strategic-culture | The «deep state» is the aristocracy and its agents. Wikispooks defines it as follows:
The deep state (loosely synonymous with the shadow government or permanent government) is in contrast to the public structures which appear to be directing individual nation states. The deep state is an intensely secretive, informal, fluid network of deep politicians who conspire to amplify their influence over national governments through a variety of deep state milieux. The term «deep state» derives from the Turkish »derin devlet», which emerged after the 1996 Susurluk incident so dramatically unmasked the Turkish deep state.
Nothing
that’s alleged here is denying that there are divisions within
the aristocracy (or «deep state»). Nothing is alleging that
the aristocracy are «monolithic.» It’s instead asserting that, to the
extent the aristocracy are united around a particular objective, that
given objective will likely become instituted, both legally and
otherwise, by the government — and that, otherwise, it simply won’t be
instituted at all. This is what the
only scientific analysis that has ever been done of whether or not the
U.S. is controlled by an aristocracy found definitely to be the case in
the U.S.
(And, of course, that’s also the reason why this momentous study was ignored by America’s ‘news’ media, except for the
first news-report on it, mine at the obscure site Common Dreams, which
had 414 reader-comments within just its first four months, and then the UPI’s report on it,
which, like mine, was widely distributed to the major ‘news’ media and
rejected by them all — UPI’s report was published only by UPI itself,
and elicited only two reader-comments there. Then came the New Yorker’s pooh-poohing the study,
by alleging «the politicians all know this, and we know it, too. The
only debate is about how far this process has gone, and whether we
should refer to it as oligarchy or as something else.» Their
propagandist ignored the researchers’ having noted, in their paper, that
though their findings were extremely inconsistent with America’s being a
democracy, the problem was almost certainly being understated in their
findings: «The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy
is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of
the limitations of our data,» and, especially, «our ‘affluent’ proxy is
admittedly imperfect,» and so, «interest groups and economic elites
actually wield more policy influence than our estimates indicate.»
In
fact, their «elite» had consisted not of the top 0.1% as compared to
the bottom 50%, but instead of the top 10% as compared to the bottom
50%, and all empirical evidence shows that the more narrowly one defines
«the aristocracy,» the more lopsidedly dominant is the ‘elite’s
relative impact upon public policies. Then, a month after the
press-release on their study was issued, the co-authors were so
disappointed with the paltry coverage of it that had occurred in
America’s ‘news’ media, so that they submitted, to the Washington Post, a
reply to their study’s academic critics, «Critics argued with our analysis of U.S. political inequality. Here are 5 ways they’re wrong.» It
was promptly published online-only, as obscurely as possible, so that
there are also — as of the present date — only two reader-comments to
that public exposure. This is typical news-suppression in America:
essentially total suppression of samizdat information — not merely suppression
of the officially top-secret information, such as propagandists like
Ambinder focus upon. It’s deeper than the state: it is the deep state,
including far more than just the official government.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment