Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,419
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: − +
→Deep state coup
==Deep state coup==
==Deep state coup==
{{See also|Transition Integrity Project|U.S. Color Revolution}}
{{See also|Transition Integrity Project|U.S. Color Revolution}}
[[Deep State]] [[subversive]]s openly talked about military intervention in politics and presidential succession in August 2020. ''Defense One'', which describes itself as "a portfolio brand of GovExec, whose market-leading services help contractors support government leaders and their missions," is in short a globalist rag for the [[administrative state]] and [[military-industrial complex]]. Thomas Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defence College’s Centre for Joint Operations writing in wrote in ''Defense One'':
[[Deep State]] [[subversive]]s openly talked about military intervention in politics and presidential succession in August 2020. ''Defense One'', which describes itself as "a portfolio brand of GovExec, whose market-leading services help contractors support government leaders and their missions," is in short a daily globalist news rag for the [[administrative state]] and [[military-industrial complex]]. Thomas Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defence College’s Centre for Joint Operations writing in wrote in ''Defense One'':
{{quotebox-float|"there are two competing visions of the military in the public sphere today. One is the orthodox view, steeped in the reassuring Huntingtonian principles of subordination and nonpartisan, apolitical professionalism. The other is the heterodox view — despised and scorned wherever it appears — that dispenses with the self-serving myth that the military (or indeed any million-person, trillion-dollar organization) can ever be apolitical. Nonpartisan, yes; professional, yes; but never apolitical.
{{quotebox-float|"there are two competing visions of the military in the public sphere today. One is the orthodox view, steeped in the reassuring Huntingtonian principles of subordination and nonpartisan, apolitical professionalism. The other is the heterodox view — despised and scorned wherever it appears — that dispenses with the self-serving myth that the military (or indeed any million-person, trillion-dollar organization) can ever be apolitical. Nonpartisan, yes; professional, yes; but never apolitical.