beyond HRC herself. In the military industrial complex, there's a vast host of self-interested parties who feast on war and whose paychecks and future prospects depend heavily on it. There even are a few demented souls in the halls of power who believe in war as the best way to project one’s influence. Stew them together and you have a pretty good handle on what DC is all about these days.

So I'm sympathetic to the temptation to think: “Hey, it’s always a safe bet during an election year to try and appear tougher than your opponent…this is all just election year politicking and it will pass and fade after November 8th.”

Here’s why I don’t think that’s accurate. In fact, I think something deeper and more sinister has been set in motion. 

The blackballing of Putin and Russia started years ago, in 2013, when Putin managed to convince then-president of Ukraine Yanukovych to back out of the agreement intended to bring Ukraine into the EU fold as the final NATO brick in the wall.

That set-back enraged the neocons in Washington DC mightily and they’ve been rapidly anti-Putin ever since.  This neocon grudge has found help and support ever since from the UK, US, and EU press which were also willing partners in selling the fraudulent “evidence” that led to the Iraq war -- and Libya, too, and now Yemen and Syria.

As examples, these cartoonish magazine covers (both from 2014) look like they were designed by Intro to Psychology 101 students asked to create a propaganda hit piece:

Heck, there's even potential evidence as far back as 2008: as exemplified by this TIME magazine cover where the "TIME" banner was placed behind Putin’s head in such a way that the peaks of the M gave him "horns".  (For fun, see how many example of other leaders you can find where TIME did this -- there are precious few. The logo is almost always in front):

So the demonization began a long time ago, well before it’s reasonable to suspect HRCs advance team could start scheming about how to use an anti-Putin stance against Trump, or any other opponent. 

But the media has continued to beat the Putin=bad drums, and with increasingly volume. Here are a few more recent examples:

The message: Putin is manipulating us, and anybody who falls for it is a sucker. And if you dare to question the integrity of the US elections, which there is ample evidence that it is vulnerable to fraud & manipulation (listen to our podcast with election integrity analyst Brad Friedman), you are Putin’s patsy.

And here’s my favorite propaganda piece to date because it’s so blatantly over-the-top that it takes on a very special quality of being so bad it’s good. This is The Rocky Horror Picture Show of magazine cover art:

Okay, with all that said, we’ve established that “someone” has had it out for Putin for quite a long time.  We might surmise who or what agencies that might be, but such speculation is best reserved for those with greater insights than I happen to have.

I just know propaganda when I see it. And I see it in the examples above, and in the media pervasively today. So where does this lead us?

Well, given the fact that Russia has just undertaken the largest nuclear readiness drill in its history involving its citizens, maybe we should think that Putin and Russia are no longer amused by all this antagonism and are taking it as something more sinister than simple politicking.

Or we should pay attention that Russia recently announced the arrival of its latest nuclear ICBM (nicknamed Satan-2) capable of delivering 15 warheads each. 

And let’s not forget the even more recent announcement that a hypersonic glider warhead had been successfully tested, against which our military currently has no defense.

None of those Russian moves are being made in a vacuum of course. They've come only after many repeated provocations by the West, including assembling the largest gathering of military brigade forces on Russia’s borders since WW II. These are the kind of threats, mind you,  that would have caused the US to go into an absolute snit long ago were the situation reversed.

The real question is: Why?  What’s the plan here, if any exists?  Who’s behind all this and why? If we can answer any of these, then perhaps we can assess the risks regular people like us and our loved ones may be facing as potential "collateral damage" of this warmongering.

The So-Called Elites

The “who” has emerged in this election, at least partially. We now have a few names to put to the program, and they're familiar ones.

This is, generally speaking, the same cast of characters that has been agitating for a more belligerent global stance prior to 9/11.  Many of these names surfaced on my radar when the Project for a New American Century statement of principles was published in 1997. That document is pretty much all you need to read to understand the last 20 years of US foreign policy.

I mean, if you only had just one document to read on the topic, this one would pretty well sum it all up. 

Well, here they all come again. This time right on the front page of the Washington Post, making renewed calls for an even more aggressive and bellicose US military posture. For anybody concerned about conflict with Russia, this is more terrifying than any haunted house you could possibly visit this Halloween:

Washington’s foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

Oct 20, 2016

There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.

The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflects a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.

This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

“The American-led international order that has been prevalent since World War II is now under threat,” said Martin Indyk, who oversees a team of top former officials from the administrations of Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton assembled by the Brookings Institution. “The question is how to restore and renovate it.” The Brookings report — a year in the making — is due out in December.

Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.

The studies, which reflect Clinton’s stated views, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria. Virtually all these efforts, including a report released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress, call for stepped-up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Russian forces in ­Syria.

“You can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians,” said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

(Source)

There’s a lot to unpack in there. Let’s get started.

The article begins with the disquieting assertion that the presumptive return of a more hawkish Hillary Clinton to the white house is “being met with quiet relief.” You mean the longest stretch of active war in US history hasn't been enough for some of these folks? 

I talk with a lot of people in the military who are sick and tired of America's endless wars and their endless rotations with no end in sight and no clear mission.  Nobody can articulate what the US is doing in Afghanistan any more (and noting the enormous increase in heroin production is considered impolite).

Next, the article is loaded with “normalizing” words, such as ‘consensus,’ ‘broad-based’ and ‘bipartisan’ to make it seem that a more hawkish stance is really getting back to something we can all agree on. It’s centrist, bipartisan and broad-based after all.

It’s also insane when you combine it with the later part about how these folks want to undo the restraint of Obama and go after Syrian and Russian forces directly.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Getting into a shooting war with Russia would be a terrible idea. Insane really.

Not least of which is because, even if things don’t go nuclear (which they very well could given where we are in the shredding of the past narratives), then the US will discover that projecting its power all over the world is a heck of a lot harder when your navy is being sunk by the latest next-generation anti-ship missile technology.

Trust me, the petrodollar will get a lot weaker in a skinny minute as soon as American military power is revealed as stoppable.

I have a lot of faith in the training and equipment of the US military. But I also have faith in the power of a swarm of anti-ship hypersonic missiles to do a lot of damage.

The US Presidential Election

I'm on record as saying that I very much distrust the close relationship HRC has with the neocons and her hawkish foreign policy stance. Also, I do trust her readiness and willingness to get the US into more wars.

In the second presidential debate, she came right and said that she supports a no-fly zone over Syria. Quoting a US military general, I've since explained that doing so would meet the definition of an open act of war against Russia.

While there are a lot of issues on the table this election, I'm very much a single-issue voter when it comes to getting into a war with Russia. I want no part of it. I can't imagine any sane American would. 

At best, it would be a wildly destructive waste of time, life and money. At worst it ends with an EMP (if we're lucky) or nuclear disaster (if we're not).  Instead, we in the West should be confronting our massive overhang of debt, our looming energy predicament, and a host of ecological train wrecks right now -- not stuck in the fantasy that global warfare is somehow glorious or 'winnable'.

After the next war, there won’t be any bountiful period of economically-simulative rebuilding that some have wistfully longed for. That takes energy. And in case anybody missed it, the 'high net energy' conventional oil slipped into the rearview mirror almost ten years ago now. There won’t be any super-duper rebuilding after the next big war. Just a massive struggle to get us back to even.

So hey, let’s not do that. OK?

Back to the main point here. The HRC campaign has several very close ties with the neocons who were instrumental in selling the Iraq war. None quite as prominent as Michael Morell:

Clinton Adviser Proposes Attacking Iran to Aid the Saudis in Yemen

Oct 26, 2016

Michael Morell is a former acting director of the CIA and a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton — one who is widely expected to occupy a senior post in her administration.

He is also an opponent of the Iran nuclear agreement, a defender of waterboarding, and an advocate for making Russia “pay a price” in Syria by covertly killing Putin’s soldiers.

On Tuesday, Morell added another title to that résumé: proponent of going to war with Iran, for the sake of securing Saudi Arabia’s influence in Yemen.

“Ships leave Iran on a regular basis carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen,” Morell said, in remarks to the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank founded by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “I would have no problem from a policy perspective of having the U.S. Navy boarding their ships, and if there are weapons on them, to turn those ships around.”

Morell did note, per Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, that this policy “raised questions of international maritime law.”

Which is a bit like saying, “Breaking into someone’s home, putting a gun in their face, and demanding they hand over all their weapons raises questions about armed-robbery law.”

(Source)

To me this is not an individual interested in a little Putin-bashing for the sake of votes. This is a guy who's deadly serious about using US power to get into a conflict not just with Russia, but with Iran as well.

Either of these adversaries could lead us into an armed confrontation that could escalate in ways we’d very seriously regret.

Even ‘just’ the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz would be a huge and mortal blow to a world economy saddled with low growth and enormous piles of debt.  Iran could accomplish this easily using the mobile, land based missile launchers they currently have in stock.

Sink a couple of Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) and it’s a whole new ball game for world trade. 

In case you don’t take Mr. Morell all that seriously, I should remind you that he was the person who personally vetted and scrubbed the presentation that Colin Powell gave to the UN on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that led to the final war resolution.

Clearly telling a few, uh, "fabrications" is well within his talent center if/when needed to get the job done.  He’s deadly serious about entering a conflict with Russia and Iran and he has Hillary’s ear.  Hopefully other more moderate people do as well, but my concern still lies with the fact that some people will hear equal arguments but then make the decision based on how they lean.

Hillary leans hawkish. That’s just a matter of record at this point. As even liberal-leaning Chris Matthews of Hardball said recently, “People don’t change because we swear them into the White House.”

Nope. The best rule of relationships I have is: You'll be disappointed if you are expecting (requiring, or hoping for) them to be different  tomorrow than they are today.

Conclusion

While I've focused on the election in this article, it may not even be relevant at all.  That is, there may well be a machine running in the background that is larger than any potential candidate or President. It may well be that the careful preparation of propaganda groundwork against Putin that began in 2008 is part of a large plan the public is being intentionally kept in the dark about. Who knows?

But learning how Obama has frustrated the aspirations of the neocons vis-a-vis Syria and Russia tells me that the office of the president does matter, at least to a point. 

I was personally horrified by what the US has brought to bear on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.  All in the service of Deep State objectives that are anything but obvious. 

My growing concern here is that the juggernaut that leads to war has already been untethered and is building up steam. I see it in the propaganda pieces against Russia on an almost daily basis. And I see Russia doing everything it can to both try and get the West to calm down and be reasonable, while getting its own citizens ready in case those efforts fail.

NATO is ramping up the pressure. Western media is faithfully (again) running necon talking points as if they were pearls of wisdom. We are heading back to the future.

Recently, for the very first time in my entire life, I have begun undertaking actual personal preparations for nuclear war. 

I absolutely deplore that I feel this is necessary. But a core tenet we live by here at PeakProsperity.com is that when anxiety builds, you need to align your actions with your beliefs. Right now, my beliefs are loudly telling me that the risk of a serious conflict with Russia breaking out are no longer dismissable.

Similarly, I've committed to readers that when something concerns me enough to take action in my own personal life, I'll share it.

In Part 2: My Personal Preparations For Nuclear War, I share the steps I've taken this week as well as additional precautions folks concerned about this topic should consider.

Look, it's crazy were even talking about this. But as this article has shown, there's ample evidence that the pressure between the West and Russia is building. Given the outsized risks involved, making an investment in safety is only prudent. After all: nuclear way is one of those potential scenarios where its far better to be early or overenthusiastic in your precautions, than a day late.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

245 Comments

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1580
An anti-HRC ad on the risk of a Neocon nuclear war

I must put out the usual disclaimer that I find Alex Jones to be far to sensationalist to be regarded as a balanced source of information.  And that just because I see danger in Hillary doesn't mean I like Donald much either....

 

Ivo's picture
Ivo
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 26 2009
Posts: 71
Thanks

Great update Chris!

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
WMDs.

The big question: Does Russia have weapons of Mass Destruction? 

Supplementary question: Do you have an entrance ticket for Weather Mountain?

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 704
An EMP, if we are lucky...
Chris wrote:

At best, it would be a wildly destructive waste of time, life and money. At worst it ends with an EMP (if we're lucky) or nuclear disaster (if we're not).

After just reading  "One Second After" followed by "One Year After", I won't feel all that lucky if we sneak by with just an EMP attack.  William Forstchen paints an ugly picture of the world after a few EMP devices are set off, one over the United States.  Forstchen has me convinced that losing a couple of major cities to nuclear strikes would be likely to cause less loss of life than one strategically placed EMP strike, with far greater potential for recovery.

I can't agree more with what Chris writes.  Going to war with Russia is simply insane.  Having said that, if I were to anthropomorphize Washington DC these days, insanity would definitely be one of the personality traits I would include.

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 704
sand_puppy wrote: I must put
sand_puppy wrote:

I must put out the usual disclaimer that I find Alex Jones to be far to sensationalist to be regarded as a balanced source of information.  And that just because I see danger in Hillary doesn't mean I like Donald much either....

Sadly, Trump is the only viable non status quo option we have available.  That's assuming that we even have the ability to vote a non approved candidate into office.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5344
Prof. Hudson on Trump, Hillary and Control Fraud

I agree with a lot of what Professor Hudson says and how he's organized his thinking.

Once you understand that everything is a racket and much is based on outright fraud, and the role of the neocons, you kind of come up with this view.

It's a red pill moment...once you see the world this way, it all falls together and suddenly things make sense and you can make predictions.

Claiming that the neocons are interested in killing Russians and starting a wider, definitive war with Russia is not a prediction, but a description.  Hey, 20 years of recent history allows us to say it that way.

Why the US media is steadfastly ignoring this enormous risk, and calling out the individual actors really needs to asked and better understood.  

(Hat tip Michael S. for this video link!)

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5344
If the War Party is not stopped...

The party of war spans both sides of the aisle, and it means there is no conservative or progressive division. These fools are united in in their desire to bring more war to more places, and enriching themselves and consolidating their power as they do.

As you should know by now, I think these were deeply immoral and ill-advised things to do when the US was beating up on much smaller rivals, but I think it’s sheer insanity to be doing this against Russia and China.

It’s the proverbial case of the school yard bully eventually running into a matched foe who surprises him, and then he gets to suddenly find out what everybody really thinks of him.

What seemed to be admiration from adoring crowds instantly transforms into seething hatred. Where did that come from? They never see it coming.

This article in the Nation does a sound job of articulating my own views and concerns.

The Geniuses Who Brought You the Iraq War Are at It Again

Oct 26, 2016 The “Blob”—the epithet Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes used to scorn Washington’s inbred, vainglorious, bipartisan foreign-policy elite—is striking back.

In a series of foreign policy reports designed to influence the incoming administration, Greg Jaffe of The Washington Post reveals, the Blob will publicly criticize Obama’s “reluctance” to exercise America’s military prowess and call for a more “muscular,” “interventionist,” assertive policy, from the South China Sea to the Russian border, but particularly in the Middle East. They are pumping for more war.

The names are familiar—former secretary of state Madeline Albright and former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley lead the Atlantic Council task force.

Former Bill Clinton NSC adviser Brian Katulis and former Bush deputy secretary of defense Rudy deLeon are senior fellows at the Center for American Progress.

The inescapable Martin Indyk heads a Brookings group of former top officials from Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

These are the apostles of American exceptionalism, from the neoconservatives who promoted the invasion of Iraq to the “indispensable nation” liberal interventionists who championed regime change in Libya. Virtually without exception, all supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the most catastrophic foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. Virtually without exception, none were held accountable for that folly.

The reports—and the Blob—share two conclusions. They censure Obama for excessive timidity. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” the Postquotes Philip Gordon, a senior foreign-policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

And all favor ramping up US military activity—on the Russian borders, in the South China Sea, and particularly in the Middle East, promoting no-fly and safe zones in Syria, more special forces, more aggressive use of air power, more military aid, and a more integrated security partnership. The objective is not only to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda and its offshoots militarily, but to create order in war torn Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as to counter Iran and Russia in the region.

The Obama years demonstrate the dangers of “restraint”? Say what?

The Obama administration is currently fighting wars in five countries and bombing seven.

It toppled Gadhafi in Libya and left the country in chaos. Its regime change campaign in Syria ended in a brutal civil war. It backs the Saudi ravaging of Yemen. It helped spark a street coup in Ukraine, and moved military forces to the Russian border, reviving a new Cold War. It has bolstered US naval forces in the South China Sea as part of containing China. US Special Forces were active in more than 100 countries last year.

Obama has signed off on more weapons sales and transfers than Bush. None of this has worked out very well, but neither did George W. Bush’s “damn the torpedoes” policy. If Obama represents excessive restraint, may the gods save us from what comes next.

The Blob still believes that America has the writ and the power to decide. We are “indispensable,” bearers of law and democracy at the end of a cruise missile. Our insurgents are by definition “moderates.” Our clients—Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, from military dictatorship to desert sheikdom—have, in the words of the CAP Report, “internal cohesion” and domestic “political legitimacy.” Despite conflicting interests, they are allies against terror (even though some like Saudi Arabia provide significant funding for both the terrorists and the religious zealots that inspire them.)

For the Blob, caution comes not in objective but in strategy. Only the most unhinged call for putting “boots on the ground.” This leads to a disconnect. They limit the military strategy—to drones, air power, advisers, intelligence cooperation, military aid, training—without trimming the objectives. It is hard to see this as anything other than a demented recipe for endless wars without victory.

So if the war party is not stopped, they will continue until their own noses are bloodied. Can that happen short of a major kinetic confrontation that risks EMP or other nuclear exchanges from taking place?

Well, all of us sane people would certainly like to think so, but we have to be honest here; these neocons and war hawks are not built the same as us. They do not think the same way. It is a mistake to project your own inner limits and ability to empathize onto them.

They lack these things.

Because I know this I can adjust to the world as it actually is, not as I want it to be.

Would I prefer to live in a world where people with deep seated inner psychological wounds were not in positions of power? You bet! 100%!

Are we living in such a world? Nope. Not even close.

So we have to be honest about the risks we face here.

And I think it’s just the beginning because as resources get short over the next years and decades, history says that conflicts are the way those will be resolved. Think Middle East (which is really a long-running resource conflict) but everywhere.

This is why we must begin to confront out shadows, and begin to elect and elevate leaders who can operate from places of inner calm, reflection, and uncertainty without blowing a fuse.

It’s going to take time.

Rach3's picture
Rach3
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2009
Posts: 1
Chris is right

Those images of Putin do indeed look like good old propaganda.... scary.
Here is one from WW1:

https://sites.google.com/site/hannahadrianswiki/ww1-german-propaganda

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3097
interview with James Clapper, DNI

http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/conversation-james-clapper/p38426

This is an interview and Q&A with the Director of National Intelligence.  A broad range of topics is covered, including Russia, the ME, cybersecurity, etc.  He stays away from political issues and is rather general in most of his responses, but is nonetheless quite interesting as he has been at the eye of the storm for decades and has a unique perspective.  His last question is on climate, a subject that has been notably absent from the political slugfest so far this election year.  It's nice to know it has an important place in intelligence matters.

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 204
Surviving a nuclear attack - Irwin Redlener

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Schizophrenia

Would I prefer to live in a world where people with deep seated inner psychological wounds were not in positions of power? You bet! 100%!

I have had more than my fair share of exposure to the effects of schizophrenia. Both its negative and is positive effects. I am not affected other than in my ability to imagine scenarios that others are blind to.

These people are not "wounded". They are schizophrenics.  The very reason that they wield more power that the average Joe is because of their condition. History is replete with examples. 

I covered this in my recent comment on Redice. Unfortunately the text would not format correctly, but you can find it here in my response to Chloe

 https://redice.tv/news/fbi-discovers-new-hillary-emails-after-investigating-anthony-weiners-lewd-conversations-with-teenager

CleanEnergyFan's picture
CleanEnergyFan
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 29 2012
Posts: 93
Good Video on Kennedy's distrust of Military Advisors

I just viewed this excellent documentary of the Cuban Missile crisis and this really drives home what Chris said that if Kennedy had not been so restrained and had taken his advisors advice to pre-emptively attack Cuba we  would likely have had a nuclear war.  In watching this I couldn't help thinking what HRC would have done in this same situation...scary.  This is also a good journey down memory lane for preparations of a nuclear attack,

Check out "The Sixties" on Netflix
https://www.netflix.com/title/80036400?s=i
ChristoFunk's picture
ChristoFunk
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 30 2016
Posts: 1
On the pulse

Professor Michael Hudson summed it up better than any economist I've heard or read. 

I'm living in Australia and am glad of the distance but the sad fact is it's not far enough if the button gets pushed.  

The media have beaten Trump up that badly that most Aussies want Clinton to win. 

The more I research about HCR the scarier she becomes. 

God help us all!!

RiverWind's picture
RiverWind
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2015
Posts: 9
Other thoughts

These events, and discussions around them, have splintered into a million pieces that we are all trying to understand.  Undoubtedly there is world history from which to draw essential information but it does not always clarify what will happen next as technology exceeds moral development at this point.  Each of us forms an opinion based on our own personal histories as well as what we can understand about what is happening around us.

I do agree that as Chris wrote  the  "neocons do not think the same way and that it is a mistake to project your own inner limits and ability to empathize on them".   In my own  microcosm, I have lived with  people who would sacrifice everything and anything to get what they want regardless of the outcomes.....so long as they felt they "won"    Standing up to or enduring them is hell--there is no easy way out.  It can mean complete financial loss, illness, and a  re defining of your world.  Fighting these people does not work because they are fueled by your attention and energy ---it affirms their "power."

Creating a tribe/village of people who do not value material gain or resources over another human being weaves our lives back together so that we can thrive in our place as loving, caring, valued people in community.  It comes back to a grassroot movement on behalf of all of us who want to reclaim our planet.  The challenge is not to get distracted by all the noise  and to have a plan to help our tribes sustain and flourish when exposed to adverse forces.

 

 If the neocons and war mongers have an agenda they intend on fulfilling do we believe that Trump has the ability to thwart  their objectives? Do we think HRC is the solo decision maker in a nuclear war? How do we argue both sides of this?  Each of us can write a novel about what may happen if either is in office.  

It really comes back to each of us and not under estimating our power.  We have to make change --create our own local sustainable communities.  Yes we need to know what is going on in the world, but it cannot suck our energy away from what we can do at home.  I am working on my house, my pantry, my animals and planning out how to support family and friends. I am speaking to as many people as I can. But I cant listen to the noise anymore --it is too depleting. 

I wish you all peace and prosperity on your journey.

 

 

 

 

 

kwklein's picture
kwklein
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 25 2008
Posts: 8
Most powerful piece you have ever written

Dr. Martenson - Your work over the years has been a powerful influence on my thinking and my teaching practice.  But, this essay is the most powerful thing you have ever written.

Now, of course, you are on "The Lists."

Thanks for putting this out there and in the widely available public section.  As always, data driven.

BTW - Your interview with Ms. Tverberg was pretty good too.  

I chuckled at the one point where there is the long pause after your one question.

My chief complaint with her perspective is that she does not seem to be very concerned with the climate change aspects of continuing to burn fossil fuels.  

Thanks again.

- Karl

 

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1203
Mutiny of the rank-and-file

I was rather pleased to see the following at ZH: Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents

While I don't know how true this article is, I can say it matches my personal experience.  From what I'd seen this past year before leaving my job, there are a huge number of government and contractor employees doing security clearance work who are really peeved about Clinton getting a pass for her email scandal.  Just about anyone who does or has done that kind of work knows her excuses are BS and that the pattern suggests a deliberate thumbing of her nose at rules and procedures (as well as possibly directing her subordinates to break said rules for her convenience), the same rules under which the rank-and-file are held accountable with rather severe penalties for even unintentional breaches of the rules.  I remember seeing a much larger group of fellow coworkers around the TV than normal when the news broke of Comey letting Clinton off the hook, and the mood was seriously UGLY.  I saw this as a hopeful sign.... whatever one may think of the leadership and elites running the gov't and military industrial complex, the majority of the average workers and soldiers working in that field are decent people trying to make a positive difference.  And while I had decided I'd be leaving that line of work behind long before that, I have to say Clinton's get-out-of-jail-free situation really killed any last shreds of morale I had left at that point.  Amusing story... during my out-processing, my company's security manager was reading off the mandatory spiel about the fines, penalties, and potential imprisonment one will suffer for disclosing sensitive information, at the very end of which he said, "unless you're Hillary Clinton". 

So yeah, if she's elected she could face a lot of passive-aggressive and uncooperative suboordinates, officers, and other personnel in the DoD and Intelligence agencies.  THAT could be a game-changer... maybe enough to weaken the neocons' influence on current policy, given they're hitched their star to Clinton.  Leaders who don't enjoy the support of the rank-and-file who work for them don't tend to last long.

fated's picture
fated
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2014
Posts: 44
Trump/Hillary - any difference

River Wind - a couple of days ago I would have considered Trump might be a thorn in the side of the Neo-cons, but after reading the article below, I'm no longer sure.

https://geopolitics.co/2016/10/27/rigged-election-hillary-trump-caught-p...

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Meet Satan

Pleased to meet you. I hope you get my name.

Sympathy for the devil.  Rolling Stones. 

http://futurism.com/meet-satan-2-russias-new-icbm-nuke-capable-of-leveli...

Honorius's picture
Honorius
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 13 2011
Posts: 9
Bravo Chris and others

I rarely comment, but bravo Chris and fellow PPers for these thoughts.  A clear and measured exposition of the risk we seem to face.

Hard to know how to respond to it, or how to get our message out.

But it seems to me worthwhile to try, so thank you for it.

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 210
CHS Deep State Thesis

Charles Hughes Smith's connects a dot in his ongoing  thesis that more rational elements of the deep state are trying to neuter the Neocon's foreign policy to preserve the empire  and thus are likely  behind the recent FBI developments regarding Hillary in an effort to torpedo her candidacy according to his latest posted today at ZH

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/clinton-collapse-only-deep-stat...

Charles Hughes Smith wrote:

I submit another much more powerful dynamic is in play: the upper ranks of the Deep State now view Hillary as an unacceptable liability. The word came down to Comey to act whether he wanted to or not, i.e. take one for the good of the nation/Deep State/Imperial Project.

While I'm not convinced that this is the case,  it certainly is the most optimistic analysis and favorable spin on deep state I've seen  especially in light of the heightened nuclear confrontation risk.

I'm hopeful that Chris will explore this thesis with Charles in his next off the cuff and am always appreciative that CHS engages us here directly in the dialog at PP.

mememonkey

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1580
Will the Neocon's go quietly into the night?

CHS's idea is very interesting.  Time2Help posted this yesterday on his fb page.

The Deep State consists of multiple factions of powerful people inside and outside of government.

They form and break alliances.  I imagine it like the TV show "Survivor."  Some DS players are most identified with the USA and some more identified in the international oligarchy.

The number of people who understand that 9/11 was an act of the Deep State is very large now.  I'll make a guess that 50 million to 70 million Americans know.   With this understanding, faith in the MSM, especially the Neocon associated MSM, has been devastated.  They are understood to be guardians of "the myth."  Waging war by deception only works well on the gullible.

Similarly, government scientific agencies are understood to be corrupt or corruptible.  What other scientific bodies have been corrupted to serve the oligarchy?   We can't know anymore. 

The FBI and AG shenanigans of this last week show that the activities of these institutions are but pawns in the global power game.  They are certainly unrelated to "justice" and they are not even trying to pretend to be anymore.   Rampant corruption is tolerated with disinterest by both the justice department and the MSM both.  "Sure you can collect bribes.  We are cool with that."

And Twitter, Reddit and Facebook are not trending the leading news stories.  Controlling the discussion is within the rights of for-profit privately-owned communication venues.

I have watched videos of Hillary speaking in what are now known to be lies.  She does so without the hesitation and subtle discomfort (such as eyes looking away) that signal that a human being with an intact conscience is lying.  I am concluding that her psychological structure is that of a psychopath.  She will be able to lie utterly convincingly and has no preference for "truth" over "lies."   Cheney's  "We create our own reality" really only works for psychopaths who have not yet been discovered.

So will the Neocons retreat quietly?  Admit defeat.  Lick their wounds.  Or will they go all in with one last Hail Mary event?

 

 

 

 

 

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1203
Re: CHS Deep State Thesis

I suspect that what CHS says is at least partially the case (i.e. that they are slowly backing away from Clinton as her political liabilities add up), but as far as Comey's latest move I think it's just as likely (if not more likely) that Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is accurate in that with both the exoneration and the latest announcement Comey was doing what he thought was best for the country as a whole:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152531307171/james-comey-as-seen-through-th...

Now I wouldn't go as far as Scott Adams and say Comey is a "hero" because I think it is also likely (though not certain) that his initial decision was compromised to a degree by political pressure, yet the new emails on the laptop could be so damning that he felt compelled to announce the news to Congress as promised.  So he might have done it to either avoid a larger revolt of the FBI rank-and-file or to keep some shreds of his reputation intact after the full details come out (or both).  I can see how one might see giving Clinton a pass the first time (albeit with harsh words) was a way to let America decide and not interfere with the election, but from my perspective since Clinton's team were the ones stalling and deleting... er... I mean delaying... the email investigation, she has no one but herself to blame when some of the nastiness comes out so close to the election.  Oh well, too bad, shit happens.  Or Trump happens... but I probably repeat myself ;-)

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1580
Adelson donates $25 million to Trump yesterday
 
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has committed $25 million to an anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC, just one week before the presidential and congressional elections are decided...

Adelson had previously said he would give $100 million to help Republican nominee Donald Trump win the Oval Office, but has waited until the end to follow through on his promise.

The money was given to Future 45, a super PAC founded by the Ricketts family in Chicago, owners of TD Ameritrade. The Ricketts endorsed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker during the primary season and has only recently come around to endorsing and funding Trump's campaign. One source said Adelson was motivated over the weekend to help Trump after the FBI enhanced its investigation into Hillary Clinton's email activities.

Previously Adelson had urged other wealthy Jewish donors to join him in supporting Trump saying:

... “like many of you I do not agree with him on every issue”, but he stressed that Trump will be a “tremendous president when it comes to the safety and security of Israel”.

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 401
Antidisestablishmentarianism

I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence. Given the state of things in the U.S., perhaps its use may becoming back into vogue. It has only been 500 years since the last major "Deep State" shakeup. If Donald got rid of his 'comb-over", he might consider the tonsured look of the past befitting a heretic. Unfortunately, a tonsured head is a sign of humility. Guess that leaves Donnie out!  

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 204
Nuclear war looks like the best option

Nuclear winter as geo-engineering.

Believe that "they" believe it.

"Granted that I must die,
how shall I live?" -- Michael Novack

Important: anyone have a great vegan chorizo recipe? and a good source for purple potatos?

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5344
This my exact line of thinking and deepest concern
sand_puppy wrote:

So will the Neocons retreat quietly?  Admit defeat.  Lick their wounds.  Or will they go all in with one last Hail Mary event?

I find myself unconvinced that the Deep State has suddenly developed cold feet about Hillary.  It's just too alluring and comforting to be correct.  It's something I want to believe, so I am immediately suspicious of my instincts.

So let's assume we are talking about the same deep state that has pulled of a long and unbroken string of disruptive, and violent deceptions to achieve its aims.

Are they about to go quietly into the good night?  If not, their options seem to be:

  • Hope that Hillary wins
  • Corral Trump to their cause somehow
  • Remove Trump and rely on Pence
  • Double down and commit another shocking event that can be used to usher in their desired candidate(s) and policies.  

Whatever the next event, it would have to be really big because people are not so easily shocked anymore.  The Orlando shooting was horrifying, and large, and it just came and went in the national consciousness.

So I fret a little as my inner thriller novelist concocts various scenarios knowing that any 'next event' would have to be quite inventive to really shock.  And the Deep State is clearly quite a creative lot.

 

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 4 2014
Posts: 401
Hey, Chris. . .

You've missed your calling in the literary field. I think there is an international, quasi-fiction, best seller waiting to be written. Ever toyed with the idea? If Kunstler can get away with it, why not you.

Uncletommy

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5344
I'll consider it!
Uncletommy wrote:

You've missed your calling in the literary field. I think there is an international, quasi-fiction, best seller waiting to be written. Ever toyed with the idea? If Kunstler can get away with it, why not you.

Uncletommy

Maybe that would be a good, creative outlet for me.  

I am listening to a 'book on tape' (really a lecture series that was taped) right now that is having a big impact on my thinking.

It's The Power of Vulnerability by Brene Brown,

https://www.amazon.com/Power-Vulnerability-Teachings-Authenticity-Connec...

The way it ties in here is she talks about the research that supports the importance of creativity in keeping us happy and whole hearted.  It's one of many important elements she outlines, but I do have a creative writing side that's sitting there, and I let it come out in my family's Christmas letters.

And I used to playa  lot more guitar than I currently do.  A ton more.  And I want to get back to that, so I am committing to penciling in more creative time for me.

"Play" is another thing she surfaced, which I will crudely remember her defining as "an unstructured activity where you love it so much you lose track of time, and would choose to do it whenever given the chance."

So good suggestion, I'll let you know what I come up with.  :)

At any rate, I highly recommend the above audio 'book.'

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 210
Neo Con Pivot
cmartenson wrote:
sand_puppy wrote:

So will the Neocons retreat quietly?  Admit defeat.  Lick their wounds.  Or will they go all in with one last Hail Mary event?

I find myself unconvinced that the Deep State has suddenly developed cold feet about Hillary.  It's just too alluring and comforting to be correct.  It's something I want to believe, so I am immediately suspicious of my instincts.

So let's assume we are talking about the same deep state that has pulled of a long and unbroken string of disruptive, and violent deceptions to achieve its aims.

Are they about to go quietly into the good night?  If not, their options seem to be:

  • Hope that Hillary wins
  • Corral Trump to their cause somehow
  • Remove Trump and rely on Pence
  • Double down and commit another shocking event that can be used to usher in their desired candidate(s) and policies.  

Whatever the next event, it would have to be really big because people are not so easily shocked anymore.  The Orlando shooting was horrifying, and large, and it just came and went in the national consciousness.

So I fret a little as my inner thriller novelist concocts various scenarios knowing that any 'next event' would have to be quite inventive to really shock.  And the Deep State is clearly quite a creative lot.

 

Chris, 

I have a similar take with the exception that I think they may have indeed given up on their first choice of Hillary.    Where I  differ from CHS is that I don't think that is attributable to the conscious initiative on the part of a 'saner' faction of the deep State. 

Rather that represents an emergent response to the cascading revelations of Wiki leaks, undercover videos and discrediting of establishment media propaganda organs and what appears to to be a potential significant upset win on Nov 8th.  All trends building to a critical mass that would make a Hillary Clinton presidency counter productive despite having all the right Neocon players and policies already picked out for her administration.

The ass covering  under the bus throwing transition has started and will only pick up speed.  With the advantage to first movers!   You are seeing this everywhere from Obama,  not backing the 'Comey is a Corrupt Partisan' narrative in Hillary's defense, to some in the tank 'reporters' and commentators, suddenly starting to criticize Hillary and feign objectivity.  This was actually starting before the FBI bombshell dropped, on the strength of wiki leaks re the Clinton foundation pay to play corruption  notably on MSNBC where even Mika Brzezinski daughter of the grand poohba Neocon/cold warrior Zbig Brzeznsinski  got into the action.

I believe at this point Hillary's goose is cooked regardless,  Best she can hope for even if she wins is a pardon. 

There is a credible argument that Obama, in a Machiavellian twist worthy of the Prince,, has intended all along to really hand his legacy to VP Tim Kaine,.   Tim kaine who is actually an Obama Loyalist and was selected a year ago ( as we now know from Wiki leaks) in what appears to be a quid pro quo for Obama's public support of Hillary. was perhaps a manchurian candidate intended to ascend in the face of Hillary being subsumed in scandal.  (Scandal which is and was always there and ready to be exploited by insiders)  Despite public appearances,  I do believe there is real bad blood between Obama and Hillary.  

  To the extent that Obama's 'rapprochement with Iran was one of his signature achievements, and foot dragging re. confrontation with Russia in Syria spoke to his relative restraint vis a vie the hardcore Neocon agenda, perhaps catapulting  Kane over the corrupt corpse of the Clinton machine was a brilliant maneuver to extend and preserve that legacy.  Speculative of course but that scenario would be one that is moderately consistent with CHS thesis.

That conspiracy theory aside,  my sense again is that developments are more a function of  heavy duty player awareness of leaks and revelations coming down the pike and the building public zeitgeist which would make Hillary ineffective.  That doesn't have to be a neocon thing,  Occams' razor tells me that is just political realists trying to save themselves.

In the meantime you can see the Neocons/Likudniks rapidly maneuvering for influence with Trump. They have always had players in the trump camp with the entre' being his misperception and acceptance  of Iran as a boogie man as per Israeli talking points.  

 

Remember Trump's advisors include General Flynn who co authored a book with Ultra Neo Con Ledeen,  and who's raison d'être is anti Iran anti Saudi.   Rudy Guiliani  who is either the dumbest prosecuter in the world or complicit in 911 and  Giuliani "stood with Israel" and helped murder 3000 Americans on 9/11

Sheldon Adelson  who just pitched in 25 million to a last minute advertising blitz and is a total Zionist Sayanim     Even today you had uber neocon Bill Kristol softening his tone to trump advising him to commit himself to one term. 

The race is on to surround and influence a potential Trump administration.  This fits the MO as the influence and control is devoid of any ideological underpinnings and is always first in support of LIkudnik Zionist agenda.

While this fact is unpalatable to people who have been immersed in the dominant memes of our media and culture, but like trying to discuss Radical Salafist ideology without aknowleding its Saudi Whabist DNA even cursory study of the origin of the Neocon movement clearly shows that it was and remains a Zionist driven agenda, born from Jewish intellectuals.  It is by nature independent from other constraining political ideologies.  That is why it was birthed with  radical leftists, morphed into right wing conservatism, pivoted easily to Neo Liberalisim under democratic control and now is poised to adapt as necessary.

  While there are Neocons that are not necessarily Jewish or Israeli, such as Rudy Guliani, resulting from the alliances  with cold warriors, Super conservatives and hardcore elements of the military/security industrial complex  the architecture is fundamentally built around perceived Israeli Security interests.  Those interests dovetail nicely with the aforementioned alliances and full spectrum domination in support of American Empire.     

Neo Con's  can work with Trumps anti Iranian anti Saudi stance   I suspect that any significant false flag would occur after Trump was in power, and would be blamed on Iran.  So while a populist non globalist egotist is not ther first choice,  a Neocon pivot to destroy Iran ( which was always their crowning intent ) could conceivably leverage the ideological belief systems already present in Trump and many of his supporters.  a lot of that agenda could be advanced in Bill Kristol's putative 'one term presidency

Image result for netanyahu with trump

Plan A to work through Hillary is likely dead because she has sustained too much damage

Plan B (always a contingency)  is to put a different set of players in with Trump and pivot to the Iranian agenda.

Plan C if that doesn't work is put in  Pence by assassination.

 

While it is possible that Trumps populism and isolationism will prevail and diminish the Neocon agenda, I agree with Chris, there is basically no chance that the  Neo Con's will fold up there tent and going quietly into the night.  At a minimum they will adapt and lay in wait.

Mememonkey

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2661
Re: Neo Con Pivot

For those living within or near city cores prepping for several weeks of "shelter in place" may be prudent. 

You have 6 days until the election.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 738
100 Most Damaging Wikileaks

Here are some of my favorites from: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/. They claim to have the top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks. Note that these change frequently because they are adding more. The numbers may not line up. Go there early and often.

Grover

31. Hillary says climate change activists should "get a life"

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9617 (in attachments)

  • “No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know."

Last year, environmentalists probed Hillary Clinton on renouncing fossil fuels, and this is how she responded to them. Yet another example of private vs. public positions on policy.

43. John Podesta’s password was [email protected]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335

 

  • “Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta [email protected]

     

Why is this important? The media is lying to us. They are saying the "Russians are feeding Wikileaks" and that they are hacking us. Their passwords are literally password. Some security. They only blame Russia so it can take our focus away from what is actually in the emails, which they do not deny it's validity. As mentioned in the info section, Wikileaks has a 10 year, 100% accuracy rating. Not one leak has ever been disproven.

Not only that... but Podesta LOST his cellphone Extremely dangerous since he illegally had access to top secret documents.

 

Julian Assange has already strongly suggested that the source of the leaks are insiders, including ex-DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was killed right around the time of the DNC leaks

 

John Podesta's password was [email protected] and the White House is trying to claim only a foreign state organization could have been savvy enough to hack these servers.

44. Hillary Clinton had to be told when to smile during speeches

 

Her campaign seems more scripted than the WWE. This is why people don’t like her (not accounting for the corruption, scandals, extremely careless behavior, etc.) She just doesn’t seem genuine/authentic at all. When you are told to smile, read “sigh” off the teleprompter never have an unscripted moment, have every word of every line you say get polled and tested by multiple focus groups several times before you even say it… people just don’t feel like they know what you truly stand for.

55. Admitting Hillary failed foreign policy

 

Yet Obama is signing off on another policy to do the exact same thing, again. Hillary has said she will be an Obama third term.

61. Plotting to attack Obama because "his father was a Muslim"

 

Yet people vehemently oppose the idea that Hillary's campaign came up with the birther movement… And here she is, her campaign planning to attack him on his Muslim father. This was back in January 2008.

68. Hillary tweaks her policies based on donors’ wants

 

These leaks prove that Hillary will do anything for money, regardless of morals. Her staff even comments often about how worrisome it is. She takes money from countries who (under Sharia law) kill gay people, enslave women, and persecute Christians, but turns a blind eye to it as long as she gets paid. She changes her policies based on who gives her what. She sells U.S. assets to countries who donate in pay-to-play schemes… what a mess...

74. Hillary’s speechwriters: “I don't mind the 'backs of dead Americans' because we need a bit of moral outrage." (Benghazi)

 

One prominent theme throughout the leaks is that Hillary is just a put together political head piece that is drafted, rewritten, and approved before being sent into public. They note where she should be outraged, they note where she should smile, she even sighed when they told her to sigh. All of the words coming out of her mouth go through weeks of tweaking so that she comes off as likable as possible.

80. Bill Clinton admits Clinton Foundation has no “real projects”

 

It was also mentioned that the employees are unhappy.

92. Hillary finds out more debate questions

 

  • “Flagging that Bob B. heard that they could ask about carbon tax and late-term abortion restrictions. Solow and I are pulling debate book materials & running abortion answer by Jen & Rachel ahead of 3pm.”

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 210
Steve Pieczenik, The case for CHS thesis

If this is accurate, it is essentially describing exactly the scenario that CHS posited

he is describing a coordinated whistle blowing effort on part of internal intelligence/FBI/ and other governmental agencies using wiki leaks as the weapons for a bloodless info 'counter coup'

It will be interesting to see if this can rise above fringe awareness and if his assertions remains consistent with rapid ongoing and escalating  developments.

His claims imply additional leaks beyond the Podesta files so time will tell if other bombshells start landing.

I note that he has his Wikipedia page(if accurate) I lists and impressive educational background and resume.

 

 

Steve Pieczenik

From Wikipedia,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Controversies

 

Pieczenik was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker.[3] His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare.[7] He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary.[8]

 

Pieczenik is a Harvard University-trained psychiatrist and has a doctorate in international relations from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[3]

Pieczenik's autobiography notes that he attended Booker T. Washington High School in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City. Pieczenik received a full scholarship to Cornell University at the age of 16.[3] According to Pieczenik, he received a BA degree in Pre-Medicine and Psychology from Cornell in 1964, and later attended Cornell University Medical College. He attained his PhD in international relations from MIT while studying at Harvard Medical School.[4] Pieczenik claims to be the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD focusing on international relations.[5]

While doing his psychiatric residency at Harvard, he was awarded the Harry E. Solomon award for his paper entitled: "The hierarchy of ego-defense mechanisms in foreign policy decision making".[3]

 

Under the controversies section of wikepedia we find this:

On May 3, 2011, radio host Alex Jones aired an interview in which Pieczenik claimed that Osama bin Laden had died of Marfan syndrome in 2001 shortly after the September 11 attacks, and that the attacks on the United States on 9/11 were part of a false flag operation by entities within the American government, the Israeli leadership and Mossad.[31]

 

mememonkey

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2362
Thank you Meme....

That is quite a resume.  I love it when really, really smart people act as truth warriors.. we so need them in times like these where the matrix of lies and propaganda threatens to drown us completely.  Here is another of my favorite, super-intelligent truth tellers (oxymoron alert) at work, lawyer John Titus.  John analyzes the legal aspects of what may be going on with Comey and recent events;

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4619
shriek-o-meter to MAXIMUM

Just looking at my news feed this morning, the number of articles that are basically yelling at me is just astonishing.  The entire mainstream media is vomiting up volley after volley of mud, hoping some of it might stick.  It just reeks of desperation.  "The mighty Wurlitzer" comes to mind.

Nevada is now in play, 53/46 Clinton.

These are actual headlines from reddit politics.  Shriek-o-meter to MAXIMUM.

  • Video shows trump with mob figure he denied knowing
  • Greenville Church burned and spray painted "Vote Trump" (No false flag there)
  • Mass media has utterly failed to convey the policy stakes in the election
  • White nationalists plot Election Day show of force
  • How the American freak out over Clinton's emails buried definitive proof of Trump's awful business record
  • Trump's supporters vastly overestimate unemployment - and they blame politicans for it
  • Jon Stewart rips Trump for past anti-Semitic attacks against him
  • Don't let the FBI decide the election
  • Donald Trump authored a novel and naturally it's about non-consensual sex and workplace racism
  • Trump's call for policing urban polls stirs defiant reaction among black voters
  • Conspiracy theories, not facts, driving Clinton haters
  • Florida poll: 28% of GOP early voters picked Clinton
  • Clinton's path to 270 appears unchanged
  • 35% of Donald Trump Twitter supporters also follow White Supremacists
  • Woman born before suffrage casts vote for Clinton

Puppies and Kittens Vote Clinton!

Mass Murderers Vote Trump!

kelvinator's picture
kelvinator
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 196
Wow - I really disagree with Prof. Hudson's Pro-Trump View

And I disagree with your pro-Trump view, Chris, which is how I have to interpret your position, if you say your red-pill moment is to agree with Hudson, that Clinton is a greater danger.  Putting a narcissistic, constantly lying, torture advocating, environment trashing, uniformed fool in charge of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world makes no sense under pretty much any circumstances.  It will do huge damage in the US and in the world in so many ways - as I saw first hand as I worked with global grass-roots activists on economic, social and environmental issues largely against corporate run governments when GW Bush was president.  It was horrible - "the clean air act, clean water act"  - 1984 speak for trashing our world.  Trump wants to kill the EPA, put the country's top climate skeptic on it, etc.  I understand Hudson's argument, but really don't buy it.  I'd rather have someone clever, corrupt and consistent than a obviously demagogic, fascistic wildcard who is guaranteed to do major damage.

Yes, there's a danger that Clinton would start a war.  There's also quite a danger that Trump would start a war as well.  This website is finally getting a little too close to an Alex Jones conspiracy shout fest for me.  I'm really with you on recognizing the major danger of the Neocons being in control, the incitement against Russia, but we've got a number of potentially unstable regimes who have nuclear capability now.  Many are dangerous, including the US, but all have reason to pause before they start a nuclear war, no matter who they are.  I'd rather have someone that at least has a cover-story of intelligence, caring about the world and sanity, even if they're part of a corrupt Establishment and allied with Neocons.  Trump has no such cover story.  Neither is good, as 70-80% of the country knows.

Okay, you all can start giving me a hard time now.  There must still be a couple of people who agree with me.  If not, I'm really not on the right website anymore, since, while I don't mind discussing or arguing with people, I really prefer and enjoy a range of opinions.  This is getting too over the top.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4619
Trump and the cycle

kelvinator-

I think the problem with many people here is that they are so tired of being harvested in a variety of ways by our corporate masters and their politician servants, they're willing to stick a thumb in the eye of the system and vote for Trump.  Not true for everyone, but I suspect its a common theme.

As Armstrong might say, that's just where we are in the cycle.  We've hit peak confidence in government, and now we're skidding down the other side.  She is status quo, Trump is not, and its as simple as that.

For me, I want to send a message to the party machinery that torpedoed Bernie.  I believe they will not actually receive this message - they will try and continue force-feeding us who they want - unless they first experience a colossally embarrassing defeat of their hand-picked candidate by someone like Donald Trump.  Experience is the only language they understand.  Only if they get collectively smashed in the face will they pay attention, and just maybe, democracy will have a chance next time around.  [If you get the idea I'm not pleased, you'd be right.]

"Why am I not 50 points ahead?"  Because the party machinery picked a horribly corrupt politician rather than listening to the voters, that's why.

I have confidence in the ability of the country to survive.  Roman Empire survived Caligula.  We can survive Trump.

I respect those who have a different opinion of things - most of my friends are for Clinton.  Then again, most of my friends are well educated, are in the tech industry, they make a whole lot of money, and so the status quo for them is actually pretty nice.

kelvinator's picture
kelvinator
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 196
The Cycle is Happening - No Need to Hurry It Along

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Dave.  I had to laugh when you said most of your friends are for Clinton, but then, most are well-educated, in the tech industry & the status quo for them is actually pretty nice.  That's because I strongly supported Bernie, and all the while was railing at my Clinton leaning friends before and after Clinton took the nomination that both Trump and Bernie are right, that the system is rigged, but that they just weren't noticing because they're in the relatively small group that's doing fine.  

I kept quoting them the stats that in the last 25 years or so, the share of wealth of the bottom 80% of people in the US went from 14% of total US wealth in 1990 to 7% in 2014(!!), and that in the same time period, using 1990 inflation calc methods, the purchasing power of the median income in the US was cut in half, according to my rough calculations.  The constant Establishment Dem narrative that the Democrats have been making incremental economic progress for everyone has been a big lie (I called it a "false narrative" to be more polite), and now Americans are rightly really, really pissed off, and my friends are just out of touch with what's going on when they wonder in awe at the Bernie and Trump phenomena.  They told me Bernie was too risky a candidate, and I said no, this year, it's Hillary that's too risky, and they shouldn't support her. So, we share similar perspectives on that front.

As I noted in my post, I'm an activist in various ways, and don't just express opinions around elections and vote (not to imply that you or others aren't active at other times, too).  It's just to say that I know from my own sad experience that I absolutely and without any question would rather be active and put pressure, (including civil disobedience pressure) on in a  Clinton environment than Trump environment.  That's what Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and millions of people across the board fed up with the corruption will do as they loudly go after Hillary's various hypocrisies if she's elected.  

We just really disagree in a big way about Trump.  To me, it's not a game of sticking things in party's eyes and hoping by putting a fool and would-be demagogue in office to create change, as far as I'm concerned.  Bernie almost won this time, and the young demographics (and boiling public discontentment) favor busting the status quo by next election.  The deep stupidity, fear, hate, racism, potential major curtailing of civil-liberties and other mad dogs are likely to come out much more than they have so far as times get tougher, in any case.  It's important to hold everyone to a much higher standard than that, whether it's you, me, Trump or Hillary.  It makes no sense to set the mad dogs loose just to see them tear the old world to shreds.  I don't at all share your confidence they'll stop there.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1580
Shared Values

Hi Kelvinator,

I appreciate your speaking up and voicing your thoughts.

We share a bunch of values.  Lets list them:

  • Honesty and abhorrence of lying, especially in a public figure.
  • Compassionate and respectful treatment of all human beings and absolute abhorrence of torture.
  • Valuing the environment and being aware that our human lives depend upon a healthy Earth.
  • Peace and the avoidance of conflict.  Not likely to start wars.
  • Intelligence and intelligent policy
  • Works well with others.  Can build a cooperating team.
  • Loves Bernie Sanders.  (my buddy-the only politician I have ever just LIKED)

I must admit that Trump does not seem to have all of these values, and certainly not in abundance!  I suppose I should admit, that I actually know very little about Trump.

I am guessing that the biggest difference is our understanding of the Neocons, sometimes the Global Domination Group, and sometimes called other things.  What is their scope and effect on our world.

In my view, it was the Neocons (or the Global Domination Group) that brought us:

  • 9/11 attacks themselves.  Designed to traumatize, frighten and enrage the US citizens,
  • the re-introduction of torture as an "official American practice,"
  • The "extraordinary rendition" program (abducting an flying people to other countries to torture them)
  • Guantanamo Bay prison and torture location where people are taken without charges or evidence (and who are NOT prisoners of war) and tortured with no recourse whatsoever.
  • Abu Ghraib prison and torture,
  • Lying to kill millions in wars that were never declared or debated.
  • Bombing many nations.  Parking an aircraft carrier 200 miles off shore and sending bombers in day after day for weeks and months to destroy roads, dams, power stations, airports.  Creating living hell for the men, women and, especially, the children, living there.
  • Violation of international law to drone assassinate enemies across national boundaries (and kill all of the people near them) with no judicial process--just a secret decision from somewhere in the MIC.
  • the NSA who collects private electronic communications and transactions.  I have absolute certainty that, in time, this network will be used to imprison political opponents here in the US.
  • The passage of the NDAA, a legal framework where any US citizen can be arrested at any time without evidence or due process or notification of family for "suspicion of terrorism."

The Neocons were active under Clinton 1, Bush 2, and promise to return to unchecked ascendancy under Clinton 2.

I have heard Trump described as uninformed.  And he may well be on many areas where I know little about him.  But he does seem to understand 1) the criminality of a charity that functions as a bribe collection system, and 2) the leadership role the Neocons have played play in reshaping America into a totalitarian and militaristic society.

 

 

 

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 210
Trump is the Environmental Candidate...
kelvinator wrote:

And I disagree with your pro-Trump view, Chris, which is how I have to interpret your position, if you say your red-pill moment is to agree with Hudson, that Clinton is a greater danger.  Putting a narcissistic, constantly lying, torture advocating, environment trashing, uniformed fool in charge of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world makes no sense under pretty much any circumstances.  It will do huge damage in the US and in the world in so many ways - as I saw first hand as I worked with global grass-roots activists on economic, social and environmental issues largely against corporate run governments when GW Bush was president.  It was horrible - "the clean air act, clean water act"  - 1984 speak for trashing our world.  Trump wants to kill the EPA, put the country's top climate skeptic on it, etc.  I understand Hudson's argument, but really don't buy it.  I'd rather have someone clever, corrupt and consistent than a obviously demagogic, fascistic wildcard who is guaranteed to do major damage.

Yes, there's a danger that Clinton would start a war.  There's also quite a danger that Trump would start a war as well.  This website is finally getting a little too close to an Alex Jones conspiracy shout fest for me.  I'm really with you on recognizing the major danger of the Neocons being in control, the incitement against Russia, but we've got a number of potentially unstable regimes who have nuclear capability now.  Many are dangerous, including the US, but all have reason to pause before they start a nuclear war, no matter who they are.  I'd rather have someone that at least has a cover-story of intelligence, caring about the world and sanity, even if they're part of a corrupt Establishment and allied with Neocons.  Trump has no such cover story.  Neither is good, as 70-80% of the country knows.

Okay, you all can start giving me a hard time now.  There must still be a couple of people who agree with me.  If not, I'm really not on the right website anymore, since, while I don't mind discussing or arguing with people, I really prefer and enjoy a range of opinions.  This is getting too over the top.

... IF your issue is environmental radiation poisoning

I'm sure there are plenty of people that share your view here with regards to the environment and even Trumps character and ideological flaws, it seems like you are projecting your emotional loathing of Trump onto what is really a narrow issue of discussion.   Conflating rejection of Hillary and what she represents  imply support of Trumps negatives.

It is entirely possible and rational  for 'liberal, intellectual 'right thinking' earth loving people like yourself to choose Trump despite his qualities.   Once they fully understand the existential risk involved.   Even Jill Stein of the green party has warned that Hillary represents the greater threat in this regard.

To be accurate and  fair to Chris,  He has explicitly not endorsed Trump or any candidate.   And nowhere have I seen Chris express any pro Trump sentiments. He has only expressed the strong and reasoned opinion that Hillary represents a significantly elevated risk of continued and expanding war and potential for provoking a nuclear confrontation and consequently can not support her.

Indeed the substance of this particular alert thread is strictly in consideration of those risks of the Neocon agenda, an agenda that Hillary clearly represents and serves.

Your rejoinder that Trump could also "start a war'  is of course theoretically possible,  but this is a discussion evaluating evidence based considerations that inform those potentials.  What is the relative probability? is really the issue

By all means flesh out your thesis of how  Trump might spark off a nuclear war with one of the 'unstable nuclear powers'  do you haven any evidence, record of,  or scenario that make sense given Trumps record, or rhetoric?  Do you have a scenario where one where a nuclear power besides Russia or China represents an existential  threat of nuclear annihilation for the US? 

 Remember the primary risk is not that a country/leader isn't rationally bound to 'pause' before initiating an attack,  it is  that polices and aggressive confrontational actions as exemplified by HRC and the Neocons'  that put us at a heightened risk of scenarios that can escalate into full blown exchanges even without initial intent. The neocons's have shortened the response decision time and radically altered this equation in Europe with the missile 'defense' ring fencing of Russia. and they are lobbying for direct confrontation with Russians  in Syria.    That is a fact and is very real

  All I'm hearing in your statement is  what amounts to the HRC campaign talking point that Trump is a scary bad man who can't be trusted with the button. 

While Trump has said some incredibly dumb and outrageous  things (Indeed stylistically that has served to get him nominated despite the entire media and establishment apparatus working against him) if you examine his actual statements ( not the distortions broadcast on the MSM) on these issues regarding war, foreign intervention, Russia, use of Nuclear weapons, he is way less scary, more reasonable and rational  than HRC

FYI  I do see some risk factors with him on war issue as I alluded to in my earlier post,  but on balance I think he presents a significantly smaller risk of getting us into a nuclear exchange

Two final points

The issue is probably moot, because the amount of dirt begin exposed  and put into the public record on HRC and the implications that are implied by not only the resumption of the email server case but the existence of the FBI case on the Clinton Foundation  which has survived the DOJ attempts to kill it   are likely to make her either lose the election or be indicted if she does win.  One way or the other, I don't think we are going to have a Clinton presidency.  

And lastly, Trump is likely to get us into a trade war, and could very well be 'responsible' or assigned responiblity  for triggering the financial reckoning that we all know is coming.

In the face of world wide depression of Biblical proportions,  I suspect you will be able to credit Trump with way more clean air and reduction of green house gasses than anyone to date. Regardless of his enthusiasm for 'clean coal' and his denial of Global warming.  Maybe he really is the environmental candidate!

He is not going to make America great again.  I suspect his only real accomplishment will be removing Hillary from our foreign/war  policy.   

Given the danger she represents,  I'll take that.

 

Mememonkey

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1203
Does anyone else feel...

... that given the Deep State tends to prosper and best operate when the populace is deeply divided, that either a Clinton or a Trump victory provides a net benefit for their interests?  Either outcome is going to have a large numbers of pissed off people ready to create unrest of one kind or another.  My sense of things is that the neocon clique is but one player in the Deep State, though admittedly a highly influential one at present.  So the neocon movement might be inconvenienced and have to postpone some of their objectives if Trump gets elected, but the resulting internal strife amongst the masses is still likely to play into their hands and that of the Deep State as a whole.  More protests, riots, crime, shootings (cops & civilians both), and any other long-term general unrest will pave a smoother road towards greater domestic surveillance, repression of personal liberties, and implementation of stricter economic controls.  And Trump seems open to or in favor of those methods.  So the neocons might just have to wait 4 years for a chance to advance their foreign agendas, whether that be actual war with Russia or just maintaining the ongoing threat of war (which is IMO more likely).  But domestically they'll probably still get what they want.  And who knows... Trump is likely to depend heavily on his advisors and subject matter experts for many complicated military and foreign policy matters (given the lack of in-depth knowledge he's shown of some such subjects).  Some such individuals could be (and IMO almost certainly will be) used by the Deep State to influence decision-making. 

While I suspect Trump's campaign was not an intentional part of the Deep State plan (given that a lot of collateral damage was done to both parties as a result), if I were in their shoes I'd see a Trump presidency as something that could worked with, given some adjustments and a little patience.  So while I understand why one might choose to vote for Trump in the hope to decrease the chance for war and/or to give the middle finger to the establishment, I don't see it making a big difference in the long run.  Certainly not a good enough reason to give him my 'consent to govern'. 

 

----------------

(Quote from Star Trek: DS9)

Lieutenant Jadzia Dax: "As the 34th Rule of Acquisition states, "Peace is good for business"."
Quark: "That's the 35th Rule."
Lieutenant Jadzia Dax: "Oh, you're right. What's the 34th?"
Quark: ""War is good for business". It's easy to get them confused."

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 736
I think that deeper than the deep state

is the spirit of a thing, and that is out of peoples' control. 

There's a writing dating back to 70 AD: the 4th esdras eagle vision.  To my way of thinking, even if it had no divine inspiration, there can be truth that can be gleaned out of it.  Here's a truth:  suicide is evidence that a person no longer can hope in the mercy and justice of God.  When people no longer can hope in the mercy and justice of God, the eagle vision has the eagle nation writhing and bursting into flame, and burning to nothing.. 

Point being, that's a very severe condemnation. 

Only one suicide triggered the Arab spring.  Think about it.  Now, that isn't permission to go commit suicide to bring political change...  that one suicide became the icon for many.  Rather, it's just indicative that there is some truth in the eagle vision. 

The spirit of the thing is that we are deeply divided.  And that isn't good for deep state or anyone else.  It's just the way things are. 

I'm in Virginia, a swing state that has been 12% Hillary, and may end up voting Trump... (Probably won't, I think, but others think it will).  I'm voting neither.  I'll write in the CEO of Chik-Fil-A, or the 2009 CEO of McDonalds, because both of those men showed good faith in adversity.  Maybe whoever does win will get word and hire them on to their government. 

Yes, I watched 13th, and it does seem there was a "Deep State" FBI that murdered the peaceful and persuasive civil rights leaders, leaving only those who would exchange their strength for the illusion of victory.  I live in the area of Bacon's Rebellion, another act of "Deep State".  I live in the area of a battle between Lloyds Names, and American investors whom the Names defrauded, then murdered, then burgled the evidence from the lawfirms.  So yes, there is something like "Deep State".  But the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Shaka Zulu...  in the end, a spear, a sword, an axehead, a bullet took them all. 

BTW... I'm more inclined to tie Deep State to the Holy Roman Empire elites, be it in England, US, Germany, France, or whatnot.  I call it HRE... others call it western civilization.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5344
Well, then let's disagree...
kelvinator wrote:

And I disagree with your pro-Trump view, Chris, which is how I have to interpret your position, if you say your red-pill moment is to agree with Hudson, that Clinton is a greater danger.  Putting a narcissistic, constantly lying, torture advocating, environment trashing, uniformed fool in charge of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world makes no sense under pretty much any circumstances.

To begin, my view is not "pro Trump" except in the narrow area that I happen to be willing to risk some hope that Trump will be so bombastic, and so difficult to work with legislatively, that Congress and the Senate will have no choice but to reclaim their abdicated powers from the presidency.  Among the most important?  The powers to declare war and authorize spending.  

I see the presidency as having claimed entirely too much power, a serious imbalance of raw, naked power, over the past several presidencies.  Time to clip that office back down to size.

You fear the damage an overly powerful presidency can do and I am in agreement with your belief that the presidency has a lot of power.  Where we maybe depart is I think it's too much (that is, I don't accept it as a natural and acceptable condition) and fixable. 

It will do huge damage in the US and in the world in so many ways - as I saw first hand as I worked with global grass-roots activists on economic, social and environmental issues largely against corporate run governments when GW Bush was president.  It was horrible - "the clean air act, clean water act"  - 1984 speak for trashing our world.  Trump wants to kill the EPA, put the country's top climate skeptic on it, etc.  I understand Hudson's argument, but really don't buy it.  I'd rather have someone clever, corrupt and consistent than a obviously demagogic, fascistic wildcard who is guaranteed to do major damage.

As mememonkey noted above, any president that tears the covers off of this corrupt, self-dealing system of finance is likely to trigger an economic decline that would be any environmentalists fantasy come true.  At least from the perspective of limiting and halting the damage that exponential economic growth causes.  

Yes, there's a danger that Clinton would start a war.  There's also quite a danger that Trump would start a war as well.  

Now hold on there. This strikes me as a false equivalence. It' such an important point that it needs some serious backing up on your part.

I've taken the time to present reams and mounds of evidence showing that HRC has always voted for war, and has abused her position at State to force a war on Libya that destroyed that country and created a massive amount of misery.

These are her actions.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan...all of them bombed without a peep of opposition from HRC and plenty of support.

As always, to me actions speak louder than words.

But let's use words too because that's all we have for DT.

In the second presidential debate he said he'd negotiate with Putin and Russia to battle a common enemy (ISIS).

HRC said she'd declare war on Russia by imposing a no-fly zone.

So even on the basis of words alone I cannot find any support for an equivalency argument.  HRC is far more dangerous than DT when it comes to war with Russia in both actions and words.

If you want to take it to the next level and debate your gut feeling of equivalence against my gut feeling of them being wildly different, then we'll have to take that to Reddit or Fark where unsupported opinions are part of the territory.

This website is finally getting a little too close to an Alex Jones conspiracy shout fest for me.  

How so?  Give examples please.  I don't really take all that kindly to ad hominem or smear-by-association attacks, even of the passive aggressive variety, so it would be great if you could back this up with what specifically has rubbed you as being a "conspiracy shout fest."  

I'm really with you on recognizing the major danger of the Neocons being in control, the incitement against Russia, but we've got a number of potentially unstable regimes who have nuclear capability now.  Many are dangerous, including the US, but all have reason to pause before they start a nuclear war, no matter who they are. 

Hmmm..this is an interesting belief system.  Your idea, if I can boil it down, is that a nuclear war is not really in the interests of any sane person or country.  So it won't happen.

My belief system is that the neocons were so dreadfully harmed during their childhood development that they are not what you or I would consider sane.  They lack a moral compass because they lack all compassion or empathy.

There's a reason certain people are attracted to power and there's a reason highly immoral crimes are regularly tracked back to those same halls of power.

While a nuclear exchange may never happen, it won't be because everybody thought better of it like sane people might.  There are insane people up there in charge.  

They have written about their views and published them for you to read, if you choose.  It's hard stuff to read, admittedly, because it's like peeking into a mass grave.  Very disturbing.

But they have been clear.  They seek total world domination, and they are eager to use even more military muscle to achieve it.  It's right there on the front page of the WaPo in the article I linked and parsed.

The next big war will destroy things that will not and cannot ever be rebuilt because the energy for rebuilding simply won't be there.  If it goes nuclear, then things will really suck badly.

And I am willing to vigorously defend my views that the neocons are dangerous people with severe character defects that deserve aggressive intervention by mental health professionals, not key positions at State, the DoD, key think tanks, and the White House.  I have tons and tons of evidence.  Too much.  But there it is.

May I remind you of this Wikileaks email from the Clinton email dump?  

(Note: this is the email I keep in mind whenever the MSM talks about how Russia is responsible for the  misery in Syria.  Yeah, right.  Only if you completely ignore who started the Syrian conflict and why).

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

RELEASE IN FULL

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly.

An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the

United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

(Source

In essence, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died in an effort to preserve Israel's nuclear monopoly for a bit longer.

That's a stone-cold calculus being performed there.

But it really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, right?

Again...the very, very big mistake one could make here is pretend these people, deep down, are actually just like the rest of us.  They are not.

So I'm happy to disagree with you, but let's keep the accusations of being a conspiracy echo-chamber off the table, okay?  

If you've got different or better information than what I've just presented, then please share it!  If the information changes you know what I'll do?  

I'll change my mind.  :)

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1580
CAF: Thoughts on the end state of the election drama

Catherine Austin Fitts gives her thoughts on the "counter coup" against Clinton being waged by insiders using the leaking of email to take down her lieutenants one at a time.

She offers a fairly extensive list of the Clinton team that have been neutered via email leaks.  Then CAF  offers her impression of the possible options for the final acts of this drama.  And guess what--war with Russia is one of the Clinton ways out.

Campaign Whack-a-Mole

After a long itemization on the take down of the Clinton team members, one by one, she concludes:

As compromised as Team Clinton is, as long as they maintain their establishment backing, their only choice is to do everything they possibly can to win the election. While the investigations will not stop if they are elected, they will be in a better position to deal with them if they have government resources to affirm and maintain their ongoing criminal enterprise.

So this raises the question as to what the attacking team has that constitutes a “kill shot” to take out the queen before the election. Wikileaks and the assembled swarm has six more days – five really, to engineer their best shot. If you watch Campaign Whack-O-Mole to date, these folks are clearly building up to a kill shot. The question is what is it and will they be able to get it out and about on the Internet in time.

Which leads us to the last question – one that is being asked a lot these days. To what extent can the Democratic party and their allies rig the election through compromised voting systems?

This leaves us with two possible endings to Campaign Whack-O-Mole:

  1. Trump Wins: In this case Trump appoints a special prosecutor and we can look forward to years of illumination regarding the Clinton interests. Clinton likely will do jail time, unless the establishment can persuade Trump to let her off the hook. Hopefully, we will have a chance to cleanse Washington of the Neocons for good.
  1. Clinton Wins: In this case there is only one thing that the Republican Congress can do to redeem themselves in the electorates eyes – particularly if the Republicans won the popular vote in the presidential election – move for investigation and impeachment. What happens depends on the national security bureaucracy at the intelligence and enforcement agencies. If they support Clinton, the Republicans will likely be marginalized. This will be a dangerous situation. Traditionally, the way the Clintons and related allies win in these situations is to kill people or to target them with legal and financial torture and physical harassment. If the national security bureaucracy supports the House Republicans, Clinton will likely be impeached. However, this will come with a disgorgement of dirt the likes of which America has never seen. The way that Clinton can consolidate her power and command bureaucracy loyalty – including the banks and defense contractor who increasingly control the nuts and bolts of federal operations – is to have a war with Russia.

I am waiting for the women who support Clinton because she is a woman explain to me why WW III is good for women.

So lets see what the next six days bring. In the great game of campaign whack-o-mole, the situation is very fluid.

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 204
White Man's Got a God Complex

Gentle souls need not apply.

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 204
Duplicate

Duplicate

blackeagle's picture
blackeagle
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2013
Posts: 199
What a campaign!

We are Canadians, not Americans, so we should be neutral foreign observers, but, we are following this campaign with passion. People here are as divided as you are. When I talk to people about Clinton, Trump, the neocons, Putin or anything related to this campaign, then we are all divergent. Sometimes quite violently. People are "shouting" their opinions.

Tuesday is not too far now... I just hope that whatever the outcome is, things may be better for Americans than what most of them fear or dislike. 

Anything ahead, good or bad, will eventually become a thing of the past...

 

Oliveoilguy's picture
Oliveoilguy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 29 2012
Posts: 578
Look at both sides
kelvinator wrote:

Okay, you all can start giving me a hard time now.  There must still be a couple of people who agree with me.  If not, I'm really not on the right website anymore, since, while I don't mind discussing or arguing with people, I really prefer and enjoy a range of opinions.  This is getting too over the top.

I agree with you on your observations about Trump, but I don't think that you understand HRC yet.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1580
White House Prepares for Russian Cyber Attack on Election

Following on the heels of CAF's impression that WikiLeaks et. al. are preparing for a kill-shot data release on "the queen" in the next 5 days, we find this news story tonight from NBC New about the up coming Russian Cyber attack on the US on election day.

(You can't make this stuff up.)

Exclusive:  White House Readies to Fight Election Day Cyber Mayhem

The U.S. government believes hackers from Russia or elsewhere may try to undermine next week's presidential election and is mounting an unprecedented effort to counter their cyber meddling, American officials told NBC News.

Russia has been warned that any effort to manipulate the actual voting or vote counting would be viewed as a serious breach, intelligence officials say.

"The Russians are in an offensive mode and [the U.S. is] working on strategies to respond to that, and at the highest levels," said Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014.

Officials are alert for any attempts to create Election Day chaos, and say steps are being taken to prepare for worst-case scenarios, including a cyber-attack that shuts down part of the power grid or the internet.

But what is more likely, multiple U.S. officials say, is a lower-level effort by hackers from Russia or elsewhere to peddle misinformation by manipulating Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.

For example, officials fear an 11th hour release of fake documents implicating one of the candidates in an explosive scandal without time for the news media to fact check it. So far, document dumps attributed to the Russians have damaged Democrats and favored Trump....

In the TV portion of this NBC story, they said that "Russia has been warned not to cross the Red Line."

Whew.  This is intense.

 

Tim Ladson's picture
Tim Ladson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2012
Posts: 71
Extremely Interesting Addition to the Crazytrain

mememonkey,

This guy is off the charts smart and connected beyond belief. I just have to wonder if this is the straight skinny or another diversion to grab our attention. His smarts, background and training would raise my back hair just being in the same room with him. IMO the Clintons are the public face of the deepstate / neocons who carry out deepstate's agenda and along with the security agencies are involved with the planning / actions we see being carried out on the world stage today. So his intention maybe to distance his guys from the "Clintanic" for self preservation, or this could be more smoke and mirrors. The Clintons and Obama are interchangeable political figures and came from nowhere to power because they have the right "qualities" that suit the ends of  TPTB. It would be great if what he claims in the video is actually what is going on right now, and some of us here would no doubt cheer his cadre on, but I remain skeptical that we are being played one more time.

Tim.

Hotrod's picture
Hotrod
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 166
Crazytrain

I will never forget the one honest bit of wisdom given to us from one of the former CIA contractors who bought our company: "Always remember, NOTHING is ever as it appears."  Words to ponder.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments