Trump, Declassification, and Leverage

American Thinker, by Mark Wauk, October 10, 2018:

There’s a reason why President Trump has not unilaterally declassified the documents exposing perfidy against him: leverage.  As the whole Russia hoax is beginning to come into some sort of global perspective – quite literally, as we’ll see – the extent of the advantage he now maintains by holding back declassification as a threat outweighs the benefits of transparency.  Recent posts by observers who write from widely varying perspectives give us the ability to discern the current state of play.

Let’s start with the domestic front of the Russia hoax.  Sundance at Conservative Tree House has an excellent post up: “President Trump and DAG Rod Rosenstein – “No Collusion”, No Immediate Worries…”  The overall theme is one that’s dear to Sundance’s heart: leverage.  The state of play is this: the congressional investigation has progressed to the point that it’s clear beyond cavil that the entire Russia narrative is, in fact, a hoax and fraud – both on the American people in general and on our legal system.  This is to say real criminal liability exists for the key players who developed the plot against Trump.  John Solomon summarizes what Congress has discovered in succinct fashion:

There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.

And when, nine months later, the FBI could not prove the allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia, unverified evidence was leaked to the media to try to sustain public support for a continued investigation.

But Sundance spells out very specifically where the greatest risk – and therefore the greatest leverage – lies:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein created the special counsel under fraudulent pretense.  That origination material (Ohr 302’s, FISA pages, origination EC, and Page/Strzok messages) is now a risk to the Deputy AG.

There are many other players, in addition to Rosenstein, who are at serious risk.  But from the perspective of leverage, Rosenstein is the key because he created the special counsel part of the hoax and because – as a result of A.G. Sessions’s recusal – he remains in charge of the special counsel operation.  Rosenstein can exercise as much or as little control over Mueller as he wants.  Trump’s threat of declassification of the “origination material” gives Trump complete leverage over Rosenstein and therefore over Mueller.

Trump’s leverage ensures that Rosenstein will very much want to restrain Mueller.  If Rosenstein wants to restrain Mueller, Mueller will be restrained.  This may explain why we are now seeing key members of Mueller’s team leaving and returning to their old jobs.  The importance of this is that Mueller has posed the greatest threat to the Trump administration, the greatest annoyance.  That threat is now defanged for the immediate future.  If Mueller steps out of line, boom!  Declassification.  By putting declassification on hold, Trump maintains his leverage.  And Congress continues to investigate and slowly reveal the truth.

The benefits of this leverage via threat-of-declassification extend well beyond the Russia hoax to other practical political matters.  I believe we saw that at play in the Kavanaugh nomination battle.  Rod Rosenstein, as DAG, directly supervises the FBI director, Christopher Wray.  To say the FBI acted with alacrity and efficiency in exposing the machinations behind the accusations leveled at Kavanaugh would be an understatement.  But consider: Sundance himself was distinctly alarmist during the Kavanaugh hearings, alleging a plot of Deep State FBI-DOJ insiders to torpedo the nomination.  As we’ve seen, however, exactly the opposite occurred.  The FBI leaped to Kavanaugh’s defense, and I attribute that to Trump’s leverage over the DOJ-FBI through Rosenstein.

How will this play out for the midterm elections?  Will Trump at some point declassify that crucial “origination material”?  While Trump stressed that his hold on declassification doesn’t change his commitment for transparency sooner rather than later, I believe that the Kavanaugh nomination has given Trump and his newly committed GOP allies the issue they need for the midterms.  Polling has repeatedly shown that Supreme Court nominations are a hot-button issue for Republican voters, and it has the advantage of being readily comprehensible.  Trump used his leverage to get his nominee confirmed while energizing “normals” for the midterms.  After the election, declassification could play a significant role in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

Let’s turn to that global perspective now.

Justin Raimondo at Anti-War.com has a blog post up that complements Sundance’s “leverage” perspective quite nicely: “The Final Truth of Russia-gate: As the hoax unravels, the real story of ‘foreign collusion’ comes out.”  Raimondo focuses on the role of foreign “allies” in the plot against Trump.  As on the domestic front, there were multiple players: Australia, Ukraine, Estonia, Israel.  The key player was undoubtedly the U.K.  Without massive intelligence involvement by the U.K., the entire Russia hoax would likely never have gotten off the ground.  Here, Raimondo encapsulates that involvement sufficiently for our purposes (much more could be said):

This entire episode has Her Majesty’s Secret Service’s fingerprints all over it.  Steele’s key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate about his work – almost as if he’d have done it for free.  And then there was the earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook Stefan Halper to Carter Page.  And then there’s the mysterious alleged “link” to Russian intelligence, Professor Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later claims it was a Russian covert operation.

It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had planted percolated into plain view.  Some “Russian agent”!

Leverage, anyone?  Declassification would expose all these foreign players, but the heaviest hit by far would be against the U.K. and its Australian poodle.  And so we learn that “key allies” “begged” Trump not to declassify that “origination material.”  Raimondo notes:

Trump’s decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he’d tweeted it out, unredacted.  For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally.

Yes, Trump smoked them out and got them begging for mercy, as reported by the major media in all too transparent detail.  Trump ends up with all the leverage he needs over “Her Majesty’s Government” for as long as that leverage is useful.

Well played, Mr. President!

Mark Wauck is a retired FBI agent who blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at Meaning in History.

***

The Silent Professionals

***

Why Are Brennan, Comey, and Rogers Transcripts Being Withheld?

Also see:

New White House Counterterrorism Strategy Singles Out ‘Radical Islamists’

National Security Adviser John Bolton / Getty Images

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, October 4, 2018:

The Trump administration is implementing a new, government-wide counterterrorism strategy that places renewed focus on combatting “radical Islamic terrorist groups,” marking a significant departure from the Obama administration, which implemented a series of policies aimed at deemphasizing the threat of Islamic terror groups.

In releasing the first national counterterrorism strategy since 2011, the Trump administration is working to take a drastically different approach than that of the former administration, according to senior U.S. officials.

While the Obama administration sought to dampen the United States’ focus on Islamic terror threats, the Trump administration has made this battle the centerpiece of its new strategy.

National Security Adviser John Bolton acknowledged in remarks to reporters Thursday afternoon that the new strategy is “a departure” from the former administration’s strategy, which has been characterized as a failure by Republican foreign policy voices due to the increasing number of domestic terror attacks and plots across the United States

“Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad,” Bolton said.

“The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology,” Bolton said. “This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

“One may hope that the ideological fervor disappears, but sad to report, it remains strong all around the world, and even with the defeat of the ISIS territorial caliphate, we see the threat spreading to other countries,” Bolton added.

The Trump administration strategy also shifts the focus to Iran, characterizing the country as the foremost state sponsor of terror across the globe.

“The United States faces terrorist threats from Iran, which remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism that, really, the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” Bolton said. “And from other terrorist groups. Iran-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad, continue to pose a threat to the United States and our interests.”

The focus on Iran also represents a striking departure from the Obama administration’s strategy, which sought to moderate Iran via the landmark nuclear deal and other diplomacy aimed at rewarding the Islamic Republic for moderation efforts.

The United States will also take greater steps to pursue “terrorists at their source” by destroying them militarily, as well as with international sanctions aimed at choking off their funding.

Additionally, it focuses on “protecting U.S. infrastructure and enhancing preparedness, countering terrorist radicalization and recruitment and strengthening the counterterrorism abilities of our international partners,” according to the White House.

President Trump, in discussing the new strategy, also emphasized efforts to counter Iran.

“I ended United States participation in the horrible Iran deal, which had provided a windfall for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies, funding Iran’s malign activities throughout the world,” Trump said.

In outlining what it calls “a new approach,” the White House said it would actively combat “all terrorists with the intent and ability to harm our country.” This includes both a military prong and other efforts to counter the spread of radical ideologies.

“America First does not mean America alone,” the White House said in a preview of the full strategy guide. “The new strategy commits us to expand our partnerships at home and abroad to encourage partners’ assistance in counterterrorism activities,” including with NATO and other allies.

The Western Journal’s “Trump @ War” documentary

Published on Sep 28, 2018

Trump @ War, a movie documentary by Steve Bannon, is an amazing and detailed accounting of the revolution between liberal and conservative ideologies that took place in the months leading up to the 2016 elections. Most people who followed mainstream liberal media outlets never saw the depth of the actual force and violence exacted against Trump supporters during demonstrations and rallies. This film is a display of the no-holds-barred attacks against his supporters, and a truthful exposition of the efforts to diminish Trump’s message and stop him from winning the election in November of 2016. Bannon, former White House chief strategist, released this movie to chronicle Trump’s road to the White House. More importantly, Bannon says the movie shows why it’s critical for every American who voted for him in 2016 to support him in the midterms.

At the UN, Pro-Freedom Donald Trump Stares Down the World’s Deep State

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters, in New York, United States, September 25, 2018. Roman Makhmutov / Sputnik via AP

PJ MEDIA, BY ANDREW G. BOSTOM, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018:

In September 2017, speaking at the United Nations, President Donald Trump decried the abject failure of socialism as a form of governance, and more broadly, as an ideology:

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba, Venezuela — wherever socialism or Communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation, and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.

During his speech at the UN today, Trump returned to the subjects of socialism, communism, and Venezuela, where he noted that “more than 2 million people have fled the anguish inflicted by the Socialist Maduro regime, and its Cuban sponsors.” He added: “Not long ago Venezuela was one of the richest countries on earth.” Trump observed: “Today socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty.” And he concluded with another denunciation of socialist/communist totalitarianism as a predatory, liberty-crushing ideology that produces despair:

Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried it has produced suffering, corruption, and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery it brings to everyone.

Three years earlier, campaigning at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit in July 2015, Donald Trump gushed about Norman Vincent Peale (d. 1993), a staunch anti-Communist and his family’s pastor at the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan:

Norman Vincent Peale was my pastor — “ The Power of Positive Thinking” [Peale’s 1952 book]. Everybody has heard of Norman Vincent Peale? He was so great. He would give a sermon — you never wanted to leave. I’m telling you, I still remember his sermons.

Peale minced no words about where he stood on the totalitarian menace of Communism in his 1952 bestseller, penned at a critical juncture in the Cold War: “No one has more contempt for Communism than I have.” Indeed, a Nashville Banner, January 20, 1951, front-page story featured coverage of an enormous anti-Communist rally, where Peale was the keynote speaker: “Dr. Peale Tells Thousands Here — The Future Belongs to Christ Not Communism.”

David Brody’s 2018 biographical analysis, The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography, elaborates on Peale’s earlier opposition to collectivism more broadly, encompassing both Communism and fascism. Two weeks after Trump’s birth in 1946, Peale opined in a newspaper column:

There are small-minded people who have the idea that to be a Christian today, one must lean way over to the left or right: either to take Communism on the one hand or something else on the other. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand how a man who regards himself as a leader of the Christian Church can attempt to deprecate the teachings of Jesus as to try and get them into the thinking of Karl Marx or of some Fascist. Those puny little fellows compared to the colossal mind of Jesus Christ, pale into mere insignificance.

Brody avers that Peale was also an “ardent” opponent of what he viewed as Franklin Roosevelt’s coercive New Deal era statism and “demagoguery,” particularly when FDR sought a third presidential term.

A January 2016 Washington Post story (notwithstanding the negative, tangential headline) riveted upon the warm, enduring relationship between the “Trump and Peale clans”:

Norman Vincent Peale presided at Donald Trump’s wedding to Ivana Trump. He also officiated at the wedding of Trump’s sister Maryanne. The mogul co-hosted the minister’s 90th-birthday bash … “The great Norman Vincent Peale was my minister for years,” … Peale, for his part, described Trump as “kindly and courteous” with “a streak of honest humility,” and touted him as “one of America’s top positive thinkers and doers.” The minister also called Trump “ingenious” and predicted that he would be “the greatest builder of our time.” Trump’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, formally joined Peale’s  Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan — a venerable affiliate of the Reformed Church in America — during the 1970s.

While Donald Trump (in a 2009 Psychology Today interview) credited Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking for keeping his mindset optimistic after a series of setbacks, I believe Dr. Peale’s staunch anti-totalitarianism — especially his anti-Communism — influenced Trump’s own worldview. Trump’s 2000 The America We Deserve, is the best summary explication of the pro-freedom ideology which animates his foreign policy considerations. Referring to what he designated “oppressive communism,” Trump championed “western style democracy” as his desired replacement for communist totalitarianism in the collapsed former Soviet Union. Trump also denounced the “disgrace” Castro’s communism had wrought upon Cuba:

Terror reigns, the police are unrestrained; beatings and citizen disappearances are common, and all free expression outside the Communist Party is crushed.

More importantly, as has remained his wont, Trump was gimlet-eyed about the persistence — and danger — of entrenched Communism in a powerful China:

I break rank with many business colleagues and foreign policy gurus … in my unwillingness to shrug off the mistreatment of China’s citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it clear that China’s current government has contempt for our way of life. It fears freedom because it knows its survival depends on oppression. It does not respect individual rights. It is still, at heart, a collectivist society. As such it is a destabilizing force in the world, and should be viewed that way.

Donald Trump’s muscular anti-socialist/communist pronouncements and observations highlight the seditious role reversal underlying the manufactured “Trump-Russia collusion” faux narrative. A simple juxtaposition of Trump’s written and spoken words versus the writings, utterances, and behaviors of key players orchestrating what was tantamount to a putsch (or coup d’etat, per former federal prosecutor DiGenova) against Trump — John BrennanNellie OhrChristopher Steele, and James Comey — should make this dichotomy plain to even the most blinkered and doctrinaire Never Trumpers of any persuasion.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted casting his 1976 POTUS vote for Communist Party of the USA leader Gus Hall, who was then virulently anti-American and an overt champion of the “liberating” hegemonic Soviet Communist terror state under Communist dictator (and Hall’s “Comrade”) Brezhnev. Hall articulated these views in a 1975 “Report to the 21st Convention of the Communist Party” (p. 33):

Détente is not an agreement to accept, or to turn one’s head from oppression by [US] imperialism anywhere. Comrade Leonid Brezhnev made this clear in a public statement here when he stated: ‘The Soviet Union’s support for all national liberation struggles and movements is non-negotiable.’

Consistent with this 1976 vote for American Stalinist Hall as POTUS,  Brennan, in his 1980 University of Texas MS thesis, adopted the moral relativism one associates with the Communist movement. Brennan declared “absolute human rights do not exist,” rendering “[human rights] analysis subject to innumerable conditional criticisms,” rejecting free speech and Western liberty as universal values, and rationalizing Soviet Communist totalitarianism. He proffered this unsettling apologetic for the appalling human rights record of the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union (although Brennan refrained from labeling the Soviet dictator “Comrade Leonid Brezhnev”):

Can human rights violations in the Soviet Union be as easily justified in terms of the preservation of the communist ideology? Unfortunately (looking at events from a democratic perspective), yes. Since the absolute status of human rights has been denied, the justification for the violation of any of those rights has to be pursued from a particular ideological perspective. Leonid Brezhnev could justify human rights violations in the Soviet Union as a necessary part of the preservation of the communist ideological system.

Diana West’s extensive, illuminating backgrounders contextualize the hard Left (even pro-Communist) proclivities of Nellie Ohr and Christopher Steele. Nellie Ohr, for example (summarized in this West interview), is a full-throated apologist for Stalin’s 1930s Ukrainian terror-famine, which according to great Sovietologist Robert Conquest’s “The Harvest of Sorrow” (p. 306), killed some 14.5 million souls. “Confirmed socialist” Christopher Steele worked for the subversive, Marxist-infiltrated Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Even James Comey has acknowledged his dalliance with Communism, as reported in October 2003 by New York Magazine’s Chris Smith:

I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.

Having imbibed Norman Vincent Peale’s positive, pro-freedom, pro-capitalist, anti-totalitarian ideology, Donald Trump’s own muscular anti-totalitarianism stands in stark contrast to the hard left — even overtly Communist — sympathies of the cabal of anti-Trump pustchists aligned against him.

Also see:

POTUS and Political Warfare aka Higgins Memo

Read May 2017 document: POTUS & Political Warfare (pdf) by Rich Higgins

Unconstrained Analytics, by Rich Higgins, Sept. 6, 2018:

BACKGROUND

The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the President.

Possibly confusing these attacks with an elevated interplay of otherwise normal D.C. partisan infighting and adversarial media relations, the White House response to these campaigns reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive and dangerously inadequate to the threat.

If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early departure from the White House.

This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle. It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken.

At its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural Marxist outcomes. The campaigns operate through narratives.

Because the hard left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local (ANTIFA working with Muslim Brotherhood doing business as MSA and CAIR), national (ACLU and BLM working with CAIR and MPAC) and international levels (OIC working with OSCE and the UN), recognition must given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate at the narrative level as well.

In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat to the “politically correct” enforcement narratives they’ve meticulously laid in over the past few decades.

In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.

INTRODUCTION

Responding to relentless personal assaults on his character, candidate Trump identified the players and the strategy:

 “The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.” – President Trump, Oct 2016

Culturally conditioned to limit responses to such attacks as yet another round in the on-going drone from diversity and multicultural malcontents, these broadsides are discounted as political correctness run amuck.

However, political correctness is a weapon against reason and critical thinking. This weapon functions as the enforcement mechanism of diversity narratives that seek to implement cultural Marxism.

Candidate Trump’s rhetoric in the campaign not only cut through the Marxist narrative, he did so in ways that were viscerally comprehensible to a voting bloc that then made candidate Trump the president; making that bloc self-aware in the process. President Trump is either the candidate he ran as, or he is nothing.

Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction.

For this cabal, Trump must be destroyed.

Far from politics as usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president.

Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions. For those engaged in the effort, especially those from within the “deep state” or permanent government apparatus, this raises clear Title 18 (legal) concerns.

DISCUSSION

The Opposition

While opposition to President Trump manifests itself through political warfare memes centered on cultural Marxist narratives, this hardly means that opposition is limited to Marxists as conventionally understood. Having become the dominant cultural meme, some benefit from it while others are captured by it; including “deep state” actors, globalists, bankers, lslamists, and establishment Republicans.

Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and is slipping away. Globalists and lslamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed.

Atomization of society must also occur at the individual level; with attacks directed against all levels of group and personal identity. Hence the sexism, racism and xenophobia memes.

As a Judea-Christian culture, forced inclusion of post-modern notions of tolerance is designed to induce nihilistic contradictions that reduce all thought, all faith, all loyalties to meaninglessness.

Group rights based on sex or ethnicity are a direct assault on the very idea of individual human rights and natural law around which the Constitution was framed.

“Transgender acceptance” memes attack at the most basic level by denying a person the right to declare the biological fact of one’s sex.

When a population has 2 + 2 = 5 imposed on it, there are many that benefit:

Mainstream Media 
The principle mechanism for implementing narratives.

The Academy –
Academia has served as a principle counter-state node for some time and remains a key conduit for creating future adherents to cultural Marxist narratives and their derivative worldview.

The Deep State –
The successful outcome of cultural Marxism is a bureaucratic state beholden to no one, certainly not the American people . With no rule of law considerations outside those that further deep state power, the deep state truly becomes, as Hegel advocated, god bestriding the earth.

Global Corporatists & Bankers –
Exploitation of populations, unfettered by national protections and notions of personal morality and piety.

Democratic Leadership –
The democratic leadership has been a counter-state enabler that executes, sustains, and protects cultural Marxist programs of action and facilitates the relentless expansion of the deep state.

Republican Leadership –
More afraid of being accused of being called a racist, sexist, homophobe or lslamophobe than of failing to enforce their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution,” the Republican Establishment accepts and enforces cultural Marxist memes within its own sphere of operations. In doing so, knowingly or not, it becomes an agent of that.

These “conservatives” become increasingly indistinguishable from their democratic counterparts save that they misrepresent themselves to their constituents. Lacking the discernment to recognize their situation, they will work with globalists, corporatists, and the international financial interests and will likewise service the deep state.

These establishment Republicans are the hard left’s designated defeat mechanism in the destruction of the old regime as well as the American ideal. (For more information on how influence operations of the former Soviet Union targeted leading conservative groups and individuals in order to bring them into line with cultural Marxist narratives. See Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=YzZhqeLRIMo).

Because candidate Trump publicly exposed them for their duplicitous activities, they are at risk as long as Trump can turn on them and are, therefore, bitter foes. Candidate Trump’s success remains an ongoing existential threat to establishment Republicans.

Islamists –
Islamists ally with cultural Marxist because, as far back as the 1980s, they properly assessed that the hard left has a strong chance of reducing Western civilization to its benefit.

Having co-opted post-modern narratives as critical points, Islamists deploy these narrative to strategically blind and then control US decision makers. This is by design and purposeful.

“By their own hands!” has been the declared strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood since 1991. This strategy seeks to divide American society against itself with the forced imposition of Islamist objectives on one half of American society by the other half.

Once a society has been effectively atomized, the population will have lost its faith in the old order, detest those who reduced it, and divide along the lines of narrative adherence.

This is the intended outcome of hostile information cum political warfare campaigns and today we see their effects on American society.

Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed. While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump’s insofar as he holds to the vision that made him president.

`

Political Warfare Attacks – A Primer

As used here, “political warfare” does not concern activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency model. (This discussion relies on Thomas A. Marks’ treatment of the Maoist model as discussed in Maoist People’s War in Post-Vietnam Asia (Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press, 2007), 1-14. Hereafter “Thomas A. Marks, Maoist People’s War.”)

Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency.

Maoist methodologies employ synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on mobilization of individuals and groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operational arts and tactics as elements of combat power.

In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile competing state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure.

Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.

Political warfare is warfare.

Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes. They principally operate through narratives.

Because the left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives.

Cultural Marxism – A Primer

While the attacks on President Trump arise out of political warfare considerations based on non-kinetic lines of effort (as discussed below), they operate in a battle-space prepared, informed and conditioned by cultural Marxist drivers.

In practical terms, the political warfare assault on President Trump cannot be separated from the cultural Marxist narratives that drive them. From an operational preparation of the environment perspective, President Trump is operating in a battle-space that reflects the left’s vision.

As used in this discussion, cultural Marxism relates to programs and activities that arise out of Gramsci Marxism, Fabian Socialism and most directly from the Frankfurt School.

The Frankfurt strategy deconstructs societies through attacks on culture by imposing a dialectic that forces unresolvable contradictions under the rubric of critical theory. The result is induced nihilism, a belief in everything that is actually the belief in nothing.

That post-modern (diversity/multiculturalism) narratives seeks to implement cultural Marxist objectives can be demonstrated by reference to founding Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse’s repurposing of the term tolerance.

In a 1965 paper Marcuse defined tolerance as intolerance; said it can be implemented through undemocratic means to stop chauvinism (xenophobia), racism, discrimination; and should be extended to the left while denied to the right:

  • “The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.”
  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.” (8-9)
  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.” (12)

It is through such post-modern constructs that interoperable narratives are established among various left-wing groups as well as between them and Islamist groups at all levels.

For example, from the 2001 Conference of Foreign Ministers at Bamako, Mali, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) declared its commitment to fight racism and xenophobia and then declared lslamophobia a “contemporary form of racism”:

  • In this context, the World Conference urges all states … take all necessary measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance particularly against Islam
  • Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which display an increasing trend, in their most subtle and contemporary forms, constitute a violation of human rights. 3. Contemporary forms of racism are based on discrimination and disparagement on a cultural, rather than biological basis. In this content, the increasing trend of lslamophobia, as a distinct form of xenophobia in non-Muslim societies is very alarming.

That the OIC made these claims as part of its planned inputs to the United Nation’s “Third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” further demonstrates the coordinated and interoperable nature of these narratives at international levels in international forums.

As cultural Marxist narratives intensify, they are to be further operationalized in the form of hate speech narratives. Hate speech narratives are non-random, coordinated, and fully interoperable escalations of cultural Marxist memes.

Key international players include the European Union, the UN, and the OSCE, the OIC and the International Muslim Brotherhood.

Hate speech memes are structured, coordinated, and implemented through these same international forums. They involve close coordination with media and social media and include the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narratives.

David Shipler’s book Freedom of Speech provides a road map for how hate speech narratives are to be structured, deployed and enforced.

Battlespace

These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum and institutionalized at all levels.

They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media, and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies and within the foreign policy establishment.

They inform the entertainment industry from late night monologues, to situation comedies, to television series memes, to movie themes.

The effort required to direct this capacity at President Trump is little more than a programming decision to do so. The cultural Marxist narrative is fully deployed, pervasive, full spectrum and ongoing. Regarding the president, attacks have become a relentless 24/7 effort.

While there is certainly a Marxist agenda and even lslamist motivations that must be seriously addressed in their own right, these motivations alone seem inadequate to explain the scope and magnitude of the effort directed against the president.

The economic drivers behind the Marxist and Islamist ideologues are enormously influential and seek to leverage these ideological movements for their own self interests.

While beyond the actual scope of this document, the benefactors of these political movements include;

  • Urban Real Estate who depend greatly on immigrant tenants,
  • International Banking who seeks to maintain US debtor status so as to control the application of American power, and
  • elements of the business sector that depend upon immigrant labor or government infrastructure.

The overall objective of these economic forces is the forced urbanization of the populace, thereby necessitating a larger, more powerful government.

In summary, this is a form of population control by certain business cartels in league with cultural Marxists/corporatists/lslamists who will leverage Islamic terrorism threats to justify the creation of a police state.

Adversary Campaign Plan

Political Warfare has been described as “propaganda in battledress.” (“Political Warfare Executive – The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare,” His Britannic Majesty’s Government, London, 1942, 5.)

The effort directed at President Trump is executed along one overt, as well as two covert, lines of effort:

The overt line of effort is PUBLICITY.

Publicity is the straightforward projection of a case that builds a picture in the audience’s mind designed to garner support.

It is facts without context and information the adversary wants the audience to possess that creates an impression and sets conditions.

It seeks to establish good will and receptiveness to additional inputs.

There are two covert lines of effort: PROPAGANDA and INFILTRATION/SUBVERSION.

—Propaganda is the deliberate direction, even manipulation, of information to secure a definite outcome. It is an attempt to direct the thinking of the recipient, without his conscious collaboration, into predetermined channels that are established in the Publicity line of effort. It is the unwitting conditioning of the recipient by devious methods with an ulterior motive that seeks to move them incrementally over time into greater belief and acceptance of message transmitted in the Publicity line of effort.

—Infiltration and subversion operate internal to the targeted organization in order to inform, target, coordinate, and amplify the effects of the publicity and propaganda. Both operate to gather intelligence, obstruct legitimate courses of action, provide inside information, and leak sensitive information that undermines the leadership and suppresses the morale of friendly elements.

—Infiltration of political and social groups within a target state is done for the purpose of extending counterstate influence and control. The endgame is concealed and may involve illicit activities.

—Subversion undermines or detaches the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the target state and transfers political and/or ideological loyalties to the counter-state. As the counter-state forms, a counter-elite of influential individual and key leaders within the target state will later facilitate the legitimacy and permanency of the new regime.

Political warfare employs both publicity and propaganda. It recognizes no intrinsic virtue in the news but rather envisions it as a mechanism to exploit and build up support.

From a political warfare perspective, control of the news cycle is the most potent means of attracting and building up a favorable audience.

As it relates to the news cycle, publicity and propaganda can be merged to form a “pseudo-publicity” that is presented as news in furtherance of sustaining pseudo-realities maintained by cultural Marxist memes.

Pseudo-publicity treatment of President Trump dominates the news cycle. The current campaign against President Trump operates in the following manner:

The Meta Narrative

Meta narratives seeks to delegitimize President Trump, his administration, and the vision of America he projected as a candidate.

With cultural Marxist memes serving as the backdrop, President Trump is to be relentlessly characterized as unfit through the use of supporting narratives acting to move unwitting populations to belief in the meta narrative. Hence:

  • “President Trump is illegitimate”
  • “President Trump is corrupt”
  • “President Trump is dishonest”

Note that the twitter accounts and mainstream media personalities pushing this narrative have seen their audience numbers rise greatly in the past 6 months. This is a direct result of the supporting and backdrop narratives channeling individuals to this meta-narrative.

Supporting Narratives

Meta-narratives are supported by an ongoing series supporting-narratives that can be swapped out as circumstances warrant.

It is important to recognize that these stories do not have to be true, valid or accurate to serve their purpose. Over time, deserved or not, the cumulative effect of these supporting narratives will result in a Trump fatigue.

From a political warfare perspective, President Trump’s inability to meet this challenge will cast him as a weak failed leader.

The current list of supporting narratives include:

  • “Russia hacked the election” – illegitimate
  • “Obstruction of Justice” – corrupt
  • “Hiding Collusion” – dishonest
  • “Putin Puppet” – treasonous

Backdrop Narratives

The backdrop to the meta and supporting narratives are cultural Marxist memes designed to sustain a general sense of loathing of President Trump and the America that elected him. Hence:

  • [meta] President Trump is illegitimate, [supporting] he was elected because of Russian hacking, [backdrop] and besides, he a racist, sexist xenophobe.”

Adversaries utilize these interlocking narratives as a defensive political and information warfare screen that silences critics and smears supporters of President Trump.

When people in the media question the behavior, actions and decisions of the Trump Administration’s opponents, they are immediately said to be “working for the Russians” or “supporting Russian propaganda.” Individual Americans who support the President are deemed “deplorable” and “racist.”

End State

Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election.

Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president.

Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.

CONCLUSION

The recent turn of events give rise to the observation that the defense of President Trump is the defense of America.

In the same way President Lincoln was surrounded by political opposition both inside and outside of his wire, in both overt and covert forms, so too is President Trump.

Had Lincoln failed, so too would have the Republic.

The administration has been maneuvered into a constant backpedal by relentless political warfare attacks structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses.

The president can either drive or be driven by events; it’s time for him to drive them.

Dan Hoffman: Trump’s two-fold challenge now is to warn Russia, unite America

© Getty Images

The Hill, by Daniel Hoffman, July 22, 2018:

U.S. foreign policy towards Russia has been most effective when we have focused as much on working together as we have on countering and deterring Russia’s espionage and military aggression. The latest examples of this aggression include Russia’s violating Ukraine’s territorial integrity and illegally annexing Crimea; downing a civilian airlinerenabling the Syrian government and  Iran to commit crimes against humanity; poisoning former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter with a nerve agent; and interfering in elections, both in Europe and the United States.

President Obama’s verbal threat to Vladimir Putin to “cut out” the hacking or face the consequences months prior to the 2016 presidential election only reinforced a lesson learned going back to the days of George Kennan’s containment strategy: Deterring the Kremlin requires action, not just words alone.

It’s a lesson we would do well to keep at the forefront as President Trump and Putin continue their attempted rapprochement.

In Helsinki last week, Putin sought to elevate Russia to the same stature as the United States. He wants to soil U.S. soft power by linking it with Russia’s KGB authoritarianism, thereby ensuring that our allies and Russian human rights advocates threatening Putin’s regime security do not derive inspiration from the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.

Second, Putin wanted to drive a wedge between the United States and our allies. Under the guise of Soviet-style “collaboration,” Putin emphasized the United States could not solve any of the world’s problems without Russia, especially the ones Putin himself exacerbated, such as Syria. Putin wants to entangle U.S. and European foreign policy with Russia to dilute and distort NATO’s influence.

Nothing scares Putin more than neighboring Ukraine, an aspiring NATO and European Union member with a sizable Russian-speaking population and commitment to democracy. Alarmed over the Trump administration’s provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons to Kiev, with whom Russia is at war, Putin wants the United States to be perceived as Russia’s global partner to degrade the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.

Third, Putin wants to soil our democracy. He holds a black belt in Judo, a key principle of which is to use an opponent’s strength against them. Our core strength as a country derives from the First Amendment, freedom of the press, liberty and our democratic institutions. We are inherently vulnerable to influence operations, including disinformation, which quickly gain traction in our free and open cyberspace.

Make no mistake, Putin is ruthlessly focused on shaping our political discourse and stimulating partisan bickering by simultaneously supporting extreme, antithetical positions.

There was no better example of this tactic than the Kremlin bots staging simultaneous post-election rallies in favor of Trump and protesting Trump’s election. Putin deliberately left a trail of breadcrumbs and a Kremlin return address during intrusions in our cyberspace because he knows he can most effectively soil our institutions by adding a measure of conspiracy and association with Russia.

The even bigger prize for Putin would be to fracture the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, under whose leadership the United States ended the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union — to Putin, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the 20th century.

Last week, National Intelligence Director Dan Coats said Russia was the “most aggressive foreign actor” whose cyber threats were “blinking red.” Having missed an opportunity in Finland, President Trump now should publicly announce that we know Russia interfered in our 2016 elections and will make Russia pay a price for continuing what national security adviser John Bolton rightly called an “act of war.” If Russia does interfere in the 2018 midterms, then the United States can take the serious countermeasures that the National Security Agency and Cyber Command have discussed to deter future attacks.

Simply put, Vladimir Putin hates Democrats and Republicans. For Putin, a KGB operative and former Director of Russia’s infamous Federal Security Service (FSB), all of us are the Kremlin’s “Main Enemy.”

We need President Trump to deliver a direct and unambiguous warning to Putin. This might be his last, best chance to induce a change in Russia’s behavior, and unite the Congress and our nation in collective defense before the next Russian cyber onslaught.

Daniel Hoffman is a former chief of station with the Central Intelligence Agency. His combined 30 years of government service included high-level overseas and domestic positions at the CIA. He reported on the Trump-Putin summit from Helsinki for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @DanielHoffmanDC.

***

Interview with Dan Hoffman at The Cipher Brief July :

What is Putin’s Plan Now?

As most of the President’s men and women in senior roles re-iterated and even provided more detail about the Russian threat to U.S. national security in the days following the Helsinki summit, the President tasked his national security advisor to extend an invitation to Russian President Vladimir Putin to visit the White House to continue the dialogue that was started seven days ago.

Meanwhile, the President’s top-serving intelligence and law enforcement leaders rolled out detailed explanations of the threat, including a report released late last week by the Department of Justice that addressed what specific actions the DOJ is taking to address cyber threats.

Former CIA Chief of Station Dan Hoffman talks about the real threat and where the government’s focus should remain while the President sends a different message.

The Cipher Brief: What should the focus of the Intelligence Community be while the President is inviting Putin for a visit to the U.S.?

Hoffman: The first thing I’d say about the Intelligence Community is that there is a flow of intelligence from the IC to the President.  The CIA does all-source analysis that informs the President’s decisions.  But the IC also relies on policy makers to share what the policy is.

There were countless times when I was serving in senior positions in our headquarters when the director, or the acting director would come back from a meeting downtown and brief us on what was going on so that we would be in the know, and to help us understand what the requirements were for intelligence collection, because at the end of the day, the intelligence community is requirements driven.  We send requirements out to the field, with our HUMINT (human intelligence) collectors and foreign sources to collect on what the policy makers, starting with the President, require.  So, the first area of concern, and I think it’s reflected in some of the public polling about the way people feel about the Helsinki summit, is that there has been no definitive, detailed statement yet from this administration about what took place.  Right now, we’ve ceded the post-summit discourse to Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.  The President said he didn’t want anyone with him because he was concerned about leaks.  If I allow myself to be a little bit presumptuous, if I had been asked I would have said, “Mr. President the biggest concern about leaks is that they end up in Vladimir Putin’s hands.  You’re in the room with him, the last thing you need to worry about is leaks.

The second thing about the summit is that we have about four areas of concern.  One is on Ukraine and the idea that Putin had floated a resolution there where there would be a referendum to deal with pro-Russian separatists.  And that is not something that the U.S. government would support, and the Russians got their answer this week when Secretary James Mattis approved $200 Million dollars in security cooperation assistance in the form of advisors and equipment and training for Ukraine.  So, we’re standing by Ukraine, and standing by their independence, but I didn’t hear the President make any public statement about that.  We don’t know what he said to Putin privately and that’s important to know.

Another issue is Syria, where there was apparently some discussion about a resolution in Syria whereby the U.S. and Israel might together not oppose Assad taking control of the country, including the area around the Golan Heights.  The risk there is that I don’t think we can rely on Russia to have any influence over Iran, or Syria not in that sense, and I’d be concerned with any strategic alliance with Russia based on the fact that they’ve been complicit, and in alliance with Syria and have enabled Assad to commit crimes against humanity.  The Russians have never had our interests at heart in Syria.  They lied to Secretary Kerry when they said there wasn’t a military solution in Syria, when they went ahead shortly thereafter and imposed one.  And it certainly didn’t turn out to be the quagmire that President Obama warned it would be for Russia.  It’s really been the key that’s unlocked their resurgent leverage in the Middle East.  I think the best we can hope for there is the sort of tactical collaboration of the sort we saw recently in Helsinki when General Joseph Dunford met with Russian Army Chief of Staff Gerasimov and talked about de-conflicting military operations, which is good to do.  But strategic partnership, not a chance.

Another area of concern is Putin’s odd proposal to allow the Muller team to go to Russia and interview the 12 GRU Military Intelligence Officers, and in turn the Russians would get to have their turn with Ambassador McFaul, and Bill Browder.  Browder’s not even an American citizen, and there is no extradition treaty with Russia and the fact that we’d even come close to equating the rule of law in the U.S., with this warped KGB authoritarianism that exists in Russia is not only wildly disconcerting to any of us who lived in Russia, but really quite dangerous.  So those are three areas where we have some concern and I wish the administration would have come out and spoken out about those, and anything else that was discussed in the summit.

The last, and fourth area of concern is related to Russia’s cyber intrusions, and I don’t like to use the word meddle, meddle is too soft.  We’ve gotten in this habit of saying they are meddling in our affairs, they’re not meddling they are influencing, they are intruding into our cyberspace with espionage purpose.  So I think we should be careful to call it what it is, and raise some alarm bells.  This week, the National Security Agency, and Cyber Command talked about taking counter-measures in cyberspace against Russia but before you do that, what you really need is for the President to warn Putin.  That’s what deterrence is all about.  The aggrieved parties, publicly state “if you cross this red line, we will take action.”

The Cipher Brief: But that’s clearly not the President’s strategy, so from a realists perspective, what now?

Hoffman: Right, so he didn’t do that, and so what Putin knows is that the U.S. intelligence community is preparing counter-measures.  But when we take them, Putin will come back at us and portray himself as the aggrieved party.  What Putin is trying to do here, in my view, is far more subtle and nuanced.  He hates us all.  He hates democrats, he hates republicans, he hates Secretary Clinton, he hates President Trump.  We are all Russia’s main enemy.  And, on Russia, we shouldn’t be each other’s enemies.  We should be united, maybe with a slightly different take on specific policies, but at the end of the day we should be united with the understanding that Russia presents a threat to us.

There are limited areas in which we can work together like in arms control and counter-terrorism, we all know that.  What I think what Putin wants to do, specifically with the idea of the trade of allowing Mueller’s team to speak with the GRU officers, is to divide the republican party.  The same republican party of Reagan, that not only called the Soviet Union the evil empire, but was responsible for tearing down the Soviet Union.  There are a lot of other reasons the Soviet Union fell apart, certainly Boris Yeltsin was the most important figure in tearing it apart from within.  There was also the war in Afghanistan, Chernobyl, a failed economy and they lost the war of ideas to us.  But for Putin, who continues to consider the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political disaster of the 20th century, he knows that the republican party has been a stalwart defense against Russia’s expansion.  And nothing would please him more than to divide the party, and drive a stake through it.  And I continue to believe that what Putin is trying to do is to soil our democracy, and divide us by using discoverable influence operations and I think what he’d like to do is to continue to see republicans arguing amongst themselves as we see with Senator Lindsey Graham, vociferously arguing about how the President appears to be confusing what Senator Graham calls meddling with collusion.  And there are some in the Republican party who are defending the President, and some who are not.  But I think the end game for Putin is to try and do what he can to exacerbate the differences within the party, and try to break it.  And I’m saying this because I’m trying to see the world through the twisted KGB eyes of Putin.  I’m not an expert on domestic U.S. politics I’m the one who’s focused on understanding what makes Putin tick.

The Cipher Brief: We’ve seen Dan Coats, we’ve seen Christopher Wray and a number of other seniors in the administration reiterate the Russian threat on the heels of the Helsinki summit, so for those who do believe the threat is real, including the IC, that should put their mind at least a little at ease.  However, what should we be focused on looking ahead that’s going to move the ball in the right direction for U.S. national security despite whether or not the President pushes forward with his next step, which is inviting Putin to the White House?

Hoffman: Where the IC will play a role right now is on reflections of the summit.  That’s the immediate goal.  So the IC will collect reflections on how Putin and his team assess the summit.  So we’ll learn what was discussed in the summit, but we’ll learn it through Putin’s eyes and I guarantee that he will not accurately describe the results of the summit, even to his own people.  That’s why it’s vitally important that we know, from President Trump, what the real facts are so the President can parse the intelligence we obtain from Putin and his team, from the facts.

The Cipher Brief: It sounds like you’re getting to the point of why it’s really so complicated to be the only person in the room when you have a meeting like this.  Is the IC now handed a mess to try and figure out?

Hoffman:  Yes.  President Reagan had one on one meetings with Gorbachev, so it’s not unheard of, and it’s ok, but President Trump needed to have sat down, and maybe he did this, I don’t know, with Director CIA, Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and walked them through right away everything that happened.  So, to get back to the role of the IC, the first thing is to collect on those reflections and get that back to the President so he is aware what the Russian’s are thinking now about the summit, and their way forward.  What does Putin plan on raising in Washington D.C. during the visit?  We don’t yet have a date for that summit, but certainly Putin will have his own ideas about what might make sense in terms of the issues he will want to raise and that is up to the IC to think about that.  Collection on Russia’s relationships in Europe, and their covert influence operations are always important, never more so than now.

Ukraine is really the canary in the coal mine here. Because they are at war with Russia.  I would argue that the country that scares Putin the most is Ukraine.  Russia’s neighbor with a sizable Russian speaking population, a commitment to democracy and tilting politically toward the EU, as well as an aspiring NATO member.  Putin is trying to influence U.S. political discourse on Ukraine and Europe as well, so collection on how he is going to portray Ukraine, and his plans for influence operations is really important.

Every time you meet with Putin it’s like he’s setting a bunch of traps.  It’s like you’re out in the woods someplace, and you wish you had night vision goggles to see all the traps.  So for us, the night vision goggles are counter-intelligence and understanding where Putin is trying to hurt us.  But if you don’t understand that, you risk getting your leg caught in a whole bunch of traps.  He’s setting a whole bunch of traps for us- Ukraine, Syria and this Cyber-Security working group idea, those are all traps that he has set.

***

DECISION BRIEF: America Needs an In-Kind Deterrent to Russia’s Political Warfare

***

Also see:

Boris Johnson Resigns in Disgust Over Prime Minister May’s Insufferable Brexit Failure and Acquiescence To EU Globalism….

The Last Refuge, by Sundance, July 9, 2018:

There is trouble ahead for Great Britain as the leaders of the British exit from the European Union (Brexit) quit in disgust over Prime Minister Theresa May’s abhorrent acquiescence to multinational corporations and the EU globalists.  British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson quit today.

Western Media are quick to come to the defense of Prime Minister May due to their financial and ideological alignment with the multinational media organizations and corporations who pull the strings.

EU Council President Donald Tusk quickly raises the idea that Brexit might be called off. “Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain,” he tweeted.  Ultimately, this has been the goal of the multinationals’ all along.  The EU constructed the Brexit negotiations around the basic premise there would be no substantive change to the relationship.  Prime Minister May went along with the corrupocrat scheme, and now the primary voices behind the Brexit negotiation have quit.

(Via Reuters) […]  May’s office said it had accepted Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s resignation on Monday, hours after Brexit minister David Davis, in charge of exit negotiations with the bloc, quit on Sunday night.

The two departures shatter May’s own proclamation of cabinet unity last Friday, when she believed she had, after two years of wrangling, secured agreement on Britain’s biggest foreign and trading policy shift in almost half a century.  (read more)

As an outcome, the UniParty British Parliament (Labour and Conservatives) are thrilled as the voices of the British people are dismissed.  Elitism within the ‘we know better’ crowd rears its ugly head once again.

There’s a familiarity, an almost parallel construct, taking place within the United States congress over international trade negotiations etc.   The U.S. UniParty, filled with politicians who are purchased by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and the multinationals, are fighting against President Trump the same way the U.K. politicians are fighting against the British people.

American ‘Deplorables’ find common cause and understanding with the British ‘commoners’; both groups fighting against a political class that sees themselves as better than the group they are supposed to represent.   Sickening elitism and globalism on display in both countries.  Underpinning it all is the root of all evil, money.

The timing is interesting.  U.S. President Trump is scheduled to arrive in the U.K on Thursday.  President Trump fully supports the sovereign right of the British people to get out of the European Union; and he supports Brexit.  Conversely Prime Minister Theresa May is aligned with the ruling class against the majority will of her constituents.  There is a prime opportunity for President Trump to speak in support of Brexit and dispatch the elitist sensibilities of the British ruling class.

No doubt the politicians within the U.K. are concerned about the optics of a U.S. President Trump outlining freedom and the voice of the people while the elite ruling class are forced to listen….. This could get very interesting.

***

***

***

***

Also see: