The Deep State, its propáganda and the CBC

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313
The Deep State, its propáganda and the CBC

 

https://www.strategic-culture.org/wp-content/themes/strategic-culture/layout/static/acjHM66QQR5kCh1rvkLeUXWRoIw.png

Eric Zuesse

November 14, 2019

Propaganda is essential to the Deep State’s operation.

The Deep State is the small number of people who control the organizations that donate the majority of the funds which finance the political careers of national officials, such as Presidents, Prime Ministers, and members of the national legislature. Almost always, the members of the Deep State are the controlling stockholders in the international corporations that are headquartered in the given nation; and, therefore, the Deep State is more intensely interested in international than in purely national matters. Since most of its members derive a large portion of their wealth from abroad, they need to control their nation’s foreign policies even more than they need to control its domestic policies.....

The article goes on to analyse the methodology of propaganda....I prefer to use the below example from the cbc......

Is CBC an arm of the Deep State?

from cbc.ca

The United Nations warned on Saturday violence in Bolivia could "spin out of control" following a night of skirmishes between security forces and coca farmers loyal to ousted president Evo Morales that left at least eight dead.

Morales resigned a week ago under pressure from Bolivia's police and military after evidence of vote rigging tainted his Oct. 20 election victory. He fled to Mexico.

........what evidence? Nothing but a declaration from the Leader of the OAS.....this is usual procedure of the CBC to quote öfficial, credible? people

skirmishes between security forces and coca farmers....sounds like Morales is just a tool of the druggies? when in fact the entire city of El Alto has risen up and banned security forces from entering the largest city of Bolivia...

again for the ad nauseum time...if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...must be?

Is the CBC nothing but a bought and paid for arm of the Deep State?
Zuesse´s article is a good definition!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

There is no need to use the neologism "Deep State" to describe what has long been called the ruling class. And, to answer your question, in my opinion yes, the CBC is mostly a tool of the Canadian ruling class, although most of the employees actually think they are independent thinking journalists. It just so happens that only the ones whose opinions are closely enough aligned to the ruling class propaganda model get hired by any major media company, including the CBC.

Pondering

"Ruling class" is a descriptor we should use more often to suggest that we are in a class war. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

There is no need to use the neologism "Deep State" to describe what has long been called the ruling class. And, to answer your question, in my opinion yes, the CBC is mostly a tool of the Canadian ruling class, although most of the employees actually think they are independent thinking journalists. It just so happens that only the ones whose opinions are closely enough aligned to the ruling class propaganda model get hired by any major media company, including the CBC.

Exactly, great precis of Manufacturing Consent.

NDPP

Give the smearing of Morales by CBC and its pride of place as our national flagship propagandist, this probably fits here too...

Baby Shark Coup

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/19/baby-shark-coup/

"Somehow in the shadow of the US backed coup in Bolivia, several cultural threads seem worth examining in western society right now."

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Deep State. lol. oh fuck.  Calling all tin foil hatted Alex Jones groupies. lol.

NDPP

This from 'tin-foil hatted Alex Jones groupie' Chris Hedges:

The Hill:  Chris Hedges: Why the Deep State is Trying To Take Trump Out

https://youtu.be/ncwEGaP9MYY

"The impeachment is driven by the deep state and the deep state is real..."

Mobo2000

I think there is a useful distinction between the "Deep State" and the "ruling class" (or what Chomsky would call the "masters of the universe").

I don't agree with the description of the Deep State given in the opening post though --  in my experience the "Deep State" is more commonly used to refer to a subset of the ruling class, that is more formally, permanently and intimately involved with government and the political process.   So civil administraters, powerful bureaucrats in the intelligence agencies, foreign policy planning bodies, and most crucially the military command (in the American context, the Pentagon and it's massive unaccountable spending).

The deep state is much more knowledgeable  and powerful than most other elements of the ruling class, and while it acts in the ruling class' interests most of the time, it may have a different interpretation of what is in the interest of the ruling class than what the rest of ruling class does.    And on issues where the ruling class is divided, or even fragmented, the Deep State asserts it's own interests first.  

Personally I don't mind the term.   I sometimes will substitute it for "military industrial complex".

An example -- Part of Trump's "mandate" was to pursue warmer relations with Russia and pick a fight with China.   I think it would be fair to say the American ruling class was split on this, some elements are happy to do business with China and Russia, and others benefit from a trade war (or actual war through proxies).   But the military and geopolitical issues at play are the primary consideration for the deep state, and it determines the path actually taken, which was to pick fights with both China and Russian.   Elements of the ruling class gained or lost by that choice.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Tin foil hat conspiracy theorists. What next? A thread about Qanon? Whatever.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I generally agree with Mobo on the definition of Deep State, and I have posted to that effect in the past. However, rather than get into that discussion in this thread, I simply pointed out that what was defined in the opening post was actually nothing more than the ruling class. Using this distinction, I think it is much more the ruling class that controls the media than the Deep State.

iyraste1313

The Deep State has a totally different connotation than the Ruling Class...suggesting the ongoing mythology of our so called democratic society, the charade of the political process, the use of stealth to hide reality, to keep people passive...

It permits the bs that there are opposing forces out there, democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. NDP vs. Progressive Conservative...The Deep State suggests the need to analyse what really is going on!

Okay I have a theory re the impeachment process, which no doubt will be shut down as conspiracy theory, lunacy....

Checking some of the best of the left and right media, curious to see how the right quotes some people, the left, totally different, to prove that the impeachment process is a hoax, or forefone conclusion.....what?

Is the Deep State in fact paying off, inserting their people into the debate to maintain the charade, the distraction of the endless scandals...it reminds me of the Maidan revolt...remember, when the protests were confronting the Party of the Regions at maidan Square...and the snipers above, shooting at both sides to increase the frocity of the confrontation?
Is this  what is happening in this impeachment distraction?

And why now such an intense distrction? re we not headed for something real, something dangerous, which people must not be made aware of?

 

Sean in Ottawa

The ideas of ruling class and deep state are actually quite different. The deep state references operatives in the government tied to the bureaucracy that is seen as trying to protect itself from change. The ruling class are the ones the system is designed to benefit.  deep state is meant to point to those individuals who act behind the scenes. The ruling class are the beneficiaries.

I do not really buy much of the deep state conspiracy stuff. The ruling class do rule and get what they want. the minions who bring it to them are interchangeable and disposable. The emphasis on deep state rather than ruling class is a distraction of the ruling class and designed to focus on the functionairies rather than the beneficiaries. 

Deep state: think of a bureaucrat.

Ruling class: think the Koch brothers

iyraste1313

The impeachment hearings have focused on anti-Trump witnesses who are themselves key participants in this reactionary foreign policy, and who speak in the Orwellian language of American imperialism. They define “democracy” in Ukraine in terms of the degree to which Ukraine’s government agrees to serve as an instrument of American foreign policy. They hail the so-called “Revolution of Dignity” in which an elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown because he was viewed as an obstacle to the anti-Russia campaign. They salute fascistic figures like Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, sponsor of the notorious Azov Battalion, which marches under modified swastikas and celebrates the Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazis in World War II.

Nothing of this political reality is so much as hinted at in the coverage of the impeachment hearings by either the pro-Trump or anti-Trump corporate media. On the contrary, the presumption is that the foreign policy of the United States government is aimed at the promotion of freedom and democracy and opposed to Russia because Russian President Vladimir Putin is a tyrant....Patrick Martin wsws on Impeachment Crisis and American Imperialism

contrarianna

"Deep state" is not really a neologism having been around as a US descriptor nearly 30 years (Turkey, before that). 

Unfortunately, though a valid term, both the Trumpist and anti-Trumpist media bubbles have reduced it to their  viral doofus dog whistles. 

For Trumpists, it means a pro-Democrat elite cabal against some ludicrously alleged independent Trump trying "to make America great again".

For the #Resistence-fed, the Trumpist definition of deep state is regurgitated as constituting a "conspiracy theory"--flip sides of the same debased coin by sequestered factions. 

Prior to Trump, and the subsequent use and abuse by the duopoly factions, it was mostly used by the left-leaning and academics to describe the clandestine, unelected control of the state despite the illusion of democracy.  "Deep", ie below the surface, does not quite equate with "ruling class" since in overtly authoritarian regimes, government and the ruling elite are more obviously co-joined without the lipstick of "democracy". 

Though the term has been around only a few decades, as previosly noted the core realities have been articulated much longer by many, such as in Wolin's "Managed Democracy" and in Chomsky's "Manufacture of Consent".  Though Chomsky generally refrains from the term he is not spooked by it, as noted in his praise for Kovolick's book "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin  by Dan Kovalik 

This review of critical incidents of recent history is a treasure trove of information that Americans should know, but scarcely do, and a very valuable corrective to prevailing mythology about our innocence threatened by the evil enemy. Deeply informed, it could hardly be more timely or urgent.”—Noam Chomsky

The supreme irony of both factions of the Dem/Repub, corporate/imperialist state using the same term to attack each other is that Trump is very much part and pusher of the pool of controlling, behind the scenes, interests. An additional twist to that is that Trump has caused some uneasiness by often undermininng the sham cover stories for imperial interventions which has historically relied on reassuring lies such as "humanitarian intervention" "pro-democracy" and "WMD".  Instead we get explicit pronouncements from Trump, such as for Syria: "We are going to keep the oil!", of which:

This whole scheme is illegal. In fact, it’s a war crime. It violates nearly a dozen international codes and agreements, including the Fourth Geneva Convention....

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-syria-oil-war-crime.html

The departure from previous US presidents is less in action than in Trump's unrestrained imperial expression. International law has long been an ignored, attacked, or merely employed as a tool of occassional convenience by the only superpower. The depredations of the "deep state" interests are exposed as desirable by promoting them without the cover stories. Trump's promotion of Sec of State ex Exxon CEO Tillotston might well be compared with Bush's  VP Cheney: Cheney, Halliburton and the Spoils of War https://corpwatch.org/article/cheney-halliburton-and-spoils-war

The fact that Trump can get away with making unabashedly explicit the criminal intent of the US with very little direct criticism is a worrying sign that what Wolin called "Inverted Totalitarianism" (dependent partly on public illusion of "America the Good") is becoming acceptably overt rapacious imperialism. Note that the corporate liberal "newspaper of record", the NYT, when discussing Trump's avowed criminal intent only gives a passing suggestion of the criminality to when discussing the practicality of pilaging Syria:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/politics/trump-syria-oil-fields.html

Again, Trump though an extremely vile manifestation of the right wing of the Republican party, is very much part of the imperial continuum, and the contention that he is a major departure, displays the deep state maintained public illusion of a non-existent democratic state:

US Foreign Policy of Chaos under Trump: the Wrecker and the Puppeteers Pierre Guerlain

....Trump carries a big stick and talks furiously, but like his predecessors, he has toed the line of what Obama calls the “Washington playbook” or the “blob” that others, including Edward Snowden, call the Deep State 67, the National Security State or “double government” to use Michael Glennon’s expression borrowed from the English political theorist Walter Bagehot.68 The formula of this undemocratic form of unelected power was given by Samuel Huntington in 1981: “The architects of power in the United States must create a force that can be felt but not seen. Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.”69 With Bolton and Pompeo, “super-hawks replacing hawks”70, and torturer Haspel (also confirmed by the Senate with some Democratic votes) at the head of the CIA, the decline and chaos are reaffirmed. Lewis Lapham expressed the core view of this paper eloquently: “To regard Trump as an amazement beyond belief is to give him credit where none is due. He is undoubtedly a menace, but he isn’t a surprise.”...

https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/10208

Mobo2000

Great post, contrianna.  I laughed out loud at "viral doofus dog whistles".

iyraste1313

....Trump carries a big stick and talks furiously, but like his predecessors, he has toed the line of what Obama calls the “Washington playbook” or the “blob” that others, including Edward Snowden, call the Deep State 67, the National Security State or “double government...

...the question of course is whether he in fact has any control at all, what with the power of the deep state, its Democratic Party, its media, its 17 Intelligence forces...

voice of the damned

iyraste1313 wrote:

...the question of course is whether he in fact has any control at all, what with the power of the deep state, its Democratic Party, its media, its 17 Intelligence forces...

So why would this Deep State, which presumably represents the most powerful interests in the country, be so hostile to Trump? Which sacred taboos of the ruling-class has he been violating?

NDPP

CBC News: Calls For U of A Lecturer to Be Fired For Denying Holodomor

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmacdonald-holodomor-1.5377661

"...Images, first shared online by the Ukrainian Canadian Students Union, show a post by Dougal MacDonald with the title 'The Myth of the Holodomor,' which claims the event was a Nazi fabrication. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, The Ukrainian Students' Union of the local Ukrainian Studies Society are calling for Macdougal to be terminated from the University. A statement posted to the Jewish Federation of Edmonton Facebook page called it 'irresponsible and deeply dishonest' to deny the existence of Holodomor."

 

New Cold War - Mark Tauger on 'The Holodomor'

https://www.newcoldwar.org/archive-of-writings-of-professor-mark-tauger-...

"The proponents of 'Holodomor' posit a genocide equivalent in numbers to the Holocaust of WWII. Tauger argues strongly against this thesis..."

 

"The Ukrainian diaspora in the West (especially in Canada) was responsible for the 'fighting and suffering regime' in which the OUN and UPA were portrayed as brave heroes who died for an independent Ukrainian state and Holodomor was constructed into a major Ukrainian national trauma. The construction of this memory discourse included creation of narratives focusing on monumental 'national' traumas and building of monuments to commemorate the Holodomor and resistance fighters. For example, a monument to Roman Shukhevych in Edmonton, Canada, and a monument to the Ukrainian war veterans [SS Galizien] also in Edmonton..." - Prof. Per Anders Rudling, 2011

iyraste1313

NAKED FASCISM!

New York Times

The next day, November 11th, that fascist ‘news’-paper headlined an editorial “Evo Morales Is Gone. Bolivia’s Problems Aren’t.” Here is how they expressed their contempt for democracy: “When a leader resorts to brazenly abusing the power and institutions put in his care by the electorate, as President Evo Morales did in Bolivia, it is he who sheds his legitimacy, and forcing him out often becomes the only remaining option......

...in other words re the NY Times, any leader that does not follow the Party line, must be forced out...so for Evo, so for Trump...

So why would this Deep State, which presumably represents the most powerful interests in the country, be so hostile to Trump?....

For one, he has refused to go to war against Iran, for second to try to better relations with Russia, for this he is a traitor...to the deep state, its war industry ad nauseum...

I do not follow the CBC, so not sure if they continue to toe the Party line...but I do know this, they are untouchable...their fascist line cannot be challenged...

 

Sean in Ottawa

Interesting post contrariana although I think the equal comparison between Trumpist and Democrat use of the term is a bit problematic. The Trumpidt faction co-opted the term and turned it into a conspiracy theroy and I think this is correct and does not deny that it had meaning before that. The definition you use for the Trumpist use of the term essentially makes the case for the Democrat use. I think there may be a false equivalency embedded in your argument.

I hate to criticize the post otherwise because there was such good stuff but the problem here is that the Democrats are definitely worth criticizing the the right in the US is moving to such extremes that equivalency becomes a problem in itself. This is in fact a tactic of the right -- move so far over and claim that as middle ground to define the other side not as the centre right that it may really be but some left extremism. Then we come and condem both sides and deliver the right the new definition of centre that they were seeking. Then we wash and repeat so that the centre shifts step by step over in terms of left right and in terms of what is reasonable.

As difficult as it is we must find a way of condemning both sides without allowing a move of the centre to accomodate the extreme that one side is using exactly for that purpose.

I think that the extreme right in both Canada and the US is using in many cases lies and extremism not becuase they expect to convince anyone of that but to move the centre of the discussion over. It is like a rhetorical bargaining. We fall for it at our peril.

The challenge is to manage the right wing tactic without delivering the conversation to the Democrats who must be criticized for their own rightward movement and rightward origins. 

The Democrats are not left and never were but it is this acceptance of the right tactics of using extreme responses that define them as such. 

We can never lose sight of the centre of a society and of an idoeology -- they are not in the same place either. I am reminded of a conversation I had in the last election where a person placed Scheer on the left and Bernier on the right. 

NDPP

voice of the damned wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

...the question of course is whether he in fact has any control at all, what with the power of the deep state, its Democratic Party, its media, its 17 Intelligence forces...

So why would this Deep State, which presumably represents the most powerful interests in the country, be so hostile to Trump? Which sacred taboos of the ruling-class has he been violating?

NDPP wrote:

"Trump's election in 2016 disturbed a mafia-like system of tribal back-scratching, which the Democrats dominate. Hillary Clinton was The Chosen One; how dare Trump seize her throne. Many [North] American liberals refuse to see their corrupt heroine as a standard bearer of Wall Street, a warmonger and an emblem of high-jacked gender politics. Clinton is the embodiment of a venal system. Trump is its caricature..."

American Exceptionalism Driving World to War - John Pilger

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52630.htm

voice of the damned

John Pilger: Dividing China and Russia with the aim of weakening both is a venerable American game. Henry Kissinger played it.

While Kissinger certainly exploited the division between China and Russia, I don't think it was him, or any other American, who forced Zhou En-lai to lay a wreath at Stalin's tomb in 1961, several years AFTER Khruschev's Secret Speech had been revealed to the world.

“A great Marxist-Leninist” – Inscription on wreath for Stalin brought to Moscow by Chou En-lai.

https://tinyurl.com/rtbq6kv

 

 

 

 

voice of the damned

"Trump's election in 2016 disturbed a mafia-like system of tribal back-scratching, which the Democrats dominate. Hillary Clinton was The Chosen One; how dare Trump seize her throne.

I really doubt there were too many people on Wall Street who felt their grip on power was seriously or even mildly threatened by the election of a Republican president. Sure, commited Democrats in the political sphere were unhappy because, news flash, they wanted to win. But people who identify economically as members of the oligarchy? You don't have to think that the Democrats are any sort of radical leftist party to assume that at least a substantial number of plutocrats voted GOP.

contrarianna

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
.... although I think the equal comparison between Trumpist and Democrat use of the term is a bit problematic. The Trumpidt faction co-opted the term and turned it into a conspiracy theroy and I think this is correct and does not deny that it had meaning before that. The definition you use for the Trumpist use of the term essentially makes the case for the Democrat use. I think there may be a false equivalency embedded in your argument....

Thanks for reading, Sean, but I differ on your point here. The Democrat faction of the duopoly with its own factional media bubble only acknowledges the mockable Trumpist definition of deep state. It is certainly correct to attack the laughable Trumpist "anti-deep state" claims--but not through assertion the term itself as "conspiracy theory".

In saying this, I don't see that as a false equivalency.  How likely would it be likely that the Democrat elite, like their Repbulican cohorts in  Congress and Senate,  would attack those interests which personally feed them in their office and,  often, revolving door careers? The tyranny of "double government", the behind the scenes regime control by unelected actors which buy influence and votes of the elected representitives of BOTH parties.

This is not to claim some invariably coherent force since the security state agencies, corporate interests, foreign lobbyists, and oligarchs sometimes have differing favorites for their own advancement and continuance, but there is a good deal of party overlap in funding and lobbying by the US regime's unelected managers. The in-house fights of Dem/Repub gang for the perks of "leadership" do not much change the rapacious domestic policies of the 1%  or the international direction of the corporate/security state regime and its unstinted imperial aggression.

I just found Caitlan Johnstone's piece from 2018 which echos my own sentiments, and makes some of my initial post redundant.  Here is the last bit:

Deep State Swamp Monster Says There Is No Deep State
....
This would be the same Mike Pompeo, by the way, who promised that he would make the depraved, lying, torturing, propagandizing, drug trafficking, coup-staging, warmongering CIA into a "much more vicious agency." The same Mike Pompeo who just the other day stood before a plutocrat-funded DC think tank declaring an effective regime change policy against Iran, citing its government's human rights violations while ignoring the human rights violations of the Saudi Royals which were making headlines that same day.

I hardly ever use the term “deep state” anymore. For a time it was a sensible label to use within smaller, well-informed circles to refer to the unelected power structures which remain in America regardless of the shifting tides of its official elected government, but ever since it became a mainstream household term it’s been rendered meaningless by partisan hackery.

Republicans, who spent the last week defending CIA torture as “Bloody Gina” Haspel ascended to Pompeo’s old office, insist that President Trump is “fighting the deep state” due to some shady intelligence community behavior two years ago. This would be the same President Trump who has authorized unprecedented black budget funding for that same intelligence community. The same President Trump who has advanced longstanding deep state agendas against Syria, Iran and Russia, the same President Trump who has continued Bush and Obama’s Orwellian surveillance program, government opacity and persecution of whistleblowers, the same President Trump who said he supports the US Department of Justice in its prioritizing the arrest of WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange.

Democrats meanwhile proclaim that talk of a deep state in America is a baseless conspiracy theory, which is an innately absurd position. Deep state is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a concept used in political analysis to describe the ways that unelected power structures like multinational plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies tend to collaborate with one another in order to advance their own agendas. The fact that such plutocrats and agencies (A) exist, (B) have power, (C) are unelected, (D) tend to form alliances with each other and (E) try to advance their own agendas is not disputable; the only thing you can dispute is the nature and extent of their operations.

These would be the same Democrats, by the way, who have spent the last year and a half fanatically defending US intelligence agencies and canonizing J Edgar Hoover heirs James Comey and Robert Mueller as living saints.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/23/deep-state-swamp-monster-says-th...

 

Sean in Ottawa

"The only thing you can dispute is the extent of their operations" Does not seem to be a small thing here.

The the term had a meaning before it was co-opted by the Republican party does not really say all that much other than the fact that the GOP did not invent it. But the term has two meanings the older one pre-co-option and the newer one.

This is a false equivalence. Becuase the size and degree of seomthing is very relevant.

Let me go further:

There are personal agendas and alliances that have always existed. They were not alligned in a partisan way and there were multiple interests. This meant that it was something that the parties more or less dealt with on a level playing field. They were not overwhelmingly biased to the point that they would take down a President for the hell of it. To refer to this as deep state today overlays the new meaning of the term on top of what we might call generously networking or old-boys club. Both parties participated. Both parties mixed into the culture appointments that were partisan with those that were less so.

The GOP came in to power with a President straight up lying on a constant basis and proving personal unfitness. He developed a well-earned reputation for not being interested in facts or what professionals had to say. He blew up policies just to be destructive and introduced a partisanship that was a whole order above what had been there. 

Then he defined anyone who disagreed with him as deep state -- regardless of their position or even party loyalty -- that could be lied about in due course. The point was that all dissent, including the facts themselves, were to be under attack. Any resistance was now to be called deep state.

We cannot suggest fairly that this new Tea-Party Trump Republican definition of deep state is on par with the fat that the Democrats no longer want to acknowledge the term as it is now completely taken over to live a paranoid fantasy where career public servatives are now the enemy if they do not declare a willingness to lie for Trump out of loyalty.

The centre has moved. This is not about one side asking for or complaining about embedded interests but one that is openly at war with any who do not declare hyper-partisan loyalty to one man over everything else including the truth.

When the Democrats refer to deep state as a conspiracy theory to demand loyalty, they are correct in what it has come to be. It is a conspiracy theory. now, whatever it meant before. It has nothing to do with any nefarious networking. It now only means any resistance from the civil service managers against whatever thing Trump comes up with - no matter how crazy, impossible, stupid, illegal, dishonest or factually wrong it may be.

You cannot have one side go to this extreme and expect the other side to still use the vocabularly voluntarily. The word is a hyper-partisan attack theory to preserve an authoritarian post fact regime.

It really does not matter what the word meant before -- this is what it means now. Complainging that the Democrats do not take some kind of more neutral position between the ravings of the present regime against any opposition (including actualy facts and statistics) and the people is to deny what the Republicans have actually accomplished in redefining this word.

I grant an academic political scientist can redefine the word in a book or to a class but in politics, that is not realistic.

As a problem as defined by Trump it is baloney becuase Trump and his policies has benefited as much from the old fashioned deep state concept as previous presidents. He benefits from this lingering loyalty to the GOP that exists in many areas of the US government. Trump has built up his opposition by attacking. The real deep state you refer to and the article refers to is not any more anti republican as it is anti-democrat. 

Trump has generated resistance not becuase of some grand conspiracy but becuase he is an abrasive, man with no regard for even an attempt to inlcude a small percentage of truth, with a penchant for violent rhetoric, a man who does not earn lyalty by working hard and holding himslef to any standard but through fear of reprisal and dishonest attacks. The bias against Trump that could possibily have predated his arrival is insignificant compared to the kind of apporach he has taken to people, his own actions and his own attacks. This deep state is really an excuse for the fact that even those of similar ideology to Trump find him often repulsive.

People in senior public service certainly develop networking to get where they are. However, they learn to network across the aisle for their own survival. More cirtical, these are people who developed an understanding in many cases of the need for some civility, some at least outward decency, some desire to warp the truth but at least not come out with one provable lie a minute. Trump is hated by the civil service in part because he represents the behaviour that they all know would have been career-ending for them. They do not need some deep state conspiracy and communciation among themselves to be repulsed by Trump. In some cases they only need to see hear Trump, have a kid and see kids in cages to understand where they stand with him.

This talk of deep state is as two sided as when a person lies about something critical and the other side correctly says they made a spelling mistake. See two sides!

sure it is an old concept but it did not mean what it now means any more than when Trump identifies half the Democratic party as communist.

To create equivalence here you have to accept just where the Republicans moved the centre to and deny the fact that they even did that. To create equivalence here, it must be a false equivalence that denies the very nature of the Trump regime.

What was there before Trump was a failing democracy. Somethign to worry about and criticize.

What is there now is a full on attack and repudiation of any democratic vestiges that might somehow have survived the past and could provide any check on the personal power of the current President.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean I have to disagree with your conclusion. The difference between Trump and previous oval office crooks, and there have been many through the years, is part of his grift has always been the role of outrageous, in your face, showman. I think his act is a shell game which is why I call him the Orange Herring.

I don't much care what label you use the reality as I see it is that someone other than elected politicians are in charge of the largest military security system ever developed by humans. Damned if I can claim to know who they are but I know it is not Trump and it was not Obama or the Bushes. I generally tend to revert to terms like oligarchy but find them inadequate as well.

Imperialism seems to bred governments captured by interlaced webs of private interests, some even with their own military. All the oil wells that NATO has captured are being guarded by private armies paid for by the oil industry oligarchs. We live in a facade where people are fed constant propaganda to convince them that they actually live in a democracy where somehow someday their interests will be heard above the industry shills that roam Ottawa with bags full of "goodies."

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean I have to disagree with your conclusion. The difference between Trump and previous oval office crooks, and there have been many through the years, is part of his grift has always been the role of outrageous, in your face, showman. I think his act is a shell game which is why I call him the Orange Herring.

I don't much care what label you use the reality as I see it is that someone other than elected politicians are in charge of the largest military security system ever developed by humans. Damned if I can claim to know who they are but I know it is not Trump and it was not Obama or the Bushes. I generally tend to revert to terms like oligarchy but find them inadequate as well.

Imperialism seems to bred governments captured by interlaced webs of private interests, some even with their own military. All the oil wells that NATO has captured are being guarded by private armies paid for by the oil industry oligarchs. We live in a facade where people are fed constant propaganda to convince them that they actually live in a democracy where somehow someday their interests will be heard above the industry shills that roam Ottawa with bags full of "goodies."

I am not disagreeing with the fact that there is an oligarchy controlling the US. What I am disagreeing with is that it has anything to do with the so called "deep state" civil service that Trump is attacking.

The Deep state in the US is not against Trump. It is in fact what brought Trump in and accepts him no matter how repulsive he is. It is, as I said up thread, The Koch brothers and their ilk, not a career public servant that might find Trump disgusting.

The problem with the term "deep state" is that it is now a Republican game to name a fantasy group they can claim is running the state instead of the one that actually is.  The real Deep state in the US will work with the Dems and the Republicans and will work with Trump. It has nothing to do with any of the people Trump is identifying though. It does prefer the apporach the GOP take to have smaller government and less interference in the objective of exploitation of the people.

I have objected to this false equivilance becuase the Deep state that Trump is advocating is fictional conspiracy theory the fake enemy that the real Deep State in the form of Trump is saving you from. The one that was the historical meaning is not biased in favour of Republican or Democrat but really about institutional resistance. The Deep state you are talking about are the capitalist oligarchs. Newsflash here -- nobody in the US is talking about them. 

another Newsflash: Trump is part of the Deep State that you are describing. He is a small time one but one of the institutional capitalists the system is made for and he decided to run and be part of the system while pretending to be against it so that he could increase the kleptocracy.

The Deep state described in this thread is alternately a GOP fantasy and an actual insitutional resistance that really has little power and is overwhelmed and bulldozed by capitalists regularly. 

The insitutional government of the US that people are pretending is this big deep state is a minnow. It has very little power becuase the real power goes directly to the politcal system and side-steps both the bureaucracy and the voters. The US has a system of lobbyists that go around government regularly and redefine it. They buy the politicians before the eyes of the voters. The deep state Trump speaks of does not exist. The one spoken of upthread is no match for them.

The real power in the US sits in the capital and business and makes deals with corrupt politicians and brushes aside the weak resistance of the institution of governance. The real power -- the oligarchs that you speak of are the real deep state that are fighting (and always winning) against the deep state that was the historical definition of the term. The civil servants that Trump is attacking have never been a power centre in US policy-making capable of holding back the real power there. That real power is people like Trump and his allies no matter how much they pretend to drain the swamp they are the swamp.

The reason the deep state that Trump fantasizes about and is mentionned upthread is a fiction is due to the structure of the US meant to be swept away with each election or humbled by lobbyist-politican deals.

The US system is so partisan there is largely a decapitation of power after each election. The deep state you think of being in government does not exist. The real one is the money that sits outside of government.

That is the problem with this entire debate. We are speaking of three different things. Only one of those is what is now defined as the deep state and that is a deflection from the real source of power. The theoretical deep state spoken of upthread would be another deflection. In the US just follow the money and that is the real deep state nobody will speak of.

NDPP

Israel Launches Fierce Attack on CBC's Michael Enright Over Erekat Interview

https://twitter.com/4noura/status/1201908870148448263

"Seriously? The CBC led a totally hostile interview with me that prompted an overwhelming audience response criticizing the host. But because I stayed standing (& some!) opponents are attacking him. This is why you don't see/hear enough Palestinians on the air."

If the South African apartheid regime had been allowed to prevail, as Israel was, and had a large, organized, well-funded and militant support base, with Canadian media and  politicians subservient and in their pocket also, a CBC interview with  an apartheid resistor like Nelson Mandela would have elicited the same response. Canadians need to root out and smash Israeli Apartheid and its promoters here now,  just as they did South African Apartheid then.

contrarianna

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

....
The Deep state described in this thread is alternately a GOP fantasy and an actual insitutional resistance that really has little power and is overwhelmed and bulldozed by capitalists regularly. ...

Not really. "The Deep state described in this thread" is variously described in terms beyond your reductions.
Defining the "deep state" as comprising the "civil service" as distinct from "oligarchy" is a false distinction on several levels.

1) you must be maintaining an extremely broad definition of "civil service" as anyone unelected but employed by the government, this would include both the military (a major director of government with its massive corporate backers) and the security state agencies, FBI, NSA, CIA etc.

2) none of these broadly defined "civil servant" groups operate independently of non-governmental corporate and lobby interests.

3) blurring your distinction, top level "civil servants", as pointed out before, are frequently part of a revolving door careers with controlling corporate and special interests, including the dominant roles as economic and security analyst "experts" on corporate media.  

4) Simply being elected in a pseudo-democracy (ie. Trump and his predecessors) does not mean independence from the so-called "deep state"  corporate and non-elected managers of state policy, this too is regularly a career revolving door. Direct ties to the plutocratic elite, as is pretty much a prerequisite of major office.

As well as the latter day trivialization of the once descriptive term "deep state", in both the conspiracist Trumpist and conspiracist Democrat media bubbles, the term is becoming increasingly dated by the very obvious sham of anything resembling "democratic government".  

As originally written about years ago, the "Deep State" term is really a holdover from a more innocent perspective when some thought an existing democratic government was being undermined by the hidden unelected.

Now the thin mask of "democracy" is so transparently threadbare it would be more accurate to simply label what was sometimes called called the "Deep State" as " the State", or "Regime", and the putative democracy as the "Shallow State" (or, for those who still succumb to the prevailing media and imagine that we live in a democracy, which just needs a little fixing: "the "Sheep State").

Likewise, the reason Chomsky has never embraced the phrase "Deep State" is because there is nothing terribly "deep" about the malevolent operations of the state, for those willing to look:

December 07, 2018
Lessons From Chomsky
....
Noam Chomsky is sometimes accused of holding the “smoke-filled room” view of politics: Everything is a grand conspiracy among the powerful to oppress the powerless. In fact, this is precisely the opposite of the Chomsky view of conspiracy. The real view is, again, a thing of nuance: the belief that oppression does not require a conspiracy, and that the “smoke-filled room” concept misunderstands how power works.

Chomsky is a consistent critic of conspiracy theories. Why? Because generally there doesn’t need to be any kind of “conspiracy” to create the kinds of gross inequalities and cruelties we see in our society. Most of it is right out in the open. Furthermore, conspiracy theories overcomplicate things. For example, in order to believe the “Bush did 9/11” conspiracy, you have to believe in an incredibly capable and competent government, that was able to plan and execute an extraordinary destructive act, without anyone leaking or blowing the whistle at any of the many levels it would have required to do such a thing. That requires a view of government competence that is hard to maintain. A far simpler, and more plausible theory, is simply that the Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks to its advantage, that it found them politically convenient for carrying out its preexisting plan to invade Iraq. That doesn’t require any kind of conspiracy. Likewise with the CIA: We know about many of the agency’s foul deeds; its murders, coups, and torture. The problem is not that the information is hidden in darkness, it’s nobody actually holds the agency accountable.

The same goes for Chomsky’s theory of the media, the so-called “manufacturing of consent.” It’s accused of being a conspiracy: People are stupefied by a corporate media that gathers to plot ways to control them. In fact, it’s nothing of the kind. It’s a theory based in economics and sociology more than anything else, a theory that says the media has no economic interest in providing serious informational content, that in a profit-driven media, the incentives are going to be toward providing entertainment rather than material that serves the public good and truly illuminates news consumers. That’s not the result of a malevolent conspiracy drawn up by executives who want to turn the public into zombies; it’s just what happens when people want to make a lot of money. Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by the operation of rational self-interest.[bold mine]...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/lessons-from-chomsky

The whole article is an excellent primer on Chomsky.

Sean in Ottawa

Well interesting article from Chomsky even though it does not speak AT ALL to the conversation here.

The term deep state in the present discussion is not reduced to a GOP conspiracy it is one. Any recognition of the issues of deep state possible here have nothing to do with the kind of deflection theya re undertaking.

No, you cannot dismiss all the people who are coming to the fore here as all being part of a grand conspiracy to damage Trump. To do so is to pass judgement that he is right and they are wrong when they are speaking about the reasones for their opposition.

You are in fact the one blurring an essential difference between career senior public servants who are being maligned as deep state by the Trump adminsitration with what the deep state really is: the power behind the politics. The real power behind politics in the US is the vast army of lobbyists and capitalists who bend the ear of politicians of all parties. These people do not have formal accountability. They are the ruling club. It is false to suggest that these real power brokers are one and the same as the senior career diplomats and public servants we are seeing. These people are certainly elite in their careers and in their positions but they are not the same as the Koch brothers etc as I identified. These are the people who are asked to follow the rules and are horrified when the rules are not followed by people senior to them. They are not the people who make those rules. 

It is a complete misunderstanding of the power system in the US if you think the people testifying to Congress are the actual power-brokers in the US. These are the poeple with handsome three figure salaries but not the billoinaires who actually go around them to make and remake policy. Despite the games being played by Trump -- those people are the poeple hwo designed the system, whoe the system is meant to benefit and who have the actual power. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

NDPP

I'll go with Hedges (#7) et al. Chomsky sometimes refers to the deep state as the 'permanent state' and there are of course other equally acceptable and applicable terms for this elite management layer used by others. Whatever one calls it, it would be a mistake to dismiss it - as some msm and their gulls suggest -  purely as a delusion of the right-wing, tin-foil hat, deplorables. 

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

I'll go with Hedges (#7) et al. Chomsky sometimes refers to the deep state as the 'permanent state' and there are of course other equally acceptable and applicable terms for this elite management layer used by others. Whatever one calls it, it would be a mistake to dismiss it - as some msm and their gulls suggest -  purely as a delusion of the right-wing, tin-foil hat, deplorables. 

I am not dismissing that it exists. I am dismissing it as the GOP describes it and as the people that are accusing Trump and as the motivation for the accusations.

There is a difference.

contrarianna

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....No, you cannot dismiss all the people who are coming to the fore here as all being part of a grand conspiracy to damage Trump. To do so is to pass judgement that he is right and they are wrong when they are speaking about the reasones for their opposition....

A more floundering, inane misrepresentation of what I have said is hard to imagine.

 

mmphosis

I was going to quote the end of a CBC News broadcast from last week.

https://cbchelp.cbc.ca/hc/en-ca/articles/217732877-Can-I-get-a-copy-or-t...

I would need to pay a private company for access to the canadian broadcasting corporation transcript, and even then I could not display it publicly.

I think it was a "comment" at the end of the morning news to the effect that if Canada were to do anything about climate change, and Canada is not doing anything effective about climate change, that If I Remember Correctly they said "that would be ugly."  I am not sure exactly what "that would be ugly" means on the news, they didn't go into it or provide any source for "that would be ugly."

I agree with most of the comment posted in this thread about deep state propaganda and the cbc.  From what I see in "the news", the small number of people who control the organizations, deep state -- whatever you wish to call them, have conspired to take over most of the media.

There are items that are posted in "the news" for one day, for example:   https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fish+farming+blood+pipe&iar=news&ia=news and then there is the steady drum beat of drival repeated everyday in "the news."

 

Sean in Ottawa

contrarianna wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....No, you cannot dismiss all the people who are coming to the fore here as all being part of a grand conspiracy to damage Trump. To do so is to pass judgement that he is right and they are wrong when they are speaking about the reasones for their opposition....

A more floundering, inane misrepresentation of what I have said is hard to imagine.

 

a more content free post would be hard to imagine.

contrarianna

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

contrarianna wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....No, you cannot dismiss all the people who are coming to the fore here as all being part of a grand conspiracy to damage Trump. To do so is to pass judgement that he is right and they are wrong when they are speaking about the reasones for their opposition....

A more floundering, inane misrepresentation of what I have said is hard to imagine.

a more content free post would be hard to imagine.

A  sad, "No, you're one!" ploy.  To spell it out it: is you who are making smears without a shred of evidence to back them up,  that is. me allegedly claiming "a grand conspiracy", and "passing judgement that Trump is right".

Your preceding paragraph proclaiming the acceptable range of the "the present discussion" is equally inane:

The term deep state in the present discussion is not reduced to a GOP conspiracy it is one. Any recognition of the issues of deep state possible here have nothing to do with the kind of deflection theya re undertaking.

What "present discussion" are you talking about? Certainly not this thread which ranges, by multiple posters, beyond any "GOP conspiracy theory". Or are you referring the range provided by the Trumpist/anti-Trumpist media camps? Your attempt to  limit  "the present discussion" to that puts you very much on the flip side of the facile Trumpist media bubble.

contrarianna

NDPP wrote:

Israel Launches Fierce Attack on CBC's Michael Enright Over Erekat Interview

https://twitter.com/4noura/status/1201908870148448263

"Seriously? The CBC led a totally hostile interview with me that prompted an overwhelming audience response criticizing the host. But because I stayed standing (& some!) opponents are attacking him. This is why you don't see/hear enough Palestinians on the air."

If the South African apartheid regime had been allowed to prevail, as Israel was, and had a large, organized, well-funded and militant support base, with Canadian media and  politicians subservient and in their pocket also, a CBC interview with  an apartheid resistor like Nelson Mandela would have elicited the same response. Canadians need to root out and smash Israeli Apartheid and its promoters here now,  just as they did South African Apartheid then.

Actually, I heard that interview by chance (if it is available somewhere I recommend it).

Noura Erakat was brilliant; she handled every question with cheerful and devastating aplomb. Guarded kudos to CBC for even allowing a Palestinian voice--and with someone so articulate. How often does that happen in the MSM?

Although the questions could be described as "hostile", Enright was civil and allowed her to answer.
All the better that the questions were negative because she answered every one; that is more likely to get people thinking than if the questions were neutral or softball.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..you can find that interview here:

Israel violates international law with impunity, says human rights lawyer

eta:..well worth the listen. and noura erakat was brilliant.

Sean in Ottawa

contrarianna wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

contrarianna wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....No, you cannot dismiss all the people who are coming to the fore here as all being part of a grand conspiracy to damage Trump. To do so is to pass judgement that he is right and they are wrong when they are speaking about the reasones for their opposition....

A more floundering, inane misrepresentation of what I have said is hard to imagine.

a more content free post would be hard to imagine.

A  sad, "No, you're one!" ploy.  To spell it out it: is you who are making smears without a shred of evidence to back them up,  that is. me allegedly claiming "a grand conspiracy", and "passing judgement that Trump is right".

Your preceding paragraph proclaiming the acceptable range of the "the present discussion" is equally inane:

The term deep state in the present discussion is not reduced to a GOP conspiracy it is one. Any recognition of the issues of deep state possible here have nothing to do with the kind of deflection theya re undertaking.

What "present discussion" are you talking about? Certainly not this thread which ranges, by multiple posters, beyond any "GOP conspiracy theory". Or are you referring the range provided by the Trumpist/anti-Trumpist media camps? Your attempt to  limit  "the present discussion" to that puts you very much on the flip side of the facile Trumpist media bubble.

I reread the thread.

I had responded constructively and in detail to your posts until your rude and content free at which point I said something no worse than you. You turned a civil disagreement into an insulting confrontation by your post and then want to accuse me of smearing. Nothing I said was any less reasonable than you up to that point. Go buy a mirror.

Nothing I said was an atttack until your post. You like to dish it out but have a problem getting a plateful back. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

..you can find that interview here:

Israel violates international law with impunity, says human rights lawyer

eta:..well worth the listen. and noura erakat was brilliant.

This reminds me of the interview from years ago with Castro and a young Canadian reporter. She tried to play gotcha with him and fell flat, he then mopped the floor with her, intellectually.

contrarianna

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....I had responded constructively and in detail to your posts until your rude and content free at which point I said something no worse than you. You turned a civil disagreement into an insulting confrontation by your post and then want to accuse me of smearing. Nothing I said was any less reasonable than you up to that point. Go buy a mirror.

Nothing I said was an atttack until your post. You like to dish it out but have a problem getting a plateful back.

Ah, my mistake.

I somehow missed that you "had responded constructively and in detail to your posts" and I also missed:  "Nothing I said was an atttack until your post".

I guess I misinterpreted your previous post addressed to me which claimed I was a conspiracy theorist of "a grand conspiracy" and passed "judgment that Trump is right"

Shame on me for saying that was inane and evidence-free, and for imagining it was a baseless attack.

Sean in Ottawa

contrarianna wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....I had responded constructively and in detail to your posts until your rude and content free at which point I said something no worse than you. You turned a civil disagreement into an insulting confrontation by your post and then want to accuse me of smearing. Nothing I said was any less reasonable than you up to that point. Go buy a mirror.

Nothing I said was an atttack until your post. You like to dish it out but have a problem getting a plateful back.

Ah, my mistake.

I somehow missed that you "had responded constructively and in detail to your posts" and I also missed:  "Nothing I said was an atttack until your post".

I guess I misinterpreted your previous post addressed to me which claimed I was a conspiracy theorist of "a grand conspiracy" and passed "judgment that Trump is right"

Shame on me for saying that was inane and evidence-free, and for imagining it was a baseless attack.

The quote from me was:

"No, you cannot dismiss all the people who are coming to the fore here as all being part of a grand conspiracy to damage Trump. To do so is to pass judgement that he is right and they are wrong when they are speaking about the reasones for their opposition."

- Yes my argument is that you are dismissing them in your post 29 and I am saying what the implications of that is. Notwithstanding your sarcasm, your reaction is grossly over the top in this context. 

In your post 29 you called my objection to what deeps state has come to mean (and how the term is being used) as my reductions. They were not. The GOP redefined the term to be what it has come to mean publicly. In post 29, you numbered arguments to suggest agreement with the definition that these people are in conflict with Trump for some deep state reason as opposed to being revolted at what he is doing as most observers in and out of government are.

Your listed arguments 1-4 in post 29 do serve to suggest that there is a deep state motive to the opposition to Trump. I disagree with this explanation which I think is a dismissal of their real motivations.

It is a fair argument that your post 29 serves to present motivations of the people appearing before impeachment hearings as being about this deep state involvement rather than a revulsion of career officials to what the leadership is doing.

I have also stated that the real deep state -- the ones who are calling the shots -- are very much supporters of Trump. They tolerate his excesses because of what he delivers to them. Trump himself is part of the deep state -- the business elite who are used to bending politics to serve them. Trump took a different path and became a politican whn he was used to just being part of the group who influenced them. To suggest that these people now opposing Trump are the deep state really denies what Trump is, why he is kept in place by the GOP and who actually wields power.

It is not these witnesses.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.