Streamed live on Apr 24, 2018
*******
Deep State Shadow Government Exposed with Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt - Part 1
Deep State Shadow Government Exposed with Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt - Part 2
Published on Mar 31, 2017
*******
Deep State & The CIA Media Matrix! Dark Journalist & Peter Dale Scott
Published on Mar 24, 2017
*******Deep State Battle! Trump CIA & Coldwar II - Dark Journalist & Peter Dale Scott
Wikileaks Vault7 Exposes CIA Deep State Hacking Capabilities
“I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter
it into the winds.” — John F. Kennedy
Trent Lapinski
Mar 7, 2017
Tuesday, March 7, 2017—Wikileaks has exposed the hacking and technical capabilities of the CIA Deep State in a new release code named
“Vault7”. The first part of the release, “Year Zero”, is the first part in a
series of forthcoming leaks. The “Year Zero” release contains 8,761 documents
and files proving beyond a reasonable doubt the technical hacking capabilities
of the CIA. This includes over 5,000 hackers working for the CIA around the
world potentially spying on everyone, potentially even the Trump
administration.
The “Year Zero” leak establishes that the CIA has hacking
capabilities above and beyond that of the NSA, potentially dwarfing the Edward
Snowden leaks and revelations.
The most alarming of these new revelations include the CIA’s
ability to turn any device into a surveillance device including Windows
computers, Macs, Linux, iPhone, Android, video game consoles, routers, and
Smart TVs. The CIA even has the ability to hack cars, trucks, and airplanes
which can potentially be used as a form of covert assassination.
What was once conspiracy is now fact, as it appears the CIA
has essentially developed their own NSA without the oversight. Under the Center
for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), over 5,000 hackers have produced more than a
thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other “weaponized” malware
targeting everything from anti-virus software to commonly used consumer
devices. This includes malware which makes it look like it was planted by a
foreign government or hacker. This includes Russia, essentially proving the CIA
has the ability to plant evidence to make it look like Russian hackers were the
culprits. This potentially disrupts and discredits the entire Russia hacking
narrative being pushed by the media.
This new Vault7 leak also gives credence to Donald Trump’s
recent claims that Trump Tower was potentially illegally “wiretapped” during
the 2016 election.
What we know from Vault7, Year Zero so far:
- The CIA has capabilities beyond the NSA, with over 5,000 hackers and agents working for them around the world with no checks and balances.
- The CIA can turn most consumer electronics with a microphone into a listening device potentially without a warrant or court order.
- The CIA is responsible for thousands of pieces of malware, and have backdoors and zero-day access to most major computer systems such as Mac, Linux, and Windows as well as mobile operating systems such as the iPhone and Android.
- The CIA can fake the fingerprint origin of a hack to make it look like it came from a foreign agent hacker or country.
- Under Obama, the CIA built the most powerful cyber attack arsenal of malware costing the American tax payers over $100 billion+, and lost most of it for free on the darknet.
- The CIA has lost control of its hacking tools. They are not classified or copyrighted to prevent the public from knowing about them and they have been leaked. They are potentially available on the darknet and can be used by any hacker, against anyone.
- The CIA can hack modern cars and trucks to kill or injure drivers without detection.
- The CIA can also potentially bring down or remote control airplanes.
- The CIA developed a tool to make Android phones spy on WiFi networks around them.
- The CIA can bypass encrypted messaging applications including WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, and Wiebo. Meaning if you use these apps the CIA can still read your messages by hacking your phone OS instead.
- The CIA has real-time analysis of all conversations on Skype.
- The CIA has developed tools to hack Apple’s iTunes.
- The CIA can bypass most anti-virus software, including NSA grade anti-virus software.
- The CIA can hack computers using vulnerabilities in the VLC video player.
- The CIA operates in Europe out of the Frankfurt consulate to spy on Europe and other countries.
- The CIA can evade existing forensic tools and capabilities.
- The CIA dramatically increases proliferation risks. Their hacking capabilities will lead to escalation by hacking groups and foreign governments.
- The CIA is massive, and consists of dozens of divisions and sub-agencies.
Aristocracy Deceives Public about the Deep State
by Eric Zuesse
March 3, 2017
The “deep state” is the aristocracy and its agents.
Wikispooks defines it as follows:
The deep state (loosely synonymous with the shadow
government or permanent government) is in contrast to the public structures
which appear to be directing individual nation states. The deep state is an
intensely secretive, informal, fluid network of
deep politicians who conspire
to amplify their influence over national governments through a variety of deep state milieux. The term “deep state” derives from the Turkish “derin devlet”,
which emerged after the 1996 Susurluk incident so dramatically unmasked the Turkish deep state.
Their article is so honest that it continues from there,
directly to:
Official Narrative
The official narrative of deep states used to be that they
simply do not exist. This position was modified in the last few years to the
claim that they don’t exist here. In 2013 the New York Times defined the deep
state as “a hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists
regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical
change. Some have said that Egypt is being manipulated by its deep state.”[1]
Since the Times (like the rest of the commercially-controlled media) is more or
less under the control of the deep state, such a mention is very interesting.
However, one of the deep state’s many agents, Marc Ambinder,
came out with a book in 2013, Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy
Industry, much praised by others of the deep state’s agents, such as Martha
Raddatz, Jeremy Scahill, and Peter Bergen; and it pretends that the ‘deep
state’ is only within the official government, not above it and controlling it
— not what has been called by some “the money power,” and by others “the
aristocracy” (or the
“oligarchy” as it was termed — though even that, only indirectly
— by the only people who have scientifically established that it exists in
America and controls this country). To acknowledge publicly, that the U.S. is
controlled by an “aristocracy,” is prohibited in scholarly publications; it’s
too ‘radical’ a truth to allow in print; it is samizdat.
On its third page, Ambinder’s piece of propaganda makes
clear what he means by ‘deep state’:
This book is about government secrets — how they are
created, why they get leaked, and what the government is currently hiding. We
will delve into the key elements of the American secrecy apparatus, based on
research and unprecedented access to lawmakers, intelligence agency heads,
White House officials, and program managers. …
That piece of trash failed even to discuss George W. Bush’s lies in which Bush stated during 2002 and 2003 that he possessed conclusive
proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) program — what America’s aristocratically controlled ‘news’ media
attributed instead to ‘failures of intelligence’ or ‘CIA errors’ by the Bush
Administration — which had supposedly caused Bush’s regime to invade Iraq in
2003. That was supposedly an enormous ‘failure of intelligence’, but Ambinder’s
book ignored it entirely, in a book that was supposedly about ‘the deep state’
— and yet there still are suckers who buy that and the aristocracy’s other
misleading propaganda (and so who misunderstand even such a basic concept as
“the deep state” or “the aristocracy”).
One of the biggest indicators that a given reader is reading
propaganda from the deep state, is that the government’s lies are not being
called “lies” there (unless the deep state is losing control over the
government, which rarely happens but does open up the possibility that the deep
state will call the government a liar). Instead, they are called by such
phrases as ‘failures of intelligence’. But what about when the people who
control the government misrepresent what their ‘intelligence’ actually shows
and doesn’t show?
Lying is attributed, in the ‘news’ media, only to the
aristocracy’s enemies. After all: the aristocracy’s enemies can be acknowledged
to exist, even if the existence of an aristocracy (or “deep state”) isn’t being
acknowledged.
Another mouthpiece of the deep state is (like virtually all
magazines) The Nation magazine, which headlined on 17 February 2017, “What Is the Deep State? Even if we assume the concept is valid, surely it’s not useful
to think of the competing interests it represents as monolithic.” Their
propagandist, Greg Grandin, asked “What is the ‘deep state’?” and he ignored
what wikispooks said, and he asserted, instead, “The problem with the phrase
‘deep state’ is that it is used to suggest that dishonorable individuals are
subverting the virtuous state for their private ambitions.” Aside from
propagandist Grandin’s having merely assumed there ‘the virtuous state’, which
might not even exist at all, in this country, or perhaps in any other, he was
trying to, as he said, get “beyond the binds of conspiracy theory,” as if any
hierarchical social structure, corporate or otherwise, doesn’t necessarily and
routinely, function at the top by means of conspiracies — some of which are
nothing more than entirely acceptable competitive strategies, often entirely
legal. He wants to get beyond accepting that reality? Why would anyone wish to
read such absurd, anti-factual, writings as that? Why would anyone hire such
deceptive writers as that? Perhaps the answer to the latter question (which
boosts up the problem here, to being one about the aristocracy, since this is
about the ‘news’ media, which in every aristocratically controlled country are
controlled by its aristocracy) is that only writers such as that, will pump
their propaganda, and will hide such realities as are here being discussed
(and, via links, documented).
Nothing that’s alleged here is denying that there are
divisions within the aristocracy (or “deep state”). Nothing is alleging that
the aristocracy are “monolithic.” It’s instead asserting that, to the extent
the aristocracy are united around a particular objective, that given objective
will likely become instituted, both legally and otherwise, by the government —
and that, otherwise, it simply won’t be instituted at all. This is what
(And, of course, that’s also the reason why this momentous
study was ignored by America’s ‘news’ media, except for the first news-report on it, mine, on 14 April 2014, at the obscure site Common Dreams, which had 414 reader-comments within just its first four months, and then two days later, the UPI’s report on it, which, like mine, was widely distributed to the major
‘news’ media and rejected by them all — UPI’s report was published only by UPI
itself, and elicited only two reader-comments there. Then came the New Yorker’s pooh-poohing the study, by alleging “the politicians all know this, and we know
it, too. The only debate is about how far this process has gone, and whether we
should refer to it as oligarchy or as something else.” Their propagandist
ignored the researchers’ having noted, in their paper, that though their
findings were extremely inconsistent with America’s being a democracy, the
problem was almost certainly being understated in their findings: “The failure
of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking
because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data,”
and, especially, “our ‘affluent’ proxy is admittedly imperfect,” and so,
“interest groups and economic elites actually wield more policy influence than
our estimates indicate.” In fact, their “elite” had consisted not of the top
0.1% as compared to the bottom 50%, but instead of the top 10% as compared to
the bottom 50%, and all empirical evidence shows that the more narrowly one
defines “the aristocracy,” the more lopsidedly dominant is that ‘elite’s
relative impact upon public policies. The day after this New Yorker article, a
blogger at the website of U.S. News headlined
“Oligarchy Nation” about the
study. A few days after that, the popular liberal blogger — soon to become a
U.S. Senate staffer — Matt Stoller, bannered, “No, America Is Not an Oligarchy” and he alleged that the U.S. certainly isn’t an “oligarchy,” because “If it
were, then things like Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, veterans
programs, housing finance programs, etc wouldn’t exist.” He ignored the fact
that the years which were covered by this study were 1980-2002, well after any
of those things had already become passed into law. In other words: he ignored the study that he was
pretending to have read. Many other of his responses to the study’s findings
were likewise irrelevant to the study. On 9 May 2014, the Vox ‘news’ site
headlined “Remember that study saying America is an oligarchy? 3 rebuttals say it’s wrong.” Then, a month after the press-release on their study had been
issued, the study’s co-authors were so disappointed with the paltry — and
predominantly hostile — coverage of it that had occurred in America’s ‘news’
media, so that they submitted, to the Washington Post, a powerful reply to
their study’s academic opponents, “Critics argued with our analysis of U.S. political inequality. Here are 5 ways they’re wrong.” It was promptly published
online-only, on 23 May 2014, as obscurely as possible, so that there are also —
as of the present date — only two reader-comments to that favorable public
exposure of their work. It got buried. This outcome reflects typical
news-suppression, in America: essentially total suppression of samizdat
information — not merely suppression of the officially top-secret information,
such as propagandists like Ambinder focus upon. It’s deeper than the state: it
is the deep state, including far more than just the official government. Almost
invariably, agents of the aristocracy crush all opposition, by whatever means
are necessary.)
Another matter that America’s press has covered-up is the extreme
extent to which the only scientific analysis of whether America is a democracy
or instead an aristocracy, had found it to be an aristocracy; so, here, in
closing, will be directly quoted the least-obscurantist statement of this fact,
in the study itself:
The picture changes markedly when all three independent
variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each
other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops
precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median
citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral
Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized
interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral
Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have
uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no
independent influence on policy at all.
By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial,
highly significant, independent impact on policy.
The researchers weren’t allowed to say “aristocracy,” nor
even directly to say “oligarchy,” but they were allowed to say this. So: now,
you’ve seen it. But the secret is still a secret: what’s samizdat, stays
samizdat (so long as the government isn’t overthrown and replaced — and maybe
even after the existing regime does become replaced).
That historic study was titled, “Testing Theories of
American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” and is by
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. It was published in September 2014, in
Perspectives on Politics, from the American Political Science Association.
Perhaps if the study had been reasonably well-written, it might have received
somewhat more press-coverage, but then it might have been rejected by the
academic publisher and so received no press-coverage at all. In an “oligarchy,”
the rule is: damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The existence of the deep
state will always be denied, by the aristocracy and their agents. Instead of a
‘deep state’, it’s always a ‘democracy’. Meet, and come to know and understand, Big Brother. “He” is the deep state, in the real world.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
*******
