Who exactly are “They”?
It begins with an attitude of mind; perhaps of the proto-sociopathic bent. After all, how many good people who have made it to the top of their particular tree do you know? In my experience, it's a rarity; competence and decency are not prerequisites for advancement. If we factor in a belief that corruption in the body politic and the business world is endemic (which we must if we are sentient beings), can we also believe that the upper echelons are peopled by the incorruptibly fair-minded? I think not. That would be a fine example of double-think. To succeed in a dirty game means playing dirty oneself. Additionally, those who have attained power and prestige are generally not receptive to the possibility of losing it and are, therefore, inclined towards self-preservation.
So, the question becomes not whether they will accept a possible downfall with grace, but rather just how far they will go to avoid it and preserve or enhance their position. This implied proposition has the virtue of logic and the small matter of human nature to commend it. If one believes that it takes a certain ruthlessness and amorality to succeed in a corrupt world, believing that the successful will utilize those same characteristics to maintain their position is hardly a stretch. If we accept that the desire to keep what they've got is strong, then the next questions might revolve around the subject of whether they can and what might prevent them from doing so.
Perhaps a robust regulatory system might catch them out? Maybe the law itself? Or the shame of public exposure? Possibly even the prospect of physical force? All are potential bumps in the road; all are supposed to be there as safeguards, to regulate behavior and keep it within acceptable, societal bounds. It is logical to surmise that if one wished to ensure hegemony ad infinitum, one would be compelled to render these potential obstacles impotent, a task that could not be performed without further corruption or threat (and possible application) of force. This hypothesis is our starting point in the attempt to discover who “They” are. Who is it that is bending matters to their will, regardless of precedent?
This first (of two) article(s) examines the way that the Deep State has established itself and hints at who “They” are. The second article will name and shame and show how to identify those individuals who are currently pre-eminent and how it is that they utilize a web of domestic entities and international organisations to serve their private interests. It will also posit a theory as to why the historic play-book of exploitation of the masses is being replaced by a policy of complete subjugation and depopulation.
The three key elements that are necessary if one is to achieve control over a society and then maintain that control are as follows; financial dominance, the ability to enforce one's will in all possible ways and a pliant media who can be relied upon to look the other way – even when irrefutable evidence of malfeasance is present – and which will also rigidly adhere to a narrative arc of one's own making. The Deep State have managed to accomplish all three.
The temporal starting point is more than a century ago and that's merely the time at which the permanent entrenchment of a system that would come to dominate global finances was established. The Bank of England was the progenitor, but it was the inauguration of the Federal Reserve in the US that proved crucial. There had been numerous attempts prior to 1913, including the establishment of two national banks in the first half of the nineteenth century. However, at that time, the political world and the business world still exhibited a degree of separation and what the bankers had intended to accomplish via a process of stealthy incrementalism – a privately owned central bank and a nation in permanent hock to the shareholders of said bank – was stymied by two separate presidents who refused to renew the charter. Moreover, another president refused to turn to them to finance yet another war (this time, the Civil War) and instructed the state to print its own currency, a stratagem revived nearly a century later by JKF. Coincidentally, three of these four presidents subsequently had attempts made on their lives, two of them successful.
Undeterred by serial rejection, the bankers finally got their way with the passage of The Federal Reserve Act in 1913, which was closely followed by a Constitutional Amendment which failed to pass muster at the state level, a fact ignored by the federal government which ratified it anyway and subsequently memory holed by the adoption of the official narrative.(1) By the early twentieth century, numerous politicians were already the creatures of the banks and corporations; they were all on the same page – the one that spelled out how, together, they could untether the American people from their constitutional rights and accrue virtually unlimited power and wealth to themselves. It wasn't difficult.
The Federal Reserve system is predicated on the concept of fractional reserve banking. Initially, the dollar was fully backed by gold, which acted as a brake on the money supply. Then it became only partially backed by gold, which allowed for increased money printing and then, finally, after the Nixon Shock in the 1970s, it became a purely fiat currency, backed by nothing, whose value was only propped up by the petrodollar system that the Americans negotiated with the Saudis. Without that – the requirement that anybody buying gas and oil from OPEC must purchase it in dollars – the US currency would be in the toilet and federal government spending would be a fraction of what it is. More importantly, for the central bankers themselves at any rate, money could no longer be created out of thin air and profits would be severely curtailed.
It's difficult to grasp, at first blush, just how debilitating a central banking system is. Governments could print their own currency at near zero cost. Instead, those that have fallen prey to this system (over 60 worldwide, to date)(2) have empowered privately owned central banks to do so instead. Not only that, but the mechanism by which this is accomplished requires the state to pay interest on the principal that is created. However, this principal isn't the bank's own money – central banks do not risk pre-existing capital. It's far worse than that. They are given license to magic the money into existence themselves and then charge the government (or us, in effect) for the privilege.
All this talk of the bank as lender of last resort is just that – talk. It's the people who have to pay the principal and the interest that are the lenders of last resort, without having any say in the matter of the lending. The system is irredeemably corrupt and serves the interests of nobody except Wall Street bankers. Further, given the requirement for the repayment of interest and principal and the further circumstance where only the principal is actually created at the time, there is a built-in need to print more money. The money to pay the interest doesn't exist otherwise.
The inevitable outcome of this endless cycle is the inflation of the money supply and the deterioration of the currency's spending power. This is why, since the seventies and the elimination of any semblance of control on the US government's spending, the value of the dollar (in real terms) has plummeted. It's also the reason – along with deliberately destructive supply side energy policies – why inflation is so high at the moment, after the recent Covid related spending splurges.
None of which bothers the sociopathic Masters of the Universe in the slightest. They and their predecessors have been getting away with this most basic of scams for over 100 years. They haven't been seriously challenged, either, largely because we, the people, don't understand the system and we have been conditioned to accept that this is the way it has to be, anyway. The inevitable consequence of this is, firstly, that the elites have absolutely no respect for the ordinary citizen who has allowed themselves to suffer under this yoke and, secondly, that access to virtually unlimited funds has allowed them to systematically eliminate all other safeguards and embark on a decades long criminal campaign of epic scope, which is not limited simply to personal adventurism, but encompasses the national and international also.
At this point, it is necessary to attempt a particular definition; what is a state? In this instance, the US is under the microscope, but the exercise applies to most, if not all, other states as well. When we refer to the United States, what do we mean? We probably don't mean the American people because, when we do, we say “Americans”. Yes, there is some kind of nexus between the American people as an individual entity and the state itself, but we know that while American citizens make up the bulk of the population, they are not “the United States”.
So, do we mean “the government of the United States”? I believe that we think that we do; but the government of the US can change every four years and definitely will after eight. So, is “the United States” a designation that is in frequent need of revision, or is there instead an entity that is an evolving constant and which isn't continually switching between blue and red? No, it's not and yes, there is and it has two major components – the Deep State and the administrative state. The Deep State is the dominant partner, as it controls the administrative state. This is what we are referring to when we cite “the United States”. It is what the US is and has been for a century and more.
It's not a constitutional republic any more – that phase was done and dusted within 150 years of its founding. It's the embodiment of a criminal enterprise that is being run for the benefit of a select few (self selected few, naturally), at the expense of the many, both within its borders and without. As the decades have passed, the Deep State has sequestered treasure and influence in rigged 'legitimate' ways and also in entirely illegitimate rackets such as narcotics and arms deals. Government resources have been suborned and exist to secure the interests of this cabal, not to serve the interests of the people.
To be continually had over is one thing, but it's quite another when the identity of the perpetrators is unknown to us. As I shall hopefully demonstrate, we can usually pinpoint the agents of the abuse, but pinning down the down the organ grinder(s) is a much more difficult task. Unless, of course, we think that we can lay all the blame on the WEF, for instance. For what it's worth, I don't think that would be an accurate assessment of the enemy ranged against us; I think Klaus & co. are a tool of others, the ideological equivalent of a shell company which exists to normalize a future that others will be instrumental in creating.
For one thing, the corporate press has been paying them far too much attention, which ought to alert us to the probability that we are being manipulated – again. As a general rule of thumb, the true denizens of the Deep State generally prefer the shadows to the limelight. This article is an attempt to show how a particular class of people have systematically undermined democratic norms and institutions in pursuit of wealth and power and how they have hidden their methods from us. As to what group this is? The answer is remarkably straightforward; if, at the outset, one might have assumed that following the money would be a sound investigative tactic, one would have been largely correct.
First, a little history and a parsing of vocabulary. Doubtless you've heard tell of the Deep State, but perhaps the administrative state is less familiar? Commentators have an unfortunate tendency to use the two epithets interchangeably, but they are, in fact, entirely different concepts. The Deep State is a term that describes the organism that really runs things, rather than the public facing, democratically elected political administration. It's called 'deep' because it is deep in the background. These people are the permanent leadership; politicians simply come and go and, increasingly, they go at a time of the Deep State's choosing, rather than submitting to the will of the electorate. I shall deal with this group in a lot more detail in the next article.
The administrative state is the permanent bureaucracy, which is supposed to implement the agenda of the duly elected politician, but which instead is committed to other priorities which may, or may not, dovetail with the administration's aims. These are the so-called 'experts', the apparatchiks in charge of departments and agencies who worship at the altar of scientism. Lord “I am the science” Fauci would be a compelling example of the type. These people believe that science is the answer to everything. Thus, religion and philosophy are essentially incompatible with scientism, in a way that they wouldn't be with a less absolutist reading of the runes. As a result of this ideological underpinning, the scientism cult is naturally attractive to individuals who are predisposed towards meddling with what Nature has provided in the belief that they can improve upon it; the likes of Gates and Musk, for instance.
The problems with this approach are obvious, but not to those whose belief in their own infallibility is reminiscent of sociopathy. Science, after all, is not static. What is thought to be unassailably true today, may not be tomorrow; therefore, a policy solely predicated on scientific evidence cannot be said to be inviolable. In addition, scientism has no time for values and morals, nor is it inclined to acknowledge the existence of factors beyond its own, sometime narrow field.
We saw the effects of scientism during the recent 'pandemic'. Not only was there no attempt to place the effect of the measures inflicted upon us in a wider societal context – in order to establish whether more would be lost than gained – there has also been very little change in the narrative from the earliest days, despite vast tranches of subsequent findings that undermine every aspect of the governmental response. Placing society in the hands of Fauci and his ilk is a gross dereliction of duty on behalf of the politicians, but entirely predictable, as it provides them with plausible deniability, keeping them one step removed from the true decision making process, in both directions; from the commanders in the shadows and from the expert bureaucracy that receives its orders from them. The official government is, effectively, a by-stander – it's only purpose is to run cover and provide specious justifications for measures conceived of and undertaken by others.
Nonetheless, the administrative state is the equivalent of a hive of worker bees. They are the implementers of policy decided elsewhere. This is not to say that their's is simply a neutral, technocratic methodology. Generally speaking, they are of a progressive mindset, emerging as they do from an education system that is heavily biased in that direction. There also seems to be an inherently fascistic streak, which isn't entirely surprising characteristic of a group that considers itself a cut above other people due to their specialist knowledge.
But the 'experts' are still only cogs in the machine. They are used by a group with far more clout; the Deep State which, until recently, was still the stuff of conspiracy theories. Ironically, the 'pandemic' – their own creation – has aided in their outing, at the supranational level, as it has become obvious that the activities of nation states are co-ordinated in some fashion that is not immediately obvious to us. Countries in Western Europe and the Anglosphere have been in virtual lock-step for the past three years.
Nominally, the state apparatus is still in place and it gives the appearance of command and control. It's the way compliance is enforced although, of late, some of that activity has been outsourced to private entities, too. This is evidenced in the explosion of mandates during the 'pandemic'. It is apparent that this method has been used as a way of circumventing constitutional and legal consequences as, while a state may not mandate unapproved 'vaccines', the thinking is that the private sector can take up the slack instead. It can't. Or, rather, it shouldn't be able to. Mandating an experimental gene therapy that only has emergency use authorization is just as problematic for private companies as it is for the government, but that doesn't seem to matter as long as the courts decline to do their duty when challenges are brought before them.
We have discovered, latterly, that the governmental infrastructure, together with the constitutions, Bills of Rights and common law that provide their authenticity are completely impotent in the face of bad actors because, while corruption and incompetence were foreseen and catered for in the design of our democracies, there is no protection if the entire edifice is captured.(3) Inbuilt constitutional defenses count for naught when the malevolent lunatics have taken over the asylum. In fact, they count for less than nothing, because now the bad guys can use the machinery of government against the good guys; hence the hopelessly biased judicial targeting and political witch hunts that we have seen in the US and in Europe in the past several years.
But the original question remains; who or what is at the apex of the food chain? If it's not the state, then who is? Is it the WEF? Big business? Gates and Soros? Well, as you might expect, those pulling the strings from behind the scenes are not anxious to be unmasked, so getting a handle on how it's done and who's doing it is not the easiest of tasks. However, the outline of an answer is discernable and it's none of the above. Or, more accurately, it's elements of all of the above (and others), but configured in a manner that serves to disguise.
There exists a world in which all pretense about the exercise of democracy has been stripped away – where the expert insider is all there is and all that matters. Where self interest is the only motivating factor. It's a world of think tanks and NGOs and it is peopled by a mix of individuals who inhabit a number of different milieux; politicians, business people, academics, bankers, journalists and intelligence operatives are probably the most important groups represented. Frequently, these people will have worked in several of the afore-mentioned fields and will continue to pass through the revolving door between the nominally public and private spheres for the rest of their careers.
There is a distinct hierarchy within this world; there are the true insiders, the ones that set the agenda and then there are the concentric rings of implementers, both temporary and permanent. There are meetings, tabletop exercises, white papers and annual jamborees. There are official organisations that are used to legitimise the actions of the Deep State. In short, there is a plan and the authors of it appear to hail from two separate but connected bases in the UK and the US. All the signs are that the plan originates there, in organisations separate from government and about as far removed from the influence of the voting public as it is possible to get.
There are other groups that act as clearing houses and as forums in which instructions can be passed on by those further up the food chain. There is the central banker's central bank, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which receives the absolute bare minimum coverage in the corporate press, for the usual reasons, which are diametrically opposed to what we might expect them to be. In the real world, when an organisation or a scenario is ignored, it's more than likely that this is not because it isn't important; it's because it is important, but the press don't want us to realize. I'll come back to the BIS when I deal with the IMF and the World Bank.
For now, it is enough to know that those of us who are not blessed with elite status have absolutely no say in what any of these institutions do even though, ultimately, we are paying for them. Every dollar or pound sterling that is magicked into existence needs to be underwritten by the tax payer, which includes all the money that member states contribute to the IMF and the World Bank, as well as the reserves held by the BIS.
The Deep State also has an enforcement arm, which has been active since the 1940s and it's here that a description of the Deep State can usefully start. In global terms, the US – as the only permanent superpower of the past eighty years – has had the lead in cloak and dagger work. The CIA (or the OSS as it was during World War II) is typically framed as an instrument of US national policy – a covert intelligence agency which imposes American will in whichever fashion it deems appropriate, but it isn't that simple because we must remind ourselves of our definition of 'state' once again. If it is our premise that it is the Deep State that frames US policy and dictates its implementation, then the CIA becomes their tool first and foremost, not that of the national government; there is, in fact, much evidence to show that neither Congress nor the presidency has had effective oversight of CIA activities since the beginning of the sixties at the latest.
The entire national security apparatus, including the misleadingly named Department of Justice, can be directed against whoever the cabal wishes to target, which group will inevitably include those who would threaten it or those who have something they want. We see this currently in the non-stop targeting of the 'Far Right', as defined by those who set the rules of the game – the intelligence community, in this case. But the CIA still seems to be the tip of the spear and it is through their actions that we can begin to see the scope and intent of the Deep State.
It was created (in its original form as the Office of Strategic Services or OSS) in 1942 and, from its inception, its leadership and high ranking administrative posts were filled by the sons of the nation's wealthiest elite.(4) It was party to naval intelligence attempts to ensure the security of war time production. Dock workers were deemed especially vital and the government felt compelled to reach out to the Mafia, who held sway over the union, for assistance.(5) While strictly limited in scope at the outset, this unlikely collaboration was enhanced when the Allies invaded Italy the following year. The OSS was active behind enemy lines and teamed up with the Italian Mafia to create as much havoc as possible, which didn't go as well as it might have.(6)
The OSS was also involved in the Sino-Japanese War that was absorbed into the worldwide conflict, despite having been ongoing since 1935, by virtue of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor thus demonstrating, once again, the truth of the adage that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. However, this alliance drew the OSS into even murkier moral territory as China was a de facto narco state. Currency was of no value; opium was the tradeable commodity of choice and Nationalist China's military operations and government agencies were reliant upon the revenue generated by its production. The OSS soon found itself assisting in this endeavor and trading in the drug in order to get anything done.(7)
Thus, within a couple of years of its foundation, the OSS found itself partners with both the American and Italian Mafia, as well as Chinese opium smugglers. It was the shape of things to come. Even during the short post-war hiatus between the winding up of the OSS and the creation of the CIA, the US was involved with the Chinese. When the Nationalists were driven from the mainland and decamped to Taiwan (then called Formosa), opium production moved across the Chinese border to Burma and then, after an army offensive, into north Thailand and Laos. The CIA were deeply involved in the transportation of Laotian opium for many years, from the 1950s to the 1970s.(8)
Given the swiftness with which the Central Intelligence Agency departed the reservation, it's difficult to believe that it was ever intended to be a mere repository of intelligence. It's personnel had been much more hands on than that in the recent past and, as subsequent events would demonstrate, they were determined to be so again. Their first notable achievement was regime change in Iran where, in 1953, the president was declaring that the Iranian people should be benefiting more from the sale of the country's oil. He even had the temerity to start seizing oil company assets.
This would not do, so a CIA officer was inserted (Kermit Roosevelt) and he managed to single-handedly invent what became known as a color revolution, which was executed with surprising ease; it subsequently became the template of future operations, with the odd tweak. Roosevelt fomented civil unrest with the use of locals who were prepared to riot provided they were being paid to do so. The international press exaggerated the protests, terming them a 'revolution', pictures of the deposed Shah started appearing on the streets and the president was deposed. The Shah then returned and reversed the oil company seizures, thus restoring the status quo.(9)
Notice that the US government is absent from this operation. There was no national interest threatened; it was oil companies that would lose out, not the state. Instead, this was a strictly private affair; literally, taking care of business. The next year, it was Guatemala's turn. President Arbenz had been elected on a manifesto that sought to return land rights back to the people. The company that had control of the land, United Fruits Company (a Rockefeller asset), was not enamored at the prospect. A media blitz which inferred that the president was a Soviet puppet provided a pretext for the CIA who sponsored a mercenary attack involving ground troops, planes and a propagandist radio station; it worked. Arbenz resigned and went into exile. The next man up was much more pliant and United Fruit could rest easy.(10)
The Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, while ostensibly launched to save the Cuban people from a Communist regime, would also have had the effect of returning the Havana casinos to the Mafia; the same Mafia that the agency still had ties with. The episode is instructive as it demonstrates that the CIA and its backers were making foreign policy, not the administration. Kennedy was not amused and allegedly vowed that he would smash the CIA into a thousand pieces.(11) He didn't get the time to do that, for reasons with which we are familiar.
A familiar pattern now started to emerge, firstly in South America and then in the Middle East. In 1981, the newly elected President of Ecuador declared that the profits from its oil sales should go to the people, not to the oil companies. The agency had heard this song before and they had the capability to ensure it ended the way they wanted. So, the president died in a plane crash shortly thereafter.(12) A month later, the Panamanian president also died in a plane crash; he had made the mistake of being vocal in demanding the repayment of debt by the US and the restoration of the ownership of the Panama Canal.(13) In 2002, in Venezuela, there was another attempt at a color revolution, this time unsuccessful. That president, Chavez, had also been demanding that the sale of oil be used to help the people.(14)
Saddam Hussein was another who refused to play ball. The US banks had been pressuring him to borrow from them and he had declined. This lead to the invasion of 1993, during which his army was decimated. Thinking that he would have learned his lesson, the US further believed that he would now come to the table. He hadn't and he didn't. Another go-around was therefore necessary and this time, in 2003, they did it properly.(15)
All of this may strike you as the stuff of fantasy, except for the fact that it isn't. One of the American participants in some of these events has written a book about how the corporations get their way and it is evident that private enterprise, elements of the state and the United Nations are all working together; but crucially, in the service of the private entity, rather than the common people.(16)
The method is as follows. First, send in an 'economic hit man', tasked with pressuring the president of a target country into accepting a vast loan from the World Bank or the IMF – both UN entities. The loan is to be spent on infrastructure projects that will be assigned to American firms. As such, the money never actually makes it as far as the country itself, although some of it will find its way into the offshore account of the president. Then the loan will prove impossible to service. This is because the economic hit man has written reports that deliberately overstate the future GDP of the country in question. Thus, come the time, there are insufficient funds to repay the interest.
The loan is reconfigured, with the result that more interest will eventually become due. In order to get out from under, the country is often forced to devalue its currency and then sell its valuable infrastructure, utility companies, healthcare system, education systems, sometimes even prisons to the companies who performed the original work. At least, that's what happens if the president can read the runes correctly. If he doesn't, there is also a second option and that is to take him out, either via a fomented revolution or assassination, usually by 'jackals' rather than by CIA perpetrators, because that preserves plausible deniability. If that doesn't work, then the military gets involved. Saddam wasn't interested in a loan, his security was too good, so they sent in the military – twice – and then made the Iraqis pay American companies exorbitant sums to rebuild the infrastructure that the American military had destroyed. Nice work if you can get it.
This is the way that the Deep State has always operated in the US. From what I can tell, it got its start in the 1910s, it's with us still and the CIA is its way of enforcing compliance if other means fail. Any quaint belief in the altruism of the agency should be swept aside and our belief system could usefully be re-calibrated. For instance, there was never a War on Drugs, for the simple reason that the CIA is part of the global production and trafficking network.
Again, this is beyond dispute, as they have been publicly exposed in two separate theaters; Iran Contra between 1981 and 1986 - whilst nominally concerning the supply of arms to Iran at extortionate prices, so that the profits might be used to purchase arms for the Nicaraguan rebels in defiance of the will of Congress – also revealed that CIA contractors were importing vast quantities of cocaine from South America.(17) The agency's involvement in China and Laos, as previously delineated, is similarly well documented.
Less well known is the effect of their actions in Afghanistan. In 1979, prior to the Russian invasion, Afghan contribution to global opium production was precisely nil. The CIA was immediately in action, funding the anti-communist mujahideen and, by 1986, the country contributed a sizeable 40% of the world's opium. By 1999, it was 80%. However, the Taliban, upon regaining power in 2000, cut production by 94%. In a wholly unrelated co-incidence, plans for the invasion of Afghanistan hit G W Bush's desk on 9/9, two days prior to 9/11 and, by the time of the American withdrawal last year, Afghanistan was back at the top of the pile, producing a whopping 90% of world opium.(18) It seems that, without the CIA in the mix (and it's them, not the military, that facilitates the poppy harvest), there wouldn't be a global drug trade.
At least part of the reason for this sorry state of affairs, is the agency need for a black budget. Congress allocates an annual budget, of course, but these funds are not enough for the CIA to run its own foreign policy, so there is a need for some off the books accounting. Arms deals, such as the ones featured in the Iran Contra Scandal are one method – the gift that keeps on giving, however, is the drugs trade.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also excellent examples of the third Deep State requirement if they are to retain hegemony; control of the media. We are all familiar with the long established reasoning which supports the legitimacy of all three adventures. The First Gulf War, in 1991, was waged so that democracy might be restored to Kuwait, which had been invaded by the beastly Hussein for no other reason than to ransack its assets, predominant amongst which was its oil. While most of the above is true, it's not wholly true. There are parts of the story that have been omitted, lest we become confused by 'misinformation'.
Iraq owed a multi-billion dollar sum to Kuwait, which had supported Saddam in his drawn out war with Iran. Now that conflict had ended, the Kuwaitis wanted their money back. However, they were also openly sabotaging Iraq's ability to pay by ramping up their own oil production to a level far in excess of the mandatory total as defined by OPEC and, in the process, depressing the global price of oil which fell from $18 a barrel to $7.(19) The US, along with the rest of the West, was a major beneficiary of the collapsing price, but the Iraqi economy was circling the drain, unable to pay its debt and diplomatic efforts were meeting a brick wall.
Given the cosy relationship between the US and the Saudis, the OPEC kingpins, it's tempting to draw the conclusion that Saddam was being deliberately provoked, somewhat in the manner of the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Like them, he had little option but to take the bait and await the consequences, which weren't long in coming. In the short conflict that followed, the US led contingent laid waste to the Iraqi civilian infrastructure.(20)
Pretty much everything was a target of opportunity – power plants, telecommunications facilities, refineries and dams chief among them, all of which activity is prohibited by international humanitarian law. Then, with the war done and dusted, the US refused to help repair any of the damaged infrastructure. The more damage, the more likely it was that Saddam would have to agree to a loan from the World Bank or similar which would then be funneled to American companies. It didn't work.
How about the Second Gulf War in 2003? That was a result of the War on Terror, wasn't it? Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) tucked away in the desert somewhere which needed to be found and destroyed. Except he hadn't; at least, not any more. Those weapons had been destroyed in collaboration with the UN after the first war and weapons inspectors had discovered no trace of them since.(21) This didn't dissuade the Americans who, along the British, insisted that Saddam was lying and invaded once again. The operational name, 'Enduring Freedom', left nobody in any doubt that the US led coalition occupied the moral high ground.
This time, they found Saddam and hanged him. They still didn't find any WMDs though. No matter. The new government was much more receptive to US blandishments and numerous World Bank loans have followed. In addition, the US has also contributed to the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, by which I mean that multi-billions of dollars have been spent on contracts with US companies, all of which has been provided by the US tax-payer and most of which has been wasted.(22) But the welfare of the Iraqi people is of no consequence to the Deep State – they are merely collateral damage. The only motivation here is profit.
What about the war in Afghanistan? Ostensibly, the US invaded because the Taliban refused to extradite Osama Bin Laden. This made them a state sponsor of terror in the eyes of the US government and that was good enough to justify an invasion. While the American military eventually retreated in disarray, American business did just fine. The World Bank loaned Afghanistan tens of billions for reconstruction (and we know how that works, now) and the 'international community', for which read the US tax-payer, stumped up billions more.(23) Not to mention perhaps $83 billion of military material which went to Afghanistan and never came away again, but which must still be replaced.(24)
Much of this information is not widely known. There's a reason for that and it's called Operation Mockingbird and its probable successors. The CIA started it in the early fifties, as a project to subvert the corporate media for its own purposes. Usually, this entailed 'hiring' journalists to promote their point of view. In today's money, they were spending over $1 billion a year on an operation that was off the books; hence, another reason for a black budget. There were reportedly over 3000 CIA operative involved and over 400 journalists and the project corrupted CBS, The New York Times, ABC, NBC, the Associated Press and other notable news sources.(25)
There is no reason to think that these relationships are not still ongoing, even if the CIA would have us believe that they are not. Why would they stop? It certainly doesn't seem like the agency's star has dimmed and we know that the corporate media still lies to us as they clearly had before. Further, there is evidence that the operation was off-shored in the 1970s.(26) And even The Daily Beast, as leftist a publication as you could wish to find, believes that the CIA are still actively pursuing the operation.(27) It may be that other agencies have stepped into the breach. Elon Musk's takeover at Twitter has revealed that government agencies and social media companies are in communication and are active in the censoring of views with which they do not agree. It's done via a euphemistically entitled 'partner support portal'.(28)
Whichever it is, there can be no doubt that corporate media is thoroughly corrupted. It may be that micro-management of individual outlets is no longer deemed necessary, as the owners who set the editorial policies of the big media platforms are all fully paid up members of the business elites like the Murdochs and Bezos (Fox and the Washington Post), to name but two.
The cold war claims, parroted endlessly by the corporate press, that the CIA was involved in the war against communism and its toppling of governments via coups d'état was therefore justified doesn't pass the smell test. For a start, a country can be a democracy and still elect a leftist government and. Furthermore, the agency is far better at overthrowing democracies due to the 'boomerang effect', which holds that dictators are less prone to forcible removal if they are able to bring the police and the military under their control. Democracies lack those defenses. For my money, the problem isn't so much that the communist ideology grinds down the people, but rather that resources and infrastructure are likely to be government owned and opportunities for US businesses to leech off them are likely to be restricted. Of the 80 attempted coups the CIA has had a hand in, many of them have been against democracies.(29)
Likewise, the justifications for direct military action do not hold up to scrutiny; there were no WMDs in Iraq and, not only was bin Laden never an official suspect in the 9/11 attack and was therefore ineligible for extradition, none of the alleged hijackers were even Afghans – fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE and there was one each from Egypt and Lebanon.(30)
The pattern seems clear. Initially, CIA adventurism in Latin America and the Middle East was linked solely to the preservation of the business interests of American elites and their partners – Iran, Guatemala, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic and so forth. While this is still a priority (see Ukraine), an extra scam has been developed, one which entails collusion with institutions under the control of the UN (but financed by tax-payers) or with the US Congress, which can be relied upon to approve vast financial reconstruction packages.
This is an especially sweet deal and a brazen wealth transfer from the ordinary tax-paying citizen to US businesses and Wall Street banks. American soldiers die and American citizens pay for it to happen. All wars costs billions – billions which the privately owned Federal Reserve creates, thus adding to the federal deficit. The armaments and other materiel expended in these wars clearly have to be replaced. Often, the infrastructure of the devastated enemy (think Iraq and Afghanistan) must be repaired with American dollars, either directly of indirectly. This money also goes to American corporations.
It is utterly brazen; make up an excuse to go to war (again, think Iraq and Afghanistan), break stuff in epic quantities and then pay yourself to repair it while the enemy (or the dullards in your voting public) foot the bill. It's a scam of vast proportions and at no point do the American people have an opportunity to express their opinion of it. Yes, nominally, Congress must approve the funding for aid packages and, yes, Congress is comprised of elected officials (that's still the official line and forever will be), but it doesn't seem to matter who gets sent to serve there – they are all overwhelmingly hawkish when it comes to war and doveish when it comes to reconstruction. I don't believe that any of this has anything to do with political convictions; I think it has far more to do with supporting the business interests of those who finance their campaigns, which would be the banks and corporate America, including the military industrial complex and Big Pharma.
This alternative interpretation of events isn't some wacky conspiracy theory, even if it seems implausible. It is informed by whistle-blower evidence and even by official sources, but we live in a world in which the corporate media defines what is and isn't so. This makes us blatantly vulnerable to manipulation. If Pfizer is paying TV networks hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue (and they are), the likelihood that they will receive adverse coverage is much reduced. If Northrop Grumman, an arms manufacturer, is making significant campaign contributions to numerous senators, they are not doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. They are buying influence and preferential treatment when the next round of government contracts are handed out and, if that could be sooner rather than later due to yet another military entanglement, then that's all to the good.
Ultimately, the organs of state are just another tool to be utilized by the elites that inhabit the Deep State. They've had the game rigged for a century and more, with control of the money supply being the first pre-requisite. Gradually, they have added weapons to their armory and the post-war period saw two further developments which, in concert, gave them the capability to assume near total control – the creation of a private army, responsive to their needs, but masquerading as a state entity, and the corruption of the corporate media, the better to hide their excesses and to seed a narrative of their own choosing. Again, there can be a debate about exactly how much influence they have with the CIA or the media, but the very fact that they established a central bank (thus guaranteeing the nation's perpetual indebtedness and permanent profits for themselves) and launched Operation Mockingbird in an attempt to mislead the American people and promote lies and misdirection, shows their intent.
Ultimately, whichever version of history you subscribe to, the examination of outcomes should feature in your decision-making process. In combination, the Federal Reserve, 'the state' and the media have led us to a place where our money is worth a fraction of what it was (but the rich have gotten richer, nonetheless), where a succession of wars have been waged for no discernible benefit and where the media tells us lies as a matter of policy and have never been less trusted. Those are all outcomes that would plausibly be the result of this theory of the Deep State. The only other viable explanation, that of serial incompetence, shouldn't last a hundred years and shouldn't continually amount to outcomes that only favor one group. They're smart, not stupid, which is why we're in the hole we're in. Knowing thine enemy is a necessary prelude to defeating him.
Citations
(1)
https://thelawthatneverwas.com/
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks
(3) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/the_fatal_flaw_in_our_constitutional_republic.html
(4) Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Volume 1 pg 59
(5) Ditto, pg 15
(6) Ditto, pg 16
(7) Ditto, pg 28
(8) Ditto, pg 38
(9) https://expose-news.com/2022/11/28/economic-hit-men-are-the-first-line-of-defence/
(10) Ditto
(11) https://www.fff.org/2021/05/13/splinter-the-cia-into-a-thousand-pieces-and-scatter-it-to-the-winds/
(12) https://expose-news.com/2022/11/28/economic-hit-men-are-the-first-line-of-defence/
(13) Ditto
(14)
(15) Ditto
(16) John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
(17) https://www.judicialwatch.org/guns-drugs-cia-at-mena-arkansas-judicial-watch-demands-answers/
(18) https://www.mintpressnews.com/cia-afghanistan-drug-trade-opium/277780/
(19) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-08-31-fi-2036-story.html
(20) https://aldeilis.net/english/physical-destruction-iraqs-infrastructure-gulf-war/
(23) https://thenewamerican.com/afghanistan-reconstruction-a-145-billion-failure-says-inspector-general/
(26) https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm
(29) https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2014/4/15/1292378/-US-has-Attempted-80-Coups-since-1953
(30) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks