The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 David Chibo Archive
Political Science’s “Theory of Everything”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The 7 “Blind” men and the US Elephant

The famous Indian story of the Blind Men and the Elephant is a metaphor highlighting that while one’s subjective experience can be true, it can also be limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. A similar metaphor can be used to try to explain the hidden forces guiding the US Government

From 1975 to 1976 the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House attempted unsuccessfully to curtail the power of US intelligence agencies. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in particular, was investigated to see if it was a “rogue elephant” or under strict control of the President and the executive branch. However, besides some damning revelations outlined in the “whitewashed” report and some minor oversight changes, the “rogue elephant” was allowed to roam free.

Contemporary main-stream pundits now openly describe these hidden forces as a “shadow government,” a “corporatocracy” or a “deep state” controlling American politics. None however can do justice to what truly is an amorphous, complex and intricate web of overlapping entities. All who have tried to define who really governs America have essentially behaved as “blind” men.

The Sociologist

The first “blind” man was the Sociologist Professor C. Wright Mills. His book, The Power Elite, which was published in 1956, was the first full-scale study of the structure and distribution of power in the United States.

Mills examined how the concentration of power had pooled within three main hierarchies. “There are a few thousand people in the United States that control almost all aspects of society. These few thousand individuals hold leadership posts in the political, military, and economic spheres. An extremely high percentage of these individuals were educated in the same schools, come from upper-class families, belong to the same public clubs, and often the same secret societies. The members of this ruling group hold the same interests and values. And this group self-selects the majority of its members.”

According to Mills the three hierarchies of power – political, military, and economic – in the United States are interlocking and form a ruling class whose members, at the time, could generally be grouped into one of the following six distinct groups – the Social Register (today replaced by Forbes’s annual top 500 richest people in the world list), the Celebrities, the Chief Executives, the Corporate Rich, the Warlords and the Political Directorate.

The people at the highest levels of these institutions see each other socially and look after one another by doing each other favours because they not only serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organisations, and other bodies, but they also share a mutuality of life experiences, educational backgrounds, and economic situations. This self-interest is of course to the detriment of the American people who they derogatively refer to as the masses.

Mills highlights the “revolving door” between government, military and corporations that helps maintain the power elite’s dominance over American life. He explains that when cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they usually become corporate executives; whereas conversely, corporate executives often become cabinet members and other key political appointees.

The power elite use the conglomerate media to broadcast their opinions to the masses, which believe, and regurgitate what the conglomerate media run by the elites, feed them. The masses are merely easily manipulated spectators led to believe that they are making the decisions: “This is why there won’t be change in the values and course of direction of the United States. One of the biggest myths of American society is that the middle class has influence on which direction and course our society takes. The American middle class does not have interests or values in common with the power elites that control and run US society.”

A 19th century Cassandra, Mills’ dire omen on how the power elite would gradually but collusively gain control of every aspect of life was an amazingly accurate analysis of the true nature of power and privilege in America.

The Law Enforcer

The second “blind” man was former FBI agent Dan Smoot. His self-published book, The Invisible Government, which was omitted from The New York Times Best Sellers List of 1962, sold over 1 million copies.

Smoot’s book charts the gradual infiltration of the US Government by the secret society known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR was established in 1921 by Colonel Edward M. House, who had links to “international bankers in New York” as well as “great financial institutions.”

Smoot explains that the secret society’s key aim was to push the American government into foreign entanglements. “The purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations was to create (and condition the American people to accept) what House called a ‘positive’ foreign policy for America– to replace the traditional ‘negative’ foreign policy which had kept America out of the endless turmoil of old-world politics and had permitted the American people to develop their great nation in freedom and independence from the rest of the world.”

By 1927, the Rockefeller family’s Rockefeller Foundations and Funds, along with the Carnegie Foundations and later the Ford Foundation began to finance the CFR and its principal publication, the quarterly magazine Foreign Affairs.

Many CFR members had come to occupy important positions in government, education, the press, the broadcasting industry, business and finance, or in some multi-million-dollar tax-exempt foundation. Smoot explains how by 1945 the CFR, and various foundations and other organisations interlocked with it, had virtually infiltrated and taken over the US State Department.

By the time that Smoot published the Invisible Government, the CFR was by 1962, “Boasting among its members Presidents of the United States (Hoover, Eisenhower, and Kennedy), Secretaries of State, and many other high officials, both civilian and military.”

The US corporations were also funding other global secret societies. The “Bilderbergers”, also known as the Bilderberg Group, derived their name from the location of their first meeting – the Bilderberg Hotel, Oosterbeck, The Netherlands, in May, 1954. Smoot describes them as another powerful group involved in the internationalist web: “The group consists of influential Western businessmen, diplomats, and high governmental officials. Their meetings, conducted in secrecy and in a hugger-mugger atmosphere, are held about every six months at various places throughout the world. His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands, has presided at every known meeting of the Bilderberger Group.”

He then explicitly cites the corporate links behind the Bilderberg Group: “Prince Bernhard is known to be an influential member of the Societé Generale de Belgique, a mysterious organization which seems to be an association of large corporate interests from many countries. American firms associated with the society are said to be among the large corporations whose officers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and related organizations.”

The Warlord

The third “blind” man was retired US Air Force Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, who was an early critic of the CIA that stood at the head of the then founded security state. In his book titled The Secret Team, published in 1973, he charts the birth of the modern security state through President Harry S. Truman, who in late 1947, signed into law the National Security Act.

He explains how this seminal event “in addition to establishing the Department of Defense (DoD) with a single Secretary at its head and with three equal and independent services — the Army, Navy, and Air Force — also provided for a National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Prouty served from 1955 to 1964 as the focal point for contacts between the CIA and the DoD on matters pertaining to “special operations” – official language for covert activities. In this capacity Prouty worked directly with CIA Director Dulles and his brother John Foster, who was then Secretary of State, and also with several different Secretaries of Defense and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and many other government officials. Prouty had become disillusioned with the CIA after witnessing that they “had been diverted” from the original assignment that he and the legislators who drafted the Act had so carefully planned.

In his book Prouty debunks the CIA’s most important “cover story” which is that of an “Intelligence” agency. Prouty affirms that while the CIA does make use of “intelligence” and “intelligence gathering”, this is largely a front for its primary interest – clandestine operations.

In his book Prouty quotes Truman to explain how “the CIA had gone into clandestine operations and had been ‘injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations’, and ‘has been so much removed from its intended role.’”

The diversion from its intended role was according to Prouty, “attributable to the growing and secret pressures of some other power source.” Again quoting Truman, Prouty explains how the CIA had become: ”a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue.”

Prouty goes on to define this other power source. “The CIA is the center of a vast and amorphous mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations … or as Allen Dulles always called it, ’Peacetime Operations.’ In this sense, the CIA is the willing tool of a higher level High Cabal, that may include representatives and highly skilled agents of the CIA and other instrumentalities of the government, certain cells of the business and professional world and, almost always, foreign participation.”

Within this unique position the CIA can prod the other arms of government into doing its bidding. Prouty explains how “[t]he CIA’s greatest strength derives from its ability to activate various parts of the U.S. Government, usually the Defense Department, with minor inputs designed to create reaction.”

Expanding on the evolution of the security state, Prouty explains how “The CIA did not begin as a Secret Team, as a ‘series of tiny but powerful cabals’, as the ‘invisible government’, or as members of the ‘secret elite’. But before long it became a bit of all of these.”

His dissection of the secret team also includes the ever-present “revolving-door” between government and corporations: “At the heart of the Team, of course, are a handful of top executives of the CIA and of the National Security Council (NSC), most notably the chief White House adviser to the President on foreign policy affairs. Around them revolves a sort of inner ring of Presidential officials, civilians, and military men from the Pentagon, and career professionals of the intelligence community. It is often quite difficult to tell exactly who many of these men really are, because some may wear a uniform and the rank of general and really be with the CIA and others may be as inconspicuous as the executive assistant to some Cabinet officer’s chief deputy. Out beyond this ring is an extensive and intricate network of government officials with responsibility for, or expertise in, some specific field that touches on national security or foreign affairs: ‘Think Tank’ analysts, businessmen who travel a lot or whose businesses (e.g. import-export or cargo airline operations) are useful, academic experts in this or that technical subject or geographic region, and quite importantly, alumni of the intelligence community — a service from which there are no unconditional resignations. All true members of the Team remain in the power center whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of office with the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe.”

The gradual strategic infiltration of government departments also appears to be a speciality of the secret team. Prouty cites how “[o]n the basis of security [Dulles] would place people in all areas of the Government, and then he would move them up and deeper into their cover jobs, until they began to take a very active part in the role of their own cover organizations.”

The global power of the secret team according to Prouty comes from its “vast intragovernmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The Secret Team has very close affiliations with elements of power in more than three-score foreign countries and is able when it chooses to topple governments, to create governments, and to influence governments almost anywhere in the world.”

The Economist

The fourth “blind” man is Professor of Economics, Jeffrey D. Sachs, the pioneer of what Naomi Klein called Shock Therapy — a free market fundamentalism of privatization, deregulation, and cutting of government subsidies, met with debt relief and foreign aid — better known in the developing world as the infamous Washington Consensus.

In his New York Times listed book, The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity, published in 2011, he laments that US political power has been usurped by four powerful corporate interest groups, whom he labels a “corporatocracy,” that have mired the country in a feedback loop: ”Corporate wealth translates into political power through campaign financing, corporate lobbying and the revolving door of jobs between government and industry; and political power translates into further wealth through tax cuts, deregulation and sweetheart contracts between government and industry. Wealth begets power, and power begets wealth.”

The most notorious of these corporate lobbies is identified by Sachs as the military-industrial complex – a term first coined by Eisenhower in his farewell speech on January 17, 1961, when he warned that “the linkage of the military and private industry created a political power so pervasive that America has been condemned to militarisation, useless wars and fiscal waste on a scale of many tens of trillions of dollars since then.”

The second corporate lobby, according to Sachs, is the Wall Street–Washington complex, which consists of politically powerful Wall Street firms, notably Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and a handful of other financial firms. Sachs describes how these US banks gradually managed to wrest control of the financial system from the government: “The close ties of finance and Washington paved the way for the 2008 financial crisis and the mega bailouts that followed, through reckless deregulation followed by an almost complete lack of oversight by government. Wall Street firms have provided the top economic policy makers in Washington during several administrations, including the likes of Donald Regan (Merrill Lynch) under Reagan, Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs) under Clinton, Hank Paulson (Goldman Sachs) under Bush Jr., and several Wall Street–connected senior officials under Obama (including William Daley, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling, and Jack Lew).”

He defines the third corporate lobby as the Big Oil-transport-military complex, which he explains has put the US on the trajectory of heavy oil-imports dependence and ever deepening military entrapment in the Middle East: “Since the days of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust a century ago, Big Oil has loomed large in American politics and foreign policy. Big Oil teamed up with the automobile industry to steer America away from mass transit and toward gas-guzzling vehicles driving on a nationally financed highway system. Big Oil has consistently and successfully fought the intrusion of competition from non-oil energy sources, including nuclear, wind, and solar power.”

Sachs also highlights Big Oil’s counter-intuitive reliance on the Pentagon: “America defends the sea-lanes to the Persian Gulf, in effect ensuring a $100 billion–plus annual subsidy for a fuel that is otherwise dangerous for national security. And Big Oil has played a notorious role in the fight to keep climate change off the U.S. agenda. ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and others in the sector have underwritten a generation of antiscientific propaganda to confuse the American people.”

The fourth of the great industry-government tie-ups has been the health care industry, America’s single largest industry today, absorbing no less than 17 percent of GDP. According to Sachs, what began as government partnering with business to refund costs has morphed into a lobby with little systematic oversight and control: “Pharmaceutical firms set sky-high prices protected by patent rights; Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers reimburse doctors and hospitals on a cost-plus basis; and the American Medical Association restricts the supply of new doctors through the control of placements at American medical schools. The result of this pseudo–market system is sky-high costs, large profits for the private health care sector, and no political will to reform.”

Sachs is equally scathing of the government for turning “the levers of power over to the corporate lobbies.” Sachs explains how “[a] healthy economy is a mixed economy, in which government and the marketplace both play their role. Yet the federal government has neglected its role for three decades.”

The Lawyer

The fifth “blind” man is Professor of Economics and proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael J. Glennon. In his book National Security and Double Government, he debunks the myth that US security policy is still forged by America’s visible, “Madisonian institutions” – the President, Congress, and the Courts. “Their roles …have become largely illusory. Presidential control is now nominal, congressional oversight is dysfunctional, and judicial review is negligible.” Glennon’s book details the gradual shift in power that has occurred as the Madisonian institutions gradually became “hollowed out” and their impermanent custodians were gradually replaced by a concealed, non-elected perpetual Trumanite network.

Glennon traces the rise of this double government to the seemingly innocent reorganization of the national security structure established by the Truman administration. Glennon details how the “National Security Act of 1947, which unified the military under a new secretary of defense, set up the CIA, created the modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, and established the National Security Council (NSC).” Also secretly established and not revealed until many years later, was “the National Security Agency, which was intended at the time to monitor communications abroad.”

Glennon describes how the Trumanite network, mostly immune from constitutional and electoral restraints, consists “of the several hundred executive officials who sit atop the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement departments and agencies that have as their mission the protection of America’s international and internal security.” They contain elements mainly from the NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government.

“US national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks,” according to Glennon. He also sees the media as critical in reinforcing the illusion that the public institutions of US government are actually in charge: “For double government to work, the Madisonian institutions must seem in charge, for the Trumanites’ power flows from the legitimacy of those institutions.”

Casting some of the blame on “America’s pervasive civic ignorance,” Glennon’s solution to the unchecked double government is a more informed and engaged electorate, without which the restoration of accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy will be impossible.

The Diplomat

The sixth “blind” man is Professor Peter Dale Scott, a Canadian-born Professor of English, poet and diplomat. His book titled The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy, depicts a fundamentally schizophrenic American government.

Considered the father of “deep politics”, Scott highlights the two levels of government in America – the more familiar one is the law-enacting government, consisting of a Senate, House of Representatives and President. Meanwhile, the second hidden government operates on a deeper level and is composed of the national security apparatus, intelligence agencies and the armed forces.

This deep state is itself divided between the “Beltway agencies of the shadow government, like the CIA and NSA, which have been instituted by the public state and now overshadow it, but also including private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton (Edward Snowden’s employers) and SAIC.” Meanwhile its corporate arm is made up of “the much older power of Wall Street, referring to the powerful banks and law firms located there, but also to the cartels and other corporate alliances established there, and Wall Street’s think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.”

Scott stresses the strong corporate-beltway-government tether through the effortless way with which officials move between these organisations. “Top-level Treasury officials, CIA officers, and Wall Street bankers and lawyers think much alike because of the ‘revolving door’ by which they pass easily from private to public service and back.”

However even the familiar law-enacting government has not been immune from the deep state’s subversion. Scott charts the history of FEMA’s deep state unconstitutional plans to take over the American government: “Known more recently (and misleadingly) as ‘Continuity of Government’ (COG) planning, the Doomsday project, under the guiding hands in the 1980s of Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others, on 9/11 became the vehicle for a significant change of government.” It was under their tenure in 1988 that COG’s apocalyptic scope was enlarged to not only prepare for an atomic attack, but to also plan for the effective suspension of the American Constitution in the face of any emergency: “This change in 1988 allowed COG to be implemented in 2001.”

With its access and control of a high-level secret communications channel, not under government control, the project planners gradually gained the power to reach deeply into the US social structure and implement a program in direct opposition to official government policy.

This open conspiracy was even acknowledged in the mainstream media. Scott explains how “[a] decade before 9/11, it’s far-reaching arrangements were expanding the groundwork of Oliver North, to create what CNN in 1991 already described as a ‘shadow government……about which you know nothing.’”

The 9/11 attack was a pivotal day in US history that permanently changed America and suspended Constitutional rights. This transformation, according to Scott, was based on the decades old COG plans that went into effect on that fateful day: “By this time the Doomsday Project had developed into what the Washington Post called ‘a shadow government that evolved based on long standing ‘continuity of operations plans.’’”

The Judicial branch of the American government is also not immune. According to Scott: “[T]his parallel government is guided in surveillance matters by its own Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the ‘FISA Court,’ which according to The New York Times ‘has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court.’ Thanks largely to Edward Snowden, it is now clear that the FISA court has permitted this deep state to expand surveillance beyond the tiny number of known and suspected Islamic terrorists, to any incipient protest movement that might challenge the policies of the American war machine.”

The Congressional Insider

The seventh “blind” man is former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren whose 2016 book titled The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government describes the deep state as a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies, hiding in plain sight, which Lofgren cites as “The Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Justice Department are all part of the Deep State. We also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its extensive bureaucracy devoted to enforcing international economic sanctions, and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.”

Lofgren sees the deep state’s foundation as ultimately built on Wall Street because of the incredible amount of money it generates, allowing it to provide comfortable retirement jobs to those within the government and military.

Lofgren details how this amorphous deep state and all of these agencies “are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council.”

Even the visible government is not immune: “Certain key areas of the judiciary [also] belong to the Deep State, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court), whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted.”

The deep state’s government agencies have a symbiotic relationship with private enterprise, which Lofgren specifically designates as, the “military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and…..Silicon Valley.” The CIA and NSA are especially dependent on Silicon Valley. Lofgren explains how “After Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent and depth of surveillance by the National Security Agency, it has become publicly evident that Silicon Valley is a vital node of the Deep State as well.” The deep state has also grown to control Congress, its leadership and some of the members of the Defense and Intelligence committees.

Lofgren describes the deep state and its neoliberal policies as, “the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure that has given us the most unequal society in almost a century, and the political dysfunction that has paralyzed day-to-day governance.”

The US Elephant

While numerous political pundits have over the years ventured to analyse and describe the US “elephant”, the seven “blind” men all were only flawed in that they failed to account for other truths. The seven “blind” men were specifically chosen not just for their multi-faceted perspective of the US “elephant” but also for that view over their respective time periods.

The table below summarises each “blind” man’s description of the US “elephant” and attempts to map the totality of truth.

Blind Man Author Book Elephant Corporate Government Period
1.The Sociologist Prof. C. Wright Mills The Power Elite, 1956 The power elite corporations, media (Includes Social Register, Celebrities and Chief Executives) Government, military (Includes, Corporate Rich, Warlords and Political Directorate) 1956
2. The FBI Agent Dan Smoot The Invisible Government, 1962 The secret societies , The CFR Council on Foreign Relations*, Bilderberg Group, Foundations, Wall Street State Dept.* 1913-1961
3. The Warlord Col. L. Fletcher Prouty The Secret Team, 1973 The security state, The CIA media, Universities. DoD (Pentagon), Central Intelligence Agency*, NSA, NSC, State Dept., Director of Central Intelligence. Foreign Intelligence Agencies. 1955 -1964.
4. The Economist Prof. Jeffrey Sachs The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity, 2011 Corporatocracy: The four corporate lobbies military-industrial complex, Wall Street-Washington complex, Big Oil-transport-military complex, healthcare industry Washington 2007-2011
5. The Lawyer Prof. Michael J. Glennon National Security and Double Government, 2014 Double Government media, think tanks NSC, NSA, FBI, DoD (Joint Chiefs of Staff), State Dept., CIA 2014
6. The Diplomat Prof. Peter Dale Scott The American Deep State, 2014 The Deep State Wall St, Big Oil, military-industrial complex (Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC), Council on Foreign Relations FEMA (COG*), CIA, NSA, Dept. of Treasury & the FISA Court 2014
7. The Congressional Insider Mike Lofgren The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government, 2016 The Deep State/Shadow Government Wall Street*, military-industrial complex, Silicon Valley DoD, State Dept., Dept. Homeland Security, CIA, Justice Dept., Dept. of the Treasury, Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council*. FISA Court, a handful of federal trial courts & Defense and Intelligence committees 2016

*The entity that each “blind” man sees as the locus of power

Lofgren’s description of the deep state is the most tangible way to visualise what is essentially an amorphous entity: “There is the visible United States government, situated in imposing neoclassical buildings around the Mall in Washington, D.C., and there is another, more shadowy and indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is the tip of an iceberg that is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg operates on its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.” Scott cautions against Lofgren’s metaphor of the deep state as an iceberg which “risks suggesting a too solid or structural relationship to that overworld.”

Government 0.4-1

Lofgren’s visible government, which can be represented with a publicly available organisational chart of the US government, can now be accurately mapped at both the deep state level as well as Sach’s corporatocracy level. The disparate corporate and government entities within those levels can also be interconnected.

The corporate and government entities can then use Glennon’s Trumanite-Madisonian spectrum as an index to chart the level of deep state influence within the deep state and visible government levels.

The Madisonian pure white scale moves up through three shades of grey spectrum – each representing more and more Trumanite influence – to a purely black scale, representing the purely corporate-Trumanite interests.

The power elite

The power elite, identified by Mills, form the ruling class and have direct control or influence on all levels of the visible-invisible government; the visible government (political), the deep state (military) and the corporatocracy (economic).

Members of the power elite are present as board members or executives within the corporatocracy level; as military leaders or powerful businessmen at the deep state level or as politicians or committee chairmen within the public state level. Their main goal is to maintain and constantly increase their invisible power (political and military) and profit (corporatocracy). Their power and influence allows them to almost seamlessly transition from one level to another using the corporate-government “revolving door.”

The corporatocracy

The corporatocracy level- consisting of the five main lobbies depicted in the diagram – represents the biggest and most influential of lobbies including Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, the Healthcare Industry and, more recently, Silicon Valley. Sachs’ four lobbies – his corporatocracy – along with Lofgren’s Silicon Valley lobby, effectively behave as the invisible federal executive departments, outlining policies within the visible government.

‘Other Lobbies’ omitted from the corporatocracy by Sachs and Lofgren include Big Agriculture (led by the infamous Monsanto), Big Tobacco, Organised Labor and various others which have a much smaller degree of influence over the visible government.

The oldest and most influential lobby is the Wall Street lobby. Lofgren highlights how it is the cornerstone of the deep state due to the sheer amount of fiat money it generates, allowing it undue influence over the deep state (military) and the visible government (political).

The deep state

The Truman national security state cloaked in secrecy was set up by the corporatocracy to behave as a Trojan horse and gradually infiltrate and subvert the visible government. Prouty’s CIA which stands at the heart of the national security state and with its direct link to Wall Street behaves as the central nervous system of the security state. Over time, by either taking advantage of or orchestrating what Scott calls structural deep events, the national security state has managed to metastasize and gradually subvert the government departments and entities and grow into what today can be labelled a deep state, staffed predominantly by Glennon’s Trumanites.

The deep state level behaves as the scaffolding by which the corporatocracy has managed to influence and eventually control the visible government. The corporate influenced groups within the deep state level include Political Action Committees (PACs), think tanks, secret societies, universities, the mainstream media and non-government organisations (NGOs). These entities are supposed to play the part of impartial groups that stand independent of moneyed interests but to some extent they either co-ordinate (secret societies and PACs), legislate (lobbyists, universities and think tanks) and disseminate (media and NGOs) the skewed views of their corporate sponsors. Either knowingly or unknowingly they behave as independent fronts influencing and guiding the visible government’s policies in order to fulfil the wishes of the corporatocracy.

These groups directly link to the various federal government departments and entities that mostly make up the financial and security state. The level of corporate-to-public control of these entities and hence corporate influence varies considerably. The Federal Reserve is 100% corporate controlled, and Lofgren gives the example of how 70% of the US intelligence budget goes to corporate contractors.

The public state

The visible portion of the public state is made up of the three branches of government and their various government departments. The government departments that are tethered to the secretive security state most dominated by the Trumanites are shaded in black. The other cabinet departments vary in influence and are depicted in various shades of grey.

The three branches of the visible US federal government were formally established by the Constitution to serve as checks on the instruments of state security ensuring that no single branch could dominate the other. Yet even at this level it becomes clear that Glennon’s deep state Trumanites have managed to heavily influence the Executive branch of government and even dominate the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC which was created as a civilian advisory group to the President in 1947 has instead been overwhelmed by Trumanites and gradually become another spoke in the deep state, co-ordinating secretive covert operations run by the Presidency.

Meanwhile the Judicial branch has also been overrun by the Trumanites who have managed to control the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Finally the Legislative branch’s Madisionian Congress, Senate and House of Representatives, although not totally subverted, appear to be heavily influenced by the deep state’s Trumanites and their various deep state entities.

The masses

At the top of the chart is the visible portion of the public state that, according to the Constitution, is supposedly controlled by the democratic will of what the power elite have derogatively labelled the masses.

Many members of the masses work within the corporate and public entities identified within the system. If the 7 “blind” men were unable to see the overall structure there is little hope for the masses, groups and even entities within all layers of the system, who are compartmentalised and given limited “need to know” information that precludes them from seeing the greater picture. This however does not stop an adept player who will be aware of the contours, and can adeptly game the system’s political, military and corporate entities to get ahead and personally profit.

System or conspiracy?

In 1967, the deep state’s CIA created the label “Conspiracy Theorists” to attack anyone challenging the “Official” narrative. None of the “blind” men could see the elephant in its entirety and so their perspectives on whether the elephant is a system or conspiracy will be mixed as they can only reference the entities and level at which they saw the elephant.

Smoot bluntly describes specific entities within the deep state level as conspiring to gradually infiltrate and subvert the visible government institutions from within: “I am convinced that the Council on Foreign Relations, together with a great number of other associated tax-exempt organizations, constitutes the invisible government which sets the major policies of the federal government; exercises controlling influence on governmental officials who implement the policies; and, through massive and skilful propaganda, influences Congress and the public to support the policies.”

Similarily, Sach’s description of the corporate lobbies emphasises the clear corporate-government links that exist. Sachs sees a corporate conspiracy he calls The Rigged Game in which the political system has come to be controlled by powerful corporate interest groups – the “corporatocracy” – who dominate the policy agenda.

In contrast, Prouty, Glennon, Scott and Lofgren are adamant that at their level there is no conspiratorial cabal.

Prouty’s interpretation of the deep state, or what he calls “the secret team”, is of a self-serving unguided system rather than a grand strategic conspiracy. He describes it as an “automatic system, much like a nervous system or an electrical system.” Prouty elaborates: “It is big business, big government, big money, big pressure, and headless — all operating in self-centered, utterly self-serving security and secrecy.”

Glennon, who admits that he is the quintessential double government insider, is also adamant that there is no conspiracy theory at the deep state level. The Trumanite network is a diverse and amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure that has come to direct the formation of American security state policy bypassing Congress, the Presidency and the Courts. Glennon’s book and theory absolves the bureaucrats within the Trumanite network whose natural instincts are to both survive and expand their always-insufficient power.

Scott also resolutely states that there can be no conspiracy and refers instead to a self-serving system because “Unlike the state, the deep state is not a structure but a system, as difficult to define, but also as real and powerful, as a weather system.”

Lofgren’s deep state also operates in broad daylight and cannot be attributed to a planned conspiracy but rather due to disconnected, self-serving, bureaucratic people who have evolved into these roles by looking after their best interests: “Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain the phenomenon will be disappointed. My analysis of the Deep State is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal. Logic, facts, and experience do not sustain belief in overarching conspiracies and expertly organized cover-ups that keep those conspiracies successfully hidden for decades.”

A more nuanced view is provided by Mills who states that “[t]he rise of the elite, as we have already made clear, was not and could not have been caused by a plot; and the tenability of the conception does not rest upon the existence of any secret or any publicly known organization.” However Mills does see how the power elite, once in power, would eventually conspire to maintain it: “But, once the conjunction of structural trend and of the personal will to utilize it gave rise to the power elite, then plans and programs did occur to its members and indeed it is not possible to interpret many events and official policies …..without reference to the power elite.”

Levels Strategy “Blind” man Behaviour
Visible government democracy masses system
deep state neo-liberalism/exceptionalism Smoot, Prouty, Glennon, Scott & Lofgren system
corporatocracy Predatory and Disaster Capitalism Sachs conspiracy
power elite Monetary Hegemony (Gold and Petrodollar Hegemony) Mills conspiracy

The table above summarises the perspectives of the “blind” men and the prevailing behavior at the visible-invisible government levels.

The first and most visible government levels is the well publicised viewpoint highlighted by the corporate owned media who portray the visible government as guided by the democratic will of the people (masses). The visible government then merges with the partly visible deep state whose strategy is to guide the visible government via neoliberalism at home and exceptionalism abroad. This is followed by the corporatocracy level which uses predatory and – Naomi Klein’s aptly named – disaster capitalism to maintain and expand their power and profit. And finally the power elite are able to maintain their control over most of the layers of the visible-invisible government via a conspiracy known as monetary hegemony.

While it comes as no surprise that the power elite and corporatocracy are active in planning and conspiring to maximise profit and power, through the undue influence of the visible government, what is surprising is that four out of five “blind” men affirm that there is no conspiracy at the deep state level. Therefore using the analogy of Scott’s deep state behaving as a weather system we can confidently state that although the power elite and corporatocracy do not directly control the deep state or the visible government – to which they are clearly tethered – they do exercise inordinate influence over their decision making and policies through the neo-liberal “cloud seeding” of the deep state, the corporate out sourcing of entities and the “revolving door” hiring of neoliberal ideologues into visible government roles.

This hybrid of a naturally evolving and self-serving system maintained by a conspiracy gives it both its strength – through the plausible deniability of its loyal participants – and its weakness – through the dismantling of the system via revelation to the very same indoctrinated participants. A goal this very paper has been written to achieve.

Monetary hegemony strategy

Monetary hegemony, is bestowed upon the nation that holds the world’s leading central bank reserve currency, and is the main pillar of US hegemony since the end of World War II. The second pillar is world military supremacy which is dependent on monetary hegemony.

The ability of Washington to hold the lead reserve currency role is a strategic priority for the US Government and the corporatocracy’s Wall Street lobby allowing it to control the international monetary system. Monetary hegemony benefits Mill’s three hierarchies of power – simultaneously allowing the political hierarchy to finance the welfare state, the military hierarchy to finance the warfare state, and the corporate hierarchy to internationally expand and reap stupendous profits.

This strategy although appearing haphazard has been a consistent long term strategy pointing to a high level conspiracy by some elements of the power elite. It was under President Woodrow Wilson that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the US government first allowed the corporatocracy’s Wall Street lobby to infiltrate the visible government and control the nation’s money supply.

US economic dominance through monetary hegemony, and the rise of Wall Street, was preordained in the aftermath of WW2 as the US controlled two-thirds of the world’s gold allowing it to establish the 1947 Bretton Woods system which gave the US monetary hegemony through its gold-backed dollar. Wall Street was then joined by the military industrial complex which helped expand the security state under Truman in 1947.

However after WW2 the military-industrial complex squandered US blood and treasure in multiple wars and interventions culminating in unsustainable gold outflows. And at the height of the Vietnam War in 1971, President Nixon, on advice from the Wall Street lobby, ended dollar convertibility to gold to prevent a run on the US dollar.

The ingenious geopolitical and economic petrodollar recycling strategy was first discussed in May 1971 at the Bilderberger (secret society) meeting in Saltsjoebaden, Sweden. According to William Endghal it was presented by American members of Bilderberg. The petrodollar recycling strategy was then implemented in 1973 and saw US monetary hegemony transition from a stable gold-backed dollar to a floating black-gold-backed dollar, also known as the petrodollar. With the majority of the black-gold reserves that it needs to back its dollar sourced from the Middle East, the plan became dependent on the continued control of the Middle Eastern oil producers and petrodollar recycling (investment) of Middle Eastern oil surpluses into the US treasury, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street.

Without the constraints imposed by a rigid low inflation gold-dollar, the US monetary base could be grown at exponential rates. At home, the petrodollar standard resulted in the financialisation of the US economy and the gutting of the US industrial economy and the middle class. Internationally the new petrodollar economic system elevated the US to a global economic super empire with the world’s nations forced to use the petrodollar and pay inflationary tribute or face security state intervention.

Although all corporations within the corporatocracy benefit from the strategic maintenance of the US monetary hegemony, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and Big Oil in particular are deeply intertwined in the self-reinforcing petrodollar recycling plan. These lobbies gain power and profit through a death spiral that sees them printing the fiat petrodollars to finance the wars, selling the armaments to fight the wars, and the securing of oil fields to maintain the petrodollar. The maintenance of monetary hegemony by the power elite through the petrodollar is proportional to the symptoms it has created – the economy (global financial crisis), the empire (Middle Eastern “War on Terror”) and the environment (climate change).

Neoliberal tactics

A 2011 study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens affirmed Mill’s view – that the US Government does not represent the interests of the majority of the masses, but instead represents the interests of the rich and powerful.

A high level breakdown of the policies advocated by the masses versus the neo-liberal policies advocated by the corporatocracy neatly highlights what has been called the democratic deficit and clearly shows which group’s policies prevail and which constituents are truly being served.

Government departments Masses’ Policies Neo-Liberal Policies Corporatocracy lobbies
The masses Dept. of State Establishment of friendly relations with other nations. Maintenance of the petrodollar through the support of compliant authoritarian nations or covert funding of unstable extremists to overthrow non-compliant natios Wall Street-Washington complex The power elite
Dept. of the Treasury Lower and fairer tax system that incentivises workers and savers Financialisation, corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and overseas tax havens.
Dept. of Commerce Open trade and protection of key industries “Free” trade Agreements (Inc. TTP & TTIP), Economic sanctions
Dept. of Justice Universal human rights, equal justice and fair trials Non-prosecution of criminal bank leaders, with prosecution of deep state whistle blowers.
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Affordable and easily accessible housing. Financialisation, housing speculation and homelessness.
Dept. of Defense Security and Defense of citizens against foreign enemies Maintenance of the petrodollar, full spectrum dominance, exceptionalism, war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy . military-industrial complex
Dept. of Veterans Affairs Support and subsidies for veterans Cheap outsourced care facilities and abandoned veterans.
Dept. of Transport Electric vehicles, subsidised transport and easily accessible transportation grid. Subsidised car-centric policies and urban planning. Big Oil-transport-military complex
Dept. of Energy Environmental protection, reliable and nationalised mostly renewable energy supply. Subsidised fossil fuel energy dependence and debunking of climate change.
Dept. of the Interior Management and conservation federal land and natural resources. Waiving of environmental protection, access for sea lanes, pipelines, mining and resource extraction.
Dept. of Health & Human Services Subsidised and universal Healthcare. mandatory healthcare and privatisation. Healthcare industry
Dept. of Homeland Security Security and Privacy. Mass Surveillance and copyright enforcement. Silicon Valley
Dept. of Agriculture Healthy, nutritious and affordable food. Food monopolisation and dependence through patented GMOs. Big Ag (Monsanto)
Dept. of Education Subsidised and universal education. Class-based privatisation and outsourcing. Organised Labor
Dept. of Labor Jobs and decent wages. Outsourcing, mass immigration to lower wages, commodification of Labor, deregulation, deindustrialisation, under employment and unemployment. All lobbies

The corporate-deep-state unified political science theory

The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists. With the help of the 7 “blind” men however the shadow government can now be illuminated; the invisible government can now be discerned and the double government can now be identified.

The totality of truths is that the US “elephant” consists of a power elite hierarchy overseeing a corporatocracy, directing a deep state that has gradually subverted the visible government and taken over the “levers of power.” Henceforth in stark contrast to Scott and Lofgren it shall not be known as the disparate deep-state, nor as Sach’s corporatocracy, but more aptly as the amalgamated corporate-deep-state.

The Holy Grail of the science branch of physics is to find what Einstein called a Unified Field Theory, also known as “a theory of everything.” This is quite simply one idea, one set of equations that could explain the entire physical universe.

Similarly the corporate-deep-state theory is the Holy Grail of political science and builds on the work of the giants, called “blind” men in this paper, diving deeper into what Lofgren calls the red thread that runs throughout the past 40 years of US government and politics.

The US’s founding fathers went to great lengths in their Constitution to separate the powers between the three visible branches of the US federal government, ensuring that no single branch could dominate.

What they failed to plan for was the separation of corporation and state. A failure highlighted by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913, under whose leadership the corporate Pandora’s box was first opened with the establishment of the Federal Reserve: “We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conspiracy Theories, Elites 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Mutatis mutandis and structurally the concept of invisible controls on “democracy”, eminently manipulatable, were described, with approval, by Edward Bernays in his work Propaganda (1928).

    Also Eisenhower in his relation to the Dulles brothers seems to have been both naive and of two minds.

    Did he include them in the Military Industrial Complex?

    Clearly he suspected that the U-2 Incident was timed to destroy the possibility of detente with the Soviets and he knew that he had been lied to and set up.

    Yet as far as one knows he remained mostly mum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Robertson
    It is always possible that Eisenhower knew what Kennedy found out the hard way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything/#comment-1667113
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. neutral says:

    The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew also means that they will instantly lose their perks by being close to the levers of power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sankho
    The 8th blind man?
    , @Anonymouse
    And the bicyclists. Don't overlook the bicyclists!
    , @Sam J.
    Some commentators are making fun of neutral's comment,"...The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew..."

    Please explain how people who control all the major media, the newspapers, the magazine industry, the school textbook industry, have a strong over proportion in the nations top colleges, own the top banks, own most of the radio stations, the movie industry and etc....etc... have no power.

    Even worse they are able to blow up major building landmarks in the middle of our cities, cover it up and get us to fight wars for them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. polistra says:

    You blew it in the first paragraph when you treated the Church Committee as an honest investigator. All Committees and all Special Prosecutors have only one job: to preserve Deepstate. The Church Committee’s specific job was to insure that heretics like Nixon would Never Again be allowed near the levers of power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Sankho says:
    @neutral
    The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew also means that they will instantly lose their perks by being close to the levers of power.

    The 8th blind man?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Brilliant research, thanks David. Do you have a blog?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. annamaria says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well its "+interesting" to speculate about whether thevauthor of that actually earns a living by getting people to take his writing seriously.

    To one who regarded that ĺinked piece as 90 per cent crap can you say what in his record or writings lends credit to anything he writes? I admit to not having thought that the Indian withdrawal of large denomination notes had anything to do with gold and still think that, if he is right about the connection, it is not important.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. n230099 says:

    The complexity of the powers in the world are beyond any individual to affect. And even if it’s true that “it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave”* , there ‘s nothing you read above that you can do anything about. Remember you cannot really live unless you’re ready to die. Go have some fun.

    *G. Edge

    Read More
    • Replies: @Franks Batts
    you cannot really live unless you know dying is bot it is all made out to be…the movie, "Cloud Atlas" surmised it beautifully...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Gruneter says:

    The last table, contrasting the official policy with the actual, is brilliant in its brevity and truth. Anyone with an IQ north of 95 can see that our government works for others, not for us.
    We had a good thing, it seems to me, with a population around 256 million, when I graduated High School in 1984. But, gradually, things seem more desperate, and we accept more limited dreams.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    You can have no idea how good it was when I left HS in 1965. Drugs were not a problem. There were fewer serious addicts in the entire country than there were opioid OD deaths in my home state last year. Crime was not a problem. Homicide rates had reached record lows.

    Inflation was not really a problem; the rate of 3% per annum was regarded as scandalous. Unemployment was not a problem for anyone. Employment rates for Negroes at every educational level were higher then than they are now for college-educated White males just entering the labor force. Social disorganization was a minor problem. The prog sociologist-politician, Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought the Negro illegitimacy rate (25%) was scandalous and indicative of further problems down the road. (Now the rate among Negroes is over 75% and among whites around 25%.)

    [I'm just going to add here that by most objective measures the situation of Negroes in the US had shown steady improvement from the 1940s forward until towards the end of the 1960s. Race relations had improved along wityh the narrowing socio-economic gap between Whites and Negroes. Why things have gone so off track, I'll leave to others, brighter than myself to explain.]

    Eisenhower had kept us out of wars and foreign entanglements for eight years although he was roundly criticized for this at the time: He negotiated a truce in Korea; he refused to interview in East Germany in 1953; or in Hungary in 1956; he kept us out of a colonial war initiated by Israel, the UK, and France in Egypt/Suez; he refused to get involved in the French colonial war in Indochina and later limited US involvement in South Vietnam to a few dozen "military advisors"; he held off dealing with thew Castros in Cuba in any serious way. He did let the CIA stage a coup against Mosadeg in Iran, but this was really a stunt that Keremit Roosevelt pulled off behind the backs of Eisenhower and thew Dulles's.

    Eisenhower ensured full employment at home by a number of major public works/infrastructure projects. The largest among these - and in history - was construction of the interstate highway system; a useful and beloved marvel for the masses which subsequent administrations have allowed to fail.

    Education and the sciences flourished. The NDEA financed college educations for qualified students to train for advanced positions in industries where demand was high. The various space programs developed technologies that made US industry cutting edge for over three decades.

    I could go on but it's hard to convince dying frogs that the scalding water they are now swimming in was once cool and refreshing.

    I'll just add one final note: This all began changing when John F. Kennedy took office. The most obvious change was an astounding rise in foreign military adventures and intervention; most of which turned out poorly in the long run. The Kennedy brothers' propensity for bumping off foreign leaders they didn't like and their constant attempts to take out the Castro brothers may well have ensured their own assassinations. Things have been on a more or less steady downhill run ever since.
    , @annamaria
    "The deep state level behaves as the scaffolding by which the corporatocracy has managed to influence and eventually control the visible government. ... The level of corporate-to-public control of these entities and hence corporate influence varies considerably. The Federal Reserve is 100% corporate controlled, and Lofgren gives the example of how 70% of the US intelligence budget goes to corporate contractors."
    This is a picture of the complete absence of any accountability. Hence the proliferation of incompetent opportunists and well-connected ignoramuses on critically important positions. This corporate stardom has a great potential to destroy the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Greg says:

    Is this a book now, or just an outline?

    I want to buy a copy! Let us know when, if available.

    Not into flattery but that article rocked.

    Thanks

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @n230099
    The complexity of the powers in the world are beyond any individual to affect. And even if it's true that "it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave"* , there 's nothing you read above that you can do anything about. Remember you cannot really live unless you're ready to die. Go have some fun.

    *G. Edge

    you cannot really live unless you know dying is bot it is all made out to be…the movie, “Cloud Atlas” surmised it beautifully…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.

    It never did, but the myth lives on.

    It perplexes me that someone with the ability to write such a detailed and perceptive article can make such a fundamental error.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith


    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.
     
    It never did, but the myth lives on.
     
    Good that the "myth lives on", or America would have no chance at all, slim or otherwise.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji


    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.
     
    It never did, but the myth lives on.
     
    True that, but I believe it was a different model nevertheless. It used to be the government of/for/by the national elite, the parasite that has a strong incentive to keep the host alive and at least halfway satisfied. Now it's the global elite and they don't care.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Ivan K. says:

    Good overview,

    might enter the anti-establishment cannon

    the dismantling of the system via revelation to the very same indoctrinated participants. A goal this very paper has been written to achieve.

    That goal would be more easily reached by providing the reader with a summary of the article’s contents, upfront, as is always done in science research papers.

    This hybrid of a naturally evolving and self-serving system maintained by a conspiracy gives it both its strength – through the plausible deniability of its loyal participants – and its weakness – through the dismantling of the system via revelation to the very same indoctrinated participants.

    Insofar the oligarchy can be dismantled by verbal revelations, we might ask ourselves : is it the great enemy we imagined it to be. Insofar it is really a powerful threat, is the goal illusory? (see The Life and Times of Multivac)

    The Holy Grail of the science branch of physics is to find what Einstein called a Unified Field Theory, also known as “a theory of everything.” Similarly the corporate-deep-state theory is the Holy Grail of political science

    The Unified Field Theory is quite possibly a chimera.
    Let me suggest that an oligarch trying to control the world naturally dreams of “a theory of everything.” Such ideas seem to be born out of excessive, counterproductive thirst for power. Anti-establishment conservative positions naturally incorporate a grain of humility that prevent such excesses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "MCPO USN"] says:
    @jacques sheete

    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.
     
    It never did, but the myth lives on.

    It perplexes me that someone with the ability to write such a detailed and perceptive article can make such a fundamental error.

    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.

    It never did, but the myth lives on.

    Good that the “myth lives on”, or America would have no chance at all, slim or otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Good that the “myth lives on”, or America would have no chance at all, slim or otherwise.
     
    I'd say that's playing the victim card a bit too far. Also, whom is it good for?

    And what is "America," anyway?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    What really matters is an executive whose members don’t tussle for power and, this one is crucial, a smooth-running judiciary that enables the practice of capitalism. An elitist, more or less technocratic order will do just fine for 99% of people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. OutWest says:

    Bagehot did a good analysis of the subject regarding England. The queen is political eye candy that distracts the citizenry from the real government that sends the young people off to war.

    The old stuff still works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Whizbang says:

    Wow. Just wow. This is mind blowing. Leaves one to wonder who to hang first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @neutral
    The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew also means that they will instantly lose their perks by being close to the levers of power.

    And the bicyclists. Don’t overlook the bicyclists!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. fitzGetty says:

    We need something in here about the Entertainment Industrial Complex – a key factor in the strategy of the cultural marxists …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The blind men’s research do not permit a private citizen like moi to have the illusions I had in the past.

    But here’s a thought. An exception to the fact that we do not live in a democracy occurs to me: the presidential election. The electoral system may have saved our bacon this time around (speaking as one having voted for Trump), but it is inherently less than democratic. The deep state were surely for Hillary, yet did not get their way.

    I’m not saying that this exception makes a difference. The office of president is hamstrung constitutionally. Truman famously said to Eisenhower, you can sign directives until the cows come home, and at the end of the day, nothing will have changed (paraphrased). This fact suggests that far from enabling it, as the vocabulary of the article intimates, Truman was not complicit with it. This simple ex-storekeeper left office in 1949 with a palty government pension. So far as I know, he returned to Independence Kansas by train, buying a ticket for the seat. Nor would ex-president Eisenhower have warned the nation about the military-industrial complex if he were as complicit as the article seems to assume.

    I have a comparative datum to contribute.Living in Austin in 1969, I saw overhead a flotilla of military helicopters accompanying the helicopter carrying ex-president LBJ to his Johnson City ranch. I knew that he was supposed to fly into Bergstrom airport that day, so I realized that that was what I was seeing. Different models of helicopters but all military. There were at least 15 maybe more. Fast forward to the 2000′s. Still living in Austin I saw once the calvacade of black cars mostly identical with smoked windows, about a dozen of them, driving fast, transporting George Bush. OTOH, as a child I saw FDR driven down Flatbush Ave. Brooklyn in an open car, in the rain, in 1944, waving to the crowd. Sic transit cursus historiae! <-I made that up

    One can safely say that Trump as president will be either complicit with the system or impotent to act against it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Gruneter
    The last table, contrasting the official policy with the actual, is brilliant in its brevity and truth. Anyone with an IQ north of 95 can see that our government works for others, not for us.
    We had a good thing, it seems to me, with a population around 256 million, when I graduated High School in 1984. But, gradually, things seem more desperate, and we accept more limited dreams.

    You can have no idea how good it was when I left HS in 1965. Drugs were not a problem. There were fewer serious addicts in the entire country than there were opioid OD deaths in my home state last year. Crime was not a problem. Homicide rates had reached record lows.

    Inflation was not really a problem; the rate of 3% per annum was regarded as scandalous. Unemployment was not a problem for anyone. Employment rates for Negroes at every educational level were higher then than they are now for college-educated White males just entering the labor force. Social disorganization was a minor problem. The prog sociologist-politician, Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought the Negro illegitimacy rate (25%) was scandalous and indicative of further problems down the road. (Now the rate among Negroes is over 75% and among whites around 25%.)

    [I'm just going to add here that by most objective measures the situation of Negroes in the US had shown steady improvement from the 1940s forward until towards the end of the 1960s. Race relations had improved along wityh the narrowing socio-economic gap between Whites and Negroes. Why things have gone so off track, I'll leave to others, brighter than myself to explain.]

    Eisenhower had kept us out of wars and foreign entanglements for eight years although he was roundly criticized for this at the time: He negotiated a truce in Korea; he refused to interview in East Germany in 1953; or in Hungary in 1956; he kept us out of a colonial war initiated by Israel, the UK, and France in Egypt/Suez; he refused to get involved in the French colonial war in Indochina and later limited US involvement in South Vietnam to a few dozen “military advisors”; he held off dealing with thew Castros in Cuba in any serious way. He did let the CIA stage a coup against Mosadeg in Iran, but this was really a stunt that Keremit Roosevelt pulled off behind the backs of Eisenhower and thew Dulles’s.

    Eisenhower ensured full employment at home by a number of major public works/infrastructure projects. The largest among these – and in history – was construction of the interstate highway system; a useful and beloved marvel for the masses which subsequent administrations have allowed to fail.

    Education and the sciences flourished. The NDEA financed college educations for qualified students to train for advanced positions in industries where demand was high. The various space programs developed technologies that made US industry cutting edge for over three decades.

    I could go on but it’s hard to convince dying frogs that the scalding water they are now swimming in was once cool and refreshing.

    I’ll just add one final note: This all began changing when John F. Kennedy took office. The most obvious change was an astounding rise in foreign military adventures and intervention; most of which turned out poorly in the long run. The Kennedy brothers’ propensity for bumping off foreign leaders they didn’t like and their constant attempts to take out the Castro brothers may well have ensured their own assassinations. Things have been on a more or less steady downhill run ever since.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    You can have no idea how good it was when I left HS in 1965.
     
    Have you forgotten about Nam?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Very nicely tied together. Though I would include Media as a black box at the corporatocracy level. The role of the corporate propaganda machine cannot be underestimated. Another blind man is Paul Craig Roberts as the Executive Branch Insider.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. nsa says:

    Usual occult nonsense…..and not one mention as to the role of the conniving jooies. Every one knows Wash DC can’t so much as flush a toilet without calling up Tel Aviv…..er Jerusalem…for permission. Evidence: Wash DC just destroyed seven far away muzzie countries, all enemies of Israel. Probably just some kind of coincidence…….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @jacques sheete

    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.
     
    It never did, but the myth lives on.

    It perplexes me that someone with the ability to write such a detailed and perceptive article can make such a fundamental error.

    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.

    It never did, but the myth lives on.

    True that, but I believe it was a different model nevertheless. It used to be the government of/for/by the national elite, the parasite that has a strong incentive to keep the host alive and at least halfway satisfied. Now it’s the global elite and they don’t care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    You make a good point there, but I'm not convinced that the national elite gave much of a damn about anything but their bank accounts, either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Sam J. says:
    @neutral
    The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew also means that they will instantly lose their perks by being close to the levers of power.

    Some commentators are making fun of neutral’s comment,”…The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew…”

    Please explain how people who control all the major media, the newspapers, the magazine industry, the school textbook industry, have a strong over proportion in the nations top colleges, own the top banks, own most of the radio stations, the movie industry and etc….etc… have no power.

    Even worse they are able to blow up major building landmarks in the middle of our cities, cover it up and get us to fight wars for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Please explain how people who control all the major media, the newspapers, the magazine industry, the school textbook industry, have a strong over proportion in the nations top colleges, own the top banks, own most of the radio stations, the movie industry and etc….etc… have no power.
     
    Oh, c'mon! They're victims, doncha know? Did you miss de memo er sumpin? ;)

    Even worse they are able to blow up major building landmarks in the middle of our cities, cover it up and get us to fight wars for them.
     
    And worse yet, we sap goyim still send the shakedown artists billions of dollars yearly above an beyond giving them discounts on all the military hardware they can gorge themselves on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. wow, this was a great read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @John Jeremiah Smith


    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.
     
    It never did, but the myth lives on.
     
    Good that the "myth lives on", or America would have no chance at all, slim or otherwise.

    Good that the “myth lives on”, or America would have no chance at all, slim or otherwise.

    I’d say that’s playing the victim card a bit too far. Also, whom is it good for?

    And what is “America,” anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Callie
    "And what is “America,” anyway?"

    It is the first time (really the third in the history of man) that men started to understand that they did not need another person/group ruling over them and making decisions for them. That they could think for themselves, create lives of value for themselves, etc. But they understood that dealing with the world would require a representative for all of the states, but that representative needed to be limited or those that want power would corrupt it.

    What they did not foresee that the people of that time were ready and able to make their own decisions and lives; but that actions would be taken to destroy the people themselves as a group (groups are easier to control and change), to dumb them down so that a "leader" would become necessary.

    That took decades, lots of decades. It took people that would willingly poisoning the food supplies of the people, poison the water of a nation, poison the very soil and air all to dumb them down chemically. (Leaving out a lot here, this is a very brief summary.)

    It took away the people's knowledge of their own government through "dumbing down" (as briefly described above), re-"education" of the young, subliminals, propaganda, murder, etc all over decades. Consider it a vendetta handed down for generations in order to destroy the danger that this nation and its concept represented to the rest of the ruled-by-a-person world.

    Yet we can still win. why? How? The US Constitution and each state's Constitution is/are our "ruler". The people who serve within them are NOT. the authority they use while serving is NOT theirs but is assigned to the branch or office within a branch and they are allowed to use that authority/power for as long as they keep the contract and do the assigned duties in a constitutional manner. THAT is our government.

    The problem is not now, nor has it ever been our type of government, but the danger our type of government offers to the rest of the world. So we had to be destroyed. Many ways have been used since our beginnings, this has come the closest.

    What is the solution? Read, know, follow the US Constitution and each state's Constitution. Realize though that the state's have been being changed by amendment through lies and deceit of those who serve within it - which voids contracts. The part voided is not the written document, it stands, but the people serving within the governments.

    Who enforces this? The US Constitution requires the people, as the Militia, to enforce it. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    -- Enforce the US Constitution (supreme law of this land) and each state's Constitution (highest law of the state),
    -- Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    -- Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    -- “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    All able-bodied Americans are required to be trained as the military is trained, and educated in the US Constitution and their own state's Constitution as that is their highest "boss". There are ranks, officers within the Militia, but any who break away from those two documents no longer have any authority. Guess what, the same is with those that serve within our governments. They also are Oath bound to the US Constitution, and they also would/will no longer meet the written requirements of the position being occupied.

    But it takes the Militia, with the full backing of the US Constitution (in writing) for enforcement to start. Remember, those that serve within the state and general (federal) governments are both required to use the Militia for those things listed above.

    That is America. Are you an American?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Mao Cheng Ji


    The US Government of the people, for the people no longer exists.
     
    It never did, but the myth lives on.
     
    True that, but I believe it was a different model nevertheless. It used to be the government of/for/by the national elite, the parasite that has a strong incentive to keep the host alive and at least halfway satisfied. Now it's the global elite and they don't care.

    You make a good point there, but I’m not convinced that the national elite gave much of a damn about anything but their bank accounts, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    In want of genuine knowledge on the subject, I'll just quote what has caught my eye recently:

    Early Americans could forgive exorbitant fortunes because they had few meaningful political consequences. What a millionaire in Salem or Philadelphia did with his money did not directly effect those living in St. Louis, Savannah, or Columbus. It often had no effect on those living in the township next door. Consequently, men rich and poor met as social and political equals. As Harry L. Watson, renowned historian of antebellum America, has said, "There was a certain mediocrity of culture, tastes, and opinion that seemed universal among Americans.... Wealth in America could not put on a face of public arrogance, and poverty did not require a posture of cringing deference. Instead, all white male Americans demanded and got a certain rough equality in personal respect from other citizens of the republic." [11]

    Viewing the scene with an outsider's eye, Tocqueville quipped "The striking thing about the United States... is the rarity of lofty ambitions evident in this land where all are actively ambitious." [12] He was right. Americans spoke of their ambitions with words like "independence", "self improvement" and "obtaining a competency." [13] No one aimed to climb the social ladder and join the upper class. As far as most Americans were concerned there was no other class than that which belonged to all white men.

    "This is how the American Dream ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper of elite school applications by poor kids. Like it or not, the Ivies and other top schools are our conduit to the top, and far too many low-income students who should be there are not." (emphasis added).

    Like all phrases of its type, the "American Dream" is an idea. Ideas don't die when they are frustrated. They die when people forget what they mean.

    - http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/07/economies-of-scale-killed-american-dream.html

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Sam J.
    Some commentators are making fun of neutral's comment,"...The seven blind men are not that blind, they all probably know that the US elephant is the jews. They do however know very well that naming the jew..."

    Please explain how people who control all the major media, the newspapers, the magazine industry, the school textbook industry, have a strong over proportion in the nations top colleges, own the top banks, own most of the radio stations, the movie industry and etc....etc... have no power.

    Even worse they are able to blow up major building landmarks in the middle of our cities, cover it up and get us to fight wars for them.

    Please explain how people who control all the major media, the newspapers, the magazine industry, the school textbook industry, have a strong over proportion in the nations top colleges, own the top banks, own most of the radio stations, the movie industry and etc….etc… have no power.

    Oh, c’mon! They’re victims, doncha know? Did you miss de memo er sumpin? ;)

    Even worse they are able to blow up major building landmarks in the middle of our cities, cover it up and get us to fight wars for them.

    And worse yet, we sap goyim still send the shakedown artists billions of dollars yearly above an beyond giving them discounts on all the military hardware they can gorge themselves on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Miro23 says:

    This is all very interesting. It would be fairer to describe the US government as a “regime”, and it looks like the US is heading for “regime change”.

    Maybe one or two pigs can successfully feed at the public trough, but the US has so many of them (military/industrial complex, healthcare lobby, big banks/Wall St. , Zionists, agriculture, outsourcing corporations) that the situation looks terminal.

    Regime change seems to come in different ways. In Iraq it came through exterior military force, in Libya through exterior military force (with rebels on the ground), and the current Syrian emergency through US, Israel and Saudi Arabia backing a revolutionary invasion.

    Of course, no external military force is going to effect regime change in the US so it needs to be generated internally.

    The big surprise here is Trump. He’s an agent of change that wasn’t supposed to happen, so he’ll need to be subverted, or eliminated, or the Establishment will need to discover the charms of “America First”, and there seem to be some imperfect precedents for all three:

    ACCEPT CHANGE – The Soviet regime had some similarities to the US today, with military commitments it couldn’t afford, a higher caste Nomenklatura of socially connected insiders, a rubber stamp parliament and big economic problems. Gorbachev tried to effect gradual change but it turned into an avalanche and the apparatchiks overnight turned into capitalists to save their skins.

    SUBVERT – The Philippines has a permanent establishment of plutocrats (mostly ethnic minority Chinese) who back all election candidates from the native majority from the left, right, nationalist and military with all winners quickly falling in line to support the extractive monopolies in return for a well understood 10% of profits. It’s been working for decades and hasn’t failed yet. This is the Clinton/Bush/Obama variant of “regime change” that isn’t.

    ELIMINATION – Rwanda. Here an ethnic minority (Tutsi) originating from Ethiopia traditionally ruled the Rwandan majority (Hutu) with the divisions reinforced and codified under colonialism with the Tutsis receiving all privileged positions. A “regime change” election reversed power in post colonial Rwanda putting Hutus in power with some inter-ethnic strife. By 1990 the situation was worse, and in 1994 it developed into a genocide triggered by the shooting down of Hutu President Habyarimana’s aircraft and his death.

    The US is not so clear. Elimination is possible (the Establishment has a crazy element), but it’s the highest risk variant with the risk of a violent reaction spinning out of control, so the most likely outcome is probably a serious attempt to subvert Trump, and if that fails, offer their services to “Trump World” and fit in as best they can. But altogether an unstable situation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Jus' Sayin'...
    You can have no idea how good it was when I left HS in 1965. Drugs were not a problem. There were fewer serious addicts in the entire country than there were opioid OD deaths in my home state last year. Crime was not a problem. Homicide rates had reached record lows.

    Inflation was not really a problem; the rate of 3% per annum was regarded as scandalous. Unemployment was not a problem for anyone. Employment rates for Negroes at every educational level were higher then than they are now for college-educated White males just entering the labor force. Social disorganization was a minor problem. The prog sociologist-politician, Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought the Negro illegitimacy rate (25%) was scandalous and indicative of further problems down the road. (Now the rate among Negroes is over 75% and among whites around 25%.)

    [I'm just going to add here that by most objective measures the situation of Negroes in the US had shown steady improvement from the 1940s forward until towards the end of the 1960s. Race relations had improved along wityh the narrowing socio-economic gap between Whites and Negroes. Why things have gone so off track, I'll leave to others, brighter than myself to explain.]

    Eisenhower had kept us out of wars and foreign entanglements for eight years although he was roundly criticized for this at the time: He negotiated a truce in Korea; he refused to interview in East Germany in 1953; or in Hungary in 1956; he kept us out of a colonial war initiated by Israel, the UK, and France in Egypt/Suez; he refused to get involved in the French colonial war in Indochina and later limited US involvement in South Vietnam to a few dozen "military advisors"; he held off dealing with thew Castros in Cuba in any serious way. He did let the CIA stage a coup against Mosadeg in Iran, but this was really a stunt that Keremit Roosevelt pulled off behind the backs of Eisenhower and thew Dulles's.

    Eisenhower ensured full employment at home by a number of major public works/infrastructure projects. The largest among these - and in history - was construction of the interstate highway system; a useful and beloved marvel for the masses which subsequent administrations have allowed to fail.

    Education and the sciences flourished. The NDEA financed college educations for qualified students to train for advanced positions in industries where demand was high. The various space programs developed technologies that made US industry cutting edge for over three decades.

    I could go on but it's hard to convince dying frogs that the scalding water they are now swimming in was once cool and refreshing.

    I'll just add one final note: This all began changing when John F. Kennedy took office. The most obvious change was an astounding rise in foreign military adventures and intervention; most of which turned out poorly in the long run. The Kennedy brothers' propensity for bumping off foreign leaders they didn't like and their constant attempts to take out the Castro brothers may well have ensured their own assassinations. Things have been on a more or less steady downhill run ever since.

    You can have no idea how good it was when I left HS in 1965.

    Have you forgotten about Nam?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    In 1965 the US had just begun sinking into the Vietnam quagmire. Prior to that year, no one from my HS fought over there. After that the obituaries regularly contained the names of young men from my high school, some of whom were friends. 1964 was the year when things started getting bad in Vietnam. The Kennedy's sent in significant numbers of troops and ordered the assassination of the Diem brothers. That turned a low-level regional/civil war into the full-scale conflict that was such a disaster for all involved.

    My main point is that the mid-1960s were a watershed for this country. After that things went south very quickly. If you want to argue that 1965 was not the exact turning point, fine. My main point still stands: Things are much, much worse now than they were back then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. JackOH says:

    David, thanks for this concise summary that, I think, reflects the thinking of a lot of commenters here.

    ” . . . [B]ut a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.” It was a deep shock to my system when I learned, as a young political operative back in the 1980s, that our government was just plain wrong in too many ways to count, and that wrongness was deliberately rigged to satisfy specific constituencies.

    Do you have other articles, books, etc.?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Stephen R. Diamond

    You can have no idea how good it was when I left HS in 1965.
     
    Have you forgotten about Nam?

    In 1965 the US had just begun sinking into the Vietnam quagmire. Prior to that year, no one from my HS fought over there. After that the obituaries regularly contained the names of young men from my high school, some of whom were friends. 1964 was the year when things started getting bad in Vietnam. The Kennedy’s sent in significant numbers of troops and ordered the assassination of the Diem brothers. That turned a low-level regional/civil war into the full-scale conflict that was such a disaster for all involved.

    My main point is that the mid-1960s were a watershed for this country. After that things went south very quickly. If you want to argue that 1965 was not the exact turning point, fine. My main point still stands: Things are much, much worse now than they were back then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    "The Kennedy’s sent in significant numbers of troops and ordered the assassination of the Diem brothers."

    That is not quite accurate. Kennedy did sponsor the founding of the Green Berets specifically for Vietnam, but the gist was that they would NOT be US troops in significant numbers--just the reverse.

    Diem also told Kennedy that large numbers of US troops in Vietnam, especially in the countryside would be a disaster.

    The assassination of Diem was engineered by Henry Cabot Lodge and the CIA. The pretext was the Buddhists' animosity toward Diem and the Roman Catholics. One has never seen it established what Kennedy's take was.

    Kennedy was dead a month later. Johnson came in, ran on a peace platform, and sent in the significant numbers of troops, which is exactly what the Pentagon wanted and what Kennedy and Diem did not want.

    There was a Roman Catholic and Protestant divide in the CIA in those days. The former wanted Diem, the latter not.

    That deserves a study in itself but none of the establishment historians have the expertise, the sensibility, or the balls to do it.

    From now available records it is known Ho Chi Minh was astounded by US stupidity in killing Diem and declared, "They have just lost the war!"

    Hilariously Cardinal Spellman, Roman Catholic in name only and virulent anti-Communist, didn't even miss a beat when Diem was killed and became an even more jingoistic supporter of the war.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Lorax says:

    Who is this guy?

    DAVID CHIBO is an Iraqi born…..Australian…..Assyrian……blah blah blah.

    Not Native Born!, not America First! So, dear David, go away, we know all this,
    heard it time and again, ad nauseam.

    Well Gee Whiz!, are you trying to tell us that us that a human political entity (US of A) is not an egalitarian commune which lives by the lovely dictum: from each according to his ability
    to each according to his need?

    Oh oh, we do not live in a socialist paradise as is Cuba under the Castro Brothers!
    We are in trouble. This character wants to relive the the French Revolution. Right here right now.

    Who says a ship needs a captain? Let the crew take command! Some how, some day, some where.

    “we’ll find a new way of living, we’ll find a new way of giving…some way, some how.

    Hogwash. Cream rises to the top. want to get ahead? Earn it or go way.

    A working person I spoke to today is so happy that Trump won. So happy!

    If you are an American who does not like this result, sorry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Is this the Iraqi who lied to congress during the Bush administration that Saddam Huessin had weapons of mass destruction hidden away? That was the excuse for us to destroy Iraq, kill Huessin and set the stage for Isis?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. annamaria says:
    @Gruneter
    The last table, contrasting the official policy with the actual, is brilliant in its brevity and truth. Anyone with an IQ north of 95 can see that our government works for others, not for us.
    We had a good thing, it seems to me, with a population around 256 million, when I graduated High School in 1984. But, gradually, things seem more desperate, and we accept more limited dreams.

    “The deep state level behaves as the scaffolding by which the corporatocracy has managed to influence and eventually control the visible government. … The level of corporate-to-public control of these entities and hence corporate influence varies considerably. The Federal Reserve is 100% corporate controlled, and Lofgren gives the example of how 70% of the US intelligence budget goes to corporate contractors.”
    This is a picture of the complete absence of any accountability. Hence the proliferation of incompetent opportunists and well-connected ignoramuses on critically important positions. This corporate stardom has a great potential to destroy the world.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Denis says: • Website

    On Nov14 Stephen J. Sniegoski writing on this blog reviewed Alison Weir’s excellent book “Against Our Better Judgement.” The review and the book reviewed are both very much worth the read.

    The reason I raise it here is that Weir was the first writer I know of to explain how the Israeli Jews (iJews, if you will) began to infiltrate the top tiers of the USG a century ago. It was back in Wilson’s day, 30 years before Israel was even established, with disastrous and lasting results for Americans and Palestinians.

    In 1916 the Brits were getting their butts kicked in WWI and zionist Jew Lord Rothschild cut a quid pro quo deal with the British government, specifically Foreign Minister Lord Balfour. The quid was that the iJews would be given Palestine after the war. The quo was that the iJews would bring the Americans into the war, something the Brits had not been able to do.

    The zionist part of the bargain was carried out through 1) American Jews who then, as now, exercised inordinate control over the American entertainment and media industries, and 2) Louis Brandeis, an iJew who was a very close friend of Wilson’s and was appointed to the Supreme Court by him.

    The Balfour Declaration was, essentially, a public promise reduced to writing by the British government to perform their part of the covert agreement. The same year, 1917, America began making enormous contributions to the war effort by supplying goods and equipment. By the summer of 1918 the isolationist American government and public had been turned 180 degrees and were knee-deep in the trenches. The American toll eventually reached 110,000, and, of course, through the British Mandate, iJews began descending on Palestine like locusts – bloodthirsty, terrorist locusts.

    The point is this: any analysis of who pulls the levers of power in America is not complete if it ignores the role and power of iJews at all levels of government and in all branches. It’s like Herman and Chomsky not including, for obvious reasons, zionism in the 5 filters articulated in their famous Propaganda Model. By ignoring the obvious, the paper itself could be perceived as diversionary propaganda. And by “the paper” I refer to both Herman/Chomsky’s paper and Chibo’s — both of which are well written and “informative” but suspiciously incomplete. If, in 1916, the iJews could pull enough levers to drag 110,000 Americans to their deaths in WWI, then they are certainly a major player in whatever dark, mysterious “Deep State” is in control a century later. We need to talk about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...I refer to both Herman/Chomsky’s paper and Chibo’s — both of which are well written and “informative” but suspiciously incomplete.
     
    I agree and would add that smart, knowledgeable people seeking the truth avoid promoting fraudulent ideas (mythology) as I pointed out above, to wit, the idea that the US government ever was a government of the people. Why would anyone mar such an info packed article with such a stupendously trite cliche? (Sorry for the redundancy.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Jus' Sayin'...
    In 1965 the US had just begun sinking into the Vietnam quagmire. Prior to that year, no one from my HS fought over there. After that the obituaries regularly contained the names of young men from my high school, some of whom were friends. 1964 was the year when things started getting bad in Vietnam. The Kennedy's sent in significant numbers of troops and ordered the assassination of the Diem brothers. That turned a low-level regional/civil war into the full-scale conflict that was such a disaster for all involved.

    My main point is that the mid-1960s were a watershed for this country. After that things went south very quickly. If you want to argue that 1965 was not the exact turning point, fine. My main point still stands: Things are much, much worse now than they were back then.

    “The Kennedy’s sent in significant numbers of troops and ordered the assassination of the Diem brothers.”

    That is not quite accurate. Kennedy did sponsor the founding of the Green Berets specifically for Vietnam, but the gist was that they would NOT be US troops in significant numbers–just the reverse.

    Diem also told Kennedy that large numbers of US troops in Vietnam, especially in the countryside would be a disaster.

    The assassination of Diem was engineered by Henry Cabot Lodge and the CIA. The pretext was the Buddhists’ animosity toward Diem and the Roman Catholics. One has never seen it established what Kennedy’s take was.

    Kennedy was dead a month later. Johnson came in, ran on a peace platform, and sent in the significant numbers of troops, which is exactly what the Pentagon wanted and what Kennedy and Diem did not want.

    There was a Roman Catholic and Protestant divide in the CIA in those days. The former wanted Diem, the latter not.

    That deserves a study in itself but none of the establishment historians have the expertise, the sensibility, or the balls to do it.

    From now available records it is known Ho Chi Minh was astounded by US stupidity in killing Diem and declared, “They have just lost the war!”

    Hilariously Cardinal Spellman, Roman Catholic in name only and virulent anti-Communist, didn’t even miss a beat when Diem was killed and became an even more jingoistic supporter of the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The day Kennedy was inaugurated there were 780 American troops in Vietnam. There were there to train S Vietnamese to use the weapons America sold them.

    The day Kennedy died there were more than 40,000 American troops in Vietnam, fighting, not training or advising.

    The summer before Kennedy died, the summer of 1963 a man I knew who had been in the military who was allegedly out of the military got a phone call and left town the next day. I didn't see him until October. He told me he had been in Laos and Cambodia. He didn't of course say what he had done in those countries

    The whole "Kennedy did not intend to escalate the war in Vietnam" thing was just 1960's leftist propaganda spread by Mark Lane and the rest of the lefties who claimed Kennedy was killed by a consortium of FBI CIA Secret Service Dallas Police John Bircher Republicans the military, anti communists and other evil right winger KKK types who killed Kennedy because Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam

    The lies they spread are believed by many. But the facts are that in less than 3 years Kennedy escalated the war by increasing the American troops from 780 weapons trainers to more than 40,000 combat troops. And the summer before Kennedy was killed he had operatives on the ground in Cambodia and Laos.

    Liberals always claimed the the evil CIA pentagon sent those 40,000 troops to Vietnam without informing Kennedy.
    Maybe so, he was pretty much a comatose invalid addicted to his pain pills.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Alden says:
    @E. A. Costa
    "The Kennedy’s sent in significant numbers of troops and ordered the assassination of the Diem brothers."

    That is not quite accurate. Kennedy did sponsor the founding of the Green Berets specifically for Vietnam, but the gist was that they would NOT be US troops in significant numbers--just the reverse.

    Diem also told Kennedy that large numbers of US troops in Vietnam, especially in the countryside would be a disaster.

    The assassination of Diem was engineered by Henry Cabot Lodge and the CIA. The pretext was the Buddhists' animosity toward Diem and the Roman Catholics. One has never seen it established what Kennedy's take was.

    Kennedy was dead a month later. Johnson came in, ran on a peace platform, and sent in the significant numbers of troops, which is exactly what the Pentagon wanted and what Kennedy and Diem did not want.

    There was a Roman Catholic and Protestant divide in the CIA in those days. The former wanted Diem, the latter not.

    That deserves a study in itself but none of the establishment historians have the expertise, the sensibility, or the balls to do it.

    From now available records it is known Ho Chi Minh was astounded by US stupidity in killing Diem and declared, "They have just lost the war!"

    Hilariously Cardinal Spellman, Roman Catholic in name only and virulent anti-Communist, didn't even miss a beat when Diem was killed and became an even more jingoistic supporter of the war.

    The day Kennedy was inaugurated there were 780 American troops in Vietnam. There were there to train S Vietnamese to use the weapons America sold them.

    The day Kennedy died there were more than 40,000 American troops in Vietnam, fighting, not training or advising.

    The summer before Kennedy died, the summer of 1963 a man I knew who had been in the military who was allegedly out of the military got a phone call and left town the next day. I didn’t see him until October. He told me he had been in Laos and Cambodia. He didn’t of course say what he had done in those countries

    The whole “Kennedy did not intend to escalate the war in Vietnam” thing was just 1960′s leftist propaganda spread by Mark Lane and the rest of the lefties who claimed Kennedy was killed by a consortium of FBI CIA Secret Service Dallas Police John Bircher Republicans the military, anti communists and other evil right winger KKK types who killed Kennedy because Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam

    The lies they spread are believed by many. But the facts are that in less than 3 years Kennedy escalated the war by increasing the American troops from 780 weapons trainers to more than 40,000 combat troops. And the summer before Kennedy was killed he had operatives on the ground in Cambodia and Laos.

    Liberals always claimed the the evil CIA pentagon sent those 40,000 troops to Vietnam without informing Kennedy.
    Maybe so, he was pretty much a comatose invalid addicted to his pain pills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    Your figures are wrong. There were about 16,000 US military--all branches-- in Vietnam in 1963. Some were advisers, some combat, and also there were a few hundred new Special Forces.

    It is not a question of whether Kennedy wanted to "escalate" or not--that was not a question even phrased until after his death. In fact as one recalls the word "escalate" was not used in the context of Vietnam until 1965 or so. It was new coinage. One could probably find first use in context with enough looking.

    Clearly Kennedy wanted to continue the war but both Diem and Kennedy agreed that massive numbers of US combat troops would be a disaster. It was not a question of what but how and Diem in retrospect was clearly right--massive numbers of US combat troops were ill advised.

    Ho Chi Minh and Diem knew one another personally from their student days. Ho Chi Minh had a very high opinion of Diem's abilities. He even asked Diem to be his interior minister at one point. Both were Vietnamese Nationalists. One the theory about the assassination of Diem by Lodge and elements in the CIA is that they feared Diem and Ho Chi Minh would eventually negotiate a settlement.

    Actually what Diem really wanted, and asked Kennedy for, was a South Vietnamese invasion of the the North supported by US air and naval forces.

    One has no idea what nonsense your are spouting about revisionism from the likes of Mark Lane, etc.

    Save for the inaccuracy of your figures there is nothing else worth commenting upon in your uninformed post.

    , @Robbie-1
    Why do you persist in saying untrue things? Kennedy did not have anywhere close to 40,000 troops in Vietnam at the time of his death. He had 16,500 as almost all sources have said. He planned to withdraw 1,000 of those by the end of 1963, and remove all by 1965, after his re-election. Your post is full of hate, wrongful facts, and general nonsense about him, and Vietnam. I don't even believe your 780 troops in Jan. 1961. Ike (and maybe Truman started before) had well over 2,000 troops in Vietnam by the time Ike left the presidency. I don' t know the exact number, but it was more than your silly 780. Mark Lane was essentially correct, and you were wrong! The CIA, LBJ and others (Big Oil, Mafia, FBI) were the central planners and/or cover-up artists in killing Kennedy. The fact of withdrawing 1,000 by the end of 1963, and removing all by 1965 is verified by Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263, issued on Oct. 11, 1963. You obviously know-nothing about this, nor LBJs sudden reversal of it with his own #273 on Nov. 26, the day after Kennedy's funeral. So, stop blaming the Vietnam War disaster on Kennedy, and start looking at LBJs outrage statement in saying, "I don't want to lose Vietnam, as Truman lost China" (paraphrasing) in reversing Kennedy's peace strategy while remaining military strong. Even the strongest right-winger, Gen. Douglas MacArthur warned Kennedy not to get into a land war in Asia. He should know, after the Korean War disaster, 1950-53. Kennedy wanted peaceful co-existence, not a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war, as he magnificently stated in his American University speech on June 10, 1963. But what do you know about that, or anything else in your loony ranting against Kennedy when you have no facts? And your idiotic, nutty rant on his supposed " comatose invalid addicted to his pain pills" is nothing short of a screwball ad hominem attack that has no basis in fact. Mark Lane was essentially correct in putting the blame on the CIA, and other powerful special interest groups. You need to read up on the real Vietnam War history, and not the fairy tale you had someone talk you into believing!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @annamaria
    Interesting: http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/the-deep-states-attempt-to-suppress-indias-gold-demand/

    Well its “+interesting” to speculate about whether thevauthor of that actually earns a living by getting people to take his writing seriously.

    To one who regarded that ĺinked piece as 90 per cent crap can you say what in his record or writings lends credit to anything he writes? I admit to not having thought that the Indian withdrawal of large denomination notes had anything to do with gold and still think that, if he is right about the connection, it is not important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Hey Wizzie,

    The author simply states that he "believes" it to be the case and supports it, albeit weakly by noting that Mumbai's retail gold sales went down by "up to 90%" and that "The manner in which the demonetization was carried out indicates some kind of desperation, because it defied all economic prudence, logic, humanitarian regard and common sense."

    Perhaps the 90% sales drop was true at the outset of the crisis, but if stemming India's gold consumption was the intent, it seems to have backfired.
    See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Demonetization-Gold-imports-at-20-month-high/articleshow/55714000.cms
    Modi is no idiot, so one wonders what spring this drastic move welled up from. The fact is that not much of this move makes any sense at all, and gold being at the core of it makes as much sense as anything else. That is, not very much unless an exogenous factor is introduced.

    If one was to speculate based on the assumption that this had something to do with gold, the following should be kept in mind...

    India perennially trades places with China as the world's 1st or 2nd largest importer of gold, and is the world's largest retail market for the metal. As long as gold is treated as a commodity by the bean counters at the IMF, this harms India's balance of trade. So, if gold purchases are indeed dependent on the availability of 500 & 1000 rupee notes, their disappearance will stem purchases, and the author notes that retail gold sales in Mumbai initially suffered a steep decline.
    If the Times of India article is correct going forward, the demand for gold will actually increase. Either way, there will be an impact on the Gold market.

    It is widely reported that there is considerable stress in international, specifically Western, physical gold markets and the extent to which the demonetization alleviates that stress by reducing India's demand will serve to benefit the bullion banks. OTOH, if the Times is right, then that stress will increase.

    Either way, the upshot is that a major gold-currency inflection looms on the horizon. If the importance of that escapes you, you have a lot of reading to do. Perhaps very quickly at that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Alden says:
    @Lorax
    Who is this guy?

    DAVID CHIBO is an Iraqi born.....Australian.....Assyrian......blah blah blah.

    Not Native Born!, not America First! So, dear David, go away, we know all this,
    heard it time and again, ad nauseam.

    Well Gee Whiz!, are you trying to tell us that us that a human political entity (US of A) is not an egalitarian commune which lives by the lovely dictum: from each according to his ability
    to each according to his need?

    Oh oh, we do not live in a socialist paradise as is Cuba under the Castro Brothers!
    We are in trouble. This character wants to relive the the French Revolution. Right here right now.

    Who says a ship needs a captain? Let the crew take command! Some how, some day, some where.

    "we'll find a new way of living, we'll find a new way of giving...some way, some how.

    Hogwash. Cream rises to the top. want to get ahead? Earn it or go way.

    A working person I spoke to today is so happy that Trump won. So happy!

    If you are an American who does not like this result, sorry.

    Is this the Iraqi who lied to congress during the Bush administration that Saddam Huessin had weapons of mass destruction hidden away? That was the excuse for us to destroy Iraq, kill Huessin and set the stage for Isis?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Ivan K. says:
    @jacques sheete
    You make a good point there, but I'm not convinced that the national elite gave much of a damn about anything but their bank accounts, either.

    In want of genuine knowledge on the subject, I’ll just quote what has caught my eye recently:

    Early Americans could forgive exorbitant fortunes because they had few meaningful political consequences. What a millionaire in Salem or Philadelphia did with his money did not directly effect those living in St. Louis, Savannah, or Columbus. It often had no effect on those living in the township next door. Consequently, men rich and poor met as social and political equals. As Harry L. Watson, renowned historian of antebellum America, has said, “There was a certain mediocrity of culture, tastes, and opinion that seemed universal among Americans…. Wealth in America could not put on a face of public arrogance, and poverty did not require a posture of cringing deference. Instead, all white male Americans demanded and got a certain rough equality in personal respect from other citizens of the republic.” [11]

    Viewing the scene with an outsider’s eye, Tocqueville quipped “The striking thing about the United States… is the rarity of lofty ambitions evident in this land where all are actively ambitious.” [12] He was right. Americans spoke of their ambitions with words like “independence”, “self improvement” and “obtaining a competency.” [13] No one aimed to climb the social ladder and join the upper class. As far as most Americans were concerned there was no other class than that which belonged to all white men.

    “This is how the American Dream ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper of elite school applications by poor kids. Like it or not, the Ivies and other top schools are our conduit to the top, and far too many low-income students who should be there are not.” (emphasis added).

    Like all phrases of its type, the “American Dream” is an idea. Ideas don’t die when they are frustrated. They die when people forget what they mean.

    - http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/07/economies-of-scale-killed-american-dream.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Like it or not, the Ivies and other top schools are our conduit to the top, and far too many low-income students who should be there are not.”
     
    "Top schools" are really little more than conduits to the "top." There are far too many in them irrespective of their parents' income or lack of it.

    Here's my Silence Dogood quote again...

    As a 16 year old, with 2 years of formal schooling ending at the age of 10, Benjamin Franklin wrote this. Note the date:

    I reflected in my Mind on the extream Folly of those Parents, who, blind to their Childrens Dulness, and insensible of the Solidity of their Skulls, because they think their Purses can afford it, will needs send them to the Temple of Learning, where, for want of a suitable Genius, they learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter a Room genteely, (which might as well be acquir'd at a Dancing-School,) and from whence they return, after Abundance of Trouble and Charge, as great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.

    I related my Dream with all its Particulars [to a friend], and he, without much Study, presently interpreted it, assuring me, That it was a lively Representation of HARVARD COLLEGE, Etcetera.



    I remain, Sir,
    Your Humble Servant,
    SILENCE DOGOOD.

    The New-England Courant, May 14, 1722
     

    "I can answer the question, if you want me to." Harris said. "The median grade in Harvard College is indeed an A-. The most frequently awarded grade in Harvard College is actually a straight A."

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/average_grade_at_harvard_is_a-.html
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Denis
    On Nov14 Stephen J. Sniegoski writing on this blog reviewed Alison Weir’s excellent book “Against Our Better Judgement.” The review and the book reviewed are both very much worth the read.

    The reason I raise it here is that Weir was the first writer I know of to explain how the Israeli Jews (iJews, if you will) began to infiltrate the top tiers of the USG a century ago. It was back in Wilson’s day, 30 years before Israel was even established, with disastrous and lasting results for Americans and Palestinians.

    In 1916 the Brits were getting their butts kicked in WWI and zionist Jew Lord Rothschild cut a quid pro quo deal with the British government, specifically Foreign Minister Lord Balfour. The quid was that the iJews would be given Palestine after the war. The quo was that the iJews would bring the Americans into the war, something the Brits had not been able to do.

    The zionist part of the bargain was carried out through 1) American Jews who then, as now, exercised inordinate control over the American entertainment and media industries, and 2) Louis Brandeis, an iJew who was a very close friend of Wilson’s and was appointed to the Supreme Court by him.

    The Balfour Declaration was, essentially, a public promise reduced to writing by the British government to perform their part of the covert agreement. The same year, 1917, America began making enormous contributions to the war effort by supplying goods and equipment. By the summer of 1918 the isolationist American government and public had been turned 180 degrees and were knee-deep in the trenches. The American toll eventually reached 110,000, and, of course, through the British Mandate, iJews began descending on Palestine like locusts – bloodthirsty, terrorist locusts.

    The point is this: any analysis of who pulls the levers of power in America is not complete if it ignores the role and power of iJews at all levels of government and in all branches. It’s like Herman and Chomsky not including, for obvious reasons, zionism in the 5 filters articulated in their famous Propaganda Model. By ignoring the obvious, the paper itself could be perceived as diversionary propaganda. And by “the paper” I refer to both Herman/Chomsky’s paper and Chibo’s -- both of which are well written and "informative" but suspiciously incomplete. If, in 1916, the iJews could pull enough levers to drag 110,000 Americans to their deaths in WWI, then they are certainly a major player in whatever dark, mysterious “Deep State” is in control a century later. We need to talk about that.

    …I refer to both Herman/Chomsky’s paper and Chibo’s — both of which are well written and “informative” but suspiciously incomplete.

    I agree and would add that smart, knowledgeable people seeking the truth avoid promoting fraudulent ideas (mythology) as I pointed out above, to wit, the idea that the US government ever was a government of the people. Why would anyone mar such an info packed article with such a stupendously trite cliche? (Sorry for the redundancy.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. JackOH says:

    “The result of this pseudo–market [health care] system is sky-high costs, large profits for the private health care sector, and no political will to reform.” (Jeffrey D. Sachs) Emphasis mine.

    I’ll see that, and raise. My guess is that the social pathologies many of us talk about here are rooted in or aggravated by the “racketeerization” of economic activity and political discourse by “deep state” players, or their equivalent at local levels so that “political will” and “economic will” are pretty much broken. How many of us thought we were playing by a set of rules we thought transparent and well-established by common consent or what-have-you, only to discover we’d been big-time snookered?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. blu says:

    Shadow Elite: How the World’s New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market by Wedel

    Fascinating exposure of the Flexian Neocon Richard Perle and the REST of them

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Alden
    The day Kennedy was inaugurated there were 780 American troops in Vietnam. There were there to train S Vietnamese to use the weapons America sold them.

    The day Kennedy died there were more than 40,000 American troops in Vietnam, fighting, not training or advising.

    The summer before Kennedy died, the summer of 1963 a man I knew who had been in the military who was allegedly out of the military got a phone call and left town the next day. I didn't see him until October. He told me he had been in Laos and Cambodia. He didn't of course say what he had done in those countries

    The whole "Kennedy did not intend to escalate the war in Vietnam" thing was just 1960's leftist propaganda spread by Mark Lane and the rest of the lefties who claimed Kennedy was killed by a consortium of FBI CIA Secret Service Dallas Police John Bircher Republicans the military, anti communists and other evil right winger KKK types who killed Kennedy because Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam

    The lies they spread are believed by many. But the facts are that in less than 3 years Kennedy escalated the war by increasing the American troops from 780 weapons trainers to more than 40,000 combat troops. And the summer before Kennedy was killed he had operatives on the ground in Cambodia and Laos.

    Liberals always claimed the the evil CIA pentagon sent those 40,000 troops to Vietnam without informing Kennedy.
    Maybe so, he was pretty much a comatose invalid addicted to his pain pills.

    Your figures are wrong. There were about 16,000 US military–all branches– in Vietnam in 1963. Some were advisers, some combat, and also there were a few hundred new Special Forces.

    It is not a question of whether Kennedy wanted to “escalate” or not–that was not a question even phrased until after his death. In fact as one recalls the word “escalate” was not used in the context of Vietnam until 1965 or so. It was new coinage. One could probably find first use in context with enough looking.

    Clearly Kennedy wanted to continue the war but both Diem and Kennedy agreed that massive numbers of US combat troops would be a disaster. It was not a question of what but how and Diem in retrospect was clearly right–massive numbers of US combat troops were ill advised.

    Ho Chi Minh and Diem knew one another personally from their student days. Ho Chi Minh had a very high opinion of Diem’s abilities. He even asked Diem to be his interior minister at one point. Both were Vietnamese Nationalists. One the theory about the assassination of Diem by Lodge and elements in the CIA is that they feared Diem and Ho Chi Minh would eventually negotiate a settlement.

    Actually what Diem really wanted, and asked Kennedy for, was a South Vietnamese invasion of the the North supported by US air and naval forces.

    One has no idea what nonsense your are spouting about revisionism from the likes of Mark Lane, etc.

    Save for the inaccuracy of your figures there is nothing else worth commenting upon in your uninformed post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    Pardon uncaught typos-- "One theory", "you are spouting" and any others still uncaught.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @E. A. Costa
    Your figures are wrong. There were about 16,000 US military--all branches-- in Vietnam in 1963. Some were advisers, some combat, and also there were a few hundred new Special Forces.

    It is not a question of whether Kennedy wanted to "escalate" or not--that was not a question even phrased until after his death. In fact as one recalls the word "escalate" was not used in the context of Vietnam until 1965 or so. It was new coinage. One could probably find first use in context with enough looking.

    Clearly Kennedy wanted to continue the war but both Diem and Kennedy agreed that massive numbers of US combat troops would be a disaster. It was not a question of what but how and Diem in retrospect was clearly right--massive numbers of US combat troops were ill advised.

    Ho Chi Minh and Diem knew one another personally from their student days. Ho Chi Minh had a very high opinion of Diem's abilities. He even asked Diem to be his interior minister at one point. Both were Vietnamese Nationalists. One the theory about the assassination of Diem by Lodge and elements in the CIA is that they feared Diem and Ho Chi Minh would eventually negotiate a settlement.

    Actually what Diem really wanted, and asked Kennedy for, was a South Vietnamese invasion of the the North supported by US air and naval forces.

    One has no idea what nonsense your are spouting about revisionism from the likes of Mark Lane, etc.

    Save for the inaccuracy of your figures there is nothing else worth commenting upon in your uninformed post.

    Pardon uncaught typos– “One theory”, “you are spouting” and any others still uncaught.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    I think C. Wright Mills was a TWENTIETH-Century Cassandra.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Robbie-1 says:
    @Alden
    The day Kennedy was inaugurated there were 780 American troops in Vietnam. There were there to train S Vietnamese to use the weapons America sold them.

    The day Kennedy died there were more than 40,000 American troops in Vietnam, fighting, not training or advising.

    The summer before Kennedy died, the summer of 1963 a man I knew who had been in the military who was allegedly out of the military got a phone call and left town the next day. I didn't see him until October. He told me he had been in Laos and Cambodia. He didn't of course say what he had done in those countries

    The whole "Kennedy did not intend to escalate the war in Vietnam" thing was just 1960's leftist propaganda spread by Mark Lane and the rest of the lefties who claimed Kennedy was killed by a consortium of FBI CIA Secret Service Dallas Police John Bircher Republicans the military, anti communists and other evil right winger KKK types who killed Kennedy because Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam

    The lies they spread are believed by many. But the facts are that in less than 3 years Kennedy escalated the war by increasing the American troops from 780 weapons trainers to more than 40,000 combat troops. And the summer before Kennedy was killed he had operatives on the ground in Cambodia and Laos.

    Liberals always claimed the the evil CIA pentagon sent those 40,000 troops to Vietnam without informing Kennedy.
    Maybe so, he was pretty much a comatose invalid addicted to his pain pills.

    Why do you persist in saying untrue things? Kennedy did not have anywhere close to 40,000 troops in Vietnam at the time of his death. He had 16,500 as almost all sources have said. He planned to withdraw 1,000 of those by the end of 1963, and remove all by 1965, after his re-election. Your post is full of hate, wrongful facts, and general nonsense about him, and Vietnam. I don’t even believe your 780 troops in Jan. 1961. Ike (and maybe Truman started before) had well over 2,000 troops in Vietnam by the time Ike left the presidency. I don’ t know the exact number, but it was more than your silly 780. Mark Lane was essentially correct, and you were wrong! The CIA, LBJ and others (Big Oil, Mafia, FBI) were the central planners and/or cover-up artists in killing Kennedy. The fact of withdrawing 1,000 by the end of 1963, and removing all by 1965 is verified by Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263, issued on Oct. 11, 1963. You obviously know-nothing about this, nor LBJs sudden reversal of it with his own #273 on Nov. 26, the day after Kennedy’s funeral. So, stop blaming the Vietnam War disaster on Kennedy, and start looking at LBJs outrage statement in saying, “I don’t want to lose Vietnam, as Truman lost China” (paraphrasing) in reversing Kennedy’s peace strategy while remaining military strong. Even the strongest right-winger, Gen. Douglas MacArthur warned Kennedy not to get into a land war in Asia. He should know, after the Korean War disaster, 1950-53. Kennedy wanted peaceful co-existence, not a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war, as he magnificently stated in his American University speech on June 10, 1963. But what do you know about that, or anything else in your loony ranting against Kennedy when you have no facts? And your idiotic, nutty rant on his supposed ” comatose invalid addicted to his pain pills” is nothing short of a screwball ad hominem attack that has no basis in fact. Mark Lane was essentially correct in putting the blame on the CIA, and other powerful special interest groups. You need to read up on the real Vietnam War history, and not the fairy tale you had someone talk you into believing!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Robbie-1 says:

    #33 by Jus’ Sayin’. Obvious errors: 1963, (not 1964) on the Kennedy’s sending in significant number of troops. JFK did not order the assassination of Diem. Both were Catholic, and JFK did not want Diem murdered, only removed as president. Diem and his brother were murdered by the CIA elements in S. Vietnam. The pic of JFK after learning that Diem and brother were actually killed instead of just removed from power shows his shock and disapproval. Your other implied point of things going bad in 1965 ignored one basic point: who was president in 1965? Hint: it wasn’t JFK. That sociopath, corrupt criminal who created the coup d’etat on Nov. 22, 1963, was the instigator (re: Liar-in-chief with his Aug. 1964 claim of a so-called “attack” against the USS Maddox in early-Aug. 1964) in making the disaster in Vietnam possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Well its "+interesting" to speculate about whether thevauthor of that actually earns a living by getting people to take his writing seriously.

    To one who regarded that ĺinked piece as 90 per cent crap can you say what in his record or writings lends credit to anything he writes? I admit to not having thought that the Indian withdrawal of large denomination notes had anything to do with gold and still think that, if he is right about the connection, it is not important.

    Hey Wizzie,

    The author simply states that he “believes” it to be the case and supports it, albeit weakly by noting that Mumbai’s retail gold sales went down by “up to 90%” and that “The manner in which the demonetization was carried out indicates some kind of desperation, because it defied all economic prudence, logic, humanitarian regard and common sense.”

    Perhaps the 90% sales drop was true at the outset of the crisis, but if stemming India’s gold consumption was the intent, it seems to have backfired.
    See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Demonetization-Gold-imports-at-20-month-high/articleshow/55714000.cms
    Modi is no idiot, so one wonders what spring this drastic move welled up from. The fact is that not much of this move makes any sense at all, and gold being at the core of it makes as much sense as anything else. That is, not very much unless an exogenous factor is introduced.

    If one was to speculate based on the assumption that this had something to do with gold, the following should be kept in mind…

    India perennially trades places with China as the world’s 1st or 2nd largest importer of gold, and is the world’s largest retail market for the metal. As long as gold is treated as a commodity by the bean counters at the IMF, this harms India’s balance of trade. So, if gold purchases are indeed dependent on the availability of 500 & 1000 rupee notes, their disappearance will stem purchases, and the author notes that retail gold sales in Mumbai initially suffered a steep decline.
    If the Times of India article is correct going forward, the demand for gold will actually increase. Either way, there will be an impact on the Gold market.

    It is widely reported that there is considerable stress in international, specifically Western, physical gold markets and the extent to which the demonetization alleviates that stress by reducing India’s demand will serve to benefit the bullion banks. OTOH, if the Times is right, then that stress will increase.

    Either way, the upshot is that a major gold-currency inflection looms on the horizon. If the importance of that escapes you, you have a lot of reading to do. Perhaps very quickly at that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My original understanding of the motive for the recall of (for India) big notes was that it was meant to improve tax collection and hurt the corrupt who dealt in cash to escape detection.

    Are you suggesting that there are general propositions concerning the relationship of gold to currencies which applies to all countries? If not you are not expressing yoursel very clearly in your last par. As i wrote a paper rather precļciously over 50 years ago against the gold bugs obsessions, pointing out that the IMF could create an international currency (as happpened in the shape of "drawing rights" not long afterwards) I would be interested to know what you think you know that I should know.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    You may care to comment on this (I am sure RU will be sympathetic to assaults onThe Economist's expertise).

    The Economist | India’s demonetisation: Modi’s bungle http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711040-narendra-modi-needs-take-measures-mitigate-damage-his-rupee-reform-has-done-indias?frsc=dg%7Cd

    Interesting that there is no reference to gold.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Erebus
    Hey Wizzie,

    The author simply states that he "believes" it to be the case and supports it, albeit weakly by noting that Mumbai's retail gold sales went down by "up to 90%" and that "The manner in which the demonetization was carried out indicates some kind of desperation, because it defied all economic prudence, logic, humanitarian regard and common sense."

    Perhaps the 90% sales drop was true at the outset of the crisis, but if stemming India's gold consumption was the intent, it seems to have backfired.
    See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Demonetization-Gold-imports-at-20-month-high/articleshow/55714000.cms
    Modi is no idiot, so one wonders what spring this drastic move welled up from. The fact is that not much of this move makes any sense at all, and gold being at the core of it makes as much sense as anything else. That is, not very much unless an exogenous factor is introduced.

    If one was to speculate based on the assumption that this had something to do with gold, the following should be kept in mind...

    India perennially trades places with China as the world's 1st or 2nd largest importer of gold, and is the world's largest retail market for the metal. As long as gold is treated as a commodity by the bean counters at the IMF, this harms India's balance of trade. So, if gold purchases are indeed dependent on the availability of 500 & 1000 rupee notes, their disappearance will stem purchases, and the author notes that retail gold sales in Mumbai initially suffered a steep decline.
    If the Times of India article is correct going forward, the demand for gold will actually increase. Either way, there will be an impact on the Gold market.

    It is widely reported that there is considerable stress in international, specifically Western, physical gold markets and the extent to which the demonetization alleviates that stress by reducing India's demand will serve to benefit the bullion banks. OTOH, if the Times is right, then that stress will increase.

    Either way, the upshot is that a major gold-currency inflection looms on the horizon. If the importance of that escapes you, you have a lot of reading to do. Perhaps very quickly at that.

    My original understanding of the motive for the recall of (for India) big notes was that it was meant to improve tax collection and hurt the corrupt who dealt in cash to escape detection.

    Are you suggesting that there are general propositions concerning the relationship of gold to currencies which applies to all countries? If not you are not expressing yoursel very clearly in your last par. As i wrote a paper rather precļciously over 50 years ago against the gold bugs obsessions, pointing out that the IMF could create an international currency (as happpened in the shape of “drawing rights” not long afterwards) I would be interested to know what you think you know that I should know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @E. A. Costa
    Mutatis mutandis and structurally the concept of invisible controls on "democracy", eminently manipulatable, were described, with approval, by Edward Bernays in his work Propaganda (1928).

    Also Eisenhower in his relation to the Dulles brothers seems to have been both naive and of two minds.

    Did he include them in the Military Industrial Complex?

    Clearly he suspected that the U-2 Incident was timed to destroy the possibility of detente with the Soviets and he knew that he had been lied to and set up.

    Yet as far as one knows he remained mostly mum.

    It is always possible that Eisenhower knew what Kennedy found out the hard way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    Various documents, including from what was then North Vietnam, released later, and from the United States (the plot against Diem by the CIA is known, for example, partly from cables) have solved many mysteries and much more is known now than then--even to the extent that some elements operating behind the scenes did not know at the time about other elements operating behind the scenes.

    One of the most interesting mysteries, however, remains--why on earth did Kennedy make Cabot Lodge Ambassador to Vietnam?

    One wondered at the time and the issue has never been seriously resolved, as far as one has seen.

    Interestingly enough, having played a central role in engineering the assassination of Diem, Lodge wanted to make a United States protectorate out of South Vietnam, on the model of the Philippines.

    Diem, by the way, was not incompetent as Lodge had argued. Rather it was Lodge who was incompetent and delusional.

    Even Ho Chi Minh knew that--indeed it was one of the things he and some of the Vietnamese Catholics agreed on--without Diem and his fifteen percent South Vietnam was a lost cause.

    By the way, after the fall of Saigon, and as it turned out, the Communists did not persecute the Roman Catholic Vietnamese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A good, succinct summary tying different authors together. Carroll Quigley could also have been included but articles can only include so much before they become a book. At the time, Orwell’s 1984 was considered to have been inspired by Stalin’s regime. Nowadays it seems more like what we are currently experiencing. The old GDR was reputed to have been a surveillance state but now we can see that it was a piker compared to what we have here. So, do we have an Orwellian ‘inner party’ here conducting business out of the public eye? Older people I knew in the past who grew up in the old communist states but got out seemed to be convinced that the US had some sort of shrouded ‘politburo’ that would thrash things out behind closed doors. Or, on the other hand, is it merely a case where the .1% recognize the commonality of their interests and act accordingly without having to verbalize it, hiring specialists to strategize on how best to do so? It’s hard for the average person to sort this out. I now realize things aren’t as spontaneous as they’ve been made to appear and that the mass media is just a propaganda conduit to the gullible public.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @Ivan K.
    In want of genuine knowledge on the subject, I'll just quote what has caught my eye recently:

    Early Americans could forgive exorbitant fortunes because they had few meaningful political consequences. What a millionaire in Salem or Philadelphia did with his money did not directly effect those living in St. Louis, Savannah, or Columbus. It often had no effect on those living in the township next door. Consequently, men rich and poor met as social and political equals. As Harry L. Watson, renowned historian of antebellum America, has said, "There was a certain mediocrity of culture, tastes, and opinion that seemed universal among Americans.... Wealth in America could not put on a face of public arrogance, and poverty did not require a posture of cringing deference. Instead, all white male Americans demanded and got a certain rough equality in personal respect from other citizens of the republic." [11]

    Viewing the scene with an outsider's eye, Tocqueville quipped "The striking thing about the United States... is the rarity of lofty ambitions evident in this land where all are actively ambitious." [12] He was right. Americans spoke of their ambitions with words like "independence", "self improvement" and "obtaining a competency." [13] No one aimed to climb the social ladder and join the upper class. As far as most Americans were concerned there was no other class than that which belonged to all white men.

    "This is how the American Dream ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper of elite school applications by poor kids. Like it or not, the Ivies and other top schools are our conduit to the top, and far too many low-income students who should be there are not." (emphasis added).

    Like all phrases of its type, the "American Dream" is an idea. Ideas don't die when they are frustrated. They die when people forget what they mean.

    - http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/07/economies-of-scale-killed-american-dream.html

     

    Like it or not, the Ivies and other top schools are our conduit to the top, and far too many low-income students who should be there are not.”

    “Top schools” are really little more than conduits to the “top.” There are far too many in them irrespective of their parents’ income or lack of it.

    Here’s my Silence Dogood quote again…

    As a 16 year old, with 2 years of formal schooling ending at the age of 10, Benjamin Franklin wrote this. Note the date:

    I reflected in my Mind on the extream Folly of those Parents, who, blind to their Childrens Dulness, and insensible of the Solidity of their Skulls, because they think their Purses can afford it, will needs send them to the Temple of Learning, where, for want of a suitable Genius, they learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter a Room genteely, (which might as well be acquir’d at a Dancing-School,) and from whence they return, after Abundance of Trouble and Charge, as great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.

    I related my Dream with all its Particulars [to a friend], and he, without much Study, presently interpreted it, assuring me, That it was a lively Representation of HARVARD COLLEGE, Etcetera.

    I remain, Sir,
    Your Humble Servant,
    SILENCE DOGOOD.

    The New-England Courant, May 14, 1722

    “I can answer the question, if you want me to.” Harris said. “The median grade in Harvard College is indeed an A-. The most frequently awarded grade in Harvard College is actually a straight A.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/12/average_grade_at_harvard_is_a-.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Bob Robertson
    It is always possible that Eisenhower knew what Kennedy found out the hard way.

    Various documents, including from what was then North Vietnam, released later, and from the United States (the plot against Diem by the CIA is known, for example, partly from cables) have solved many mysteries and much more is known now than then–even to the extent that some elements operating behind the scenes did not know at the time about other elements operating behind the scenes.

    One of the most interesting mysteries, however, remains–why on earth did Kennedy make Cabot Lodge Ambassador to Vietnam?

    One wondered at the time and the issue has never been seriously resolved, as far as one has seen.

    Interestingly enough, having played a central role in engineering the assassination of Diem, Lodge wanted to make a United States protectorate out of South Vietnam, on the model of the Philippines.

    Diem, by the way, was not incompetent as Lodge had argued. Rather it was Lodge who was incompetent and delusional.

    Even Ho Chi Minh knew that–indeed it was one of the things he and some of the Vietnamese Catholics agreed on–without Diem and his fifteen percent South Vietnam was a lost cause.

    By the way, after the fall of Saigon, and as it turned out, the Communists did not persecute the Roman Catholic Vietnamese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Erebus
    Hey Wizzie,

    The author simply states that he "believes" it to be the case and supports it, albeit weakly by noting that Mumbai's retail gold sales went down by "up to 90%" and that "The manner in which the demonetization was carried out indicates some kind of desperation, because it defied all economic prudence, logic, humanitarian regard and common sense."

    Perhaps the 90% sales drop was true at the outset of the crisis, but if stemming India's gold consumption was the intent, it seems to have backfired.
    See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Demonetization-Gold-imports-at-20-month-high/articleshow/55714000.cms
    Modi is no idiot, so one wonders what spring this drastic move welled up from. The fact is that not much of this move makes any sense at all, and gold being at the core of it makes as much sense as anything else. That is, not very much unless an exogenous factor is introduced.

    If one was to speculate based on the assumption that this had something to do with gold, the following should be kept in mind...

    India perennially trades places with China as the world's 1st or 2nd largest importer of gold, and is the world's largest retail market for the metal. As long as gold is treated as a commodity by the bean counters at the IMF, this harms India's balance of trade. So, if gold purchases are indeed dependent on the availability of 500 & 1000 rupee notes, their disappearance will stem purchases, and the author notes that retail gold sales in Mumbai initially suffered a steep decline.
    If the Times of India article is correct going forward, the demand for gold will actually increase. Either way, there will be an impact on the Gold market.

    It is widely reported that there is considerable stress in international, specifically Western, physical gold markets and the extent to which the demonetization alleviates that stress by reducing India's demand will serve to benefit the bullion banks. OTOH, if the Times is right, then that stress will increase.

    Either way, the upshot is that a major gold-currency inflection looms on the horizon. If the importance of that escapes you, you have a lot of reading to do. Perhaps very quickly at that.

    You may care to comment on this (I am sure RU will be sympathetic to assaults onThe Economist’s expertise).

    The Economist | India’s demonetisation: Modi’s bungle http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711040-narendra-modi-needs-take-measures-mitigate-damage-his-rupee-reform-has-done-indias?frsc=dg%7Cd

    Interesting that there is no reference to gold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Answering your 2 responses together:

    Are you suggesting that there are general propositions concerning the relationship of gold to currencies which applies to all countries?
     
    Keeping this as short as possible to avoid hijacking the thread of Mr. Chibo's very substantive article, I can answer in a word: Yes.

    As for the Economist, their expertise is not greater than other available sources, but their dishonesty does much to negate any expertise they may have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You may care to comment on this (I am sure RU will be sympathetic to assaults onThe Economist's expertise).

    The Economist | India’s demonetisation: Modi’s bungle http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711040-narendra-modi-needs-take-measures-mitigate-damage-his-rupee-reform-has-done-indias?frsc=dg%7Cd

    Interesting that there is no reference to gold.

    Answering your 2 responses together:

    Are you suggesting that there are general propositions concerning the relationship of gold to currencies which applies to all countries?

    Keeping this as short as possible to avoid hijacking the thread of Mr. Chibo’s very substantive article, I can answer in a word: Yes.

    As for the Economist, their expertise is not greater than other available sources, but their dishonesty does much to negate any expertise they may have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Onlyme says:

    How wonderful to read this after years of seeing bits and pieces scattered about the Internet and press. Several people have hinted at or described small areas that you write about but never have I seen such a comprehensive outline.
    How sad that I have no friends that would be remotely interested in reading your work because it would take more than 2 minutes. I imagine most people couldn’t handle the intellectual shock of reconciling their personal beliefs with this reality.
    This can not end well.
    Thank you,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Callie says:
    @jacques sheete

    Good that the “myth lives on”, or America would have no chance at all, slim or otherwise.
     
    I'd say that's playing the victim card a bit too far. Also, whom is it good for?

    And what is "America," anyway?

    “And what is “America,” anyway?”

    It is the first time (really the third in the history of man) that men started to understand that they did not need another person/group ruling over them and making decisions for them. That they could think for themselves, create lives of value for themselves, etc. But they understood that dealing with the world would require a representative for all of the states, but that representative needed to be limited or those that want power would corrupt it.

    What they did not foresee that the people of that time were ready and able to make their own decisions and lives; but that actions would be taken to destroy the people themselves as a group (groups are easier to control and change), to dumb them down so that a “leader” would become necessary.

    That took decades, lots of decades. It took people that would willingly poisoning the food supplies of the people, poison the water of a nation, poison the very soil and air all to dumb them down chemically. (Leaving out a lot here, this is a very brief summary.)

    It took away the people’s knowledge of their own government through “dumbing down” (as briefly described above), re-”education” of the young, subliminals, propaganda, murder, etc all over decades. Consider it a vendetta handed down for generations in order to destroy the danger that this nation and its concept represented to the rest of the ruled-by-a-person world.

    Yet we can still win. why? How? The US Constitution and each state’s Constitution is/are our “ruler”. The people who serve within them are NOT. the authority they use while serving is NOT theirs but is assigned to the branch or office within a branch and they are allowed to use that authority/power for as long as they keep the contract and do the assigned duties in a constitutional manner. THAT is our government.

    The problem is not now, nor has it ever been our type of government, but the danger our type of government offers to the rest of the world. So we had to be destroyed. Many ways have been used since our beginnings, this has come the closest.

    What is the solution? Read, know, follow the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution. Realize though that the state’s have been being changed by amendment through lies and deceit of those who serve within it – which voids contracts. The part voided is not the written document, it stands, but the people serving within the governments.

    Who enforces this? The US Constitution requires the people, as the Militia, to enforce it. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    – Enforce the US Constitution (supreme law of this land) and each state’s Constitution (highest law of the state),
    – Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    – Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    – “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    All able-bodied Americans are required to be trained as the military is trained, and educated in the US Constitution and their own state’s Constitution as that is their highest “boss”. There are ranks, officers within the Militia, but any who break away from those two documents no longer have any authority. Guess what, the same is with those that serve within our governments. They also are Oath bound to the US Constitution, and they also would/will no longer meet the written requirements of the position being occupied.

    But it takes the Militia, with the full backing of the US Constitution (in writing) for enforcement to start. Remember, those that serve within the state and general (federal) governments are both required to use the Militia for those things listed above.

    That is America. Are you an American?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    That is America. Are you an American?
     
    Yes, and I am also sanely rational. What you believe must be done cannot be done without open rebellion.

    While what you say is true "on paper" and in principle, Congressional legislation has undone and denied, systematically, every freedom, right and responsibility established by the Constitution.

    There is no option but revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. John Jeremiah Smith [AKA "MCPO USN"] says:
    @Callie
    "And what is “America,” anyway?"

    It is the first time (really the third in the history of man) that men started to understand that they did not need another person/group ruling over them and making decisions for them. That they could think for themselves, create lives of value for themselves, etc. But they understood that dealing with the world would require a representative for all of the states, but that representative needed to be limited or those that want power would corrupt it.

    What they did not foresee that the people of that time were ready and able to make their own decisions and lives; but that actions would be taken to destroy the people themselves as a group (groups are easier to control and change), to dumb them down so that a "leader" would become necessary.

    That took decades, lots of decades. It took people that would willingly poisoning the food supplies of the people, poison the water of a nation, poison the very soil and air all to dumb them down chemically. (Leaving out a lot here, this is a very brief summary.)

    It took away the people's knowledge of their own government through "dumbing down" (as briefly described above), re-"education" of the young, subliminals, propaganda, murder, etc all over decades. Consider it a vendetta handed down for generations in order to destroy the danger that this nation and its concept represented to the rest of the ruled-by-a-person world.

    Yet we can still win. why? How? The US Constitution and each state's Constitution is/are our "ruler". The people who serve within them are NOT. the authority they use while serving is NOT theirs but is assigned to the branch or office within a branch and they are allowed to use that authority/power for as long as they keep the contract and do the assigned duties in a constitutional manner. THAT is our government.

    The problem is not now, nor has it ever been our type of government, but the danger our type of government offers to the rest of the world. So we had to be destroyed. Many ways have been used since our beginnings, this has come the closest.

    What is the solution? Read, know, follow the US Constitution and each state's Constitution. Realize though that the state's have been being changed by amendment through lies and deceit of those who serve within it - which voids contracts. The part voided is not the written document, it stands, but the people serving within the governments.

    Who enforces this? The US Constitution requires the people, as the Militia, to enforce it. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
    -- Enforce the US Constitution (supreme law of this land) and each state's Constitution (highest law of the state),
    -- Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    -- Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    -- “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    All able-bodied Americans are required to be trained as the military is trained, and educated in the US Constitution and their own state's Constitution as that is their highest "boss". There are ranks, officers within the Militia, but any who break away from those two documents no longer have any authority. Guess what, the same is with those that serve within our governments. They also are Oath bound to the US Constitution, and they also would/will no longer meet the written requirements of the position being occupied.

    But it takes the Militia, with the full backing of the US Constitution (in writing) for enforcement to start. Remember, those that serve within the state and general (federal) governments are both required to use the Militia for those things listed above.

    That is America. Are you an American?

    That is America. Are you an American?

    Yes, and I am also sanely rational. What you believe must be done cannot be done without open rebellion.

    While what you say is true “on paper” and in principle, Congressional legislation has undone and denied, systematically, every freedom, right and responsibility established by the Constitution.

    There is no option but revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. […] Platz 10 steht die “Theorie für alles“, mit der Sie sich hier vertraut machen […]

    Read More
  61. […] Read the Whole Article […]

    Read More
  62. […] Source: Political science’s “Theory of everything” – The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  63. […] Around The Empire, Dan and Joanne interview journalist David Chibo about his recent article on the deep state in the United States for Unz […]

    Read More
  64. alexander says:

    Dear Mr. Chibo.

    Thank you for a very interesting distillation of the power clubs within the United States.

    Having said that…..Who cares ?

    The bottom line is performance, and by any metric the varied power entities within the United States state have totally failed the country.

    They have “failed” the nation. And that’s all there is to it.

    Consider that in the year 2000 the USA had a very healthy debt to GDP ratio and our government was not running a deficit..

    Our National debt was 5.7 trillion, our GDP was 9.3 trillion…and the federal government was operating at a 250 billion dollar surplus.

    At this junction in our nation’s history , whatever deep state power entities “existed” were doing a good job running the country….they were performing well on just about all cylinders.

    We had the most powerful economy in the world, the most powerful military in the world,
    and our balance sheet was good.

    The solvency of the United states was NOT in jeopardy, and the US dollar used as the worlds currency was justified by nearly every metric.

    We can all applaud and say “Bravo” to the ” deep state USA” of 2000 for running a smooth ship of state..

    Flash forward to 2017.

    Our national debt has exploded to 20 trillion dollars but our GDP has hardly doubled to 18.7 trillion..

    And our government has been running an (averaged) annualized “deficit” of 875 billion dollars over the entire 16 year period.

    Our post 9-11 “War State Deep State” has nearly “eviscerated” the solvency of the entire nation in about 15 years.

    And for what ?

    Does anyone really care how one divvies up (or explicates) the deep state power structures at work today, beyond the fact they have made one big catastrophic mess of just about everything ?.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Excellent article.

    For people interested in the subject I suggest to read my book Psychological Warfare and the New Word Order: The Secret War Against the American People. It explores areas not touched by the authors mentioned in this article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. […] Political science’s “theory of everything” – David Chibo, unz.com […]

    Read More
  67. […] more on Trump and the Deep State see these useful articles, though not without reservations, here, here and my own little essay […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation