October 8, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

At least some people are paying attention to that "tectonic" warning from Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, according to this important article shared by Mme. P and Ms. B.:

Obama Warned to Defuse Tensions with Russia

What is to be noted is that the (alleged) letter to President Obama points out that the US lamestream press,while hyping up the war hysteria by painting Russia as the evil villain at the center of a vast McCarthyite conspiracy to keep Darthhillary from her "deserved and appointed" coronation, is also burying the remarks of Ms. Zakharova:

We are also hoping that this is not the first you have heard of this – no doubt officially approved – statement. If on Sundays you rely on the “mainstream” press, you may well have missed it. In the Washington Post, an abridged report of Zakharova’s remarks (nothing about “full-scale war”) was buried in the last paragraph of an 11-paragraph article titled “Hospital in Aleppo is hit again by bombs.” Sunday’s New York Times totally ignored the Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s statements.
(Emphasis added)

Apparently, for America's "newspaper of record", Mr. Trump's tax returns are a worthy story, but Ms. Zakharova's comments are not.

But then comes, what for me, is a real bombshell, indicating not only the badly mangled command and control structure, but the "factional infighting" I've often tried to bring to people's attention that lies behind that badly mangled command and control structure:

Events over the past several weeks have led Russian officials to distrust Secretary of State John Kerry. Indeed, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who parses his words carefully, has publicly expressed that distrust. Some Russian officials suspect that Kerry has been playing a double game; others believe that, however much he may strive for progress through diplomacy, he cannot deliver on his commitments because the Pentagon undercuts him every time. We believe that this lack of trust is a challenge that must be overcome and that, at this point, only you can accomplish this.

It should not be attributed to paranoia on the Russians’ part that they suspect the Sept. 17 U.S. and Australian air attacks on Syrian army troops that killed 62 and wounded 100 was no “mistake,” but rather a deliberate attempt to scuttle the partial cease-fire Kerry and Lavrov had agreed on – with your approval and that of President Putin – that took effect just five days earlier.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov has told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”

Lavrov’s words are not mere rhetoric. He also criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia, “after the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama stipulated that they would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

So what's really going on? Well, again, my high octane speculation suggests that what we're witnessing now are the chickens coming home to roost. In Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery I suggested that the 9/11 event, following the conclusions of most 9/11 researchers, was to some extent an "inside job," that there was a rogue network within the American deep state that had its hands in the events. It was at least a two-tiered operation (though in the book I argued for a third layer as well and this is still my view). I suspect we're looking at the repercussions of that structure here, for that rogue network would spread across key departments of the Federal government, including the Pentagram and the USSA's intelligence services. While most people consider this element to be the "neo-con" or "neo-conservative" element, I suggest a more accurate name for it would be the "unipolar Amero-centric socialist globalists" with the usual people behind it: Darth Soros, the Rockefailure interests, the defense corporations, and so on. In short, key departments of the US federal goobernment are simply no longer in American control; a globalist entity has occupied them.

It is this faction that, in my opinion, has been the faction pressing for a widening of the Middle East War, not only to Syria but, you'll recall from a few years ago, to Iran. Darthhillary represents this faction, as does the whole intertwined Bush-Clinton nexus. But as the letter also avers, there are elements within the intelligence-military industrial complex in opposition to all of this, and it is to be noted these elements represent the more experienced professionals, not "new appointments." While I am not in favor of the deal worked out with Iran(I think we could have done much better), I am in favor of the fact that the Obama Administration at least attempted to handle the situation diplomatically. Obama, to his credit - and I have as most people know, little use for the man's policies - has been walking a tightrope between these factions, and the confusion of US policy is the result. These types of considerations have led to some speculation on the internet that, should Darthhillary prevail in the coming referendum, that the military would simply mount a "soft coup" against her should she and her globalist backers attempt to initiate direct covert and/or military operations against Russia. Indeed, as the article also makes clear, Russia's concern in Syria is precisely tied to its concerns about terrorist operations within the territory of the Russian Federation:

The door to further negotiations remains ajar. In recent days, officials of the Russian foreign and defense ministries, as well as President Putin’s spokesman, have carefully avoided shutting that door, and we find it a good sign that Secretary Kerry has been on the phone with Foreign Minister Lavrov. And the Russians have also emphasized Moscow’s continued willingness to honor previous agreements on Syria.

In the Kremlin’s view, Russia has far more skin in the game than the U.S. does. Thousands of Russian dissident terrorists have found their way to Syria, where they obtain weapons, funding, and practical experience in waging violent insurgency. There is understandable worry on Moscow’s part over the threat they will pose when they come back home. In addition, President Putin can be assumed to be under the same kind of pressure you face from the military to order it to try to clean out the mess in Syria “once and for all,” regardless how dim the prospects for a military solution are for either side in Syria.

The result of all of this is that the USSA, as I noted in my News and Views from the Nefarium of September 29, is "not-agreement-capable," to use the expression that Russia is now applying to the USSA. And it is important to understand that in this context, the Russians are really saying that they're seeing the same or similar badly factionalized "structure" in the American deep state that renders it incapable of abiding by an agreement. It isn't Mr. Kerry or even Mr. Obama that the Russians are blaming for this mess: it's is the factionalism itself, and the fact that one of those factions - Dr. Tatiana Koryagina's "global network", to recall her remarks from Pravda two months before 9/11 - doesn't represent American interests or people at all, it is simply hiding behind and within the American government and using it to pursue other agendas. Again, the article strongly suggests this same factionalism within the American deep state, and Mr. Obama's attempt to walk that perilous tightrope:

We are aware that many in Congress and the “mainstream” media are now calling on you to up the ante and respond – overtly or covertly or both – with more violence in Syria. Shades of the “Washington Playbook,” about which you spoke derisively in interviews with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg earlier this year. We take some encouragement in your acknowledgment to Goldberg that the “playbook” can be “a trap that can lead to bad decisions” – not to mention doing “stupid stuff.”

Goldberg wrote that you felt the Pentagon had “jammed” you on the troop surge for Afghanistan seven years ago and that the same thing almost happened three years ago on Syria, before President Putin persuaded Syria to surrender its chemical weapons for destruction. It seems that the kind of approach that worked then should be tried now, as well – particularly if you are starting to feel jammed once again.

Incidentally, it would be helpful toward that end if you had one of your staffers tell the “mainstream” media to tone down it puerile, nasty – and for the most part unjustified and certainly unhelpful – personal vilification of President Putin.

Renewing direct dialogue with President Putin might well offer the best chance to ensure an end, finally, to unwanted “jamming.” We believe John Kerry is correct in emphasizing how frightfully complicated the disarray in Syria is amid the various vying interests and factions. At the same time, he has already done much of the necessary spadework and has found Lavrov for the most part, a helpful partner.

I have maintained all along that the globaloney "elites" are akin to the Mafia; they have factions, and those factions will occasionally fight it out on the streets. I have also averred that this presidential election is really a contest between factions of the American deep state, and thus that the candidates themselves, Darthillary and Trump, are to a certain extent irrelevant to those deeper interests and agendas. Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that this is a contest between Globalism and Americanism, but  given his expressed willingness to sit down with Mr Putin and figure out how the USSA and Russia can cooperate and put an end to Islamicist terrorism, he might equally have said it is a contest between unipolarism and multipolarism, for it is only in a multipolar world that America will be free to address its pressing domestic problems, for multipolarism requires diplomacy, not drones. Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin certainly share similar philosophical outlooks, since the former has stated that a nation without control over its own borders is not really sovereign, a key challenge to the multicultural nonsense sponsored by Mr. Globaloney, and Mr. Trump has stated on key occasions that a genuinely global system must be multipolar and have due respect for the sovereignty of nations.

The trouble is, as the authors and signatories of this letter suggest - one of them being NSA whistleblower William Binney - is that Mafia wars of this type could be fought out on the global stage, and doing so with a global nuclear superpower like Russia is not a very good idea.

See you on the flip side...