Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,004
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: − +
→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.<ref>https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/08/12/john-nagl-and-paul-yingling-advocate-oath-breaking/</ref> ''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 one of numerous daily globalist newsletters for the [[administrative state]] and [[military-industrial complex]]. Thomas Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defence College’s Centre for Joint Operations wrote in ''Defense One'':
[[Deep State]] [[subversive]]s openly talked about military intervention in politics and presidential succession in August 2020.<ref>https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/08/12/john-nagl-and-paul-yingling-advocate-oath-breaking/</ref> ''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 one of numerous daily globalist newsletters for the [[administrative state]] and [[military-industrial complex]]. Thomas Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defence College’s Centre for Joint Operations wrote in ''Defense One'':
[[File:Levine Jean-Pierre.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Childhood sweetheart Adm. Dr. Rachel Levine posing with [[LGBT[]] activist and Biden press secretary [[Karine Jean-Pierre]].]]
[[File:Levine Jean-Pierre.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Childhood sweetheart Adm. Dr. Rachel Levine posing with [[LGBT]] activist and Biden press secretary [[Karine Jean-Pierre]].]]
{{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.