Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 28, 2019

Endorsing The Deep State Endangers Democracy

Since Donald Trump was elected president the New York Times' understanding of the 'Deep State' evolved from a total denial of its existence towards a full endorsement of its anti-democratic operations.

February 16, 2017 - As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America

A wave of leaks from government officials has hobbled the Trump administration, leading some to draw comparisons to countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where shadowy networks within government bureaucracies, often referred to as “deep states,” undermine and coerce elected governments.

So is the United States seeing the rise of its own deep state?

Not quite, experts say, but the echoes are real — and disturbing.

March 6, 2017 - Rumblings of a ‘Deep State’ Undermining Trump? It Was Once a Foreign Concept

The concept of a “deep state” — a shadowy network of agency or military officials who secretly conspire to influence government policy — is more often used to describe countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders. But inside the West Wing, Mr. Trump and his inner circle, particularly his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, see the influence of such forces at work within the United States, essentially arguing that their own government is being undermined from within.

It is an extraordinary contention for a sitting president to make.

March 10, 2017 - What Happens When You Fight a ‘Deep State’ That Doesn’t Exist

American institutions do not resemble the powerful deep states of countries like Egypt or Pakistan, experts say. Nor do individual leaks, a number of which have come from President Trump’s own team, amount to a conspiracy.

The diagnosis of a “deep state,” those experts say, has the problem backward.
Though Mr. Trump has not publicly used the phrase, allies and sympathetic news media outlets have repurposed “deep state” from its formal meaning — a network of civilian and military officials who control or undermine democratically elected governments — to a pejorative meant to accuse civil servants of illegitimacy and political animus.

September 5, 2018 - I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

December 18, 2018 - Blaming the Deep State: Officials Accused of Wrongdoing Adopt Trump’s Response

President Trump has long tried to explain away his legal troubles as the work of a “deep state” of Obama supporters entrenched in the law-enforcement and national-security bureaucracies who are just out to get him. Now junior officials and others accused of wrongdoing are making the case that the same purported forces are illegitimately targeting them, too.

October 6, 2019 - Italy’s Connection to the Russia Investigation, Explained

President Trump and some of his allies have asserted without evidence that a cabal of American officials — the so-called deep state — embarked on a broad operation to thwart Mr. Trump’s campaign. The conspiracy theory remains unsubstantiated, ...

October 20, 2019 - They Are Not the Resistance. They Are Not a Cabal. They Are Public Servants.

President Trump is right: The deep state is alive and well. But it is not the sinister, antidemocratic cabal of his fever dreams. It is, rather, a collection of patriotic public servants — career diplomats, scientists, intelligence officers and others — who, from within the bowels of this corrupt and corrupting administration, have somehow remembered that their duty is to protect the interests, not of a particular leader, but of the American people.

October 23, 2019 - Trump’s War on the ‘Deep State’ Turns Against Him

[O]ver the last three weeks, the deep state has emerged from the shadows in the form of real live government officials, past and present, who have defied a White House attempt to block cooperation with House impeachment investigators and provided evidence that largely backs up the still-anonymous whistle-blower.

October 26, 2019 - The ‘Deep State’ Exists to Battle People Like Trump

The president and his allies have responded with fury. Those damning testimonials are part of a political vendetta by “Never Trumper” bureaucrats, members of a “deep state” bent on undermining the will of the people, they assert.

But what is this “deep state”? Far from being a tool of political corruption, the Civil Service was created to be an antidote to the very kind of corruption and self-dealing that seems to plague this administration.

This development is disconcerting. If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected officials why should we bother with holding elections?

The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?

Posted by b on October 28, 2019 at 15:52 UTC | Permalink

« previous page | next page »

Let me add to my comment at #99 that it is my understanding that in China, the religion is the state. It is further my understanding that they have 365 or so registered religions in the civilization state but if you belong to any of those you cannot become a China party member, nor rise to any position in the controlling structure.

As I think about it, that makes perfect sense because the state is the religion and all running it need to be believers in that concept and not any other religion.

Others thoughts about that characterization of China and what is needed in the West to evolve beyond the dysfunctional crazy we have now?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 29 2019 1:18 utc | 101

The other thing about the Deep State is that allies and adversaries of the USA/West probably have a much better understanding of the Deep State than Western publics do.

I imagine they snicker when they see inanity like "Trump vs. the Deep State". LOL.

Despite the near universal acclaim for DEMOCRACY, the level of misconceptions, ignorance, and apathy among the general public is shocking. Deep Staters would argue that that's exactly why they are needed.

Neocons long ago dismissed any real role for the public in matters of state.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 29 2019 1:24 utc | 102


First, the 'Deep State' consists of rotten, corrupt, powerful players in key slots in both the State and private spheres - a network that covers military-security, finance, fossil fuels, Silicon Valley, various other 'Bigs'. The door between private and public has been revolving for so long, and the Party politicians' power so attenuated for so long the 'Deep State'is the essential power complex in Washington.

Second, they installed Trump in order to abandon the failed regime-change war in Syria while burying any and all efforts to hold the US (including Clinton, Brennan, top Dem/Reps and mainstream media) or its minions in any way accountable for illegally, unjustifiably destroying a country, then refusing to assist in any way in its reconstruction. Ditto the 'trade war' against China in response to the failures of TPP to garner popular support anywhere. The 'Deep State' makes all the important decisions - the political class now reduced to a pathetic bunch of blathering fools. All one need to do is consider the enormity of the US Empire, the size and complexity of so many of its essential systems, etc.,then look at the collection of clowns running both Parties and the idea a Trump, or Obama, makes the big calls is just too stupid to contemplate.

The coverage of politics ought to seal it for anyone with a brain.

Posted by: Artful Dodger | Oct 29 2019 1:35 utc | 103

Zedd | Oct 28 2019 21:02 utc | 68

Thank you. What I like about that paper and the period it describes is how the placing of pimp boxes in the form of ceramic lions mouths or whatever drove the state into a frenzy and completely overwhelmed the Venetian intelligence gathering and analysis. Seeing a chance to dob in an unruly neighbor or an unfair business practice the citicens poured their allegations out into the receptacles.

Exactly the same thing occurred in the days of the Baader Meinhof gang in Germany as I recall.The west german state started collecting data on the travelers in trains to east germany and then the associates of travelers in each train and then the associates of the associates etc. This was the early days of the technique now called human terrain mapping. It seriously became a bucket of tacky spider webs.

These days it is made easy by facebook, twitter etc but the resultant quagmire remains daunting hence supercomputers.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 29 2019 1:51 utc | 104

The "deep state" is the national security state. As Edward Snowden has pointed out at great personal peril, the government no longer serves the people. The people serve their government in the name of national security. The deep state and its activities are funded by black budgets. The people have no idea how the national security/deep state is spending their money. The people are under surveillance as no population has ever been before in history as we know it. Repeat, this is not government by and for the people, this is not a democracy and it never was a democracy. It is an oligarchical republic that has now evolved into a plutocracy. The leader of this plutocracy is a plutocrat named Donald J Trump who did not win the popular vote and has no mandate to rule.

What you are witnessing, b, what causes you to wring your hands as your notions of proper furherprinzip are tossed aside, and a leader cannot rule even in his own house for all the internal opposition his arrogance and stupidity arouses, what you are witnessing is a leader without a mandate. This leaders gets no respect because he deserves none. Did you notice that the ass-hole-in-chief was soundly booed in the baseball stadium? Did you make a note of that?

This is America, b, it began with a rowdy press that disrespected its leaders, and that is what you bear witness to today. Notice how this idiot president dismisses the press, the "fake news", and you may remember the early days of this republic when His Majesty President Adams tried to lock the journalists up for treason. Study up on that if you are to comment on American affairs. The American people can be perverse, but they have so far not been quite so perverse as the German people have been in recent history.

The president who replaces Trump will not be booed at the World Series. Let's say it is Bernie Sanders. He's going to catch all kinds of hell from the plutocrats and their minions, but he won't be booed at the World Series. He will have a mandate and there won't be impeachment pressure because the American people want medicare-for-all, they want social justice, they don't want the slavery of right wing bullshit free market laissez faire dog-eat-dog capitalism. That's what this prick in the WH represents.

You make many an astute analysis, b, but you are way off the mark when you defend this president and his presidential prerogatives. Outside the national security state, beyond the omniscience of the NSA and the manipulations of the CIA, there is a restive mass of Americans. They are armed and dangerous and increasingly paranoid because their government cannot be trusted and does not deliver.

You have little idea what it means for a president to be booed at the World Series. If you keep whining about law and order I'm not wasting any more time with you.

Posted by: jadan | Oct 29 2019 2:39 utc | 105

I'm no better than anyone else at declining to state the bleeding obvious, but any study of history reveals that the governance of large population always causes some arsehole/s to put their finger on the scales in order to make sure the 'correct' decisions are made.
Initially this was achieved by hereditary titles/ leadership.

The type keenest on governing were often not much chop in a blue, so what had worked in smaller groups - decision by battle challenge, was eventually decreed as being unduly destructive to the clan, making the notion of a cabal forming behind an often figurehead hereditary leader the way to go. The obvious example of societies where that still holds sway is Syria. Bashar al-Assad the eye doctor, was a younger son who had wisely decided to remove himself from intrigue by studying medicine & moving to england. However his siblings failed to outlive their father so when the old man karked it, the ruling cabal known in amerika as the deep state but this need not be a criticism of the Syrian political class - the fact is that over the decades of his leadership Hafez al-Assad had crafted a mainly secular, ruling class. Some of the positions in it, particularly clan leadership and provincial governorships were also hereditary. As always some of these types were corrupt dictatorial and murderous. Some were not and Bashar al-Assad initially really struggled to discern the real motives/agendas of the machine which had persuaded him to accept power 'for the good of Syria' and of course, to protect his extended family many of whom would not survive a 'regime change'.

Now I don't wanna get diverted by Syria for too long and more so don't wanna give idjits an anchorpoint to divert the thread into the same old same old Assad is the greatest thing since sliced bread/ the Assad regime is a bunch of evil motherf++ers when the truth is that Bashir is just another human being capable of errors and cupidity ,but his devotion to keeping Syria a functioning state is beyond question. As is the reality that many of the greediest and most murderous arseholes in the B'athist administration are no longer there. They swapped sides when Syria was facing its darkest days and consequently are dead or in exile.

By the time of 'western enlightenment' it became apparent that increasingly informed populations wouldn't accept such ludicrous notions as the divine right of kings, so alternatives were needed.
Just about every 'democracy' more than 100 years old went through a time when only men and land-owning men at that, were permitted to vote.
That was hoped to provide sufficient 'stability' to permit the deep state/ruling cabal to remain firmly in control. Then just as now issues viewed as peripheral by that ruling class, were used as a means to tell pols apart and divert the voters. Slavery was a big one in early 19th century england. A hot button topic whose outcome would not hugely affect most englanders which ever way they voted, as england had more than enough cut price labour making slaves unprofitable there, in the main.

But englanders had a big stake in the business of abducting and transporting humans to areas of labour market shortage, such as amerika's south, Brazil or the Caribbean. So all halfway decent humans in england were against the slave trade whilst all greedy materialism-is-my-god types, supported a continuation of it.
Check our parliamentary reporting of the early to mid Victorian era. Slavery was a biggie.
An ideal subject for political division given the eventual outcome was irrelevant politically & economically to most englanders. (see gay marriage or arcane aspects of abortion for contemporary equivalencies).

But there were still problems for the ruling class, as suffrage was forced to a wider more diverse population the risk of a populist pol un-indebted to the cabal was greatly increased. So then the concept of political parties, where 'like-minded' types with similar interests were grouped together and, best of all'self-selection' as it were, went out the door infavour of leadership candidates were selected by a process of groupthink which was supported by the compliant media, by that time in the hands of fellow members of the ruling elite.

So here we are. Stuck in the middle with y'all.

All sorts of devices have been tried to rip power out of the hands of all those who are sufficiently greedy, self-motivated and deceitful to grab all the power going, yet nothing works for long, eventually a corrupt parody of the architects' design arises, takes control and then it is all over red rover - again.

I've left out some big chunks (cos I'm lazy 'n you're bored) but the thing is that as long as there is so much seperation between 'leaders' and the population, that the leaders need some third party device to control communication, there will always be a ruling elite.

The only way we can ensure that leaders (if we continue to believe them necessary) are an accurate reflection of citizens needs & wants, is if we live in self-governing communities small enough that citizens have various formal and informal information carrying vectors that they can make an honest untainted assessment.

No easy task since most humans who live in nation states with vast populations (more than 10 million) have been indoctrinated since birth to believe that big ain't just beautiful, it is more efficient, less corrupt and patriotic. Three huge lies which when combined with "we are the greatest jingoism", create a huge re-education task.

Posted by: A User | Oct 29 2019 2:55 utc | 106

A User
Perfidious Albion came up with a method of keeping the peasants from revolting. Sort of like opium in China but for domestic use hopium. Like playing a fish. Give it a bit of line then reel it back in. They had to let out quite a bit of line due to communism but that has passed and the voters hooked on hopium get reeled back in.
Whats best... hereditary leadership still works in some cultures but can also turn to shit.
I guess the best rule for judging leadership, is do they bring peace and prosperity to the people.

Churchill said "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

But I am starting to doubt that. Democracy brings the illusion that votes will change things when everything turns to shit. Democracy relies on voters having accurate information and informed judgements. The achilles heel of democracy
Whats best... a small group of people all know each other. Respect for elders and elders making decisions works in smaller societies, but large nations...
My thought now is, a leadership is good no matter how it comes to power, so long as they are genuinely working towards peace and prosperity for the people of that nation.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 29 2019 3:37 utc | 107

So Trump has called for a "surge" (his word) of military-armed police forces to sweep across the US, culling out what he and the DoJ consider the dangerous criminals that make places like Chicago "worse than Afghanistan". To this end, Bill Barr has a new "crackdown plan" and the cops will be given $600 worth of military hardware. Just the day before yesterday, we also heard about Barr's other new policy, which allows even more spying on US'ians for thought crimes.

Don't tell me this shit is normal. I've never seen a US president who so hated the people of the country he "serves", nor one who was so inclined to pit people against each other. Trump is a hateful piece of shit.

Posted by: Teri | Oct 29 2019 8:43 utc | 108

The sense of denial is ingrained into American political discourse.

I suspect that a lot of regulars to this site also visit Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, and those who do will know that the Good Colonel is a million light years from the NYTs in his political views.

Yet if you ran b's ruler over the SST website you would see Pat Lang taking almost the same journey: initially pouring scorn on the idea that a "Deep State" was even possible in the USA, through obfuscating arguments about what the definition of "Deep State" is, to the present where (apparently, though who knows what tomorrow will bring?) he thunders fire and brimstone against the forces of that "Deep State".

Quite the journey.

Good to see he isn't alone, of course, though a bit dismaying that it look so long for both the NYT and SST to see what was right in front of them all this time.

That will be Mueller's enduring legacy, apparently....

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 29 2019 9:04 utc | 109

Zedd #71

What went wrong on your URL post? I think you posted the URL into the headline part of the formula where normally you place the word that triggers the URL. Many ways to do this that might simplify it and give more accuracy.

Copy the desired command line from the area above the text to the right of name, email, URL.

Then copy the URL that you wish to insert and highlight URL between the " marks and paste.

After blooping a few I ALWAYS preview first and make final edits. Then post.

Alternatively I have a word document setup with the html codes as above the MOA comment box and prepare responses on that document in splitscreen mode. The copy and paste into the MOA text box. And PREVIEW to be certain formatting is tight. Not easy on my tablet better on the big screen with a mouse.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 29 2019 9:39 utc | 110

Teri #108

He sure is one hateful piece of shit. Almost as hateful as Hillary or Debbie wassername Schultz.

Trump is tryingto immitate Duterte of the Philippines government. They have a serious problem there and just advocates immediate execution of drug dealers. Trump likes that.

I do believe it has merit in the case of the princes and princesses of private finance capitalists. Not that I am violent but more a believer in immediate karma for the destroyers of our planet.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 29 2019 9:53 utc | 111

IMO, the deep states unipolar, one world government stance is antithetical to our sovereignty and independence. It's major goals seems to be submission of all to the multinational corporations and the multinational banks. No thank you.

Posted by: lizzie dw | Oct 29 2019 11:24 utc | 112

The 'Times' is now engaged in a DDS attack: denial of deep state.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Oct 29 2019 11:28 utc | 113

There is nothing remotely new about the deep state. Always follow the money.

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

- Woodrow Wilson- "The New Freedom" (1913)

Trump winning the election was a classic Black Swan event even for the people (I.E.- families) Wilson was referring to in 1913.

Which is why all of the MIC intel rats have been forced to come out of their holes. They got caught flat footed.


Posted by: Larry | Oct 29 2019 11:30 utc | 114

@ jadan

>> If you keep whining about law and order I'm not wasting any more time with you.

I think you judge b unfairly. Also, I hope you continue to “waste” time here at the bar, because, though I disagree with some of it, you’ve said some interesting things here and IIRC at WashingtonsBlog.

Posted by: oglalla | Oct 29 2019 11:52 utc | 115

To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut,
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the planet.

Posted by: Amerikanski | Oct 29 2019 11:55 utc | 116

@ Posted by: A User | Oct 29 2019 2:55 utc | 106

That may be the official narrative, but not the real story.

During most of capitalism's History, there was no democracy in the sense of universal suffrage. Vote was sensitary (i.e. you had to own a minimum amount of land and wealth to vote). Governments ruled as they wished without worries about how the vast majority of the people felt. This was the liberal era, the world of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, considered by some as the golden age of capitalism (the "Belle Epoque").

This era lasted until the Paris Commune of 1871, after which there was an unstable period -- marked by a long economic depression that would preclude the end of British supremacy -- that would last until WWI. This era was marked by the crisis of classical capitalism and the rise of socialism/communism in Europe. It is from the socialists/communists -- not some kind of enlightened elite -- that came the popular pressure necessary to impose universal suffragre across the subcontinent. Democracy in the modern sense of the word is a socialist/communist invention, not a capitalist one.

The spread of universal suffrage across Europe, which culminated in the end of WWI, gave rise to fascism -- an anti-socialist/communist ideology custom-made by the capitalist elites in order to fight for the vote on the streets against the reds. This worked out in Italy and then in Germany; in the other capitalist nations, success came by dividing the socialist movement into communist and non-communist "lefts". By the end of WWII, every major union in the First World was avidly anti-communist.

Posted by: vk | Oct 29 2019 12:14 utc | 117

@ #24 robert snefjela

Lucid comment on democracy and the election of Trump. However, Trump posing as anti-globalist patriot heroically confronting the deep state is another of his lies. He represents the enemy he's ostensibly fighting and is a clear example of the failure of our electoral process which is the deepest of deep state betrayals of American democratic aspirations.

Posted by: jadan | Oct 29 2019 12:16 utc | 118

@Gruff47. Thank you for your reply. I couldn't help noticing there was nothing in there about the Electoral College, and its granting Trump a POTUShip. If the deep state exists to protect and further enrich the already rich, I'm not sure how Trump isn't part of that club. Everything Trump has done so far furthers this stated by you purpose of the 'deep state'. I humbly disagree that nobody knew until 2016, as Leonard Cohen released Everybody knows on an aptly named album I'm your man in 1988. I would also humbly submit that previous to that the deep state was know as, in no particular order; 'they' 'tptb' 'illuminati' 'masons' ect ect. Unless it can be explained how an organization that makes plans that span generations, assassinates presidents and other formidable perceived opponents, just ignores the easiest way to rig an election (The Electoral College)I will have see Trump as a swamp thing.

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Oct 29 2019 12:36 utc | 119

@79 Thank you. As regards the drug angle, Henrik Kruger's "The Great Heroin Coup" is a fascinating read.

Posted by: Cherrycoke | Oct 29 2019 12:38 utc | 120

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Oct 29 2019 12:36 utc | 121

"I couldn't help noticing there was nothing in there about the Electoral College, and its granting Trump a POTUShip....the easiest way to rig an election (The Electoral College)I will have see Trump as a swamp thing."

I've never understood all the shouting about the 2016 Electoral College. It's illogical.

Unless people think Clinton and her campaign were ignorant of it, which is absurd, then of course she was focused on winning the most electoral votes within that system, same as Trump. It was nice to get the most popular votes, but that was never what Clinton was trying to do.

No matter how you slice it, Clinton was an extremely incompetent campaigner who ran an extremely stupid campaign.

Posted by: Russ | Oct 29 2019 13:06 utc | 121

@seth-r 84

good point about Trump's definition of the Deep State being reduced to just closet Obama supporters in the FBI etc. And this reduced definition is now, often but not always, the straw-man version in the media.

Posted by: ptb | Oct 29 2019 13:08 utc | 122

Russ @122: Yes, that is the bottom line on the Trump, Clinton, and the 2016 election, Trump absolutely cleaned her clock, stole her cookies, and ate her lunch. An embarassment from start to finish. A more exposed and naked emperor is difficult to imagine. I still remember the expression on her face that night.

And of course this must be forever denied.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 29 2019 13:33 utc | 123

Don't tell me this shit is normal. I've never seen a US president who so hated the people of the country he "serves", nor one who was so inclined to pit people against each other. Trump is a hateful piece of shit.

Posted by: Teri | Oct 29 2019 8:43 utc | 108

Yes this shit is normal. I lived through the Nixon Administration, and he was just as hateful. The Nixon tapes recorded his ugliness at his finest. He particularly hated "The Blacks" and "The Jews" and "The Hippies". He started The War On Poor People and The War On Drug (users) in order to keep "The Blacks" and "The Hippies" under control.

It was easier for underlings to cover up Nixon's hate since it was before Twitter. Vice President Spiro T Agnew used to attack the press regularly, until he got caught in some kind of scandal, which I can't be bothered to recall or look up. Here is a quote regarding the press that I recall from Agnew:

Nattering Nabobs of Negativity

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 29 2019 13:35 utc | 124

A desperate (last?) attempt to save American liberalism ("vital center") by an American superstar historian:

The Center Does Not Hold: Jill Lepore’s awkward embrace of the nation.

Against a “postmodernism” that she claims suffuses left-wing and right-wing politics, the prolific historian and New Yorker staff writer makes her case for a liberal patriotism and the reasonableness of the center.

Posted by: vk | Oct 29 2019 13:43 utc | 125

Bemildred @123:

Yes ... Trump absolutely cleaned her clock, stole her cookies, and ate her lunch.

You agree with Russ then twist his words.

You're translating Hillary's failure into Trump genius.

IMO that's q propaganda narrative.

Why did an experienced campaigner, with every advantage, lose the election? Why did Hillary make such egregious mistakes, while newcomer Trump got virtually everything right?

I still remember the expression on her face that night.

Really? Our politicians are ACTORS/ACTRESSES.

I can still remember the expression on Circe's face as the castle came crashing down on her and her brother in the series Game of Thrones. So what?

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

Jackrabbit !!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 29 2019 13:58 utc | 126

jadan @118

Well said!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 29 2019 14:00 utc | 127

Soooo, Russia doesn't have a Deep State???

Who cares anyway! Trump is the Other Deep State by another name...Z-DeepState. I hope the other Deep State send your boy that you never cease to defend to Guantanamo whimpering.

Posted by: Circe | Oct 29 2019 14:08 utc | 128

@94 Jackrabbit

And don't forget Trump and his 1st line of defense amigos: William Barr, Lindsey Graham, Rudy Giuliani to name some and the super billionaire Zioligarchs who line all their pockets.

Posted by: Circe | Oct 29 2019 14:14 utc | 129

Deep State slowly, but inexorably, getting out of the bush:

READ: Army officer to tell investigators he twice reported concerns over Trump's Ukraine dealings

You would expect this kind of nonsense to happen only in Third World banana republics, not in the capital of the Free World, the USA.

Posted by: vk | Oct 29 2019 14:14 utc | 130

Some further commentary on Clinton's political brilliance and instinctive smarts:

Russian Assets and Realignment as the Dems Morph into Neocons

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 29 2019 14:21 utc | 131

Russ says:

It was nice to get the most popular votes, but that was never what Clinton was trying to do

yeah, curious that as well, 'cause she must have noticed that while Trump was filling multiple large venues to capacity, in state after state, leaving throngs of avid fans queued at the doors, she was having a hard time finding an audience at all.

i guess she planned to win just by manipulating the polls and the media.

as would be her wont.

Posted by: john | Oct 29 2019 14:25 utc | 132


The USA is not the Free World neither with your boy Tromp (Deceiver-in-chief) as the quintessential banana repulik generalissimo.

Posted by: Circe | Oct 29 2019 14:28 utc | 133

You know, this al Baghdadi caper is starting to remind me of the same flawed imaginations that gave us the Skripal story and so many others since 9/11 ushered the "we make our own reality" people into power. They smuggled his dirty underwear out to get it DNA tested make sure it was him before they went in. Suuuuuure they did. They were selling tickets and arguing over who got to go along is more like it.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 29 2019 14:30 utc | 134

"...the deep state exists to protect and further enrich the already rich..." --Tannenhouser @121

Very true, but it is important to note that in years past the "deep state"/establishment was more amorphous and blob-like. To be sure, organizations like certain exclusive brotherhoods and "secret societies" steered portions of the "deep state", but there was competition between them and little overall cohesiveness.

Or rather, there was cohesiveness in that these exclusive brotherhoods and "secret societies" were/are composed of powerful businessmen and financial/industrial oligarchs. While these individuals form factions and compete for dominance among each other there are common interests that unite them; specifically, maintaining capitalism itself and defeating efforts by the working class to organize itself.

Then capitalism found itself against the ropes in the middle of last century. Capitalism needed something better and more organized than their business round tables and "Skull & Bones" style clubs to defeat the working class. To address this need the CIA was created to be a "deep state" of the "deep state"... to give the capitalists a united front against the working class. You can now think of the CIA as a kind of nervous system for the "deep state".

So there are still factions within the capitalist oligarchy, but now only one faction can control the CIA, and thus the "deep state", at a time.

The Electoral College is just part of the Democracy Show. The rules for that portion of the show are pretty well understood by many in the population so arbitrarily changing the rules for that part will disrupt what faith the population has in the rest of the show. The "deep state"/establishment would need a very convincing narrative to cover such a change and they didn't have one in the pipeline. Why would they bother having such a Plan B waiting in the wings when a Trump win was inconceivable anyway? To my knowledge the only major personage to call a Trump win ahead of November 9 was Michael Moore, and he is treated to disdain and derision by the establishment. The Trump win so completely caught the "deep state" by surprise that they had no contingency plans for it. As the night of November 9 went on and they began to realize what was happening with the electorate they cooked the vote counts as much as they could in the remaining digital/paperless voting districts, but by that point it was too late. By the time the establishment knew what was happening there was nothing that they could do that wouldn't wreck the public's faith in the whole Democracy Show.

Anyway, Trump is absolutely part of the oligarchy that controls the "deep state". He is not really part of the faction within that oligarchy that currently holds the reins, but his interests are not so much at odds with that faction. You should note that I have never once suggested otherwise, and those who insist upon claiming that I am saying Trump is some sort of anti-oligarchy crusader are either stupid or deliberately promoting FUD.

So if Trump is part of the oligarchy and thus more aligned with than opposed to the deep state/establishment, why the over-the-top hysterical reaction from the deep state/establishment to Trump winning? There are two principal causes for this overreaction. First is the brutal shock that what they believed to be a foolproof plan failed so spectacularly. This violated their entire understanding of how the world works at very fundamental levels, like waking up on November 10th to find a big smiley face as a new permanent feature on the Sun. This caused no small number of people even outside the deep state/establishment to become unhinged and literally go insane, but it was worse for the insiders. This first cause for the overreaction by the deep state/establishment has nothing to do with Trump at all, and would be the same regardless of who the deep state/establishment had chosen to be the electoral foil for Clinton.

The second principal cause for the deep state/establishment hysteria starting on November 10 of that fateful year was that they had deliberately chosen a candidate whom they viewed as the most inappropriate and repulsive person that they could find to run against Clinton to make sure she won... and now he was President! Entirely apart from the impossibility and incomprehensibility of how that could have come to pass, their best example of the worst possible President ever was now President! Mental meltdowns abounded. In every characteristic that they (deep state/establishment strategists) could think of Trump was the diametric opposite of what a good President should be, and in their arrogant and egotistical blindness they assumed that opinion on Trump would be almost universal.

In other words, Trump was deliberately chose by the deep state/establishment to be their own nightmare President.

To wrap up, perhaps you personally believed that the Illuminati and the Masons were secretly running the world, but for the vast majority of the population that was (and even with the exposure of the deep state, still is) crazy talk.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 29 2019 14:36 utc | 135

The 'Times' is now engaged in a DDS attack: denial of deep state.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Oct 29 2019 11:28 utc | 113

In USA, "acceptance" and "denial" are linked as a part of a process, but in actuality, they are frequently fused and used at the same time.

A classic that illustrates the concept: "We never tortured. I repeat: we never tortured. And they were worst of the worst, they all deserved it".

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 29 2019 14:43 utc | 136

Re Bemildred 131

I don't know if people have seen the meme contained in this piece, but it's one of my favorites ever.

Posted by: Russ | Oct 29 2019 14:43 utc | 137

Here's how evil deep state your Trump is. He's taking control of Syria's oilfields to bribe the Kurds with oil revenues, keep profts for ZUSA once Exxon gets in there and especially to deny access to the oilfields to Syria and Russia. Convoys have been rolling into Eastern Syria from Iraq, and yet here you are wasting your talent and efforts defending Trumpcon from Deep State. Seriiiiously? 🙄

Posted by: Circe | Oct 29 2019 14:49 utc | 138

Posted by: john | Oct 29 2019 14:25 utc | 132

"i guess she planned to win just by manipulating the polls and the media. as would be her wont."

Certainly, and why not! Computer models, focus groups, professionals up the yin-yang, it's technocracy city. Everything that works so well everywhere else in reality.

On a less comical note, almost every NGO, whatever its nominal mission, aspires to exactly that same Eldorado of effective corporate fund-raising and deliberate lack of action or results. (Although I think both system NGOs and the Democratic Party really give their supporters exactly what they want, and don't really fool or "disappoint" anybody.)

Posted by: Russ | Oct 29 2019 14:50 utc | 139

Russ @137: Yeah, that's perfect, I'm more a hippie-anarchist type than conservative Trumpist, but good God the Clinton's have been a f**king disaster everywhere they have showed up. Can we not agree on that? Sort of our own Lenin Moreno treasonous grifters here that ran left and then governed IMF/Wall-Street long before that guy down in Ecuador now copied them.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 29 2019 14:56 utc | 140

Russ says:

Although I think both system NGOs and the Democratic Party really give their supporters exactly what they want, and don't really fool or "disappoint" anybody

yeah, it's where the top-down forces of the deep state actually jive with the bottom-up forces of the public domain.

Posted by: john | Oct 29 2019 15:10 utc | 141

can any of the geniuses who know what the deep state is, and what it is doing, tell me if trump is going to get impeached, or be the glorious leader for 4 more years? what is the deep states game plan on trump at this point? thanks..

Posted by: james | Oct 29 2019 15:12 utc | 142

speaking of deep state, i enjoyed larry johnsons rant at the ron paul institute, which was shared at sst yesterday...

My Speech on the Deep State Plot by Larry C Johnson

Posted by: james | Oct 29 2019 15:26 utc | 143

he has a beard and he is not wearing a tie.. i trust him, lol...

Posted by: james | Oct 29 2019 15:27 utc | 144

@ Posted by: james | Oct 29 2019 15:12 utc | 142

We still don't know if Trump will be impeached or not. The game is still being played.

Trump is definitely not the preferred candidate of the deep state. Evidence for this is the fact that, at the end of the 2016 race, he had to disburse USD 1 billion from his personal wealth in order to finance the rest of his campaign because at that stage no big business was willing to donate anymore. This period of the race also coincides with the part where Trump begins to desperately appeal to the working classes in a last burst to try to win the decisive votes of the Rust Belt (this worked).

If it wasn't for the technicalities of the American electoral system, which is by land, not by person (electoral college), we would be talking here about POTUS Hillary Clinton. Trump effectivelly won because 77,000 votes happened to be cast for him in very specific places of specific States. That's also a reason why the narrative that "Jill Stein stole the election from Hillary" is bogus: even if she didn't exist, Trump would've won with the electoral college system.

When the electoral college votes pointed to a comfortable Trump victory, some very timid voices in the MSM cogitated for these delegates to ignore their States decisions where Hillary won by the popular vote and cast for the Democrat candidate. This is unheard of in the entire history of the USA, where the electoral delegate as a personification of the ballot of his State is sacrosanct. But his highlights the fact that Trump definitely wasn't the preferred candidate of the deep state.

Jane Meyer's "Dark Money", published before Trump was a thing, confirms Trump was definitely an outsider of the GOP machine (i.e. outside of the Koch brothers' electoral machine). She's a rabid liberal and, after 2016, a fanatic Russophobe, so she wouldn't have a reason to lie with that information.

Posted by: vk | Oct 29 2019 15:42 utc | 145

This is getting crazy(ier) --
"Army officer says he raised concerns about Trump and Ukraine" . .here

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 29 2019 15:57 utc | 146

re Posted by: vk | Oct 29 2019 12:14 utc | 117
I don't understand your point you blathered ie:

"That may be the official narrative, but not the real story. During most of capitalism's History, there was no democracy in the sense of universal suffrage."

I explicitly stated that universal suffrage was slow to roll out. Initially being given only to 'trusted' property holders eg:
"Just about every 'democracy' more than 100 years old went through a time when only men and land-owning men at that, were permitted to vote.
That was hoped to provide sufficient 'stability' to permit the deep state/ruling cabal to remain firmly in control."

Q/ If you don't bother to read something properly why bother commenting on it?

A ideologues and social misfits desperately scratch around for something anything to mark their bland f+++ing world view like a stray dog pissing on a fence?
I dunno but it is frustrating. This issue is far removed from whatever ideology the arseholes in power have lulled the citizenry to sleep with or what some ancient wannabe/never will be has infected idjits with. I am well aware of what happened post the interregnum in the 20th european conflict which euros & amerikans self reverentially claim to have been a 'world war' when in fact it was just the usual, a mob of greedy thieves fell out over division of spoils so badly they almost lost control to an alternative gang of greedies. That doesn't change my point one iota.

There is no systemic change that doesn't become corrupted by self serving slimes, be it hereditary power, 'democratically' elected power or centralised state capitalism allegedly in the name of the people.

Monopolies of control evolve frequently in the space of a single generation and citizens lose, every time leadership encompasses too large a population for the citizens to be able to independently judge WTF is happening. Hence the diversions popular among neolib pols which are nothing new just the same old same old distract the mugs rorts which dingbats have been lapping up since they stupidly lapped up the idea that someone else could take care of it all, there is no need to worry themselves with such complex matters, god/the people/your betters have found just the leader to take care of it all.

Posted by: A User | Oct 29 2019 16:07 utc | 147

Bemildred 140

"I'm more a hippie-anarchist type than conservative Trumpist, but good God the Clinton's have been a f**king disaster everywhere they have showed up. Can we not agree on that?"

Agree completely on the Clintons. (Throw in Obama too.) First-worst and most odious among equals in a system of arch-criminals. (To keep this somewhat on topic, the deep state is one faction among the oligopoly system of organized crime.)

At heart I'm a hippie-anarchist myself. In fact I used to be an anarchist, though I gave that up for several reasons.

Posted by: Russ | Oct 29 2019 16:08 utc | 148

james @142--

IMO, Trump, like Clinton, will be impeached for all the wrong reasons and be exonerated as the Senate refuses to convict. What's most important, IMO is when in relation to the whole electoral process. However, in the process, Biden and the DNC will get savaged, while Sanders and Gabbard move closer together and begin to act like a duo instead of competitors as we head into the Primary Season. Thus, impeachment is something the Current Oligarchy doesn't want to see happen, which is why Pelosi didn't want to allow it but then caved although she's still against it along with other DNC D-Party critters. R-Party critters have an excellent opportunity to destroy the Clinton Foundation and ruin the DNC which is almost symbiotic with the Foundation. IMO, destroying the Clinton Foundation is one of the most Patriotic actions the R-Party could accomplish as that would also purge a lot of the manipulators from the DNC--none of which the Current Oligarchy wants to see occur as what all this infighting will ultimately allow is for the continuing rise of Sanders and Gabbard, both of which present a far greater nightmare than Trump.

That's how I see things as of now. It's entirely possible wiser heads within the D-Party faction of the Current Oligarchy also see the above potentialities and are able to call off the Impeachment Hounds to prevent the R-Party attack on the Clinton Foundation and thus greatly weaken the DNC so that Sanders and Gabbard can be contained and prevented from being nominated. (IMO, a Sanders/Gabbard ticket would win in a genuine landslide with 60%+ of the vote.)

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 16:27 utc | 149

karlofi 149

what all this infighting will ultimately allow is for the continuing rise of Sanders and Gabbard, both of which present a far greater nightmare than Trump.

Clarification: You mean a "greater nightmare than Trump" for the "Current Oligarchy"?

Posted by: Evelyn | Oct 29 2019 16:38 utc | 150

@gruff135. Wow gruff. Slow down. Do I have this right? Trump is part of the deep state but not part of the deep state that matters? That and it's ok to believe in a 'deep state' that came about in 2016, but crazy to think in days past an observant citizen might describe it as 'illuminati'. Is that correct? Do you realize you have suggested I put words in your mouth and am either stupid or deliberately FUDing because I quoted your words? On top of that you suggest I'm crazy because I suggest other names for the centuries old 'deep state' are illuminati, masons AND they ECT ECT in regards to your contention that the deep state arrived in 2016? All the while no explanation as to how such a powerful group as the deep state ignores the easiest way to rig an election for POTUS. HMMMM... no offense intended, but why do I feel so covered in Gruff FUD?
Seriously.... just wow. Thanks for your effort Gruff.

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Oct 29 2019 16:43 utc | 151

This is before I read comments on the second (and third?)page, but after I finished the Hersh piece b posted on the weekend thread.

My conclusion on that was that indeed Deep State operations have reached the stage where neither propaganda during elections nor sanctions after them are all-powerful ways of destroying a candidate elected at the will of the people, but the final desperate attempt to influence a course of events favorable to the oligarchy is to infiltrate and corrupt the army, which happened in the Allende overthrow. In Cuba, this did not happen. Why? I think it could have been a combination of reasons. First, the army was cohesive and faithful to Castro. But secondly, and this is wishful thinking I know, it may have been that Kennedy was not wholehearted in following this shameful policy. Just as we wishfully think of Trump that he too isn't or hasn't been wholeheartedly following this Deep State we now see acting like a bull in a china shop.

I don't say Trump is Kennedy - he isn't. Still, Cuba did survive, and maybe it had a modicum of help. As we would wish for the South America governments in embryo at present.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 29 2019 16:56 utc | 152

Evelyn @150--

Yes, Sanders and Gabbard both threaten the Current Oligarchy's fundamental interests such that Trump actually acts as a protector, as would Biden and Clinton. Recall, Trump only became a nightmare for one or more factions within the Current Oligarchy--those that supported and expected Clinton to win. What I find most odd about the entire affair going back to pre-convention 2016 was the idea floated by the Ds that it would be wise to create an insurance policy lest Trump somehow win and then have it acted upon by Obama. That Obama did so and swiftly IMO was due to the fact of the factional split within the Current Oligarchy that was providing Trump with support as we learned from Pepe Escobar. If there'd been unanimity amongst the Current Oligarchy, Clinton would have won--she wasn't beaten by Deplorables; she was beaten by members of her own class, thus her unhinged rage as she feels she was--again--stabbed in the back.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 16:58 utc | 153

Defining the Deep State is tough. I used the elites or the PTB vague on purpose, not referring to the upper bourgeoisie, aka the 10% or 20% top income + wealth ppl, but to corporate power, ppl in sitting at important decisionary nodes - ex. military, in Gvmt., health, agri - banking ..I have to change vocab I guess. In view of many posts up above.. much food for thought.

—-Sidebar. Who influences whom and how is best attacked *imho* in a restricted, defined area or topic, a case study, for ex. USA: Big Pharma and drug prices — procurement for US army — electricity grid - analysis of all the supposed biochem attacks in Syria - etc. etc. ---

A recent poll by FOX shows that trust in what one might call the ‘democratic’ *public* face of US politics is v. low while that in behind the scenes or those with power over the ‘democracy’ arrangement is quite high. (No fan of polls, yet see high contrast..)

Majorities of voters have faith in U.S. intelligence agencies and the Supreme Court, while less than half feel that way about the media, Congress, and Donald Trump, according to the latest Fox News Poll conducted October 6-8. (..) Almost 7 in 10 voters have confidence in the FBI (69 percent), Supreme Court (68 percent), and the CIA (66 percent), according to the latest Fox News Poll.

The institutions mentioned don’t overlap with the ‘Deep State’ but do show v. strong allegiance to Powerful Elements, the PTB, the real leaders, arbitrators, as opposed to the ‘rabble’ that can get elected. I find that rather disquieting.

link to poll results is in the arcticle.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 29 2019 17:19 utc | 154

karlof1 @153: If there'd been unanimity amongst the Current Oligarchy, Clinton would have won

Hillary lost the election by making dumb mistakes. Mistakes that no seasoned campaigner would make. Which is rather suspicious.

Why do so many want to ignore / whitewash that?

Jackrabbit !!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 29 2019 17:29 utc | 155

"Do I have this right? Trump is part of the deep state but not part of the deep state that matters?" --Tannenhouser @151


Trump is not "part of the deep state" at all. Not even remotely.

Maybe you misunderstood because my sentences were too long so I will try to be brief. Trump is part of the oligarchy that rules the deep state.

There are two different entities here. First is the oligarchy. These are the billionaire business elites. Trump is one of these. Second is an entirely different group. These are the billionaires' hired help, sycophants, and minions. This is the population from which the deep state is drawn. These are individuals hoping for favors from the oligarchy and in positions of influence.

The roles in society are completely different for these two groups, so it is useful to learn the distinction.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 29 2019 17:43 utc | 156

james @142

Well, I'm already on record as saying that Demo-rats will offer Biden-Tulsi and they will be beaten by Trump.

Talk of Tulsi going 'third-party' is ludicrous. Tulsi will run for the Senate as a Democrat (and win) after the 2020 race.

I also said REMAIN would prevail in UK and we are on the way to that result via elections. So many really really REALLY believed that BoJo would deliver Brexit on Oct 31. LMAO.

Jackrabbit !!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 29 2019 17:45 utc | 157

William Gruff @156

IMO Deep State managers have become more powerful than the model you describe.

In similar fashion to large US companies where management calls the shots and stockholders accept their decisions and huge pay packages.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 29 2019 17:50 utc | 158

Noirette @154--

That poll isn't as far off base or as paradoxical as it might seem, after all the American Public was deemed to be a People of Paradox. I suggest also reading this article posted at Gallup's website. This recent poll and associated article, "Mentions of Government as Top U.S. Problem Near Record High," is also an important barometer. Do note what it says about unifying the country as an important issue. Clearly respondents don't sense the Civil War possibility being touted by both D & R pundits. Some find Gallup's website hard to navigate initially since there's no button that says Polls. Go here then select from the drop-down menu to the right of "News" to access the numerous polls Gallup conducts.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 17:51 utc | 159

Thanks, uncle tungsten @ 110, that is a solution non-tech folk can follow, I think. I've left out the word document bit, but I like your blooping comment - that would be me.

save the format;
paste in format on post
erase b's http quote or whatever instruction and substitute your http stuff.
and if needed
erase b's headline and bracketed instruction, substitute your headline

Then, always preview!

I will try that in future. Again, thanks! You have made things simple for me, and I hope others.

Always preview!!

Posted by: juliania | Oct 29 2019 18:00 utc | 160

William Gruff @156--

In addition if I may: There are times when members of the Current Oligarchy also operate within the Deep State as was the case with Clinton. Employees like Obama can ascend to the Current Oligarchy while a Deep State member. So, the demarcations aren't solid. As Prouty put it in The Secret Team:

"For the purposes of this historical study, the choice of the word 'Team' is most significant. It is well known that the members of a team, as in baseball or football, are skilled professionals under the direct control of someone higher up. They do not create their own game plan. They work for their coach and their owner. There is always some group that manages them and 'calls the plays'. Team members are like lawyers and agents, they work for someone. They generally do not plan their work. They do what their client tells them to do. For example: this is true of agents in the Central Intelligence Agency. It is an 'Agency' and not a 'Department' and its employees are highly skilled professionals who perform the functions their craft demands of them. Thus, the members of the highest level 'Secret Team' work for their masters despite the fact that their own high office may make it appear to others that they, themselves are not only the Team but the Power Elite."

Note Prouty uses C. Wright Mills's term for the Current Oligarchy--The Power Elite. For those who have never heard or read Prouty's extremely required book, it's available at the above link. Yes it's dated and the events it describes are too, but the dynamic and system involved remain the same, thus its continuing importance.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 18:18 utc | 161

I am wondering if, as b ends in his post, Trump could actually install his version of the Deep State upon election. I don't think that has been possible for the many years since the original became operative, though the impeachment of Nixon on Watergate charges set them back considerably. It doesn't seem to me thaat this is a party issue but an underground ongoing river that functions well when the public doesn't know it is there.

Awareness could well be the chief factor. And Don Bacon's post at 146 is to me utterly chilling. The military is coming into the picture and that is very scary indeed.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 29 2019 18:25 utc | 162

From Don Bacon's link:

"..."I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics," wrote Vindman, who was wounded in Iraq and awarded a Purple Heart."

This is where it gets dangerous.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 29 2019 18:29 utc | 163

cherrycoke @120

Thanks. The Great Heroin Coup sounds excellent!

It uncovers the alliances between the Mafia, right-wing extremists, neo-fascist OAS and SAC veterans in France, and Miami-based Cuban exiles.

I recommend as well Barry and the Boys by Hopsicker and The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror by Hoffman.

The former is the story of Barry Seal and the Clinton Arkansas cabal that was flying cocaine into Arkanasa. It is an American version of "The Great Heroin Coup" with the addition of a cast of thousands that those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s will recognize. It's pricey, so an interlibrary loan may be the way to go.

Adler Berriman "Barry" Seal was a Trans World Airlines pilot who became a major drug smuggler for the Medellín Cartel. When Seal was convicted of smuggling charges, he became an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration and testified in several major drug trials.

The Oklahoma City book is the Rosetta stone for false flag ops with their simultaneous agency drills, disappearing CCTV evidence and government infiltration of right wing groups.

Posted by: pogohere | Oct 29 2019 18:38 utc | 164

161 Cont'd--

It ought to be noted that C Wright Mills book The Power Elite was published in 1956. Consider the second paragraphs in this essay, "The Structure of Power in American Society," British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 9 No. 1 (Mar 1958), 29-41, by Mills as it relates to our topic and dilemma:

"We cannot today merely assume that in the last resort men must always be governed by their own consent. For among the means of power that now prevail is the power to manage and to manipulate the consent of men. That we do not know the limits of such power, and that we hope it does have limits, does not remove the fact that much power today is successfully employed without the sanction of the reason or the conscience of the obedient."

Yes, it was a British publication, but Mills did warn us over 30 years prior to Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing of Consent, which was published in 1988.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 19:38 utc | 165

@145 vk... thanks for articulating these relevant points, as you have..

@149 karlof1.. thanks! i agree about sanders-tulsi winning if that was the ticket and i appreciate everything you say in your post..

@157 jackrabbit.. thanks.. we'll see how accurate you are sometime soon! i can't see a biden-gabbard hook up myself, but maybe i am wrong!

Posted by: james | Oct 29 2019 19:41 utc | 166

juliania @163--

Do recall how I've noted on several occasions that our oaths when we enlisted are to defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. So, we are tasked with defending the Law of The Land, thus it behooves the enlistee to know what the damn thing says and doesn't, how it gets amended and what those amendments are--and they aren't just numbered 1-27. I also once noted that a similar oath is mandatory for naturalized citizens to take after they've passed their citizenship test--a test far more comprehensive than that given to public school students that I bet few Congresscritters or other US government employees would be able to pass--including most critically soldiers when asked to deliver their oaths of allegiance.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 19:57 utc | 167

Speaking of warnings, karlof1, let's not forget Eisenhower's parting speech and the ongoing machinations of the military/industrial complex. Couple that with psychohistorian's constant reminder that finance has gone global and it would seem that a major battle is upon us, the results of which are impossible to predict.

Sunlight. Thanks b, for providing it.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 29 2019 20:12 utc | 168

juliania @168--

Thanks for your reply! As for Ike's "warning," he was instrumental in the building of what he warned against and he knowingly circumvented the constitution he twice swore an oath to uphold and defend. IMO, those are not the actions of a patriot. Indeed, the actions of every POTUS and Congresscritter since the UN Charter became the Law of the World suggest they are completely illiterate when it comes to understanding the document they swore to adhere to and uphold. There more than enough facts in the public domain to indict/impeach them and convict all of them--100%.

It doesn't seem to have crossed the minds of anyone that when swearing an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution that you're also swearing an oath to uphold and defend the UN Charter too since the latter's included within the former by way of the Supremacy Clause. Want to impeach Trump or any other sitting US Government official, they're in violation of the US Constitution by not upholding the Law as set forth by the UN Charter.

If I were to submit the above paragraph as a Letter to the Editor to every newspaper published in the USA, I wonder how many would actually publish those basic facts.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 21:03 utc | 169

135 Billy Goat Gruff

Clearly you have no facility for with the non-obvious.

Posted by: Artful Dodger | Oct 29 2019 21:18 utc | 170

Do recall how I've noted on several occasions that our oaths when we enlisted are to defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. So, we are tasked with defending etc etc...
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 19:57 utc | 167

I suspect that statement is erroneous.
My recollection is that the oath sworn by enlisted US soldiers differs from the oath sworn by US officers in one very significant respect, namely, officers swear to defend AmeriKKKa from enemies foreign and domestic, whereas grunts swear to defend from foreign enemies only.

When I looked up both oaths, in the early Noughties, I interpreted the difference as a ray of hope - that officers were legitimately empowered/ compelled to revolt against orders issued by (apparent) "enemies within."

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 29 2019 21:35 utc | 171

@ 169 karlof1... what you say regarding how the un charter is included in the us constitution is extremely interesting to me.. i too wonder if anyone would publish your letter! many are most likely unaware of this too..

Posted by: james | Oct 29 2019 22:00 utc | 172

"Trump's fault"

The Biden 2020 erection campaign has "dropped its opposition to outside support" and now a $uper PAC has been formed. is all "Trump's fault".

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A longtime associate of former Vice President Joe Biden has launched a super PAC to support Biden’s presidential candidacy after the campaign dropped its opposition to outside support to counter sustained attacks from U.S. President Donald Trump.

Didn't take long for the internet to start digging:

The Head Of Joe Biden’s New Super PAC Is A Foreign Government Agent

Yes, you asked, are PACs linked to the Deep State?

Bonus: Deconstructing America's Deep State

Posted by: librul | Oct 29 2019 22:16 utc | 173

33 NC

How many people worked on the Manhattan Project who had no idea what they were actually working on? How many leaks, from any level? You actually think the people with real power necessarily deal directly with, or even are the likes of Trump, or Clinton, or Obama?

If the 'Deep State' had at any time any problem with Trump he'd already be gone. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but whatever meagre democratic/institutional checks on real power that may have survived the last century evaporated completely on 9/11.

Posted by: Artful Dodger | Oct 29 2019 22:18 utc | 174

I offer this article as yet another example of how the Current Oligarchy works to obtain the outcomes it desires, in this case advancing the R2P concept to inflict Regime Change upon Syria through the vehicle of legitimizing false flags:

"A chemical attack to be blamed on the Syrian army seemed like the most straightforward means to trigger R2P and achieve the desired foreign-policy objectives. However, what we now know from the documents published by Wikileaks is that the international organization supposed to ensure impartiality and objectivity falsified reports and procedures."

We are also shown why the activities of Assange and kin are abhorred and how the Current Oligarchy isn't just domestic:

"These Wikileaks revelations are a rare opportunity to look behind the curtain and understand the mechanisms that lead to millions of deaths, to countries being destroyed, and to generations being lost. We have already seen in the past how a hegemonic power like the United States acts, fabricating pretexts like “weapons of mass destruction”, is willing to try and maintain its position of dominance by hook or by crook in a strategic region like the Middle East....

"The legitimacy extended to al-Qaeda and its affiliates allowed for terrorists to carry out civilian attacks in Syria using chemical weapons for the purposes of blaming government troops, thereby justifying overt international support by the likes of the US, the UK and France. To guarantee the success of this conspiracy, the fraudulent reports of the OPCW were to provide the humanitarian justification for international intervention."

What emerges is an image of a predatory Western Oligarchy having both domestic and international facets which the Hydra well represents as it's not enough to merely sever one head, and is serviced by an army of willing sycophants, particularly those masquerading as journalists.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 29 2019 22:26 utc | 175

Artful Dodger @170

But you have facility with the obvious, which is certainly better than some. Congratulations!

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 29 2019 23:39 utc | 176

james @172--

I was about to turn 41 when I reentered college to seek my degrees making me older than several of the professors I'd encounter on my journey. My PolySci prof was one of those, using her just minted MA to get some additional money by teaching at my JC. I'd like to take credit for coming up with the fact that the US Constitution can be amended in many more ways than through the process the Constitution provides, but the credit goes to her. The most obvious is via Supreme Court decisions that directly interpret what's said in the Constitution, then other decisions that deal with laws Congress has written that get their Constitutionality challenged. But despite its overt nature, ratified treaties and their incorporation into the law of the land via the Supremacy Clause somehow get overlooked. To her credit, my prof wrote good test questions, and the one she wrote about how many ways the Constitution can get modified wasn't relegated to mere multiple choice and was in short answer format, meaning you needed to supply all methods to get the question correct.

I tell the above story since I wasn't the only student in that class--26 others were enrolled--so they also know the "secret;" and I should add all her other students since she taught hundreds of students each semester. And yet it seems that what ought to be common knowledge for every US high school graduate (PolySci/Civics being a universal requirement for graduation) is a complete unknown, so much so that Congress and POTUS have violated it willingly and wantonly since 1945. Not Seldes, nor Izzy Stone or any other journalist or historian I know of has ever raised this issue which sits as the fundamental basis for the Rule of Law based society that supposedly exists within the Outlaw US Empire. After 74 years, is such a government legitimate becomes the question, IMO.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 30 2019 0:11 utc | 177

The Supreme Court held in Covert v. Reid that treaties cannot violate the Constitution. To the extent that they do, they are invalid.

Ratified treaties have the same legal status as Acts of Congress. A mere Act of Congress can modify or abrogate a ratified treaty.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 30 2019 0:21 utc | 178

The book that I am currently reading, 109 East Palace, a social history of Los Alamos, discusses how limited knowledge of what they were ultimately working on, was among those working there.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 30 2019 0:26 utc | 179

lysias @178--

Source for your last two sentences, please.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 30 2019 0:48 utc | 180

Look up the page "International Agreements and U.S. Law" at

Posted by: lysias | Oct 30 2019 0:59 utc | 181

@177 karlof1... you were lucky to have the prof you had! my guess is your perspective is unique and not common.. i like how you have given over to using the term outlaw us empire regularly... it certainly fits and you are consistent in this regard.. thanks for your personal story and comments more generally speaking..

Posted by: james | Oct 30 2019 1:01 utc | 182

@ 174 artful dodger

I just don't see it that way, sorry.

It is not as easy as killing DJT to be rid of the problem if he were to be treated as one.

Let's say that POTUS was assassinated by an alleged liberal-wonk. A lone gunman, they would say. Would you buy that story? Would the average Trump supported buy that story? I don't think so.

I think you open the can of worms that much more if they were to behave that rashly. Then you would have made him a martyr: what were vacuous musings about globalism and nationalism from the lips of DJT over these past years will have materialized into rallying cries that would not stop any longer (as it has been held back) by the protests of concerned liberals who recoil in horror at the sight of the uncouth.

Where that would stop would be anyone's guess.

It seems to me that there are two camps when it comes to DJT: 1) he is on their team; 2) he is not on their team. Maybe a third would be: 3) he is on the team that is subverting the globalist elite and who up until now has been left in the dust wrt globalized business and finance.

Is he old money? That might be the shoe that fits. But what does it matter when the real evil at the top, the Caesar, the globalist-paradigm par excellence is getting its shit kicked in?

I'm telling y'all that DJT deserves more credit than not only what most here are capable of seeing but also of what they are capable of admitting to themselves. To me it's a real problem that Americans at home have taken on or rather been infected by the European mentality that hates braggadocious straight-talk and physicality. They are self-hating Americans who desire the rest of us to apologize for desiring an identity. Indeed, this desire to deny what we are fundamentally as a country speaks more to the success of the globalists who sought to make it seem that the role of America was to be the international vanguard. They call for a wind down of our military adventurism abroad and yet our borders should remain open and our business should go on trans-nationally unencumbered by the great structural realignment that must occur for us to actually behave like AN ACTUAL FUCKING COUNTRY AGAIN! That we should leave the MENA but we should cowtow to China and the EU or the UN?!?!?!?!?!

In your fucking dreams!

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 30 2019 1:24 utc | 183

so the answer is again,

dems do nothing, cause one day you will have the presidency and then the republican will make your life hell?
really? That worked well all the other times, right?
oh boy.

Posted by: Sabine | Oct 30 2019 2:50 utc | 184

Our backs and forths didn't really mesh, karlof1, my apologies. I'm not sure why you brought up oaths to defend, as certainly I would agree with you that the Constitution is paramount. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the officer I quoted was taking the wrong tack against Trump when it came to understanding his, Trump's, attempt to have Ukraine investigate the previous non-investigation of the dubious dealings involving prosecutory matters - well, we went over it all, but the officer was coming out in favor of impeaching Trump. Perhaps this from the article will be more clear:

"...Vindman, a 20-year military officer, added to the mounting evidence from other witnesses — diplomats, defense and former administration officials — who are corroborating the initial whistleblower's complaint against Trump and providing new details ahead of a House vote in the impeachment inquiry..."

This for me echoed the final attempt at destabilization in the Chilean Allende overthrow, that the army in Chile would rise up against their leader, which they eventually did. Here is a uniformed and credentialed officer speaking out against his president. Very serious stuff.

But secondly on Eisenhower's speech - I saw that much in the same tenor as Yeltsin's final appointment of Putin. Sometimes bad people do or say good things as they are leaving the stage. (I guess I've been listening too much to Lavrov, who is my hero.) I know not what Eisenhower's presidency actually entailed; it was that final speech that I found prophetic.

And yes, I did have quite a bit to study when I became a citizen. Fortunately in my senior year of college we liberal artists did study the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, early Supreme Court writings, and so on. Even though I was not then a citizen, I absorbed it all. It's probably part of why I became one when I did. I am not sure why that became important here, but I don't mind; it is after all what this country is founded on. As to 'defending against enemies foreign and domestic', who is the enemy here? Trump? As Don Bacon said, this is really crazy. Next it will be all those who voted for him as well. As I've said before, I did not. But as I also said, sometimes people who do bad things do good things. They can be called out for the former but they should be supported for the latter.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 30 2019 3:11 utc | 185

juliania @185--

Thanks for your reply! No, the enemy I write about isn't Trump. It consists of the many that came before him and those that remain--the evil doers are legion!--and I've listed some of the names before. That's not to say Trump's innocent; he's just as much of an International Outlaw.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 30 2019 4:56 utc | 186

October 29th, 2019. The Vindman Report - Fiona Hill’s Twin Spies in the White House [Yes, twins!]

That's 17 minutes of raw data that rarely misses on facts, from George Webb.

He uses unedited speech that gets his comm over to his followers that assist his researches. Do not expect slick and smooth pap for 9th graders. And tolerate the non sequitur lapses.

Posted by: chuteh | Oct 30 2019 5:34 utc | 187

@178 "The Supreme Court held in Covert v. Reid that treaties cannot violate the Constitution. To the extent that they do, they are invalid."

No controversy over that statement: if the US government enters into a treaty that violates the Constitution then I have no problem accepting that UNDER US LAW the President's signature on that treaty is invalid.

"Ratified treaties have the same legal status as Acts of Congress."

Again, I agree with that statement i.e. UNDER US LAW a ratified treaty is part of the law of the land and, as such, is binding on the USA so long as that treaty does not violate the US Constitution.

"A mere Act of Congress can modify or abrogate a ratified treaty."

OK, that's where I have a problem. Specifically, with the word "modify".

A treaty is an international agreement between the USA and another country (bilateral treaty) or countries (multilateral treaty). Ratification is a requirement under US law for that treaty to be regarded as a binding obligation.

An Act of Congress can not "modify" the terms of such a treaty since - obviously - modifying the terms of a treaty requires the agreement of the state parties who are signatories to that treaty.

And those "state parties" are not:
a) the Executive Branch and
b) the Legislative Branch
of the government of the USA.

What Congress can do is pass an Act that has the effect of placing the USA in material breach of a ratified treaty.

But that doesn't mean the treaty has been "modified" by Congress. It hasn't.

All that it means is that the USA will be in breach of that treaty, curtesy of the Legislative Branch of the US government.

Which is not a good look, not if you want your country or your government to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Oct 30 2019 10:41 utc | 188

My comment was about U.S. law, which administrations proclaim they obey and are bound by. They violate international law quite openly, and U.S. courts let them get away with it.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 30 2019 14:39 utc | 189

karloff @ 159, thx, yes, gallup is amongst the not-too-terrible pollsters imho.

I didn’t find the Fox poll result paradoxical. US citizens (1) adhere extremely strongly to their ‘country’ i.e. the Unipolar World and US Domination, which brings benefits and ease to many.

The touted ideology of Free-Dom, markets, tech superiority, democracy, entrepreneurship, provides some shoring up. The result is that ‘higher authority, actors (ex. CIA and Supreme Court) are approved of, when and if, ‘lower management’, regional politics, seems to be stumbling. Say, Trump is a sleazy boor, Clinton a sick lying witch.

The idea of ‘stalwart rightness experiencing a bad patch’ has a strong grip, the quasi-religious belief in USA, USA, holds up, so ‘core’ institutions behind the scenes, not v. visible / understood, are approved of.

The obligatory Thank you for your service to US milit. comes to mind, coupled with a truly disgusting neglect of vets, embodying the same contradiction. (Foot soldiers don’t deserve anything at all, higher authority or competitors rule..)

1. The majority / average opinion that emerges from polls. Not all US citizens.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 30 2019 16:24 utc | 190

Actually I wasn't meaning you, karlof1 when I queried on 'enemy' - rather the query was aimed at said officer whom the NYT has a piece about that I can't read but did catch a glimpse of all his scrambled eggs on uniform. It seems he's been disqualified from testifying by someone in Congress? (Would like to hear more on this from anyone who can provide info.) Here's some of the latter from nakedcapitalism comments:

“White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call”

"Well at least the Democrats found a disinterested expert for their case. He’s a veteran and he won a purple heart so there must be automatic respect given here. Just omit the fact that he was born and spent the first few years of his life in the Ukraine. And that he was raised in a part of Brooklyn nicknamed “Little Odessa”. And that his brother is on the National Security Council staff. And that Ukrainian officials sought him out for advice about how to deal with Giuliani. And he sought to re-start military aid to the Ukraine in concert with people like John Bolton but was knocked back by Trump. Otherwise he is a patriot and is a completely disinterested party here. He says so himself." [Rev Kev]

Posted by: juliania | Oct 30 2019 16:47 utc | 191

The Deep State trope is a needlessly dark and submerged metaphor. Far more descriptive imo is Michael Glennon's Double Government postulation. The US operates under a (publicly) unacknowledged dual sovereignty dating back to the 1947 NSA Act. The unvetted Trump however insists is behaving as though the Madisonian (written) Constitution remains in full effect.

Antecedent is Bagehot's English (Unwritten) Constitution.

Posted by: FSD | Oct 30 2019 17:32 utc | 192

I am quite upset that many posters here are equating the Deep State with the Civil Service.

That is simply wrong.

The civil service are people who work in the post office.
People like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Biden, James Clapper, Brian Epstein and his handlers---even William Barr; these people and others such as retired generals etc. who tried to derail Trump's policies/ideas are not in the civil service. Trump's ideas may be terrible---but so are the ideas of these self-appointed monitors! All of their ideas are terrible. But at least Trump was elected.

If you are a political appointee, then you are not in the civil service.

we need to get grip here on what the civil service actually means in the United States, and in comparison to the Deep State in the USA.

Also, there are international elements to the Deep State. This, too, has nothing to do with the civil service.

Posted by: Really?? | Oct 30 2019 17:32 utc | 193

The problem with the "deep state" (which never implied shadowy networks or secret conspiracies in my lexicon) is not that lingering Democratic partisans undermine Republican administrations and vice versa. The problem is that an entrenched bureaucracy has its own interests and agenda apart from any electoral process periodically changing the elected figure heads. The relevant body of political/economic theory is called "public choice". Of course, corporate media support the deep state (or deny it when convenient). They're in bed with it, and they always will be regardless of transitory political agendas.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Oct 30 2019 17:43 utc | 194

The Current Oligarchy has suffered a big defeat to its imperialist plans as Argentina breaks free as Pepe Escobar reports. And the rest of South America is also having yet another Reaction against the recent victories by the Reactionaries tied to the Current Oligarchy's Imperial Project to enslave nations via Neoliberalism.

The battle to overthrow Neoliberalism also claimed another casualty as the APEC Summit scheduled for November in Chile was cancelled along with the next round of the COP talks in December. Wayne Madsen adds to Pepe's report here about the further changes happening in Latin America. Seeing the tide turning against the Outlaw US Empire's global Neoliberal project is stimulating and hopeful but must continue to gain strength as the Reactionaries will certainly try to recoup their loses. When looking at other nations, it's easier to see the Class Warfare aspect of the overall struggle that isn't as readily apparent within the Outlaw US Empire, although IMO the energy that might be channeled into massive protests are being diverted into fervent support for Sanders campaign and his social democratic policy aims.

The next potential blow might be struck from the upcoming ASEAN Summit on 2-4 Nov in Thailand. We may never know how sincere Trump was at the UNGA when he declared war on the Globalists, but at the moment they are in retreat, while their enforcement arm--the US Navy--has all its Atlantic-based carriers in dock for extensive repairs as I reported on the open thread yesterday.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 30 2019 17:43 utc | 195

Really?? @193--

Yes, you're correct to a certain extent but the Civil Service also includes CIA, FBI, DEA, ICE, NSA, and a whole host of other alphabet agency career staffers who are used as reactionary tools to both manufacture consent and control what's manufactured. Sure, there are good career civil service people who work in our National Parks, at NASA, NOAA, CDC, and a myriad of other agencies that perform good deeds for the populous. Essentially, a line can be drawn between the agencies that support the National Security State and those that don't.

There was one benefit to the old pre-Civil Service days: the POTUS would be kept busy interviewing and hiring his entire executive staff and had no additional time to commit mischief, provided the change in administration also came with a change in Party.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 30 2019 18:00 utc | 196

hey karlof1.. thanks for the link from pepe and all the other comments and insights you have shared here.. thanks!

Posted by: james | Oct 30 2019 20:32 utc | 197

karlof1 153

Thank you.
Permission requested to "borrow" your clarification.

Posted by: Evelyn | Oct 30 2019 20:51 utc | 198

Evelyn @198--

You're most welcome! And it was gracious of you to ask and of course you may.

Fortunately during 2016 Pepe Escobar did a lot of writing for RT, not Asia Times, so there's an archive of his essays. This is one where he anonymously references those members of the Current Oligarchy backing Trump and the strategy they want him to employ to beat Clinton. There's a lot I might again excerpt from that item, but given the contemporary context, this bit that implies Trump is against Neoliberalism wins:

"Twitter-machine Trump notoriously does not read. If only one of his advisers could summarize the thesis behind a provocative book, Theology of Provocation, launched in France earlier this year.

"The central thesis, as exposed by Professor Gérard Conio, is that neoliberalism, as imposed by practitioners of the New World Order and financial elites, is not the opposite of totalitarian communism, but rather its apex, with a tiny minority of masters wielding life-and-death power over a vast majority of slaves."

How's that--Neoliberalism is the highest stage of Totalitarianism. IMO, Dr. Hudson would agree.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 30 2019 21:51 utc | 199


Among the journalists who consistently are worth reading I count Pepe Escobar. Thank you.

Posted by: Evelyn | Oct 30 2019 22:04 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.