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.

Venezuela: West's Battle Against Multipolarism Reaches Far

August 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The battle between the established unipolar "international order" dominated by Wall Street, Washington, and London and an emerging multipolar order appears fixated on Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and across the entirety of Asia. However, it extends to virtually every corner of the globe, from competition in the Arctic to politically-motivated controversies in Earth orbit.

The South American nation of Venezuela also seems far-removed from this ongoing competition engulfing the world's hot spots in the Middle East, Central and Asia, but the fate of this besieged nation is directly linked to the that of the rest of the world, either contributing to an emerging multipolar world order, or providing sanctuary and legitimacy to the established unipolar order currently dominated by Wall Street, Washington, and London.

The nation has been the target of US-backed subversion for decades. The latest iteration of American interference began with the rise of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and a failed US-backed coup in 2002 organized to oust him and place a US-controlled client regime in power.

Venezuela's "Opposition" are US-Backed Agitators  

Many of those involved in the failed 2002 coup are now leading US-backed protesters in the streets in a bid to overthrow the government of President Nicolás Maduro, who succeeded Chavez after his death in 2013.

The opposition includes former presidential contender, Henrique Capriles Radonski, who heads Primero Justicia (Justice First) which was co-founded by Leopoldo Lopez and Julio Borges, who like Radonski, have been backed for nearly a decade by the US State Department.

Primero Justicia and the network of foreign-funded NGOs that support it have been recipients of both direct and indirect foreign support for at least just as long.

All three co-founders are US educated - Radonski having attended New York's Columbia University (Spanish), Julio Borges attending Boston College and Oxford, and Leopoldo Lopez who attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (KSG), of which he is considered an alumni of.

The Harvard Kennedy School, which hosts the notorious Belfer Center, includes the following faculty and alumni of Lopez, co-founder of the current US-backed opposition in Venezuela:

John P. Holdren, Samantha Power, Lawrence Summers, Robert Zoellick, (all as faculty), as well as Ban Ki-Moon ('84), Paul Volcker ('51), Robert Kagan ('91), Bill O'Reilly ('96), Klaus Schwab ('67), and literally hundreds of senators, ambassadors, and administrators of Wall Street and London's current global spanning international order. 

Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (KSG) is one of several universities that form the foundation of both creating corporate-financier driven international policy, as well as cultivating legions of administrators to execute it. This includes creating cadres of individuals to constitute Wall Street and Washington's client regimes around the world. 

Venezuela's Problem, Like Other Targeted States, is US Sedition, not "Socialism" 

It is true that Venezuela is deemed a "socialist" nation, and its policy of heavily centralizing the economy has not only failed to alleviate the many longstanding socioeconomic conflicts inflicting Venezuelan society, but has also created an ample vector for Wall Street and Washington's meddling.

By placing all of Venezuela's proverbial "eggs" in one centralized "basket," the United States - through the use of various well-honed geopolitical and socioeconomic tools - has managed to knock that "basket" from the government in Caracas' hands and is now using its well-funded and organized opposition to crush whatever "eggs" survived the fall. 

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the Western political landscape is so deeply rooted in blind, poorly developed political ideology, practical geopolitical and geostrategic analysis has been overlooked across both traditional and alternative media platforms, and instead, many - including opponents of US-backed regime change worldwide - have found themselves cheering on what they believe is the self-inflicted collapse of the socialist Venezuelan government at the hands of "free market" protesters. 

In reality, they are cheering on yet another episode of US-backed regime change, wrapped in a protective layer of ideological, political, and economic rhetoric to justify otherwise unjustifiable, extraterritorial meddling, interference, chaos, division, and destruction. 

Venezuela's Place Within the Unipolar-Mulipolar World 

Depending on the ultimate fate of the Venezuelan government, the success of US-backed proxies, and the ability of Venezuela to reconstruct itself after decades of foreign-backed subversion, Venezuela can either enhance or set back the emerging multipolar world order.

Regardless of Venezuela's fate if and when the government in Caracas is toppled, the US-led unipolar international order will benefit. The elimination of competition, even at the cost of creating a center of regional destabilization is considered favorable versus allowing a bastion of alternative socioeconomic and geopolitical power to persist. And in many ways, the creation of a regional center of destabilization may help the US create "synergies" between the chaos it is fostering in Venezuela and in neighboring South and Central American nations the US has likewise targeted for geopolitical coercion and/or regime change. 

For Russia, China, other nations of BRICS, and even emerging economies across Southeast Asia and Central Asia, the loss of Venezuela as a means of counterbalance to US hegemony both in the region of the Americas and globally will allow the US to concentrate more resources toward remaining alternative centers of geopolitical and economic power it seeks to target.

This - not the nature of Venezuela's "socialist" government - is the focus of US efforts and is what defines the consequences of either US success or failure regarding regime change in Caracas. 

Any government, socialist or otherwise, operating outside of Wall Street, Washington, and London's sphere of influence is a target. Competition, not ideology defines and drives Western foreign policy - and for those who oppose this policy - it must be practical geopolitical and geostrategic analysis that defines conclusions and courses of action - not the ideological debates the US itself is using as a pretext and as rhetorical cover to justify its latest regime-change project.

Venezuela may be geographically far removed from the focal point of the great unipolar-multipolar struggle, but understanding how it fits into conflicts raging in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and across Asia illustrates just how encompassing the "international order's" reach and ambitions really are - and how deadly dangerous they are to global peace, security, and stability.  

Voting Machine Maker Says Venezuela Polls Rigged, Offers No Evidence

August 3, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - London-based voting machine maker Smartmatic claims the recent polls carried out in Venezuela this week were rigged. In their 5 minute video statement, however, they failed to provide any evidence.

AP article titled, "Election report: Venezuela vote 'probably rigged'," claims:

The number of Venezuelans who participated in the election for an all-powerful constituent assembly was tampered with - off by at least 1 million votes - in an official count, the head of a voting technology company asserted Wednesday, a finding certain to sow further discord over the super-body that has generated months of nationwide protests. 

Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica said results recorded by his systems and those reported by Venezuela's National Electoral Council indicate "without any doubt" that official turnout figure of more than 8 million participants was manipulated.

Mugica, however, claims in his full statement  (video here) that (emphasis added):

Our automated election system is designed to make it evident when results are manipulated, however, there must be people auditing the system and watching for that evidence. During the National Constituent Assembly elections there were no auditors from the opposition parties as they did not want to participate.

Thus, at best Mugica and Smartmatic can warn that irregularities might have occurred, since no one from the opposition was there to audit the final tallies and report any potential inconsistencies. 

Since no opposition auditors were there, no evidence has been provided that such irregularities occurred. Neither AP's article nor Mugica's full statement provide any evidence or explanation as to how Smartmatic "estimated" the final count regarding participation was off by "one million votes." Mugica doesn't even explain whether it was one million more than reported, or one million less. 

Smartmatic either failed to reveal information it has regarding the final count, or has simply lied on behalf of the Venezuelan opposition and the powerful foreign interests sponsoring it from Washington, London, and Brussels. 

This latest announcement, absent of any evidence to substantiate these accusations, calls into question Smartmatic's professionalism, ethics, and impartiality. Other nations considering Smartmatic machines must consider the possibility that the company's CEO may attempt to use his machines and their role in tallying votes to manipulate their internal politics as well.

This announcement also once again calls the Western media into question for failing to note the very obvious inconsistencies between Mugica's conclusions and the lack of evidence provided to substantiate them. 

US Regime Change in Venezuela: The Truth is Easy if You Follow the Money

July 31, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Venezuela's ongoing crisis is not driven by political ideology - it is not a battle of socialism versus capitalism or dictatorship versus democracy - it is the result of two centers of political power possessing opposing interests and colliding geopolitically.

The nation of Venezuela is currently under the control of Venezuelans who derive their support, wealth, and power from Venezuela itself - its people and its natural resource. This political order also receives aid and support from Venezuela's economic and military partners both in the region and around the globe.

The opposition opposed to the current political order and seeking to supplant it represents foreign interests and more specifically, the United States and its European allies.


The Opposition is Pro-Washington, Not "Pro-Democracy"

As early as 2002, US-backed regime change targeting then Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, sought to violently overthrow Venezuela's political order and replace it with one obedient to Washington. Current leaders of the opposition were not only involved in the 2002 failed coup, many are documented to have received political and financial support from the United States government ever since.

Image: Maria Corina Machado, founder of Sumate, an alleged Venezuelan election monitoring group, funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), meeting with US President George Bush who presided over the failed coup attempt seeking to oust President Hugo Chavez.  

This includes several founders of the opposition party, Primero Justicia (Justice First), including Leopoldo Lopez, Julio Borges, and Henrique Capriles Radonski. The latter of the three has been prominently featured in Western media coverage lately.

US State Department documents reveal that the department itself along with US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been providing Venezuela's opposition with support.

This includes a  report titled, "Status of Capriles and Sumate Cases," referring to the above mentioned Henrique Capriles Radonski and Sumate, a US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded front posing as an election monitor.

Currently, NED's own website features an extensive list of activities it is engaged in within Venezuela's borders. It includes leveraging human rights for political gain, electoral manipulation, building opposition fronts, and expanding pro-opposition media. While each activity is labelled with benign titles, it is clear that none of these activities are done impartially, and as State Department documents reveal, these activities are done specifically for the benefit of the US-backed opposition.

Wall Street and Washington's Open Conspiracy 

After the death of Chavez in 2013, US-based special interests openly conspired to finally overturn the political order he built. Corporate-financier policy think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) created a checklist of US foreign policy goals it sought to achieve in Venezuela. They included:

• The ouster of narco-kingpins who now hold senior posts in government
• The respect for a constitutional succession
• The adoption of meaningful electoral reforms to ensure a fair campaign environment and a transparent vote count in expected presidential elections; and
• The dismantling of Iranian and Hezbollah networks in Venezuela

In reality, AEI is talking about dismantling entirely the obstacles that have prevented the US and the corporate-financier interests that direct it, from installing a client regime and extracting entirely Venezuela's wealth while obstructing, even dismantling the geopolitical independence and influence achieved by Chavez in Venezuela, throughout South America, and beyond.

US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors

June 16, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - For a magician, the greater the illusion attempted, the more showmanship that's required to distract audiences from that fact that it is indeed just an illusion. For US politics, something very similar applies, particularly regarding the latest, ongoing narrative surrounding alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

Having concluded over half a year ago, had there been actual evidence of state-sponsored election interference by Russia, it would have surfaced and the necessity for a lengthy and dramatic public spectacle would not only be absent, it would obstruct real measures needed to protect America's political process from future foreign influence.

However, actual evidence has not surfaced.

Instead, complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.

However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences if caught were worth the risk.

In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.

While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.

It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump.

Any and all efforts to skew the electoral process either through leaked e-mails or through hacking electronic voting machines would have carried a political risk that far outweighed what is clearly a negligible outcome.

Cui Bono? 

For US foreign and domestic policy, however, the grand illusion of Russia meddling in America's political process helps in at least three fundamental ways.

First, it provides a distraction for the American public. While President Trump continues the policies of previous administrations in the service of the unelected special interests that actually determine and benefit from US foreign policy, the "US election meddling" narrative provides a diversion that prevents President Trump's backtracking and hypocrisy from taking precedence in public debates.

Second, creating hysteria over the possibility that a foreign nation might have interfered with America's political process helps reinforce the illusion that America's political process is legitimate and meaningful in the first place. It buttresses the notion that America's destiny is determined by the electorate and the representatives it puts in office, not the multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations and financial institutions that lobby America's legislative bodies and place their representatives within each presidential cabinet regardless of who the American public vote into office.

And third, accusing Russia of interfering in America's political process helps perpetuate the adversarial nature of US-Russian relations, justifying the continued existence and expansion of NATO and all of the conflicts it both fuels and feeds off of. In addition to geopolitical objectives, this process reaps billions in defense contracts and opens up new potential markets for US corporations and financial institutions.

Ultimately, the co-opting or elimination of Russian competitors across a multitude of industries globally would give existing US monopolies and even tighter grip on the planet, its resources and its people.

US Policymakers Openly Plot Against Venezuela

May 24, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The US media has been paying increasing attention to the unfolding crisis in the South American nation of Venezuela. As the US media has done elsewhere, it is attempting to portray the unfolding crisis as a result of a corrupt dictatorship fighting against a "pro-democracy" opposition. 

In reality, it is simply a repeat of US-driven regime change aimed at toppling Venezuela's independent state institutions and replacing them with institutions created by and for US special interests. 

The "opposition" is comprised of US-backed political parties and US-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) many of which are listed on the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website.

The UK Independent in a 2016 article titled, "Venezuela accuses US of plotting coup as Washington warns of 'imminent collapse'," would even admit:

...observers of the region point out that the US has a long history of seeking to interfere in the politics of Venezuela, as well as elsewhere in Latin America. 

In addition to supporting those who ousted Mr Chavez in 2002, the US poured hundreds of thousands of dollars to his opponents via the so-called National Endowment for Democracy.

To understand America's actual role amid Venezuela's unfolding crisis, one must read policy papers produced by organizations called "think tanks" which devise and promote US policy. 

The Brookings Institution is a Fortune 500-funded policy think tank. It is populated by policymakers who represent the collective ambitions of some of the world's most powerful corporate-financier interests including big-oil, defense, agricultural monopolies, pharmaceutical corporations, media interests, and more. 

Image: Just some of the Brookings Institution's corporate-financier sponsors.

Brookings and think tanks similar to it, have regularly produced policy and media guidelines later disseminated across the Western media and Western legislatures through public relations firms and lobbyists. Think tanks are where the real agenda of the West is agreed upon and promoted from.

A recent piece featured upon the Brookings Institution's website titled, "Venezuela: A path out of crisis," lays out a 5-point plan toward escalating Venezuela's already precarious situation (emphasis added): 

1. The United States could expand its assistance to countries that until now have been dependent on Venezuelan oil, as a means to decrease regional support for and dependence on the Maduro government.

2. The United States could increase monetary assistance to credible civil society organizations and nongovernmental organizations able to deliver food and medicines to Venezuelans. By doing so, the United States should make clear that international pressure aims to support democracy, not punish the Venezuelan people.

3. The United States could support efforts by the opposition in Venezuela to build an “off-ramp” that would split moderate elements of the government away from hardliners, encouraging the former to acquiesce to a transition to democracy by lowering their costs of exiting government.

4. The United States could coordinate with international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to offer financial incentives for holding free and fair elections in 2018, and for the opposition to unify and compete in those elections. Such coordination would also involve developing and publicizing a credible plan to restart Venezuela’s economy.

5. As a last resort, the United States could consider raising economic costs to the government through an expanded sanctions regime that aims to limit Venezuelan earnings from oil exports and block further financing. This policy is risky, given that the Maduro government would be able to more credibly shift blame for the economic crisis onto the United States, and should be accompanied by well-publicized efforts to deliver humanitarian aid through credible civil society and nongovernmental organizations.

It is a prescription for further economic isolation, US-funded political subversion, and with its reference to "a transition to democracy," an oblique call for regime change.

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.

How Breitbart Got Conservatives to Forget Morality and Embrace Pedophilia

February 23, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Breitbart News is what many on the right side of America's controlled political paradigm consider "real news" versus the "liberal media's" "fake news." However, in reality, Breitbart is a textbook case of what is called "cognitive infiltration." It is the establishment's attempt to reassert itself, its narratives, influence, and agenda amid an information space increasingly decentralized and controlled by genuine alternative media.

In order to do this, Breitbart poses as "alternative media" itself, taking on a "conservative" identity to draw in many on the right of American politics. Cognitive infiltrators also target left-leaning Americans. And it has worked masterfully.

It is an amazing feat by the establishment to have first - under the administration of US President Barack Obama - gotten liberals to embrace endless wars of aggression, and now to convince conservatives to defend advocates of child rape and the act of child rape itself. 

The basic facts of what Breitbart really is, versus what it claims to be, expose this clearly. While it poses as anti-establishment "alternative media," it peddles wars and other aspects of the establishment's agenda. It is also working diligently to divide and distract their audience, pitting them against other Americans rather than exposing and targeting the special interests who dominate over them all.

Agents of Division and Conquest

Enter Milo Yiannopoulos, who just recently resigned as a Breitbart News senior editor. He was an obvious provocateur, aiming clearly at dividing and distracting Americans from real issues. He made provocative comments targeting various groups in his and Breitbart's efforts to further polarize the American people and lend greater leverage and control to the corporate-financier interests that truly dominate American politics.

In his bid to further polarize the American people between "left" and "right," he characterized the left as condoning and defending pedophilia. In a 2016 article written by Yiannopoulos and published by Breitbart titled, "Here's Why the Progressive Left Keeps Sticking up for Pedophiles," he argues:

Today, Salon gave a platform to a self-confessed pedophile to explain his urges in sympathetic terms. “I’m a Pedophile, But Not A Monster” reads the headline. It’s a long, self-pitying screed that ends with a call to be “understanding and supportive” of adults who crave sexual intimacy with children.

Forgive me if I’m not first to start the standing ovation. In fact I’m pretty sure most people will find the existence on Salon’s website of this post both shocking and distasteful.

Yiannopoulos continues by saying: 

...progressives who got fired up about whether green and purple was a “rapey” colour scheme were suddenly fine with discussion of incestuous pedophilia from a 22-year-old in a chat room full of teenagers. It has been a somewhat grotesque spectacle to watch.

He concludes by claiming:

 Radical leftists may be planning to make pedophilia another front in their civil rights battles, but it won’t happen without a fight. Nor should it.

In the minds of many reading Breitbart News, they envision the American left as advocates of predators who seek to sexually abuse their children. And in many cases, the establishment "left" are just that. But as it turns out, so is the establishment "right."

Yiannopoulos Himself Advocated Sex with Children 

Clearly the act Yiannopoulos put on during his role as agitator at Breitbart diverges significantly from who he really is and what he really stands for. In an interview with Yiannopoulos on the "Drunken Peasants Podcast posted on January 4, 2016, he unequivocally defends grown men having sex with children as young as 13 and claims that pedophilia is only a sexual attraction to a child who has not reached puberty yet. However, regardless of Yiannopoulos' opinions on the matter, adults having sex with 13 year old children is most certainly pedophilia.

Clearly, the real Yiannopoulos has nothing to do with the values many who call themselves conservatives, or "right" of the American political spectrum identity with. Clearly, upon watching Yiannopoulos' full interview, no "conservative" or "right-wing" American could support or agree with Yiannopoulos or find him anything less than precisely what they allegedly stand against.

Yet here is where the system's cognitive infiltration has worked so masterfully.

National Security Adviser General McMaster: The War Complex' Resident Parrot

February 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It was recently announced that US President Donald Trump selected US Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster as his National Security Adviser.

The New York Times in their article, "Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser," would report:

President Trump appointed Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster as his new national security adviser on Monday, picking a widely respected military strategist known for challenging conventional thinking and helping to turn around the Iraq war in its darkest days.

In reality, what President Trump has done, is select a man who will bring very little of his own thoughts with him to the position. Instead, he will - verbatim - repeat the talking points, reflect the agenda of, and serve the interests driving the collection of corporate-financier funded think tanks that devise - and have devised for decades - US-European foreign policy.

What General McMaster Represents

In a talk given at one such think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies - funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Hess, Chevron, and Boeing and chaired by individuals including President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and representatives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Betchel - General McMaster provides a well-rehearsed pitch collectively reflecting the worldview hashed out by not only the CSIS itself, but admittedly the worldview and objectives of the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and a myriad of other special-interest driven policy think tanks.

The talk, published on CSIS' YouTube channel in May of 2016, features General McMaster in his military uniform accusing Russia of "invading Ukraine" and China of  "challenging US interests at the far reaches of American power." When describing China's "challenging" of US interests, he presents a map of China itself and the surrounding South China Sea - quite decidedly nowhere near the United States or any logical or legitimately proximal sphere of influence Washington could justify in maintaining.

General McMaster predicates allegations that Russia and China pose a threat to "US interest" abroad - not US national security itself - by challenging the post World War 2 international order - an order admittedly created by and for the US and its European allies, granting them military, sociopolitical, and financial unipolar hegemony over the planet.

The Problem with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index

February 13, 2017 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - Transparency International puts out what it calls the "Corruption Perceptions Index." It is an annual index it claims "has been widely credited with putting the issue of corruption on the international policy agenda."

These carefully selected words, taken at face value appear benign, even progressive. But upon digging deeper into this organisation's background it becomes clear that these "perceptions" are politically motivated, and the "international policy agenda" clearly favours a very specific region of the globe, particularly that region occupied by Washington, London and Brussels.

Transparency International claims upon its "Who We Are" page of its website that (our emphasis):

From villages in rural India to the corridors of power in Brussels, Transparency International gives voice to the victims and witnesses of corruption. We work together with governments, businesses and citizens to stop the abuse of power, bribery and secret deals. As a global movement with one vision, we want a world free of corruption. Through chapters in more than 100 countries and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.

 Before moving onto the organisation's funding and financials, one would assume that above and beyond any other organisation in the world, Transparency International would carefully and diligently avoid any perceptions of conflicts of interest on its own part. Yet, not surprisingly, that isn't the case.

An Anti-Corruption Org Swimming in Conflicts of Interest 

Upon their page, "Who Supports Us," Transparency International admits that it receives funding from government agencies including:

• The United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID);
• Federal Foreign Office, Germany and;
• The US State Department.  

Transparency International not only receives funding from the very governments it is tasked to investigate, hold accountable and "index" annually, constituting a major conflict of interest, it also receives money from the following:

• The National Endowment for Democracy;
• Open Society Institute Foundation and;
• Shell Oil.

Other troubling sponsors dot Transparency International's funding disclosure, but the inclusion of immense corporate interests like energy giant Shell, is particularly troubling. 

So is the inclusion of the National Endowment for Democracy whose board of directors is chaired by representatives from other large corporations and financial institutions as well as partisan political figures involved heavily in not only influencing politics in their own respective nations, but who use the National Endowment for Democracy itself as a means to influence other nations.

While these interests are transparently self-serving, the use of the National Endowment for Democracy allows them to predicate their involvement in the political affairs and elections of foreign nations upon "democracy promotion." This seems to be the very essence of corruption, "abuse of power" and "secret deals," yet they are funding Transparency International's very existence. 

Trump Policy Continues Purposefully Fueling Terrorism

February 8, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In the American cartoon show G.I. Joe, no matter how badly the heroes of G.I. Joe battered the villains of the Cobra organization the previous week, they would return with even more men, weapons, and vehicles. No explanation was ever given as to where Cobra drew these vast resources from, and no explanation was needed - because it was just a children's cartoon.

In real life, however, a similar scenario is unfolding, and a similarly childish narrative is being foisted upon the public to conceal where real villains are drawing their vast resources from. Unlike in a children's cartoon, a real explanation is needed.

The threat of "terror," or "radical Islamists" as US politicians and media refers to them, has become as cartoonish in reality as Cobra was in fiction.

Organizations like Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) appear to draw from inexhaustible reserves of money, men, materiel, weapons, and even vehicles. They appear capable of transiting national borders, even the seas with fighters, logistical support, and financial resources in quantities that would confound all but the largest, most competent global military forces.

These terrorist organizations, espousing Wahhabi ideology originating in the Persian Gulf states of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, are waging war simultaneously in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, all while carrying out terrorist operations globally from North America and Europe to Eurasia and the Far East.

They are fighting the collective forces of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Few nations on Earth possess the political, military, and financial resources required to create and sustain such a force, and fewer still, possess the motivation to do so.

A Travel Ban Addressing Not Even the Symptoms 

US President Donald Trump's executive order banning entry into the United States of citizens from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen,  Libya, and Somalia was predicated on protecting the American people from what the order claimed were "terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States."

Trump's "Migrant Policy" Exposes Continuity of Agenda

February 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The full scope of the current deception being perpetrated against both the American people, and the rest of the world under the presidency of Donald Trump and the supposed "push back" from the "liberal media" is exposed in full amid President Trump's unfolding migrant policy.

Bloomberg, in two articles, reveals in full how the US proxy war against Syria, presided over by US President Barack Obama, prepared for under US President George Bush Jr., and plotted since President Bush's father was in office in the 1990's, continues in earnest under President Trump. The articles also reveal how the so-called "liberal media's" "push back" against President Trump willfully omits this glaring fact, and diverts public attention toward more partisan explanations for what is blatantly continuity of agenda.

Bloomberg's first article titled, "Trump Freezes Refugee Program, Orders New Vetting for Entry," claims:

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday indefinitely banning admission of people fleeing Syria, temporarily freezing the entry of other refugees and prohibiting entry by people from seven majority-Muslim nations for 90 days. 

Trump said the measure would prevent terrorists from being admitted into the country. Democrats labeled the order a "Muslim ban" and criticized it as inhumane. Absent from the order was a provision from a draft of the document, obtained by Bloomberg, that would require the Defense Department to make a plan to create "safe zones" in Syria and neighboring countries for people fleeing that nation’s civil war.

The article also claims:

The admission of refugees would be suspended for 120 days. Citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya would be banned from entering the U.S. for 90 days, while the government determines what information it needs from other countries to safely admit visitors. The order doesn’t list the countries but points to laws that cover those seven, which were provided by the White House.

Bloomberg and other allegedly "liberal" media platforms have attempted to link President Trump's policies to his own business interests, deflecting public attention away from the fact that the seven nations targeted by the new executive order are precisely the same nations targeted since the 1990's by Wall Street and Washington special interests.

US and European media are also leveraging their own manufactured "migrant crisis" to sell the concept of "safe zones" in Syria, a policy laid out and pursued under President Obama when initial US-backed regime change in Syria failed to materialize. The policy is now being continued without interruption under President Trump.

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.

What's Really Behind US Claims of "Russian Hacking?"

January 19, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Despite great effort recently put into bolstering the credibility of the "American intelligence community" in the wake of their assessment regarding alleged "Russian hacking," it should be remembered that this same "community" intentionally and maliciously fabricated a myriad of lies surrounding so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which led to a destructive war that claimed upward to a million lives - including over 4,000 US troops.

A community responsible for verified, self-serving lies, has no credibility. Nor do the media organizations that repeated those lies without questioning the very flawed factual and logical fundamentals underpinning them.

More recently, the evidence presented by this community and their partners across the Western media regarding alleged "Russian hacking" of the 2016 US elections is so weak, the logical fallacy of appealing to authority is essential to selling it to the global public.

What Do They Even Mean by "Russian Hacking?"

The sinister tone of "Russian hacking" suggests that Moscow somehow subverted the 2016 US elections through the use of information technology. Headlines across the Western media like CNN's, "US accuses Russia of trying to interfere with 2016 election," would help fan the flames of hysteria, claiming:

The Obama administration said Friday it was "confident" that Russia was behind recent hackings of emails about upcoming US elections in an attempt to interfere with the process. 

The announcement marks the first time the US administration has officially accused Russia of hacking into US political systems. Earlier in the week, the two countries broke off formal talks about a ceasefire in Syria. 

"We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a joint statement.

Claims of Russia "hacking into US political systems" invokes images of hackers based in the Kremlin using sophisticated cyber weapons to crack into voting machines, polling stations, and databases to skew election results. In reality, nothing of the sort happened - based not on Russian statements - but on the "American intelligence community's" own official reports on the incident.

The Actual Evidence - According to the US Government Itself

In actuality, the "hacking" involved e-mails that were leaked to the public - genuine e-mails that had circulated throughout the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including those between US presidential candidate and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta.

The e-mails were then handed over to Wikileaks before being released to the public.

No polling stations were "hacked," no databases compromised, and no influence exercised over US elections beyond whatever influence the truth about DNC internal communications had on the American public.

Rex Tillerson, Biggest Gator in the Swamp

January 18, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When US business tycoon-turned-politician Donald Trump ran for office, "drain the swamp" became a popular campaign cry. Trump likely was implying that he would "drain" corrupt and redundant features of Washington's establishment and distance Washington's leadership from the suffocating corruption of special interests on Wall Street.

Yet since winning the election, almost overnight (and in many cases, all during his campaign even), Trump has surrounded himself with precisely the sort of flora and fauna found in the deepest, dankest swamps.

And perhaps the largest specimen Trump is stocking the swamp he now presides over with, is his pick for US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.

Tillerson is not only at face value the embodiment of both Wall Street and Big-Oil as a lifetime oilman joining Exxon in 1975, becoming president of Exxon Yemen in 1995 and serving as chairman and chief executive officer of ExxonMobil from 2006-2016, but also epitomizes the conflicts of interest and unwarranted influence Wall Street and Big-Oil are notorious for.

Most ironic of all, the abuses Tillerson played part in almost up until the day he was recruited by Trump, exercising unwarranted power and influence through the United States government and the very State Department he now stands poised to lead, was done during, and more importantly, with the administration of President Barack Obama.



The Intercept's article, "Rex Tillerson’s ExxonMobil Frequently Sought State Department Assistance, New Documents Show," would report:

The requests for help — documented in diplomatic cables obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from DeSmogBlog as well as some previously released by Wikileaks — raise a whole new series of conflict-of-interest concerns about Tillerson, who retired as ExxonMobil CEO soon after being nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to be the next secretary of state.

In particular, The Intercept would reveal:

ExxonMobil sent State Department officials a request to help overcome local opposition to fracking in Germany; in Indonesia, the State Department acted as a advocate for ExxonMobil during contentious negotiations between the firm and the Indonesian government over a major gas field in the South China Sea; and in Russia, ExxonMobil asked the U.S. ambassador to press the Russians to approve a major drilling program, noting that a “warming of U.S.-Russian relations” overall would also help the company.

Those optimistic for rapprochement between the US and Russia, however, should understand that from ExxonMobil's point of view, rapprochement with Russia is more desirable the weaker Russia is when it finally occurs, thus giving ExxonMobil and other US special interests the upper-hand in negotiations, and if possible, a free hand as was the case in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse and the wholesale looting of Russia's economy by the US and Europe that  followed.

Manning's Overdue Freedom Granted Amid Shameless Political Stunt

January 18, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Headlines are announcing the early release of US Army whistle-blower Private Manning from a jail sentence that began in 2013 and was to last 35 years. Manning is accused of passing US government documents to information clearing house Wikileaks before being arrested and charged for "espionage" in 2010.

Manning's release indicates an admission by the US of unjust imprisonment. However, the US has so far failed to acknowledge this fact publicly, assign blame, or hold responsible those who played a direct role in Manning's arrest, trial, conviction, and now over 6 year imprisonment.

Manning's release, however, was a carefully timed, politically-motivated stunt, devoid of moral convictions, principles, or mercy - as the stunt is designed to appear. At any time during the administration of Barack Obama, Manning's sentence could have been both vigorously opposed and commuted. However it was not. Manning was left to languish in prison, unjustly confined, so an exiting US president could perform a spectacle, adding to the illusion of both his own legacy, and to that of the office itself.

It is fitting that the United States, at this juncture in its history, cannot even exhibit positive qualities without polluting them with self-serving, political, and manipulative agendas.

Regardless of the depravity that defined both Manning's imprisonment and release, it should be remembered by all that despite Obama's "pardon," for each day Manning was imprisoned unjustly - or anyone for that matter - a crime is being committed against us all.    

Meanwhile, there are vast number of other political prisoners languishing either in American prisons or defacto in legal limbo under threat of arrest or assassination, including NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, Wikileaks' Julian Assange. and lesser known prisoners including Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.

Agorist Challenge: Fixing Flint Michigan's Poisoned Water

January 17, 2017 (Tony Cartlaucci - LocalOrg) - Did you know nearly 100,000 people in Flint Michigan are still drinking poisoned water?

That should be no surprise. The government and institutions charged and trusted to ensure the residents of this Michigan city had safe drinking water already demonstrated criminal levels of negligence and corruption, causing the problem to begin with. Expecting these same people and the system they represent to solve the problem lingers somewhere between the unreasonable and the absurd.

US President Barack Obama declared a federal emergency in Flint over a year ago - meaning that the problem isn't just corrupt, negligent, and criminal politicians in Flint - but that the incompetence and impotence goes all the way to Washington.

A year on and the "solutions" presented have ranged from simply forcing residents to buy bottled water and unsustainable charity providing those bottles, to superficial, even deceptive measures like replacing home faucets instead of the miles of poisoned plumbing running through the city.

As for actually fixing Flint's plumbing, government estimates range from "millions" to "billions" indicating no serious thought has been given to even so much as planning an infrastructure overhaul.

It is most certainly a showcase for the absolute failure of government. But could it be a showcase for something more positive?

A Showcase For Alternatives 

Anarchists and agorists propose that there is virtually no problem that cannot be solved through the market - voluntary exchanges between free citizens contributing to a better future. The few, semi-permanent solutions that have presented themselves in Flint have certainly leaned more toward this direction.

US Concerns Over "Election Interference" May Backfire

January 5, 2017 (Joseph Thomas -NEO) - The United States has recently claimed the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from US territory as well as additional sanctions against the Russian state are in retaliation for what the Washington Post claims is "2016 election interference."

In the Post's article, "Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference," it's stated that:

The response, unveiled just weeks before President Obama leaves office, culminates months of internal debate over how to react to Russia’s election-year provocations. In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election, leaking damaging information in an attempt to undermine the electoral process and help Donald Trump take the White House.

The "damaging information" that was leaked, however, was disseminated by Wikileaks, and likely the result of an internal whistle-blower, not Russian operatives. Questions surrounding the veracity of America's claims are owed to a substantial lack of evidence provided by US departments and agencies involved in both the investigation and the punitive measures applied in its wake.

However, the US' reaction to what it claims is "2016 election interference" could significantly backfire, since the US itself is engaged in very real, overt election interference globally, and for decades. In fact, even as the US berated Russia for allegedly interfering in America's internal politics, its own organisations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded by the US government, openly admitted they were leaking information regarding China's internal politics in efforts to undermine Beijing.

In fact, NED and its subsidiaries (including the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House) as well as myriad fronts around the world these organisations fund, support and direct, are openly dedicated to manipulating foreign elections, creating US-friendly opposition movements and even overthrowing governments that impede US interests worldwide.

The New York Times, in fact, would admit in 2011 in an article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," that:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.

US interference across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 2011 would eventually lead to regional war, the complete destruction of Libya and near destruction of Syria as well as regime change in a number of nations including Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

Retaliation Promised: Russian Ambassador's Murder Justified, Even Praised Across the West

December 23, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In the week leading up to the brazen, cold-blooded murder of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov in Ankara, Turkey, the United States repeatedly and publicly threatened "retaliation" against Russia for allegedly "hacking" the 2016 US presidential elections.

During the same week, Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower and Iranian ground support, finally ended the occupation of the northern city of Aleppo by armed militants who invaded in 2012. The inevitable liberation of Aleppo was accompanied by apoplectic hysteria across Western political, policy and pundit circles calling for everything from additional sanctions on Russia to threats against the lives of Russians themselves.

While the Western media has since attempted to dismiss murmurs across Russian and Turkish media in the aftermath of Ambassador Karlov's assassination implicating US involvement, they simultaneously appear incapable of concealing what can only be described as delight over the tragic attack.

The Washington Post, in an article titled, "Turkish police officer, invoking Aleppo, guns down Russian ambassador in Ankara," would characterize the assassination as a "retaliatory attack," stating:

The shooting was among the most brazen retaliatory attacks yet on Russia since Moscow entered the war in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad, and unleashed a bombardment on Aleppo that has drawn international condemnation for what observers on the ground have called indiscriminate attacks on civilians. 

The Washington Post also intentionally portrays labeling the incident as a terrorist attack as Moscow's exclusive point of view, claiming:

But in Moscow, where the Kremlin has maintained that its aerial sorties and missile attacks have exclusively targeted “terrorists,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry called the shooting “a terrorist attack,” and President Vladi­mir Putin called it a “provocation aimed at rupturing ties between Russia and Turkey.”

The Washington Post is able to refrain from openly applauding the assassination, but does everything in its power to legitimize, even defend it within the context of an angry "police officer" provoked by what the Washington Post calls Russia's "indiscriminate attacks on civilians." Relegated deep within the article and beyond the attention span of most readers, are details that reveal Ambassador Karlov's attacker as a participant in organized terror.