Is There a Deep State?

[Benjamin Cole]

On 9/6/2023 at 1:08 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Right wingers hijacked those terms, re-defining them to fit fascististic narratives.

Lemme guess where that %1 went...

October 28 to November 8, 2016 when CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News ran 24hour bash Hillary coverage of the last days of the campaign.

Am I right, Ben?

CV-

 

You are barking at a bonsai tree in a redwood forest of anti-democratic organizations.

I contend the Deep State deposed JFK to retain control over US military, foreign and trade policies.  Several presidents have been deposed since for the same reasons. 

Since the JFKA, the US has been in three or four unnecessary major wars, innumerable smaller conflicts, and multinationals have expanded 100-fold in size and influence. Were those wars fought to protect the American citizenry from invasion? Or to protect the interests of globalists? 

The expression "working class" has been re-defined by legacy media to mean "white working class" and "white nationalists," while the useful expression "Deep State," has been linked to the nut-job cranks. 

Ponder that.

Then ponder that the JFK-less US government confiscates nearly $5,000 from every man, woman and child in the US (and every year) to run the global warfare complex (DoD, VA, black budget, pro-rated interest on the national debt.)

Yes, $863 bil for defense, $320 bil for VA, $100 bil for black budget and $250 bil for interest payments. Call it $1.5 trillion. Divide by 330 million. You get $4,645 per US resident. Every year and rising. 

Almost $20,000 from an average family of four. Every year. 

The media never tells you this tax story that I have related, and which is irrefutable. 

Instead the media trains you to get into useless catfights over ID politics and culture wars, and  blue or red kool-aid pissing wars. 

Now,  the D-Party fully participates in the suppression of info that might reveal the truth about the JFKA. The JFK Records Act. What does that tell you? No Deep State? 

Biden does not answer to the Deep State and globalists? Really? 

The 'Phants are no better. 

 

 

 

You never read that number anywhere. 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

 

You are barking at a bonsai tree in a redwood forest of anti-democratic organizations.

I contend the Deep State deposed JFK to retain control over US military, foreign and trade policies.  Several presidents have been deposed since for the same reasons. 

Since the JFKA, the US has been in three or four unnecessary major wars, innumerable smaller conflicts, and multinationals have expanded 100-fold in size and influence. Were those wars fought to protect the American citizenry from invasion? Or to protect the interests of globalists? 

The expression "working class" has been re-defined by legacy media to mean "white working class" and "white nationalists," while the useful expression "Deep State," has been linked to the nut-job cranks. 

Ponder that.

Then ponder that the JFK-less US government confiscates nearly $5,000 from every man, woman and child in the US (and every year) to run the global warfare complex (DoD, VA, black budget, pro-rated interest on the national debt.)

Yes, $863 bil for defense, $320 bil for VA, $100 bil for black budget and $250 bil for interest payments. Call it $1.5 trillion. Divide by 330 million. You get $4,645 per US resident. Every year and rising. 

Almost $20,000 from an average family of four. Every year. 

The media never tells you this tax story that I have related, and which is irrefutable. 

Instead the media trains you to get into useless catfights over ID politics and culture wars, and  blue or red kool-aid pissing wars. 

Now,  the D-Party fully participates in the suppression of info that might reveal the truth about the JFKA. The JFK Records Act. What does that tell you? No Deep State? 

Biden does not answer to the Deep State and globalists? Really? 

The 'Phants are no better. 

 

 

 

You never read that number anywhere. 

 

Thanks for the history lecture Ben, but you didn’t address my point.  You claim the MSM is controlled “99%” by enemies of Donald Trump and yet the MSM spent the ENTIRE last 11 days of the 2016 presidential campaign bashing Hillary.  The Deep State installed Trump, which defies your analysis.

[Greg Doudna]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The same globalists that did the JFKA. 

Who are "globalists" and why do you suppose "globalists" did the JFKA?

Do you think JFK was a "globalist"? Explain your answer to this?-- why you think JFK was or was not a "globalist" by however you are defining "globalists"?

Do you think Jack Ruby who may have had some role in the JFKA was a "globalist"?

Do you think Jimmy Hoffa was a "globalist"?

How about Dallas Police Department Capt. Will Fritz? Was he a "globalist"?

Do you think J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director, was a "globalist"?

Do you think anti-Castro Cubans in 1963 who hated JFK were "globalists"?

MLK, Jr? 

 

 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

Here is a decent description of Globalists. Which are part of the Global "Deep State" like David Rockefellar types that are attending Global Organizations like Builderberg, Trilateral Commission, Council Of Foreign Relations, etc. 

The People you list are 1960 American Deep State, if you used an La Contra Nostra context Globalists are the Head of The Family and the Deep State People are the Soldiers, Capo's etc 

 

[Matt Allison]

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Who are "globalists" and why do you suppose "globalists" did the JFKA?

Do you think JFK was a "globalist"? Explain your answer to this?-- why you think JFK was or was not a "globalist" by however you are defining "globalists"?

Do you think Jack Ruby who may have had some role in the JFKA was a "globalist"?

Do you think Jimmy Hoffa was a "globalist"?

How about Dallas Police Department Capt. Will Fritz? Was he a "globalist"?

Do you think J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director, was a "globalist"?

Do you think anti-Castro Cubans in 1963 who hated JFK were "globalists"?

MLK, Jr? 

 

 

 

 

GD-

Thanks for you comment.

IMHO, you are conflating cat's paws with the cat. 

For example, of course, Jack Ruby was only a mobbed up nightclub owner. However, he was given his marching orders on LHO, and he complied. Ruby became useful, due to his connections to the DPD, and ability to shadow LHO until the right opportunity arose. 

My take on Ruby is that the CIA, having established lines of communication into the Mob, and joint-worked a few operations, then contracted out the LHO murder to the Mob. Plausible deniability too.

(My take is LHO, and two others who turned LHO into a patsy, were all CIA assets. That is the story that had to be covered up). 

The CIA, of course, is a globalist organization, established by the Council for Foreign Relations  crowd and persisting to this day. 

---

JFK was not a globalist, and in fact wanted to step away from US interventionism. Some say that is why he was assassinated. 

Stepping back, I do not think that "DC is globalist town" is really much a matter of debate. 

A globalized hyper-mobilized US military girdles the sphere, while gigantic multinationals--globalist---corporations dominate commerce and lobby groups, think tanks, foundations, and related media and congressional agencies and bureaucracies.

Here is a list of the top ten think tanks in the US: 

Brookings Institution

The Heritage Foundation

Council on Foreign Relations

Cato Institute

Center for Strategic and International Studies

American Enterprise Institute

RAND Corporation

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Atlantic Council

Hoover Institution

https://academicinfluence.com/inflection/study-guides/influential-think-tanks

---30---

Notice something? Every one of those think tanks is globalist. All believe in "free trade," open borders, and huge US military to act as an international guard service for global corporations.  

All believe multinationals should have access to markets, cheap labor pools, resources and compliant governments globally. 

Is there a single think tank entitled, "The Foundation for US Non-Interventionism"?

Indeed, although it is globalist impulses that have gotten the US into Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and innumerable smaller wars, the media links US "nationalists" to some sort of retarded and backward thinking.  

But who really are the perma-warmongers? 

This is a big topic, and I cannot do justice to it in this format.

I hope you forgive certain short-hand expressions and generalizations. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

A globalized hyper-mobilized US military girdles the sphere, while gigantic multinationals--globalist---corporations dominate commerce and lobby groups, think tanks, foundations, and related media and congressional agencies and bureaucracies.

( . . . )

Notice something? Every one of those think tanks is globalist. All believe in "free trade," open borders, and huge US military to act as an international guard service for global corporations.  

All believe multinationals should have access to markets, cheap labor pools, resources and compliant governments globally. 

Is there a single think tank entitled, "The Foundation for US Non-Interventionism"?

Indeed, although it is globalist impulses that have gotten the US into Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and innumerable smaller wars, the media links US "nationalists" to some sort of retarded and backward thinking.  

But who really are the perma-warmongers? 

This is a big topic, and I cannot do justice to it in this format.

I hope you forgive certain short-hand expressions and generalizations. 

Would it be accurate that by "globalism" you mean what has traditionally been called "imperialism" or "colonialism"?

If you mean imperialism, is there a reason you use the term "globalism" and not "imperialism"?

Do you regard the old Soviet KGB as "globalists" too, at war with CIA "globalists"? Rather than these national spy agencies being nationalist (even if operating globally)? 

What's wrong with using the word "imperialism" since that is more specific and describes what you seem to be actually defining?

The problem with using "globalism" I see is what then is the word for a good and peaceful world-embracing outlook? 

I don't see there is any other option than to realize "we are a world". Its how that plays out and what we make of it as a world. A world of networked peaceful ethnicities would be strongly local yet "globalist" at the same time, no? What not to like about that? 

JFK's American University speech I would call a vision of a good globalism.

That is my problem with the way you are using these terms. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ben for years now has repetitively pushed that we can learn about the "deep state" by studying the JFKA , which is complete BS. The power players are 1000 more diverse now, than an alleged U.S. NSS coup 60 years ago. So his next convenient buzzword is "globalists" which he also runs into the ground. Yet he'd be the last to know that we are going through the first  period of de globalization in our lifetime brought on largely by Biden's who was much more adept at using the government to accomplish such ends than a novice like Trump was. 

 

The Chinese are freaking out about the U.S, exploring new supply chains and  trying to fire up their industrial base again because this is happening concurrently when their their economy is demographically collapsing. To do this will not be easy and will take several years. The world at large has grown a little concerned about the U.S. economically "going their own way." 

 

Of course it's always been Ben's stupid idea to think he could wipe out foreign trade. Tell that to his country of residence Thailand or Vietnam who are begging for foreign investment. Or any major world superpower or  any country in the world, for that matter who are looking for raw materials to fuel their economies and technologies into the modern age.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Would it be accurate that by "globalism" you mean what has traditionally been called "imperialism" or "colonialism"?

If you mean imperialism, is there a reason you use the term "globalism" and not "imperialism"?

Do you regard the old Soviet KGB as "globalists" too, at war with CIA "globalists"? Rather than these national spy agencies being nationalist (even if operating globally)? 

What's wrong with using the word "imperialism" since that is more specific and describes what you seem to be actually defining?

The problem with using "globalism" I see is what then is the word for a good and peaceful world-embracing outlook? 

I don't see there is any other option than to realize "we are a world". Its how that plays out and what we make of it as a world. A world of networked peaceful ethnicities would be strongly local yet "globalist" at the same time, no? What not to like about that? 

JFK's American University speech I would call a vision of a good globalism.

That is my problem with the way you are using these terms. 

GD--

You ask a highly intelligent and fascinating question.

"Imperialism" vs. "globalism"? 

As stated, in the present format one must deal with shorthand expressions and generalities. 

I might might a book on this topic, perhaps not a good one, and who would labor through it?

So, forgive me a universe of unstated nuances and caveats. 

---

My take is that up to 50-70-ish years ago, in general, colonialism and imperialism were twinned to nationalism.  Germany and Japan, for example, wanted slave vassal states for nationalistic reasons---somewhat having to do with race--- and commercial reasons also. Sad as it was, large swathes of the domestic populations had their minds poisoned and bought into this horror---and many nationals went and colonized conquered territories. See Japan, then Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria for example.

But since then, globalist enterprises have become ascendent, especially in global capitals.

The US military does not exist to expand national US sovereignty over other territories, that is to create slave vassal states (aka colonies), but rather as a servant of the global commercial class.

Washington does not do the bidding of US citizens (who pay for it), but rather of the global commercial class (who offshore reported profits---see Apple and Ireland). 

Today's global enterprises are incredibly vast---BlackRock has $10 trillion (with a "t") under management. Apple has a market cap of $3 trillion. Google, GM, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Disney, Amazon own the government (and media). Smedley Butler dealt with pups in comparison. 

The globalists, have their cats, and the cats have their cat's paws. So Jack Ruby. 

Domestic politics is raw, ugly and depressing. Culture wars and ID-politics fetishes. That is what the media promotes and allows. 

People think if I say the globalists torpedoed Trump, that means I am a Trump supporter, and white nationalist. Actually, I like RFK2 and Ramaswamy, if I like anybody anymore (I have somewhat thrown in the towel). 

Trump warred on himself in many regards, with his awful character-personality and inability to forge alliances. 

But read Michael Morrel's op-ends in the NYT and the Washington Donk-fart Post, c. 2016.

Or Morrel's organization the 50 national security officers who signed a letter that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation before the 2020 election. 

The CIA cat's paws were after Trump from before he was elected. Trump was not a globalist. 

As usual, just IMHO. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Would it be accurate that by "globalism" you mean what has traditionally been called "imperialism" or "colonialism"?

If you mean imperialism, is there a reason you use the term "globalism" and not "imperialism"?

Do you regard the old Soviet KGB as "globalists" too, at war with CIA "globalists"? Rather than these national spy agencies being nationalist (even if operating globally)? 

What's wrong with using the word "imperialism" since that is more specific and describes what you seem to be actually defining?

The problem with using "globalism" I see is what then is the word for a good and peaceful world-embracing outlook? 

I don't see there is any other option than to realize "we are a world". Its how that plays out and what we make of it as a world. A world of networked peaceful ethnicities would be strongly local yet "globalist" at the same time, no? What not to like about that? 

JFK's American University speech I would call a vision of a good globalism.

That is my problem with the way you are using these terms. 

Greg what you are doing is fighting terminology because you subscribe to Marxist beliefs and thus have a problem with the semantics being used.  James Lindsay said this the other day and it's very relevant. You worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls so I'm assuming I don't have to define Gnosticism for you.... 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Matthew Koch]

Here is a great example of Globalist Deep State PNAC Partnership for a New American Century. The term comes from Henry Luce's American Century which was a reference to post WWII America. This document says that a Catalyzing like a New Pearl Harbor is needed for America to defend it's strategic resources abroad, alot of the people in PNAC will later join the W Bush administration and the "New Pearl Harbor Event" happened, coincidence?? I think NOT! 

https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses

 

 

What do you think the odds of a hijacked terrorist plane hitting the section of the pentagon that was having renovations done, which also housed the records to the 2.3 trillion missing? 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Kirk Gallaway]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My take is that up to 50-70-ish years ago, in general, colonialism and imperialism were twinned to nationalism.

Imperialism has been going on for millennia. Colonialism has been going on for 500 years. And nationalism in Europe started in the 19 the Century. That would be your beginning.

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The globalists, have their cats, and the cats have their cat's paws. So Jack Ruby. 

Again, What in hell,are you talking about? Globalism to Jack Ruby? Talk about straining to make some connection!

 

Ben: Domestic politics is raw, ugly and depressing. Culture wars and ID-politics fetishes. That is what the media promotes and allows.  I avoid all the red-blue kool-aid pissing wars, ID politics and culture clashes. This is not politics, this is government since the JFKA. 

The media never tells you this tax story that I have related, and which is irrefutable. Instead the media trains you to get into useless catfights over ID politics and culture wars, and  blue or red kool-aid pissing wars. 

Ben:I avoid all the red-blue kool-aid pissing wars, ID politics and culture clashes.

 

That's  not true at all. This is coming from a guy who when he first came here, was continually railing against "identity politics" until i had to tell you it was getting boring. Ok, maybe you see it now, but talk about being a shill for the Fox disinformation echo chamber. You fell right into the tripe.

 

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

JFK was not a globalist, and in fact wanted to step away from US interventionism. Some say that is why he was assassinated. They got rid of JFK , and rule to this day.

JFKA was moving to non-interventionism, and the globalists wanted interventionism.

I might might a book on this topic, perhaps not a good one, and who would labor through it?

So, forgive me a universe of unstated nuances and caveats

 

Ben, I might might a book on this topic, perhaps not a good one, and who would labor through it?

So, forgive me a universe of unstated nuances and caveats

That's priceless self importance. It's also nonsense.

No one will ever accuse you of a fly speck of nuance Ben. That's just sloppy thinking. You're conflating globalism with military interventionism, but there many people including Kennedy's own class of people who made their fortunes through globalism, and wanted to continue that.  A globalist outlook toward trade  which has actually been in force for millennia  doesn't mean an aggressive nationalist foreign policy. Interventionists were globalists, but not all globalists are interventionist.

 

 

Ben In about 5 days from now, you'll hear that Biden was in you area of the world. His message in Hanoi (who don't like the Chinese at all) is that he's not trying to contain China. Why is he  saying this ? Because as I say China is freaking out at a decoupling  that he's been initiating. Everybody know this, and most of China's enemies including the U.S. would prefer China's descent be gradual.

 

 For someone who was like me and concerned about China's unprecedented economic rise over the last 30 years. It appears you're now another fussy  date that will never be pleased.

 

.

[Miles Massicotte]

5 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Greg what you are doing is fighting terminology because you subscribe to Marxist beliefs and thus have a problem with the semantics being used.  James Lindsay said this the other day and it's very relevant. You worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls so I'm assuming I don't have to define Gnosticism for you.... 

 

 

Matthew I am not sure this is really the right place for political discussions, as has been mentioned endlessly by our moderators, but I can't let this slide. This is a gross misinterpretation of Marxism. "Marxist thought blames the privileged classes in society for erecting a social situation that generates unfair circumstances, and it teaches people to interpret everything they don't like in their lives as a manifestation of this fundamental unfairness." Marx does no such thing. Please find me one single passage in Marx where he suggests that people interpret everything they don't like in their lives as a manifestation of the unfairness of class disparity. That claim is wrong. Marxism makes specific claims about specific tensions and contradictions in the capitalist system and between class antagonisms. You can agree or disagree. But implying that it is somehow a quasi-religious cult that teaches people merely to shift blame is simply incorrect. If you want to talk about various brands of Communism that emerged from Marxist thought (ML, MLM, etc.), and how political leaders have used communist language, symbols, and ideologies for nefarious quasi-religious purposes, we can have that conversation. I am sure there are many valid conversations to be had about the cultural impact of Communism and the successive movements that emerged.

But, the person you quoted didn't say that, or make any attempt at such nuance. They stated that Marxism is "convincing people life's not fair, blaming it on a target group, and weaponizing power against the target group." That is demonstrably not true, and is a conflation that is harmful. 

Believe me, I know this view is increasingly common these days, especially online. But it is mostly common of people who either haven't bothered to read Marx, or who have read him but either a) don't understand what they are reading or b) are wilfully disembling. My advice is: I suggest reading and comprehending Marx before quoting someone who summarizes him. You may end up in a situation where you quote someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. 

[Matthew Koch]

15 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Matthew I am not sure this is really the right place for political discussions, as has been mentioned endlessly by our moderators, but I can't let this slide. This is a gross misinterpretation of Marxism. "Marxist thought blames the privileged classes in society for erecting a social situation that generates unfair circumstances, and it teaches people to interpret everything they don't like in their lives as a manifestation of this fundamental unfairness." Marx does no such thing. Please find me one single passage in Marx where he suggests that people interpret everything they don't like in their lives as a manifestation of the unfairness of class disparity. That claim is wrong. Marxism makes specific claims about specific tensions and contradictions in the capitalist system and between class antagonisms. You can agree or disagree. But implying that it is somehow a quasi-religious cult that teaches people merely to shift blame is simply incorrect. If you want to talk about various brands of Communism that emerged from Marxist thought (ML, MLM, etc.), and how political leaders have used communist language, symbols, and ideologies for nefarious quasi-religious purposes, we can have that conversation. I am sure there are many valid conversations to be had about the cultural impact of Communism and the successive movements that emerged.

But, the person you quoted didn't say that, or make any attempt at such nuance. They stated that Marxism is "convincing people life's not fair, blaming it on a target group, and weaponizing power against the target group." That is demonstrably not true, and is a conflation that is harmful. 

Believe me, I know this view is increasingly common these days, especially online. But it is mostly common of people who either haven't bothered to read Marx, or who have read him but either a) don't understand what they are reading or b) are wilfully disembling. My advice is: I suggest reading and comprehending Marx before quoting someone who summarizes him. You may end up in a situation where you quote someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. 

He is making a comparison to Gnosticism that part clearly went over your head... 

[Miles Massicotte]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

He is making a comparison to Gnosticism that part clearly went over your head... 

As I said, please find me a passage in Marx's own words to justify that comparison, to make that case, and then we can have that conversation. Please do, I would be intrigued to read it.