Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 05, 2020

How Attacks On Trump Help Him To Make His Case

In 2016 the Democrats lost the election despite their constant attacks on Donald Trump's personality. Over the last four years they continued those attacks with Russiagate and impeachment nonsense. Trump turned each of the attacks into a win for himself. Unfortunately that pattern continues.

Over the last two days the Joe Biden campaign made a rather hapless attempt to smear President Donald Trump over allegedly negative comments about previous wars and dead soldiers. The attack was launched with a Jeffrey Goldberg piece in the Atlantic headlined: Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”

None of what those four anonymous sources claimed is true according to on the record quotes from people who were there:

Several White House officials at the time said the decision not to take Marine One to the Belleau Wood cemetery was made by Zachary Fuentes, a close aide to Mr. Kelly, without consulting the president’s military aide. Others argued that a trip by road would have taken too long, at roughly two hours.

Administration officials said then that Mr. Fuentes had assured Mr. Trump it was fine to miss the visit.
More than a half-dozen current and former aides to Mr. Trump backed him up with Twitter messages and statements disputing that part of the Atlantic article. “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened,” wrote Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was then the White House press secretary. “This is not even close to being factually accurate,” added Jordan Karem, the president’s personal aide at the time.

John Bolton, who at that time was National Security Advisor but has now fallen out with Trump, describes the cancellation in his tell-all book as solely weather related.

Yesterday he reconfirmed that:

Mr. Bolton said he was in the room at the ambassador’s residence when Mr. Trump arrived and Mr. Kelly told him that the helicopter trip had to be canceled. A two-hour motorcade would have put him too far away from Air Force One and the most capable communications array a president needs in case of an emergency, per usual protocol, Mr. Bolton said. “It was a straight weather call,” he said.

The next day Trump visited a different military cemetery in France.

The quotes in the Goldberg piece may be correct but are most likely not what Goldberg claims them to be:

Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald - 12:45 UTC · Sep 4, 2020

It's obviously believable Trump said this, but the last person I'd trust to interpret is Goldberg. Why aren't these brave sources willing to speak publicly? ...

Michael Tracey @mtracey - 23:29 UTC · Sep 3, 2020

That story reads like snippets of Trump expressing derision toward the idea of US troops getting sent off to die in pointless wars, such as World War I, which when filtered through the prism of neocon-lite Jeffrey Goldberg becomes a “Trump mocks US war dead for some reason” story

No one should be surprised that a Jeffrey Goldberg piece turns out to be a bunch of lies. After Goldberg volunteered as concentration camp guard for the Zionist colony in Palestine he made a career as a war mongering journalist:

Goldberg’s career will be remembered primarily for a long, award-winning reported piece from Iraq that ran in The New Yorker in March 2002, at the height of the post-9/11 jingoistic fervor, which informed that magazine’s readership that Saddam Hussein had both an active WMD program and ties to Al-Qaeda. Goldberg endorsed George W. Bush’s catastrophic war of choice in an article for Slate later that year, in which he wrote, “I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.”

Goldberg has since fallen upwards and is now the editor of the Atlantic. Over the last year the majority owner of that outlet, Laurene Powell Jobs, has given more than $1.2 million for Biden's and other Democrats' campaigns.

The publishing of the smear piece seems to have been well coordinated. The Democratic lobbying group Vote Vets was running an advertisement with quotes from the Atlantic piece the morning after it was published. There was also a rare Biden press conference designed to amplify the topic:

Biden, who took questions for the second time this week after going approximately a month without holding a single press conference, spent much of his time blasting President Trump over a report in The Atlantic magazine that he disparaged fallen World War I soldiers during a trip to France in 2018.
The first question, posed by Atlantic staff writer Edward-Isaac Dovere, was about the magazine's bombshell report.

"When you hear these remarks -- 'suckers,' 'losers,' recoiling from amputees, what does it tell you about President Trump's soul and the life he leads?" Dovere asked.

The Atlantic piece was designed to lower the military and veteran support for Trump. He has responded with a move that will earn him some gratitude from those groups:

US President Donald Trump has said his administration will not be shutting down a renowned military newspaper, following outcry from lawmakers.

Stars and Stripes, an independent military newspaper had been expected to end this month after the Pentagon decided in February to cut its funding.

The US government "will NOT be cutting funding to @starsandstripes magazine under my watch," Mr Trump tweeted.

The next two month will of course see more such attacks from both sides and about different issues. If I had a vote in the election I would give it to neither of the parties or candidates. But it is somewhat disappointing how little the Democrats have learned about how Donald Trump's campaigning works and how attacks against him are only helping him to make his case. As Matt Taibbi analyses in a must-read piece:

The elite misread of Trump is egregious because he’s an easily familiar type to the rest of America. We’re a sales culture and Trump is a salesman. Moreover he’s not just any salesman; he might be the greatest salesman ever, considering the quality of the product, i.e. himself.
Ever since Trump jumped into politics, the pattern has been the same. He enters the arena hauling nothing but negatives and character liabilities, but leaves every time armed with winnable issues handed to him by overreacting opponents.
His schtick is to provoke rivals to the point where they drop what they’re doing and spend their time screaming at him, which from the jump validates the primary tenet of his worldview, i.e. that everything is about him. Political opponents seem incapable of not handing him free advertising. They say his name on TV thousands of times a day, put his name on bumper stickers to be paraded before new demographics (e.g. “BERNIE BEATS TRUMP”), and then keep talking about him even off duty, at office parties, family dinners, kids’ sports events, everywhere, which sooner or later gets people wondering: who’s more annoying, the blowhard, or the people who can’t stop talking about the blowhard?
Trump’s argument is, “They lie about me.” He attracts so much negative attention, and so completely dominates the culture, that the line between him and the country that elected him becomes blurred, allowing him to make a secondary argument: “They lie about you.” This incantation works.
The Democratic Party has no message — literally none — apart from him.
It feels like a co-dependent relationship, and the tightening poll numbers in battleground states make me wonder about self-sabotage. He’ll likely still lose, but this is all beginning to feel like a slow-motion rerun of the same car crash from four years ago, when resentment, rubbernecking, and lurid fascination pulled him just across the finish line. People claim to hate him, but they never turn off the show in time, not grasping that Trump always knows how to turn their negative attention into someone else’s vote.

Isn’t four years of this enough?

The current attack on Trump, especially as it is based on weak anonymous sourcing, is exactly what Trump needs to gain more voters and a higher turn out.

Instead of talking about real issues the Democrats have fallen back on attacking Trump's personality. That method has failed for more than four years of Russiagate and impeachment blubber but it continues.

Why does anyone believe that such attacks will suddenly have a different outcome than to help Trump win another election?

Posted by b on September 5, 2020 at 17:47 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

There are elements in the military/intelligence/police who support Trump. And there most certainly are rich people who support Trump. By any honest definition of the Deep State, these are parts of the Deep State. Even on the face of it, the facts suggest that there is a factional dispute within the Deep State, oddly parallel to factional struggles in the Surface State. (These struggles are increasingly difficult to compromise because a declining empire faces unsolvable problems and lacks resources for multiple strategies and/or compensation for losers.) There is no need for the hypothesis of a Deep State except to pretend that Trump is somehow at odds with *the* monolithic Deep State, either from principle or incompetence. Thus, denying the facts of support within the so-called Deep State support for Trump really can be read only as support for Trump. This support is purportedly for Trump the economic nationalist, which also contradicts facts. Or it's supposedly because Trump is not an aggressive militarist. This too is Trumpery, because one underlying excuse, that unilateral economic warfare somehow isn't warfare, isn't really an argument, but an assumption. The other big excuse, that warfare doesn't include assassination, covert operations, drone murder and other bombings, military support for the overthrow of governments, etc. is merely a reliance on the dictionary definition of war. The last defense is Trump's going to actually end wars as he promised, someday, right after he serves everyone pie from the sky.

But obviously mere facts about Trump and the illogicality of relying on a giant conspiracy theory which isn't even needed isn't changing anyone's mind. So for those people who are so foolish as to persist, why isn't Trump simply removed by drugs that mimic heart attack or stroke? The obvious answer, that the supposedly all powerful Deep State doesn't control the security services, is ruled out by the Deep State premise---No cheating!

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 7 2020 16:52 utc | 201

It's unclear who Anon is referring to in their comment. One can only surmise that their goal is to intimidate their target into silence. But such low-effort posting is entirely futile. No one will be swayed, so it was a complete waste of time. And most likely b will remove the post before long.

Now on to jinn's latest comment. The irrelevance was entirely explained; there's no shoot-down of this commenter's logic. As to the allegedly "appalling" analysis of the facts, jinn does not seem to explain how the analysis is "appalling". They also don't seem to realize that the "deep state" suddenly endorsing Trump and attacking Biden would be way too obvious of a gambit.

Posted by: Cynica | Sep 7 2020 16:55 utc | 202

@ cynica... ignore the anon.. it was probably directed at moa... there are typically drive by comments that really do need to be ignored and not taken personally.. cheers.

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2020 17:01 utc | 203

@james #199

It does seem like Trump is accelerating the process of the empire's decline. He's primarily doing so by alienating elements of the "rules-based liberal order" (i.e. the machinery of the empire). The empire's decline may be inevitable, but the rate of decline is not.

One thing is certain - there is no controlled demolition of the empire, or of the US. That notion is a bogeyman to keep people's attention away from the "deep state" and what it's actually doing.

Posted by: Cynica | Sep 7 2020 17:06 utc | 204

How does Jackrabbit explain things like the Transition Integrity Project?
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but you bringing up Transition Integrity Project seems ludicrous to me. That suggests that trump might be able to cling to power if he does not win the election (or that someone else will depose him if he wins). That is absurd. The TIP is just hot air. But then there is a lot of hot air in every campaign

The USA is still a country governed by the Constitution and rule of law. That may be unraveling but we are still many decades away from the point where the laws get tossed out the window

Posted by: jinn | Sep 7 2020 17:17 utc | 205

@steven t johnson #201

It may be more accurate to refer to the leadership of the "deep state" than to the "deep state" as a whole. In any large hierarchical organization, the rank-and-file normally don't have an appreciable influence on policy. "Deep state" support for Trump seems to be much smaller, both in terms of size and policy influence, than its support for Biden. Furthermore, it's hardly true that all rich people have an equal hand in running the machinery of the empire.

The finer points of the logistics of a covert assassination can be explored if necessary. Suffice it for now to say that the "deep state" is not all powerful, and it's always advisable to take the path of least resistance in military operations.

Posted by: Cynica | Sep 7 2020 17:37 utc | 206

Cynica: please explain every nuance with perfect accuracy or your entire argument is false.

LOL. There's none so blind as those who will not see.

<> <> <> <> <>

Yet the set-up is so clear.

'Law and order' Trump, fighting for all that is good and right vs. Radical Left-controlled Biden and the vile Deep State that continuously tries to overthrow our populist hero.

Enjoy the show.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 7 2020 17:40 utc | 207

Jackrabbit seems to be losing patience. Nowhere did this commenter ask Jackrabbit to "explain every nuance with perfect accuracy". Jackrabbit is surely well aware of that, which means that Jackrabbit is being disingenuous. One can only wonder why. "You take the most flak when you're over the target."

On another note, this commenter does agree with Jackrabbit that meaningful change could only happen through truly independent movements.

Posted by: Cynica | Sep 7 2020 18:12 utc | 208

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 7 2020 16:52 utc | 201

All your analysis is built on the assumption that there is only two possibilities:
- either Trump is fighting the deep state. (But facts show that Trump didn't actually fight)
- either Trump goes along with this deep state wishes. (Thus this deep state doen't differentiate from any administration supporting its President.)

But there is a third hypothesis:

Trump is the controlled puppet of the deep state.
Trump has its POV and the deep state has its own. On some matters both are agreeing. On others, they don't.

On most cases of disagreement, the deep state POV prevails, because clown Trump is not able. When that happens, puppet Trump is actually obeying, but showman Trump pretends that he is leading and he is supported by its administration (thus, it looks like there is no deep state).

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 7 2020 19:01 utc | 209

In reply to Cynica:

We seem to agree on most of the basic facts, but you seem to be of the opinion that the "deep state" (whatever that might be) are idiots. That as an explanation I find hard to accept

Why do their attacks on trump fall apart and in the end that works in trump's favor?
Because they are idiots

Why does the "deep state" continue to reinforce the notion that Trump is an outsider even though that makes him more electable?
Because they are idiots

Nope. doesn't sound right to me.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 7 2020 19:09 utc | 210

Cynica clutches at straws, mistakes sarcasm for "being disingenuous".

We agree on Movements, and probably a lot more. My more cynical view is justified given what we have seen in recent decades.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 7 2020 19:26 utc | 211

@ Cynica | Sep 7 2020 17:06 utc | 204.. i think i agree with you.. regarding the rate of decline - at this point i think it is fairly fast myself... i don't believe it matters at this point who is the elected president of the usa... i am sorry, but i am fairly cynical at this point..

i am sure i have asked this before to moa, but would anyone like to offer an explanation of what they think the ''deep state'' is?? thanks...

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2020 19:29 utc | 212

Cynica@206 writes: "It may be more accurate to refer to the leadership of the 'deep state' than to the 'deep state' as a whole. In any large hierarchical organization, the rank-and-file normally don't have an appreciable influence on policy. 'Deep state' support for Trump seems to be much smaller, both in terms of size and policy influence, than its support for Biden. Furthermore, it's hardly true that all rich people have an equal hand in running the machinery of the empire."

The policy fights that are occurring in the open do not require a cause in the Deep State. They are simply faction fights over policies that ultimately have grave outcomes for the owners of the country, in a time when the costs of failure are rising even more rapidly than the flexibility of maneuver. They will happen without a Deep State. The continuity of policy despite the vagaries of elections do not require an organized conspiracy. The long term pursuit of the owners' goals is ensured by many open, non-secret, often highly revered mechanisms and institutioins. Some were built into the Constitution, such as the Electoral College, the Senate etc. Others may not be governmental, but there's nothing secret about the role of big donors in elections or the concentrated ownership of mass media or the investments in academia via "policy" institutes. The purge of the left after WWII, the massive propaganda campaign to convince the masses capitalism is natural law, the privileges lavished on religion are not just plots by the Deep State, they are regarded as moral principles by numerous people. If ordinary people, like the mass of workers, started taking an active interest in politics, as in a pre-revolutionary crisis where their opinions might actually make a difference, history teaches us that the masses are always left wing. But most people a pacifists when it comes to fighting oppressors at home.

Parisian Guy@209 offers a theory where no one can ever know when Trump is just being unruly, a puppet slow to follow the strings, or when Trump is following the strings but pretending there aren't any. I can't think of a way to find evidence for or against this, meaning it is questionable whether this succeeds in explaining anything at all. In cases like this, the first task is to look for alternative explanations. In Trump's case, the only real issue seems to be whether to attack China first and pacify Russia for now, or whether to attack Russia first (partly as a way to keep Europe from acting more independently.) Hence, the impeachment of Trump for not being anti-Russian enough. But there's no reason to posit a Deep State that is fighting Trump on this, as this is a fight that would occur no matter what. When the Deep State takes Trump's imperial powers to unilaterally change tariffs away from him, I would regard this as evidence for a fight by the Powers That Be (aka "Deep State?") against a political chieftain taking a mere vote as authority to change things. Biden has boasted openly he doesn't even want to really change things. But Trump only claims he wants to change things back, which isn't a threat to the owners of the country either. Their question is, can Trump deliver the new world empire? Or at least, get rid of all this pesky charade of democracy? Rich people being extorted by Joe Biden, lest they get on the winner's bad side in 2021. They're tired of it. (Bloomberg by the way is apparently not even doing that.)

And although it is certainly true that hierarchical organizations do not mean the rank and file agree with everything. But the Deep State is not a hierarchical organization so far as I know. It is not clear that it would have any "rank and file" membership at all. If it did have normal, routine, everyday people as members, what would be in it for them? Also, it is hard to understand how a secret leadership could ever exercise control of the lower parts of the hierarchy. So these points are likely true, but it is not clear how they are relevant.

The plot of a color revolution is in fact the difficult, roundabout, risky way to remove Trump...unless Trump is the actual winner. That claim is Trumpery. Trump didn't win in 2016, he just lucked out with the Electoral College. He's less popular now, so it's even less likely he'll actually win, except, he still has the Electoral College on his side. This is not an accident, the Democratic Party is not a principled opponent of Trump. And the rich like the EC and every other mechanism that maintains their control over the state.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 7 2020 20:18 utc | 213

Former White House Staffer Zach Fuentes deny that Trump called the soldiers "losers"

Why dont the people that claim Trump called the soldiers "losers" step forward? Why are they hiding?

Posted by: Zanon | Sep 7 2020 20:22 utc | 214

James @ 212--
I have been wondering about who actually runs the show myself lately.
If it was big business then I doubt they would go along with this constant sanctioning and banning etc. EG-- US companies like Qualcom stand to lose billions in these trade wars.

I think it has something to do with these so called "Think Tanks" and who sponsors them.

Like PNAC, whoever is behind that has huge sway over things.

Other than that I am still wondering who the deep state consists of.

Posted by: arby | Sep 7 2020 20:24 utc | 215

i am sure i have asked this before to moa, but would anyone like to offer an explanation of what they think the ''deep state'' is?? thanks...
Posted by: james | Sep 7 2020 19:29 utc | 212

Deep state = hidden hand. Cheers.

Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Sep 7 2020 20:56 utc | 216

Even the bunya nuts are laughing down under.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 7 2020 21:11 utc | 217

ooops my comment 217 was for open thread apology to all.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Sep 7 2020 21:16 utc | 218

@Posted by: William Gruff | Sep 7 2020 0:48 utc | 184

No, it´s not me who is obtuse, and you know it, and if you do not know it, worse...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Sep 7 2020 21:19 utc | 219

would anyone like to offer an explanation of what they think the "deep state" is??
For purposes of this discussion I take it to mostly mean the fictional foe that is fighting against Donald Trump. The fictionasl version of the deep state was mostly created by trump himself.

The deep state is an entrenched federal bureaucracy within government that is running the govt regardless of who is in power. That much of the story is not even particularly controversial it is often referred to as the civil service and they are supposed to run things in the same manner regardless of who is in power. But obviously there is the possibility of abuse of power - J Edgar Hoover comes to mind.
One can easily imagine the existence of a rogue deep state
Here is a plausible version of the deep state that precedes Trump:

But the deep state that Trump is doing Kayfabe battle with is a fictional version of deep state that he created.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 7 2020 21:53 utc | 220

@ 215 arby and @ 216 Sakineh Bagoom... thanks... it is an open question and i certainly don't have an answer for it.. i agree with you arby... some of it doesn't make sense as there are going to be some big losers like you note... as for it being the 'hidden hand'... sure, but we can pretty claim that on a regular basis and we don't get very far claiming that, do we?? i run up against this wall with jackrabbit who seems quick to blame the deep state, but the deep state remains quite opaque as i see it...

it is sort of like trying to pin the poisoning of navalny on an intel agency... obviously it makes sense they would do something like this, but we have no concrete proof of any of it.. same deal here which is also why i tire of this term 'deep state', even if it is a 'hidden hand' as you note! i can go along with that but it leaves us no further ahead...

i really do believe it matters not who gets elected - trump or biden... i could argue biden is the lesser of 2 evils, but as we saw with obama - the appearance was all positive, but the actions were all the same lies, deception and bullshit we come to expect from the usa.. it will be no different with either of these men moving forward... i don't like voting based on thinking i am voting for the lesser of 2 clear evils... the whole usa has to come down as i see it.. if i was voting, i would again be voting hypothetically for trump to hasten the process... forget about keeping up appearances.. it ain't working anymore...

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2020 21:57 utc | 221

@ 220 jinn... thanks.. just seeing your post now... i can go along with all that.. so this could include the fbi, cia and any number of other internal bureaucrat elements of the gov't that continue on, regardless of who is in power.... it seems pretty clear some of these gov't agencies were trying to get rid of trump.. however, i am not completely buying that... it is a good sales pitch for team trump, but i am not completely sold on this... so, i guess i agree with you - all star wrestling - trump against deep state..

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2020 22:02 utc | 222


The reason I say hidden hand is that the term 'deep state' is not definable. Those who use it want to attribute that, which is unknown, to something that is palatable, and readily accessible to feeble minds. Too many moving parts for them to follow, I guess.

Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Sep 7 2020 22:51 utc | 223

@ sakineh... it is a good analogy for deep state - hidden hand... they seem to mean the same thing which to most people would mean essentially nothing that can be described very effectively other then by innuendo - a remark that suggests something but does not refer to it directly, or this type of remark in general... in other words, deep state is essentially almost completely meaningless and yet some use the term regularly!

Posted by: james | Sep 7 2020 23:09 utc | 224

Deep State

jinn is correct that the tradition definition was the entrenched federal bureaucracy.

Another oft-cited definition is powerful oligarchs.

While have some degree of truth, I think they are both misleading.

IMO the Deep State is a combination of political, corporate, and intellectual elite. They are essentially hiding in plain sight. I believe that it has a hierarchical structure and they support each other. It's not the simplified "federal bureacracy" but the powerful top managers with wide contacts. And it's not "power oligarchs" that have ultimate power (as many who "follow the money" believe) but the most powerful ones that have aligned with the Deep State and develop connections with them by, for example, providing: lucrative contracts, "revolving door" jobs, speaker invitations, directorships, etc. And prominent intellectuals/ideologues with influence like Kissinger and Kagan are also represented.

I think political people with deep foreign policy exposure and senior CIA/intelligence people predominate. On the political side, There's people like Brennan, McCain (now deceased), Clinton, Mueller, Bush, and Biden. They have personal relationships with all the other most powerful people.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 7 2020 23:19 utc | 225

vk doesn't get it.

What matters isn't if Trump is a weak or a strong president.

What matters is he seems stronger than Biden, especially on policies, and this is how he will win.

Every problems he has, he can blame someone else, and that's how he's gonna get away with it.

Posted by: Smith | Sep 8 2020 0:37 utc | 226

@ james # 224 about hidden hand

"Hidden hand" and "animal spirits" are economics dog whistles referring to those that shall not be named. They come from the great economic myth maker Adam Smith

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 8 2020 0:47 utc | 227

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 7 2020 20:18 utc | 213

It looks like, in your opinion, what you can't see cannot exist. Did you notice that by definition the deep state is not easily visible? Of course there is (almost) no hidden people. All members of the deep state are known people. The trick is just that you cannot see at first who is what.
Nevertheless, it's possible to do by doing some historical research. Because the deep state is perennial.
For instance, Robert Gates. His curriculum is absolutely telling.

There is only one definition for the deep state, it's the traditional one: people from the military/intelligence/security/essential administration. It's kind of a state inside the state, which rules, whoever is officially in command.

Any other definition of the deep state is speaking about another thing which already had its proper noun. For instance: the establishment. Or: the plutocratic oligarchy.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 1:39 utc | 228

@ 225 jackrabbit - thanks for your take on the term 'deep state'....

@ 227 psychohistorian... thanks for broadening my perspective on this too!

i am still thinking i am not really getting it.. i admit to being slow... reminds me of that book i read a few years ago - thinking fast and thinking slow.. maybe this is not the name of it...,_Fast_and_Slow

if you haven't read it - it is a pretty good book... it might be over rated, because i have found the nassim taleb books to be excellent and his books haven't gotten the same kind of traction that Kahneman's book has.. maybe i am wrong on that.. another author who i really enjoyed reading although slightly different - ''Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril'' by margaret heffernen... i see she did a TED talked based off the book... the book is excellent...

i seem to have trouble with the obvious and not so obvious and the line gets blurred regularly for me..

Posted by: james | Sep 8 2020 3:44 utc | 229

To the guy claiming Trump works with the deep-state...

Liberals & hawks accuse Trump of ‘attack’ on military after he says Pentagon chiefs ‘fight wars to keep arms dealers healthy'

Posted by: Zanon | Sep 8 2020 6:10 utc | 230

If we’re discussing the ‘deep state’ the best place to start is by searching———
‘Bilderberg’ Also relivent to present geo-politics (particularly virus related subjects) search for ‘agenda 21’
But bare in mind google is part of the deep state. Sadly also yandex has now been massively compromised !!

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 7:10 utc | 231

And for Zanon. Trump is a deep state glove puppet, all be it, a loose cannon. Very usefull to them as a demolition man.
(Sorry for the mixed metaphors)

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 7:22 utc | 232


I dont think you know what deep state mean. Pentagon is part of the deep-state, perhaps one of the most powerful actor.

Posted by: Zanon | Sep 8 2020 7:33 utc | 233

Zanon @ 233
We agree !
Look at the deep state as a prymid made of separate blocks, in this case republicans and democrats, but we should not look at them being the top !
Both are equally controlled by far more powerful people. Money is power and it has no regard for individual people, groups/party’s or even nations, no regard for national borders.
As far as they are concerned the public are redundant ! For obveous reasons.
Their weakness is — they are a minority.

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 8:33 utc | 234

James @ 229.. It is also very fuzzy to me as well.
No matter who is President or prime minister in all of these five eyes ,etc., the same path is followed and in many cases that path is substantially hurting the so called Oligarchs.
Year in and year out the path does not change.
I thought that the 08/09 collapse would force the Deep State to pull their horns back a bit, but I was wrong. If anything they increased their openness of aggression to resistance.
The same now as Covid ravages the economy there is no letup on the "full spectrum Dominance".
Some very powerful people must be behind this.

No matter how it would appear that most moves appear to backfire the beat goes on.

Who are these monsters that must have it all.

The media are totally onside with this insanity as well.
The pentagon I can see loves all the money, but are not really interested in dead soldiers and any real battles.
All the politicians are onside and if one is not he soon gets turfed.

Somebody is running that big show, that is for sure because it is impossible that all of the press, politicians, military, etc., are onside by coincidence.

Posted by: arby | Sep 8 2020 13:50 utc | 235

Posted by: Zanon | Sep 8 2020 6:10 utc | 230

It's less than two months before Election Day, and you think that the Trump's say must be took at face value . . .

Well, I don't need to answer furthermore, but to thank you for the fun.

This demonstrates how much Trump is useful for the deep state.
Because of his showman performance, Trump is a very effective smokescreen and attention grabber, beside which the deep state can play as he wishes, almost in plain sight, and nevertheless almost unwatched.

Someone said that Clinton is part of. I disagree. Four years ago, the deep state had made clear that she couldn't, when Comey said "extreme negligence".
On the other hand, Obama is definitely part of.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 13:54 utc | 236

" Somebody is running that big show, that is for sure because it is impossible that all of the press, politicians, military, etc., are onside by coincidence.

Posted by: arby | "

And we can add to this list--

The so called "Think Tanks", Most of the "do good organizations" like USAID, and the rest have been infiltrated and compromised and are onside.

Posted by: arby | Sep 8 2020 14:01 utc | 237

"Money is power and it has no regard for individual people, groups/party’s or even nations, no regard for national borders."
Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 8:33 utc | 234

You're right. One must firstly look at where is the dominating kind of power.

Now, try to answer that question:
In your opinion, what's more powerful ?
- extreme wealth ?
- extreme amount of knowledge about everybody, such as what the NSA owns ?

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 14:07 utc | 238

Parisian Guy @ 238
Extreme wealth and knowledge are both equal ingredients of the same ‘deep state recipe ‘ along with many other ingredients !
Honed over many centuries. Here in Britain we have an expression ‘old money, new money’ Trump is new money, brash flamboyant like a bull in a China shop. No finesse, no manners ect ect for that reason he will never be sitting at the top table. English toffs would describe him as ‘beneath the salt’
To answer the direct question ‘’who are the deep state’’ ——-
Simply look at the league table of richest family’s in the world and there you have it, absalute accuracy, and all neatly named, and placed in order of importance ‘bingo’
But bare in mind the top ones are powerful enough to not be on the published lists.

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 14:38 utc | 239

I cant believe what I am reading in the last page or so of comments. Did I accidently stumble into a conversation of half-witted teenagers?

People are making posts here pretending not to know what the 'deep state' is? Many of these people are long, long time readers at MOA (I know this first hand, as I have been reading their comments for years), and as such, at least somewhat politically savvy.

And yet, they are acting like the don't understand this new fangled concept of a 'deep state'.

WTF is going on here?

Posted by: visak | Sep 8 2020 14:54 utc | 240

It’s not only about who has the money but even more importantly who controls the money, world wide. Then we see how borders become an illusion to control the masses. Like crops in a network of fields

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 14:54 utc | 241


These according to Bloomberg are the richest families in the world.

Walton's top the list.

I'm pretty sure that the "Deep State" was around before walmart was around. Same with most of the other 24 richest.

In short I don't swallow that these are the Deep State.

I have no doubt that they have sway, but this constant drive to dominate the world comes from elsewhere.

Posted by: arby | Sep 8 2020 15:01 utc | 242

Extreme wealth and knowledge are both equal ingredients
Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 14:38 utc | 239

Obviously not. They are not owned by the same people. Please answer my little question.

A proper analytical method should make a dissection of the reality into its elemental components. It should not confuse them.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 17:02 utc | 245

Parisian Guy I think you will find they are owend by the same people at the very top of the pyramid !
Unless you can enlighten me. I’m allways keen to learn.
Arby, I did reply, it did not appear. That happens if you mention the R name. Mmm ‘b’ ?

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 17:15 utc | 246

Parisian @ 245
Yes but prymid only has one apex, and I assumed we are talking deepstate, power and ultimate power. ‘Top dog’ if you like.
Perhaps you have a dog in the race ? I have noticed your political and class bias. Who’s top dog in France regards wealth ?

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 17:29 utc | 247

There is no material reason to think they are the same people. Thus, one must consider they are not the same, until you demonstrate it goes otherwise.
You are entitled to your own theory, but it's up to you to demonstrate it by showing some occurrence.

Let's say those people: Bush father&son, Obama, Kissinger, Robert Gates, Michael Hayden. There is no billionaires here.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 17:44 utc | 248


No, the West is not China. The apex of the pyramid is not sharp. You may have a small group, inside which the leadership is fluctuating. That's polyarchy, not monarchy.

Please, answer my little question.

About my "political and class bias". Well I suggest you come back smoking only pure tobacco, without any THC.

There is half a dozen oligarchs in France. They made the Macron election. There's is also powerful banks, and foreign influence : USA, Israel and - it's specific to Macron - Russia.
Macron see himself as the future Master of The Universe and he tries to stay free of these influences, with mitigated success.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 18:09 utc | 249

Parisian @ 249
Here’s a rare bit of MOA honesty ——- If I could understand your question I may have answered. Indeed I thought I had done both. Clearly I don’t have your education or intellect. I can live with that. But I beyound doubt know stuff you don’t !
This link is old but all I have found now whilst dining.

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 18:40 utc | 250

Here’s a clue ———

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 19:05 utc | 251

This may be interesting to some, that is the top man of the deep state. Estimated to be worth £200 trillion read it and weep.

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 19:39 utc | 252


That article from Zerohedge is really interesting, since it accurately describes what the Bilderberg is.
It's a real thing but it definitely isn't a deep state.
- it is transnational. A deep state pertains to one state and its purpose is (theoretically) to ensure the continuing of that national state.
- it's a mixed network of big business men and bankers, media top guys, and expandable top politicians. There's no chiefs of the military-intelligence apparatus here.
- as much as one can guess, it's purpose is to serve the interest of the top money power in the global field. As Adam Smith said : "Traders don't have a fatherland". If the Chineses had okayed, all this network would had been happy to transplant themselves in China (where the max profits will be in 21st century) and they would not have cared about the West fate. Think about how the top money was in Lisbon, centuries ago, then it went in Amsterdam, then i and finally Wall Street.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 8 2020 19:45 utc | 253

Parisian Guy @ 253
First of all I have to say, I just kind of fell into this debate here, but appear to have been left holding the baby !
I appreciate your input though.
I do agree with almost all you say there, except, i find it intriguing you beleave deep state is only defined as power for one country and within that country. Whilst I see that as true in itself, I go back to the point i made that power transcends borders. Example ‘world bank’ perhaps our difference is only on our present focus. I suggest we are both right. But thanks P.G. No row here. Respect.

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 20:09 utc | 254

@ visak | Sep 8 2020 14:54 utc | 240.. i asked the question.. i think it is a useful thought exercise myself... i don't believe there is a clear answer to this - hidden hand - being an apt term that @ Sakineh Bagoom used and which is growing on me! it essentially means it could be anything.... sorry you are disappointed in the discourse... what are your thoughts on the question of what exactly the ''deep state'' is?? or is that beneath you to answer?? cheers...

Posted by: james | Sep 8 2020 20:25 utc | 255

Examples of Deep State power might be helpful for those having trouble with the definition. In particular, the U.S. Presidency is the lynch-pin of the Empire and as such is too powerful to allow a democratic Choice. So it's not surprising that many Presidents and Presidential contenders after Kennedy have had OSS/CIA connections.

  • Ronald Reagan A movie star that is said to have ratted on other movie stars in the McCarthy era.
  • Bush Sr.: A former CIA Director.
  • Bill Clinton: Said to have allowed CIA drug-running in Arkansas. Wife Hillary Clinton is probably CIA - if only because Sean Penn bragged of his joining CIA in an email that he sent to her - why would he have done that if she weren't already 'in'?
  • GW Bush: Son of Bush Sr.
  • Obama: His grandfather was said to be OSS, his mother has been rumored to have been CIA - she married a General that was close to Suharto of Indonesia shortly before Suharto staged a coup and became a dictator who ruled for 31 years.
  • Trump: It is said that his first Atlantic casino purchase was were CIA laundered money. He was also close to Hillary, Netanyahu (via Ivanka's marriage), Epstein, and the notorious Roy Cohn.

    Note: It's worthwhile to consider the possibility that Trump was Epstein/Ghislaine's CIA contact instead of an Epstein target.

    Trump is also supposed to have been helping FBI counter-intelligence via his employment of an FBI "asset" connected to the Russian mob.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 8 2020 21:57 utc | 256

And Biden is also a Deep Stater who served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Cmtte for many years and then was Obama's VP who led foreign affairs - like relations with Ukraine and China.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 8 2020 22:02 utc | 257

Thanks for coming to my rescue there James & Jack Rabbit it was getting lonely (as in Assange lonely)
In the time I was commenting I had, one comment disappear, two dos attacks, a test to see if I was a bot. And my evenings YouTube music messed up obveously diliberatly.
Now that’s what I call a sensitive subject. B must be having kittens over it. I’m done. now if you will excuse me whilst I ‘make off ‘across the fields before the drone attack.’
By the way I agree with you both and as allways learn from your comments.

Posted by: Mark2 | Sep 8 2020 22:20 utc | 258

@ jackrabbit 256

I disagree about Clinton. In my analysis the airport gave Clinton some compromat which allowed him to run against the actual deep state candidate in 1992, who was Bush senior. Do you remember he did lose against Clinton?

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 9 2020 16:41 utc | 259

I think that what you call "deep state" should be called "deep power".

My deep state and your deep power are two different thing.
Some years ago, the distinction was less useful, because they had compatible purposes. At this time, it was believed that the US empire was bound to dominate every square inch of the planet, so that "planet without borders" and "US empire" would be the same thing, practically speaking.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 9 2020 16:56 utc | 260

Hum, my "Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 9 2020 16:56 utc | 260" was obviously to Mark2

@Jackrabbit 257
Not ok about the foreign affairs committee of the Senate. The deep state is only one of many special interests who make the election in Congress. To be in one of these committee is as much a cue of being an Aipac puppet than a cue of being a CIA puppet.

Posted by: Parisian Guy | Sep 9 2020 17:10 utc | 261

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.