Thursday, January 12, 2017

In Fairness

Wheels spinning within wheels. Glenn Greenwald, of The Intercept, rides to the defence of Donald Trump. As Greenwald sees it, the latest Trump scandal is a manufactured effort by America's intelligence agencies, the "Deep State," to take down a president they don't like, even before he's president.

It's definitely worth a read. Check it out.

Meanwhile, the RT news service, is running a piece claiming that Christopher Steele is still an operative of Britain's MI6 intelligence service. "Once MI6, Always MI6." I guess the Russians should know. Look at Putin. Once KGB, Always KGB.


Anonymous said...

Let's evoke again Julian Assange's words:
"Trump will not be permitted to become the president."
(because he is not a member of a cabal currently ruling USA)
In the best (or worst) scenario, he will only be president only in mame, deeply hobbled and ineffectual.

Toby said...

What Glenn Greenwald wrote about is is what I was trying to get at a few days ago when I said that I have trouble with the Russian hacking story.

Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter in any way, would not have voted for him and won't make excuses for him.

I think Glenn Greenwald and Craig Murray are right; the whole story is fishy.

Mound, thanks for posting this.

Scotian said...


Once intelligence service always intelligence service. Sure, thanks Comrade Vlad and his loyal minions at RT for that. Explains your actions and such quite nicely that does. Not to mention the clear projectionism one can read into that argument.

Help! I'm trapped in a bad B movie from the 1950s and I can't get out!

And no, that isn't being meant for laughs, that is really how it feels these days, and I am NOT liking the implications of that, no not at all.

The Mound of Sound said...

A..non, I have my own doubts about Assange. He's not an especially persuasive source in my book.

The Mound of Sound said...

Toby, I listen to Greenwald's opinion but never take it as conclusive. There was a time when he was considerably more objective. Now he is grinding his axes. He's worth listening to but, like Assange, he may be in too deep.

The Mound of Sound said...

Scotian, this is indeed a bad, B movie. As you know I read more international than domestic or North American news and from that I stumble across no end of information that simply doesn't make it in our media.

What's going on in the Baltic is a good example. America is reinforcing Poland with armoured units. Russia is howling. Meanwhile Sweden has placed its civil defence apparatus on a war alert footing, a level of preparation for a Russian attack. That seems to be the equivalent of DefCon 2. It's widely covered in the European press but nary a mention of it here. What got up the Swedes' skirts? I'm trying to ferret that out.

If, as Greenwald claims, the Trump dossier is a CIA plot, then presumably MI6 is collaborating in it. Is Putin part of this effort to gore Trump, perhaps send him into some sort of raving meltdown or alienate him from his own (sort of) party in Congress? McCain is slipping dossiers to the FBI. Lindsey Graham is essentially putting the president-elect on notice. Angela Merkel is voicing doubts about Trump's "thought environment," i.e. his sanity. The Swedes are on "lock and load." Putin is threatening NATO and Poland. What's next? Will the FBI launch midnight raids and whisk the CIA and Justice Department leadership off to some unknown location at the direction of the new president? Is the Deep Government running some sort of "stress test" to see how much provocation Trump can withstand?

I don't know but I do know that those commenting on this blog are in precisely the same boat as me. We're only seeing what we're being shown and not a damned thing more. I know from experience that how things are on the inside is rarely how outsiders see them.

But, hey, Christmas and New Years is over. This is usually the doldrums. Not this year.

Scotian said...

Ever since my late childhood I've developed and refined using negative space analysis on any information in the political and intelligence levels because it is almost a certainty that what you are not being shown/seeing is at least as definitional/explanatory than what one is being shown. The requirements though mean you need to learn contexts a lot more than it seems most are either willing to, capable of, or have the time to do. It needs being able to live in perpetual uncertainty instead the comfort of false certainties, something many folks find difficult to do. It also requires looking for multiple perspectives as well for the same reason one should with what you can see, because no one perspective ever shows all of anything, and that is even more true when working in neg space analysis as it is of that which is seen in my experience. It is a very useful tool, but not the easiest to explain nor to teach others in my experience.

As to the dossier, you know I am being a bit more cautious about it. The really worrisome thing about it though is its plausibility based on Trumps own public history and record, including what came out in the Presidential campaign. That almost guarantees there is kompromat out there on him, and given the Russians knack for this kind of material and their preference/ability in human information gathering (as opposed to technical means, where the west/America tends to be the better player) in my view whether this dossier specifically if the hard truth or not they would be the ones most likely to have it.

As to Assange, never respected him, and GG lost my trust years ago when he clearly let his own interests start to colour his work, and that became especially true with HRC. I am so TIRED of some treating her as if she is the Al Capone of the political world, combined with being History's Greatest Monster. GG aided in this project for reason of his own. Assange clearly has a hate on for HRC, which in an honest examination would be seen as making his work inherently suspect, but too many took at face value that which in my view they should not have.

Regarding your point on Sweden, good luck with that. I've noticed it too, but you are right, it is buried in NA media. As to what triggered it, well between the acts of Putin when he was facing Obama regarding near border conflicts and interventions being bad enough, imagine how it must feel for the Swedes with that and the possibility of not just someone kindly disposed to Putin but an actual Putin stooge of some form actually in the Presidency, and it isn't hard to see why they would escalate their defcon as the inauguration approaches.

What I do know is that for the first time in my life, especially my adult life, I am living for months in probability white-out hell, and if nothing else his assumption of office and finally having hard data to use to work with in defining probabilities will be a relief, but also I suspect terrifying given just how deranged this could get given Trump's own clearly questionable personality and mental stamina. Not to mention his clearly insecure self identity. Not something you want with the tools of a US WH at their disposal, especially as the final authority within their military structure as Commander-in-Chief.

It's going to be an interesting roller-coaster ride, hopefully the ride's structure can withstand the stresses about to placed upon it, for all our sakes.

Anonymous said...

Don't underestimate the possibility of deep state connections they are very real, not conspiracy theory..
Here is a relatively recent example of just how the rich, connected and privileged act upon the world when they see there world challenged.


Anonymous said...

While Assange might be a horrible lover, he is certainly extremely well informed (my friendly bet, better informed than anyone commenting on this blog) and smart enough to still be with us. Perhaps the reason why "Assange clearly has a hate on for HRC" are the details about her he is aware of. I concur with TB, never underestimate "deep state'or, as it was more commonly called in the past, the establishment...

rumleyfips said...

I used to read Greenwald but now that he writes only drivel I see him as another Briebart. Assange has also fallen from informative to bitter irrelevance,
The web does that to people. They start out writing good stuff, but over time they escalate the rhetoric until they descend into meaningless ranting. This phenomenon is seen on both sides left and right ( if these labels have meaning anymore ). There are sites on both sides I used to read, but today I scan but rarely see anything of interest.

Scotian said...


Your "friendly bet" is not so much, seems more like a backhand denigration to me. Ir is also equally possible he has a hate on for her because of her role as Sec of State and actions taken against him while in that position, and seeing her as an unfriendly PERSONAL threat for his long term freedom, as opposed to something more noble. I really do not know for sure as I am no more a telepath than anyone else here, but it is at least as possible as your own scenario.

Sorry A.Non, Assange burned his own credibility a long time back for all save those who want to believe. I'm not one of them.

As to "deep state" the concept has been around a HELL of a lot longer than Assange, as has "the establishment", and I always factor them into my own considerations. There is only one truth I follow when it comes to trying to understand the actions of others, assume they are people first and then work outward from there. The power they have to manifest their strengths and weaknesses may be enhanced, but at the core I find when you get right down to it people are people, period. Whether they are on top of the power structure or crawling at the bottom trying to survive, people are people, and you can find both nobility of spirit and horrific corruption anywhere in that spectrum. The only real difference when talking about those with power is their ability to try and manufacture their own reality out of these motivations.

As to smart enough, taking refuge in an Embassy for years, not the most original nor clever idea. Ever hear of this concept from the middle ages called Sanctuary? You know, where a Church could protect from the Powers That Be anyone they so chose? Well a nation's Embassy has pretty much the same ability going here, so while it is certainly effective, calling Assange smart for seeing and taking this route instead of facing what appears to be legitimate charges under Swedish laws that have nothing to do with his other political activities, well...*shrug*

So forgive me, especially after it looks like Asssange was either a useful dupe or an active collaborator with Russia to try and make Donald Trump the President of the USA. Anyone that argues this is a better outcome than President Hillary Clinton in my books has discredited themselves with that premise for oh so many reasons as has already been listed at this site and so many others I'm not going to bother wasting time repeating it yet again. Even if one believes HRC is as corrupt and arrogant as some would have us believe, she STILL would be a more competent and stable President, and when we are talking about an Office that has sole control over nuclear codes, that in itself makes the obvious difference between them vast enough for that! Besides these comments have character limits.

Nope, sorry, Assange is a loathsome self interested self promoter that likes to clothe himself in the mantle of light IMHO. I'm not buying, nor have for some time, but this last year really put the last nail into THAT coffin for me.

Anonymous said...

Scotian, My friendly bet is still friendly, however the issue is not who said what, but the premise that "Trump will not be permitted to become the president" only because he is not part of the establishment ruling US. That's all folks!

The Mound of Sound said...

I don't know what to make of this Deep Government business. We all know that America's "surface" government is failing. Put it down to a "bought and paid for" Congress, an ideologically-skewed Supreme Court and an executive branch that, well, just look at Trump and his cabinet picks.

Let's get real. A recent post on the London School of Economics' US Policy Project discussed two studies that ranked America dead last of 28 Western democracies on electoral integrity and free and fair elections. Dead last.

Then there was the 2014 study by Gilens (Princeton) and Page (Northwestern) that demonstrated democracy has been superceded in the United States. The population still gets to vote but their legislators, once elected, do not represent the public interest.The US is in a state of profound political capture that has now extended into powerful regulatory capture.

If there is this Deep Government, who does it serve? Is it in service to the powerful special interests who now direct the legislative, executive and judicial branch? Or is it in service to America?

Greenwald and Assange never get to that question. I raise it because of something I learned decades ago when I studied Latin American affairs under a seasoned Jesuit priest, Fr. Emile Korth, who had spent many years in that region. From Korth I learned about the true nature of the anti-democratic elite, the Latifundia, who used ruthless measures to suppress their populations and maintain the status quo. I also learned how many of the military coups were aimed at breaking that suffocating power structure and paved the way for democratic and land reform. The officer class was the sole vehicle for social advancement from the peasantry. It was the vehicle by which the ordinary individual might achieve power. This was far from the 2-dimensional narrative we received in North America where this form of social reform often threatened the privileged positions of our own predatory industries.

What I get from Greenwald and Assange is another 2-dimensional narrative. Given the utter corruption of the "legitimate" government, how am I to view this supposed Deep Government? I don't know. What I do know is that no one is presenting a realistic picture and that includes Greenwald and Assange.

Anonymous said...

how am I to view this supposed Deep Government.
I see Deep Government as more than the establishment.
I see it as old Anglo money , those with title and those 'hereditary chiefs'who consider it their right to rule because of status, real or perceived.
When the USA declared independence from Britain they were considering having a King as head of state before they settled on President.
Such is the will of the powerful to elevate themselves above others ; often with contempt.
It was the British army that was attempting a coup against Harold Wilson ; with Royal support which speaks volumes to the attitude of that self righteous group.
The USA and Canada have fared little better.
They both have Senators( Lords) who upon taking office quickly take up the lifestyle of their GB, Royalty roots.
Sadly the public forever loves a parade especially with a horse drawn carriage and is ever willing to bow or curtsy to someone of title no matter how repulsive they may be; think Conrad Black.


Scotian said...


Thank you for your last three paragraphs in the above comment! That is indeed much of why I get so irked by those that are still caught up with Assange and GG, I feel like I am being fed plot lines, not analysis, and there really is a difference in feel and tone. You also did an excellent example of illustrating the point about perspective and context and seeing truly in such with your personal example, thanks for sharing that.

You asked a pair of questions which illustrates a mindset I am just not seeing from those two sources and their approaches, and I will always be inherently distrustful of such mindsets which lack it, because they develop blind spots so easily. We humans have enough trouble dealing with that when we consciously try to avoid it, and alas far too many of us fail to add that filter to our mindsets, it takes too much processor time/power for most people's already heavily taxed processing capacity. Which is why we, as in the collective we, rely on credible experts to help us sort chaff from wheat.

Assange and GG have that current status without in my view delivering unless you are already inclined towards their POV. Which is fair enough if that is what you are looking for, what you are marketing to, but it comes at a cost of credibility in my view. I happen thanks to circumstances to have both the ability/processor power and the less demand on its resources for critical analysis and filtering thanks to being long term disabled. What most people are using up juggling work I am not, and while yes there are other medical demands, in terms of mental processing I have far too much capacity, which is why I do a lot of what I do, because I need to put it to use.

Which is why I sometimes get so frustrated with folks for not seeing what appears obvious to me, when someone is selling a package more than raw, or even refined, analysis. When I go looking for information sources and I assess credibility I do so far more on this basis than on whether I agree with them, their conclusions, or their starting points personally. I want solid work using critical tools, and if that reaches conclusions I cannot disagree with then either I hold it in mind as something to always be giving weight to as an alternative or I change to that POV until given enough reason not to. That's a GOOD thing in my view of the world. What these folks have been doing as of late, well,, they bring great dishonour and disrepute to this approach by misrepresenting as badly as they do such serious analysis offering good work product instead of agenda and narrative/plotlines.