Quote:January 10, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell

As I was plowing through my swollen email inbox after the holidays and trying to get an idea of what to blog about to start  the New Year, this story submitted by K.M. (with our thanks) immediately vaulted right to the top, because of its intriguing potential relationships to that Russian school textbook story I blogged about this past Monday, the one where Russian school textbooks are openly stating that the 2020 American election was stolen from Mr. Trump as the result of "obvious fraud." Indeed, this story was one of the stories that convinced me that I had to lead the year's blogs with the Russian schoolbook story, for while that story may seem to be a trivial and minor matter, it is really hugely significant for what it portends geopolitically and culturally, namely, that in their desperation to retain power, the American deep state, the Uniparty, the Swamp - whatever you wish to call it - may have permanently crippled and hobbled America's status on the world stage.


Add to that story the recent kerfuffle about Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's recent absence from a White House meeting:

The Lloyd Austin fallout is growing: ‘Someone’s head has to roll’

While this whole article is important enough on its own, a few paragraphs in particular caught K.M.'s eye, and mine too, as well they should:

Quote:Days later, Austin’s secret hospitalization has spiraled into a drama engulfing the upper echelons of the Biden administration. Senior White House officials are struggling to answer questions about who knew what, and when, about the former general’s medical emergency. Criticism is pouring in from Congress and the media.

And since the Pentagon went public with the situation Friday night, new reports are coming in, including POLITICO’s disclosure on Saturday evening that the Pentagon had not informed President Joe Biden or the National Security Council for days that Austin was indisposed.
...

There has also been no accounting yet for the decision to withhold information about Austin’s medical emergency from the public and even the president.

That eventual disclosure blindsided Austin’s close colleagues. Austin joined a White House meeting about attacks in the Middle East by Iran-backed proxies by phone on Jan. 1 — the same day he was hospitalized. Baker’s appearance at another White House meeting last week — this one about the deteriorating situation in Haiti — did not raise any eyebrows.

So... in this game of three-card monte with the Secretary of Defense - was he or wasn't he virtually present during a meeting and was he or wasn't he present during surgery, or was it both, or neither?

Of course, the more important issue is, "Why was the president not informed?", a crucial question, along with, "would it have done any good to inform him anyway, and would he have known what it meant?"

The answer to the latter questions is probably in both cases a firm "no".

Which brings me to the real point of this story, and the above crucial paragraphs: the Pentagon did not inform the Bai Den Dzhao avatar about Secretary Austin because it simply was not necessary to do so.  Or to put it another and much more problematical way: the Bai Den Dzhao avatar is not in charge at all; there has been a coup, and the real people in charge are not in the White House, they're elsewhere. Anyone with some common sense, looking at the behavior of this regime since the election of 2020, will ave concluded that that election was, in reality, a coup d'etat, albeit a fragile one, since the lies needed to sustain it compound daily.

Consider for a moment what those above-quoted paragraphs actually mean. Imagine you are an intelligence analyst for the Russian Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopaznosti, and you are handed this new story.  What do you make of it? Firstly, you confirm that it is an important story because it confirms other intelligence assessments that the USA is "not agreement capable," and that for one principal and over-riding reason: your intelligence service is unable to pinpoint the actual locus of power and decision-making that constitutes the Bai Den Dzhao regime: there is no one person you can call on the hotline. Rather, you're dealing with a shadowy group of people, perhaps even several ad hoc committees, and that they, not Bai Den Dzhao, are really in charge.  As you write up your analysis for President Putin, you also remind him of the post-2020 American election chatter led by none other than Nancy Pelosi, who called for a "committee" to take control of America's nuclear football because she (publicly) was stating that she did not want Donald Trump to have the possibility to launch a nuclear war. Privately what Mrs. Pelosi was probably really worried about was that the morally and politically compromised, and senile, Bai Den Dzhao should come nowhere near the football.

And with this "little" story about Secretary of Defense Austin, and the Pentagon's "failure" to inform its presidential avatar of Austin's location, we have perhaps another telltale indicator that Bai Den Dzhao is in charge of exactly nothing.  This is a government of, by, and for, unelected committees of oligarchs and plutocrats, with chains of command and network relationships that are unclear and obscure to the outsider.

And therefore, the government of the USA, whatever and whomever it currently consists of,  is "not agreement capable", and will remain that way until a clear and relatively consistent and stable  pattern of government and command emerges.  What's the implication of this high octane speculation?  There is one very clear consequence of this line of analysis: watch who among the American political and economic class the Russians do talk with, if anyone at all, in the coming months, particularly if those contacts are not through any of the normal or official - or federal - channels.  As with the Cuban Missile Crisis, both Kennedy and Khrushchev were forced to avoid the normal bureaucratic channels, because both leaders had good reason not to trust those channels.  Something like that, I suspect, has become the necessity again, but in reverse, with the complete disfunction of the visible institutions of "constitutional
government", more fluid, and less visible - and I strongly suspect less federal - channels are in play...

Let's hope the Russians have some success in identifying and exposing them...