Just a few days ago I had an interesting exchange on social media that I think warrants a bit more in-depth commentary, so I thought I'd shift it to the blogsphere in order to flesh out on of the more amorphous group of notions floating about the socio-political ether in an even more public forum, and to generate content of course. So, as they say, strap in.
In the course of this fairly mild political discussion, a person a few times removed
from me, posited the notion of the Deep State as a mere boogeyman, concocted by the right as an all purpose conspiracy theory used to
explain away any failure in implementing conservative policy.
I chimed in reminding him that just a few months ago Senator
Chuck Schumer, a clear leftist, had warned President Trump of the futility of
attempting to combat the Deep State, by name, and that just a few weeks after he bandied the phrase, the media
machine of the left changed the narrative to deny the existence of the Deep State
altogether.
For many, many years, (at least sixty, if not eighty), when we laughingly joked about "the man" screwing us, I expect that this
was invariably an unwitting reference to what has become known as the "Shadow Government" or the "Deep State", and this was in all seriousness, reflective of the "military-industrial complex" paradigm that President Dwight D. Eisenhower so famously
warned us about as he left office.
To Deep State conspiracy theorists Eisenhower's admonition was philosophically followed by President John F. Kennedy's speech of April 27th,
1961, where he delineated the nature of a global conspiracy which many
mistake, or mistook, for a statement denouncing the Communist powers
(Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba, and increasingly, the VietCong) that the US was in conflict with during the Cold War.
Now, I am one of those who generally believes that President Kennedy's comments ran a lot deeper than just a post-McCarthy Communist rant, and regardless where he would fall on today's political spectrum, I think it merits some place in current discourse. So, let's looks at some excerpts from the transcript in their full context and see if the we can discern any "Fake News", "Globalist" and "Deep State" content embedded beneath the overt Cold War rhetoric implicit to it.
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and
we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret
societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long
ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of
pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify
it....
....Even today, there is
little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do
not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced
need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to
expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and
concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in
my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is
high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here
tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up
our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they
deserve to know...But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the
nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of
our country's peril.
....For we are opposed around the
world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on
covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration
instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by
day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material
resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific
and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are
buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No
expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
....the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly
boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would
otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage;
that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's
covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend
and foe alike...
....I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information
to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of
censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy
answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it
if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession
and the industry in this country to reexamine their own
responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present
danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes
upon us all....
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it
news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the
interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in
America - unions and businessmen and public officials at every level -
will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions
to the same exacting tests.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from
that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes
support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your
newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in
the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I
have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens
whenever they are fully informed.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country
can succeed - and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian
lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from
controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First
Amendment - the only business in America specifically protected by the
Constitution - not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize
the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it
wants" - but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and
our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead,
mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion....This means greater coverage and analysis of international news - for
it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It
means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as
improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all
levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest
possible information outside the narrowest limits of national
security - and we intend to do it...
....And so it is to the printing press - to the recorder of man's deeds,
the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news - that we look for
strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what
he was born to be: free and independent."
I think it's clear JFK was speaking about Communism here.
Or was he?
There is a lot push and pull within the content of the speech about the nature of democracy and the first amendment, the press leaking classified information, the media's manipulation of the public's perceptions, and the "limited powers of his administration".
Hmm, does this all sound as startlingly recurrent to you as it does to me?
Of course, President Kennedy may have been simply referring here to Communist sympathizers or Marxist-leaning persons within the press, news media and in the US government, just as Senator McCarthy had done earlier, but, to me, if the pervasiveness of an embedded force with its own agenda is not overt in the substance of the text, then it is surely buried in the sub-text.
So what then is the Deep State?
What do we mean when we picture it as
a conspiracy?
And why has the notion of a Shadow Government persisted through the vagaries of
administrative change, political party dominance, and multi-generational shifts?
Well, I'll admit that these are all not easy questions to answer because of the complex and elusive nature of the beast, but, hey, let's give it the old college try.
But let's first look at what they're not.
Is the Deep State synonymous with the mysterious Illuminati?
Unlikely.
The Illuminati were at best a loose group of Italian Renaissance
dissenters who only concealed their libertine and enlightenment beliefs out of fear of
excommunication and imprisonment by the Catholic Church. I think the notions of them as a persistent cult are the stuff of fairy tale boogeymen, and are a self-fulfilling reason why they are given so much credit for all of the worlds problems.
Is the Deep State part of some vast, ancient global Jewish conspiracy?
Absolute nonsense.
Sure there are always the Rothchild's to point a condemning racist finger at, but as I understand it they are just one wealthy family ripe with old money. Regardless of their personal power, if this was endemic why would there still be such a thing as poor Jews, Globalist bias against
Israel, and why wouldn't Jewish people be as even more over-represented in government as they are over-represented in the fields of medicine, science, law,
art, media, and for heaven's sake, the restaurant business?
Is Freemasonry a component of the Deep State?
Certainly, a great number of US presidents, about a third, have
been members of the Masonic order, starting with George Washington, and
most recently, with Gerald Ford. Even Bill Clinton was a member of a Masonic youth division, the Order of DeMolay; a fraternal organization
named in honor of Jaques De'Molay, the last Grand Master of the French
franchise of the Knights Templar, also known for the ominously macabre
children's song, Frere Jacques.
It's no shock that Masonic lore connects it to a Knights Templar antecedent, but
does this show a consistent presence in the Deep State?
I don't think so.
Otherwise, every head of our covert services: the FBI, CIA, NSA, and CSS, would be known Freemasons.
Is the Deep State an offshoot of "Skull and Bones"?
While a few US presidents have been members of this Yale
University pre-graduate "secret" club, and several of its members have gone on to take
high ranking positions in the CIA, this is also not pervasive or
widespread, or even a secret enough of a club, to command such adherence to
a uniform direction and motivations.
Is the Deep State part of the Bilderberg group?
While
this faceless organization of business persons is both Corporatist and Globalist, and might have
a strong financial influence on specific politicians, it is neither a cult, nor is it
specifically America focused.
Is the Deep State connected to the gatherings at Bohemian Grove?
Aside from the late former President Richard M. Nixon deeming it "the most faggoty place he had ever been", and the fact that it does seem like a place where elites mingle in a secret environment, it nonetheless appears much more like a kids summer camp, or place where elites relive their college pot-smoking years.
Is the Deep State adhering to a strict Conservative, Liberal, Marxist, or Globalist agenda?
Well, here is where some useful ideas come into play. Because
these Liberals and Conservatives in what I would define as the "Deep State" are not true Liberals or Conservatives,
in the true Classical Liberal ideals of the Enlightenment sense of
philosophy, but it does make them both Corporatist and moderate enough to agree with one
another as Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons.
While the Neo-Libs have incorporated
Marxist Internationalism, or Globalism, as a definer of how they see the
larger world, Neo-Cons have transferred their notions of America's
manifest destiny and militarism embodied in such concepts as "the worlds
policeman" outlook, and morphed it into its own type of globalism.
It is often said that the first rule of any organization or system is the
self-perpetuation of that said organization or system. There may be
those who deny this basic premise of reality, but if we shift the
paradigm to, say, a business-based model it becomes very clear. The job
of a retail store is to stay open, and if you work in that store you may
be invested in helping it stay in business, but hopefully, you do not
feel this more than the owner, who theoretically should be the most
dedicated to this premise.
This existence of this un-accountable, clearly self-entitled oligarchic
"elite" has become overt to only the most obtuse, indoctrinated
partisans, who make excuses for politicians sexual abuse, even to the
level of child sex trafficking rings, such as NXIVM and John Podesta's
"Pizzagate".
These entrenched DC "lifers"
are both Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs, and they are by definition
Corporatists (in that
they support political policies that advance the interests of the seven
or eight trans-national publicly traded monopolistic mega-corps, as
opposed to supporting entrepreneurial capitalism) and worse, they are
consummate bureaucrats, who do not leave their posts regardless of any
of the changes mentioned previously, not to mention the vagaries of the
economy, nor any
other variables, only lest, I suspect, that they fail to "look out for
one another".
What both sides share in common is this outlook of the
inter-connected nature of global society and trade, and a de-emphasis on
national sovereignty. Thus, they are no longer working in the best
interests and desires of the American people, but rather for their own
vision of the future as defined by their entrenchment in the halls of
state, their personal aggrandizement, and the military-industrial
complex powered by publicly traded monopolistic trans-national
mega-corps.
Within reason, I like to imagine, when I am feeling positive
about human nature, that this is not such a premeditated nefariousness
endeavor, but rather simply people learning to "play ball" with others
and "not making waves" in their place of employment, as if it were any
other business. I mean, hey, everyone loves job security, don't they?
I am by no means an apologist for them at all, but at the same
time I can understand why they might wish to undermine or corrupt a
president who has essentially promised to fire them all, such as Donald J. Trump has. Frankly, they
must view any elected official who is not "one of them" as standing
against them. It's all or nothing at all.
Looking at the history of earlier Presidents we can easily assume from
their warnings about the influence of "the man" that Eisenhower and Kennedy were
divergent from the goals of the Shadow State. I suspect that Nixon, as an unpopular
outsider, may have also been at odds with elements in his own government,
which, even though he executed their will in some respects, eventually
led to his forcible resignation from the office.
On the contrary, I think Bill Clinton's impeachment attempt was a very different
animal, and reflected a Neo-Con partisan push based in which actual their social Conservatism, or their moralistic principles, got the better of them. We see a similar phenomena in Great Britain right now, where
the Marxist identitarian driven Labour Party has duped the Tories to
meet them at their level of Stasi-like authoritarianism, by stimulating
their innate socially Conservative "fuddy-duddy-ness" in an alliance of
those who wish to monitor speech like a wanna-be Big Brother.
But back to the US.
After a number of No-Con and Neo-Lib Corporatist war-hawk
administrations, the voters chose a populist cut from the Andrew Jackson
mold. A straight-talking outsider oozing bluster, hyperbole, with a
focus on national sovereignty. In some respects one could argue that the reaction to Donald Trump from the Deep State,
the mainstream media, and those "triggered" by the media's non-stop
barrage, i.e. Democrats, Liberals and those on the Far Left, can't
really be held responsible for their rather intentional emotional
investment (feels over facts, right) in attempting to "get rid of
Trump", because they have been easily manipulated into having this
belief by those whose vested interest is to oust Trump and hold onto
their own power.
So, to sum up, I think these are the members of the Deep State. Devoid of any external ties to secret organizations other than their unswerving desire to hold onto personal power and influence.
Aside an aside I would like to close with a recap of a meme I posted on
Facebook the other day that I feel encapsulated the left's sudden embrace of the Deep State. In it I said: "A Liberal History: The 1960's - You fought "The Man", The 1990's - You Loved "The Man", Now - You deny that "The Man" exists. Needless to say, my liberal friends had very little to say about this post, but, then, of course.
To close, I would like to recommend "
Thought Contagion", the most recent music video by the British rock band Muse. I think it's quite relevant and that you'll enjoy it even if their music is "not
your thing". If judging from the always cancerous YouTube comment
section, it would appear that most watchers are
stuck on the overt visual elements rather than the symbolic
political elements it is rife with.
So, to quickly demystify, in the video, set in the seeming 1980's, a
young man cut from the "Footloose" model, and hence, an individualist
fighting against a Socially Conservative hierarchy, leaves a punk-type
club with a young lady who we soon realize is a vampire of sorts. She
bites and infects the young man, moving him toward being robotic.
"You've been bitten by a true believer", the refrain repeats. Other punks
on the periphery shamble about also converted to automatons. Suddenly
the representatives of the State arrive, in the form of military,
medical and administrative figures who appear as if they will save the
young man by taking the transformed girl away. The lad tries to rescue
her from their clutches, when it becomes obvious that she and the representatives of the state
are actually on the same side, and to the young man's horror, start dancing about like marionettes
(which those stuck on the visuals just see as a homage to Michael
Jackson's Thriller), before his conversion
becomes final and his image is moved to a Matrix like simulation on a
screen outside of the night club. The lead singer passes by sporting a "They Live" pair of sunglasses, implying that he can see the truth of world.
The end. True libertarian principles at their finest, and a great deconstruction of the misshapen alliance of the Left with the State.
Till next time.
Well here we are back again at the end of another month, and it was one that I will admit was soft on politics, and heavy on music and art.
