Sunday 19th of September 2021

the white house boutique*...






















Less than six months into the Biden administration, more than 15 consultants from the firm WestExec Advisors have fanned out across the White House, its foreign policy apparatus, and its law enforcement institutions.



Five, some of whom already have jobs with the administration, have been nominated for high-ranking posts, and four others served on the Biden-Harris transition team. Even by Washington standards, it’s a remarkable march through the revolving door, especially for a firm that only launched in 2017. The pipeline has produced a dominance of WestExec alums throughout the administration, installed in senior roles as influential as director of national intelligence and secretary of state. WestExec clients, meanwhile, have controversial interests in tech and defense that intersect with the policies their former consultants are now in a position to set and execute.


The arrival of each new WestExec adviser at the administration has been met with varying degrees of press coverage — headlines for the secretary of state, blurbs in trade publications for the head of cybersecurity — but the creeping monopolization of foreign policymaking by a single boutique consulting firm has gone largely unnoticed. The insularity of this network of policymakers poses concerns about the potential for groupthink, conflicts of interest, and what can only be called, however oxymoronically, legalized corruption.


WestExec does not affirmatively share its clients, and public financial disclosure forms only offer broad outlines. Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, says that government ethics laws written decades ago aren’t equipped to handle a situation in which a single firm launches 15 senior officials. “Yes, they’re employed by the government, I’ll grant you that. But are they actually working for the American people or not? Where does their loyalty lie?” said Clark. “The private sector can in essence co-opt the public sector.”

“These White House officials are experienced government leaders whose prior private sector experience is part of a broad and diverse skill set they bring to government service,” said a White House spokesperson in a statement. WestExec did not reply to a detailed list of questions for this story.

The firm describes one of its chief selling points as its “unparalleled geopolitical risk analysis,” now confirmed by the saturation of its employees in positions of power. WestExec has also succeeded in getting tech startups into defense contracts and helped defense corporations modernize with tech; it worked to help multinational companies break into China. One of its collaborators is the defense-centered investment group Pine Island Capital Partners, which launched a SPAC, or “blank check” company,” last year. Tony Blinken advised Pine Island and was a part owner. (Michèle Flournoy, another WestExec co-founder, had her nomination to be secretary of defense nixed. President Joe Biden instead nominated Lloyd Austin, himself a former Pine Island partner but not a WestExec consultant.)

What makes WestExec “boutique” is the promise that its executives would have face time with its seasoned policymakers. “We felt other firms brought people in for big names and never got to see the big names,” said one WestExec co-founder in 2020. “Tony is on client calls.”


Read more:


This smells a bit like the Project for the New American Century in G W Bush days...



advising the brass...


by Gordon Duff


With millions dead and a world economy shattered, the truth about COVID 19 isn’t getting closer, no, it’s getting further away, buried by politics, shrouded in lies. 99 percent of those who write about COVID, either medically or from a security standpoint, have no qualifications in either arena.


Moreover, those few that are qualified either lie or, if “the truth is out there,” it isn’t accepted, suppressed by the press, drowned in “chaff” or simply undiscernible by those of lesser capability.

But then it isn’t just COVID 19.

First, the process should be explained. By “process,” I mean the methods real or “supposed” intelligence and security experts use to discern “probability of fact” for those supposedly “entrusted” with the secret and special knowledge that constitutes “truth.”

You see, “truth” isn’t just relative, its dangerous. It also varies from “the narrative” in almost every case where the best analogous references best come from Matrix films.

Now we are going to use one of those dangerous analogies. How many remember 9/11 and the “Harley guy.” Moments after the first tower crashed on 9/11, an individual, later identified as an employee of Fox News, wearing a Harley Davidson t shirt, identified what he deemed the cause of the building collapses, pancaking caused by massive fires and structural weakening.

Years since, a virtual army of architects and engineers have disputed the “Harley guy” stating that his analysis, with no qualifications, but one later published as “fact” was in fact scientifically impossible and literally laughable.

What one who works in intelligence would call this is “revealing the narrative.” Such “narratives” are standard in any military operation as part of “cover and deception,” an integral part of every move, be it a fake gas attack or the D-Day invasion of France in 1944.

For COVID 19, it was the story of “bat soup.” Within hours of China’s COVID 19 outbreak being reported, a fake narrative hit every media organization in the world at the same time. An unnamed source cited the sale of infected bats, sold as soup to customers including the US military team at the Wuhan Games in October 2019 (369 members strong, finishing in 38th place).

Two more issues were made public, one that a secret lab may have infected the bat with a manmade virus and that the Chinese themselves were a flawed people for serving foods that were so alien and potentially disgusting, by Western standards.

That narrative, or at least part of it, stands today just as the Harley guy’s 9/11 pancake theory stands.

Now we will address the nature of “process” and how it applies to finding either a true version of the “truth,” if one can excuse such a confusing reference, or admitting that the truth may not be out there at all.

Sometimes “truth” simply doesn’t exist.

My “day job” is as an intelligence briefer, or at least part of it is. I head a team that includes a top nuclear weapons scientist with identifiable credentials at the DOE and IAEA.

The team includes a former Deputy Director of Homeland Security at the US, two high ranking intelligence officials from the US and Russia, a former high-level intelligence briefer for the US Senate and two former FBI officials. It also includes one of the leaders of the European Space Agency and a top WHO official as well, both longtime personal friends.

There are others we can’t mention so easily.

I run briefings, generally to deemed acceptable entities, not banned by the US, including military intelligence officials and political leaders.

Almost nothing that comes out in such a briefing “jibes” with what the press reports. Additionally, everyone in the room accepts as matter of fact that what the public is told is entirely fabricated.

For material to be introduced, it has to pass experts. Let’s say we were talking about the seizure by the Turkish government of Californium, a nuclear material that, in 2019, had fallen into the hands of a group supplying terrorists.

The internet says a “Californium bomb” is a hoax or “pipe dream.” Californium can support a chain reaction with a critical mass that is extremely small, insanely small and put out almost no radiation.

So, why were terrorists, who aren’t all totally stupid, buying $70 million in supposedly “hoax” bomb material?

In order to discuss this intelligently, a team member, in this case a nuclear physicist with weapons experience would address the following questions:

  • Can Californium really make a bomb?
  • How big a bomb?
  • Does a terror group have the capability of creating this weapon?
  • If deployed, how can we identify it and discern its signature from a “fertilizer explosion” or exploding weapons storage facility?
  • How can one defend against such a threat?
  • How can we identify an organization seeking materials to create such as weapon, if such a weapon is indeed a possibility?

This same process applies to COVID 19.

This same process applies, and did apply, to 9/11, yielding a secondary classified finding of demolition by fission or fission/fusion device.

These are just a very few of such subjects. Now imagine that everything that happens has another side, one rarely but occasionally guessed at by internet conspiracy “junkies.”

  • Mass shootings
  • Violence during demonstrations
  • Hacking attacks
  • Allegation of election interference
  • Deaths of prominent figures
  • Large scale tragic events
  • Inexplicable political and social trends

In many cases, not every case, an alternative theory is analyzed carefully and often accepted as “slam dunk” or “probable.” However, this information and the processes used to discern same are not just classified, even discussing them is generally forbidden, no matter how roundabout and obscure the references are.

Worse still, one might accept that the perpetrators of wrongdoing in many if not most or almost all such instances, as part of their “process” began with a fake narrative and assets that could push that narrative forward in the press, in social media and even through organizations at the UN and other international bodies.

This capability, which we know exists, no questions there, has made potential perpetrators, often nation states of quasi-state player intelligence organizations, quite brazen.

Because of this, a secondary process is always applied in every event, that is discerning who benefits and does the capability exist to not only stage such an event but control the narrative as well.

There are never such questions as:

  • Why would they do something so terrible?
  • Aren’t they worried about being caught?

Try bringing that up in a room full of military leaders and the laughter might deafen you.


Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


To the lists of itemised bullshit we should add: ALIEN SIGHTING...



lobbyists run the government...


ICAC urges ban on secret meetings with lobbyists.  In other words, ICAC practitioners imagine a new system for governing…or do they?   What is ‘their system’s’ purpose and how might it work out in the long run?  Some general features pertain.


The professional lobbyist turns up for a conversation with a minister or civil servant. From the ‘credible threat’ to some hard facts and figures, the lobbyist will be case-making for the client – putting the best foot forward. Under these proposed rules, all this would be recorded and made public. Compared to now, how much difference would this make to the government’s decision?


Read more:


Here in Australia, we (some of us) still believe in the sanctity (secular - not religious) of governments... I mean for example, the lobbyists in America RUN THE GOVERNMENT. No need for secret meetings and all that. Read from top. Poor Donald... He had to know that trying to "drain the swamp" was going to leave him naked in the middle of the pond.... Free Julian Assange Now...


fake newsfake news