Bashing the intellect of
Donald J. Trump has quickly become a major America past time. And there certainly is no more vigorous a participant in this latest fad than the American press. Every word uttered, every tweet, every facial tick of the current president is closely examined by the gate keepers of truth for the latest sound bite or meme demonstrating that the nation is being run by a buffoon.
And who knows. Perhaps Trump is every bit the fool that his detractors would have you believe. But be assured dear reader, whoever is behind his regime is smart --deadly smart. So smart, in fact, that they've barely even had to try to induce to media into extending its proverbial neck out for the butcher's knife posed to slash.
Several weeks ago the great
Christopher Knowles of
The Secret Sun made several astute observations over the flap the media was raising concerning Trump's alleged Russian connections. He noted;
"So much of this is ultimately a new media put-on, Trump battling (read: trolling) the press, shooting out tweets with his meaty fingers. The charge is being led by The Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com fame) and The New York Times (owned and operated by Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecom magnate), and the once-mighty/now-endangered CNN bringing up the rear.
"And for a guy who's the focus of a firestorm of controversy and the ostensible target of attack from some of the most powerful forces in the country, he doesn't seem to be sweating it too much. Near as I can tell, at least. Even the ultraliberal Newsweek has the headline today: 'Don't Kid Yourself - Trump Is Winning.'
"That raises some red flags, by my reckoning. Is this just another performance for a seasoned reality TV hand? Have we finally come to this?
"Think about it for a minute: why dump all this Russia stuff out when all the paperwork has been completed? The recounts didn't pan out, the Hamilton Elector campaign went nowhere, the Electoral College voted, the results were ratified by Congress. It's a done deal.
"These painfully-earnest celebrity videos, the Golden Globes speeches, aren't moving the needle at all. They're just inspiring eye-rolling, resentment and hathos, even among Trump-haters. No one cares about the status anxieties of the unjustly-pampered and impossibly-rich...
"... The Media has seized on Trump's tactical assent with the Russia hacking report, but that means that they are now taking the word of the CIA and Donald Trump as gospel when the only evidence presented thus far is use of Ukrainian - not Russian- malware, that hackers can obtain anywhere on the Dark Web."
Ah yes, the CIA, which has suddenly been rebranded from a glorified drug cartel/terror network into the great defenders of democracy by the mainstream media in the run up to Trump's inauguration. And how did the CIA repay the press? As indicated above, by feeding them a bunch of obvious bullshit that they later presented to American public as the god honest truth.
The only problem was that this "truth" often turned out to be baseless allegations that were exposed as such in only a matter of days. Things reached a crescendo with "
piss gate" shortly before Trump's inauguration, a story so sketchy that the
mainstream media had to proclaim its fishiness literally the day after it broke. Naturally, follow-ups to piss gate have been entirely abandoned (as well as references to it) mere weeks after it broke by the media after so much hope was expressed that it would bring down The Donald.
And the bigger winners from this fiasco? Why, Trump and the CIA, but especially the latter.
Clearing the Way
The election of The Donlad has forced many conspiracy researches to realize objectives of the elite are not as unified as they have long claimed and that there are in fact factions with varying agendas. As was noted before
here and
here, Trump and his supporters have longstanding ties to the old
American Security Council (asc) network, which during the Cold War was the chief opposition to the
Rockefeller-dominated traditional conservative establishment personified by think anks such as the
Council on Foreign Relations and the
Trilateral Commission.
Disputes between these factions have certainly spilled over into the general public before. The traditional conservative establishment
almost entirely controls the mainstream media and has in the past used it as cudgel to beat back the far right wing forces in the CIA and Pentagon that rallied around the ASC. One of the most blatant examples of this tactic was
Iran-Contra. As the great
Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics has noted,
Iran-Contra was entirely exposed by the Rockefeller clique:
"...With both the Reagan and Bush 43 administration it is important to note that George Shultz, a Rockefeller and Bechtel protege, formed the counterweight to these conservative establishments... During the Reagan administration it were secretary of state Shultz, undersecretary of state Whitehead, a close friend of David Rockefeller, and Caspar Weinberger at the Defense Department - all three later Pilgrims Society members - who used their media network to allow Iran-Contra to be exposed. They even had their buddy Daniel Sheehan go after the drugs-for-arms network of Ted Shackley, but really only in the conspiracy media where Sheehan has moved since then."
The
Reagan administration was easily the most ASC-dominated presidency in American history until the election of Trump. And yet the traditional conservative establishment was able to maintain a place of prominence in it via figures like
George Shultz. This was possible in no small due to the proverbial Sword of Damocles that the media constituted hanging over the administration's head. This ensured that the administration could only go so far less its dirty laundry be aired from coast to coast by the press.
But things look like they're going to be quite different under Trump. In the 1980s, when Iran-Contra broke, the media was still widely believed by the American public. But that is no longer the case in 2017. The American public is coming off of wall to wall media coverage of the
2016 election in which the media contentiously asserted that it was not possible that Trump would be elected, and then followed this proclamations up with one phony lead provided by the CIA exposing Trump's Russian connection after another. After over a year of this unreality, credibility in the mainstream media among the American public has totally collapsed.
And this is all the better for Trump and the CIA, because when legitimate scandals concerning these two institutions do come out, the American public will be very skeptical about believing the claims after so much disinformation and outright lies.
The Emerging Junta
Ah, but it gets even better. As was noted before
here and
here, Trump's cabinet is shaping up to be the most militarized in American history. He all but totally eroded civilian control of the nation's vast national security apparatus. And he managed this with virtually no resistance whatever from the
US Congress.
On the whole, the Senate and the House of Representatives did little more than rubber stamp Trump's nominations for national security. After facing no real opposition on these nominations, the Senate only
grew a backbone when it came to confirming the
Secretary of Treasury and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. Too little, too late, not that Congressional Democrats would ever acknowledge this. In point of fact, many of them seem genuinely convinced that the CIA, General
James "Mad Dog" Mattis and even
Rex Tillerson will serve as a
"restraining" influence on Trump.
In comparison to Steven "
Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan" Bannon, Mad Dog Mattis, Tillerson, General
Michael Flynn, General
John Kelly and the CIA may well seem "moderate." But had practically any other president in American history nominated this motley crew, you can be sure the Congress would be expressing a pronounced sense of terror at even considering such nominations. Only in Trump's America can such individuals and institutions seem "moderate."
The nomination of Tillerson is especially striking in this regard. As was noted before
here, the
State Department has largely be the fiefdom of the Rockefeller clique and their allies in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) since at least the end of World War II. Virtually every
Secretary of State since WWII has come from a very specific background: the Ivy Leagues after which they are groomed in the CFR,
Brookings, or another such elite foreign policy think tank.
Tillerson is not an Ivy Leaguer and has only marginal ties to the CFR and other such foreign policy think tanks. The chief one he is a member of is the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). While
Henry Kissinger and
Zbigniew Brzezinski have had longstanding ties to the CSIS, it has even older ties to the CIA and on the whole is far more hawkish than the CFR and like organizations. A Secretary of Defense is far more likely to be groomed by the CSIS than of State. What's more, Tillerson appears to have a longstanding feud with the Rockefeller family (noted before
here).
The Rockefellers then may have lost their stranglehold on State for the "moderating" influence of Tillerson. Strange days indeed.
About the CIA
But wait, you say. Isn't Trump at war with the CIA?
Well, yes and know. The CIA itself is a Byzantine organization that has witnessed much inner-agency rivalries over the years. On the whole, the upper hierarchy of the CIA is drawn from the same Ivy League pool as State and works closely with various NGOs such as the
Rockefeller Foundation, the
Ford Foundation and
Tides to achieve its goals. This can be termed the "
liberal CIA."
At the lower levels, however, and especially in the
Special Activities Division, there has generally been a much more rightward-leaning collection of operators. Historically many of these individuals have no real ties to the Ivy Leagues or organizations such as the CFR. More often than not they a drawn from the ranks of the US military and often perform the dirty work of America's empire overseas. I addressed this divide briefly before
here.
So while there may well be a faction within the CIA greatly opposed to Trump, there are no doubt vigorous supporters in the Company as well. In the wake of his victory, one of the most noteworthy supporters from among the CIA's upper hierarchy was
James Woolsey. Woolsey, a former CIA director, is one of the most powerful and well connected deep state operators out there. A
Rhodes Scholar and longtime member of the CFR and the
Atlantic Council, Woolsey is none the less also close to the defense industry and the neocons.
ISGP notes:
"At the same time Woolsey was the ultimate arms industry insider--probably for the CIA--as a lawyer and director of corporations as British Aerospace, DynCorp, Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Litton Industries, Fairchild Industries, Rockwell, SAIC, the Titan Corporation, United Technologies, General Dynamics and also the Carlyle Group. [34] In 1987 and 1988 Woolsey was a member of the Scientific Advisory Group of the Joint Strategic Targetting and Planning Staff at Offutt Air Force Base. Worryingly, this is where part of the Franklin Affair mind control research took place, with Woolsey and his wife, a national security behavioral psychologist, being rather closely linked to the affair. [35]
"Woolsey's first association with the neoconservatives, as far as ISGP can figure things out, appears to have been at the Executive Panel of the Chief of Naval Operations when he joined it in 1980. Archneocon Albert Wohlstetter, a RAND scientist and Pentagon consultant who had sent Perle and Wolfowitz to Senator Jackson's office, served on the Executive Panel from 1971 until his death in 1997. Woolsey actually beat him in terms of longest-serving member, still being a member today.
"In 1988 Woolsey's neocon ties were solidified when he joined the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) [36], co-founded a decade earlier by Senator Henry Jackson (there he is again) and Iran-Contra veteran Michael Ledeen [37], who, just as Jackson, was close to CIA officers Ted Shackley, of Le Cercle, and Ray Cline, a co-chair of the American Security Council and the U.S. Global Strategy Council. There's every indication that back in the 1970s and early 1980s Ledeen was a key U.S. liaison to the fascist P2 Lodge for Shackley at the CIA and Alexander Haig (Pilgrims and Kissinger protege) at the State Department. [38] Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz (co-chair), Douglas Feith (vice-chair), and even Morris Amitay, AIPAC's executive director, could all be found at JINSA no later than the early 1990s. [39] Ledeen, Perle, and Woolsey stayed on the board of JINSA until early 2012 when a dispute arose with a more moderate lead financier of JINSA and all three prominently resigned. [40] Clearly the three men had grown very close over the decades."
However, in the midst of Trump's growing feud with the CIA's outgoing hierarchy,
Woolsey resigned from Trump's transition team. But this was hardly the end of Trump's ties to the Company.
On February 2, 2017, it was announced that
Gina Hapsel had been
tapped to serve as the
Deputy Director of the CIA, second only to Director
Mike Pompeo. Hapsel is a thirty-one year CIA veteran who spent the bulk of her career undercover. Throughout virtually all of it she posted to the
National Clandestine Service, formerly the Directorate of Operations. This is the section of the CIA that houses the Special Activities Division (SAD) and on the whole carries most of the Company's overseas black ops. While it does not appear that Hapsel herself was involved with SAD, she was a station chief at various posts and
served in several high intensity nations.
Hapsel was also deeply involved in the CIA's
black sites and
"enhanced interrogation" methods. She was barred from heading the National Clandestine Service in 2012 because of her alleged role in torture conducted at a black site in Thailand. She appears to have been very close to
Jose Rodriguez, another
key player in the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program. As I noted before
here, Rodriquez was apparently an early front runner to head the CIA.
Whether Trump had contact with Hapsel prior to assuming the presidency is unknown, but the same can not be said of a certain CIA asset. Shortly before Trump was inaugurated,
The Intercept reported that none other
Erik Prince, the founder of the infamous
Blackwater mercenary firm, was working closely with Trump's transition team.
The report noted:
"Erik Prince, America's most notorious mercenary, is lurking in the shadows of the incoming Trump administration. A former senior U.S. official who has advised the Trump transition told The Intercept that Prince has been advising the team on matters related to intelligence and defense, including weighing in on candidates for the Defense and State departments. The official asked not to be identified because of a transition policy prohibiting discussion of confidential deliberations."
This was hardly surprising considering that Prince's sister,
Betsy DeVos, is Trump's nomination for
Secretary of Education (though as of this writing it looks increasingly doubtful that she'll be confirmed) and both Prince and other members of his family contributed heavily to Trump's campaign. Prince is reportedly also very close to Trump's veep,
Mike Pence, and has been a longtime donor to his congressional campaigns as well.
During the
Bush II years Blackwater did
a lot of contract work for the CIA's Special Activities Division. Some of this included the blackest of the black ops.
The Intercept notes:
"Prince has long fantasized that he is the rightful heir to the legacy of “Wild Bill” Donovan and his Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA. After 9/11, Prince worked with the CIA on a secret assassination program, in addition to offering former SEALs and other retired special operators to the State Department and other agencies for personal security."
Little is known about what Prince was/is suggesting to Trump, but prior comments he has made indicate that America's most famous mercenary has bold plans for the Trump administration. Continuing with
The Intercept:
"In July, Prince told Trump’s senior adviser and white supremacist Steve Bannon, at the time head of Breitbart News, that the Trump administration should recreate a version of the Phoenix Program, the CIA assassination ring that operated during the Vietnam War, to fight ISIS. Such a program, Prince said, could kill or capture 'the funders of Islamic terror and that would even be the wealthy radical Islamist billionaires funding it from the Middle East, and any of the other illicit activities they’re in.' "
It seems all but certain that Prince is being taken very seriously within Trump's inner circle if the appoint of Hapsel, an operator who made a name for herself via her work in the CIA's black sites, is any indication. Certainly she would be well qualified to recreate the infamous
Phoenix Program.
The Intercept goes on to report that Prince has the ear of powerful forces within the administration as the Great American Merc is close to the Prince of Darkness himself:
"Prince has a close relationship with Breitbart News and Steve Bannon, Trump’s senior counselor and chief strategist. Prince has appeared frequently — and almost exclusively — on Breitbart Radio. In August, Prince offered praise for Trump’s candidacy, telling Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos: 'I even like some of his projects that have gone bankrupt, because people that do things, and build things, and try things, sometimes fail at doing it, and that’s the strength of the American capitalist system.' Prince added: 'We have kind of turned our back on the fact that hard work, sacrifice, risk-taking, innovation, is what made America great. Washington did not make America great.' "
That would be the same Steve Bannon who recently
gained a spot on Trump's
National Security Council (NSC), much to the chagrin of the utterly impotent media and
Democratic Party. A common complaint against Bannon is his lack of experience in national security. In reality, he spent seven years in the Navy of which
very little is known. He allegedly spent much of his time as as Surface Warfare Officer, but was later made an assistant to the
Chief of Naval Operations, the most senior Naval officer assigned to the
Department of the Navy.
Needless to say, but this is very prestigious and work intense posting. And yet he also found time to earn a Master's Degree in National Security Services from the Ivy League
Georgetown University while posted to the Pentagon. After leaving the Navy, Bannon moved on to
Harvard Business School where he got another Masters, this time in Business Administration. From there he moved on to
Goldman Sachs where he almost immediately became a successful investment banker.
Bannon's background screams out intelligence. Whether he was a part of the
Office of Naval Intelligence, the CIA, or some other service appears to be the only real question. And naturally the mainstream media is not about to ask it, preferring to gloss over Bannon's Navy background.
Curiously, CIA director Mike Pompeo and Secretary of the Army
Vincent Viola also share similar backgrounds. Like Bannon, Viola served in the military for several years (
Ranger School and service in the Army's
101 Airborne Division after graduating from
West Point) and then headed to Wall Street where he enjoyed almost immediate success. As I noted before
here, Pompo is an Army veteran (and West Point graduate) who founded a aerospace company after leaving the service. He enjoyed almost immediate success and established close ties to the
Koch brothers only a few years after leaving the Army. Like Bannon, he also attended Harvard after leaving the military.
What is going on here? Its as if the military, the CIA, or some combination of both has been grooming multiple members of Trump's administration in the Ivy Leagues and corporate America for years leading up to his election. Bannon and Pompeo have almost surely been working for some branch of the US intelligence community for years now and Viola likely maintained close relations as well. And now they're being brought back into the national security apparatus with ample corporate ties as Trump is assembling the ultimate war cabinet.
The NSC Reconfiguration
Let us return now to Trump's restructuring of the NSC. Bannon's promotion came with two demotions from the NSC: the
Director of National Intelligence and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The former being demoted is hardly surprising. Trump clashed extensively with outgoing DNI
James Clapper in the weeks leading up to the inauguration. Behind the scenes, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has been engaged in a
turf war with the CIA and even
the Pentagon at times. During its brief existence, the ODNI has made powerful enemies and now they're seizing the opportunity to strike.
The demotion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is rather surprising considering how close the Trump regime appears to be to the Pentagon (noted
here). And yet the Pentagon
does not seem especially concerned with this move while Secretary of Defense Mattis has vowed to keep the chairman at his side throughout all NSC meetings he attends. Thus, the demotion appears to be more ceremonial than anything. And with so many former generals already present at the NSC meetings --Mattis, Flynn and Kelly are the ones we know who will be in attendance --the Chairman's presence may have been rather superfluous.
Even more significant, however, is who else was promoted:
the CIA has been returned to the NSC after its spot was largely usurped by the Director of National Intelligence in recent years.
Despite allegedly being engaged in a battle royale with Trump, the CIA sure seems to be receiving some nice perks from a man whose not exactly known for his graciousness with his enemies. This researcher suspects that while Trump may have had issues with he CIA's traditional Ivy League hierarchy --personified by the
Yale-educated Woolsey -- he has more than his fair share of backers among the National Clandestine Service, but especially within in its Special Activities Division. Many of these individuals --such as Prince --have felt hamstrung by an overly cautious (read: spineless) executive level. No doubt they salivate at the prospect of once again being unleashed. And with that I shall wrap things up for now. Stay tuned until next time dear readers.
UPDATE: A Coup?
Just a few hours after publishing this piece I stumbled upon some stunning statements made by
Rosa Brooks, an Obama lackey that worked out of the Pentagon during his first term.
The Washington Times notes:
"A former Defense Department official under the Obama administration has raised the specter of a military coup to remove President Donald Trump from power.
"In an editorial penned for Foreign Policy, senior Pentagon policy official Rosa Brooks publicly suggested a military insurrection against the Trump administration may be the only option to oust one of the most divisive presidents in American history.
" 'Donald Trump’s first week as president has made it all too clear: Yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared,' Ms. Brooks wrote. '[One] possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.'..
"In the editorial, Ms. Brooks noted that Mr. Trump’s 'thin-skinned, erratic, and unconstrained' approach to defense matters of defense could put top U.S. military leaders in a position where they would be forced to execute orders that may be 'dangerously unhinged' from a basic understanding of national security.
" 'The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order,' Ms. Brooks wrote."
These are absolutely stunning comments. And they appeared in
Foreign Policy magazine originally, one of the principal organs of elite foreign policy debate.
Foreign Policy has long enjoined very close ties to the traditional conservative establishment:
"... global managerialism, an expanded notion of detente repeated in in liturgical fashion in the pages of Foreign Policy, itself the product of elite debate over the lessons of Vietnam. The first issue of Foreign Policy explained that 'in light of Vietnam, the basic purposes of American foreign policy demanded re-examination and redefinition' and – in an obvious reference to the Council on Foreign Relations' house organ Foreign Affairs– 'a new magazine, having no institutional memory, can commence this task with a keener awareness that an era in American foreign policy which began in the late 1940s, has ended.' A similar sense of epochal transformation demanding a new approach to empire also guided the seminars and position papers of the newly-formed Trilateral Commission, the 1980s Project of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, the Carnegie Foundation, the Brookings Institution, and almost everywhere else that the foreign policy establishment met to formulate a strategy for the post-Vietnam era."
(Peddlers of Crisis, Jerry W. Sanders, pg. 172)
Sanders goes on to note that
Foreign Policy essentially became the house organ of the
Trilateral Commission, similar to the relationship between the CFR and
Foreign Affairs. The Trilateral Commission in turn was co-founded by
David Rockefeller in the early 1970s after he broke with the more hawkish elements of the CFR, who eventually drifted into the
Committee on the Present Danger and the American Security Council by the early 1980s.
In other words,
Foreign Policy, with longstanding ties to the Rockefeller faction, is openly discussing a coup against Trump. Let that sink in for a moment.
Now, consider who would likely end up in the Oval Office if the military goes through with what Mrs. Brooks is suggesting: veep Mike Pence.
Yes, the same Mike Pence that
has been linked to
Christian Dominionism and which ample evidence
exists of his religious extremism. While The Donald may be many, many things, the bulk of them quite repugnant, he is not a Christian fanatic. So while Pence may come off as more "presidential" than The Donald, it is quite likely that Pence is even more radical behind close doors.
And this is the man that the traditional conservative establishment believes the military should give consideration to bringing to power via a coup. Now, let
that sink. Strange days indeed.