Forget The New World Order; Here’s Who Really Runs The World

(ANTIMEDIA) For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial concept of a shadowy secret government pulling the strings on the world’s heads of state and captains of industry.

The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it turns out the core idea — one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government with a globalist agenda — is operational in what a number of insiders call the “Deep State.”

In the past couple of years, the term has gained traction across a wide swath of ideologies. Former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren says it is the nexus of Wall Street and the national security state — a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve vested interests. Calling it “the big story of our time,” Lofgren says the deep state represents the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with the globalist war on terror.

“It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street,” he explained.

Even parts of the judiciary, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, belong to the deep state.

How does the deep state operate?

A complex web of revolving doors between the military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence.

According to Mike Lofgren and many other insiders, this is not a conspiracy theory. The deep state hides in plain sight and goes far beyond the military-industrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech over fifty years ago.

While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight or accountability. According to Lofgren, 70% of our intelligence budget goes to contractors.

Moreover, while Wall Street and the federal government suck money out of the economy, relegating tens of millions of people to food stamps and incarcerating more people than China — a totalitarian state with four times more people than us — the deep state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in stride.

After years of serving in Congress, Lofgren’s moment of truth regarding this matter came in 2001. He observed the government appropriating an enormous amount of money that was ostensibly meant to go to Afghanistan but instead went to the Persian Gulf region. This, he says, “disenchanted” him from the groupthink, which, he says, keeps all of Washington’s minions in lockstep.

Groupthink — an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers — also works to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state. Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a FISA court order.

Now, Lofgren notes, these CEOs want to complain about foreign market share and the damage this collusion has wrought on both the domestic and international reputation of their brands. Under the pretense of pseudo-libertarianism, they helmed a commercial tech sector that is every bit as intrusive as the NSA. Meanwhile, rigging of the DMCA intellectual property laws — so that the government can imprison and fine citizens who jailbreak devices — behooves Wall Street. It’s no surprise that the government has upheld the draconian legislation for 15 years.

It is also unsurprising that the growth of the corporatocracy aids the deep state. The revolving door between government and Wall Street money allows top firms to offer premium jobs to senior government officials and military yes-men. This, says Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer for the CIA, explains how the Clintons left the White House nearly broke but soon amassed $100 million. It also explains how former general and CIA Director David Petraeus, who has no experience in finance, became a partner at the KKR private equity firm, and how former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell became Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies.

Wall Street is the ultimate foundation for the deep state because the incredible amount of money it generates can provide these cushy jobs to those in the government after they retire. Nepotism reigns supreme as the revolving door between Wall Street and government facilitates a great deal of our domestic strife:

“Bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments,” said Giraldi.

How did the deep state come to be?

Some say it is the evolutionary hybrid offspring of the military-industrial complex, while others say it came into being with the Federal Reserve Act, even before the First World War. At this time, Woodrow Wilson remarked,

“We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

This quasi-secret cabal pulling the strings in Washington and much of America’s foreign policy is maintained by a corporatist ideology that thrives on deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization, and financialization. American exceptionalism, or the great “Washington Consensus,” yields perpetual war and economic imperialism abroad while consolidating the interests of the oligarchy here at home.

Mike Lofgren says this government within a government operates off tax dollars but is not constrained by the constitution, nor are its machinations derailed by political shifts in the White House. In this world — where the deep state functions with impunity — it doesn’t matter who is president so long as he or she perpetuates the war on terror, which serves this interconnected web of corporate special interests and disingenuous geopolitical objectives.

“As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret) budgets get rubber stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly,” according to Mike Lofgren in an interview with Bill Moyers.

Interestingly, according to Philip Giraldi, the ever-militaristic Turkey has its own deep state, which uses overt criminality to keep the money flowing. By comparison, the U.S. deep state relies on a symbiotic relationship between banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, a mutant hybrid that also owns the Fourth Estate and Washington think tanks.

Is there hope for the future?

Perhaps. At present, discord and unrest continues to build. Various groups, establishments, organizations, and portions of the populace from all corners of the political spectrum, including Silicon Valley, Occupy, the Tea Party, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, anarchists and libertarians from both the left and right, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others are beginning to vigorously question and reject the labyrinth of power wielded by the deep state.

Can these groups — can we, the people — overcome the divide and conquer tactics used to quell dissent? The future of freedom may depend on it.

This article (Forget the New World Order, Here’s Who Really Runs the World) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Obama’s Refugee Crisis

Earlier this month, the world, and likely all Americans as well, were repulsed by the images and tale of a 3-year-old Syrian boy whose lifeless body was retrieved from a Turkish beach. The boy and his family were among the millions of displaced refugees fleeing war-torn Syria and surrounding nations. And while foreign policy may not be of great interest to some during the current presidential campaign cycle, the refugee crisis clearly illustrates how critical sound policy is to our national interests and global stability.

The 3-year-old boy, Aylan Kurdi, his 5-year-old brother Galip, and his mother, Rehan, all died along with nine others when the small boat carrying them from Turkey to the Greek island of Kos capsized. Only the boys’ father survived. They were fleeing the Syrian town of Kobani near the Turkish border that has been embroiled in the war between ISIS and Syrian military forces.

The grieving father, Abdullah Kurdi, said, “My kids have to be the wake-up call for the whole world.” It should serve as a wake-up call, not just for the plight of the refugees fleeing unstable nations and communities, but also for a reasoned and rational foreign policy.

A large part of the culpability for the current refugee crisis, the worst since WWII, rests on us, and our abysmal and destructive foreign policy. From the early days of the Arab Spring which started with the Tunisian Revolution in 2010, the Obama administration backed the revolutionary parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, in overthrowing the despotic regimes in the Middle East.

The administration has been actively engaged in toppling Middle Eastern regimes: Khadafy in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt, and Assad in Syria. In fact, at one time, the president was requesting $500 million to help the “freedom fighters” in Syria topple the Assad regime. The majority of those “freedom fighters” now go by the name ISIS, and the president was poised to fund them.

Even worse, according to CNN in August 2013, CIA sources revealed that the Benghazi consulate attack of 9/11/12 was directly linked to a clandestine administration operation providing arms to the rebels in Syria. It wasn’t just the consulate compound in Benghazi that was demolished by the marauding jihadists, but the CIA facility two kilometers away that housed the cash and weapons caches being smuggled into Syria. Jihadists got all of it.

By 2012, the regimes of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen had been overthrown by revolutionaries. Civil uprisings and major protests had spread to Bahrain, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Sudan, and Syria. But the administration’s final objective, the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, never materialized after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intervention, leaving the warring factions to fight Assad on their own.

The vacuum created by the withdrawal of troops from Iraq played directly into the hands of the Islamic State, or ISIS, that was continuing the fight against the Assad regime. Despite recommendations from the military, the Obama administration refused to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq prior to the 2011 deadline established by the Bush administration. This suited the president’s objective to get out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences of retreat. He kept his promise to “end the war,” but the vacuum significantly enhanced the ability of ISIS to cross the Syrian border and occupy large swaths of territory within Iraq, again destabilizing a nation we spilt precious blood to save.

All of the mayhem in the region has created the refugee crisis, with the majority coming from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ivory Coast, and Albania. The humanitarian element is not the only concern with this migration. There’s ample evidence that the crisis is being utilized by ISIS as a hijrah, which is the Islamic doctrine of migration to form a stealth jihad. Quran 4:100 says, “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance.”

According to Robert Spencer of FrontPage, “Evidence that this is a hijrah, not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February, but was little noted at the time and almost immediately forgotten. The Islamic State published a document entitled, Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.’ Gateway into Europe, that is. The document exhorted Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. This document tells would-be jihadis that weapons from Gaddafi’s arsenal are plentiful and easy to obtain in Libya – and that the country ‘has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.’”

A British paper reported in February that a Syrian operative affiliated with ISIS claimed they had already used the refugee crisis to “form a fifth column of Muslim fighters inside Western nations.” He claimed that more than 4,000 trained ISIS fighters have already been smuggled into Europe, hidden among innocent refugees.

And still the Obama administration will not be honest about the mess they’ve created. We learned just last week that over 50 intelligence officials have filed formal complaints alleging that their superiors have been inappropriately altering intelligence reports on ISIS to make it appear as if the administration was making more progress than it actually was.

The consequences of an ideologically driven, acquiescent foreign policy implemented by incompetents are becoming increasingly evident on a nearly daily basis. The next administration will have its hands full trying to undo the damage wreaked by eight years of ineptitude. It’s impossible to judge whether the damage is irreversible, for the hijrah genie is already out of the bottle.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Trump Just Shot 3 Brutal Words At A Republican Opponent

After Marco Rubio set his sights on GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, The Donald has now put the Florida senator in the crosshairs.

During multiple interviews, Rubio has called into question Trump’s national defense expertise.

On Fox News on Tuesday, the senator said that until the businessman is able to articulate more fully his view on national security, “there should be serious concerns, not just about him but about any candidate that’s not able to speak in detail, with clarity and with seriousness, about the national security threats that we face.”

Trump tweeted his response later that night:

During an interview on CNN’s New Day on Thursday, Trump said: “Marco Rubio…he’s like a kid. He shouldn’t even be running in this race as far as I’m concerned. He’s a kid [emphasis added.]”

Trump, 69, also stated that Rubio, 44, has the worst voting attendance record in the U.S. Senate, which Rubio has attributed to his White House run.

The businessman also expressed doubts about the senator’s foreign policy expertise. “I know more about Syria than Marco Rubio knows about Syria,” he said.

(Trump’s comments about Rubio begin at 19:50 in the interview below.)

Regarding Rubio’s call for Trump to speak in more detail about his foreign policy plans, the billionaire candidate told CNN that if he were to become president, he sees an advantage in not explaining exactly where he stands with specificity.

“I don’t want the other side to know what my views are, where I’m coming from,” Trump said. “You’ve got to be cool, and you’ve got to be unpredictable.”

“Think of it, Gen. Douglas MacArthur–I consider him a great general–Gen. George Patton, they listened to all these clowns, these guys like Rubio, wanting to know every little detail about how we are going to fight the enemy,” he said. “They are spinning in their graves.”

Rubio has moved up in the polls following his standout performance at the Republican presidential debate last week. The most recent CNN/ORC poll released earlier this week finds him in double-digits at fourth place with 11 percent, behind Trump with 24 percent, Fiorina with 15 and Carson with 14 percent.

h/t: The Hill

Blame America? No, Blame Neocons!

Is the current refugee crisis gripping the European Union “all America’s fault”? That is how my critique of U.S. foreign policy was characterized in a recent interview on the Fox Business Channel. I do not blame the host for making this claim, but I think it is important to clarify the point.

It has become common to discount any criticism of U.S. foreign policy as “blaming America first.” It is a convenient way of avoiding a real discussion. If aggressive U.S. policy in the Middle East — for example in Iraq — results in the creation of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, is pointing out the unintended consequences of bad policy blaming America? Is it “blaming America” to point out that blowback — like we saw on 9/11 — can be the result of unwise U.S. foreign policy actions like stationing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia?

In the Fox interview, I pointed out that the current refugee crisis is largely caused by bad U.S. foreign policy actions. The U.S. government decides on regime change for a particular country — in this case, Syria — destabilizes the government, causes social chaos, and destroys the economy, and we are supposed to be surprised that so many people are desperate to leave? Is pointing this out blaming America, or is it blaming that part of the U.S. government that makes such foolish policies?

Accusing those who criticize U.S. foreign policy of “blaming America” is pretty selective, however. Such accusations are never leveled at those who criticize a U.S. pullback. For example, most neocons argue that the current crisis in Iraq is all Obama’s fault for pulling U.S. troops out of the country. Are they “blaming America first” for the mess? No one ever says that. Just like they never explain why the troops were removed from Iraq: the U.S. demanded complete immunity for troops and contractors, and the Iraqi government refused.

Iraq was not a stable country when the U.S. withdrew its troops anyway. As soon as the U.S. stopped paying the Sunnis not to attack the Iraqi government, they started attacking the Iraqi government. Why? Because the U.S. attack on Iraq led to a government that was closely allied to Iran, and the Sunnis could not live with that! It was not the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that created the current instability, but the invasion. The same is true with U.S. regime change policy toward Syria. How many Syrians were streaming out of Syria before U.S. support for Islamist rebels there made the country unlivable? Is pointing out this consequence of bad U.S. policy also blaming America first?

Last year, I was asked by another Fox program whether I was not “blaming America” when I criticized the increasingly confrontational U.S. stand toward Russia. Here’s how I put it then:

“I don’t blame America. I am America, you are America. I don’t blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion — that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people.”

In short, I don’t blame America; I blame neocons.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Interventionism And Its Blowback Results

Apparently, some people don’t like it when you bring up some of the contributing factors which led to 9/11, in which the talk radio gasbags conclude that one is “blaming America” for 9/11. They are among the ignorant or just plain in denial of the U.S. government’s murderous foreign policy prior to the 2001 September 11th attacks.

There are many people out there in America who agree with those neanderthals who booed Ron Paul at that South Carolina debate in which he suggested applying the Golden Rule to U.S. foreign policy. The reason they booed is because they believe in American Exceptionalism, in which America is superior over other countries (except in education, economic freedom, Press freedom, etc.), and the U.S. government ought to have powers that other countries’ governments can’t have. The neanderthals from that debate and their fellows throughout America are very selective in what Biblical concepts to follow and which to conveniently ignore. “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you” are the basic rules of ethics and civility which the cognitively dissonant choose to ignore when it comes to foreign relations, for some reason.

For instance, in 1991 when then-President George H.W. Bush started his war of aggression against Iraq, it was not a defensive war; Iraq had not attacked the U.S. or even threatened to do so. The elder President Bush and his Sec. of Defense, Dick Cheney, authorized the U.S. military’s bombing of Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers, and imposed sanctions and no-fly zones to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure as well as preventing medical supplies, etc. from being imported into Iraq. This was the U.S. military’s sadistic way of forcing the Iraqi civilian population to use untreated water, which subsequently caused skyrocketing occurrences of diseases and hundreds of thousands of deaths by the mid-1990s.

The sanctions continued past 9/11/01, bringing the death toll up to at least a million by 2003, the year of the younger Bush’s new war of aggression, which caused hundreds of thousands of new civilian deaths, displaced millions, and resulted in the implementation of a Sharia Law theocracy, a new place for Iran-backed terror groups which didn’t exist prior to Bush’s war, and then ISIS. This ISIS organization, as I see it, is a group of young males who were born during the 1990s and 2000s sanctions crisis and have been raised in a dysfunctional culture completely distorted by the interventions, occupations, violence and sadism inflicted on those foreigners by the U.S. government and military.

As we can clearly see, such actions by the U.S. government have been impractical and have resulted in our own disadvantage, to say the least. That is why it is called “blowback.” Such actions have not been moral and ethical, but sadistic and criminal.

Another example as well is the U.S. government’s CIA ousting of the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 and then backing the Shah’s rule and Savak terror and torture regime. As I have mentioned recently, those criminal interventions by the U.S. government led to the Islamic radicalization of that society, leading up to the 1979 hostage takings and then theocratic rule by Ayatollahs since then. In other words, such radicalization and change to theocratic rule (and Iranian support for terrorism outside of Iran) were direct results of the Washington central planning bureaucrats’ regime change acts.

Another motivation for 9/11 as stated by the terrorists and their aiders and abettors was the U.S. government’s support for Israel. Ooooh, there’s another issue that seems to be a politically incorrect issue to discuss objectively. A real hot potato. And you’re not allowed to bring up the political movement of Zionism. If you say “Zionism,” to some people therefore you’re “anti-Semitic.” Just hearing anyone say that word “triggers” their reflexive response. But I will say that the early Zionists insisted on the Land of Israel as the one and only one place to be a “safe homeland for Jews,” based solely on the Bible. The British Empire and the U.S. government and other Western governments used their military might to make way for the activists to realize their Biblically-inspired fantasies. But there already were people living there. Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims. And that territory has been completely surrounded by their fellow Muslims and Arabs who sympathize with those whose lives were ended, or whose families were run out of town or whose homes were taken away from them. Most people seemed to be so deeply influenced by the mainstream media’s constant propaganda day after day, for decades, that they have no idea what I’m talking about.

I know, many people interpret such analyses as non-sympathetic to Israel, to say the least. But a lot of people are just misinformed on the history of Israel and the origins of the ongoing conflicts there. And a lot of people are just plain mystical about Israel, and its role as a “safe homeland for Jews.” The mystical ones are not practical, nor have the governments which they have been supporting been ethical or moral in any true sense of those words. My sympathy is with those who are peaceful and respect the lives and rights of others.

“But the Israelis have been peaceful and minding their own business and they are being attacked by Arabs and Muslims,” is the usual response. Can we say they have been peaceful and minding their own business when they are living on occupied territory? I’m just trying to be realistic. If a foreign regime invaded the U.S. and removed me and others from our homes and took over the territory by force, I probably wouldn’t like that. (That’s another example of the idea of “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you,” by the way. I hope you don’t mind my bringing that up again. If you’re a neanderthal from South Carolina, you probably won’t like that, however.) In other words, what has existed there in that region has been an occupation of an artificial State created by the conquering foreign governments and their militaries; and as long as the occupation continues there, it is unrealistic to expect peace any time soon.

This piece originally appeared at Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by