The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
"Deep State" vs. "Intelligence Community"
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

You aren’t supposed to use the term “deep state” to refer to organs of the federal government and associated entities that are difficult for elected officials to control. Instead, you are now supposed to use the cozy term “intelligence community,” since they presumably finance their operations with bakes sales and paper drives.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Can this be verified?

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Buzz feed news has assured me that there is nothing to see here, and Seth Rich's family are "quashing" the idea that he had any contact with wikileaks.

    And besides, Trump gave classified info to RUSSIA
    , @JerryC
    I thought he was gay.
    , @candid_observer
    Wake me up if it gets verified.

    Otherwise, I have no more use for right wing Fake News than that of the mainstream media.
    , @Santoculto
    But but redpill go to ... Zion*

    Deep state is the parallel and hidden social pyramid. Intelligence community is the brain part of this ghost-machine, where ideas and strategies are born. Seems a general trends, hidden groups controlling sub-self-conscious masses. ''Knowledge'' is precious... Even i think understanding is better than knowledge, i can know without understand, and i can understand without know [so called instinctive mode], know =recognize, verify.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/deep-state-vs-intelligence-community/#comment-1874004
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “Intelligence Community” has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. “Deep state” is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    Read More
    • Troll: Emblematic
    • Replies: @mukat
    Speaking of newspaper use, CIA agents worked full-time as journalists at NYT and CBS during the Cold War. I grew up reading a major newspaper. How come I didn’t know about this until reading Unz.com?
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    Wrong. "Intelligence community" and "Deep State" are not analogous. The former is a sector of government, the latter describes the intersection/revolving door of big business/intellectual elite/long-term civil service. The analogous term for Deep State that has been around for a while is "Iron Triangle", which has the same general idea and is found in political science textbooks, with no ooga booganess implied. Political scientists have pretty much accepted that most modern states have a deep state/iron triangle. Only nannyboys consider this to be something to be shocked! Shocked!!! about.
    , @anonymous
    George Lakoff, "Women, fire, and dangerous things", University Of Chicago Press, 1987.
    , @guest
    The term "intelligence community" dates way back, like to the 50s. I don't know when it drifted into general usage, but I don't remember hearing it on a daily basis until very recently.
    , @guest
    "'Deep State' is...made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories."

    That's how the Deep State wants it.

    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It's just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren't called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it. Or the international communist conspiracy, or the slaveholder conspiracy prior to the Civil War, or Russiagate right now., or anything normal people are supposed to believe in.
    , @candid_observer

    “Deep state” is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.
     
    Excuse me, who died and made you Pope of the English Language? (And I'm not talking about Alexander).
    , @Discard
    There have always been shadow governments, governments in waiting, grey eminences, permanent governments, military-industrial complexes, extra-legal powers-that-be, what-have-you. It's not conspiracy theory to try to make sense of it.
    , @J.Ross
    You are simply wrong, "deep state" has been a normal and respectable term among area specialists studying Turkey for decades, are clearly applies to a number of situations without stretching.
    But tell me again how an Israeli Christian who gets spat upon in the face can take comfort in a statistic about average income.
    , @Glossy
    "Deep state” is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    The "intelligence community" has an affinity for conspiring. It's entirely natural to want to construct theories about the nature of their conspiracies.
    , @SteveRogers42
    Quite right, old chap. I much prefer Fletcher Prouty's term: "The Secret Team".

    FYI, there is a body of opinion which holds that the CIA itself originated and popularized the term "conspiracy theory":

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

    I guess this makes you a coincidence theorist.
    , @Bill
    The only people without "an affinity for conspiracy theories" are autists and morons.
  3. Community is becoming yet another neologism. Take a look at the diversity in many communities and try to find any common thread. Citizens get tossed in jail now for bake sales without permits, when they are not being held up for the $38 in proceeds.

    Read More
  4. anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Thanks deep-staters, we needed the vibrancy …

    Minneapolis police arrest [Norwegian] man, find trove of weapons

    MPR, Tim Nelson · May 16, 2017

    A littering complaint led police to a trove of weapons in a car in north Minneapolis, and now has led to a criminal charge against a 27-year-old Minneapolis man.

    Abdullah Alrifahe faces one count of possession of a pistol without a permit in connection with an incident last Thursday evening.

    The criminal complaint against him says a man near 44th Street and Humboldt Avenue saw the occupants of a car throw food wrappers out the window shortly after 5 p.m., and later flagged down a passing cop to complain.

    The complaint says a dispute erupted, and officers got the two occupants out of the vehicle and searched it. The men told police they were waiting for a package to be delivered to them by a drone.

    The complaint says officers found a hand grenade, two rifles, including what appeared to be a loaded AK-47 in the car, as well as large quantities of ammunition, cellphones, computers and what appeared to be parts of drones.

    “Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the variety of the ammunition and large quantity of BBs and electronic devices could be used for bomb making,” the complaint said.

    The complaint doesn’t say if authorities are investigating any further threats posed by the men or what police found in the car.

    Alrifahe is scheduled to make an initial appearance in front of Hennepin County District Court Judge Tamara Garcia on Tuesday afternoon.

    p.s. Don’t litter!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    "...Alrifahe is scheduled to make an initial appearance in front of Hennepin County District Court Judge Tamara Garcia on Tuesday afternoon. ..."


    Minneapolis 2017:

    Norvegian Man is scheduled to appear in front of American Judge.
    , @fitzGetty
    ... dodgy old Scandinavia once again ...
  5. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    Speaking of newspaper use, CIA agents worked full-time as journalists at NYT and CBS during the Cold War. I grew up reading a major newspaper. How come I didn’t know about this until reading Unz.com?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The CIA had something called the 'Domestic Contact Service'. People who signed with the Domestic Contact Service agreed to be debriefed on their return if they took trips abroad. One of the more notable persons associated was Clay Shaw, who was director of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans and traveled to Latin America quite a bit. By his account, it was a big nothing and he never had much to tell them. (Shaw came to national attention when the DA in New Orleans manufactured a fantastical case against him, accusing him of being the ringleader of the plot to kill John Kennedy. Conspiracy aficionadoes have fancied it something of great moment that he was appended to the CIA in this way).

    Reporters travel abroad quite a bit. If I'm not mistaken, Allard Loewenstein was associated with the Domestic Contact Service. It wasn't that important.
    , @Trelane
    House Intelligence (Church) Committee hearings on CIA c. 1975

    https://youtu.be/5ED63A_hcd0?t=33
    , @anonymous
    I've heard that actor Glenn Ford worked for the CIA.
  6. The deep state is really the entire military/industrial/congressional complex and one of its most important indicators of status is how high of a security clearance one has.

    Read More
  7. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    Wrong. “Intelligence community” and “Deep State” are not analogous. The former is a sector of government, the latter describes the intersection/revolving door of big business/intellectual elite/long-term civil service. The analogous term for Deep State that has been around for a while is “Iron Triangle”, which has the same general idea and is found in political science textbooks, with no ooga booganess implied. Political scientists have pretty much accepted that most modern states have a deep state/iron triangle. Only nannyboys consider this to be something to be shocked! Shocked!!! about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The analogous term for Deep State that has been around for a while is “Iron Triangle”,

    No it is not. Iron Triangle is a term coined by political scientists who study public administration and refers to the cooperation between bureau chiefs and their camarilla, members of Congress, and constituency groups. It referred to domestic politics pretty exclusively. Not sure who coined the term, but Francis Rourke was one of the political scientists developing the model at the time it emerged.
  8. anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    George Lakoff, “Women, fire, and dangerous things”, University Of Chicago Press, 1987.

    Read More
  9. When the term “intelligence community” is used, it’s always accompanied by a vignette about how brave and self-sacrificing the men (and women!) who serve in that establishment are. How they keep us safe.

    It’s riding off the post-9/11 spirit of solidarity with fellow Americans against evil-doers. The point is to accord the deep st- sorry, the “intelligence community” with the same respect we accord our military.

    That’s all well and good, I suppose, but I have a really hard time buying it. The problem is that while the rhetoric is supposed to evoke memories of 9/11 and the fight against Islamic terrorists, the reality is that the deep state consistently supported the Sunni rebels in Syria and Libya, knowing full well it would give rise to terrorist outfits. We’re getting the opposite of what we’re supposed to support.

    So to that end, no, I don’t respect intelligence agencies as being anything other than a necessary evil. While I am grateful for any terrorist attacks they have likely prevented on US soil, the gratitude I do feel there is outweighed by my revulsion over how their policies have empowered terrorists like Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the greater Middle East. I also resent their forays into U.S. domestic politics.

    Ultimately, all the talk in the world about the “intelligence community” keeping us safe is just a cover for how their ultimate enemy is Russia. I’d like to remind them that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban came about from our supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. So again, here we are where we’re supposed to feel gratitude for people who incidentally happen to fix the problems they have created for us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "how brave and self-sacrificing the men (and women!) who serve in that establishment are"

    Afghanistan: I remember reading an article at the beginning that said one problem would be the lack of intelligence, since CIA agents would decline to operate in the sort of country where they'd have diarrhoea the whole time.
  10. Instead of Intelligence Community I urge everyone to refer to the US Securitate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    But there is a difference. We were chin deep in the Non-Aligned Movement and full of Arab and African students (a few thousand Libyans when Back to the Future was making Libyan terrorism a plot device), but had no attacks and certainly none of the ritual humiliations Americans endure from their guests (except for that one time when Black September Palestinians tried to kill the Jordanian Ambassador before being mobbed by state security people). For all its sins against its own people, the Securitate kept a tight lid on the foreign element present domestically. An uppity foreigner could expect a drumming here and then another drumming back home for making them look bad. Then again, that wasn't a very auspicious time for political Islam.

    The page and a half at this link notes some of the terrorist threats in the country, mostly related to its Israeli relations. The writer, Larry Watts, is an interesting fellow - an American security expert/historian living in Romania and married to a Romanian I believe. He used to work for RAND and visited Romania even before 1989. Scuttlebutt says he could have been CIA and he's been attacked by former CIA Director James Woolsey for his writing.

    https://books.google.ro/books?id=_00UDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA313

    , @Matra
    Even US journalists who were already in the profession when Ceausescu was still alive wouldn't know what "Securitate" is a reference to, never mind the masses. "Stasi" is better but like the Romanian term it only describes the security wing of the ruling class.

    I like the Algerian term "le pouvoir" but again it's in a foreign language so forget about that catching on these days. It's English translation doesn't really have the same, er, power, as in French.

    The "permanent government" or "shadow government" might be more effective in their descriptive power to normies but "deep state" is the term that has taken off so let's run with it.

    , @Art Deco
    If we had a proper Securitate, the entire British chatterati would have been wasted to clean up the cultural environment, from Alexander Cockburn and Polly Toynbee down to the lowliest combox denizen.
  11. The Deep State wants to destroy the United States.

    The Intelligence Community wants to destroy the United States.

    The Deep State and the Intelligence Community are a clear and present danger to the national security interests of the United States.

    The Founding Fathers of the United States would not hesitate to make war upon the Deep State and the Intelligence Community.

    Read More
  12. Remember when the left seemed to hate the CIA and did not trust the intelligence community ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Everyone close to power on the left and right seems to like the CIA just fine. Which set of outsiders hate the CIA/NSA/etc. depends on which way the political winds are blowing.
    , @Alden
    I sure do, but then I'm in my 70's. I remember the first few books published soon after the Kennedy assassination. The CIA did it ! said every (( anti American liberal)).

    When did the left change their opinion about the CIA? Why when they grew up and took over the government, I'd say the election of 1992 when 2 Alinsky followers took over.
  13. @Anon
    Can this be verified?

    https://twitter.com/RedPillDropper/status/864526564922470400

    Buzz feed news has assured me that there is nothing to see here, and Seth Rich’s family are “quashing” the idea that he had any contact with wikileaks.

    And besides, Trump gave classified info to RUSSIA

    Read More
  14. @Anon
    Can this be verified?

    https://twitter.com/RedPillDropper/status/864526564922470400

    I thought he was gay.

    Read More
  15. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The term ‘deep’ is problematic because it implies that the Power is an institution-or-two whose workings are hidden from view.

    But I think it’s the interconnections among many institutions and industries than the hidden depths of an institution.

    It’s about the connections among intelligence services, Wall Street and Fed, Ivy League, Hollywood, oligarchs, big media, Pentagon, and long-term career politicians(grown totally cynical). Now, surely all those institutions and industries have varying viewpoints and interests. So, what is the Core Intersectionality? I think it is Jewish Power, not only because Jews are immensely rich and powerful but because they are Holy People by rule of PC.

    Big Media get to decide the Narrative. It is pro-Zionist, promotes Holocaust as a religion, and denounces any whiff of anti-Jewish criticism as ‘antisemitism’. Elite Academia is dominated by Jews who claim to be ‘liberal’ but are mostly ardently pro-Zionist and Jewish-supremacist, like Paul Krugman. There is a Jewish media and Jewish academia nexus.

    [MORE]

    Jews are immensely powerful in Wall Street and control the plumbing of finance. They can turn the faucet on and off when it comes to money supply and lending. Also, with the control of the Fed, they hold a gun to the head of the economy.
    Jews control Hollywood, and it almost never gives us Jewish villains or Nakba movies. Even crazy Jews are promoted as lovable and funny. Jewish Neurosis is the New Normal. Also, Hollywood made many Holocaust movies designed to sacralize Jews and many anti-white movies meant to paralyze white pride and power.
    So, even if white gentiles are heavily represented in elite institutions and industries, they are not allowed to have moral pride and confidence like white folks of old. So, no matter how much wealth, privilege, and leverage they have, they must feel as if they don’t deserve it and stole it from others. In order for white businessmen, politicians, and figures to feel justified, they must associate themselves subserviently with Jews(and blacks and homos, the two allies of Jews; but this is getting a bit weird because Jews now promote Muslims as semi-holy-victims of Evil Trump. It’s risky because if Americans are made to cheer for Muslims, it will be more difficult for Zionists to push Wars for Israel against poor helpless Muslims).
    The power of Narrative shows that Money isn’t enough. The Shah of Iran was immensely rich, but he had little respect among his people because he was seen as the illegitimate puppet placed in power by US imperialists. So, without control of the Narrative, even the richest and most powerful people are on shaky legs. And control of history determines whether a people are justified or not. When whites controlled history, they also controlled the Narrative. While admitting the tragedy of Indians and blacks(slavery), they also emphasized the redemptive and transformative role played by Great Whites in the US. But once history came under control of Jews, it emphasized whites as illegitimate robbers and destroyers of other people. Thus, America can only be redeemed by Jews, blacks, and immigrants(who, like later immigrant Jews, arrive guilt-free without the burden of ‘genocide’ of Indians and slavery of blacks). And by homos as Homomania is to replace Christianity(loathed by Jews) as neo-religion.
    Since politicians depend on money, they have to rely on Jews. Also, as the Narrative extols & sanctifies Jews but reviles & ‘illegitimizes’ whites, all politicians(despite being mostly white gentile) cannot stand for white identity and interests but must serve Jewish identity and interests. Israel! Israel! Israel! Down with Putin, the New Hitler! Let us have several Holocaust Days, Jewish Month, and Happy Hannukah on par with Christmas(even though Jews are only 2% of the population). So, Jews got Big Media, Wall Street, Ivy League, and Congress. To a large degree, Jews gained power in these institutions and industries through merit and ability. But when power keeps accumulating for a people and if that people have been sacralized and shielded from scrutiny and criticism, things began to rot and fester. One thing for sure, if Bernie Madoff hadn’t been Jewish and hadn’t key connections, he would have been smoked out long ago.

    Now, one could argue that the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the military should be more independent of Jewish Power. For one thing, military draws people mostly from white gentile men who lean conservative. CIA and FBI hire people by merit, not by elections where politicians have to suck up to rich bosses like Saban and Adelson.

    So, how did intelligence services become shills of Jewish Power and globalism?
    The heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA are appointed by the president who is just another politician and they have to be approved by Congress which is a parliament of whores to the donor class. Also, Big Media can turn on or off the heat on the Intelligence Services. If CIA, FBI, and NSA do what the globalists want, the media go along with their agenda. But if they turn against globalism, media will feign outrage and turn up the heat on them.

    Also, the people who work in elite government were educated in Ivy League schools under globalists and often Jewish professors. And since they rely on Jewish-dominated media and think-tanks for Worldview, they themselves have become mental-colonized by globalists.
    Also, most people who work in such institutions are careerists first and idealists second. They will do ANYTHING to move up the ladder. Edward-Snowdens are rare.
    As for the military, it’s been castrated by globalists with all this homo-ism, feminism, tranny-ism, and diversity-ism. Even though much of the US military, especially at the top, is still a bastion of white gentile conservative power, it is on the moral defensive against the reigning cults of the US that are Diversity, Homomania, White Guilt, and Feminism. So, like rich white businessmen, the white generals in the military lack autonomy of moral pride. As white males, they are on the defensive and must prove their worth ONLY BY sucking up to Zionists, homos, blacks, female soldiers, homos, and trannies. They lack Moral Autonomy and rely on Moral Dependency to justify any power or prestige they have.

    So, Jewish Power is the intersectionality of the Deep-Wide-State. Jews fear that others may notice this. Now, it’s inconvenient for Jews if there are only Jewish fingerprints and footprints in all networks of power and privilege. People will feel that Jews, far from being a Holy Victim People, are conniving masters of everything.
    So, Jews promoted homomania to make it seem as though it’s the homos who are really in charge. And homos, in their vanity, fell for the bait… like the gay-ish dummy in IVAN THE TERRIBLE Pt 2.

    https://youtu.be/XEfDe4fvfFA?t=1h4m14s

    Read More
  16. @Sid
    When the term "intelligence community" is used, it's always accompanied by a vignette about how brave and self-sacrificing the men (and women!) who serve in that establishment are. How they keep us safe.

    It's riding off the post-9/11 spirit of solidarity with fellow Americans against evil-doers. The point is to accord the deep st- sorry, the "intelligence community" with the same respect we accord our military.

    That's all well and good, I suppose, but I have a really hard time buying it. The problem is that while the rhetoric is supposed to evoke memories of 9/11 and the fight against Islamic terrorists, the reality is that the deep state consistently supported the Sunni rebels in Syria and Libya, knowing full well it would give rise to terrorist outfits. We're getting the opposite of what we're supposed to support.

    So to that end, no, I don't respect intelligence agencies as being anything other than a necessary evil. While I am grateful for any terrorist attacks they have likely prevented on US soil, the gratitude I do feel there is outweighed by my revulsion over how their policies have empowered terrorists like Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the greater Middle East. I also resent their forays into U.S. domestic politics.

    Ultimately, all the talk in the world about the "intelligence community" keeping us safe is just a cover for how their ultimate enemy is Russia. I'd like to remind them that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban came about from our supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. So again, here we are where we're supposed to feel gratitude for people who incidentally happen to fix the problems they have created for us.

    “how brave and self-sacrificing the men (and women!) who serve in that establishment are”

    Afghanistan: I remember reading an article at the beginning that said one problem would be the lack of intelligence, since CIA agents would decline to operate in the sort of country where they’d have diarrhoea the whole time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    "CIA agents would decline to operate in the sort of country where they’d have diarrhoea the whole time."

    Are we then to understand that CIA agents don't travel much around the world, not even South of the border?
  17. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    The term “intelligence community” dates way back, like to the 50s. I don’t know when it drifted into general usage, but I don’t remember hearing it on a daily basis until very recently.

    Read More
  18. This “community” reference is getting ridiculous. I was reading a Drudge linked article yesterday, about the new class of specialist the U.S. Navy has developed to train officers how to use the new fangled weapons on our Naval boats. As a contrast to the traditional emphasis of high technology for the air fleet the quoted specialist kept referring to the “surface community”. He said it a number of times. Thankfully, he didn’t use the corporate-speak phrase “stake holder”.

    Corporate-speak has seeped into both corporations and the discourse at large due to the feminization of the work force. Another bad thing that really picked up steam during the Reagan years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coooopa
    Navy officer designations have been using the word "community" as long as I have been around them. At least last ten years. This has been a separate culture and maybe even a family business for a generation of military officers.
    , @Discard
    It used to be the Black-shoe Navy (surface craft), the Brown-shoe Navy (aircraft), and later, the Felt-shoe Navy (submarines). "Community" is a term of warning, alerting us to the proximity of BS.
  19. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    “‘Deep State’ is…made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.”

    That’s how the Deep State wants it.

    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It’s just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren’t called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that’s not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it. Or the international communist conspiracy, or the slaveholder conspiracy prior to the Civil War, or Russiagate right now., or anything normal people are supposed to believe in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Conspiracy implies secrecy.

    If Art Deco or anyone else is under the impression that the use of the term Deep State implies secrecy, they are mistaken.
    , @Art Deco
    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It’s just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren’t called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that’s not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it.

    No, few people who trade in ideas for a living have much interest in conspiracy theories and few people who find them plausible care much about public affairs.

    "The Holocaust" is not a 'conspiracy theory'. It's a well known set of historical events. Gary Allen's fantasies about the Council on Foreign Relations and Jim Garrison's about Clay Shaw are conspiracy theories. They're constructed without any inductive reasoning and their purveyors are impervious to contrary evidence. They're not respectable because they're stupid.
    , @MW
    The implication of "conspiracy theory" is that it is false. When you call something a conspiracy theory, you are saying it didn't really happen, and that people who believe it are bad at evaluating evidence.

    Of course truth is hard, the mainstream media gets it wrong all the time, true events frequently get labeled "conspiracy theories," and false stories become widely believed.

    But I don't think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon.

  20. I don’t understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Thomas Becket's murder was not a robbery, nor was it "ordered" by Henry II.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket
    , @Wj
    I agree. Now if the Democrats could lose the desire to believe that somehow Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

    In reality, we all know that the Dems (leadership) don't believe in the Russian insanity. It is just a weapon to use against him.
    , @Yak-15
    "The truth is out there."

    Special Agent Moulder, FBI
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I don’t understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders."

    Some people like to believe crazy and/or stupid things. They think it makes them intelligent to believe things that most people don't believe. Some people have poor standards of evidence. A lot of people seem to believe the ridiculous notion that Michelle Obama is a transsexual (as if there weren't numerous pictures of her before she became famous, even when she was a child).

    The idea of Hillary running a child trafficking ring is pretty loopy. However, on the murder thing, well, few people are claiming that the Clintons ordered murders, rather it is usually claimed that murders were ordered on their behalf. It is, on the face of it, a seemingly ridiculous notion.

    Then again, back in the 90s, The Economist (!) consulted an actuary who looked at the deaths and concluded that the number of people in the Clinton orbit who had met with untimely and/or mysterious deaths was genuinely statistically anomalous. For The Economist to have published such an article was quite an unusual thing. Maybe the Clintons (or the people who work for them) are just unlucky.

    I'm not saying the Clinton Body Count is a real thing. I'm just saying: I wouldn't want to work for them.
  21. @dearieme
    Instead of Intelligence Community I urge everyone to refer to the US Securitate.

    But there is a difference. We were chin deep in the Non-Aligned Movement and full of Arab and African students (a few thousand Libyans when Back to the Future was making Libyan terrorism a plot device), but had no attacks and certainly none of the ritual humiliations Americans endure from their guests (except for that one time when Black September Palestinians tried to kill the Jordanian Ambassador before being mobbed by state security people). For all its sins against its own people, the Securitate kept a tight lid on the foreign element present domestically. An uppity foreigner could expect a drumming here and then another drumming back home for making them look bad. Then again, that wasn’t a very auspicious time for political Islam.

    The page and a half at this link notes some of the terrorist threats in the country, mostly related to its Israeli relations. The writer, Larry Watts, is an interesting fellow – an American security expert/historian living in Romania and married to a Romanian I believe. He used to work for RAND and visited Romania even before 1989. Scuttlebutt says he could have been CIA and he’s been attacked by former CIA Director James Woolsey for his writing.

    https://books.google.ro/books?id=_00UDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA313

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    Bad as Communist states were, they at least existed, by name even, to serve their own people. Furthermore, they held to a number of 19th century nationalist ideals about each nation-state serving the interests of a particular ethnic group.

    Communists also had the ideological self-confidence to say, "No, we're the opposite of Nazis," and hence didn't have anything to prove to anyone. In contrast, the Western democracies made pretzels of themselves trying to prove that they weren't fascists, to the point they gloat about exterminating their own people to prove they're not racist.

    If, in the 22nd century, France and Germany are Islamic hellholes, while the Visegrad countries have a big, beautiful western wall and healthy, white demographics, historians in that era will write of a communism as a well meaning mistake that went away fairly quickly, whereas egalitarian liberalism led to the permanent ruin of the peoples who adhered to it.
  22. @dearieme
    Instead of Intelligence Community I urge everyone to refer to the US Securitate.

    Even US journalists who were already in the profession when Ceausescu was still alive wouldn’t know what “Securitate” is a reference to, never mind the masses. “Stasi” is better but like the Romanian term it only describes the security wing of the ruling class.

    I like the Algerian term “le pouvoir” but again it’s in a foreign language so forget about that catching on these days. It’s English translation doesn’t really have the same, er, power, as in French.

    The “permanent government” or “shadow government” might be more effective in their descriptive power to normies but “deep state” is the term that has taken off so let’s run with it.

    Read More
  23. @Lot
    I don't understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders.

    Thomas Becket’s murder was not a robbery, nor was it “ordered” by Henry II.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I learned my history in great libraries, Cecil Green, Powell, university research library and others, not Wikepedia.

    Whatever about Becket and Henry Wikepedia is not the place to learn the truth about anything.
    , @Desiderius
    I provided a link.

    You didn't.

    Add some value.
    , @anon
    What on Earth are you talking about?
  24. @Anon
    Can this be verified?

    https://twitter.com/RedPillDropper/status/864526564922470400

    Wake me up if it gets verified.

    Otherwise, I have no more use for right wing Fake News than that of the mainstream media.

    Read More
  25. @guest
    "'Deep State' is...made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories."

    That's how the Deep State wants it.

    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It's just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren't called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it. Or the international communist conspiracy, or the slaveholder conspiracy prior to the Civil War, or Russiagate right now., or anything normal people are supposed to believe in.

    Conspiracy implies secrecy.

    If Art Deco or anyone else is under the impression that the use of the term Deep State implies secrecy, they are mistaken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Deep" does indeed imply hidden and therefore secret to my ears. But Deep Staters are not so secret as conspiracies are often portrayed in conspiracy theories. They'll come out and tell you, for instance, Trump and other "demagogues" are untrustworthy, and that serious professionals are required to run the country.

    They're hypocrites, is more to the point. Because though they'll talk about the obsolescence of democracy when you press them, they very much want the public to go on believing politics matters. Which makes them either schizophrenic or dishonest.

    But I'm describing progressivism and the attitude of the Permanent Government in general. The Deep State is a particular set of people in that crowd. They are the oligarchs of the Permanent Government and the Establishment (insofar as they are separate things), and they aren't so honest about themselves. Not that you never hear about them. They publicized themselves when they're infighting or different factions are jealous of each other, for instance. Sometimes they feel like bragging, as did Carroll Quigley.
  26. You aren’t supposed to use the term “deep state” to refer to organs of the federal government and associated entities that are difficult for elected officials to control.

    The obsession of the left with controlling language — and their absurd presumption that they alone can decide how a term must be used — always amazes me.

    For them, everything is about what you can think, and what you can say about it.

    Read More
  27. The greatest coup of MI6 was the ending the IRA campaign. However after peace had been agreed to by all sides, the MI6 officer who had made contact with the IRA and got them to negotiate, was revealed to have lied, and lied to very great effect, about what the IRA had said to him. He had gone back to his bosses in london and asserted that the IRA leadership had told him “The war is over”. The IRA said no such thing. A while back there was unroar when it was suggested ta many British journalist really worked for MI6. There is no doubt that journalists and intelligence agencies have mutually beneficial relationships. The spys (or Team B or Office of Special plans) get BS character assassination stories floated, and puff pieces to advance their careers and in return the journalists get scoops. The Murdoch press got access to Britain’s national police computer for researching their stories and it would not surprise me if they also had some ability to get things from the MI5′s, although Murdoch, with his phone tapping probably knew as much about public figures .

    Getting results in high level intelligence work is, as the Mossad motto has it, simply a matter of dissimulation, deception and lies. Anonymous reports that Trump improperly divulged information were directly contradicted by HR McMaster who said he (and others) were there and it didn’t happen.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/05/h_r_mcmaster_s_reputation_is_being_destroyed_by_trump_s_deceit.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike

    A while back there was unroar

     

    I realize this is a typo, but "unroar" might be as useful a neologism as "frontlash." Indeed, there is a deafening unroar about Seth Rich and Wikileaks. And we've been living with decades long unroar about black-on-white crime.
  28. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    “Deep state” is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    Excuse me, who died and made you Pope of the English Language? (And I’m not talking about Alexander).

    Read More
  29. @Desiderius
    Conspiracy implies secrecy.

    If Art Deco or anyone else is under the impression that the use of the term Deep State implies secrecy, they are mistaken.

    “Deep” does indeed imply hidden and therefore secret to my ears. But Deep Staters are not so secret as conspiracies are often portrayed in conspiracy theories. They’ll come out and tell you, for instance, Trump and other “demagogues” are untrustworthy, and that serious professionals are required to run the country.

    They’re hypocrites, is more to the point. Because though they’ll talk about the obsolescence of democracy when you press them, they very much want the public to go on believing politics matters. Which makes them either schizophrenic or dishonest.

    But I’m describing progressivism and the attitude of the Permanent Government in general. The Deep State is a particular set of people in that crowd. They are the oligarchs of the Permanent Government and the Establishment (insofar as they are separate things), and they aren’t so honest about themselves. Not that you never hear about them. They publicized themselves when they’re infighting or different factions are jealous of each other, for instance. Sometimes they feel like bragging, as did Carroll Quigley.

    Read More
  30. @mukat
    Speaking of newspaper use, CIA agents worked full-time as journalists at NYT and CBS during the Cold War. I grew up reading a major newspaper. How come I didn’t know about this until reading Unz.com?

    The CIA had something called the ‘Domestic Contact Service’. People who signed with the Domestic Contact Service agreed to be debriefed on their return if they took trips abroad. One of the more notable persons associated was Clay Shaw, who was director of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans and traveled to Latin America quite a bit. By his account, it was a big nothing and he never had much to tell them. (Shaw came to national attention when the DA in New Orleans manufactured a fantastical case against him, accusing him of being the ringleader of the plot to kill John Kennedy. Conspiracy aficionadoes have fancied it something of great moment that he was appended to the CIA in this way).

    Reporters travel abroad quite a bit. If I’m not mistaken, Allard Loewenstein was associated with the Domestic Contact Service. It wasn’t that important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    There has been a strong and well orchestrated counter-attack on the Internet on the very notion that Permindex was anything other than a virtuous capitalist enterprise untainted by American intelligence, specifically the CIA. The various articles claim that the anti-Permindex stories were Communist plants and that the exposure of the organisation in Paesa Sera, an admittedly left-leaning paper, were nothing, but ‘KGB disinformation and mischief making’. De Gaulle’s robust handling of Permindex would suggest that he believed otherwise.

    Internal evidence that Permindex was a CIA front emerges in the fact that the CIA included Permindex materials in its Clay Shaw files, three years before the Kennedy assassination. Anther CIA document, dated March 16, 1967, reveals that at the time of his arrest Clay Shaw was working with Domestic Operations Division of the CIA’s clandestine services while fronting Permindex in New Orleans.

    The CIA’s operational component in New Orleans was hidden under the ‘Domestic Contact Division’, at least since 19 November 1964, according to a secret CIA document on ‘Garrison and the Kennedy Assassination,’ CIA Memorandum No.8. (The CIA’s ‘Domestic Contact Division’ was very secret as many of its activities were theoretically illegal within the USA.)

    In 1962, French president Charles de Gaulle publicly accused Permindex of channelling money to OAS (Secret Army Organisation), which had made several attempts on de Gaulle’s life as revenge for his liberating Algeria. See also De Gaulle: the Ruler 1945-1970 by J. Lacouture (New York, 1993) and the multiple French press reports at the time.

    Fuller details of Permindex’s expulsion from France on de Gaulle’s orders are to be found in Le Devoir, (Canada) 16 March 1967, (see also Final Judgment, p 199, plus Editors of Executive Intelligence Review Dope, Inc.: The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy, p 434. The Le Devoir articles also exposed the link between Louis Bloomfield (qv), Clay Shaw and Permindex’s sister company Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC). Neither Bloomfield nor Shaw sued the paper.

    Le Devoir also wrote: ‘That CMC was a creature of the CIA… set up as a cover for the transfer of CIA funds to Italy for illegal purposes…’ See also Jay Pound’s article in Critique, Spring 1986.

    That Permindex existed for the primary purpose of churning and funneling large funds for no apparent commercial gain is explained in Allen Douglas’s article ‘Terror war against the Nation State’ in Executive Intelligence Review, 4 February 2005.
  31. @prole
    Remember when the left seemed to hate the CIA and did not trust the intelligence community ?

    Everyone close to power on the left and right seems to like the CIA just fine. Which set of outsiders hate the CIA/NSA/etc. depends on which way the political winds are blowing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    See Reuel Marc Gerecht on the CIA (or read Mark Steyn for an outsider's assessment). Read Morton Kondracke's assessment of the clandestine services personnel he met in Nicaragua in 1987. This is the agency which hired Aldrich Ames and promoted him multiple times; the agency that hired Michael Scheuer; the agency which supposedly hired a certain Unz contributor known for a bad case of the Jew thing. Consider the possibilty that it's a collecting pool of Inspector Clouseaus.
  32. @yaqub the mad scientist
    Wrong. "Intelligence community" and "Deep State" are not analogous. The former is a sector of government, the latter describes the intersection/revolving door of big business/intellectual elite/long-term civil service. The analogous term for Deep State that has been around for a while is "Iron Triangle", which has the same general idea and is found in political science textbooks, with no ooga booganess implied. Political scientists have pretty much accepted that most modern states have a deep state/iron triangle. Only nannyboys consider this to be something to be shocked! Shocked!!! about.

    The analogous term for Deep State that has been around for a while is “Iron Triangle”,

    No it is not. Iron Triangle is a term coined by political scientists who study public administration and refers to the cooperation between bureau chiefs and their camarilla, members of Congress, and constituency groups. It referred to domestic politics pretty exclusively. Not sure who coined the term, but Francis Rourke was one of the political scientists developing the model at the time it emerged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    That might be the case for a country with not much foreign power projection like France, but for the US, China, Russia, and a few other countries, "domestic only" is simply not parsable. True, I'm familiar with what it means in the most restrictive sense you mention, but big powers can't untangle foreign and domestic. Oil companies, large manufacturing, and a lot of tech all have inherent foreign policy agendas, and all of them are deeply woven into the defense industry and key hawk elements of government. Anyone who has scanned the boards of these industries for the last half century can see that. It's not like one has to sniff around for whistleblowers to reveal cabalistic deep secrets, this country has been fairly forthright about its Deep State. What's more American than the Cold War-era Rand Corporation? Do we really need to dive into one of those military-industrial complex web connection charts? Surely you know all that stuff. Don't be a NIck Diaz, dude.
  33. @dearieme
    Instead of Intelligence Community I urge everyone to refer to the US Securitate.

    If we had a proper Securitate, the entire British chatterati would have been wasted to clean up the cultural environment, from Alexander Cockburn and Polly Toynbee down to the lowliest combox denizen.

    Read More
  34. @Daniel H
    This "community" reference is getting ridiculous. I was reading a Drudge linked article yesterday, about the new class of specialist the U.S. Navy has developed to train officers how to use the new fangled weapons on our Naval boats. As a contrast to the traditional emphasis of high technology for the air fleet the quoted specialist kept referring to the "surface community". He said it a number of times. Thankfully, he didn't use the corporate-speak phrase "stake holder".

    Corporate-speak has seeped into both corporations and the discourse at large due to the feminization of the work force. Another bad thing that really picked up steam during the Reagan years.

    Navy officer designations have been using the word “community” as long as I have been around them. At least last ten years. This has been a separate culture and maybe even a family business for a generation of military officers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That's broadly true of all sorts of institutions.

    Society has been dis-integrating for awhile.
    , @anonguy

    Navy officer designations have been using the word “community” as long as I have been around them. At least last ten years. This has been a separate culture and maybe even a family business for a generation of military officers.
     
    It was certainly a very well-established and official term at least as early as the 1980s in the Navy, in terms of what warfare community to which a line officer belonged.

    But that is just a bit of coincidental Navy particularism completely independent of the more recent similar usage of the term.
  35. @guest
    "'Deep State' is...made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories."

    That's how the Deep State wants it.

    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It's just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren't called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it. Or the international communist conspiracy, or the slaveholder conspiracy prior to the Civil War, or Russiagate right now., or anything normal people are supposed to believe in.

    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It’s just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren’t called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that’s not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it.

    No, few people who trade in ideas for a living have much interest in conspiracy theories and few people who find them plausible care much about public affairs.

    “The Holocaust” is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s a well known set of historical events. Gary Allen’s fantasies about the Council on Foreign Relations and Jim Garrison’s about Clay Shaw are conspiracy theories. They’re constructed without any inductive reasoning and their purveyors are impervious to contrary evidence. They’re not respectable because they’re stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Clay Laverne Shaw was a businessman in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was the only person prosecuted in connection with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and was found not guilty.

    Clay Shaw is worth a book all to himself. See Benson’s run down and list of sources and references as well as the extensive web coverage. Much of our knowledge of Permindex’s role comes from the Garrison 1967 prosecution of Clay Shaw. The relevant testimony – and his own allegations in his book On the Trail of the Assassins.

    Garrison suggested in On the Trail of the Assassins, that Shaw received instructions from Louis M. Bloomfield. Garrison discovered that Shaw and Bloomfield were board members of two trade organizations, Permindex and Centro Mondiale Commerciale, both expelled from Italy in 1962 for subversive intelligence activity.

    Dean Andrews’s testimony before the Warren Commission (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 11, pp. 325 – 339) became a critical link to Israel’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Under oath, Andrews identified ‘Clay Bertrand’ as the man who phoned him requesting legal representation for Oswald. Later it became known that Clay Bertrand was actually Clay Shaw, who was linked to international espionage activities with Louis Bloomfield, one of Israel’s most influential supporters.

    Andrews evaded questions from the Prosecution, lied under oath and Jim Garrison eventually (1067) had the lawyer jailed for 18 months for perjury. But by then Shaw had been long acquitted. (See also, Final Judgment, Forgive My Grief, High Treason, Best Evidence, etc.)

    See also ‘The Power of Disinformation: The Lie that Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination’.Max Holland, Studies in Intelligence 11, Fall-Winter 2001).

    Shaw’s sudden death from metastatic lung cancer in 1974 has attracted some controversy, as it was the same rapid type of cancer that killed Jack Ruby in prison. See. Clay Shaw: Mysterious Death?’ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death9.htm.

    Details are in the New Orleans official police report Item No. H-15410-74, 28 August 1974.
    , @Mr. Anon

    They’re not respectable because they’re stupid.
     
    The same can be said of you.
  36. @NOTA
    Everyone close to power on the left and right seems to like the CIA just fine. Which set of outsiders hate the CIA/NSA/etc. depends on which way the political winds are blowing.

    See Reuel Marc Gerecht on the CIA (or read Mark Steyn for an outsider’s assessment). Read Morton Kondracke’s assessment of the clandestine services personnel he met in Nicaragua in 1987. This is the agency which hired Aldrich Ames and promoted him multiple times; the agency that hired Michael Scheuer; the agency which supposedly hired a certain Unz contributor known for a bad case of the Jew thing. Consider the possibilty that it’s a collecting pool of Inspector Clouseaus.

    Read More
  37. There are three interesting stories going on right now wrt the Trump presidency:

    a. There are Trump’s actions–firing Comey, disclosing some super secret data to Russia, etc.

    b. There are all the news stories which collectively show that the Trump White House is leaking like a sieve. Every internal argument and misstep shows up in the NYT the next day. That probably means Trump’s not benefitting from much advice–he can’t really trust his staff.

    c. Finally, there is the overt and increasing discomfort of the deep state types ewith Trump. That also is visible in the news stories, which involve high level bureaucrats using their contacts with the press to make their concerns heard.

    All three are important stories. I suspect (b) is the one that’s important in the medium term–Trump needs advisors more than most presidents (who usually have decades of political and government experience)! Without being able to trust his staff, he’s going to screw a lot of stuff up.

    Long term, (c) worries me more. I think I understand a lot of the deep state concerns about Trump, and I share them. (If he seemed to know what he was doing, I’d be happy to see him departing from the ruling class consensus on the war on terror, say.). But unlike me, at least some of the deep state types could plausibly take steps to depose him–impeachment, scandal, maybe even assassination.

    As best I can tell, Trump is doing s lousy job so far, and has little idea what he’s doing. Neither he nor anyone close to him seems to have thought deeply about how he should be governing. And yet, I really, really don’t want the deep state types getting into the habit of deposing elected leaders they find insufficiently serious or committed to their consensus vision of how the US should operate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    You've got to be joking.

    The intelligence community is full of f**k ups whose litany of screw ups include Iraq, Libya and Syria and cost us over $4 trillion dollars. They never got anything right from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Saddam's WMD's. No one should be taking their advice. They are untrustworthy.

    As for Trump,. the entire GOP is against him. They never lifted a finger to help him during the campaign and immediately turned on him once he was sworn in. They rubbed his face in the budget they gave him to sign. All Trump can do is use his pen and sign EO's.

    The MSM is totally whacked and untrustworthy. No one trusts a word that comes from the major networks or rags, since they are owned by the same people who hate Trump and love globalization.

    The leaks are probably coming Dina Powell, a Egyptian Arab who works for the NSC and is a known friend of Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett and has ties to Kushner and Ivanka. Guess who brought her in? McMaster who himself is a major neo-con.
  38. @prole
    Remember when the left seemed to hate the CIA and did not trust the intelligence community ?

    I sure do, but then I’m in my 70′s. I remember the first few books published soon after the Kennedy assassination. The CIA did it ! said every (( anti American liberal)).

    When did the left change their opinion about the CIA? Why when they grew up and took over the government, I’d say the election of 1992 when 2 Alinsky followers took over.

    Read More
  39. @Art Deco
    The CIA had something called the 'Domestic Contact Service'. People who signed with the Domestic Contact Service agreed to be debriefed on their return if they took trips abroad. One of the more notable persons associated was Clay Shaw, who was director of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans and traveled to Latin America quite a bit. By his account, it was a big nothing and he never had much to tell them. (Shaw came to national attention when the DA in New Orleans manufactured a fantastical case against him, accusing him of being the ringleader of the plot to kill John Kennedy. Conspiracy aficionadoes have fancied it something of great moment that he was appended to the CIA in this way).

    Reporters travel abroad quite a bit. If I'm not mistaken, Allard Loewenstein was associated with the Domestic Contact Service. It wasn't that important.

    There has been a strong and well orchestrated counter-attack on the Internet on the very notion that Permindex was anything other than a virtuous capitalist enterprise untainted by American intelligence, specifically the CIA. The various articles claim that the anti-Permindex stories were Communist plants and that the exposure of the organisation in Paesa Sera, an admittedly left-leaning paper, were nothing, but ‘KGB disinformation and mischief making’. De Gaulle’s robust handling of Permindex would suggest that he believed otherwise.

    Internal evidence that Permindex was a CIA front emerges in the fact that the CIA included Permindex materials in its Clay Shaw files, three years before the Kennedy assassination. Anther CIA document, dated March 16, 1967, reveals that at the time of his arrest Clay Shaw was working with Domestic Operations Division of the CIA’s clandestine services while fronting Permindex in New Orleans.

    The CIA’s operational component in New Orleans was hidden under the ‘Domestic Contact Division’, at least since 19 November 1964, according to a secret CIA document on ‘Garrison and the Kennedy Assassination,’ CIA Memorandum No.8. (The CIA’s ‘Domestic Contact Division’ was very secret as many of its activities were theoretically illegal within the USA.)

    In 1962, French president Charles de Gaulle publicly accused Permindex of channelling money to OAS (Secret Army Organisation), which had made several attempts on de Gaulle’s life as revenge for his liberating Algeria. See also De Gaulle: the Ruler 1945-1970 by J. Lacouture (New York, 1993) and the multiple French press reports at the time.

    Fuller details of Permindex’s expulsion from France on de Gaulle’s orders are to be found in Le Devoir, (Canada) 16 March 1967, (see also Final Judgment, p 199, plus Editors of Executive Intelligence Review Dope, Inc.: The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy, p 434. The Le Devoir articles also exposed the link between Louis Bloomfield (qv), Clay Shaw and Permindex’s sister company Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC). Neither Bloomfield nor Shaw sued the paper.

    Le Devoir also wrote: ‘That CMC was a creature of the CIA… set up as a cover for the transfer of CIA funds to Italy for illegal purposes…’ See also Jay Pound’s article in Critique, Spring 1986.

    That Permindex existed for the primary purpose of churning and funneling large funds for no apparent commercial gain is explained in Allen Douglas’s article ‘Terror war against the Nation State’ in Executive Intelligence Review, 4 February 2005.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I think you should stick to reputable sources. Hint: someone peddling the idea that the intelligence services brought down Pres. Kennedy by subcontracting the job to a claque of French Quarter homosexuals is likely someone with more imagination than sense.
    , @utu
    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program. Kennedy's letters to Israel Government that were made public clearly indicate that Kennedy was set to terminate Israel's nuclear weapon program in 1963. Out of all JFK conspiracy theories the one linking Israel nuclear weapon ranks the highest on the cui bono criteria. After JFK 's death the nuclear weapon program in Israel could continue unhindered.
  40. @Anon
    Can this be verified?

    https://twitter.com/RedPillDropper/status/864526564922470400

    But but redpill go to … Zion*

    Deep state is the parallel and hidden social pyramid. Intelligence community is the brain part of this ghost-machine, where ideas and strategies are born. Seems a general trends, hidden groups controlling sub-self-conscious masses. ”Knowledge” is precious… Even i think understanding is better than knowledge, i can know without understand, and i can understand without know [so called instinctive mode], know =recognize, verify.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    A wise man once asked me, "How can you know that which you are merely told?"
  41. You aren’t supposed to use the term “deep state” to refer to organs of the federal government and associated entities that are difficult for elected officials to control.

    Or don’t control at all.

    Everyone knows the Gang of Eight doesn’t control the spooks. For starters they aren’t bright enough nor do they have people within these spook centers who work for them and who can keep tabs on what they are doing.

    All we can do is take their word for what they do and their word is worth nothing. For god sakes when the Senate intel committee has the chief spooks questioned under oath, they all act like perps being grilled by the cops, their body language suggests they are lying their asses off and know full well they are doing really illegal things they should be in jail for.

    Read More
  42. @Art Deco
    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It’s just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren’t called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that’s not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it.

    No, few people who trade in ideas for a living have much interest in conspiracy theories and few people who find them plausible care much about public affairs.

    "The Holocaust" is not a 'conspiracy theory'. It's a well known set of historical events. Gary Allen's fantasies about the Council on Foreign Relations and Jim Garrison's about Clay Shaw are conspiracy theories. They're constructed without any inductive reasoning and their purveyors are impervious to contrary evidence. They're not respectable because they're stupid.

    Clay Laverne Shaw was a businessman in New Orleans, Louisiana. He was the only person prosecuted in connection with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and was found not guilty.

    Clay Shaw is worth a book all to himself. See Benson’s run down and list of sources and references as well as the extensive web coverage. Much of our knowledge of Permindex’s role comes from the Garrison 1967 prosecution of Clay Shaw. The relevant testimony – and his own allegations in his book On the Trail of the Assassins.

    Garrison suggested in On the Trail of the Assassins, that Shaw received instructions from Louis M. Bloomfield. Garrison discovered that Shaw and Bloomfield were board members of two trade organizations, Permindex and Centro Mondiale Commerciale, both expelled from Italy in 1962 for subversive intelligence activity.

    Dean Andrews’s testimony before the Warren Commission (Warren Commission Hearings, Volume 11, pp. 325 – 339) became a critical link to Israel’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Under oath, Andrews identified ‘Clay Bertrand’ as the man who phoned him requesting legal representation for Oswald. Later it became known that Clay Bertrand was actually Clay Shaw, who was linked to international espionage activities with Louis Bloomfield, one of Israel’s most influential supporters.

    Andrews evaded questions from the Prosecution, lied under oath and Jim Garrison eventually (1067) had the lawyer jailed for 18 months for perjury. But by then Shaw had been long acquitted. (See also, Final Judgment, Forgive My Grief, High Treason, Best Evidence, etc.)

    See also ‘The Power of Disinformation: The Lie that Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination’.Max Holland, Studies in Intelligence 11, Fall-Winter 2001).

    Shaw’s sudden death from metastatic lung cancer in 1974 has attracted some controversy, as it was the same rapid type of cancer that killed Jack Ruby in prison. See. Clay Shaw: Mysterious Death?’ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death9.htm.

    Details are in the New Orleans official police report Item No. H-15410-74, 28 August 1974.

    Read More
  43. Regarding the semantic arguments in this thread concerning what we should call the unofficial power structure:

    Oswald Spengler used the phrase “state within a state,” which I believe was of rather ancient provenance. It really doesn’t get much clearer or more descriptive than that. It is worth noting that in Spengler’s historical morphology, states within states were integral constituents of democracy and democratic historical periods.

    If Spengler isn’t your thing, there is always James Burnham’s work on Pareto’s theory of elites, which is truly first-rate stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Imperium in imperio is the Latin phrase

    Like the Deep State, a "state within the state" generally, refers to an entity within a state that's beyond the control of the official state. It acts like a state, though technically it's not. The Deep State, a particular kind of state within a state, is usually thought of as a part of the official government beyond the control of elected officials. They're the ones who're supposed to have the power in our form of government, or at least who are supposed to exercise through subordinates and appointees with limited official power.

    But the term Deep State also applies to that part of the state that secretly runs the state as a whole, or at least has the most real power, though its power is unofficial. That's the state within the state idea with an extra twist.

    A church, for instance, or organized crime may he beyond the control of the government in whose sovereign territory they reside. But they're not necessarily thought to be secretly controlling the government for that fact. That's the way a lot of people see the Deep State.

  44. @Art Deco
    The analogous term for Deep State that has been around for a while is “Iron Triangle”,

    No it is not. Iron Triangle is a term coined by political scientists who study public administration and refers to the cooperation between bureau chiefs and their camarilla, members of Congress, and constituency groups. It referred to domestic politics pretty exclusively. Not sure who coined the term, but Francis Rourke was one of the political scientists developing the model at the time it emerged.

    That might be the case for a country with not much foreign power projection like France, but for the US, China, Russia, and a few other countries, “domestic only” is simply not parsable. True, I’m familiar with what it means in the most restrictive sense you mention, but big powers can’t untangle foreign and domestic. Oil companies, large manufacturing, and a lot of tech all have inherent foreign policy agendas, and all of them are deeply woven into the defense industry and key hawk elements of government. Anyone who has scanned the boards of these industries for the last half century can see that. It’s not like one has to sniff around for whistleblowers to reveal cabalistic deep secrets, this country has been fairly forthright about its Deep State. What’s more American than the Cold War-era Rand Corporation? Do we really need to dive into one of those military-industrial complex web connection charts? Surely you know all that stuff. Don’t be a NIck Diaz, dude.

    Read More
  45. @Desiderius
    Thomas Becket's murder was not a robbery, nor was it "ordered" by Henry II.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket

    I learned my history in great libraries, Cecil Green, Powell, university research library and others, not Wikepedia.

    Whatever about Becket and Henry Wikepedia is not the place to learn the truth about anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    Your point about Wikipedia is valid; however, most times, despite the creeping parochialism of the core contributors, Wiki serves as a decent enough entry point to begin learning about a specific topic. As the link provided by Desiderius demonstrates, there is a decent list of references at the bottom of the article to start a detailed research, if desired. In support of your comment, I don't see Cecil Green or Powell listed:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket#References



    References

    Barlow, Frank (1986). Thomas Becket. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07175-1.
    Barlow, Frank (2004). "Becket, Thomas (1120?–1170)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/27201. Retrieved 17 April 2011. (subscription or UK public library membership required)
    Butler, Alban (1991). Walsh, Michael, ed. Butler's Lives of the Saints. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
    Douglas, David C.; Greenway, George W. (1953). English Historical Documents 1042–1189. 2 (Second, 1981 ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-14367-5.
    Fryde, E. B.; Greenway, D. E.; Porter, S.; Roy, I. (1996). Handbook of British Chronology (Third revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56350-X.
    Hutton, William Holden (1910). Thomas Becket – Archbishop of Canterbury. London: Pitman and Sons Ltd. ISBN 1-4097-8808-3.
    Knowles, Elizabeth M. (1999). Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Fifth ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860173-9.
    Lee, Christopher M. (1997). This Sceptred Isle. London: BBC Books. ISBN 0-563-38384-4.
    Robertson, James Craigie (1876). Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. ii. London: Longman.
    Schama, Simon (2002). A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World? : 3000 BC–AD 1603. London: BBC Books. ISBN 0-563-38497-2.
    Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn (1855). Historical Memorials of Canterbury. London: John Murray.
    Staunton, Michael (2001). The Lives of Thomas Becket. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719054540.
    Staunton, Michael (2006). Thomas Becket and His Biographers. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press. ISBN 1-84383-271-2.
    Warren, W. L. (1973). Henry II. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03494-5.
  46. Americans are still trying to figure out how to use that term, “Deep State.”

    It doesn’t just mean “intelligence community” (to quote Bob Redford – in Three Days of the Condor, I think it was? – Jesus these people are kind to themselves) but also includes the entrenched elite. So the latter doesn’t work as a substitute.

    I prefer the term “national security apparatus” to the other terms that I have seen for spooks in the aggregate.

    Read More
  47. So to that end, no, I don’t respect intelligence agencies as being anything other than a necessary evil. While I am grateful for any terrorist attacks they have likely prevented on US soil, the gratitude I do feel there is outweighed by my revulsion over how their policies have empowered terrorists like Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the greater Middle East. I also resent their forays into U.S. domestic politics.

    Has anyone given a pithy name to the phenomenon by which the last people you’d want doing the job are inherently attracted to, and found doing it? E.g., pedophiles gravitate toward teaching and the priesthood, parasites to gov’t, firebugs to firefighting, authoritarians to policing, subversives to national security, liars to reporting, etc., etc., etc.

    Something catchy, like the iron law of bureaucracy, the Peter Principle, etc.

    Read More
  48. @Santoculto
    But but redpill go to ... Zion*

    Deep state is the parallel and hidden social pyramid. Intelligence community is the brain part of this ghost-machine, where ideas and strategies are born. Seems a general trends, hidden groups controlling sub-self-conscious masses. ''Knowledge'' is precious... Even i think understanding is better than knowledge, i can know without understand, and i can understand without know [so called instinctive mode], know =recognize, verify.

    A wise man once asked me, “How can you know that which you are merely told?”

    Read More
  49. @Intelligent Dasein
    Regarding the semantic arguments in this thread concerning what we should call the unofficial power structure:

    Oswald Spengler used the phrase "state within a state," which I believe was of rather ancient provenance. It really doesn't get much clearer or more descriptive than that. It is worth noting that in Spengler's historical morphology, states within states were integral constituents of democracy and democratic historical periods.

    If Spengler isn't your thing, there is always James Burnham's work on Pareto's theory of elites, which is truly first-rate stuff.

    Imperium in imperio is the Latin phrase

    Like the Deep State, a “state within the state” generally, refers to an entity within a state that’s beyond the control of the official state. It acts like a state, though technically it’s not. The Deep State, a particular kind of state within a state, is usually thought of as a part of the official government beyond the control of elected officials. They’re the ones who’re supposed to have the power in our form of government, or at least who are supposed to exercise through subordinates and appointees with limited official power.

    But the term Deep State also applies to that part of the state that secretly runs the state as a whole, or at least has the most real power, though its power is unofficial. That’s the state within the state idea with an extra twist.

    A church, for instance, or organized crime may he beyond the control of the government in whose sovereign territory they reside. But they’re not necessarily thought to be secretly controlling the government for that fact. That’s the way a lot of people see the Deep State.

    Read More
  50. @NOTA
    There are three interesting stories going on right now wrt the Trump presidency:

    a. There are Trump's actions--firing Comey, disclosing some super secret data to Russia, etc.

    b. There are all the news stories which collectively show that the Trump White House is leaking like a sieve. Every internal argument and misstep shows up in the NYT the next day. That probably means Trump's not benefitting from much advice--he can't really trust his staff.

    c. Finally, there is the overt and increasing discomfort of the deep state types ewith Trump. That also is visible in the news stories, which involve high level bureaucrats using their contacts with the press to make their concerns heard.

    All three are important stories. I suspect (b) is the one that's important in the medium term--Trump needs advisors more than most presidents (who usually have decades of political and government experience)! Without being able to trust his staff, he's going to screw a lot of stuff up.

    Long term, (c) worries me more. I think I understand a lot of the deep state concerns about Trump, and I share them. (If he seemed to know what he was doing, I'd be happy to see him departing from the ruling class consensus on the war on terror, say.). But unlike me, at least some of the deep state types could plausibly take steps to depose him--impeachment, scandal, maybe even assassination.

    As best I can tell, Trump is doing s lousy job so far, and has little idea what he's doing. Neither he nor anyone close to him seems to have thought deeply about how he should be governing. And yet, I really, really don't want the deep state types getting into the habit of deposing elected leaders they find insufficiently serious or committed to their consensus vision of how the US should operate.

    You’ve got to be joking.

    The intelligence community is full of f**k ups whose litany of screw ups include Iraq, Libya and Syria and cost us over $4 trillion dollars. They never got anything right from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Saddam’s WMD’s. No one should be taking their advice. They are untrustworthy.

    As for Trump,. the entire GOP is against him. They never lifted a finger to help him during the campaign and immediately turned on him once he was sworn in. They rubbed his face in the budget they gave him to sign. All Trump can do is use his pen and sign EO’s.

    The MSM is totally whacked and untrustworthy. No one trusts a word that comes from the major networks or rags, since they are owned by the same people who hate Trump and love globalization.

    The leaks are probably coming Dina Powell, a Egyptian Arab who works for the NSC and is a known friend of Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett and has ties to Kushner and Ivanka. Guess who brought her in? McMaster who himself is a major neo-con.

    Read More
  51. @Svigor
    Americans are still trying to figure out how to use that term, "Deep State."

    It doesn't just mean "intelligence community" (to quote Bob Redford - in Three Days of the Condor, I think it was? - Jesus these people are kind to themselves) but also includes the entrenched elite. So the latter doesn't work as a substitute.

    I prefer the term "national security apparatus" to the other terms that I have seen for spooks in the aggregate.

    What about “Stasi?”

    Read More
  52. @Lot
    I don't understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders.

    I agree. Now if the Democrats could lose the desire to believe that somehow Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

    In reality, we all know that the Dems (leadership) don’t believe in the Russian insanity. It is just a weapon to use against him.

    Read More
  53. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    There have always been shadow governments, governments in waiting, grey eminences, permanent governments, military-industrial complexes, extra-legal powers-that-be, what-have-you. It’s not conspiracy theory to try to make sense of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    It does involve conspiracy theorizing, at least when you go beyond general theorizing. We just have to drop the pretence that there's something wrong with conspiracy theories.
  54. @Daniel H
    This "community" reference is getting ridiculous. I was reading a Drudge linked article yesterday, about the new class of specialist the U.S. Navy has developed to train officers how to use the new fangled weapons on our Naval boats. As a contrast to the traditional emphasis of high technology for the air fleet the quoted specialist kept referring to the "surface community". He said it a number of times. Thankfully, he didn't use the corporate-speak phrase "stake holder".

    Corporate-speak has seeped into both corporations and the discourse at large due to the feminization of the work force. Another bad thing that really picked up steam during the Reagan years.

    It used to be the Black-shoe Navy (surface craft), the Brown-shoe Navy (aircraft), and later, the Felt-shoe Navy (submarines). “Community” is a term of warning, alerting us to the proximity of BS.

    Read More
  55. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/comment-page-1/

    Good discussion with some depth and nuance.

    The distinguishing characteristic is that it is not remotely hidden. And the members don’t think of themselves as part of it.

    The end of the cold war left a lot of people with too much time on their hands and nothing to justify spending a huge amount of money protecting ourselves. So, they simply kept on doing what they always did.

    ‘Follow the money’

    Yes and no. The one insight I gained trying to ‘follow the money’ was that it was money on a human scale. A 6 figure professional job is enough to totally compromise someone. But beyond that? Most defense businesses are not very profitable. Cigarettes or Google — that is real money. But a glance at defense contracting firms doesn’t show much in the way of profits. I could go into detail, but these sorts of businesses support a lot of executive positions. They don’t need a lot of capital and the profitability of the firm is incidental — as long as they break even. This excludes the large manufacturers — who need to conform to the convention of producing shareholder returns. But these are large cap firms whose C suite and directors are well known and operate publicly.

    The driving force is their alignment of interests, not any sort of formal organizational structure. And their interests can be framed as ‘national security’ which seems noble enough or ‘enlargement of national security spending’. Or hell …. call it rent seeking.

    You get the ‘unexpected outcome’ (with or) without any individual consciousness of the collective impact of their activities.

    If only it were a conspiracy.

    Read More
  56. The politicians and media are now saying that Trump is guilty of “obstruction of justice” and that this is grounds for impeachment.

    Impeachment.

    Read More
  57. I’ve been trying to figure out what to call the group that runs the liberal, mainstream media that continuously attacks President Trump, often using leaks from within the government.

    This group noticed the extreme, depressed reaction of liberals to the 2016 election, and they are determined to present a viewpoint that will help Democrats feel better. Trump is a buffoon, a loose cannon, a security risk, he was put in office by the evil mastermind Putin, and so forth.

    They’re the ones who give talking points to Democrats, so the message is consistent.

    It’s an incredibly potent tool, the majority of Americans believe it without question, because it supports their biases.

    Who are those guys?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker

    Who are those guys?
     
    Indeed, it's a (((mystery))) to be sure.
  58. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    You are simply wrong, “deep state” has been a normal and respectable term among area specialists studying Turkey for decades, are clearly applies to a number of situations without stretching.
    But tell me again how an Israeli Christian who gets spat upon in the face can take comfort in a statistic about average income.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    among area specialists studying Turkey for decades,

    Area specialists studying Turkey are a contextually tiny population in American academe. By way of example, the Digest of Education Statistics reports that there was some school somewhere which had a degree-option in "Turkish Language and Literature" in 2013-14. However, no degrees in that subject were awarded anywhere. I once attempted to identify through searches of monographic and social-research databases a list of scholars who had published in English or in French on late Ottoman / early Kemalist Turkey. IIRC, I came up with a list of names in the low two digits. People like Heath Lowry and Justin McCarthy speak with great authority because they're one of just a few score occidental academics who are steeped in the history and culture of the place.
    , @Art Deco
    But tell me again how an Israeli Christian who gets spat upon in the face can take comfort in a statistic about average income.

    You think the Israeli Christian is going to find some country somewhere where no one gets into fights in bars or schoolyards?
  59. @mukat
    Speaking of newspaper use, CIA agents worked full-time as journalists at NYT and CBS during the Cold War. I grew up reading a major newspaper. How come I didn’t know about this until reading Unz.com?

    House Intelligence (Church) Committee hearings on CIA c. 1975

    Read More
  60. @dearieme
    "how brave and self-sacrificing the men (and women!) who serve in that establishment are"

    Afghanistan: I remember reading an article at the beginning that said one problem would be the lack of intelligence, since CIA agents would decline to operate in the sort of country where they'd have diarrhoea the whole time.

    “CIA agents would decline to operate in the sort of country where they’d have diarrhoea the whole time.”

    Are we then to understand that CIA agents don’t travel much around the world, not even South of the border?

    Read More
  61. @Desiderius
    Thomas Becket's murder was not a robbery, nor was it "ordered" by Henry II.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket

    I provided a link.

    You didn’t.

    Add some value.

    Read More
  62. @Coooopa
    Navy officer designations have been using the word "community" as long as I have been around them. At least last ten years. This has been a separate culture and maybe even a family business for a generation of military officers.

    That’s broadly true of all sorts of institutions.

    Society has been dis-integrating for awhile.

    Read More
  63. @Lot
    I don't understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders.

    “The truth is out there.”

    Special Agent Moulder, FBI

    Read More
  64. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Intelligence Community is subject to many hurtful stereotypes in The Media, and their classified culture is constantly getting appropriated, e.g. by Trump, Snowden, and others with the invisible attaché case of civilian privilege

    p.s. anyone remember when Jim McGreevey announced he was “Gay-American?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I very distinctly remember him saying "My truth is that I am a gay American," because it was perhaps the most hideous sentence I had ever heard.

    The blank-American thing is taken from the PC habit of swapping brand names, of course, and is simply unnecessary. Blacks couldn't just be called African, because then you think they were African, so they added "American." "American" was added to "gay"/in his case for no reason whatsoever but intellectual laziness.

    Much worse was "my truth." Whaddya mean, your truth? There's only *the Truth*, you self-centered jerk.

    , @Clifford Brown
    In response to 9/11, McGreevey hired his Israeli boytoy (and likely intelligence asset) Golan Cipel to New Jersey Homeland Security. McGreevey's largest donor and the sponsor of Golan Cipel's visa to America was one Charles Kushner, father of Jared Kushner.

    Needless to say, Golan Cipel likely was comprising national security and was removed from his position.

    Anyway, this story runs pretty deep if you want to chase it.
  65. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    “Deep state” is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    The “intelligence community” has an affinity for conspiring. It’s entirely natural to want to construct theories about the nature of their conspiracies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Exactly. The use of 'conspiracy theory' is an emotionally laden term designed to shut down any further debate.
  66. It’s like Robert Redford tells Cliff Robertson the spook in Three Days of the Condor, “‘Community‘? You people are too much.”

    Read More
  67. Speaking of the “Deep State”, Turks attack Kurdish protesters on Embassy Row in DC.

    Read More
  68. The Founding Fathers were against the idea of standing armies, especially in times of peace as they could become a threat to Liberty. The idea of a permanent standing “Intelligence Community”, however, would have been an abomination to them.

    How could a conspiracy against Liberty ever develop? It would be almost impossible according to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist XXVI.

    Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person….It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery

    This statement was true before Americans turned into nothing more than a bunch of fat, lazy, tattooed-laden land whales. But times change.

    Read More
  69. @Anon7
    I've been trying to figure out what to call the group that runs the liberal, mainstream media that continuously attacks President Trump, often using leaks from within the government.

    This group noticed the extreme, depressed reaction of liberals to the 2016 election, and they are determined to present a viewpoint that will help Democrats feel better. Trump is a buffoon, a loose cannon, a security risk, he was put in office by the evil mastermind Putin, and so forth.

    They're the ones who give talking points to Democrats, so the message is consistent.

    It's an incredibly potent tool, the majority of Americans believe it without question, because it supports their biases.

    Who are those guys?

    Who are those guys?

    Indeed, it’s a (((mystery))) to be sure.

    Read More
  70. @Glossy
    "Deep state” is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    The "intelligence community" has an affinity for conspiring. It's entirely natural to want to construct theories about the nature of their conspiracies.

    Exactly. The use of ‘conspiracy theory’ is an emotionally laden term designed to shut down any further debate.

    Read More
  71. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    Quite right, old chap. I much prefer Fletcher Prouty’s term: “The Secret Team”.

    FYI, there is a body of opinion which holds that the CIA itself originated and popularized the term “conspiracy theory”:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

    I guess this makes you a coincidence theorist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I guess this makes you a coincidence theorist.

    You live in a country with 318 million people in it, more than 50,000 commercial corporations, north of 38,000 governments, and a central government whose elements behave like the population of a cat shelter. No, I don't think guys in a room get much accomplished of note to a historian. I cannot help but notice that the people who do so think have an allergy to inductive reasoning and seem to madly quote other people who have an allergy to inductive reasoning and draw on sketchy sources.

    There are two fine examples of the conspiracy discourse for you to contemplate: the John Birch Society and the Kennedy assassination subculture. Neither are good arguments for the perspicacity of chaps who look for guys in a room.

  72. @Discard
    There have always been shadow governments, governments in waiting, grey eminences, permanent governments, military-industrial complexes, extra-legal powers-that-be, what-have-you. It's not conspiracy theory to try to make sense of it.

    It does involve conspiracy theorizing, at least when you go beyond general theorizing. We just have to drop the pretence that there’s something wrong with conspiracy theories.

    Read More
  73. @Art Deco
    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It’s just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren’t called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that’s not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it.

    No, few people who trade in ideas for a living have much interest in conspiracy theories and few people who find them plausible care much about public affairs.

    "The Holocaust" is not a 'conspiracy theory'. It's a well known set of historical events. Gary Allen's fantasies about the Council on Foreign Relations and Jim Garrison's about Clay Shaw are conspiracy theories. They're constructed without any inductive reasoning and their purveyors are impervious to contrary evidence. They're not respectable because they're stupid.

    They’re not respectable because they’re stupid.

    The same can be said of you.

    Read More
  74. @Anonymous
    The Intelligence Community is subject to many hurtful stereotypes in The Media, and their classified culture is constantly getting appropriated, e.g. by Trump, Snowden, and others with the invisible attaché case of civilian privilege

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQCVf7AnXNY

    p.s. anyone remember when Jim McGreevey announced he was "Gay-American?"

    I very distinctly remember him saying “My truth is that I am a gay American,” because it was perhaps the most hideous sentence I had ever heard.

    The blank-American thing is taken from the PC habit of swapping brand names, of course, and is simply unnecessary. Blacks couldn’t just be called African, because then you think they were African, so they added “American.” “American” was added to “gay”/in his case for no reason whatsoever but intellectual laziness.

    Much worse was “my truth.” Whaddya mean, your truth? There’s only *the Truth*, you self-centered jerk.

    Read More
  75. @Lot
    I don't understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders.

    “I don’t understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders.”

    Some people like to believe crazy and/or stupid things. They think it makes them intelligent to believe things that most people don’t believe. Some people have poor standards of evidence. A lot of people seem to believe the ridiculous notion that Michelle Obama is a transsexual (as if there weren’t numerous pictures of her before she became famous, even when she was a child).

    The idea of Hillary running a child trafficking ring is pretty loopy. However, on the murder thing, well, few people are claiming that the Clintons ordered murders, rather it is usually claimed that murders were ordered on their behalf. It is, on the face of it, a seemingly ridiculous notion.

    Then again, back in the 90s, The Economist (!) consulted an actuary who looked at the deaths and concluded that the number of people in the Clinton orbit who had met with untimely and/or mysterious deaths was genuinely statistically anomalous. For The Economist to have published such an article was quite an unusual thing. Maybe the Clintons (or the people who work for them) are just unlucky.

    I’m not saying the Clinton Body Count is a real thing. I’m just saying: I wouldn’t want to work for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Those leaked emails sure looked like coded communications though. Maybe it was just drug buys or dropping off some bribes? Or was it about Bill Clinton's itinerary to Pedo Island?

    Entirely coincidentally, I'm sure, it's hard to think about and discuss these things with the media din about RUSSIA! RUSSIA! However, at the time it was a bit funny to see Pizzagate quickly denounced as entirely false even by Swedish media. Few or no normies in our no-longer-blessed lands had even heard about it at that point. The news sure hurried to squash that one.

    I agree that it seems to be unlucky to work for the Clintons.
  76. Has anyone else noticed the fact that the spambot and Turing Test Champion known as “Art Deco” doesn’t seem to have ever had a favorable reply to any of his posts. Not one (by my casual reckoning).

    It’s almost as if every single person here considers him to be a smug tiresome prig and a conventional-minded dullard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Walker - Most beautiful man ever...
    "Has anyone else noticed the fact that the spambot and Turing Test Champion known as “Art Deco” doesn’t seem to have ever had a favorable reply to any of his posts"
    Didn't notice because I've blocked him/her/Xer. :)
  77. @Coooopa
    Navy officer designations have been using the word "community" as long as I have been around them. At least last ten years. This has been a separate culture and maybe even a family business for a generation of military officers.

    Navy officer designations have been using the word “community” as long as I have been around them. At least last ten years. This has been a separate culture and maybe even a family business for a generation of military officers.

    It was certainly a very well-established and official term at least as early as the 1980s in the Navy, in terms of what warfare community to which a line officer belonged.

    But that is just a bit of coincidental Navy particularism completely independent of the more recent similar usage of the term.

    Read More
  78. @Anonymous
    The Intelligence Community is subject to many hurtful stereotypes in The Media, and their classified culture is constantly getting appropriated, e.g. by Trump, Snowden, and others with the invisible attaché case of civilian privilege

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQCVf7AnXNY

    p.s. anyone remember when Jim McGreevey announced he was "Gay-American?"

    In response to 9/11, McGreevey hired his Israeli boytoy (and likely intelligence asset) Golan Cipel to New Jersey Homeland Security. McGreevey’s largest donor and the sponsor of Golan Cipel’s visa to America was one Charles Kushner, father of Jared Kushner.

    Needless to say, Golan Cipel likely was comprising national security and was removed from his position.

    Anyway, this story runs pretty deep if you want to chase it.

    Read More
  79. @Mr. Anon
    Has anyone else noticed the fact that the spambot and Turing Test Champion known as "Art Deco" doesn't seem to have ever had a favorable reply to any of his posts. Not one (by my casual reckoning).

    It's almost as if every single person here considers him to be a smug tiresome prig and a conventional-minded dullard.

    “Has anyone else noticed the fact that the spambot and Turing Test Champion known as “Art Deco” doesn’t seem to have ever had a favorable reply to any of his posts”
    Didn’t notice because I’ve blocked him/her/Xer. :)

    Read More
  80. @Mr. Anon
    "I don’t understand the desire of people to believe Hillary is running a child trafficking ring and ordering murders."

    Some people like to believe crazy and/or stupid things. They think it makes them intelligent to believe things that most people don't believe. Some people have poor standards of evidence. A lot of people seem to believe the ridiculous notion that Michelle Obama is a transsexual (as if there weren't numerous pictures of her before she became famous, even when she was a child).

    The idea of Hillary running a child trafficking ring is pretty loopy. However, on the murder thing, well, few people are claiming that the Clintons ordered murders, rather it is usually claimed that murders were ordered on their behalf. It is, on the face of it, a seemingly ridiculous notion.

    Then again, back in the 90s, The Economist (!) consulted an actuary who looked at the deaths and concluded that the number of people in the Clinton orbit who had met with untimely and/or mysterious deaths was genuinely statistically anomalous. For The Economist to have published such an article was quite an unusual thing. Maybe the Clintons (or the people who work for them) are just unlucky.

    I'm not saying the Clinton Body Count is a real thing. I'm just saying: I wouldn't want to work for them.

    Those leaked emails sure looked like coded communications though. Maybe it was just drug buys or dropping off some bribes? Or was it about Bill Clinton’s itinerary to Pedo Island?

    Entirely coincidentally, I’m sure, it’s hard to think about and discuss these things with the media din about RUSSIA! RUSSIA! However, at the time it was a bit funny to see Pizzagate quickly denounced as entirely false even by Swedish media. Few or no normies in our no-longer-blessed lands had even heard about it at that point. The news sure hurried to squash that one.

    I agree that it seems to be unlucky to work for the Clintons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Most of that stuff in Podesta's E-mails referred to Podesta and his circle. And I think people were reading too much into a lot of it. None-the-less, the Podesta brothers seem to be real strangeoes.
  81. “Dear Friends, Parents and Patriots. It is once more time for the annual Black Budget Bake Sale, which last year turned out to be such a success. Thank you! We are truly humbled! …”

    Read More
  82. I prefer “Secret Police” or “Secret Police Apparatus” due to its allusions to the Gestapo/KGB/Stasi.

    If they’re going to act like a Secret Police Apparatus and subvert the elected branches of government by domestic spying, never-ending investigations of undefined crimes, and anonymous leaks and smears, we might as well just call them what they are.

    Read More
  83. Regarding the semantic arguments in this thread concerning what we should call the unofficial power structure:

    There’s a few commentors on ISteve whose main mode of discourse is to try to make a point, then spend a half a thread’s worth of retorts using semantic dodges as defense. One of them is doing that here.

    Read More
  84. The cozy term “intelligence community” is being used to trick the “Stupidity Community.”

    Read More
  85. @anonymous
    Thanks deep-staters, we needed the vibrancy …

    Minneapolis police arrest [Norwegian] man, find trove of weapons

    MPR, Tim Nelson · May 16, 2017

    A littering complaint led police to a trove of weapons in a car in north Minneapolis, and now has led to a criminal charge against a 27-year-old Minneapolis man.

    Abdullah Alrifahe faces one count of possession of a pistol without a permit in connection with an incident last Thursday evening.

    The criminal complaint against him says a man near 44th Street and Humboldt Avenue saw the occupants of a car throw food wrappers out the window shortly after 5 p.m., and later flagged down a passing cop to complain.

    The complaint says a dispute erupted, and officers got the two occupants out of the vehicle and searched it. The men told police they were waiting for a package to be delivered to them by a drone.

    The complaint says officers found a hand grenade, two rifles, including what appeared to be a loaded AK-47 in the car, as well as large quantities of ammunition, cellphones, computers and what appeared to be parts of drones.

    "Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the variety of the ammunition and large quantity of BBs and electronic devices could be used for bomb making," the complaint said.

    The complaint doesn't say if authorities are investigating any further threats posed by the men or what police found in the car.

    Alrifahe is scheduled to make an initial appearance in front of Hennepin County District Court Judge Tamara Garcia on Tuesday afternoon.

     

    p.s. Don't litter!

    “…Alrifahe is scheduled to make an initial appearance in front of Hennepin County District Court Judge Tamara Garcia on Tuesday afternoon. …”

    Minneapolis 2017:

    Norvegian Man is scheduled to appear in front of American Judge.

    Read More
  86. @Art Deco
    "Intelligence Community" has been for about 15 years the official term for a collecting pool of 16 agencies which have a common clearinghouse. It was in newspaper use for decades prior to that. "Deep state" is a fairly recent contrivance made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories.

    The only people without “an affinity for conspiracy theories” are autists and morons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The only people without “an affinity for conspiracy theories” are autists and morons.

    You don't know what you're talking about.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The only people without “an affinity for conspiracy theories” are autists and morons.
     
    I think you can not have an affinity for conpsiracy theories without being an autist or a moron.

    However, Art Deco certainly is an autist and a moron.

  87. @Sean
    The greatest coup of MI6 was the ending the IRA campaign. However after peace had been agreed to by all sides, the MI6 officer who had made contact with the IRA and got them to negotiate, was revealed to have lied, and lied to very great effect, about what the IRA had said to him. He had gone back to his bosses in london and asserted that the IRA leadership had told him "The war is over". The IRA said no such thing. A while back there was unroar when it was suggested ta many British journalist really worked for MI6. There is no doubt that journalists and intelligence agencies have mutually beneficial relationships. The spys (or Team B or Office of Special plans) get BS character assassination stories floated, and puff pieces to advance their careers and in return the journalists get scoops. The Murdoch press got access to Britain's national police computer for researching their stories and it would not surprise me if they also had some ability to get things from the MI5's, although Murdoch, with his phone tapping probably knew as much about public figures .

    Getting results in high level intelligence work is, as the Mossad motto has it, simply a matter of dissimulation, deception and lies. Anonymous reports that Trump improperly divulged information were directly contradicted by HR McMaster who said he (and others) were there and it didn't happen.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/05/h_r_mcmaster_s_reputation_is_being_destroyed_by_trump_s_deceit.html

    A while back there was unroar

    I realize this is a typo, but “unroar” might be as useful a neologism as “frontlash.” Indeed, there is a deafening unroar about Seth Rich and Wikileaks. And we’ve been living with decades long unroar about black-on-white crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I kind of like it, but I think "deafening silence" has that concept covered.
    , @Sean
    Does't seem like a very tidy way of handling it, so I very much doubt there is anything to the yarn.
  88. OT (via Drudge):

    Trump to propose an Arab NATO

    Yeah, that’s just what his supporters were voting for – more foreign entanglement.

    According to the article, this was proposed to the Trump administration by the Saudi Crown Prince, so you know it is in the best interests of the United States.

    Read More
  89. I would include much of academia in the “deep state” that can’t be voted out of power.

    Left Dems, some Neo Conservatives can go from government to academia, back and forth – all on the tax payer dime or in the case of MA Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Clinton Sec. of Labor Robert Reich it’s more than a few dimes.

    I believe both were paid over $300,000 a year to teach one very politicized course. Robert Reich is also a very open liar – he went on CNN to suggest that the masked Antifa terrorists attaching people who wanted to hear Milo Y speak at U Cal Berkeley – Robert Reich said they weren’t U Cal Berkeley students and were probably sent by Breitbart News.

    Hillary Clinton’s camp was able to make a few calls and command $300,000 for every speech she made at a state university.

    American universities are the “turf” of the hard core political Left, BlackLiesMatter etc. They are a big part of the….

    “Deep State”.

    Read More
  90. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @mukat
    Speaking of newspaper use, CIA agents worked full-time as journalists at NYT and CBS during the Cold War. I grew up reading a major newspaper. How come I didn’t know about this until reading Unz.com?

    I’ve heard that actor Glenn Ford worked for the CIA.

    Read More
  91. @Alden
    I learned my history in great libraries, Cecil Green, Powell, university research library and others, not Wikepedia.

    Whatever about Becket and Henry Wikepedia is not the place to learn the truth about anything.

    Your point about Wikipedia is valid; however, most times, despite the creeping parochialism of the core contributors, Wiki serves as a decent enough entry point to begin learning about a specific topic. As the link provided by Desiderius demonstrates, there is a decent list of references at the bottom of the article to start a detailed research, if desired. In support of your comment, I don’t see Cecil Green or Powell listed:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket#References

    [MORE]

    References

    Barlow, Frank (1986). Thomas Becket. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07175-1.
    Barlow, Frank (2004). “Becket, Thomas (1120?–1170)”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/27201. Retrieved 17 April 2011. (subscription or UK public library membership required)
    Butler, Alban (1991). Walsh, Michael, ed. Butler’s Lives of the Saints. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
    Douglas, David C.; Greenway, George W. (1953). English Historical Documents 1042–1189. 2 (Second, 1981 ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-14367-5.
    Fryde, E. B.; Greenway, D. E.; Porter, S.; Roy, I. (1996). Handbook of British Chronology (Third revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56350-X.
    Hutton, William Holden (1910). Thomas Becket – Archbishop of Canterbury. London: Pitman and Sons Ltd. ISBN 1-4097-8808-3.
    Knowles, Elizabeth M. (1999). Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Fifth ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860173-9.
    Lee, Christopher M. (1997). This Sceptred Isle. London: BBC Books. ISBN 0-563-38384-4.
    Robertson, James Craigie (1876). Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. ii. London: Longman.
    Schama, Simon (2002). A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World? : 3000 BC–AD 1603. London: BBC Books. ISBN 0-563-38497-2.
    Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn (1855). Historical Memorials of Canterbury. London: John Murray.
    Staunton, Michael (2001). The Lives of Thomas Becket. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719054540.
    Staunton, Michael (2006). Thomas Becket and His Biographers. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press. ISBN 1-84383-271-2.
    Warren, W. L. (1973). Henry II. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03494-5.

    Read More
  92. @LondonBob
    There has been a strong and well orchestrated counter-attack on the Internet on the very notion that Permindex was anything other than a virtuous capitalist enterprise untainted by American intelligence, specifically the CIA. The various articles claim that the anti-Permindex stories were Communist plants and that the exposure of the organisation in Paesa Sera, an admittedly left-leaning paper, were nothing, but ‘KGB disinformation and mischief making’. De Gaulle’s robust handling of Permindex would suggest that he believed otherwise.

    Internal evidence that Permindex was a CIA front emerges in the fact that the CIA included Permindex materials in its Clay Shaw files, three years before the Kennedy assassination. Anther CIA document, dated March 16, 1967, reveals that at the time of his arrest Clay Shaw was working with Domestic Operations Division of the CIA’s clandestine services while fronting Permindex in New Orleans.

    The CIA’s operational component in New Orleans was hidden under the ‘Domestic Contact Division’, at least since 19 November 1964, according to a secret CIA document on ‘Garrison and the Kennedy Assassination,’ CIA Memorandum No.8. (The CIA’s ‘Domestic Contact Division’ was very secret as many of its activities were theoretically illegal within the USA.)

    In 1962, French president Charles de Gaulle publicly accused Permindex of channelling money to OAS (Secret Army Organisation), which had made several attempts on de Gaulle’s life as revenge for his liberating Algeria. See also De Gaulle: the Ruler 1945-1970 by J. Lacouture (New York, 1993) and the multiple French press reports at the time.

    Fuller details of Permindex’s expulsion from France on de Gaulle’s orders are to be found in Le Devoir, (Canada) 16 March 1967, (see also Final Judgment, p 199, plus Editors of Executive Intelligence Review Dope, Inc.: The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy, p 434. The Le Devoir articles also exposed the link between Louis Bloomfield (qv), Clay Shaw and Permindex’s sister company Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC). Neither Bloomfield nor Shaw sued the paper.

    Le Devoir also wrote: ‘That CMC was a creature of the CIA… set up as a cover for the transfer of CIA funds to Italy for illegal purposes…’ See also Jay Pound’s article in Critique, Spring 1986.

    That Permindex existed for the primary purpose of churning and funneling large funds for no apparent commercial gain is explained in Allen Douglas’s article ‘Terror war against the Nation State’ in Executive Intelligence Review, 4 February 2005.

    I think you should stick to reputable sources. Hint: someone peddling the idea that the intelligence services brought down Pres. Kennedy by subcontracting the job to a claque of French Quarter homosexuals is likely someone with more imagination than sense.

    Read More
  93. @Bill
    The only people without "an affinity for conspiracy theories" are autists and morons.

    The only people without “an affinity for conspiracy theories” are autists and morons.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Read More
  94. @J.Ross
    You are simply wrong, "deep state" has been a normal and respectable term among area specialists studying Turkey for decades, are clearly applies to a number of situations without stretching.
    But tell me again how an Israeli Christian who gets spat upon in the face can take comfort in a statistic about average income.

    among area specialists studying Turkey for decades,

    Area specialists studying Turkey are a contextually tiny population in American academe. By way of example, the Digest of Education Statistics reports that there was some school somewhere which had a degree-option in “Turkish Language and Literature” in 2013-14. However, no degrees in that subject were awarded anywhere. I once attempted to identify through searches of monographic and social-research databases a list of scholars who had published in English or in French on late Ottoman / early Kemalist Turkey. IIRC, I came up with a list of names in the low two digits. People like Heath Lowry and Justin McCarthy speak with great authority because they’re one of just a few score occidental academics who are steeped in the history and culture of the place.

    Read More
  95. @peterike

    A while back there was unroar

     

    I realize this is a typo, but "unroar" might be as useful a neologism as "frontlash." Indeed, there is a deafening unroar about Seth Rich and Wikileaks. And we've been living with decades long unroar about black-on-white crime.

    I kind of like it, but I think “deafening silence” has that concept covered.

    Read More
  96. @SteveRogers42
    Quite right, old chap. I much prefer Fletcher Prouty's term: "The Secret Team".

    FYI, there is a body of opinion which holds that the CIA itself originated and popularized the term "conspiracy theory":

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

    I guess this makes you a coincidence theorist.

    I guess this makes you a coincidence theorist.

    You live in a country with 318 million people in it, more than 50,000 commercial corporations, north of 38,000 governments, and a central government whose elements behave like the population of a cat shelter. No, I don’t think guys in a room get much accomplished of note to a historian. I cannot help but notice that the people who do so think have an allergy to inductive reasoning and seem to madly quote other people who have an allergy to inductive reasoning and draw on sketchy sources.

    There are two fine examples of the conspiracy discourse for you to contemplate: the John Birch Society and the Kennedy assassination subculture. Neither are good arguments for the perspicacity of chaps who look for guys in a room.

    Read More
  97. @J.Ross
    You are simply wrong, "deep state" has been a normal and respectable term among area specialists studying Turkey for decades, are clearly applies to a number of situations without stretching.
    But tell me again how an Israeli Christian who gets spat upon in the face can take comfort in a statistic about average income.

    But tell me again how an Israeli Christian who gets spat upon in the face can take comfort in a statistic about average income.

    You think the Israeli Christian is going to find some country somewhere where no one gets into fights in bars or schoolyards?

    Read More
  98. @guest
    "'Deep State' is...made use of by people with an affinity for conspiracy theories."

    That's how the Deep State wants it.

    By the way, everyone has an affinity for conspiracy theories. It's just that respectable, mainstream conspiracy theories aren't called conspiracy theories. Think about the Holocaust for a second and tell me that's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how plausible you find it. Or the international communist conspiracy, or the slaveholder conspiracy prior to the Civil War, or Russiagate right now., or anything normal people are supposed to believe in.

    The implication of “conspiracy theory” is that it is false. When you call something a conspiracy theory, you are saying it didn’t really happen, and that people who believe it are bad at evaluating evidence.

    Of course truth is hard, the mainstream media gets it wrong all the time, true events frequently get labeled “conspiracy theories,” and false stories become widely believed.

    But I don’t think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "I don't think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon"

    I think there is very plainly just such an implication. That's why you're right to say, "the implication of 'conspiracy theory' is that it's false." Haven't you bothered to think through the implication of that implication? The two sentences I've quoted thus far don't exactly go with each other, though they were written by the same person.

    We don't hear in mainstream sources of good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy theories. There's just conspiracy theories, which are bad, and things that aren't conspiracy theories, which can be good or bad. Convenient, to say the least, for anyone with the power to label that with which he doesn't agree a conspiracy theory.

    I wouldn't say the implication is that conspiracies don't exist. It's more along the lines of: conspiracies are rare in history, they don't determine big events, or if they do we already know about the important ones. But that's the sophisticated take. On a more superficial level, respectable opinion petends they just don't exist.

    Except their pet theories, like for instance the idea that the Nazis set out deliberately to conquer the world. That is a conspiracy theory. But they don't call it one, because they think it's true.

    Likewise, I remember hearing someone argue there was no conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln as some believe existed to take out Kennedy. This despite the fact that several people were tried by a military court and hanged for taking part. Also, Secretary of State Seward was attacked as part of the same plot. But we don't usually call that a conspiracy, because we know it happened. (Of course, on that case the term "theory" wouldn't really apply. It would be more like "conspiracy fact.")

    Fortunately, this ongoing attempt to imply conspiracies don't exist or matter and that theorizing about them leads to falsehood isn't as successful as would-be debunkers want. There have been diminishing returns, hence the addition of modifier, as with the phrases "nutty/wacky conspiracy theory" or "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory."
    , @Art Deco
    The implication of “conspiracy theory” is that it is false.

    Well, that too. The more precise implication is that it's imaginative, rococo, and nuts. It's Jim Garrison trolling through the Polk Directory trying to establish 'links' between people because someone in the social circle of person A lived across the street from someone in the social circle of person B. It's James Fetzer's minions thinking that sprinkler heads are microphones and that the CIA or the FBI is monitoring Dealey Plaza in 1998. It's Gary Allen thinking American political life is controlled by a cabal headquartered at the Council on Foreign Relations.
  99. The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a “conspiracy theory” when I talked about how the American Empire’s military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Cheney pushes open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Cheney is a traitor and a money-grubbing whore.

    The American Empire had no damn business getting involved in the Balkans except for the business of provisioning the American Empire. Provisioning the overseas antics of the American Empire is a good damn business for some people, Cheney included.

    Cheney accuses me of reading one too many “conspiracy theories.” The relevant part starts at 27:45:

    https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2001-04-11/vice-president-dick-cheney/103859/@00:00

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a “conspiracy theory” when I talked about how the American Empire’s military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Richard Cheney does not know you exist and doesn't give a rat's ass about you.
    , @dr kill
    Oh boy. I thought she croaked.
  100. @peterike

    A while back there was unroar

     

    I realize this is a typo, but "unroar" might be as useful a neologism as "frontlash." Indeed, there is a deafening unroar about Seth Rich and Wikileaks. And we've been living with decades long unroar about black-on-white crime.

    Does’t seem like a very tidy way of handling it, so I very much doubt there is anything to the yarn.

    Read More
  101. @anonymous
    Thanks deep-staters, we needed the vibrancy …

    Minneapolis police arrest [Norwegian] man, find trove of weapons

    MPR, Tim Nelson · May 16, 2017

    A littering complaint led police to a trove of weapons in a car in north Minneapolis, and now has led to a criminal charge against a 27-year-old Minneapolis man.

    Abdullah Alrifahe faces one count of possession of a pistol without a permit in connection with an incident last Thursday evening.

    The criminal complaint against him says a man near 44th Street and Humboldt Avenue saw the occupants of a car throw food wrappers out the window shortly after 5 p.m., and later flagged down a passing cop to complain.

    The complaint says a dispute erupted, and officers got the two occupants out of the vehicle and searched it. The men told police they were waiting for a package to be delivered to them by a drone.

    The complaint says officers found a hand grenade, two rifles, including what appeared to be a loaded AK-47 in the car, as well as large quantities of ammunition, cellphones, computers and what appeared to be parts of drones.

    "Bomb squad personnel called to the scene noted that the variety of the ammunition and large quantity of BBs and electronic devices could be used for bomb making," the complaint said.

    The complaint doesn't say if authorities are investigating any further threats posed by the men or what police found in the car.

    Alrifahe is scheduled to make an initial appearance in front of Hennepin County District Court Judge Tamara Garcia on Tuesday afternoon.

     

    p.s. Don't litter!

    … dodgy old Scandinavia once again …

    Read More
  102. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Desiderius
    Thomas Becket's murder was not a robbery, nor was it "ordered" by Henry II.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket

    What on Earth are you talking about?

    Read More
  103. @MW
    The implication of "conspiracy theory" is that it is false. When you call something a conspiracy theory, you are saying it didn't really happen, and that people who believe it are bad at evaluating evidence.

    Of course truth is hard, the mainstream media gets it wrong all the time, true events frequently get labeled "conspiracy theories," and false stories become widely believed.

    But I don't think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon.

    “I don’t think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon”

    I think there is very plainly just such an implication. That’s why you’re right to say, “the implication of ‘conspiracy theory’ is that it’s false.” Haven’t you bothered to think through the implication of that implication? The two sentences I’ve quoted thus far don’t exactly go with each other, though they were written by the same person.

    We don’t hear in mainstream sources of good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy theories. There’s just conspiracy theories, which are bad, and things that aren’t conspiracy theories, which can be good or bad. Convenient, to say the least, for anyone with the power to label that with which he doesn’t agree a conspiracy theory.

    I wouldn’t say the implication is that conspiracies don’t exist. It’s more along the lines of: conspiracies are rare in history, they don’t determine big events, or if they do we already know about the important ones. But that’s the sophisticated take. On a more superficial level, respectable opinion petends they just don’t exist.

    Except their pet theories, like for instance the idea that the Nazis set out deliberately to conquer the world. That is a conspiracy theory. But they don’t call it one, because they think it’s true.

    Likewise, I remember hearing someone argue there was no conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln as some believe existed to take out Kennedy. This despite the fact that several people were tried by a military court and hanged for taking part. Also, Secretary of State Seward was attacked as part of the same plot. But we don’t usually call that a conspiracy, because we know it happened. (Of course, on that case the term “theory” wouldn’t really apply. It would be more like “conspiracy fact.”)

    Fortunately, this ongoing attempt to imply conspiracies don’t exist or matter and that theorizing about them leads to falsehood isn’t as successful as would-be debunkers want. There have been diminishing returns, hence the addition of modifier, as with the phrases “nutty/wacky conspiracy theory” or “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @MW
    A "conspiracy theory" as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy. That's why my two statements don't contradict. "Conspiracy theory" refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false. Get it?

    "Conspiracy theorizing" - I'm not sure I've heard a good term for it - is a real phenomenon. People with no idea how to do serious research do things like: Make huge accusations based on motive alone; Casually dismiss reports from people with direct knowledge of a situation, while picking out odd statements here and there which corroborate their view; Treat small coincidences as being of immense importance; Without doing any first-hand research, rely on the first-hand research of others, and use it to dismiss their conclusions and invent an alternate explanation; Draw conclusions based on technical fields like ballistics with only a casual understanding of those fields; and so forth. None of this is a good way to get at truth, and I don't think it's bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors.

    Of course loaded terms get abused. That's the world we live in. Powerful people lie, and even the best researchers sometimes fall for it, go along with it, or make mistakes. But that doesn't make the theories of random people credible. Credibility needs to be earned - even denying the credibility of others requires credibility. If there's something that the world is getting wrong, do some research, earn some credibility and put out your alternate theory. That's the best we can hope for. What is the alternative - treating everyone as equally credible, when the world is full of cranks who have no idea how to evaluate evidence? That's insane.
  104. @Romanian
    But there is a difference. We were chin deep in the Non-Aligned Movement and full of Arab and African students (a few thousand Libyans when Back to the Future was making Libyan terrorism a plot device), but had no attacks and certainly none of the ritual humiliations Americans endure from their guests (except for that one time when Black September Palestinians tried to kill the Jordanian Ambassador before being mobbed by state security people). For all its sins against its own people, the Securitate kept a tight lid on the foreign element present domestically. An uppity foreigner could expect a drumming here and then another drumming back home for making them look bad. Then again, that wasn't a very auspicious time for political Islam.

    The page and a half at this link notes some of the terrorist threats in the country, mostly related to its Israeli relations. The writer, Larry Watts, is an interesting fellow - an American security expert/historian living in Romania and married to a Romanian I believe. He used to work for RAND and visited Romania even before 1989. Scuttlebutt says he could have been CIA and he's been attacked by former CIA Director James Woolsey for his writing.

    https://books.google.ro/books?id=_00UDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA313

    Bad as Communist states were, they at least existed, by name even, to serve their own people. Furthermore, they held to a number of 19th century nationalist ideals about each nation-state serving the interests of a particular ethnic group.

    Communists also had the ideological self-confidence to say, “No, we’re the opposite of Nazis,” and hence didn’t have anything to prove to anyone. In contrast, the Western democracies made pretzels of themselves trying to prove that they weren’t fascists, to the point they gloat about exterminating their own people to prove they’re not racist.

    If, in the 22nd century, France and Germany are Islamic hellholes, while the Visegrad countries have a big, beautiful western wall and healthy, white demographics, historians in that era will write of a communism as a well meaning mistake that went away fairly quickly, whereas egalitarian liberalism led to the permanent ruin of the peoples who adhered to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    What people did the multi-ethnic, multi-national Soviet empire serve?
  105. @MW
    The implication of "conspiracy theory" is that it is false. When you call something a conspiracy theory, you are saying it didn't really happen, and that people who believe it are bad at evaluating evidence.

    Of course truth is hard, the mainstream media gets it wrong all the time, true events frequently get labeled "conspiracy theories," and false stories become widely believed.

    But I don't think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon.

    The implication of “conspiracy theory” is that it is false.

    Well, that too. The more precise implication is that it’s imaginative, rococo, and nuts. It’s Jim Garrison trolling through the Polk Directory trying to establish ‘links’ between people because someone in the social circle of person A lived across the street from someone in the social circle of person B. It’s James Fetzer’s minions thinking that sprinkler heads are microphones and that the CIA or the FBI is monitoring Dealey Plaza in 1998. It’s Gary Allen thinking American political life is controlled by a cabal headquartered at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Read More
  106. @LondonBob
    There has been a strong and well orchestrated counter-attack on the Internet on the very notion that Permindex was anything other than a virtuous capitalist enterprise untainted by American intelligence, specifically the CIA. The various articles claim that the anti-Permindex stories were Communist plants and that the exposure of the organisation in Paesa Sera, an admittedly left-leaning paper, were nothing, but ‘KGB disinformation and mischief making’. De Gaulle’s robust handling of Permindex would suggest that he believed otherwise.

    Internal evidence that Permindex was a CIA front emerges in the fact that the CIA included Permindex materials in its Clay Shaw files, three years before the Kennedy assassination. Anther CIA document, dated March 16, 1967, reveals that at the time of his arrest Clay Shaw was working with Domestic Operations Division of the CIA’s clandestine services while fronting Permindex in New Orleans.

    The CIA’s operational component in New Orleans was hidden under the ‘Domestic Contact Division’, at least since 19 November 1964, according to a secret CIA document on ‘Garrison and the Kennedy Assassination,’ CIA Memorandum No.8. (The CIA’s ‘Domestic Contact Division’ was very secret as many of its activities were theoretically illegal within the USA.)

    In 1962, French president Charles de Gaulle publicly accused Permindex of channelling money to OAS (Secret Army Organisation), which had made several attempts on de Gaulle’s life as revenge for his liberating Algeria. See also De Gaulle: the Ruler 1945-1970 by J. Lacouture (New York, 1993) and the multiple French press reports at the time.

    Fuller details of Permindex’s expulsion from France on de Gaulle’s orders are to be found in Le Devoir, (Canada) 16 March 1967, (see also Final Judgment, p 199, plus Editors of Executive Intelligence Review Dope, Inc.: The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy, p 434. The Le Devoir articles also exposed the link between Louis Bloomfield (qv), Clay Shaw and Permindex’s sister company Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC). Neither Bloomfield nor Shaw sued the paper.

    Le Devoir also wrote: ‘That CMC was a creature of the CIA… set up as a cover for the transfer of CIA funds to Italy for illegal purposes…’ See also Jay Pound’s article in Critique, Spring 1986.

    That Permindex existed for the primary purpose of churning and funneling large funds for no apparent commercial gain is explained in Allen Douglas’s article ‘Terror war against the Nation State’ in Executive Intelligence Review, 4 February 2005.

    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program. Kennedy’s letters to Israel Government that were made public clearly indicate that Kennedy was set to terminate Israel’s nuclear weapon program in 1963. Out of all JFK conspiracy theories the one linking Israel nuclear weapon ranks the highest on the cui bono criteria. After JFK ‘s death the nuclear weapon program in Israel could continue unhindered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program."

    De Gaulle was cutting it way back.

    , @Art Deco
    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel

    There is no French or Israel connection to the Kennedy assassination. Kennedy was shot dead by a strange, obnoxious, but inconsequential individual who had no 'connection' to anyone but the family members he mistreated and the employers who would tolerate him for a while and then can him when his personality problems made him a liability.
  107. @Charles Pewitt
    The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a "conspiracy theory" when I talked about how the American Empire's military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Cheney pushes open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Cheney is a traitor and a money-grubbing whore.

    The American Empire had no damn business getting involved in the Balkans except for the business of provisioning the American Empire. Provisioning the overseas antics of the American Empire is a good damn business for some people, Cheney included.

    Cheney accuses me of reading one too many "conspiracy theories." The relevant part starts at 27:45:

    https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2001-04-11/vice-president-dick-cheney/103859/@00:00

    The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a “conspiracy theory” when I talked about how the American Empire’s military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Richard Cheney does not know you exist and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    Oh, he knows (I was going to type "knew" because it seems that he, like Kissinger, ought to have been long dead) who we are. Cheney and his ilk don't have to know names of individuals; and that rat does indeed cover his ass from the people's gaze.

    They all know there are people who actually think, observe, ask questions, and connect dots. Now we have Seth Rich gunned down, nothing stolen. Therefore they try to beat you over the head with the baton of "conspiracy theory" even when the "theories" are facts. I think it was Orwell who said the major sins of the media of the future (future from his viewpoint; we're in it) would be sins of omission, as in Warren Commission. Anyone who investigates things on the ground, using prime sources, knows facts were deliberately obfuscated concerning 9/11 and so many other game-changing disasters, and this goes on to this day. They can run a story on the page 4 for a day, that challenges their narrative and then they're back to blathering about whatever the PTB decide should be on the front page. Controlling the media was essential. We were told in the 60s that Russia of course did not have a free press, but we of course, did. Yeah. Right. Pretty near reversed now.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Richard Cheney does not know you exist and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you.
     
    It was a call-in show, you a**hat, and what Mr. Pewitt said was true.

    However, coincidentally, nobody here knows you nor gives a rat's ass about you.
  108. @utu
    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program. Kennedy's letters to Israel Government that were made public clearly indicate that Kennedy was set to terminate Israel's nuclear weapon program in 1963. Out of all JFK conspiracy theories the one linking Israel nuclear weapon ranks the highest on the cui bono criteria. After JFK 's death the nuclear weapon program in Israel could continue unhindered.

    “Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program.”

    De Gaulle was cutting it way back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    So they say.

    France ultimately scrapped that agreement several years later under the weight of enormous United States diplomatic pressure for it to cease its nuclear cooperation with Israel.
     
    But

    Experts believe Israel has used the Dimona reactor it built with French help in the 1960s to produce as many as 200 nuclear warheads.
     

    France, which sold Israel its first jet warplanes, was closer to Israel than most of the West. Some French officials identified with Israel's conflict with the Arabs at that time, as France was battling an armed revolt against its rule in Algeria

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/peres-biography-israel-france-had-secret-pact-to-produce-nuclear-weapons-1.220165
     
    The US replaced France as a chief Israel's sugar daddy after 1967 war.
    , @utu

    In 1962, Peres persuaded the French to sell Israel its first ballistic missiles.

    But by then, Charles De Gaulle was president of the new Fifth Republic in France, and he was not happy about the nuclear deal with the Israelis. He ordered it stopped. Peres worked around him, and his persistence and his contacts paid off once again. The program managed to continue with French cooperation for another two years or more after De Gaulle ordered it halted.
     
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/28/how-shimon-peres-got-nukes-for-israel
  109. @Charles Pewitt
    The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a "conspiracy theory" when I talked about how the American Empire's military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Cheney pushes open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Cheney is a traitor and a money-grubbing whore.

    The American Empire had no damn business getting involved in the Balkans except for the business of provisioning the American Empire. Provisioning the overseas antics of the American Empire is a good damn business for some people, Cheney included.

    Cheney accuses me of reading one too many "conspiracy theories." The relevant part starts at 27:45:

    https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2001-04-11/vice-president-dick-cheney/103859/@00:00

    Oh boy. I thought she croaked.

    Read More
  110. @Steve Sailer
    "Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program."

    De Gaulle was cutting it way back.

    So they say.

    France ultimately scrapped that agreement several years later under the weight of enormous United States diplomatic pressure for it to cease its nuclear cooperation with Israel.

    But

    Experts believe Israel has used the Dimona reactor it built with French help in the 1960s to produce as many as 200 nuclear warheads.

    France, which sold Israel its first jet warplanes, was closer to Israel than most of the West. Some French officials identified with Israel’s conflict with the Arabs at that time, as France was battling an armed revolt against its rule in Algeria

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/peres-biography-israel-france-had-secret-pact-to-produce-nuclear-weapons-1.220165

    The US replaced France as a chief Israel’s sugar daddy after 1967 war.

    Read More
  111. @Art Deco
    The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a “conspiracy theory” when I talked about how the American Empire’s military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Richard Cheney does not know you exist and doesn't give a rat's ass about you.

    Oh, he knows (I was going to type “knew” because it seems that he, like Kissinger, ought to have been long dead) who we are. Cheney and his ilk don’t have to know names of individuals; and that rat does indeed cover his ass from the people’s gaze.

    They all know there are people who actually think, observe, ask questions, and connect dots. Now we have Seth Rich gunned down, nothing stolen. Therefore they try to beat you over the head with the baton of “conspiracy theory” even when the “theories” are facts. I think it was Orwell who said the major sins of the media of the future (future from his viewpoint; we’re in it) would be sins of omission, as in Warren Commission. Anyone who investigates things on the ground, using prime sources, knows facts were deliberately obfuscated concerning 9/11 and so many other game-changing disasters, and this goes on to this day. They can run a story on the page 4 for a day, that challenges their narrative and then they’re back to blathering about whatever the PTB decide should be on the front page. Controlling the media was essential. We were told in the 60s that Russia of course did not have a free press, but we of course, did. Yeah. Right. Pretty near reversed now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Oh, he knows (I was going to type “knew” because it seems that he, like Kissinger, ought to have been long dead) who we are. Cheney and his ilk don’t have to know names of individuals; and that rat does indeed cover his ass from the people’s gaze.

    I'm sure he knows in a general way that there are people in this world with a wildly inflated sense of their own knowledge and perspicacity and with a capacity for invention. I'm also sure you're not taking up much rent-free space in his head.
  112. @Sid
    Bad as Communist states were, they at least existed, by name even, to serve their own people. Furthermore, they held to a number of 19th century nationalist ideals about each nation-state serving the interests of a particular ethnic group.

    Communists also had the ideological self-confidence to say, "No, we're the opposite of Nazis," and hence didn't have anything to prove to anyone. In contrast, the Western democracies made pretzels of themselves trying to prove that they weren't fascists, to the point they gloat about exterminating their own people to prove they're not racist.

    If, in the 22nd century, France and Germany are Islamic hellholes, while the Visegrad countries have a big, beautiful western wall and healthy, white demographics, historians in that era will write of a communism as a well meaning mistake that went away fairly quickly, whereas egalitarian liberalism led to the permanent ruin of the peoples who adhered to it.

    What people did the multi-ethnic, multi-national Soviet empire serve?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    The USSR vacillated between Russian chauvinism and minority rights. Really depends on the decade to be honest.
  113. @Steve Sailer
    "Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program."

    De Gaulle was cutting it way back.

    In 1962, Peres persuaded the French to sell Israel its first ballistic missiles.

    But by then, Charles De Gaulle was president of the new Fifth Republic in France, and he was not happy about the nuclear deal with the Israelis. He ordered it stopped. Peres worked around him, and his persistence and his contacts paid off once again. The program managed to continue with French cooperation for another two years or more after De Gaulle ordered it halted.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/28/how-shimon-peres-got-nukes-for-israel

    Read More
  114. @Pericles
    Those leaked emails sure looked like coded communications though. Maybe it was just drug buys or dropping off some bribes? Or was it about Bill Clinton's itinerary to Pedo Island?

    Entirely coincidentally, I'm sure, it's hard to think about and discuss these things with the media din about RUSSIA! RUSSIA! However, at the time it was a bit funny to see Pizzagate quickly denounced as entirely false even by Swedish media. Few or no normies in our no-longer-blessed lands had even heard about it at that point. The news sure hurried to squash that one.

    I agree that it seems to be unlucky to work for the Clintons.

    Most of that stuff in Podesta’s E-mails referred to Podesta and his circle. And I think people were reading too much into a lot of it. None-the-less, the Podesta brothers seem to be real strangeoes.

    Read More
  115. @Art Deco
    The treasonous scoundrel Dick Cheney once suggested that I was engaging in a “conspiracy theory” when I talked about how the American Empire’s military involvement in the Balkans financially benefited his former company Brown and Root(Halliburton) and Cheney himself.

    Richard Cheney does not know you exist and doesn't give a rat's ass about you.

    Richard Cheney does not know you exist and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you.

    It was a call-in show, you a**hat, and what Mr. Pewitt said was true.

    However, coincidentally, nobody here knows you nor gives a rat’s ass about you.

    Read More
  116. @guest
    What people did the multi-ethnic, multi-national Soviet empire serve?

    The USSR vacillated between Russian chauvinism and minority rights. Really depends on the decade to be honest.

    Read More
  117. @dcite
    Oh, he knows (I was going to type "knew" because it seems that he, like Kissinger, ought to have been long dead) who we are. Cheney and his ilk don't have to know names of individuals; and that rat does indeed cover his ass from the people's gaze.

    They all know there are people who actually think, observe, ask questions, and connect dots. Now we have Seth Rich gunned down, nothing stolen. Therefore they try to beat you over the head with the baton of "conspiracy theory" even when the "theories" are facts. I think it was Orwell who said the major sins of the media of the future (future from his viewpoint; we're in it) would be sins of omission, as in Warren Commission. Anyone who investigates things on the ground, using prime sources, knows facts were deliberately obfuscated concerning 9/11 and so many other game-changing disasters, and this goes on to this day. They can run a story on the page 4 for a day, that challenges their narrative and then they're back to blathering about whatever the PTB decide should be on the front page. Controlling the media was essential. We were told in the 60s that Russia of course did not have a free press, but we of course, did. Yeah. Right. Pretty near reversed now.

    Oh, he knows (I was going to type “knew” because it seems that he, like Kissinger, ought to have been long dead) who we are. Cheney and his ilk don’t have to know names of individuals; and that rat does indeed cover his ass from the people’s gaze.

    I’m sure he knows in a general way that there are people in this world with a wildly inflated sense of their own knowledge and perspicacity and with a capacity for invention. I’m also sure you’re not taking up much rent-free space in his head.

    Read More
  118. @utu
    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel and France still at that time had deep cooperation on nuclear weapon program. Kennedy's letters to Israel Government that were made public clearly indicate that Kennedy was set to terminate Israel's nuclear weapon program in 1963. Out of all JFK conspiracy theories the one linking Israel nuclear weapon ranks the highest on the cui bono criteria. After JFK 's death the nuclear weapon program in Israel could continue unhindered.

    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel

    There is no French or Israel connection to the Kennedy assassination. Kennedy was shot dead by a strange, obnoxious, but inconsequential individual who had no ‘connection’ to anyone but the family members he mistreated and the employers who would tolerate him for a while and then can him when his personality problems made him a liability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Kennedy was shot dead by a strange, obnoxious, but inconsequential individual............
     
    Quite so. And given that you are also a strange, obnoxious, and inconsequential individual, perhaps the Secret Service should be keeping tabs on you.
  119. @Bill
    The only people without "an affinity for conspiracy theories" are autists and morons.

    The only people without “an affinity for conspiracy theories” are autists and morons.

    I think you can not have an affinity for conpsiracy theories without being an autist or a moron.

    However, Art Deco certainly is an autist and a moron.

    Read More
  120. @Art Deco
    The French connection in Kennedy assassination is very interesting. Israel

    There is no French or Israel connection to the Kennedy assassination. Kennedy was shot dead by a strange, obnoxious, but inconsequential individual who had no 'connection' to anyone but the family members he mistreated and the employers who would tolerate him for a while and then can him when his personality problems made him a liability.

    Kennedy was shot dead by a strange, obnoxious, but inconsequential individual…………

    Quite so. And given that you are also a strange, obnoxious, and inconsequential individual, perhaps the Secret Service should be keeping tabs on you.

    Read More
  121. @guest
    "I don't think there is any implication that conspiracies are not a real-world phenomenon"

    I think there is very plainly just such an implication. That's why you're right to say, "the implication of 'conspiracy theory' is that it's false." Haven't you bothered to think through the implication of that implication? The two sentences I've quoted thus far don't exactly go with each other, though they were written by the same person.

    We don't hear in mainstream sources of good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy theories. There's just conspiracy theories, which are bad, and things that aren't conspiracy theories, which can be good or bad. Convenient, to say the least, for anyone with the power to label that with which he doesn't agree a conspiracy theory.

    I wouldn't say the implication is that conspiracies don't exist. It's more along the lines of: conspiracies are rare in history, they don't determine big events, or if they do we already know about the important ones. But that's the sophisticated take. On a more superficial level, respectable opinion petends they just don't exist.

    Except their pet theories, like for instance the idea that the Nazis set out deliberately to conquer the world. That is a conspiracy theory. But they don't call it one, because they think it's true.

    Likewise, I remember hearing someone argue there was no conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln as some believe existed to take out Kennedy. This despite the fact that several people were tried by a military court and hanged for taking part. Also, Secretary of State Seward was attacked as part of the same plot. But we don't usually call that a conspiracy, because we know it happened. (Of course, on that case the term "theory" wouldn't really apply. It would be more like "conspiracy fact.")

    Fortunately, this ongoing attempt to imply conspiracies don't exist or matter and that theorizing about them leads to falsehood isn't as successful as would-be debunkers want. There have been diminishing returns, hence the addition of modifier, as with the phrases "nutty/wacky conspiracy theory" or "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory."

    A “conspiracy theory” as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy. That’s why my two statements don’t contradict. “Conspiracy theory” refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false. Get it?

    “Conspiracy theorizing” – I’m not sure I’ve heard a good term for it – is a real phenomenon. People with no idea how to do serious research do things like: Make huge accusations based on motive alone; Casually dismiss reports from people with direct knowledge of a situation, while picking out odd statements here and there which corroborate their view; Treat small coincidences as being of immense importance; Without doing any first-hand research, rely on the first-hand research of others, and use it to dismiss their conclusions and invent an alternate explanation; Draw conclusions based on technical fields like ballistics with only a casual understanding of those fields; and so forth. None of this is a good way to get at truth, and I don’t think it’s bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors.

    Of course loaded terms get abused. That’s the world we live in. Powerful people lie, and even the best researchers sometimes fall for it, go along with it, or make mistakes. But that doesn’t make the theories of random people credible. Credibility needs to be earned – even denying the credibility of others requires credibility. If there’s something that the world is getting wrong, do some research, earn some credibility and put out your alternate theory. That’s the best we can hope for. What is the alternative – treating everyone as equally credible, when the world is full of cranks who have no idea how to evaluate evidence? That’s insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Get it?"

    No.

    There isn't any good reason why one can't theorize correctly about true conspiracies and have it be called a "conspiracy theory." That the phrase is commonly associated with bad theorizing about false conspiracies is that people desire unapproved theorizing to be automatically associated in the public's mind with falsehood.

    "People with no idea how to do serious research do things like..."

    Perfectly respectable scholars at venerable institutions believe bat-crap crazy nonsense and screw up basic research methods regularly. Believe me. Their theories often enough are as unfounded as those which are labelled "conspiracy theories," yet they are allowed to pass in common knowledge and are part of respectable opinion. Why? No reason.

    It's like String Theory, for instance, which has come under increasing criticism but still gets the label Science, and the prestige and money that comes along with it. But it's crankery purely and simply, and full of stuff that would embarrass respectable opinion if associated with a Unabomber type.

    There's no guarantee of justice in the world Science, much less historical theory
    , @guest
    "I don't think it's bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors"

    I wouldn't mind that. "Conspiracy theory" isn't it.

    "Of course loaded terms get abused"

    It didn't get abused. It is an abuse.

    You do know what "loaded term" means, right? It's like loaded dice. Loaded terms are biased toward a particular outcome. In this case: the outcome is being able to convince people theories with which you disagree are unfounded and the products of incorrect research and reasoning.

    I need a separate post to deal with this contradictory aspect of your writing. An abused loaded term. I mean, really.
    , @guest
    "A 'conspiracy theory' as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy."

    I know. That's the problem.

    "That's why my two statements don't contradict."

    Huh? That's precisely why they don't go together. (I don't think I said they contradict. I wouldn't say they're strictly contradictory, though they tend that way.)

    "'Conspiracy theory' refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false"

    That's what they want you to think. (Yes, "they.") But of course plenty of false theories about conspiracies aren't believed to be false by respectable opinion. Also, many theories which start out being labeled "conspiracy theories" (that is to say, false conspiracy theories) are eventually embraced by mainstream opinion.

    Sometimes that's because wild guesses were confirmed by previously unavailable evidence. But also, it's because nothing was wrong with the reasoning in the first place and people's ignorance of or scorned for it had nothing to do with its dialectical properties.

    There's a reason you simultaneously maintain that there's no implication conspiracies don't exist and that the term "conspiracy theory" means false conspiracy theory . It's the same reason you can admit that it's a loaded term yet somehow think that it's been abused on top of that. I don't know what this reason is, but it's at the root of our disagreement.

    I might guess because you think there's an assumption of risk in theorizing about conspiracies which isn't present in other forms of historical inquiry. Which may be true, but mainstream theorizing about hidden forces is risky, too. But we don't commonly call them "conspiracy theories." Sane risk, different label, and therefore different level of trust from the public. Based upon what? The presumption of falsehood for unlicensed theorizing.

    When you get down to it, calling something a conspiracy theory is akin to saying it's in poor taste.

    You admit that it's not a neutral term, that it's loaded, yet somehow this doesn't have the proper effect on your mind. If we want a term for bad conspiracy theorizing, we could just come up with one. Why have a loaded term (abused or unabused)? Why not just come out with a straightforwardly negative term? That is, one without the appearance of neutrality? I know why: because then the shoddy, crackpot theories beloved of respectable opinion (by definition not conspiracy theories) would lose their special status.

  122. @MW
    A "conspiracy theory" as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy. That's why my two statements don't contradict. "Conspiracy theory" refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false. Get it?

    "Conspiracy theorizing" - I'm not sure I've heard a good term for it - is a real phenomenon. People with no idea how to do serious research do things like: Make huge accusations based on motive alone; Casually dismiss reports from people with direct knowledge of a situation, while picking out odd statements here and there which corroborate their view; Treat small coincidences as being of immense importance; Without doing any first-hand research, rely on the first-hand research of others, and use it to dismiss their conclusions and invent an alternate explanation; Draw conclusions based on technical fields like ballistics with only a casual understanding of those fields; and so forth. None of this is a good way to get at truth, and I don't think it's bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors.

    Of course loaded terms get abused. That's the world we live in. Powerful people lie, and even the best researchers sometimes fall for it, go along with it, or make mistakes. But that doesn't make the theories of random people credible. Credibility needs to be earned - even denying the credibility of others requires credibility. If there's something that the world is getting wrong, do some research, earn some credibility and put out your alternate theory. That's the best we can hope for. What is the alternative - treating everyone as equally credible, when the world is full of cranks who have no idea how to evaluate evidence? That's insane.

    “Get it?”

    No.

    There isn’t any good reason why one can’t theorize correctly about true conspiracies and have it be called a “conspiracy theory.” That the phrase is commonly associated with bad theorizing about false conspiracies is that people desire unapproved theorizing to be automatically associated in the public’s mind with falsehood.

    “People with no idea how to do serious research do things like…”

    Perfectly respectable scholars at venerable institutions believe bat-crap crazy nonsense and screw up basic research methods regularly. Believe me. Their theories often enough are as unfounded as those which are labelled “conspiracy theories,” yet they are allowed to pass in common knowledge and are part of respectable opinion. Why? No reason.

    It’s like String Theory, for instance, which has come under increasing criticism but still gets the label Science, and the prestige and money that comes along with it. But it’s crankery purely and simply, and full of stuff that would embarrass respectable opinion if associated with a Unabomber type.

    There’s no guarantee of justice in the world Science, much less historical theory

    Read More
  123. @MW
    A "conspiracy theory" as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy. That's why my two statements don't contradict. "Conspiracy theory" refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false. Get it?

    "Conspiracy theorizing" - I'm not sure I've heard a good term for it - is a real phenomenon. People with no idea how to do serious research do things like: Make huge accusations based on motive alone; Casually dismiss reports from people with direct knowledge of a situation, while picking out odd statements here and there which corroborate their view; Treat small coincidences as being of immense importance; Without doing any first-hand research, rely on the first-hand research of others, and use it to dismiss their conclusions and invent an alternate explanation; Draw conclusions based on technical fields like ballistics with only a casual understanding of those fields; and so forth. None of this is a good way to get at truth, and I don't think it's bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors.

    Of course loaded terms get abused. That's the world we live in. Powerful people lie, and even the best researchers sometimes fall for it, go along with it, or make mistakes. But that doesn't make the theories of random people credible. Credibility needs to be earned - even denying the credibility of others requires credibility. If there's something that the world is getting wrong, do some research, earn some credibility and put out your alternate theory. That's the best we can hope for. What is the alternative - treating everyone as equally credible, when the world is full of cranks who have no idea how to evaluate evidence? That's insane.

    “I don’t think it’s bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors”

    I wouldn’t mind that. “Conspiracy theory” isn’t it.

    “Of course loaded terms get abused”

    It didn’t get abused. It is an abuse.

    You do know what “loaded term” means, right? It’s like loaded dice. Loaded terms are biased toward a particular outcome. In this case: the outcome is being able to convince people theories with which you disagree are unfounded and the products of incorrect research and reasoning.

    I need a separate post to deal with this contradictory aspect of your writing. An abused loaded term. I mean, really.

    Read More
  124. @MW
    A "conspiracy theory" as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy. That's why my two statements don't contradict. "Conspiracy theory" refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false. Get it?

    "Conspiracy theorizing" - I'm not sure I've heard a good term for it - is a real phenomenon. People with no idea how to do serious research do things like: Make huge accusations based on motive alone; Casually dismiss reports from people with direct knowledge of a situation, while picking out odd statements here and there which corroborate their view; Treat small coincidences as being of immense importance; Without doing any first-hand research, rely on the first-hand research of others, and use it to dismiss their conclusions and invent an alternate explanation; Draw conclusions based on technical fields like ballistics with only a casual understanding of those fields; and so forth. None of this is a good way to get at truth, and I don't think it's bad to have a dismissive term for the fruits of their misguided labors.

    Of course loaded terms get abused. That's the world we live in. Powerful people lie, and even the best researchers sometimes fall for it, go along with it, or make mistakes. But that doesn't make the theories of random people credible. Credibility needs to be earned - even denying the credibility of others requires credibility. If there's something that the world is getting wrong, do some research, earn some credibility and put out your alternate theory. That's the best we can hope for. What is the alternative - treating everyone as equally credible, when the world is full of cranks who have no idea how to evaluate evidence? That's insane.

    “A ‘conspiracy theory’ as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy.”

    I know. That’s the problem.

    “That’s why my two statements don’t contradict.”

    Huh? That’s precisely why they don’t go together. (I don’t think I said they contradict. I wouldn’t say they’re strictly contradictory, though they tend that way.)

    “‘Conspiracy theory’ refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false”

    That’s what they want you to think. (Yes, “they.”) But of course plenty of false theories about conspiracies aren’t believed to be false by respectable opinion. Also, many theories which start out being labeled “conspiracy theories” (that is to say, false conspiracy theories) are eventually embraced by mainstream opinion.

    Sometimes that’s because wild guesses were confirmed by previously unavailable evidence. But also, it’s because nothing was wrong with the reasoning in the first place and people’s ignorance of or scorned for it had nothing to do with its dialectical properties.

    There’s a reason you simultaneously maintain that there’s no implication conspiracies don’t exist and that the term “conspiracy theory” means false conspiracy theory . It’s the same reason you can admit that it’s a loaded term yet somehow think that it’s been abused on top of that. I don’t know what this reason is, but it’s at the root of our disagreement.

    I might guess because you think there’s an assumption of risk in theorizing about conspiracies which isn’t present in other forms of historical inquiry. Which may be true, but mainstream theorizing about hidden forces is risky, too. But we don’t commonly call them “conspiracy theories.” Sane risk, different label, and therefore different level of trust from the public. Based upon what? The presumption of falsehood for unlicensed theorizing.

    When you get down to it, calling something a conspiracy theory is akin to saying it’s in poor taste.

    You admit that it’s not a neutral term, that it’s loaded, yet somehow this doesn’t have the proper effect on your mind. If we want a term for bad conspiracy theorizing, we could just come up with one. Why have a loaded term (abused or unabused)? Why not just come out with a straightforwardly negative term? That is, one without the appearance of neutrality? I know why: because then the shoddy, crackpot theories beloved of respectable opinion (by definition not conspiracy theories) would lose their special status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MW
    Most language is a bit loaded. It is extremely difficult to write with truly neutral language, language which doesn't tend to convey a slightly different meaning than the literal, legalistic meaning. And I don't think you'd want to communicate that way (outside of narrow channels where it is appropriate, such as, say, technical manuals or scientific research). Loaded language is how humans communicate, and I don't see that as good or bad. That's just how it is.

    So I believe that there are valid, non-abusive ways of using loaded language, even extremely loaded language such as "conspiracy theory." If you use it to dismiss an actual crazy person with a stupid theory, and can save others the time of addressing his nonsense, I don't think that's a problem. Referring to good, earnest research as a "conspiracy theory" is abuse.

    I see "conspiracy theory" as somewhat similar to "stubborn" and "steadfast." If you believe that something conspiratorial occurred, there are lots of ways of describing it that don't imply it is fantasy or bad. Look at popular accounts of the Manhattan Project, to see some of the tropes you can use. Yes, if you are influential, you can use such language to convince a lot of people that a given event did or did not happen, just as you can subtly convince people that a stubborn/steadfast person is good or bad. It isn't some kind of silver bullet, it's just normal persuasive language, which influential people can and do use or abuse.
  125. @guest
    "A 'conspiracy theory' as used idiomatically is not just a theory about a conspiracy."

    I know. That's the problem.

    "That's why my two statements don't contradict."

    Huh? That's precisely why they don't go together. (I don't think I said they contradict. I wouldn't say they're strictly contradictory, though they tend that way.)

    "'Conspiracy theory' refers to that subset of theories about conspiracies which are, among other things, false"

    That's what they want you to think. (Yes, "they.") But of course plenty of false theories about conspiracies aren't believed to be false by respectable opinion. Also, many theories which start out being labeled "conspiracy theories" (that is to say, false conspiracy theories) are eventually embraced by mainstream opinion.

    Sometimes that's because wild guesses were confirmed by previously unavailable evidence. But also, it's because nothing was wrong with the reasoning in the first place and people's ignorance of or scorned for it had nothing to do with its dialectical properties.

    There's a reason you simultaneously maintain that there's no implication conspiracies don't exist and that the term "conspiracy theory" means false conspiracy theory . It's the same reason you can admit that it's a loaded term yet somehow think that it's been abused on top of that. I don't know what this reason is, but it's at the root of our disagreement.

    I might guess because you think there's an assumption of risk in theorizing about conspiracies which isn't present in other forms of historical inquiry. Which may be true, but mainstream theorizing about hidden forces is risky, too. But we don't commonly call them "conspiracy theories." Sane risk, different label, and therefore different level of trust from the public. Based upon what? The presumption of falsehood for unlicensed theorizing.

    When you get down to it, calling something a conspiracy theory is akin to saying it's in poor taste.

    You admit that it's not a neutral term, that it's loaded, yet somehow this doesn't have the proper effect on your mind. If we want a term for bad conspiracy theorizing, we could just come up with one. Why have a loaded term (abused or unabused)? Why not just come out with a straightforwardly negative term? That is, one without the appearance of neutrality? I know why: because then the shoddy, crackpot theories beloved of respectable opinion (by definition not conspiracy theories) would lose their special status.

    Most language is a bit loaded. It is extremely difficult to write with truly neutral language, language which doesn’t tend to convey a slightly different meaning than the literal, legalistic meaning. And I don’t think you’d want to communicate that way (outside of narrow channels where it is appropriate, such as, say, technical manuals or scientific research). Loaded language is how humans communicate, and I don’t see that as good or bad. That’s just how it is.

    So I believe that there are valid, non-abusive ways of using loaded language, even extremely loaded language such as “conspiracy theory.” If you use it to dismiss an actual crazy person with a stupid theory, and can save others the time of addressing his nonsense, I don’t think that’s a problem. Referring to good, earnest research as a “conspiracy theory” is abuse.

    I see “conspiracy theory” as somewhat similar to “stubborn” and “steadfast.” If you believe that something conspiratorial occurred, there are lots of ways of describing it that don’t imply it is fantasy or bad. Look at popular accounts of the Manhattan Project, to see some of the tropes you can use. Yes, if you are influential, you can use such language to convince a lot of people that a given event did or did not happen, just as you can subtly convince people that a stubborn/steadfast person is good or bad. It isn’t some kind of silver bullet, it’s just normal persuasive language, which influential people can and do use or abuse.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.