Darren Weeks

'Six Ways From Sunday': Challenging the Deep State's Fourth Branch of Government

media brainwashDarren Weeks
Coalition to Govern America
July 22, 2018


Anyone that has followed my work for any length of time, knows that I have never been a cheerleader for any politician. That certainly includes Donald Trump. I have been critical of Mr. Trump on numerous occasions, whenever I believe that he deserves it. I have also stated that I believe that Trump is a mixed bag. He has done some good things; he has done some things which make me want to pull my hair out.

That being said, I do believe we ought to support the president whenever he is taking actions that are clearly in the best interest of our country.

I'm going to cut right to the chase.

Everyone in the United States, and the world for that matter, benefits from the United States having good relations with Russia. This does not mean that we look the other way, necessarily, if Russia attacks us in some manner. But it does mean that we don't blame Russia or its leader for everything that goes bump in the night — especially without any viable proof.

This is what the intelligence establishment and their puppets in the mainstream propaganda media continue to do. Ever since the election of Donald Trump, they have made one allegation after another about the Russians hacking the 2016 election. If you were to ask the average American on the street — even those who believe they are somewhat well-informed — if there were real evidence of the Russians hacking the 2016 elections, most would undoubtedly believe that it is a foregone conclusion.

The reality, however, is that the source of a hack is much more difficult to prove as IP addresses can be, and often are, spoofed. Furthermore, the intelligence establishment who are making the claims have never provided us any of the evidence — only repeated accusations. Accusations are not evidence! Claims are not proof!

The mainstream propaganda outlets — I cannot call them "news" channels — are employing the same strategy of repeating lies often enough that they become accepted as fact. They build a foundation of lies, pretending there is substance to them, then layer other accusations atop that foundation of falsehood, so that the populace never go back and examine whether there is any substance to the original accusations.

There is also the problem that many members of the public still accept too much of what the establishment media and the intelligence agency officials say are true. Let's be clear: the major media and the intelligence establishment are essentially the same thing. Operation Mockingbird was a real program, but disclosure of that program was a limited hangout. We are supposed to believe that the CIA was planting stories in the media, with a few "journalists", but that the program was discontinued. The truth is that they may have ended that one program, but the CIA and other agencies have now so infiltrated the national media channels that Mockingbird is minor league now. Furthermore, they don't even seem to be trying to hide it anymore. The national media hires intelligence spooks from government positions and defense think tanks as experts to provide "analysis" on a routine basis. There is a very incestuous relationship between the intelligence establishment, their think tanks, and the defense industry to profit from war. Hence, it is the mainstream media's job to promote war, which also happens to be very good for ratings too. The same holds true for much of the print media. For example, the Washington Post is owned by Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos, and Amazon has lucrative government contracts with the CIA.

The Washington Post has been ruthless in its efforts to demonize the Trump administration and villainize Russia to the point of aburdity. This is the rag publication that had the nerve to promote the "Prop or Not" website, a bogus site which falsely accuses many inside and outside patriot circles of being Russian propaganda stooges — all without any evidence! The Washington Post ran a story (Webster's Dictionary Definition #3 — "a fictional narrative shorter than a novel", #4 — "a widely circulated rumor") promoting the "Prop or Not" site, and only printed a retraction when they were threatened with legal action. Of course, as is always the case, the initial bogus story is picked up by numerous other media, while the retractions are never reported. This is the same so-called "news" paper that ran the bogus and sensational "story" that the Russians hacked the U.S. electric grid, then had to retract that story because it was only a single laptop at a single utility, that was hacked. Then, they had to retract it again, writing an entirely new story, because officials at Burlington Electric in Vermont debunked the entire premise of the Washington Post's original "story", saying they didn't believe the facility was being targeted by the Russians and that the IP address was likely "benign". This is the kind of "quality journalism" you get from the Washington Post.

Yet, the problem of trust among the American people persists. Americans have been conditioned to believe authorities. For example, if someone has letters after their name, they are more accepted as credible. If they have a fancy title, such as "Dr.", people are much more inclined to believe them.

The same, unfortunately, filters into the area of intelligence operators and media manipulators. If people are on TV, they appear to be authoritative. After all, they wouldn't be there if they didn't know something. If a publication has a storied history, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post, they must be credible. If talking heads or column writers are members of the CIA or the Council on Foreign Relations, they must know what they are talking about.

These presumptions, of course, dismiss the countless times that both the intelligence apparati and their cohorts in the national media have lied the public into wars. Remember Saddam Hussein's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction"? We're still paying for that one, and countless others, aren't we?

Therefore, to believe the notion of Russian meddling into the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, without any viable proof, is foolhardy at best. We have seen zero evidence to substantiate the Russian hacking claim. Its original form was an accusation of electronic intrusion, but then later morphed into bizarre claims that Putin and his conspirators were attempting to "hack" our minds by planting ads and bots on social media sites to create narratives that will polarize the public and "divide and conquor" the American people. While that notion may possess the romanticism of a classic spy novel, it must be considered just as fictious without hard proof. An important rule of real journalism is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we've seen just as much evidence the Department of Homeland Security tried to hack the states' election systems as we've seen from the Russians.

The Robert Mueller "investigation", is an extension of the efforts to villainize Russia, while ensuring that Trump is unable to accomplish anything in the way of repairing relations with Moscow. Trump is correct in calling it a "witch hunt". The latest Mueller indictment was carefully timed to coincide with Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin on July 16th in Helsinki. The indictment went into great detail in its claims, but again, claims are not evidence. The indictment proves nothing. What it did was to attempt to embarass the president into going along with the unproven narrative of Russian meddling, which complicates Trump's efforts at warmer Russian relations. The goal of the intelligencia is war. That's where they make their money.

For all his faults, President Donald Trump appears to be defying the intelligence establishment, and their operatives in the media, in an attempt to bring about peace with Russia. History records another president, John F. Kennedy, who did something very similar, prior to his assassination. JFK and Nikita Khrushchev had a series of coorespondences, attempting to cooperate on a range of issues, in an attempt to bring about peace and improve relations.

I believe we all need to pray for Trump's protection, as he bucks the intelligence establishment. As Sen. Chuck Schumer warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show, "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." What a remarkable statement for a United States senator, who is supposed to be involved in oversight of the intelligence agencies, to make. By saying that, Schumer is indicating that he's a coward who doesn't have the guts to reign in the power and abuses of these agencies. What does that mean for the country if a United States senator is too afraid to go against the intelligence establishment?

What it means to this writer is that the alphabet soup agencies, with their classified budgets and secret activities, have grown into an all-powerful, unaccountable, and unelected fourth branch of government that no one dares to question or challenge. That is, no one except for Donald Trump.

What will the next move of this shadow government be, if they are unable to get Trump back in line with their war agenda? Will they do something drastic? Will there be an orchestrated "false flag" that can be blamed on Russia, very much the same manner in which the bogus gas attack in Douma was used against Syria's Assad, to make it politically impossible for Trump to talk to Putin in a civilized manner?

We are living in very perilous times.

Govern America Radio




Govern America airs Saturdays at 11AM-2PM Eastern or 8AM-11AM Pacific time.

Govern America playlist of latest episodes