View Single Post
 
Old 01-27-2018, 05:03 PM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,332
Military and NSA vs CIA and FBI

EVERYTHING that the deep state does is hidden in the name of national security. It is impossible to really know what is happening and where the battle lines are drawn. I found some very good ideas in the comments section of a Zero Hedge article.

In 1952, by the executive order of Truman, the signals intelligence division of the U.S. army and navy became the NSA. The NSA was established under the jurisdiction of the military and does not answer to the U.S. congress or any other elected body. Unlike the CIA and FBI, it also has no legal limits to the things that it may do. By both tradition and administrative structure, the NSA is subservient to the military.
Whereas both the CIA and the FBI became partners in the monstrous Homeland Security Agency created by Bush the Younger, the NSA remains outside of "Homeland Security," although it does have some committees that coordinate its activities with Homeland Security. However, NSA remains under the exclusive command and control (if it does indeed lie in any chain of command) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the heads of the U.S. military. The head of the NSA is a military commander in the official U.S. military chain of command.

The NSA can and does share information that it collects with "civilian" intelligence agencies such as the CIA (which has been closely linked with both Wall Street and with the U.S. State Department since its inception at the hands of the Dulles brothers) and the FBI. However, what the NSA chooses to share with the CIA and the FBI is solely at the discretion of the NSA. In effect, what has happened in the U.S. is that the CIA is being replaced as the nexus of the "deep-state" (where Wall Street and other interests form U.S. foreign policy) by the NSA, military intelligence, and the military.

The American people think that they voted for a populist leader who "spoke to the masses." In reality, they voted for a front-man for a military junta. They elected the U.S. version of Augusto Pinochet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet The people of the U.S. are not the first to fall for this ploy. People around the world have elected military figureheads as part of supposedly populist movements against socialism, only to discover later that they had, in fact, voted for a military dictatorship.

It will begin soon, as all of these type of things have. Soon, the "sealed indictments" will be opened exposing the "corrupt previous regime," the "traitors" and the "socialists" who have conspired with foreign powers. In most cases, these first victims of the new dictatorship actually are "traitors" and "socialists." However, it never ends there. The "traitors" and "socialists" have supporters who begin to protest the new government. Measures are taken. The leaders of the street-level "resistance" are discovered. The authorities come to their houses in the middle of the night in "no-knock" armed raids, and paople slowly begin "disappearing:"

As to what happens next, I can make a good guess based upon historical precedent. It begins with the indictments (in this case "sealed indictments") of all the corrupt members of the prior "socialist" regime. In most cases, these people are corrupt. However, they have supporters, those who lived off their largesse or who are, at heart, socialists. The indictments of the previous regime figures produce street-level protests and a legitimate "resistance" movement that can be violent and destructive at times.
This resistance movement must be quelled in order to maintain order. The leaders must be apprehended. The groups are infiltrated by the secret police, in this case, those elements of the CIA and FBI who swear allegiance to the new order. The houses of the leaders are "no-knock" raided by armed security forces in the middle of the night. People begin to "disappear." At first, it is only one or two: a rumor. Then, more, until everyone knows of someone who has "disappeared."

The motives of the U.S. people are not so different from the motives of others who have elected military juntas while trying to rid their countries of "corruption" and "socialists."
I do not support Hillary or Trump. Hillary is a creature of the "deep-state:" the nexus of Wall-Street, the State Deparment, Zionist Jews, the U.S. media, and the whole civil administration in Washington. Military juntas do not arise because one day everyone in a nation decides that they want a military dictatorship. In general, they arise in response to corruption in government and the decay of an economy from both corruption and the purchase of votes with social welfare (modern socialism).

The CIA-led "deep-state" and the junta do not differ substantially in terms of how the U.S. should conduct foreign policy. The realties of the national interest are the realities. U.S. wealth is dependent upon the petrodollar at this point, and the petrodollar is enforced by the military. Whether the CIA or the Junta control U.S. foreign policy is inconsequential. The policy will remain, in rough terms, the same: using military might to force nations to use the USD.

It will begin as it has so often in these cases: with the indictments (in this case "sealed indictments") of the corrupt members of the former socialist regime. These arrests and indictments produce protests and steet-level violence from the supporters of the former regime.

I came to the conclusion some time ago that a turf war between two mafia groups is taking place in Washington. One is CIA/finance/bureaucrat (the coalition that Allen Dulles put together that led to the coup d'etat of Nov.22). The other group is centered around the Pentagon, as you say. Where I differ with your assessment is where to put the Jews (AIPAC, Zionists/neocons,Israel). I assumed that they go with the Pentagon. You seem to think that they are with CIA group.

We don't have a country, it's an empire. And this is how an empire treats it's subjects. This grew out of the post civil war when northern states wanted to maintain martial law on the south and extended that to the western states.

I posted this last night and, lost it. I'm going to break it up this time.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote