I'd like to see the Moyers interview.
The Deep State ain’t very deep if Lofgren knows so much about it.
The term is used just to politicise the US bureaucracy. The right wing nutters scream it is a left wing plot while the left wing nutters scream it is a right wing plot.
It can’t be both.
Isn't it odd all the law enforcement figures who Trump accuses of being deep state and conspiring against him are Republicans. Most of them Trump chose himself. They are actually Trump's handpicked deep state.
^Same swamp. Different gators.
Ellen DeGeneres is one of the Deep State, along with Obama and Clinton, according to Little Donnie Jr, II. Of course she denies it!
https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status...072000/photo/1
Ellen DeGeneres denies Eric Trump's theory she's part of 'deep state' | TheHill
#deepstate What a sad load of garbage here.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/deepstate?lang=en
Last edited by misskit; 21-02-2018 at 11:00 AM.
In one of my deleted posts I said that I think the DJT Presidency will strengthen the Deep State.
So you think that applies to Peter Dale Scott ray?
I don't follow that. I just had prior knowledge of past usage of the term BEFORE candidate and President DJT ever came about. Now everyone acts as if it's a Trump thing. It's not.
Thanks for starting the thread for me.Originally Posted by Mods
April 6, 2011
http://www.voltairenet.org/article169316.htmlPeter Dale Scott’s exclusive interview for Voltaire Network
The "Deep State" behind U.S. democracy
In his book The Road to 9/11, now available in French, Professor Peter Dale Scott traces back the history of the "Deep State" in the United States, that is to say the secret structure that steers defense and foreign policy behind the facade of democracy. His analysis lifts the veil on the group that organised the September 11 attacks and which finances itself through international trafficking networks. Regarded as a reference book, The Road to 9/11 already features as recommended reading at military-diplomatic academies.
Voltaire Network | Berkeley (USA) | 6 April 2011
OMG! There's a jew hating, nutter Professor at Berkeley!! Red Alert! Get on it rayray...
THE AMERICAN DEEP STATE: An Interview with Peter Dale Scott for the Project Censored Show on Pacifica Radio
December 2, 2014
http://projectcensored.org/american-...acifica-radio/Guest: Peter Dale Scott is a former Canadian diplomat, professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, and a prolific author. More about Scott and his work can be found at www.peterdalescott.net
Producer and Engineer: Anthony Fest; Erica Bridgeman
Transcription: Janice Matthews (edited by Mickey Huff)
The program aired live from Berkeley, CA, KPFA studios November 21, 2014. Special thanks goes to Janice Matthews for the transcription. The program can be heard at http://www.projectcensored.org/peter-dale-scott-2/
Nov 2014 Coming to Jakarta: The American Deep State
A discussion with Peter Dale Scott about his new book, "The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy" For more videos featuring Peter Dale Scott, subscribe to this channel or go to this website: http://www.ComingToJakarta.net
February 2015 Peter Dale Scott & David Talbot in conversation
Author David Talbot interviews author Peter Dale Scott upon the publication of Scott's book "The American Deep State". February, 2015
July 2015
Deep State America
Democracy is often subverted by special interests operating behind the scenes.
By Philip Giraldi • July 30, 2015
Deep State America | The American Conservative
Excerpt:
In truth America’s deep state is, not unlike Turkey’s, a hybrid creature that operates along a New York to Washington axis. Where the Turks engage in criminal activity to fund themselves, the Washington elite instead turns to banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, operating much more in the open and, ostensibly, legally. U.S.-style deep state includes all the obvious parties, both public and private, who benefit from the status quo: including key players in the police and intelligence agencies, the military, the treasury and justice departments, and the judiciary. It is structured to materially reward those who play along with the charade, and the glue to accomplish that ultimately comes from Wall Street. “Financial services” might well be considered the epicenter of the entire process. Even though government is needed to implement desired policies, the banksters comprise the truly essential element, capable of providing genuine rewards for compliance. As corporate interests increasingly own the media, little dissent comes from the Fourth Estate as the process plays out, while many of the proliferating Washington think tanks that provide deep state “intellectual” credibility are similarly funded by defense contractors.
The cross fertilization that is essential to making the system work takes place through the famous revolving door whereby senior government officials enter the private sector at a high level. In some cases the door revolves a number of times, with officials leaving government before returning to an even more elevated position. Along the way, those select individuals are protected, promoted, and groomed for bigger things. And bigger things do occur that justify the considerable costs, to include bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments.
America’s deep state is completely corrupt: it exists to sell out the public interest, and includes both major political parties as well as government officials. Politicians like the Clintons who leave the White House “broke” and accumulate $100 million in a few years exemplify how it rewards. A bloated Pentagon churns out hundreds of unneeded flag officers who receive munificent pensions and benefits for the rest of their lives. And no one is punished, ever. Disgraced former general and CIA Director David Petraeus is now a partner at the KKR private equity firm, even though he knows nothing about financial services. More recently, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has become a Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies. Both are being rewarded for their loyalty to the system and for providing current access to their replacements in government.
What makes the deep state so successful? It wins no matter who is in power, by creating bipartisan-supported money pits within the system. Monetizing the completely unnecessary and hideously expensive global war on terror benefits the senior government officials, beltway industries, and financial services that feed off it. Because it is essential to keep the money flowing, the deep state persists in promoting policies that make no sense, to include the unwinnable wars currently enjoying marquee status in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan. The deep state knows that a fearful public will buy its product and does not even have to make much of an effort to sell it.
America Has No Deep State
Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest.
THE CONCEPT of a deep state neatly describes certain patterns of power in some foreign countries, but it has no purchase in American politics, where it serves only as a handy pejorative. A deep state materializes in various forms where democracy is at best weak. Algeria has le pouvoir, comprising senior military officers and some associated civilians who may have more ultimate say over national policy than does the elected president. Many Middle Eastern countries have a mukhabarat, which instills fears of unchecked power going beyond a formal mission of intelligence or internal security. In Russia the siloviki, including veterans of the KGB or other security components who have entered politics, have been riding high since one of their own, Vladimir Putin, acquired the top job. Such terms most often denote a loosely delineated collection of like-minded officials with ties centered in security services and exercising disproportionate power over the lives of the country’s citizens. The United States has nothing like it.
An attraction of the term “deep state” to those who misapply it to the United States is that the user of the term feels no need to adduce specific evidence that such a phenomenon exists and is actively exerting political influence. After all, the very concept of a deep state involves operating in the dark and out of sight. If there were evidence to see, then the deep state wouldn’t be very deep. The idea of a deep state, in other words, is pretty shallow.
The concept originally gained traction on the hard left, usually as an adjunct to ideas about a warmaking military establishment or a privacy-violating intelligence and internal-security establishment. But the attraction of the concept, as a label to be applied to whatever might be opposing or frustrating one’s policy or political aspirations, transcends any left-versus-right lines. When I, as a serving intelligence officer, gave an invited talk in 2004 (by happenstance during George W. Bush’s reelection campaign) to a private outside audience about Middle Eastern affairs that unavoidably touched on the bad turn the Iraq War had taken, a leaked and garbled version got to the late conservative commentator Robert Novak, who made a column out of it. Novak wrote that it was “shocking” that the CIA was waging “war” with the White House, and that this reminded him of how “history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments
Today, Donald Trump deplores the “Deep State Justice Department” for not doing enough against “Crooked Hillary Clinton” or against James Comey, the FBI director he fired. Lest we fail to realize just how far the deep-state conspiracy supposedly extends, Trump’s son Eric has advised us via tweet that the conspiracy may include not only Clinton and former president Barack Obama but also comedian Ellen DeGeneres. Clearly we are witnessing not some devilishly planned agenda of an entrenched bureaucracy, but instead the flailing of Trumpites against any purveyor of inconvenient truths, or those they fear may yet purvey such truths.
Unlike systems dominated by siloviki or a pouvoir, the United States has, at least so far, a deeply engrained liberal democratic—in the classical, not partisan, sense—political culture. For the permanent bureaucracy, a corollary of this culture is an ethical commitment to apolitical performance of duties and deference to the policymaking role of leaders whom the American people elected. If there were to be any straying from that ethic—which is as well entrenched as any occupationally related culture—then the agencies involved and the individuals within them would become far more vulnerable than they are now. There would be a case for giving each new political leadership the ability to fire the whole bunch. Employees of the security agencies have no incentive to move things in that direction.
The presumption that the bureaucracies concerned have a collective political intent, which is part of the notion of a deep state, runs up against two problems. One is that political preferences are not worn on sleeves in these places. Notwithstanding some well-publicized emails between romantic partners within the FBI, such preferences generally are not discussed in the course of work, because there is no good reason to discuss them. If there were some community of political intent within those bureaucracies, it would be hard for the people who supposedly are part of such a community to discover it.
The second problem is that, to the extent one can glean political preferences indirectly—through things that do not violate the Hatch Act, such as bumper stickers on cars in agency parking lots—one would see that people who work in these agencies, like other Americans, exhibit a diversity of preferences. Likewise, the supposed political leanings that those making “deep state” accusations contend exist in the bureaucracies have been all over the political map. One group of accusers may say that the FBI is filled with Neanderthal heirs of J. Edgar Hoover; a later group says that it is filled with Clinton-coddling lefties. They can’t both be right, and in fact both are wrong.
The federal bureaucracy in the United States is even less apt to play an independent political role than bureaucracies in other advanced democracies such as Japan or Britain, where the permanent government extends to higher levels and the elected political leadership makes far fewer appointments below the ministerial ranks. Herein lies one of the most destructive aspects of the notion of a deep state. That notion is being used as an excuse for such bashing of objective work by government professionals as Trump’s rants against a Department of Justice that refuses to function like Roy Cohn, and his rejection of the intelligence community’s findings about Russian interference in U.S. elections, in addition to his flagitious firing of Comey. The same destructive tendency is reflected in many appointments, including the most partisan and ideological CIA director since William Casey. The fictitious idea of a deep state is doing more to politicize the bureaucracy than any real deep state ever did.
Paul R. Pillar is a contributing editor at the National Interest and the author of Why America Misunderstands the World.
America Has No Deep State | The National Interest
The Asia-Pacific Journal October 2014
The Fates of American Presidents Who Challenged the Deep State (1963-1980)
by Peter Dale Scott
https://apjjf.org/2014/12/43/Peter-Dale-Scott/4206.html
continued at linkIn the last decade it has become more and more obvious that we have in America today what the journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin have called two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own, visible to only a carefully vetted cadre—and its entirety . . . visible only to God.1
And in 2013, particularly after the military return to power in Egypt, more and more authors referred to this second level as America’s “deep state.”2 Here for example is the Republican analyst Mike Lofgren:
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.3I believe that a significant shift in the relationship between public and deep state power occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, culminating in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. In this period five presidents sought to curtail the powers of the deep state. And as we shall see, the political careers of all five—Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter—were cut off in ways that were unusual. One president, Kennedy, was assassinated. Another, Nixon, was forced to resign.
To some extent the interplay of these two forms of power and political organization is found in all societies. The two were defined by Hannah Arendt in the 1960s as “persuasion through arguments” versus “coercion by force.” Arendt, following Thucydides, traced these to the common Greek way of handling domestic affairs, which was persuasion (πείθειν) as well as the common way of handling foreign affairs, which was force and violence (βία)."4 The two represent not just different techniques of government but different cultures and mindsets, in fundamental tension with each other.5
This tension increases, and predictably tips toward violence, if a well-organized open community expands beyond its own borders and is increasingly occupied with the business of supervising an empire. It is repeatedly the case that progressive societies (like America) expand. As their influence expands, their democratic institutions, based at bottom upon persuasive power among equals, are supplemented by new, often secret, institutions of top-down violent power for the control of alien populations abroad, often speaking different and unfamiliar languages. The more the society expands, the more these institutions of violent power encroach upon and supplant the original democracy.
As a result these nations also experience a deeper and deeper politics, much of it a contest between these two types of power. One special feature of American deep politics since World War Two is that much of it has been characterized by a series of conspiratorial deep events: emblematic of the ongoing conflict between these two forms of power and their corresponding mindsets. One is the acknowledged public mindset of openness, egalitarianism, and democracy. The other is the global dominance mindset committed to maintaining and expanding American hegemony. In domestic policy we often analyze the two cultures as liberals versus conservatives; in foreign policy, doves versus hawks. (Yet American liberals when they reach power, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have also been deeply entwined in the militarization of American politics and its global expansion.) But with the recent expansion since 9/11 of extra-constitutional agencies like the NSA, it is time to supplement these horizontal distinctions with a vertical one: between those agencies constrained by constitutional checks and balances (the public state) and those not so constrained (the deep state). Although the deep state as we have defined it has always existed, its recent radical expansion has brought it into occasional conspiratorial conflict with the public state, even with the president.
Just so we're clear on "The National Interest"
"Over almost three decades, The National Interest, founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol"
About The National Interest | The National Interest
Irving Kristol was an American journalist who was dubbed the "godfather of neoconservatism."
Father of douchebag neo-con William Kristol:
^So you think Peter Dale Scott, a poet, is more realistic about the US political/bureaucratic system.
The 'Deep State' Conspiracy Is a Joke
From the Masons to UFOs, Americans have loved mysteries.
Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest.
IT IS unclear when the Deep State was created, or created itself. The moment of creation, however, almost certainly took shape in the twentieth century. Candidates for creating the Deep State, or permitting it to create itself, are Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman: Roosevelt for domestic purposes, Truman for international purposes.
As a machine that runs itself, its members almost certainly are senior career civil servants in every cabinet department and agency. That means, at least, fifteen cabinet departments and anywhere from seven to fifteen principal agencies. To be effective, the minimum number of Deep State members must be at least a hundred per department and agency. Thus, the core of the Deep State would be in the neighborhood of two or three thousand individuals. It therefore seems almost indisputable that they wield immense and largely unchecked influence.
Over time, senior officials retire and must be replaced. If this mysterious State arose under Roosevelt, then there must have been over time some tens of thousands of secret members of the Deep State.
Were they required to take an oath of secrecy to join this covert government? That must have been part of the arrangement; otherwise one book, not to say a whole library, would have been published by now describing in thrilling detail how it all works.
Perhaps the Deep State has enforcers who take care of those who squeal. Great research question: how many members or former members of the Deep State met untimely and violent deaths?
And where has the Washington press corps been all these years? Anyone remember a Pulitzer Prize for uncovering the Deep State right under their noses?
Amazing that it took President Donald Trump, who had never participated in government or spent much time in Washington, to reveal this secret. Perhaps he is waiting for the appropriate moment to document the existence of the Deep State and its membership.
Perhaps not.
As a veteran of a few years’ service at the U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior, I can testify that there was little evidence of Deep State activity. Almost to a person, the career civil servants were intelligent, diligent, hardworking and highly knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They could, of course, have been sly devils meeting in the furnace room after hours, passing out assignments for subverting the current administration. How were we to know?
Believers in the Deep State surely hold open the possibility that the Russian government and its FSB have known about this all along. They would, of course, have passed on what they know to their new friend, but circumstances being what they are, he would be foreclosed from employing them as his principal source of intelligence. Speaking of which, Deep State members must be all over the dozen-and-a-half agencies in the intelligence community.
From the Masons to UFOs, Americans have loved mysteries. Once it was established that George Washington was a Mason, among other Founders, we have let that mystery go. There are still those pesky UFOs that somehow pop up, much like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.’s cycles of American history, every twenty or thirty years.
Kurt Anderson’s new book calls this Fantasyland, and the Deep State has its own neighborhood there.
If you are out to practice the politics of distraction, how better to do it than to place a bright spotlight on the Deep State? And it has the added advantage of nourishing and feeding the “base,” as well as accounting for unfulfilled campaign promises.
Where is P. T. Barnum when we need him? But wait, perhaps we have him after all—and he is the consummate ringmaster.
Gary Hart is chair emeritus of the American Security Project, cochair of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century and a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The 'Deep State' Conspiracy Is a Joke | The National Interest
Last edited by misskit; 21-02-2018 at 05:29 PM.
Russia encourages US ‘deep state’ conspiracy on Twitter to ‘push narrative’
RUSSIA-influenced Twitter accounts are seeking to rile up Donald Trump supporters against “deep state” faces to stoke divisions and distrust against people in power and regular Americans.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915598/russia-donald-trump-deep-state-conspiracy-twitter-kremlin-white-house
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)