Article: Deep State? or Shallow State?

[Lauren Johnson]

An article from Naked Capitalism by Lambert Strether takes on various definitions of "deep state" and finds them all fatally lacking. A couple of commenters accused him of sophistry. Some of you might want to comment there.

We've been hearing the term, or rather phrase, "deep state" rather a lot lately, so I thought I'd look into it. Here's a usage example from the Jerusalem Post:

Sisi regime shows confidence as deep state' returns to Egypt's political landscape
The acquittal of former president Hosni Mubarak, his sons, and other close aides demonstrates that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has settled comfortably in power and marks the return of the deep state.
The term "deep state" refers to a group of powerful nondemocratic leaders who, though they may be concealed under layers of bureaucracy, are actually in control of the country.
To be sure, Sisi has smartly led the important Arab state from the depth of riots, terrorist attacks, economic crisis and outside pressures, but the style and makeup, if not the policies, of the government are reminiscent of Mubarak's regime.
The fact of the matter is that the Mubarak trial was bound to be based not on a strict reading of the evidence but on the wishes of the regime in power.

(It's interesting that the writer's definition is at odds with the definition of the originator of the phrase, Peter Dale Scott, as provided in his Glossary of Open Politics, which I quote in part and annotate in the figures below.)
So, yes, I'm in the market on a quest for a theory of the state, because the state we've got doesn't seem responsive in any way to the voters, except when they want to do what "it" (?) wants to do, and that means the state isn't working for my values or my interests. As part of that quest, I bought Scott's The Road to 9/11, but I don't retain much from it; I spent too much time flipping from the text to the glossary and back to try to make sense of what I was reading.
In this post, I'll do another manaically close reading to explain why I've crossed the "deep state" off my list of candidate theories. If your response is, "Well, Mr. Smarty Pants, what's your theory?" I'd respond, first, that I don't like work, so I'd rather somebody else had a more well-defined and supple theory I was happier with, and I would just adopt it, and second, with the little girl from The New Yorker, "I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it," and it would be spinach whether brocolli had been proposed or not. In other words, I don't have to provide an alternative. (Readers, however, should feel free to chime in with recommended readings.)
To explain the reasons for my rejection of Scott's theory of the state, I'm doing to play "the dictionary game" with his "Glossary of Open Politics" [PDF]: I'm going to start with one entry ("deep state, " Figure 1, below) and then go to the entries mentioned in that entry, and so on. I should also say that I'm not assaulting Scott's integrity, or saying he's a pawn in this or that game, or that I hate his political views (what little I know of them); and that I think that Scott and I would like to improve the world in more or less the same ways. The scope of this post is solely Scott's theory of the state. That said, let's look at Scott's definition of "deep state."
Figure 1: Deep State

Legend: Each entry is numbered with an incoming number at top left like ">1." Mentioned entries have outgoing numbers like "2>." So, "2>" means, "read Figure 2 next," and that entry will have ">2″ at its top left. Needlessly complex, perhaps, but I wanted to number the hops in the dictionary game.
So let's start playing. It's said that the deep state is a "closed network," but that's not defined and is only "said to be" so let's skip it. (If the metaphor is computer networking, a closed network requires permission to join. So far as I can tell, that would make democracy a closed network. If the metaphor is graph theory, that would make the network heavily interconnected. Big difference, and yes, I'm going to treat the glossary as self-contained, except for explicit references to external sources. I don't know what that "[A]" is; it's not in the print version.)
I think we have to assume that Scott's definition is exhaustive, if only because it would be ridiculous to keep adding on (4), (5), (6), and so on. So let's look at each of the characteristics in turn.
First, presumably Scott's oeuvre justifies privileging one type of covert operation, the false flag[1], over the many other types of covert operation, and also justifies restricting false flag operations to violent ones. That is, if Costa Rica, which has abolished its military, allowed its Fuerza Pública to engage in false flag operations, but not violent ones, it could not have a deep state, by definition. That seems oddly restrictive.
Second, "military and intelligence apparatus" also seems a bit restrictive; I'll have more to say about this when we look at Figure 2.
Finally, "involves their links to organized crime" seems restrictive as well, in two ways. First, what about "links" to the media? For example, we know that in the run-up to the Iraq War, the White House Iraq Group planted over 50 stories in our famously free press, as part of a secret disinformation campaign. Intuitively, this would be a deep state operation? But wait the objection comes just because it's not part of the definition of the deep state doesn't mean it can't be a characteristic of the deep state! To which I would respond: But surely all states from time immemorial have tried to control "the narrative" using the media of their day? What is "linked" and what is not seems arbitrary. Second, what about states in past time? WikiPedia claims that "organized crime" appears only in the 19th Century. Therefore, states before that time say, the Ming Dynasty could not be or have "deep states," by definition. That just seems odd. I mean, surely the Chinese emperors had a military and had intelligence services?
Summarizing, I don't see why one covert operation is privileged over others, I don't see why the military and intelligence agencies are privileged over others, and although apparently there can be no such thing as a "deep state" prior to the inception of "organized crime," that restriction, too, seems completely unmotivated. The whole definition seems simultaneously oddly restrictive and unmotivated, almost as if (to be momentarily unkind) it had been reverse engineered out of current political concerns and hot topics, rather than being based on historical or comparative work.
Again I hear you say "Read the whole book and you will understand," but I think it's a fair request that a Glossary be a standalone document that answers obvious questions that's why readers turn to it in the first place! that provides a consistent and reasonably complete guide to the important concepts of its subject, with references to what it does not explain. Otherwise, after all, a glossary becomes nothing more than a random list of words with partial and gappy definitions! Perhaps as we move further through the Glossary matters will improve.
Figure 2: Dual State

So, from "deep state" we are told to go to "dual state," and here we are. I'm a little iffy on that "one can distinguish" as a litmus test, since it would be nice to have way of resolving disagreements between those who can "distinguish" and those who cannot; but let that pass. (I suppose the odd locution "one can distinguish," instead of the more straightforward "has," or "comprises," is put there to handle the limit case where the deep state is so powerful and so covert that it completely absorbs the public state, and so cannot be "distinguished" from it? Or vice versa![2]
But I said I'd return to "military and intelligence apparatus." Let's consider the case of Occupy: We know that there was a 17-state paramilitary operation, coordinated by the DHS, and involving state governors and local police forces. We know there's a similar Ferguson right now. But "deep state" is defined so as to exclude local police forces, because they are not part of the intelligence apparatus. (In Figure 3: "By the deep state I mean agencies like CIA, with little or no significant public constituency outside of government." The police are agencies that do have a "significant constituency outside of government.") So either the Occupy and Ferguson occupations are not deep state operations, which is an odd result, given that these are movements you'd intuitively expect a thing called the "deep state" to suppress, or we have, again, a definition that's so arbitrary and unmotivated that it excludes obvious actors like the police.
Figure 3: State

From "deep state" and "dual state," we are told to go to "state," and so here we are. I won't quarrel at this point with the dictionary definitions. I will note, however, that in sense two, the state is contrasted to "civil society," to which the public state is said to be responsive; and civil society is nowhere defined; it seems to produce "shifts in public opinion" to which the public state responds, but the origin and nature of these shifts remains a mystery.
The deep state, by contrast, responds to the "overworld," to which we will turn after noting that the "deep state" is really not "immune" (whatever that means) to "shifts in public opinion" (whatever they mean). The Nazis, for example, systematically gathered domestic intelligence on "public opinion" and Goebbels adjusted his propaganda campaigns accordingly; the Nazis were by no means "immune." One reason the KGB was one of the few functional organizations in the old Soviet Union was precisely that it gathered intelligence on "shifts in public opinion"; it was not "immune" either. (Returning to Figure 1 for a moment, the Nazi state seems to meet all the criteria for deep state-hood but the presence of organized crime, and you could view the Nazi Party as organized crime. Anyhow, if the United States in 2014 has a deep state, and Germany in 1933 1945 did not, I give up. Dittoez the USSR.)
Note also that in Figure 2 ("dual state") one "can distinguish," within the state, between a deep state and a public state; but here in Figure 3 ("state") deep state and public state are to be treated as "overlapping systems of statal institutions."[3] I don't wish to seem churlish, but those relationships are not the same. We might draw ourselves a Venn Diagram and say that the State is 100%, 30% is pure public, 30% is pure deep, and 40% is overlap. Fine, but how is the actual sorting to be done? What are the criteria, especially in that overlapping area? Especially given neither the media nor the police seem to fit into the model?
Figure 4: Overworld

And so, from "deep state," we come to the "overworld" (a name almost as evocative as "deep state" itself). As "shifts in public opinion" are the unmotivated driver of the public state, so the overworld "influences" the deep state, apparently its members are also members of cliques and cabals.
We learn first that the overworld is a "realm," by which apparently is meant a "scene," of "successful influence of government by private power." Trivially, why on earth the weird restriction to "successful" influence? Suppose some executive at Comcast tries to buy a council member in Philly and fails, incredibly. Is that attempt not take place in the overworld? Less trivially, what is meant by "private power"? If "civil society" is meant, then why is the term not used? And what about private individuals? Suppose I call my Congress critter and have them shake loose my ObamaCare form. Does that take place in the overworld?
Second, "the overworld is not a class but a category." Never mind that "category" of what influencers, one guesses goes unstated. Get a load of this, as the most amazing example of wilful refusal to discuss class that I, and quite possibly you, have ever encountered. Quoting again:

The term [overworld] should be distinguished from Frederick Lundberg's "superrich," the sixty wealthiest families that he wrongly predicted in his 1967 book Sixty Families would continue to dominate America both as a class and as a "government of money." The recent Forbes annual lists of the four hundred richest Americans shows that Lundberg's prediction was wrong on both counts: his richest inheritors of 1967 are mostly not the richest today, and today's richest are not necessarily those projecting their wealth into political power. The overworld is not a class but a category.

The argument, or assertion, is, if I understand it, that for the wealthy to be considered a class, as opposed to a category: (1) all the wealthy must "project their wealth into political power," (2) proportionately to their wealth, and that (3) that yesterday's wealthy must be both yesterday's and tomorrow's. But here again we have oddly restrictive and seemingly unmotivated constraints. If one regards "wealth" as a type social relation between a person and some types of property an unexceptionable proposition, surely then the only thing that matters is that the social relation persists over time, as the definition shows it does. Wealth is wealth, whether held by these 60 families or that, and whether held for five years or fifty. Further, only some members of the class of the wealthy need "influence" government for all to benefit, and in any case politics is an art not all do well or choose to practive; it's again restrictive and unmotivated to imply a direct relation between any one "richest" and their "projection" of "political power." Now, I'm not sure I'd accept "overworld" as a term anyhow, but I just can't see any reason to think of overworld players as not a class, if the litmus test for membership in the class is a social relation to wealth.
Finally, the operation of influence is not carried on through "institutions," at least not "as a rule" (although it would be nice to know what motivates the exceptions). That leaves open the question of what the Bildberg Society, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations are for, if not to serve as channels for influence, another oddly restrictive and seemingly unmotivated constraint, but put that aside. Influence in the overworld is apparently to be carried on through "cabals" and "cliques" what is this, high school? to which we now turn.
Figures 5 and 7: Cabal and Clique
So we arrive at "cabal" from "overworld," and then "cabal" sends us to "clique."

(I'm not even going to ask what "interventions from the overworld" means.) And now clique:

And so we are back at "network," still undefined! (A good dictionary game is always circular). One wonders if there are limits to the size, shape, and complexity of the network, given that its "social or bureaucratic base" can be "broad." Could the entire Democratic Party be a cabal? Certainly the Democrats "sustain top-down rule" and facilitate "interventions from the overworld," if by that is meant campaign contributions. Is the Democratic agenda "widely known or shared"? Well, that depends, doesn't it? However, it's this from "clique" that's really interesting:

Before the Iraq war the neocons in the Bush administration represented a clique; the faction preparing secretly for war (which included both neocons and veterans of the international petroleum industry, like Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice) represented a larger and more widespread cabal.

Let's not worry about how a "faction" is different from a cabal or a clique. We have a clique of neocons inside a cabal of warmongers who, in the "overworld" (by definition), have "successfully influenced" (by definition), but not "institutionally" (by definition), "government" on behalf of "private power" (by definition); we have a canonical example of how the deep state is said to work. (Never mind that the media was critical to getting the war on, but can't be accomodated with the definitions given).
Remember, however, from our discussion of "overworld," that entry into the "scene" is granted not because Cheney(for example) is a member of a class, but because he exhibits a category. And what is that category? "[V]eteran of the international petroleum industry." But doesn't it make for sense to think of Cheney as having "influence" because he's a representative of a certain economic interest, than because of his job description? I really don't want to be reductionist here, but surely Cheney had the influence he did not merely because he was a "veteran," but because he was wealthy in his own right (a social relation) and because he spoke for those who owned the means to drill for and process petrolem (more social relations)? What is "private power" but class?
Figure 6: Milieu

From "overworld" we are directed to "milieu," the venue where the deal gets done. A classic example of a milieu would be a golf course. And so:

A location (not necessarily geographical) where private deals can be made. Relatively unimportant to proceedings and institutions of the public state

This is probably true. Although Obama, with Eisenhower, does do deals on the golf course, they are "unimportant" put beside the routine processes of governance.
Conclusion
As the programmer said to the documentation specialist: "That code was hard to write. It should be hard to understand!" So for those of you who got this far, but aren't close reading enthusiasts, I apologize.
Summarizing why I'm crossing "the deep state" off my list of candidate theories of the state, despite the incredible resonance and power of the term itself:
1. The definitions of the key terms that define the concept of the deep state are restricted in ways that seem unmotivated; why are "violent false flag" operations a litmus test, instead of covert operations as such? Can it really be true that no "deep state" existed before the 19th century?
2. When I test the deep state concept against real life examples that I would, intuitively, expect it to illuminate, it comes up short. Example: Suppressing Occupy.
3. When I test the deep state concept against real life institutions that I would, intuitively, expect it to include, it comes up short. Example: The media, the police.
4. The architecture of a "public state" that responds to public opinion, and a "deep state" that responds only to influence through the overworld seems brittle. Surely it's possibly that the same forces, however named, that shift public opinion can also influence the overworld? If they do, I can't see a way for the architecture to give an account of it.
5. I don't buy that it's more useful and interesting to view the 1% (let's call them) acting vertically through a myriad of cabals and cliques, as opposed to horizontally in their common or shared interests as a class.
6. Finally, I am unpersuaded that the narratives prominent in deep state permathreads are important or interesting. The biggest story of our age is surely not long-ago elite assassination plots, but the greatest upward transfer of wealth in world history, which happened after the bailouts. However, the deep state concept has nothing to say of this, even though the bailouts were largely done in secret, which you'd think would be catnip for a deep state analyst (though, to be fair, I'm working from a glossary, and there may be a new book out).
In short, I want a theory of the state that helps me to distinguish friend or ally from enemy or neutral, and helps me to pursue the values and interests I share with others like me. "Deep state" analytics focuses shallowly on cabals and cliques. "Deep state" and "overworld" have deep resonance as poetic phrases. But analytical tools must cut as well as gleam. A deeper focus is needed to sharpen our vision.
Readers correct me, or, better yet, propose alternatives. Leave The State for Dummies out of this, though; I've already ordered it!
NOTES
[1] Here's WikiPedia's definition; I'd supply one from a subject matter expert if Google weren't totally crapified:

False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation. Geraint Hughes uses the term to refer to those acts carried out by "military or security force personnel, which are then blamed on terrorists."
In its most modern usage, the term may also refer to those events which governments are cognizant of and able to stop but choose to allow to happen (or "stand down"), as a strategy to entangle or prepare the nation for war. Furthermore, the term "false flag terrorism" may even be used in those instances when violence is carried out by groups or organizations which, whether they know it or not, are being supported or controlled by the "victim" nation. deHaven-Smith argues that the terminology has become looser in recent years due to the increasingly complex levels of "duplicity" and "international intrigue" between states.

Personally, I think the farther away we get from the original naval operation, where Jack Aubrey would "amuse the enemy" by flying the flag of a neutral, and then unfurl the Union Jack only when the enemy was in range of his cannon, the worse. When "false flag" is used for any form of deception, public or private, it becomes so broad a term is to be meaningless. That doesn't mean it lacks utility, of course.
[2] Indeed, how would we know?
[3] Statal means "of or relating to a national government" (Merriam-Webster). I think "relating to" means "concerning," as opposed to "related to," in the sense that a corporation regulated by a government could be said to be related to it, in a highly technical, "closed network" kind of way.

1400001[email=?Subject=Deep%20State?%20Or%20Shallow%20Focus?&Body=%20http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/deep-state-shallow-focus.html][/email]

This entry was posted in Guest Post, Politics, Surveillance state on December 1, 2014 by Lambert Strether.

Subscribe to Post Comments
30 comments

• David Lentini December 1, 2014 at 7:26 am Good review of the "deep state" idea. I'm always happy to see an analysis that really puts the underlying definitions and logic of an idea to the test , and compares the implications of the idea with reality.
  Personally, the best description of the state of our current state is Wolin's Inverted totalitarianism. Chris Hedges did a series of excellent interviews with Wolin on The Real News about this recently. That said, I'm not sure there is a single, encompassing description or theory available. I think that while Wolin's ideas are very relevant and carry a lot of descriptive power, our current government is really a too varied and complex with elements of many different ideas of state. Yes, we even have real democracy here and there too!
  Our real challenge is to make sure the current state of flux moves in the right direction.
  Reply ↓
  
  
• [B]Steve H. December 1, 2014 at 7:50 am Speaking for other close reading enthusiasts, thank you and I'm sorry.
  A rational theory of semi-rational primates is necessarily insufficient.
  Reply ↓
  [/B]
  
• [B] [B]Ben Johannson December 1, 2014 at 8:12 am I assign less relevance to institutions and relationships as these are concerned with how things happen rather than why. Knowing why people do things is the key to understanding their objectives and whether they are friend or foe, and for that I begin with Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. Once we become aware of the "higher barbarians" we see how they're able to wield such power over political systems and institutions.
  Reply ↓
  
  • [B]casino implosion December 1, 2014 at 12:05 pm "Theory of the Leisure Class"
    My vade mecum.
    Reply ↓
    
    
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]Ulysses December 1, 2014 at 8:15 am "I'm not sure there is a single, encompassing description or theory available." I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment! The difficulty lies in the fact that individual people are complex, inconsistent creatures who act from motives that are often indiscernible to outside observers. That being said, I think Lambert makes a very important point: "I don't buy that it's more useful and interesting to view the 1% (let's call them) acting vertically through a myriad of cabals and cliques, as opposed to horizontally in their common or shared interests as a class."
  When I overhear a snatch of conversation at a Dean & DeLuca, and three days later something appears in "the news" that supports my impression that a certain media outlet has been fed a certain piece of disinformation that is useful to a powerful individual, that's just an observation about one moment under kleptocratic rule. It is far more important to connect all the dots and to understand the general trend of a transnational elite that is using a wide variety of mechanisms throughout the world to continue this massive upward concentration of wealth, into fewer and fewer hands.
  On the other hand, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and deliberately ignore the many instances where secret power [B]is exercised to achieve all kinds of nefarious ends. In particular we should be very skeptical of the dominant MSM narrative on pretty much every issue!
  Reply ↓
  [/B]
  • [B]Banger December 1, 2014 at 10:52 am If you've ever been close to power of any kind at any levelyou would know that cliques and conspiracies abound. Start by reading the classical historians. Again ignorance of this is a result of American Exceptionalism.
    Reply ↓
    
    • [B]Lambert Strether December 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm Lots of people are "close to power of any kind." It's called being citizen. I don't think anybody ever denied that cliques (and cabals) abound, and perhaps even on the "evidence of things not seen" theory conspiracies "abound." The issue is whether they are worth the weight that Scott gives them, which is important, because his theory of the state gives the primary importance.
      Reply ↓
      
      
    [/B]
    
  [/B][/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B] [B]Uahsenaa December 1, 2014 at 8:35 am
  I want a theory of the state that helps me to distinguish friend or ally from enemy or neutral, and helps me to pursue the values and interests I share with others like me.
  
  This is a far trickier proposition than I think you imagine it to be, since, in many cases in modern society, people who share your class interests in fact are quite often rendered complicit, by a variety of means, in the very behaviors/policies/quid non that oppress both you and them. To that effect, any theory of the state, to my mind, has to account both for its institutional constituents, the most common approach, as well as its means or affordances.
  PR/propaganda is a good example of what I mean: it's not necessarily produced by any one particular groupall institutional constituents, as well as "private sector" entities, propagandize to one extent or anotherbut it is a necessary component of how the state pulls the wool over people's eyes and, as above, seduces them into being complicit in, or at least indifferent to, the state's shenanigans. Additionally, there is the question of access (to politicians, to institutions, etc.) which is codified both by explicit rules (silly things like laws and regulations) but also by standards and practices (and winks and nods) that are well known only to those who use and abuse them on a daily basis. It is unclear to me whether access makes of one a constituent of the state or, by being somehow already involved, one acquires access.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]jgordon December 1, 2014 at 9:40 am I have a theory: America is in an empire in terminal decline. There are many historical examples of empires in decline where the ruling elites become insular and do lots of stupid stuff, sometimes for centuries, before the empire suffers catastrophic collapse. If we need a name for the process, let's call it "entropy". Entropy can be held at bay by utilizing energy/resources from external sources for a time (a working explanation for the activities of empire) but eventually all resources are exhausted and the system goes dark.
  As you may have noticed, things like "democracy" and "accountability" play no part in the largely mechanical process described above, and that is exactly what we see today. If the internal proletariat (for example, Occupy) does something that threatens to activities of empire, they will be suppressed by any means necessary with no other consideration given. That's all.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]DJG December 1, 2014 at 9:42 am I note that the term "deep state" comes from Turkey, yet many Turks would argue that the "deep state" doesn't exist, being rather a set of authoritarian tendencies from Ottoman culture, the ill-informed reliance on the military as "guardians of democracy," and Sunni puritanism. The Italians sometimes speak of "i misteri d'Italia," another set of mythical deep-state causes / effects. But i misteri d'Italia don't explain much.
  In short, the Deep State may be more Pynchon-style paranoia than political fact.
  While we are on definitions, I'd like a definition of kabuki (as used by liberalish commenters). I'd say that the only people allowed to use "kabuki" in a comment should also be required to define "onnagata" and demonstrate some knowledge of the Japanese theater tradition (dare I ask for a definition of butoh?).
  Reply ↓
  
  • [B]Ulysses December 1, 2014 at 9:54 am This is why I prefer to use the term "kayfabe," which doesn't suppose any deep knowledge of Japanese culture, but is rather derived from the world of televised "professional wrestling" here in the U.S. Adversaries in the ring pretend to real enmity and profound differences outside of the ring, just like members of the corporatist uniparty, the Republicrats!!
    Reply ↓
    
    • [B]DJG December 1, 2014 at 11:11 am Wily Odysseus speaks the truth. I prefer kayfabe, too, which is a term that I learned right here at Naked Capitalism from an explanation by Yves Smith.
      Reply ↓
      
      
    • [B]DJG December 1, 2014 at 11:13 am Also, kayfabe, being U.S. slang, points directly to the American problem, which is that much of our politics is "televised profession wrestling," all highly profitable for those involved.
      Reply ↓
      [/B]
      
    • [B] [B]Kurt Sperry December 1, 2014 at 11:21 am Indeed, the very lowbrowness of the term kayfabe' is prophylactic of descent into unhelpfully obfuscatory learned digression.
      Reply ↓
      [/B][/B]
      
    • [B][B] [B]knowbuddhau December 1, 2014 at 11:33 am I don't like the use of kabuki as a derogative, either. Not all that fond of kayfabe, though. Great concept, ugly little word. Maybe it'll grow on me.
      Reply ↓
      [/B][/B][/B]
      
    [B][/B][/B]
    
  [B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]Banger December 1, 2014 at 10:50 am Interesting bit of sophistry. By trying to narrowly define anything we always come to paradox. Deep State, for me, is a metaphor and not a building somewhere in Washington called "Deep State." It is a series of networks built up over time that is not a top-down hierarchical system.
  Elements of the Deep State are everywhere and nowhere. Let's show a fictional example. A little network of insider traders operates on Wall Streetthrough one method or another, an office within the CIA finds out about it and offers the Wall Street conspirators an offer they can't refuse and thus become involved in activities to their mutual benefitthey interact with one or two people and that's itneither party may know the ultimate goal of any operation but they remain a network.
  Also, you assume too much when you say the Deep State wanted to suppress Occupy. Why would they want to do that? Occupy was no real threat to anything and any person aware of culture mythology would tell you that Americans don't like bohemians who stay too long on stagethey never have. Occupy was doomed from the start by its own internal contradictionsbut that is another argument.
  Since you want to test the idea of a Deep State I invite you to look at the assassinations of the sixties. Here there are mountains of evidence clearly stated and forensically based. Yet, the mainstream media refuses to discuss the issue and you will not discuss it either. I've asked you, for example, to reply to the most obvious little tidbit among the stunning amount of evidence around these events and you have never answered and much depends on answering these factoids. The autopsy of RFK determined that RFK had been killed by bullets fire at point blank range from behind and, in addition, analysis or the audio showed there were 13 not 9 (which Sirhan's revolver held) shots. Sirhan fired from the front at no closer than two feet according to all witnesseswho also described the shots as sounding like a firecrackerno one can fire shots that fast (sound analysis also shows the shots came on too fast for any one person to fire). So if there was another shooter and the government suppressed this then what does that imply? You cannot if you are a person that believe is reason ignore such events or see them as irrelevant because it implies the existence of a Deep State.
  How would this work? Somebody powerful would call the LAPD and tell them what to doanyone who thinks the LAPD operates on the high moral standards presented by TV shows like Dragnet ought to read or see the movie LA Confidential. That "somebody" would be part of the relatively informal network that anybody would know about had they seen any informal networks in operation. I've seen it on the "the street" (not Wall Street but the informal association of petty criminals I knew in my youth) where somebody let's it be known not to mess with so and soand we all knew what that meantwe knew there was a pecking order and didn't need an organizational chart or an elaborate description. We knew that if we stepped over that line we would get a beatingif we stepped over that other line over there we would be killed. The same sort of informal network existed within various organizations I was a part of or worked with as well as across organizations.
  In short, the actual arrangements I described are obscure and it is that obscurity which makes them robust. Finally, there are important "meta" organizations that do operate in secrecy who are not accountable and have an official history of assassinations, government overthrows and skullduggery of every kind and that is the CIA and the intel-community. I repeatthese organizations are not accountable de facto if not de jure.
  Again, the left in the U.S. refuses to engage in understanding what I have described and through that fact has removed itself from the realpolik that is a requirement for power.
  Reply ↓
  
  • [B]casino implosion December 1, 2014 at 12:07 pm "" It is a series of networks built up over time that is not a top-down hierarchical system.
    Elements of the Deep State are everywhere and nowhere. Let's show a fictional example. A little network of insider traders operates on Wall Streetthrough one method or another, an office within the CIA finds out about it and offers the Wall Street conspirators an offer they can't refuse and thus become involved in activities to their mutual benefitthey interact with one or two people and that's itneither party may know the ultimate goal of any operation but they remain a network. "
    This is pretty close to Oglesby's definition in "The Yankee And Cowboy War".
    Reply ↓
    
    • [B]Lambert Strether December 1, 2014 at 12:15 pm Why don't we just say "invisible stuff that does shit"?
      Ogleby's book, which I read in the day, was exactly the same sort of hairball Bangor has done Scott the disservice of turning his book into.
      Does anybody not see how disempowering this is? Leads right down the cul de sac of cultural change is the only thing, since there's no way to actually locate or address power structures, which have become an invisible 21st Century sky god.
      Reply ↓
      
      • [B]Pepsi December 1, 2014 at 1:00 pm What do you want it to say?
        Reply ↓
        
        
      [/B]
      
    [/B]
    
  • [B][B] [B]Lambert Strether December 1, 2014 at 12:11 pm I just knew you'd redefine it ("the deep state, for me…."). Bonus points for "sophistry." It takes real chutzpah to claim "trying to narrowly define anything we always come to paradox"* when I use the author of the term's very own glossary.
    
    NOTE * Read the whole comment, including the "long-ago elite assassination plots." I don't see a paradox, unless it's that "everywhere and nowhere" bit.
    Shorter Banger: The state has secret bits. That means people don't know about them, at least not right away. Some of them are historical. The end. For that I spent $25.95? Dear Lord.
    Reply ↓
    [/B][/B][/B]
    
  [B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]Skorn December 1, 2014 at 10:57 am Interesting article connecting many of the threads discussed on NC; Wall Street ruling class corruption, Military Industrial Complex incentives and the collusion of elected officials. Lofgren, a former Washington insider, provides a good functional description of the American Deep State and the key stakeholders it comprises.
  Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State
  [URL="http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/"]
  February 21, 2014
  by Mike Lofgren[/URL]
  "The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face." "Living upon its principal," in this case, means that the Deep State has been extracting value from the American people in vampire-like fashion."
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]Local to Oakland December 1, 2014 at 11:01 am I don't have a theory. The historical metaphor that helps me is city-state Venice. Despite it's form of government, it was owned by oligarchs, deeply corrupt and extremely dangerous for those who crossed the wrong people.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]DJG December 1, 2014 at 11:20 am Another reason why we should stick close to home. Sorry, but Venice as more than a city-state. Check a map of the Mediterranean around 1550. The government was an oligarchy but broad enough to be inclusive. The doge was elected through a complicated system to ensure some fairness. The oligarchy recognized that the middle class, people in the trades, and the "working class" had to have chances to make money and to rise. In fact, when Napoleon invaded in 1798, one of the main sources of opposition were the arsenalotti, the workers in the Arsenale (state-owned) who had produced a ship a day for many years using an assembly line. The Serenissima was notoriously unfriendly to the pope and papal ambitions. The civil service had a system of double signatures to ensure that money was spent properly. And even though there were judicial horrors, Venice was considered a place where one could get some justice.
  Reply ↓
  
  • [B]Lambert Strether December 1, 2014 at 12:52 pm [insert doge joke here], also [insert doge-coin joke here].
    Thanks for this comment.
    Reply ↓
    
    
  [/B][/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]psychohistorian December 1, 2014 at 11:26 am IMO, what is needed is truthfulness about the situation.
  How about going to the head of the rotten fish and calling them the Fortune 100 of trust fund sociopaths since they are the ones who's "deep state" is the myth that keeps the rest of us from talking about inheritance and accumulating private ownership of property.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]knowbuddhau December 1, 2014 at 11:29 am Lambert, I think I love you. This is brilliant. My roshi refers to this kind of action as weeding the garden of the mind. I bow in your virtual direction.
  I'm guilty of adopting DS without having fully examined it. It's so damn poetic, and fits my prejudices to a t. Much obliged for the clarification.
  I want to find that one thread in this dystopia that both ties it all together and will unravel it when pulled. Is there such a thread? Don't know for sure, but I'll go on looking just the same.
  ISTM this kind of mistake seeing purpose and intentional design where it doesn't exist has a name, but I can't think of it. Is it related to teleology?
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]alex morfesis December 1, 2014 at 12:04 pm enough of the people on one day is all one needs to keep the bedlam from reaching into its own soul and finding the power is in its hands. One does not need to oppress and control 24-7…all that is needed is to disrupt at key times and places. Although there are internal perpetual competitions amongst the roman senators, there is no question there is an over reaching need to insure the walls are secure at all times from uninvited quests to the party.
  We are all victims of our experiences and knowledge base and the meme we have created in the spirit of our human hosts. For me the "deep state" is anything to do with the kreepy krawleez of black and red land from the ghelan org which formed the base for the CIA and the Vlassovs inside the KGB. The internal strife and warfare from 62-64 inside the KGB looks more like an attempt by Nazi's to take over mother russia and remove Kruschev then just a disagreement amongst Bareaites…There were Nazi's helping egypt after ww2 making peace with Israel a weeeeee bit difficult…We are all told to avoid looking too deeply at the sun as it might blind us…the same goes for reading anything that might have been a speech given by the devil himself, that little austrian painter with the Chaplin mustache…the little munchkin knew there was no real chance to win the second world war and was prepping his little robots to prepare for "the next phase" of the regime…but having come from Ithaki…where our little guy with a mustache, Metaxas, in October of 1940 gave his version of the 101st's "nuts" to Il Dupe when he said "Alors, c'est la guerre", it is bashed into our little minds, our little meme, with that great yogi-ism…it aint over till its over…the world is full of former duchy's and principalities, lost cities and forgotten empires, where bushido is no longer a concern…there will always be someone who thinks they are more equal than others…the key is not to be surprised and shocked when it slaps you in the back of the head.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]LyleJames December 1, 2014 at 12:12 pm Lofgren's essay remains pretty convincing for me. He isn't suggesting some omniscient cabal coordinating their efforts toward a defined goal. That would be hard to credit. Rather, his Deep State, as I read it, is a collection of government agencies and mega corporations populated by people of a similar authoritarian or bureaucratic mindset that gravitate naturally toward the same deeply undemocratic decisions, out of hubris, greed, lust for power. I think any of us who have worked in any organization of size can see the same principals at work on a small scale. The American mentality self-centered, self-confident, short-sighted seems especially prone to this syndrome, an amalgam of qualities that led first to sensational, widely-shared economic success but now has become so bloated and top-heavy that it oppresses not only its own population but that of much of the world.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]Paul Niemi December 1, 2014 at 12:18 pm About 35 years ago, think tanks appeared which offered jobs to former administration officials and cabinet secretaries. The rationale was that they couldn't make enough money working for the government to compensate their power and brilliance, so provide that after they left government. Our friends, the Saudis, funded several such think tanks. Soon, many of these people learned another way to cash in was investing in companies doing business with the government, and influencing those relationships through their connections. There, in a nutshell, is the deep state. Mainly they suckled at the sow of the Defense department, but now these rent seekers have expanded their influence with privatizations of other government services. No, they don't run the whole show, but they are a burden to carry for the taxpayers.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  
• [B][B] [B]Alejandro December 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm Excellent! Insightful and witty. Thanks.
  Reply ↓
  [/B][/B][/B]
  

[B][B]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


[/B][/B]

[Tracy Riddle]

I don't know why a lot of people on the Left get so hung up on words and terms, and argue endlessly about how to define them. It's a very distracting game.

[David Andrews]

The Deep State no longer exists, in the same way that Freud's "repressed state" has vanished: No more is there the unconscious, the hidden - Everything thrives now and prospers upon the surface!

[David Guyatt]

The Deep State no longer exists, in the same way that Freud's "repressed state" has vanished: No more is there the unconscious, the hidden - Everything thrives now and prospers upon the surface!

Where did these things - the deep state and the unconscious go, David?

[David Andrews]

The Deep State no longer exists, in the same way that Freud's "repressed state" has vanished: No more is there the unconscious, the hidden - Everything thrives now and prospers upon the surface!

Where did these things - the deep state and the unconscious go, David?

Meaning we no longer need the repressed and hidden to foster and rationalize evil now - it's all out there naked and unashamed, for those who will themselves look. Ask Prince Andrew.

[Albert Doyle]

Meaning we no longer need the repressed and hidden to foster and rationalize evil now - it's all out there naked and unashamed, for those who will themselves look. Ask Prince Andrew.

"I would do it again".

[David Guyatt]

The Deep State no longer exists, in the same way that Freud's "repressed state" has vanished: No more is there the unconscious, the hidden - Everything thrives now and prospers upon the surface!

Where did these things - the deep state and the unconscious go, David?

Meaning we no longer need the repressed and hidden to foster and rationalize evil now - it's all out there naked and unashamed, for those who will themselves look. Ask Prince Andrew.

I think it's still a long, long way from all being out there. But I agree things are heading in that direction.

The Collective Unconscious is the repository of the entire history of mankind - good and bad - and is not, therefore, something that can be exhausted.