in ,

How the Deep State ‘Justifies’ Itself in America

In America, the Deep State ‘justifies’ itself in the ‘news’-media that it owns, and does so by falsely ‘defining’ what the “Deep State” is (which is actually the nation’s 607 billionaires, whose hired agents number in the millions).

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

On October 30th, there was a panel discussion broadcast live on C-Span from the National Press Club and the Michael V. Hayden Center. The discussants were John Brennan, Michael McCabe, John McGlaughlin, and Michael Morrell. They all agreed with the statement by McLaughlin (former Deputy CIA Director) “Thank God for the ‘Deep State’”, and the large audience there also applauded it — nobody booed it. John Brennan amplified upon the thought, and there was yet more applause. However, that thought hadn’t been invented by McLaughlin; it instead had evolved recently in the pages of the New York Times. Perhaps the discussants had read it there. Instead of America’s ‘news’-media uncritically trumpeting what government officials assert to be facts (as they traditionally do), we now have former spooks uncritically trumpeting what a mainstream ‘news’-medium has recently concocted to be the case — about themselves. They’ve come out of the closet, about being the Deep State. However, even in that, they are lying, because they aren’t it; they are only agents for it.

In America, the Deep State ‘justifies’ itself in the ‘news’-media that it owns, and does so by falsely ‘defining’ what the “Deep State” is (which is actually the nation’s 607 billionaires, whose hired agents number in the millions). They mis-‘define’ it, as being, instead, the taxpayer-salaried career Government employees, known professionally as “the Civil Service.” (Although some Civil Servants — especially at the upper levels — are agents for America’s billionaires and retire to cushy board seats, most of them actually are not and do not. And the “revolving door” between “the public sector” and “the private sector” is where the Deep State operations become concentrated. That’s the core of the networking, by which the billionaires get served. And, of course, those former spooks at the National Press Club said nothing about it. Are they authentically so stupid that they don’t know about it, or is that just pretense from them?)

How the Deep State’s operatives perpetrate this deception about the meaning of “Deep State” was well exemplified in the nine links that were supplied on October 28th by the extraordinarily honest anonymous German intelligence analyst who blogs as “Moon of Alabama” and who condemned there (and linked to) 9 recent articles in the New York Times, as posing a threat against democracy in America. As I intend to argue here, the 9 articles are, indeed, aimed at deceiving the American public, about what the true meaning of the phrase “the Deep State” is. He headlined “Endorsing The Deep State Endangers Democracy”. (And that’s what the October 30th panel discussion was actually doing — endorsing the Deep State.) However, he didn’t explain the tactic the NYT’s editors (and those former spooks) use to deceive the public about the Deep State, and this is what I aim to do here, by showing the transformation, over time, in the way that that propaganda-organization, the New York Times, has been employing the phrase “Deep State” — a remarkable transformation, which started, on 16 February 2017, by the newspaper’s denying that any Deep State exists in America but that it exists only in corrupt nations; and which gradually transitioned into an upside-down, by asserting that a Deep State does exist in the United States, and that it fights against corruption in this country. As always, only fools (such as that applauding audience on October 30th) would believe it, but propagandists depend upon fools and cannot thrive without them. In this case, the Times, in those 9 articles, was evolving quickly from a blanket denial, to an American-exceptionalist proud affirmation, that a Deep State rules this country and ought to rule it. I agree with the statement that “Endorsing The Deep State Endangers Democracy”, but I am more concerned here to explain how that endorsement — that deceit — is being done.

The first of these NYT articles was published on 16 February 2017, and it denied that the U.S. has any “Deep State” whatsoever. The second, published on 6 March 2017, blamed President Trump (since the NYT represents mainly Democratic Party billionaires) for mainstreaming the phrase “the Deep State” into American political discourse, and it alleged that that phrase actually refers only to “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders.” The third, published on 10 March 2017, repeated this allegation, that this phrase applies only to “the powerful deep states of countries like Egypt or Pakistan, experts say.” The fourth, published on 5 September 2018, was an anonymous op-ed from a Government employee who condemned Trump and “vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” “This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.” So: still  the NYT’s editors were hewing to their propaganda-line, that no “Deep State” exists in America — there are just whistleblowers, here. The fifth, on 18 December 2018, said, for example, that “Adam Lovinger, a Pentagon analyst, was one of the first to wrap himself in the deep state defense” — namely, that they consist of “people who have been targeted for political reasons.” So, the NYT’s editors were now reinforcing their new false ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting just of Government whistleblowers. The sixth, on 6 October 2019, said, “President Trump and some of his allies have asserted without evidence that a cabal of American officials — the so-called deep state — embarked on a broad operation to thwart Mr. Trump’s campaign. The conspiracy theory remains unsubstantiated.” So: the NYT’s editors were back, again, to denying that there is any “Deep State” in America. This was a signal, from them, that they were starting to recognize that they’d need to jiggle their ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” at least a bit. The seventh, on 20 October 2019, was by a member of the Editorial Board, and it boldly proclaimed, about “the deep state,” “Let us now praise these not-silent heroes.” The propagandists now had settled firmly upon their new (and previously merely exploratory) ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting of whistleblowers in the U.S. Government’s Civil Services, “individuals willing to step up and protest the administration’s war on science, expertise and facts.” The eighth, on 23 October 2019, equated “the deep state” even more boldly with the impeachment of President Trump: “Over the last three weeks, the deep state has emerged from the shadows in the form of real live government officials, past and present, who have defied a White House attempt to block cooperation with House impeachment investigators and provided evidence that largely backs up the still-anonymous whistle-blower.” The ninth, on 26 October 2019, which came from “a contributing opinion writer and professor of history,” alleged that the origins of “the deep state” are to be found with Teddy Roosevelt in the 1880s, when “A healthy dose of elitism drove Roosevelt’s crusade, as the spoils system had been the path to power for immigrant-driven political machines in big cities like New York. Yet the Civil Service laws he and others created marked the beginning of a shift toward a fairer, less corrupt public realm.” 

In other words: the Deep State, in America, are not perpetrators of corrupt government (such as in “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders”), but are instead courageous enemies  of corrupt government; and they are instituted by the aristocracy here (today’s American billionaires), in order to reduce, if not eliminate, corruption in government (which, the Times now alleges, originates amongst, or serves, the lower classes).

The lessons about Big Brother, which were taught by George Orwell in his merely metaphorical masterpiece 1984, were apparently never learned, because even now — as his “Newspeak” is being further refined so that black is white, and good is bad, and truth is falsehood — there still are people who subscribe to the propagandists and cannot get enough of their ridiculous con-games. Though in some poor countries, a corrupt Deep State rules; a Deep State rules in America so as to reduce if not prevent corruption, the New York Times now concludes.

You can see how it’s done, in those nine NYT articles. Isn’t it simply amazing there?!

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

What do you think?

16
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
oldandjadedEl Tejano LocoHideo WatanabeRick OliverThe Deep State of Befuddlement Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Life's a Racket
Guest
Life's a Racket

Thank God for the Deep State, to point America on its merry way. 🙁

Joel Walbert
Guest
Joel Walbert

You criticize someone for deception then immediate go on to state that the US is a democracy? Bald face lie Doctor Deception. Too bad cuz I wanted to read this, but will never waste my time on an idiot who claims we are a democracy.

Life's a Protection Racket
Guest
Life's a Protection Racket

More like a mafia gang war over foreign turf between two rival factions.

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

Excellent article. For those that fail to grasp what this is about, its a very clear-cut explanation of how “they” are priming “us” to accept what they are about to openly declare, namely that it is no longer going to be even a “sham” democracy, and that the deep state is now openly in charge. It appears that this is the pretext to yet another coup d’état, but that unlike the ones that preceded it in 1963 and 2001, this one will not be covert, but take place in full public view.

The Deep State of Befuddlement
Guest
The Deep State of Befuddlement

How’s it justify itself? By the constant braying of jackasses. Here’s a prime example: (try to keep a straight face)

Ted Cruz of Texas said Wednesday on Twitter. “In a few short months, Russia will have completed its natural gas pipeline — putting Putin in a position to further expand his military, exploit our European allies and threaten U.S. energy security.” ……HUH?

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

I can help here. “exploit our European allies ” means “sell our European allies natural gas at a price that renders our ‘Freedom gas’ non-competitive”, and “threaten U.S. energy security” means “weaken our ability to use our hegemonic control of fossil fuels to force them to submit to our orders regarding regime change in South America and the Middle East”.

El Tejano Loco
Guest
El Tejano Loco

Poor Ted Cruz has a cruzifiction complex. (and thank you for that very accurate explanation)

Rick Oliver
Guest
Rick Oliver

All the old ” Has beens “, the likes of Henry pedo Kissinger , Madeline Albright , Bill Clinton , and all the other Burglars , all hanging onto the shirt tails of the Global Rich , just like the sticky scum that they are !!

Hideo Watanabe
Guest

I wonder if the author believes that Trump, when elected, had some solid domestic and foreign policy. His campaign promises were just the opposite against what Obama did and was trying to do. Trump does not fit in the aristocratic political system of the US, which is the root cause of today’s political circus. Deep State means Pentagon, CIA, FBI and other branches consisted of non-elected government officials as every knows it, but there is an important thing rarely disscussed. Majority of top elite in this fundamentally bureaucratic organizations has educational background so-called “political science” in the leading universities. These… Read more »

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

I agree with some of what you say here, but disagree with the hoary old neo-liberal saw, that Trump didnt have a solid domestic and foreign policy. The position of the neo-liberal globalist elite is any foreign policy that runs counter to their foreign policy is a “non-policy”. Thats a circular argument. “True for me” does not constitute fact, it constitutes belief. I don’t see anything more random or contradictory in what Trump has done than any other president that has attempted to push back against the stated policy of the “policy elite caste”. I look at it more in… Read more »

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

As a perfect illustration of what I am talking about, a quote from here https://theduran.com/time-is-running-out-to-salvage-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ “President Trump recently signed sanctions waivers for China and Russia and Europe to continue to assist Iran in its peaceful nuclear development. These periodic waivers grant exemptions from US sanctions against Iran and allow foreign companies to collaborate on civilian nuclear programs with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. Some believe that this might be a sign that President Trump wants to negotiate a deal with Iran, which he certainly can, if he lifts sanctions first.” How do you suppose the “policy elite caste” will react if… Read more »

Hideo Watanabe
Guest

It is nice to meet someone I can talk about the depth of strategy. Obama’s JCPOA is to use Iran as a wedge for two purposes: One is to counter both Chinese Belt and Road and Russian’s Eurasia economic zone. It is part of his Pivot to Asia strategy, now known as Indo-Pacific strategy. The second one is more obvious that Obama wanted to maintain the leading position in Middle East solving issues on Israel/Palestinian in a softer manner, while the military deployment at al-Tanf in Syria was his carrot and stick tactic to cut supply line from Iran to… Read more »

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

A really good response. Its obvious you put some effort into it, thank you. I’ll try to do it justice in my response. I agree with what you say about Obamas Iran deal, and I think Obama probably intended it to be his Presidential legacy, which to some degree, probably plays into why Trump chose to tear it down. I think Trump tearing up the Iran deal is one of his few real miscalculations. The worst part of it is it has given the Chinese deal to trade oil in gold-backed yaun a real peg to hang onto, this is… Read more »

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

Wow, deep dark irony. While it is still Nov 10th where I am, its past midnight where the Duran is located, which means my post above shows as November 11, which here in Canada, is “Remembrance Day” the day we remember Canadian veterans, and more specifically, World War I and II. What a very dark and sad way to start Remembrance day…

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

“I hope the caste should realize the natural flow of human history, power shift, and 21st century is the century for humanity development, not the century of destruction anymore” a lovely Humanist thought, but its not how I see the 21 century panning out. The New World Order is the end of the power of nations, it is about open and totalitarian rule by Corporate power. That’s what its about, not US control of the EU and Africa, or something like that, its the end of the nation state, not rule under the banner of one nation state as some… Read more »

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

I was looking at this sentence “Both Russia and the US have a cohesive long-term shared culture based on Christianity, ” its wrong, “shared” is in the wrong place, and distorts its meaning. It should read “Both Russia and the US have a cohesive long-term culture based on a shared belief in Christianity, “.

ABC News does as it is told, squashing explosive Epstein story (Video)

'Coup Has Started': Whistleblower's Attorney Vowed To 'Get Rid Of Trump' In 2017