Does US Withdrawal from another Nuclear Treaty Really Benefit Russia?

October 31, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - No. Obviously Russia does not benefit from the scrapping of yet another treaty designed to prevent a nuclear exchange amid a war with the United States.

Yet, as an attempt to frame blatant US provocations as somehow "Russia's fault," a narrative has begun circulating - claiming that not only does the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty somehow benefit Russia - it was via Russia's "puppet" - US President Donald Trump - that saw the treaty scrapped.

Spreading this scurrilous narrative are political provocateurs like former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul who has re-branded himself recently as a prominent anti-Trump voice - feeding into and feeding off of America's false left-right political paradigm.

In one post on social media, McFaul would claim:

Why can’t Trump leverage his close personal relationship with Putin to get Russia to abide by the INF Treaty?

In other posts, he would recommend followers to read commentary published by US corporate-financier funded think tank - the Brookings Institution - on how the US withdrawal "helps Russia and hurts US."

The commentary - penned by former US ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer - admitted that no evidence has been made public of supposed "Russian violations." It also admits that America's European allies - those who would be in range of Russian intermediate range missiles if deployed - have not raised a "stink" with the Kremlin, publicly or privately.

But Pifer claims that the US has no missiles to match those supposedly being developed by Russia, and even if it did, the US would have no where to place them - claiming that NATO, Japan, and South Korea would not allow the US to place such systems on their shores. This, he and McFaul suggest, is why the US' withdrawal from the treaty "benefits" Russia by granting it a monopoly over intermediate range missiles.

Washington's Other Withdrawals Prove Otherwise 

Yet the US has already withdrawn from treaties and twisted the arms of allies to allow newly developed missile systems to be deployed on their shores.

In the aftermath of Washington's unilateral withdrawal from another Cold War-era agreement - the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty scrapped by US President George Bush Jr. in 2002 - the US developed and deployed the Lockheed Martin ashore Aegis ballistic missile defense system in Europe along with the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile defense systems to South Korea - also manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

It is clear the unilateral treaty withdrawals under Bush and Trump, as well as the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems to Europe and East Asia under the Obama administration, represent a continuity of agenda regardless of who occupies the White House.

Coupled with these treaty withdrawals and the subsequent deployment of US missile systems to ring Russia and China - there has been a constant build-up of US troops directly on the borders of both nations.

While those claiming Russia has violated the INF Treaty - and has been doing so for "8 years" as claimed in a 2017 op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton published in the Washington Post, it should be noted that 8 years previously, it would be revealed that in addition to the US placing Patriot missile systems along Russia's borders, plans for wider military deployments in the Baltic states were also in the works.

Liberals Leap to Defend Neo-Con Henchman McFaul

July 29, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Were one to read the Washington Post's article on a Russian proposal regarding the questioning of suspects in various, ongoing US and Russia investigations, they would have imagined former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was about to be shipped to a dungeon beneath the Kremlin for interrogation.

The Washington Post's article, "Outrage erupts over Trump-Putin ‘conversation’ about letting Russia interrogate ex-U.S. diplomat Michael McFaul" fueled anti-Russian hysteria, claiming:

At this week’s summit in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed what President Trump described as an “incredible offer” — the Kremlin would give special counsel Robert S. Mueller III access to interviews with Russians who were indicted after they allegedly hacked Democrats in 2016. In return, Russia would be allowed to question certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs.

One of those U.S. officials is a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, a nemesis of the Kremlin because of his criticisms of Russia’s human rights record.

The Washington Post would compound confusion and hysteria by also claiming (emphasis added):

The willingness of the White House to contemplate handing over a former U.S. ambassador for interrogation by the Kremlin drew ire and astonishment from current and former U.S. officials. Such a proposition is unheard of. So is the notion that the president may think he has the legal authority to turn anyone over to a foreign power on his own.

In reality, the proposal never entailed the US or Russia handing anyone over for interrogation. Bloomberg in an article titled, "Trump ‘Looks Weak’ by Considering Putin’s Interrogation Idea, McFaul Says," would more accurately summarize the deal, stating:

Putin proposed letting Russians observe interrogations of McFaul and other Americans. In exchange, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller could send members of his team to watch Russian questioning of 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week in connection with hacking Democratic Party email accounts and disseminating those messages before the 2016 presidential election.

Americans of interest would be questioned in the United States, by Americans, merely with Russian representatives present, in exchange for American representatives travelling to Russia to watch a Russian interrogation of suspects relevant to ongoing US investigations.

Further evidence is the transcript of the actual statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, posted by Politico, which states unequivocally (emphasis added):

We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They will be present at questioning. In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe — who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

Despite these facts, the hysteria has continued to spread in part due to a dishonest media eager to fan the flames of conflict with Russia and Western audiences eager to believe them.

Who is McFaul? And Why are Liberals Defending Him? 

Americans convinced Russia interfered in American elections must then be acutely aware that meddling in another nation's internal political affairs is unacceptable. Thus, McFaul's role in doing precisely this before and during his appointment as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 should elicit condemnation and outcries from these same Americans.

Instead, many Western liberals have leaped to McFaul's defense.

The short answer as to why many in the West are defending McFaul is out of a reflexive response to their blind hatred of US President Donald Trump and Russia. McFaul has positioned himself both as a critic of President Trump and of Russia, fulfilling the only two prerequisites required to garner support among circles entertaining the current anti-Russia hysteria.


Yet McFaul represents special interests and activities that many Americans, left or right of the political spectrum, would find unacceptable - and perhaps especially for those outraged over alleged Russian meddling in American politics.

McFaul's Role in Supporting Global Political Meddling  

Before McFaul served as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 he served on the board of trustees of Freedom House (page 30, PDF).

Freedom House is a US government and corporate-financier funded front that imposes the interests of its sponsors on nations abroad under the guise of expanding "freedom and democracy around the world." This process entails the creation and support of opposition groups to undermine and eventually either oust or overthrow targeted governments.

When McFaul served as trustee for Freedom House, its 2005 annual report indicated the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as sponsors. It also included Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly.

Additionally, Freedom House is a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is chaired by a variety of career, pro-war Neoconservatives - Neoconservatives who promoted many of the Bush-era wars Western liberals opposed.

NED is also funded by the US government as well as corporations (page 126, PDF) including Goldman Sachs, convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and the US Chamber of Commerce which itself serves as a collective lobbying front for some of the largest corporations in the US. 

Bloomberg: "America's New World Order is Officially Dead"

July 23, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Hal Brands - the Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments - pines of waning American hegemony in his op-ed in Bloomberg titled, "America's New World Order Is Officially Dead."

The sub-headline would further elaborate, "China and Russia have fully derailed the post-Cold War movement toward U.S.-led global integration."

And while Brands blames Russia and China for America's decline - it should be noted that the "US-led global integration" Brands and others within the halls of corporate-financier funded policy think tanks promote, was little more than modern day empire.

Post-Cold War, the United States abused and squandered its monopoly over military and economic power. It led serial wars of aggression across the globe, destroying entire regions of the planet. It proved that whatever the rhetoric was used to sell its unipolar world order to rest of the world, it was in practice an order that ultimately served Wall Street and Washington at the expense of everyone else on the planet.

Russia and China's vision of a multipolar world order is not predicated on institutions the world must surrender its sovereignty, trust, and future to. It is an order built on a much more realist balance of power - where national sovereignty holds primacy and a balance of economic and military power defines and protects the boundaries of international norms. This is in stark contrast to America's vision in which an easily co-opted and manipulated UN made it easy for the largest, most powerful nations to sidestep national sovereignty and even international law, and expand wealth and power through sanctions, invasions, perpetual military occupations, and the creation of subordinate client states.

An Order Built on Betrayal and Brutality 

The international order Brands mourns began with the immediate betrayal of Western promises not to expand its NATO military alliance eastward toward Russia's borders. At the time of the Soviet Union's collapse, a buffer zone existed between Russia's borders and NATO member states - many of these states choosing to benefit from the best of both Eastern and Western relations.

Today, NATO sits on Russia's borders, particularly in the Baltic states where US troops train just shy of the Russian border - in Lithuania which surrounds Russia's Kaliningrad oblast, and in Ukraine where US and NATO members have installed a regime in power dependent on literal Neo-Nazi militants and their respective political wings. 

It is also an international order which saw in Russia's moment of weakness, an opportunity to impose its order by force on former Soviet client states. This not only included NATO's process of expansion in Eastern Europe through sanctions, subversion, and all out war, but also in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It would be US Army General Wesley Clark who best summarized US foreign policy in the proper, realist context it was actually executed in.

In a 2007 Flora TV talk titled, "A Time to Lead," General Clark would reveal this post-Cold War agenda by relating a conversation he had as early as 1991 with then US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (emphasis added):

I said Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. And he said, well yeah, he said but but not really, he said because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't. And this was just after the Shia uprising in March of 91' which we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the side lines and didn't intervene. And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

And of course, that is precisely what the US embarked upon doing. General Clark would also mention a later conversation he had at the Pentagon, regarding how the US planned to use the attacks on September 11, 2001 as a pretext to expand from military operations in Afghanistan and accelerate this process to invade and overthrow the governments of at least seven other nations.

General Clark would state (emphasis added):

 I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later, I saw the same officer, I said why why haven't we attacked Iraq? We are sill going to attack Iraq, he said, oh sir he says, its worse than that. He said he pulled up a piece of paper of his desk, he said, I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years. We are going to start with Iraq and then we are going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran seven seven countries in five years.

While all of these nations were part of a singular, cynical, hegemonic agenda, each nation has been targeted and attacked under false pretenses ranging from false accusations regarding "weapons of mass destruction," to the use of the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) - leveraging "human rights" as a pretext to intervene in wars of Washington's own engineering.

Shangri-La Dialogue: Mattis Hawks Weapons and Hegemony

June 29, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO)  - The International Institute for Strategic Studies's (IISS) annual Shangri-La Dialogue brings together diplomats, ministers, and representatives from around the world to discuss Asian security.

Researchers at Western think tanks including from the IISS itself have been promoting this year's forum as an opportunity to sell Washington's re-branded "Indo-Pacific" strategy and the continued primacy of the US and its "rules-based international order" across the region.

IISS researcher Lynn Kuok in her piece, "Shangri-La Dialogue: Negotiating the Indo-Pacific security landscape," would also attempt to spin America's strategy as anything but "anti-China."

Yet US Defense Secretary James Mattis' remarks at the forum opened almost immediately by referencing the 2018 National Defense Strategy (.pdf) in which China is described as:

...a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea.

Mattis would draw heavily from the NDS document throughout his opening remarks and repeatedly during the following question and answer session.

By the end of his session it had become abundantly clear that the US sought to maintain the status quo including enduring security threats the US would use to justify its military presence across the region and to arm its various allies, treaty members, and other partners to meet - much to the delight of the Shangri-La Dialogue's sponsors this year - including Boeing, Raytheon, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, and BAE Systems.

Hawking Weapons 

Repeatedly referring to China and the South China Sea, as well as North Korea and Taiwan - Mattis declared that part of American leadership in the Indo-Pacific region would be the building up of allied military, naval, and law enforcement capabilities.

He also stated that the US seeks military integration through "the promotion and sales of cutting-edge US defense equipment to security partners."

As if to dispel any doubts regarding the context of Mattis' comments, Bloomberg would make mention of the forum - and forum sponsor Raytheon - in its article, "Raytheon Sees Demand for Patriot Missiles as U.S. Pushes Exports," stating:

In Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asian security conference that this year includes defense ministers and military chiefs from more than 20 countries including U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, [John Harris, chief executive officer of Raytheon International Inc.] said “last year about 32 percent of our sales were international and 30 percent of that was here in the Asia Pacific region. We see this as a growth market.”

The article also noted:

Harris [said] some of that growth was coming from emerging regional customers, and from providing new capabilities to longstanding customers such as South Korea and Japan, which continue to pursue their defensive capabilities even as they endorse Trump’s efforts to seek a deal for North Korea to give up its nuclear arsenal.

Bloomberg's article highlights the intertwined relationship between security risks the US intentionally cultivates throughout the region and the profits of US and European arms manufacturers like Raytheon.

The US itself cultivates several of Asia's most pressing security challenges.

Tales of North Korean Abuses: No Facts, All Fiction

June 16, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Claims of North Korean human rights abuses spearheaded attempts to undermine US-North Korean negotiations in Singapore. While the talks are unlikely to change the long-laid agendas of special interests across the West who have cultivated and profit from the ongoing conflict, it is important to confront these claims and diminish the intended effect they are meant to have in buttressing the notion of American exceptionalism and justifying American interventionism. 

Tales of North Korean human rights abuses are so pervasive and persistent that even those opposed to US exceptionalism and interventionism have shied away from confronting and refuting them. 

Rumors Built Upon Rumors 

One would expect such significant accusations to be backed up by an equally significant amount of evidence. Yet - like most of what the Western media produces and spreads among the public consciousness - there is little evidence at all. 

In most cases, tales of North Korean abuses are derived from hearsay by alleged witnesses and supposed defectors who no longer reside in North Korea.

The New York Times provides a prime example of the sort of abuses unquestioningly cited and repeated by pundits, politicians, and political "experts" alike. In its recent article, "Atrocities Under Kim Jong-un: Indoctrination, Prison Gulags, Executions," the New York Times would claim:

Mr. Kim rules with extreme brutality, making his nation among the worst human rights violators in the world. 

In North Korea, these crimes “entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation,” concluded a 2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea.

The source of the New York Times' assertions is admittedly a "2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea," officially titled the, "Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea" (PDF).

The 372-page report - however - admits under an introductory section titled, "Methods of work," that (emphasis added):

In the absence of access to witnesses and sites inside the DPRK, the Commission decided to obtain first-hand testimony through public hearings that observed transparency, due process and the protection of victims and witnesses. Victims and witnesses who had departed the DPRK, as well as experts, testified in a transparent procedure that was open to the media, other observers and members of the general public. More than 80 witnesses and experts testified publicly and provided information of great specificity, detail and relevance, sometimes in ways that required a significant degree of courage.   

In other words, the entirety of the UN's 372-page report - cited as "evidence" of North Korean "atrocities" by prominent media organizations like the New York Times - is based on hearsay gathered by an investigation that never stepped foot once inside North Korea. Despite a lack of actual evidence to substantiate these claimed abuses, the New York Times depicts the UN report's conclusions as fact.

US Claims of "Russian Meddling" Exposes Its Own Global Meddling

May 1, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - After well over a year of accusing the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 US presidential elections, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has finally indicted 13 Russians for what it calls "interference operations targeting the United States."

The 13 Russians indicted allegedly represent  the "Internet Research Agency" merely referred to as "the organization" throughout the FBI's highly publicized indictment (PDF). The Internet Research Agency was allegedly run by Concord Management and Consulting.

However, the FBI failed to establish any link between the Internet Research Agency's supposed operations and the Russian government. It attempts to claim that Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering are "related Russian entities" with various Russian government contracts - however the FBI failed to detail what this statement meant, merely insinuating that the Internet Research Agency may have been another Russian government contract.

The "Russian meddling" described in the FBI indictment consists of Facebook ads and the creation of accounts posing as American social media personalities commentating on US political issues. The FBI's indictment failed to list any instances of Russian government money, or money from an alleged intermediary being funneled into any actual US political parties, opposition or activist groups, or any US-based media organizations.

Putting the "Full Shape" of "Russian Meddling" Into Perspective 

The FBI indictment claims that monthly funding for the Internet Research Agency's "influencing operations" peaked at $1.25 million, but did not provide any additional information regarding the organization's budget, or how significant this peak was when compared to monthly averages.

The Western media has presented this number as significant. The BBC in its article, "Russia-Trump inquiry: Russians charged over US 2016 election tampering," would claim (emphasis added):

On Friday, Robert Mueller's team released a slate of indictments that lays bare what it asserts is the full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus.

And what an apparatus it was. In the run-up to the US presidential election "Project Lakhta", as it was called, had an operating budget of more than $1m a month.

Yet, to put that "$1m a month" budget into perspective, the BBC alone operates on an annual budget of between 4-6 billion - or up to $500 million a month. This is a monthly budget up to 400 times larger than that of what the BBC calls the "full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus."

Considering that the BBC coordinates its own "influence operations" with other multi-billion dollar media corporations in the United Kingdom, across Europe, and of course in the United States, the gargantuan disparity between the "full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus" and that of the West's own "influencing operations" is put into proper perspective.

When considering the role of US-based corporate lobbyists and their role in influencing both political candidates and the American public ahead of elections - this disparity widens even further.

To suggest that "the full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus" had any significant effect on the outcome of the US election is far fetched at best. To suggest that the Russian government would have conducted such feeble attempts to influence the US presidential election when it is fully aware that large, corporate-financier interests actually determine US policy, is also implausible.

That accusations against Russia are meant to deflect away from America's own growing problems both domestically and abroad, including its attempts to justify a wider confrontation with Russia itself, is a much more likely explanation.

US Exposes the Illegitimacy of its Own Global Meddling 

Should the Russian government have intentionally and directly attempted to interfere in US elections or America's internal political affairs, it would constitute an attack upon American sovereignty and warrant a vigorous US response. However, nothing of the sort has been established yet, with the US having sought to target Russia with wider sanctions and provocations long before the 2016 US elections appeared on the horizon.

That the US has attempted to use what it calls "improper foreign influence on US elections and on the US political system" as a pretext for attacking Russia, its media both in Russia and its US-based networks, its diplomatic mission in the United States, as well as the Russian economy through sanctions, indicates that Washington is more than aware of how inappropriate it is for one nation to attempt to interfere with or influence the internal political processes of another nation.

Yet this is precisely what the United States itself has done - for decades, openly - around the globe.

US Political Meddling is Very Real, Spans the Globe

March 14, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The United States has spent over a year now leveling accusations against the Russian Federation regarding alleged political meddling during the 2016 US elections. While accusations range from everything including "fake news" spread across the Internet to direct ties to the administration of US President Donald Trump used to assist him into power, no evidence has yet to surface to prove Russia has meddled at all in America's internal political affairs.



And while Russia certainly possesses a large and growing presence across the international media, concerted attacks against this presence stems more from the fact that decades of uncontested control over global public opinion by the US and Europe is now shifting toward a multipolar balance of power in information space.

In stark contrast to the whispers of shadows cited by the US and Europe regarding Russia, to begin understanding the scope of US political meddling abroad, one needs only to visit the US State Department and corporate-funded National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) own website.

Industrial-Scale Meddling 

US meddling is so extensive that NED is broken into multiple subsidiaries (National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House) which in turn, are joined by parallel organizations such as George Soros' Open Society Foundation, USAID, the UK's DFID and many more.

The NED website is broken into several regions including:

Africa;
Asia;
Central and Eastern Europe;
Eurasia;
Global;
Latin America and Caribbean and;
Middle East and Northern Africa.

Within each region, NED lists its extensive funding for organizations and fronts in over 100 different nations around the globe.

Within each nation, NED funds between a handful to several dozen organizations posing as legal firms, media platforms, environmental groups and human rights advocates. They collectively create the components of a political machine used to pressure incumbent governments to heed US interests, or overthrow them if they fail to.

Because the NED and recipients of its funding are increasingly exposed as a form of political subversion, NED has opted to list its funding in some nations in very general terms, never revealing the actual organizations or individuals receiving US money. Many organizations in targeted nations refuse to disclose their funding to the public. Many even possess the gall to solicit public donations despite receiving (and concealing) extensive funding from the US government.

Continuity of Agenda: US Encirclement of China Continues Under Trump

January 20, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The United States has pursued a decades-long policy of encircling, containing and if possible, undermining China as part of a larger strategy of achieving and maintaining what US policy papers call "primacy" over Asia.

US policy has led to deeply-rooted networks operating within China's borders and along China's geopolitical peripheries to divide and destabilize the immense and increasingly powerful Asian state. These networks are funded and supported regardless of who occupies the White House. While the rhetoric shifts from president to president regarding "why" the US is providing so-called "activists" and "opposition" fronts aid, the aid and the agenda it serves continues.

Under current US President Donald Trump's predecessor President Barack Obama, this ongoing policy was marketed to the American and international public as the "Pivot to Asia." It was spun as a means for the US to reengage with Asia but in reality constituted an overt attempt to co-opt the governments of China's neighbors and break up the region's growing ties with Beijing.

Obama's "Pivot" was a failure, but one within the greater context of a general decline in US primacy both in the Asia Pacific region and around the world.

Under Trump, this policy of encircling and containing China continues. It is now marketed to the public as an "Indo-Pacific" strategy, with the US forced to court India, Australia and Japan on the fringes of Asia Pacific after failing to make progress within Asia Pacific itself.

It is important to understand just how long-term these polices are so that when Trump announces them to the public, the public understands that it is not "Trump's" policy, but simply Trump continuing to carry out the agenda of the very special interests (the so-called "Deep State") he vowed to resist upon taking office.

Understanding that these policies serve special interests and at the cost of the American public helps inoculate the public to rhetoric claiming that confronting China and destabilizing Asia is somehow part of "making America great again."

Tibet

Tibet is one of the oldest and most clear-cut examples of a political controversy used by Washington to target and undermine Beijing's credibility.

The centerpiece of US strategy in Tibet has been an independence movement led by the Dali Lama, the so-called spiritual leader of Tibet and a political figure the US through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has backed both politically and militarily since at least as early as the 1950s.

USAID and Wall Street: Conflicts, Coups, and Conquest

November 17, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In 1928 when the US-based United Fruit Company - now known as Chiquita Brands International - faced labor issues in Columbia, it had at its disposal Colombian troops which gunned down hundreds of strikers to maintain production and profits.

Ensuring that Columbia protected "American interests" was the US State Department who hosted company representatives at the US embassy in Bogotá, which in turn was in contact with Washington.

The United Fruit Company's actions in Columbia was far from an isolated incident. US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler would write a book regarding his personal, first-hand experience in fighting wars on multiple continents for oil companies, bankers, and fruit companies.

Nearly a century ago large corporate interests already possessed full control over the mechanisms of American governance, determining its domestic and foreign policy, and readily using the nation's military might for their own personal gain across the globe.

The arrangement has not disappeared over time. It has simply evolved.

The US Chamber of Commerce and USAID 

The US Chamber of Commerce on its own website admits it is a lobbying organization and while it claims it represents millions of businesses big and small - it is an organization dominated by, and existing solely for it largest members.

These include Chevron, Citi, Coco-Cola, Chevrolet, McDonald's, Ford, Dow, Exxon, Honeywell, Proctor & Gamble, Visa, Yum, Monsanto, and many more.

The Truth About Radical Islam

November 5, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - There are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims on Earth. That is approximately 24% of the world population. They live in regions spanning North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and reaching as far as Southeast Asia. There are Muslim communities in virtually every nation - and in many - they have played a pivotal, constructive, and welcomed role in national development.

If even 1% of the world's Muslims were violent terrorists bent on conquering the world, that would constitute an army 18 million strong - or in other words - larger than the next 20 largest armies on Earth combined. Most critics of Islam infer that the number is actually much higher than 1% - many suggesting that the majority of Muslims either are engaged in or support terrorism. It is logical to conclude that if even 1% were dedicated to terrorism and the "conquest of infidels," the war would have ended in their favor long ago.

It is clear that there is not even 1% across Islam engaged in or supporting terrorism. Across the Arab World, the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, other sects, and the secular, stand united against terrorism. It is clear that a mountain of lies stands between many and the truth - a mountain built so tall that it leaves entire segments of targeted populations in the perpetual darkness of ignorance.

From Whence Terror Flows

The source of terrorism is not the Qu'ran - a book that few critics of Islam have even picked up let alone genuinely read - but rather a very easily traced money trail that leads to Washington and London.

It is indeed the Western World that has created, branded, and marketed "radical Islam," which is for all intents and purposes a strictly political tool designed to provoke direct Western military interventions where possible, and fight conflicts by proxy whenever direct military intervention is not possible.

In Syria and Iraq, the US has used its terrorist proxies to do both - first to fight the government of Damascus and its allies by proxy, and when that failed, to set a pretext for direct US military intervention.

Another Mass Shooting, Another Grab For Guns: 6 Gun Facts

October 3, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Nothing is more deplorable than hijacking human tragedy to push an unrelated political agenda. A mass murderer taking the lives of some 60 people in Las Vegas this week has nothing to do with the majority of lawful firearms owners in the United States who aren't and have no intention of ever killing another human being.

Yet the knee-jerk reaction of many emotionally-driven people in the face of an overwhelming tragedy is to shift public debate back to gun control and even banning guns altogether. 

Emotional and irrational responses in the face of overwhelming circumstances is part of human nature and require patience.

Yet another part of being human is then appealing to our ability to reason. To reason we must have facts. 

Upon examining the following 6 facts, we will see that access to firearms has no significant relationship to violence - and that violence is driven by another entire set of factors that must be addressed if we honestly want a more peaceful and prosperous world.

1. According to the FBI, more people die of barehanded assaults in the US per year than all rifle violence ("assault rifles" included) combined. In fact, homicide via personal weapons like hands and feet is more than double homicides carried out with rifles.  

Most gun homicides are carried out by handguns in some of America's most destitute communities where national and local governments have failed to keep up with infrastructure, providing education, or economic opportunities - cities like Detroit who have had their industry shipped overseas and their infrastructure left to - in some cases literally - rot.

2. According to the Small Arms Survey conducted by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, the United States has the most guns per capita of any other nation on Earth at 112 guns per 100 people. Second place goes to Serbia at 58.21 guns per 100 people.

Based on this and assumptions that access to firearms equates directly to more violence, we would expect to find the United States and Serbia at the top of list regarding both homicides, and gun related homicides, yet this is not the case at all.

Wall Street Vs. Kremlin: Who Really Runs the White House?

By blaming Russia for America's most abhorrent problems and most unforgivable policies, Wall Street is given another 4-8 year free pass. 

October 1, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Perhaps the only thing more incredible than quickly expanding conspiracy theories regarding the Kremlin's influence over the White House is who is selling them and who is buying them.

Organizations popping up overnight with advisory boards lined with Neo-Conservatives who came to prominence during the administration of former US President George Bush and who became notorious for selling the 2003 US invasion of Iraq based on intentional fabrications, now find themselves building an audience of unlikely political allies - left-leaning liberals.

Who is Selling?  

The so-called "Alliance for Securing Democracy" recently accused Russia of manipulating news to target the US-based National Football League (NFL).  It claims in its mission statement that:

In 2016, American democracy came under unprecedented attack. 

The government of the Russian Federation attempted to weaken the pillars of our democracy and undermine faith and confidence in our society’s most fundamental right — the ability to choose our own leaders.

The organization's "Disinformation Dashboard" even includes a disclaimer admitting nothing about the information it presents constitutes evidence. Ambiguous terms like "Russia aligned" are never qualified. Instead, it claims (emphasis added):

Content is not necessarily produced or created by Russian government operatives, although that is sometimes the case. Instead, the network often opportunistically amplifies content created by third parties not directly linked to Russia. Common themes for amplification include content attacking the U.S. and Europe, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Russian influence operations also frequently promote extremism and divisive politics in Western countries. Just because the Russia-aligned network monitored here tweets something, that doesn’t mean everyone who tweets the same content is aligned with Russia. 

An organization that accuses Russia and in particular, President Vladimir Putin for undermining US elections, inferring Russia's responsibility for Hillary Clinton's defeat, counts among its advisory council Michael Chertoff, a Bush-era Neo-Conservative who served as President Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security.

There is also David Kramer who served in the US State Department under President Bush, served as president of the Neo-Conservative chaired State Department front, Freedom House, and currently serves as a member of the advisory council for the George W. Bush Presidential Center's "Human Freedom Project."

William Kristol, considered by many as one of the chief architects, or at least leading salesman of the 2003 Iraq War, also chairs the Alliance for Securing Democracy advisory board. He was a signatory of the Neo-Conservative Project for the New American Century and the pro-war Foreign Policy Initiative. He served the administrations of US President Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

Michael Morell - who recently declared interest in killing Russians and Iranians in Syria as the armed forces of all three nations fight Al Qaeda and militants of the so-called Islamic State - also serves as an adviser. He has worked in the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for over 30 years, and is currently a senior counselor at Beacon Global Strategies - an organization that appears to specialize in professional warmongering - along side other former US State Department, Department of Defense, and CIA employees.

Kori Schake is described as having assisted with policy for the White House, Department of Defense, and the State Department as well as serving as senior policy adviser for John McCain and Sarah Palin during their 2008 bid for the White House

Michael Rogers, a former US Representative for Michigan and a Republican along with Admiral James Stavridis who helped wage President Bush's wars and also serves as an adviser for the above mentioned Beacon Global Strategies help round off the advisory board.

It is safe to say that the majority of this exclusively anti-Russian propaganda organization, eagerly promoted by American liberals, consists of Neo-Conservatives many of these same liberals at one point rightfully rejected, opposed, and vehemently condemned as they sold serial wars of aggression during the Bush administration.

A similar list of Neo-Conservatives and long-time warmongers fills out the "Committee to Investigate Russia" (CIR) who recently made headlines when they hired veteran actor Morgan Freeman to appeal to audiences' emotions rather than their intellect.

CIR includes Max Boot, James Clapper, and Norman Ornstein who occupy various seats and positions at corporate-financier funded think tanks ranging from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Center for a New American Security, to the American Enterprise Institute all of which share sponsorship from big-oil, big-defense, big-banks, and big-industry - in other words - Wall Street.

Other pop-up anti-Russian fronts have similar boards of directors, representing similar interests, and are similarly and very ironically, finding fertile ground among American liberals who at one point in recent history opposed the very sort of war propaganda now being sold versus Russia.

US Missile Machinations Undoes Non-Proliferation Efforts

September 18, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When it comes to nuclear weapons upon the international stage, the general consensus is certainly not "the more the merrier." Attempts to limit the number and variety of nuclear weapons and to take measures to avoid the use of those that do exist have been ongoing since the first nuclear weapons were developed at the end of World War 2.

Today, however, one of the several nuclear-armed nations of the world and its behavior has jeopardized the hard-fought progress made toward this goal.

America Reneged After the Cold War 

One of several treaties singed during the later stages of the Cold War included the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT). It limited anti-ballistic missile systems to two per country. The reasoning was to hinder anti-missile technology development and leave nuclear-armed nations open to retaliatory attacks should they initiate a nuclear first strike.

The treaty helped further enhance the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD).  After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, member states upheld the treaty with the United States until 2001 when the United States unilaterally withdrew from it.

The White House in an official statement regarding America's withdrawal from the treaty, would state:

...the United States and Russia face new threats to their security. Principal among these threats are weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means wielded by terrorists and rogue states. A number of such states are acquiring increasingly longer-range ballistic missiles as instruments of blackmail and coercion against the United States and its friends and allies. The United States must defend its homeland, its forces and its friends and allies against these threats. We must develop and deploy the means to deter and protect against them, including through limited missile defense of our territory.

However, the United States would spend the next decade and a half, not developing anti-missile systems aimed at stopping non-existent weapons of mass destruction launched from "rogue states," it instead spent that time encircling Russia with anti-missile systems, including those placed in Eastern Europe.

In essence, the United States has begun to fulfill the sum of all fears during the Cold War, that a nuclear armed nation would attempt to monopolize missile defense technology and use it as a means to develop a nuclear first strike capability without fear of retaliation.

Opponents of America's decision to withdraw from the ABMT noted that the move also undermined Washington's own alleged nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Russia Reacts 
Articles like February 2017 New York Times piece titled, "Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump," attempt to portray Russia as menacing the US and its Western European allies with new and potentially "illegal" nuclear weapons.

The New York Times reports:

The ground-launched cruise missile at the center of American concerns is one that the Obama administration said in 2014 had been tested in violation of a 1987 treaty that bans American and Russian intermediate-range missiles based on land. 

The Obama administration had sought to persuade the Russians to correct the violation while the missile was still in the test phase. Instead, the Russians have moved ahead with the system, deploying a fully operational unit.

The article refers to another landmark effort made during the Cold War to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Yet despite this narrative, the New York Times itself gives away what provoked Russia's recent deployment of the missile system in the first place, stating (emphasis added):

The missile program has been a major concern for the Pentagon, which has developed options for how to respond, including deploying additional missile defenses in Europe or developing air-based or sea-based cruise missiles.

Clearly, Russia is responding to existing missile defenses the US has placed across Europe, or plans on placing across Europe in the near future.

As predicted by opponents of America's 2001 decision to withdraw from the Cold War ABMT, America has undermined non-proliferation efforts, not only inviting other nations to discard efforts to rein in nuclear proliferation and the number and variety of nuclear weapons deployed by a nation, but in fact leaving nations with no other choice in the face of America's own attempts to obtain a nuclear first strike capability.

NATO's Expansion is a Lit Fuse 

As NATO expands and as the United States digs in along Russia's borders, a proverbial fuse lit by America's withdrawal from the ABMT and its belligerence toward Russia ever since becomes shorter and shorter.

By provoking Russia into developing and deploying nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles able to negate the possibility of a US nuclear first strike, the amount of time between launch and all out nuclear war has been significantly shortened.

Despite the US provoking this chain of events, instead of taking stock and retreating to a more sensible position, it is using Russia's predictable reaction to rush even further forward. By posing a greater nuclear threat to Russia, the United States through its own irresponsible behavior upon the world stage encourages many other nations to pursue, develop and deploy nuclear armaments as a means of defense and deterrence.

While the United States poses as international arbiter of nuclear non-proliferation, it appears instead to serve as the premier provocateur of new nuclear weapons gold rush.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

September 11, 2001: Questions to Ask if You Still Believe the Official Narrative

September 11, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) left nearly 3,000 dead in NYC, Washington D.C. and over Pennsylvania. The attacks transformed America into a deepening police state at home and a nation perpetually at war abroad.

The official narrative claims that 19 hijackers representing Al Qaeda took over 4 commercial aircraft to carry out attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

The event served as impetus for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan which continues to present day. It also led directly to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Attempts to cite the attack to precipitate a war with Iran and other members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba) have also been made.

And if this is the version of reality one subscribes to, several questions remain worth asking.

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed? 

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention.

Far from a fringe conspiracy theory, mainstream media outlets including ABC News would cover the document in articles like, "U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba," which would report:

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. 

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. 

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

A full PDF copy of the document is available via George Washington University's archives and states specifically regarding the hijacking of commercial aircraft:

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. 

The document also cites the USS Maine in describing the sort of event the DoD-JCS sought to stage, a US warship whose destruction was used to maliciously provoke the Spanish-American War. It should be noted, that unlike the DoD-JCS document's suggestion that airliner-related casualties be staged, the USS Maine explosion killed 260 sailors. It is likely that DoD and JCS would not risk engineering a provocation that leads to major war but allow low-level operators left alive with the knowledge of what they had participated in.

Considering that the US sought to deceive the public in order to provoke an unjustifiable war that would undoubtedly kill thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people, and that other proposals did include killing innocent people, it is worth considering that US policymakers would also be just as willing to extinguish innocent lives when staging the hijacking of aircraft to provoke such a war.

2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded? 

In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called "American military preeminence" would be laid out in detail.

Trump: Afghanistan First

August 27, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - For those who know from whence real power flows in America's political establishment, the uninterrupted continuation of America's 16 year war in Afghanistan came as no surprise. 

For those voters who believed US President Donald Trump represented the public's desire to withdraw from multiple foreign wars and entanglements and place "America first," President Trump's announcement that not only would that not happen, but that these wars would be expanded, must have come as a surprise. 

However, perhaps it is the first in a long series of hard lessons for the American public to learn - that no matter who they vote for in Washington, it is clear agendas are decided upon and pressed from elsewhere. 

The Hill, in its article, "5 takeaways from Trump's Afghan speech," touched upon several points regarding President Trump's recent speech regarding Afghanistan, where the US currently has 8,400 troops deployed, and is poised to deploy thousands more. 

The Hill reported: 

Trump is expected to send nearly 4,000 more troops, but he neither divulged a number nor said how long additional U.S. forces would spend in the country. 

"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for future military activities,” Trump said. “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans. . . I will not say when we will attack, but attack we will.”

This is in stark contrast to his campaign promises, which The Hill noted: 

“Why are we continuing to train these Afghanis who then shoot our soldiers in the back? Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!” he wrote on Twitter in 2012.

 The Hill also claims: 

The United States has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan now. The forces are on a dual mission of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban and conducting counterterrorism missions against groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

And indeed, that is precisely what policymakers, politicians, and military leaders have stated regarding the Afghan conflict for well over a decade and a half - spanning the presidencies of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Trump.  

President Trump would claim that the goal was no longer withdrawal within a certain time frame, but would be dictated by conditions on the ground: 

“A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin, or end, military options."

The "conditions" apparently require the US-backed client regime in Kabul "to take ownership of their future," despite claims that the US is not engaged in "nation building" countries in America's "own image." They are conditions that are - even at face value - contradictory and repetitive of promises made and broken by President Trump's predecessor, former President Obama.

Flirting With Further War in Pakistan 

President Trump - like Bush and Obama before him - also threatened neighboring Pakistan, accusing the nation of undermining its military presence in Afghanistan. President Trump would ultimately warn: 

“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately,” Trump vowed. 

“It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace.”

In reality, the US never invaded Afghanistan nor remains there today to fight terrorism. The organizations that it is allegedly fighting are not funded or directed by Afghanistan, they are funded and directed by the United States' closest and oldest allies in the Middle East - including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 

Instead, the US is occupying Afghanistan for the same reason the British Empire invaded and occupied it multiple times - in a bid to expand hegemony over Central and South Asia.

Afghanistan conveniently borders Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and even China. A permanent US military presence in Afghanistan and control over the regime in Kabul, gives the US a springboard for direct and indirect geopolitical influence - including military operations - in all directions. Evidence indicates that exploiting this strategic foothold in this manner has already long-ago begun. 

The US has sought to pressure Iran and Pakistan for decades, with long-drawn plans regarding both nations. 

Trump's Trip to Riyadh Offers Left and Right Common Ground

What liberals should really be railing against, and what Trump supporters should really know about "Sharia law." 

May 14, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A video went viral of an aggressive American man beating his chest, grabbing his genitals, and taunting a Muslim family on a Texas beach in support of what he believed was US President Donald Trump's mission of purging America of "Sharia law" and "ISIS" (the Islamic State).

What this man was likely not aware of as he made his lowbrow political statement was that the "Sharia law" he actually fears is called "Wahhabism," and that his candidate of choice "Trump" was preparing to visit  the very source of Wahhabism - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the American left remains convinced that their priority should remain resisting an alleged covert alliance between Russia and the Trump administration of which no evidence actually exists. They have made this a priority at the expense of exposing and resisting a documented and longstanding alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia that has endured for decades.

There is common ground here for the American public, but only if the intentional distractions presented by the Western media from both right and left cover can be sidestepped and the truth revealed.

Wahhabism's Source Code 

If the Islamic State is a virus, its source code can be traced directly back to Riyadh and the political regime that resides there. Riyadh chops heads off of offenders, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh oppresses women, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh is arrayed against all forces beyond its and American geopolitical influence, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh promotes a divisive sectarian-driven strategy of tension to divide and conquer, the Islamic State does too.

It is no coincidence that both Riyadh and its American sponsors are fighting precisely the same enemies as the Islamic State: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

In essence, President Trump's visit to Riyadh represents a paradox for Trump supporters.

He's the man supposed to "save America" from "Sharia law," but is visiting Riyadh from whence the corrosive version of "Sharia law," known as Wahhabism, originated and is actively perpetuated from. Worst of all, Riyadh perpetuates Wahhabism with the explicit and long-term support of the United States, including now under the Trump administration.

For the average chest-beating, genital-grabbing Trump supporter, America's complicity in propping up Wahhabism began under US President Barrack Obama who they suspect had infiltrated American politics as a "secret Muslim." President Trump's victory at the polls was supposed to reverse this "infiltration."

Exposing the Real Deep State

March 13, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Many both within and beyond America's borders labor under the delusion that US policy is determined by the nation's elected representatives amid a careful balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. In reality, the inner workings of US policy resemble nothing of the sort.

In reality, an unelected deep state controls the United States, its resources, government, and people. However, the term "deep state" has been overused and intentionally abused, particularly since the election of US President Donald Trump in an effort to continue concealing the real deep state and divert public attention away from what is becoming an increasingly obvious continuity of agenda from one presidency to the next.

Uncovering and understanding the nature of the real deep state is in fact elementary, but essential in understanding the genesis and perpetuation of US policy. It is also essential in formulating solutions aimed at reining in the unwarranted power and influence wielded by this seemingly nebulous entity.

Identifying the Real Deep State is Easy

Despite the myth of "democracy," real power is held by those who control the essentials of any given state, province, district, or community. Essentials include control over monetary instruments, essential infrastructure such as water, power, communication, and transportation, control over manufacturing, healthcare, and basic public services, as well as more obvious forms of power such as control over police and military forces.

In rare instances, such vital essentials are controlled by decentralized, grassroots organizations - and in these instances deep states are either weak or virtually nonexistent. However, more often than not, this is not the case - at least not yet.

Ordinarily, regardless of apparent, ongoing political processes, those who actually, truly control these essentials often exist well beyond but not out of reach of politics. They include large corporations and financial institutions. Organizations, lobbyists, media platforms, think tanks, and political parties are set up and controlled by these special interests to then project their power and influence into or entirely driving any given political process.

The concept of a "deep state" is not unique to only the US. Virtually every nation and throughout all of human history, regardless of a nation's alleged political proclivities, has been ruled by wealthy and influential special interests either directly or by proxy.

Ignoring political rhetoric and charades, and focusing on where money, power, and influence truly resides, reveals the real deep state.

Unraveling the "Trump Vs Deep State" Narrative 

A cursory examination of President Trump's administration reveals that he is but one of many extensions of the real deep state. Allegedly "alternative" Breitbart News mogul Stephen Bannon who functions as President Trump's chief strategist is in fact a former Goldman Sachs banker. US Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, is also a former Goldman Sachs banker. Additionally, he managed funds for alleged "Trump archenemy," George Soros, and had invested in the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a long-time ExxonMobil executive, and the list goes on.

If one were to map the flow of US power and influence globally, tracing it back to its source, they would find themselves on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of financial institutions and corporations like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil. They would also find, leading out from these boardrooms, proxy news platforms like Breitbart News aimed at manipulating, distracting, and preying on the emotions of the American public.

In other words, in reality, the Trump administration, like those of previous presidencies, is the embodiment of the deep state.

Wikileaks Vault 7 Highlights Importance of Tech Self-Sufficiency

March 11, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Leaked document clearinghouse Wikileaks has recently released an immense collection of documents detailing the US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) vast and literally Orwellian surveillance and spying capabilities.

The International Business Times in an article titled, "What's in Vault 7? WikiLeaks publishes huge trove of CIA secrets," would explain:

WikiLeaks has revealed the contents of the long-awaited Vault 7 – a huge batch of documents allegedly detailing the hacking tools used by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The whistle-blowing organisation said it may be the largest intelligence publication in history.

It also stated that these tools were used across hacked platforms. It reported:

This includes Samsung TVs, Microsoft Windows, Apple iPhones and smartphones using Google's Android operating system. The techniques could be used to give the CIA the ability "bypass the encryption" of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo and Confide, WikiLeaks said.

In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, TVs would surveil  the population, serving like a universal closed circuit television (CCTV) network. The incremental emergence of just such a surveillance state since the book's publication has often been described as "Orwellian." With devices such as phones, laptops, and smart TVs like those manufactured by Samsung now quite literally surveilling the public, the consequences warned of in Orwell's works have now become a reality.

While the revelations from Vault 7 suggest the US CIA and its European counterparts exploited commercial platforms to build its invasive spying network, some analysts have pointed out that many of these security exploits, backdoors and surveillance features have most likely been created with the explicit cooperation of large technology corporations.

Australia’s Financial Review revealed in 2013 in an article titled, “Intel chips could let US spies inside: expert,” that:

One of Silicon Valley’s most respected technology experts, Steve Blank, says he would be “surprised” if the US National Security Agency was not embedding “back doors” inside chips produced by Intel and AMD, two of the world’s largest semiconductor firms, giving them the possibility to access and control machines.

Corporations like Google and Facebook, the former of which created and maintains the above mentioned Android mobile operating system, openly collaborate with the United States government and the corporate and financial interests that dominate its domestic and foreign policy. It is highly likely, that in addition to assisting US special interests in the subversion of foreign nations and the facilitation of global war and instability, both corporations are also deeply involved in assisting in surveillance, spying and manipulating the public.

Decentralizing IT 

The alliance between these special interests and technology corporations, particularly in light of this most recent deluge of leaked documents, highlights the fundamental importance of decentralizing the design, development, manufacturing and distribution of information technology.

The Trump-Media Circus and Continuity of Agenda

January 12, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - As the US media expertly divides the American public into pro and anti-Trump camps over cartoonish, unfounded personal accusations aimed at President-elect Donald Trump, Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson confirmed before the US Congress that hostilities and agitation toward both Moscow and Beijing will only expand over the next 4-8 years.

The Business Insider in an article titled, "CNN distances itself from BuzzFeed, says Trump is using the website 'to deflect from CNN's reporting'," outlined the recent rash of accusations and the political fallout in their wake, stating:

CNN distanced itself from BuzzFeed on Wednesday after the digital news outlet published a document that contained unverified claims about President-elect Donald Trump's campaign conduct and personal life.

CNN's decision is based on the fact that nothing it or BuzzFeed reported is actually substantiated with fact, with the Business Insider admitting:

"We [CNN] made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations," the statement continued.

The fallout following the oafish, elementary lies spread by BuzzFeed, CNN, and others, represents rhetorical bait irresistible not only to Trump supporters, but to anyone with a conscience who opposes the systemic abuse that persists across the Western media. However, bait this irresistible is laid out for a purpose.

As the Public Squabbles, Continuity of Agenda Marches On

Were headlines not consumed by the crass allegations pushed across the Western media aimed at Trump, and the rhetorical backlash that predictably followed, the American public might be consumed instead by the fact that Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State just confirmed that quite literally nothing is going to change as Trump takes office in regards to US foreign policy.