Evidence continues to come out that a conspiracy is taking place within the U.S. government to manufacture anti-Russian disinformation. As I’ve pointed out, we’ve learned that hand-picked intelligence officers were behind January 2017’s “Russian interference” report; that Obama's intel chief John Brennan carried out a politically motivated plan to paint Trump as “Putin’s puppet;” and that the U.S. has been waging an unprovoked military and diplomatic assault on Russia in recent years. Now former U.S. envoy to Moscow Jack Matlock has published a report which concludes that the intelligence agencies’ statements about Russian interference have been “politically motivated.”
As Matlock describes, the signs of foul play within the intelligence community are obvious. When the interference statement was being planned, he writes, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research was silenced when it expressed doubt over whether Russia had actually interfered. Further evidence that the statement’s authors suppressed dissenting opinions within the intelligence community, says Matlock, is the fact that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research was completely omitted from the report. He also points out that the “Guccifer 2.0” DNC hacker is in fact a fictional character created by these disingenuous intelligence actors, as has been proven by the finding that the DNC emails were not hacked but locally downloaded.
This comes after another damning revelation: last month, investigative reporter John Solomon wrote a report showing how James Comey coordinated with Senator Mark Warner last year to deprive Julian Assange of his legal ability to disclose private information about the nature of the DNC email leak. Comey, who was running the FBI at the same time the agency created the flawed “Russian interference” report, clearly had an interest in protecting the narrative that Russia had hacked the DNC. Now Matlock, whose claims about the report are derived from inside information, has confirmed that our intelligence agencies have worked to deceive Americans about Russia.
The Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of the term “deep state” is “organizations such as military, police, or political groups that are said to work secretly in order to protect particular interests and to rule a country without being elected.” After seeing the facts mentioned above, it’s undeniable that this is the system of government we have. And as people become informed about these facts, propagating these blatant lies about Russia is starting to backfire on the deep state.
When the lies were first being spread around, in fact, the deep state was putting itself in danger of exposure. The intelligence agencies’ claims about “Russian hacking” were flimsy from the start. And to stop people from noticing the glaring problems with these claims, the deep state concocted propaganda that tried to discredit anyone who pointed out those problems.
Starting around the time of the 2016 election, the media worked to stigmatize independent journalists and critics of corporate capitalism as “Russian propagandists.” And when Russiagate’s skeptics started using the term “deep state” to accurately describe how America’s intelligence agencies were behaving, a suspiciously uniform series of articles were published by the mainstream mediawhich insisted that there “is no deep state.” These propaganda tactics have continued for the last year-and-a-half. But this hasn’t been able to stop a lot of details about Russiagate’s manufactured origins from leaking to the public.
Our response to this outrageous hoax from our government should be to work towards dismantling the deep state. We need to abolish the FBI, CIA, and NSA. We need to abolish the Domestic Security Alliance Council, which lets federal law enforcement agencies directly coordinate with America’s largest corporations. And we need to end corporate control and imperialism, which are the sources of our society’s corruption and inequality.
Donald Trump, despite being one of Russiagate’s targets, does not support any of these goals. So for now, the people will need to try to bring about these changes on their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment