Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Nick1911 on August 17, 2020, 10:51:13 PM
-
Heard this term plenty over the past number of years.
Some believe that that collusion and cronyism exist within the US political system and hold such sway and influence to constitute a hidden government within the legitimately elected government.
Some people reject the premise of an American deep state on the grounds that our governmental power structures are almost entirely transparent - who gets a position of power and from where their authority derives is known and codified.
Snowden uses the term to refer to the power of civil servants over elected officials. AKA, Yes, Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister)
Some people see many wealthy and influential people lobbying and attempting to influence government policy in their favor as the deep state, even if done openly.
How do you define the term? Do you believe it is something which actually exists, and to what extent?
-
What is different between deep state and bureaucracy?
For some reason people started to talk about deep state but it just sounds like bureaucracy to me, and if you ask random people if they think bureaucracy exists a lot more of them will say yes vs. deep state.
-
I believe it exists, and I believe that it is nearly all-powerful. To me, the "deep state" is the entrenched bureaucracy that exists from the lowest levels of civil service employees up to the highest level immediately beneath the political appointee level -- the career bureaucrats. They are the people who know how to get things done in the swamp, and they are also the people who know how to delay, obfuscate, and derail anything that an administration wants done but they (the deep state operators) don't agree with.
One example:
Many years ago, as a practicing architect I had a small contract with a small public housing authority. The project was to be funded by HUD, so I was asked to sign a HUD contract. The contract required that I carry professional liability insurance. The contract also included thirteen (13) specific requirements that were specifically and explicitly excluded from coverage under standard architect and engineer professional liability insurance.
As a matter of public policy, it should be obvious that nothing positive can come out of imposing requirements on consulting professionals that voids the insurance the government requires them to carry -- for the protection of the government's interest. Further investigation revealed that these requirements were NOT in the standard contract form promulgated by HUD in Washington; the uninsurable requirements were added by the HUD regional office for my state. I called the HUD staffer assigned to the project, explained the problem to him, and he said, "No problem, just cross out and initial the provisions that can't be insured."
So I did that, sent back the contract, and started work. Several weeks later I got a notice that my contract had been rejected. I called the guy, and he said it was rejected because I had changed it.
"You told me to change it."
"Yeah, but you changed it!"
The guy went on to say that other architects had signed the contract, so he didn't understand my problem. I pointed out that every architect in the state had the same insurer that I used, and that those contract terms weren't insurable -- they were explicit exclusions in the policy. That meant if other architects signed the contract, it just meant the government wasn't getting the insurance protection that was expected. The guy's attitude was, "I don't care about that. They signed the contract. As far as I'm concerned, they have insurance."
That's not good enough for me, so in the end I had to resign from the project and I lost several weeks worth of time that I couldn't get paid for.
Apparently other HUD area offices around the country were doing the same thing, and the problem made its way to the American Institute of Architects in Washington. The AIA set up a task force to address the issue, and I was asked to serve on it. The AIA finally got as far as getting us a meeting with HUD in Washington. I attended, along with three other architects from around the country. The meeting was surreal. We met with three people from HUD, who told us the contract form we had the problem with was in the process of being revised and updated, so they would very much welcome our input. So we gave it to them. We explained in detail why the contract should not include requirements that can't be insured, because it cancels the whole purpose of requiring us to carry insurance. The HUD officials sanctimoniously said they understood our concerns and that they would take them into account in revising the contract. I asked if we could have a copy of the working draft so that we could comment on the proposed changes. Oh, no! That wasn't allowed.
So we went home, thinking that we had had a fruitful and constructive meeting. Months later, the revised contract came out. The HUD guys had listened to us, all right. They must have written down everything we said was a problem, and they put ALL of those things into the new contract. So many uninsurable provisions I don't even remember them, or even how many there were. Suffice it to say -- a lot.
To what end? HUD can decline to enter into a contract with an architect or engineer if the design professional doesn't have insurance, but HUD can't dictate to the insurance company what acts they exclude from coverage. So the end result was that a small cadre of career HUD bureaucrats got their jollies by throwing a bunch of impossible requirements into the contract, and the end result was that they made the insurance requirement into a joke. That's the kind of decision that could only be made by career bureaucrats who never worked a single day in the private sector. A political appointee who had made his (or her) way far enough up the career ladder to be appointed to a senior leadership position in an agency like HUD would have seen in 15 nanoseconds that it's just plain stupid to insist on contract provisions that void the very insurance the contract requires. But the senior political appointees are too busy making general policy and being the public face of the agency to get involved in the nitty gritty work of writing and reviewing specific contracts. Such work is carried out by the career drones, who function more or less autonomously.
That's what the deep state is, IMHO.
-
I believe it exists, and I believe that it is nearly all-powerful. To me, the "deep state" is the entrenched bureaucracy that exists from the lowest levels of civil service employees up to the highest level immediately beneath the political appointee level -- the career bureaucrats. They are the people who know how to get things done in the swamp, and they are also the people who know how to delay, obfuscate, and derail anything that an administration wants done but they (the deep state operators) don't agree with.
Is it organized? How do all these people know what to say or do to derail administrative objectives without stepping all over each other?
One example:
Many years ago, as a practicing architect I had a small contract with a small public housing authority. The project was to be funded by HUD, so I was asked to sign a HUD contract. The contract required that I carry professional liability insurance. The contract also included thirteen (13) specific requirements that were specifically and explicitly excluded from coverage under standard architect and engineer professional liability insurance.
As a matter of public policy, it should be obvious that nothing positive can come out of imposing requirements on consulting professionals that voids the insurance the government requires them to carry -- for the protection of the government's interest. Further investigation revealed that these requirements were NOT in the standard contract form promulgated by HUD in Washington; the uninsurable requirements were added by the HUD regional office for my state. I called the HUD staffer assigned to the project, explained the problem to him, and he said, "No problem, just cross out and initial the provisions that can't be insured."
So I did that, sent back the contract, and started work. Several weeks later I got a notice that my contract had been rejected. I called the guy, and he said it was rejected because I had changed it.
"You told me to change it."
"Yeah, but you changed it!"
The guy went on to say that other architects had signed the contract, so he didn't understand my problem. I pointed out that every architect in the state had the same insurer that I used, and that those contract terms weren't insurable -- they were explicit exclusions in the policy. That meant if other architects signed the contract, it just meant the government wasn't getting the insurance protection that was expected. The guy's attitude was, "I don't care about that. They signed the contract. As far as I'm concerned, they have insurance."
That's not good enough for me, so in the end I had to resign from the project and I lost several weeks worth of time that I couldn't get paid for.
Apparently other HUD area offices around the country were doing the same thing, and the problem made its way to the American Institute of Architects in Washington. The AIA set up a task force to address the issue, and I was asked to serve on it. The AIA finally got as far as getting us a meeting with HUD in Washington. I attended, along with three other architects from around the country. The meeting was surreal. We met with three people from HUD, who told us the contract form we had the problem with was in the process of being revised and updated, so they would very much welcome our input. So we gave it to them. We explained in detail why the contract should not include requirements that can't be insured, because it cancels the whole purpose of requiring us to carry insurance. The HUD officials sanctimoniously said they understood our concerns and that they would take them into account in revising the contract. I asked if we could have a copy of the working draft so that we could comment on the proposed changes. Oh, no! That wasn't allowed.
So we went home, thinking that we had had a fruitful and constructive meeting. Months later, the revised contract came out. The HUD guys had listened to us, all right. They must have written down everything we said was a problem, and they put ALL of those things into the new contract. So many uninsurable provisions I don't even remember them, or even how many there were. Suffice it to say -- a lot.
To what end? HUD can decline to enter into a contract with an architect or engineer if the design professional doesn't have insurance, but HUD can't dictate to the insurance company what acts they exclude from coverage. So the end result was that a small cadre of career HUD bureaucrats got their jollies by throwing a bunch of impossible requirements into the contract, and the end result was that they made the insurance requirement into a joke. That's the kind of decision that could only be made by career bureaucrats who never worked a single day in the private sector. A political appointee who had made his (or her) way far enough up the career ladder to be appointed to a senior leadership position in an agency like HUD would have seen in 15 nanoseconds that it's just plain stupid to insist on contract provisions that void the very insurance the contract requires. But the senior political appointees are too busy making general policy and being the public face of the agency to get involved in the nitty gritty work of writing and reviewing specific contracts. Such work is carried out by the career drones, who function more or less autonomously.
That's what the deep state is, IMHO.
This sounds like the result of way too much self serving bureaucracy to me. Do you think there was structure - and intention behind this? If so, to what end? To put architects in a catch-22, make sure they can't be compliant with the contract requirements? Maybe they thought they could force the insurers to cover these additional requirements? When ended up happening with that... is that still the current situation with HUD contracts?
-
What Hawkmoon said, plus read what Ben has said over the years about his work in the government. The bureaucracy, especially in D.C., have a point of view on how government/society should operate. They have a certain ideology. Not all of them (see Ben), but most of them (ask Ben). Many things elected officials do or try to do, if it conflicts with said ideology, the bureaucrats will slow down or otherwise frustrate. Perhaps consciously, perhaps because - well, because such things just aren't done!
Whether the above is an accurate description of how our bureaucracy works, or not, I believe that is what is commonly meant by "the deep state." At least in the U.S.
Two illustrations that look at other motives for "deep state" behavior:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/schumer-intelligence-agencies-have-six-ways-from-sunday-of-getting-back-at-you/
https://www.city-journal.org/thomas-sowell-race-poverty-culture
In 1960, he worked as an economist with the Labor Department. His task was to study the sugar industry in Puerto Rico, where the department enforced a minimum-wage law. Upon discovering that unemployment was rising with each increase in the minimum wage, Sowell wondered whether the law was causing the rise—as standard economic theory would predict. His coworkers had a different take: unemployment was rising because a hurricane had destroyed crops. Eventually, Sowell came up with a way to decide between the competing theories: “What we need,” he told his coworkers excitedly, “are statistics on the amount of sugarcane standing in the field before the hurricanes came through Puerto Rico.” He was met with a “stunned silence,” and his idea was dismissed out of hand. After all, administering the minimum-wage law “employed a significant fraction of all the people who worked there.”
-
Is it organized? How do all these people know what to say or do to derail administrative objectives without stepping all over each other?
This sounds like the result of way too much self serving bureaucracy to me. Do you think there was structure - and intention behind this? If so, to what end? To put architects in a catch-22, make sure they can't be compliant with the contract requirements? Maybe they thought they could force the insurers to cover these additional requirements? When ended up happening with that... is that still the current situation with HUD contracts?
Why does there have to be a structure, or an intent? The idea of "deep state" is nothing more nor less than a deeply entrenched bureaucracy that just rolls along, doing what it has always done, more or less independent of and largely unchanged by shifts in administration. The only structure is federal civil service rules, which make it difficult to fire or even discipline employees once they have survived their probation period.
It seems to me that the notion of a self-serving bureaucracy is the perfect description of "deep state."
-
The Pacific Ocean - wet or dry?
-
We had unelected career officials nearly remove a president, so yes.
-
The Pacific Ocean - wet or dry?
The Pacific Ocean is a fiction of the MSM & George Soros. While they are busy pillaging the country we're arguing over wet vs dry [tinfoil]
Snowden uses the term to refer to the power of civil servants over elected officials. AKA, Yes, Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister)
Never heard of the show before but from the brief description there, that sounds pretty accurate to me. I think some people take it too far into giant conspiracy territory (Qanon) but the reality is more boring.
-
Is it organized? How do all these people know what to say or do to derail administrative objectives without stepping all over each other?
In the same way the bootlegger and the Baptist organize their support for prohibition.
-
The Pacific Ocean is a fiction of the MSM & George Soros. While they are busy pillaging the country we're arguing over <insert distraction du jour> [tinfoil]
fixed it :)
-
What Hawkmoon said, plus read what Ben has said over the years about his work in the government.
I'm traveling today, but will write a "refresh synopsis" of my experience through three (pre-Trump) administrations when I get to the hotel tonight. Essentially, regarding zahc's post, the deep state and bureaucracy are subtly the same, yet subtly different.
-
You don't really even need it to be organized. For a deep state type group to act, they just need enough key people in different federal agencies to make stuff happen and/or cover up actions. I see the "Deep State" as more about small groups of people in the bureaucracy using/abusing the bureaucracy to support political goals.
-
Is it organized? How do all these people know what to say or do to derail administrative objectives without stepping all over each other?
This sounds like the result of way too much self serving bureaucracy to me. Do you think there was structure - and intention behind this? If so, to what end? To put architects in a catch-22, make sure they can't be compliant with the contract requirements? Maybe they thought they could force the insurers to cover these additional requirements? When ended up happening with that... is that still the current situation with HUD contracts?
This I have to agree with. While I think there is a deep state it's not as monolithic as it may appear on the outside but rather made of little bureaucrats having very similar goals, the main one being keeping their jobs and the power that comes with it. The deep state isn't one big snake with one big head to cut off but thousands of little snakes.
-
This I have to agree with. While I think there is a deep state it's not as monolithic as it may appear on the outside but rather made of little bureaucrats having very similar goals, the main one being keeping their jobs and the power that comes with it. The deep state isn't one big snake with one big head to cut off but thousands of little snakes.
Multiple little power broker bureaucrats. Looks monolithic only when more than a few all decide to go in the same direction.
-
Vogons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon)
-
A bottle of Jameson around th fire and I'll tell you a few stories.
-
Why does there have to be a structure, or an intent? The idea of "deep state" is nothing more nor less than a deeply entrenched bureaucracy that just rolls along, doing what it has always done, more or less independent of and largely unchanged by shifts in administration. The only structure is federal civil service rules, which make it difficult to fire or even discipline employees once they have survived their probation period.
It seems to me that the notion of a self-serving bureaucracy is the perfect description of "deep state."
Spot on.
-
So I'll put the executive summary at the top of the post:
IMO: Is there a deep state as in a cabal of D&R civil servants that wants to protect the status quo at all costs? I've never seen one. What I saw was more of an entrenched bureaucracy that leaned heavily left across most agencies I worked with, with a couple of exceptions. So they, across all GS levels, enthusiastically helped dem administrations achieve their goals, but were not so enthusiastic, and in some cases you could use the word "sabotage" when dealing with the Bush administration directives. You might be able to call the latter "deep state", though it was more of an unethical and entrenched partisan bureaucracy IMO. Not any coordinated effort, just a lot of people who think the same way.
I started out in the last term of Clinton, so only have that as my baseline. Everyone pretty happily carried out the philosophy of and tried to meet the goals of Clinton appointees. One thing I noticed was that there sure were a lot of SES (Senior Executive Service) employees that used to be things like the director of the Ocean Conservancy and other former higher ups of other enviro NGOs.
Then Bush came along. I remember getting a talking to for playing "Hail to the Chief" in my office. Other people were saying vile things about Bush or doing the, "I'm moving to Canada" thing. That was all okay and just venting. People were very grumbly. Anytime I was at an interagency meeting, people would always be complaining about either some Bush directive or something their Department Secretary (Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Interior, etc) initiated. The only exceptions were DOD and DHS people, who I guess were making out under that admin or else were smart enough to keep their complaints to themselves. Those Clinton SES people were still there, and didn't mind talking trash about Bush, which made it easier for the lowly GS-7 to come up with reasons not to do their job. "Hey man, my Director says Bush is an ass, so why should I put effort into this Bush admin directive? He and his appointees will be out after one term anyway."
Two terms later, Obama came along. Celebration by all. Enthusiasm by all. Obama appointed his secretaries. Then in my and other departments I worked with, I noticed a lot of new SES and GS-15s who got hired by their secretary or undersecretary and were assigned to direct some office or other. Same as with Clinton, they came from NGOs, Academia, and other left-leaning organizations. They got to hire new FTEs that were GS-12s. 11s, 9s, etc. Often people who worked in those same organizations they came from. Maybe some of that happened under Bush from the conservative side, but I sure didn't see it in my circles.
So most of what I saw was basically "biased hiring" that creates something of a left-leaning bias in the overall makeup of the Civil Service. I just especially noticed it during the Obama admin. I can't help but think it happens under most dem admins, since they like to grow the gov. Conservatives like to cut gov, so there are usually fewer FTEs hired under those admins. Eventually you get the left-leaning bias and people who hang around for 20-30 years.
Not being around for Trump, I can only assume all the SJW civil servants blew a gasket at his election and are off doing the same things I saw under Bush but at 10X.
So is that "deep state"? Or is that unethical and spoiled sore losers who can't stand that someone not establishment (which I would argue that Bush was) is shaking up their lives?
Either way, many of the things we have seen since Trump got in are certainly worth getting fired over, and likely, even under current government rules, people could get fired. I've actually seen civil servants fired, so it can be done. :laugh:
-
Pay no attention to the "man" behind the curtain.
Ben's description of useful idiots does nothing to dispel the idea that there are very powerful and wealthy interests manipulating and pulling the strings of society and pushing every lever of influence they have accumulated over the decades.
Do you really think crazy stuff like transgender acceptance and drag time story hour is organic?
Now, just imagine all the mundane changes in society that power and money can change without even being on the radar.
I don't necessarily think there is one monolithic human organization running things but multiple power centers both cooperating and competing with each other.
The powers that be aren't showing up on any ballots.
Things don't really work they way we've been told they work.
You know that, intuitively.
That's a fact, Jack.
-
Pay no attention the "man" Lizard behind the curtain.
[tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
-
Ben's description of useful idiots does nothing to dispel the idea that there are very powerful and wealthy interests manipulating and pulling the strings of society and pushing every lever of influence they have accumulated over the decades.
What I wrote doesn't negate that possibility. I'm only one data point and most of what I saw was from the "environmental" side of the gov (NOAA, NASA, EPA, MMS, etc.). There is no doubt though, that what I saw was the two dem administrations top loading the civil servant (SES, GS-15,14) positions with former higher level people from special interest groups that were "pro-environment". Under Bush, the "top loading" was appointees. Maybe Bush appointees* did the same thing with civil servants in departments I didn't have a lot of contact with, I don't know.
Regardless, the idea of putting people that fit your agenda in high level civil servant positions that outlive administrations, rather than appointee positions, could certainly be argued as "manipulating". It could certainly explain what's happening with Trump with the FBI, etc.
*It's important to note that it wasn't the Presidents doing this stuff, it was their appointees and lower.
-
Pay no attention to the "man" behind the curtain.
Ben's description of useful idiots does nothing to dispel the idea that there are very powerful and wealthy interests manipulating and pulling the strings of society and pushing every lever of influence they have accumulated over the decades.
Do you really think crazy stuff like transgender acceptance and drag time story hour is organic?
<snip>
I think an organic explanation of transgender and drag queen storytelling is much more likely than some organization somewhere coming up with a long term plan that incorporates that kind of crazy stuff. Transgender, homosexual, transvestite stuff has been going on for a very long time. I can't imagine anyone 75 years ago coming up with a plan that would get us where we are today. I can't even imagine anyone 75 years ago wanting to get to where we are today. And I'm sure cross-dressing and homosexuality have been around a lot longer than that.
-
I think an organic explanation of transgender and drag queen storytelling is much more likely than some organization somewhere coming up with a long term plan that incorporates that kind of crazy stuff. Transgender, homosexual, transvestite stuff has been going on for a very long time. I can't imagine anyone 75 years ago coming up with a plan that would get us where we are today. I can't even imagine anyone 75 years ago wanting to get to where we are today. And I'm sure cross-dressing and homosexuality have been around a lot longer than that.
You have a very limited imagination.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html (https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html)
Excerpt:
Even a cursory review of the material revealed that the educational work at the Rote Freiheit ("Red Freedom") after-school center was unorthodox. The goal of the center was to shape the students into "socialist personalities," and its educational mission went well beyond supervised play. The center's agenda included "agitprop" on the situation in Vietnam and "street fighting," in which the children were divided into "students" and "cops."
Pantomiming Intercourse
The educators' notes indicate that they placed a very strong emphasis on sex education. Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse.
According to the records, a "sex exercise" was conducted on Dec. 11 and a "*expletive deleted*ing hour" on Jan. 14. An entry made on Nov. 26 reads: "In general, by lying there we repeatedly provoked, openly or in a hidden way, sexual innuendoes, which were then expressed in pantomimes, which Kurt and Rita performed together on the low table (as a stage) in front of us."
The material introduced the broader public to a byproduct of the student movement for the first time: the sexual liberation of children. Besser passed on the reports to an editor at the West Berlin newspaper Der Abend, who published excerpts of the material. On April 7, 1970, the Berlin state parliament discussed the Rote Freiheit after-school center. As it turned out, the Psychology Institute at the Free University of Berlin was behind the center. In fact, the institute had established the facility and provided the educators who worked there. Besser now believes that it was a concerned employee who dropped off the reports at her door.
-
What I wrote doesn't negate that possibility. I'm only one data point and most of what I saw was from the "environmental" side of the gov (NOAA, NASA, EPA, MMS, etc.). There is no doubt though, that what I saw was the two dem administrations top loading the civil servant (SES, GS-15,14) positions with former higher level people from special interest groups that were "pro-environment". Under Bush, the "top loading" was appointees. Maybe Bush appointees* did the same thing with civil servants in departments I didn't have a lot of contact with, I don't know.
Regardless, the idea of putting people that fit your agenda in high level civil servant positions that outlive administrations, rather than appointee positions, could certainly be argued as "manipulating". It could certainly explain what's happening with Trump with the FBI, etc.
*It's important to note that it wasn't the Presidents doing this stuff, it was their appointees and lower.
I think if you add in some leftist activists among the general left leaning group you mentioned, it wouldn't be too hard steer things certain ways. Certainly enough to do what we have seen. Those activists would know who they could use to do the things they wanted.
-
Certainly enough to do what we have seen. Those activists would know who they could use to do the things they wanted.
Sure. At the local level, more than once I saw a particular employee, after we had an internal meeting, run to his office (next to mine, with the thin walls) and call his friend who was an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, to debrief.
-
You have a very limited imagination.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html (https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html)
Excerpt:
I'm sure I do. This particular example is obviously a conscious attempt to spread the already ongoing sexual revolution. I'd say the sexual revolution was itself organically derived.
Again, transvestism, (holy *expletive deleted*it, I spelled that correctly on the first try) homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. have been recorded in many cultures and areas of the world for longer than our current modern society has existed. When taking a long-term view it seems that where we are today is a natural progression. I'm sure there are people and organizations attempting to manipulate society for their own ends, and sexual mores are certainly a powerful shaper of societal norms. I just think that the drag queen story hour, as misguided and disgusting as it is to me, is a natural expression, not artificial. Those drag queens and the library boards that approve the activities are not going home at night and cackling about how they're ruining society. They may be useful idiots being used by some shadowy organization that is itself attempting to reshape society. However, I was addressing the assertion made by Ron that "transgender acceptance and drag time story hour" is not organic.
-
Considering the way Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and all it's tentacles...Youtube etc, Patreon, nearly every large news outlet whether local/national paper or on cable or broadcast TV, nearly every large corporation, nearly every professional team sports, every Ivy League school and nearly every other university are all on the same social justice page with the lunatic leftists and war mongering neocons...
...how can behind the scenes coordination even be doubted?
Seriously guys?
There are literally billions of dollars that are being moved around globally to reshape societies away from the traditional western world view.
Call "it" whatever you want.
Who is setting the agenda? The common people or the powerful and insanely rich people behind the scenes who are funding the fundamental transformation of the western world?
-
I always am entertained by the implicit assumption that "western culture" was somehow a constant unchanging thing until the rich cabal decided to reshape it that all these conspiracy theories make.
-
I always am entertained by the implicit assumption that "western culture" was somehow a constant unchanging thing until the rich cabal decided to reshape it that all these conspiracy theories make.
The Rothschilds are paying you to say that, aren't they? =D
-
I always am entertained by the implicit assumption that "western culture" was somehow a constant unchanging thing until the rich cabal decided to reshape it that all these conspiracy theories make.
I wouldn't be surprised if that cabal existed since the advent of agriculture, growing ever more powerful, greedy, and sadistic . . . . .
It's a lot easier to stomach than the thought that "all this" is pretty much just random. That's a thought that can unravel many a well-reasoned belief.
-
I always am entertained by the implicit assumption that "western culture" was somehow a constant unchanging thing until the rich cabal decided to reshape it that all these conspiracy theories make.
The "rich cabal" have been there all along.
They built it and they will tear it down if they want. Or maybe they will just replace the worker bees with a less troublesome bunch.
-
I might be reading Ron's posts wrong, so apologies if so. It sounds like he's saying this is a SPECTRE level intricate conspiracy.
I never saw that. To me, it was more of, if you're going to label it something, "Saul Alinsky-ism". A lot of people hired who believe in the Saul Alinsky method of "means justify ends" regardless of any oath of office they took. As I said, R administrations generally cut government, so you don't see any "Ayn Rand" cabals. The dems grow gov, so you're bound to get lots of Alinsky-sympathetic people hired. It's not really coordinated so much as statistical, and that's what leads to a couple of FBI employees who are doing each other and sending text messages back and forth about how to do in the guy they don't like, regardless of the ethics code and constitution they swore to uphold.
If I use "deep state" around here, this is what I mean by it. Not SPECTRE or the Illuminati.
-
I don't think Ron is even talking about a conspiracy. Conspiracies are, by definition, secret. Ron is talking about things done openly. The CFR and Davos are not secret societies. Neither are the schools, or the publishing houses.
-
Accusing people of believing conspiracy theories is how people deflect from looking at the obvious.
Like fistful says, this stuff isn't a secret.
They actually shove it in our faces.
Look at the elites of the Republican Party supporting first Hillary and now Biden.
Look at nearly every large corporation pushing the leftist agenda even when it has nothing to do with their products or services.
Who needs a conspiracy? It's in our faces.
-
Accusing people of believing conspiracy theories is how people deflect from looking at the obvious.
Like fistful says, this stuff isn't a secret.
They actually shove it in our faces.
Look at the elites of the Republican Party supporting first Hillary and now Biden.
Look at nearly every large corporation pushing the leftist agenda even when it has nothing to do with their products or services.
Who needs a conspiracy? It's in our faces.
Look at the attempted coup trying to get Trump impeached on made-up charges. All the investigation files and notes are there to show it was a setup, it just took a while to get them released and made public. For some reason none of them thought anything would come back on them.
-
Look at the attempted coup trying to get Trump impeached on made-up charges. All the investigation files and notes are there to show it was a setup, it just took a while to get them released and made public. For some reason none of them thought anything would come back on them.
So far they've been right
:mad:
-
So far they've been right
:mad:
For some reason...
-
More thoughts on this subject.
Deep State is a placeholder term like Dark Matter.
It is not defined by what it actually is but by its obvious influence on everything.
It is defined by what it is aligned with and promotes as well as what it opposes and works against.
I think of it as the evil, bureaucratic, tyrannical zeitgeist that has possessed the wealthiest and most powerful global self described "masters of the universe".
If we had total knowledge then we could map out a flow chart of how everything interacts and how powerful interests influence the course history. Like everything else in reality there is no doubt a hierarchy. But we don't have that kind of total knowledge and seeking it, to me anyway, is a pointless rabbit hole to disappear down. I don't doubt there is coordination, goals and plans, we even read about in the news. They tell us what they are going to do to us every day.
As a foe or enemy "it" is hard to pin down, "it" is Legion. It is enough for me to see "it" and oppose "it" by shaking my fist at you guys on the internet :old: :laugh:
-
You have a very limited imagination.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html (https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html)
Excerpt:
It's a Brave New World.
-
You have a very limited imagination.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html (https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html)
Excerpt:
Then there is this on Netflix:
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/08/20/netflix-under-fire-over-cuties-a-film-about-11-year-old-girls-and-twerking/
I harp about this on Netflix and Amazon all the time. Not just mainstreaming, but shoving down throats. For instance, whereas a gay character(s) can be an addition that blends with a show because they're just one of the characters, Netflix will go out of their way to do stuff like gay character sex scenes that have zero to do with the plot, pop out of nowhere, and get graphic. In the meantime, the straight characters are all portrayed as platonic friends. You'll see the gay characters kissing all the time, but zero physical affection from the straight characters, even married straight characters.
Schitt's Creek is a good example of that. I thought the first couple of seasons were hilarious, and the gay (I guess technically "pansexual") character was the funniest character on the show. Then (coincidentally after Trump) all you ever saw was him and his gay lover kissing and kissing and kissing. Way longer than any scene would call for. Just overt ramming of the gay agenda, versus assimilating the gay characters without drawing attention to their sexuality.
-
More thoughts on this subject.
Deep State is a placeholder term like Dark Matter.
It is not defined by what it actually is but by its obvious influence on everything.
It is defined by what it is aligned with and promotes as well as what it opposes and works against.
I think of it as the evil, bureaucratic, tyrannical zeitgeist that has possessed the wealthiest and most powerful global self described "masters of the universe".
If we had total knowledge then we could map out a flow chart of how everything interacts and how powerful interests influence the course history. Like everything else in reality there is no doubt a hierarchy. But we don't have that kind of total knowledge and seeking it, to me anyway, is a pointless rabbit hole to disappear down. I don't doubt there is coordination, goals and plans, we even read about in the news. They tell us what they are going to do to us every day.
As a foe or enemy "it" is hard to pin down, "it" is Legion. It is enough for me to see "it" and oppose "it" by shaking my fist at you guys on the internet :old: :laugh:
That is an excellent description.
Here's a bit regarding citizen influence on national policy.
https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig)
-
I might be reading Ron's posts wrong, so apologies if so. It sounds like he's saying this is a SPECTRE level intricate conspiracy.
I never saw that. To me, it was more of, if you're going to label it something, "Saul Alinsky-ism". A lot of people hired who believe in the Saul Alinsky method of "means justify ends" regardless of any oath of office they took. As I said, R administrations generally cut government, so you don't see any "Ayn Rand" cabals. The dems grow gov, so you're bound to get lots of Alinsky-sympathetic people hired. It's not really coordinated so much as statistical, and that's what leads to a couple of FBI employees who are doing each other and sending text messages back and forth about how to do in the guy they don't like, regardless of the ethics code and constitution they swore to uphold.
If I use "deep state" around here, this is what I mean by it. Not SPECTRE or the Illuminati.
Why can't it be both? There are the more regular people affecting things locally and there are people with a lot of money that can use that money to influence things to.
-
When I hear "Deep State" I tend to think of the inertia of top level executive branch actions. Mostly abroad, but that inertia has impact on domestic policy as well.
That inertia has binding effects upon subsequent administrations.
CIA activities executed under one administration will bind the following administration from taking a different tact with a foreign government or issue. Tariffs laid down by one administration to protect particular domestic industries require a lot of effort to reverse if the administration that inherits them disagrees with them. Import policies and quotas from favored nations of one administration might be onerous to the next. And all of those policies/quotas/tariffs/renditions/assassinations/drug smuggling operations have considerable staff making those actions happen, and even private special interests that are well connected, benefiting from their connection with the action. They will defend their livelihood with debate at first, threats secondly, and obfuscation and flat footed resistance in the end.
Very rarely is it top level DHS executive collusion against a candidate they disagree with that wins the Oval Office. But I don't doubt it happened with Trump, and probably has happened in the past as well. JFK comes to mind. And Nixon. Most likely similar things happened during the Carter/Reagan transition, too, but Reagan was able to hammer through it.
-
So far they've been right
:mad:
I thought I heard that one guy who lied on a FISA court warrant has plead guilty. I forget who, but it was a low level guy. We will see if it goes any further.
-
Then there is this on Netflix:
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/08/20/netflix-under-fire-over-cuties-a-film-about-11-year-old-girls-and-twerking/
And this on Twitter today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ef3i5TLWkAAGtI6?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ef3i5TLWkAM8SEz?format=jpg&name=small)
When the 4chan moderators ban your content on morality grounds, it's really time to take a look at yourself.
-
Why can't it be both? There are the more regular people affecting things locally and there are people with a lot of money that can use that money to influence things to.
I guess it can, but I would look at the "money influence" more as the crap Soros pulls, versus a bunch of operatives planted in the in the fed.gov by a mastermind and walking around with burner phones and activation codes.
-
You are leaving out the pull big industry has on our policy.
I've said it many times. Oil, pharmaceuticals, aviation and others have far more pull on our elected and appointed officials than the NRA could ever hope for.
-
You are leaving out the pull big industry has on our policy.
I've said it many times. Oil, pharmaceuticals, aviation and others have far more pull on our elected and appointed officials than the NRA could ever hope for.
Unions
-
I guess it can, but I would look at the "money influence" more as the crap Soros pulls, versus a bunch of operatives planted in the in the fed.gov by a mastermind and walking around with burner phones and activation codes.
I must have missed the post where anyone suggested that was what was going on.
-
Former Republican CIA, FBI heads and national security officials to back Biden:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-republicans/former-republican-cia-fbi-heads-and-national-security-officials-to-back-biden-idUSKBN25G2C5
Republican spooks, top cops and national security officials are on record, they actually want Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to be the ones "running" the country.
First off, do you really think that they believe the Democrat leadership is competent?
Second, do you really think that Joe, Kamala, Nancy and Chuck are going to be doing anything other than taking orders from somebody if Biden wins?
-
1. No. I think Trump is doing something they don't like (or their sponsors don't like). He is actually seems to be reducing numbers of troops overseas and using a realistic plan for peace in the ME that might actually lead to something. I think some people stand to lose if that happens.
2. I don't know if they are "taking orders", but people that contribute money their way will get them to do what they want.
The funny part of that letter is the things they listed that they accused Trump of doing looks like a list of things that Democrat administrations (and some or all R's) have been doing for decades.
-
Former Republican CIA, FBI heads and national security officials to back Biden:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-republicans/former-republican-cia-fbi-heads-and-national-security-officials-to-back-biden-idUSKBN25G2C5
Republican spooks, top cops and national security officials are on record, they actually want Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to be the ones "running" the country.
Further proof that, as undignified as he is as a human being, and as unprofessional and undiplomatic he is as a President ... Trump must be doing something right because he has all the right people against him.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if that cabal existed since the advent of agriculture, growing ever more powerful, greedy, and sadistic . . . . .
It's a lot easier to stomach than the thought that "all this" is pretty much just random. That's a thought that can unravel many a well-reasoned belief.
Large stature humans, with oddly shaped (elongated) skulls, and reddish hair, dating from deep, deep prehistory. Those skulls, when found archeologically, have unusual features.
Yeah, I used to read the Vault-co blog.
-
I might be reading Ron's posts wrong, so apologies if so. It sounds like he's saying this is a SPECTRE level intricate conspiracy.
I never saw that. To me, it was more of, if you're going to label it something, "Saul Alinsky-ism". A lot of people hired who believe in the Saul Alinsky method of "means justify ends" regardless of any oath of office they took. As I said, R administrations generally cut government, so you don't see any "Ayn Rand" cabals.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Oh, you so funny. R.s are just less relentless and focused. Good old boy graft.
If I use "deep state" around here, this is what I mean by it. Not SPECTRE or the Illuminati.
Amazing how quickly, anymore, we get to trying to suss out conspiracies.
-
I believe it exists, and I believe that it is nearly all-powerful. To me, the "deep state" is the entrenched bureaucracy that exists from the lowest levels of civil service employees up to the highest level immediately beneath the political appointee level -- the career bureaucrats. They are the people who know how to get things done in the swamp, and they are also the people who know how to delay, obfuscate, and derail anything that an administration wants done but they (the deep state operators) don't agree with.
One example:
Many years ago, as a practicing architect I had a small contract with a small public housing authority. The project was to be funded by HUD, so I was asked to sign a HUD contract. The contract required that I carry professional liability insurance. The contract also included thirteen (13) specific requirements that were specifically and explicitly excluded from coverage under standard architect and engineer professional liability insurance.
.....
This kind of stuff is why I'm tending to "indifferent" in the current societal churn. The antifas or whoever they are, are a mob. I don't want them to win. But, the system as it is, isn't really just either, just less violent.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Oh, you so funny. R.s are just less relentless and focused. Good old boy graft.
I should have been more precise and said they generally cut offices or freeze FTEs, thus lowering the number of feds hired during R administrations. Certainly their ability to grow debt by spending money elsewhere is on par with dems.
-
I should have been more precise and said they generally cut offices or freeze FTEs, thus lowering the number of feds hired during R administrations. Certainly their ability to grow debt by spending money elsewhere is on par with dems.
There are a few R's I like, but many are just BigGov authoritarians who happen to not be leftists.
-
Democrat: international socialist
Republican: national socialist
That is the only difference.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2020/08/28/a-tyranny-perpetual-and-universal/
But the experience of Trump’s first term reveals how weak the presidency really is—not just constitutionally and historically, but, above all, currently. We know the enumerated powers the president is supposed to have, and also those the other branches of government are supposed to have, and not have. The Constitution and other fundamental charters of our liberties—the “parchment”—spell all that out. We also know what the “org chart” of the federal government looks like on paper: a “unitary executive” with an alphabet soup of agencies reporting to the president and therefore, in theory, responsive to his directives.
But the reality, by now, should be obvious to everyone. Our government in no way functions according to the elevated words on the parchment, and President Trump does not control the executive branch. I say this not to disparage the president but only to state a plain fact. No doubt, he has done his best. I doubt that anyone else could have done better. But while facing a near-universal rebellion from every power center in our society, emphatically including the agencies he was elected to lead, naturally he has found it very difficult to make the federal bureaucracy do what he tells it to do.
That difficulty has astonished even me. I worked in the federal bureaucracy for the first four years of the first George W. Bush Administration. I saw from the inside how the permanent government or administrative state or “deep state” or whatever you want to call it undermined a president with whom they mostly agreed. I knew in advance that, were Donald Trump to win the 2016 election, the effort to undercut him from within would dwarf what happened to Bush. For unlike the 43rd president, who merely held a few opinions unpopular with the deep state, the 45th ran on a program of almost complete repudiation of ruling class dogma and practice.
And yet I vastly underestimated how bad the “resistance” would be. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies would try to frame the president with a phony “crime,” launch a pointless two-year investigation over a fraud, then impeach him over the timing of foreign aid payments, all the while lying daily to the American public.
I also saw, again, the beast from the inside during my brief tenure in President Trump’s White House. Given classification and nondisclosure requirements, I can’t say much about that. But I can say this: if anything changed from my time in the Bush Administration, it is that the deep state is vastly more powerful today than it was then, and vastly more willing to use its power—overtly—to flout, undermine, circumvent, and disobey presidential orders. Even, in many cases, to do the precise opposite of what they’ve been ordered.
-
https://amgreatness.com/2020/08/28/a-tyranny-perpetual-and-universal/
Good read.
-
Anton again. I hope he is wrong otherwise we really are f'ed.
As if 2020 were not insane enough already, we now have Democrats and their ruling class masters openly talking about staging a coup. You might have missed it, what with the riots, lockdowns and other daily mayhem we’re forced to endure in this, the most wretched year of my lifetime. But it’s happening.
It started with the military brass quietly indicating that the troops should not follow a presidential order. They were bolstered by many former generals—including President Trump’s own first Secretary of Defense—who stated openly what the brass would only hint at. Then, as nationwide riots really got rolling in early June, the sitting Secretary of Defense himself all but publicly told the president not to invoke the Insurrection Act. His implicit message was: “Mr. President, don’t tell us to do that, because we won’t, and you know what happens after that.”
All this enthused Joe Biden, who threw subtlety to the winds. The former United States Senator (for 26 years) and Vice President (for eight) has not once, not twice, but thrice confidently asserted that the military will “escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch” should the president refuse to leave. Another former Vice President, Al Gore, publicly agreed.
https://americanmind.org/essays/the-coming-coup/?fbclid=IwAR2r9CZqinaSJlrCqSbbR0b-53Ryvov6LNscDMkE80sga38Xj1oR53wXcg4
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNo4YbugnWk
The Verdict with Ted Cruz.
At one point in this, Ted Cruz talked about the election process if the electoral college cannot come to a decision. The decision does go to the House, but he said every state has one vote and R's have a slight majority though a couple states are tied.
He did mention what would happen if the House refuses to hold a vote. Some democrats think that after January, the President and VP would be out of office and it would fall to the succession plan. He said it was new territory. I imagine the SC was be involved before that point. Of course, if the R's win back the House, the new Congress is sworn in before the Presidential Inauguration.
-
The story I heard on the Insurrection Act was the President was advised not to declare that in order to stop the rioting. They didn't want to send federal troops in to shut down the rioting. I would say the people saying it would be bad press are likely correct.
What I heard was the Feds have deputized local/state police in some areas and Federal Prosecutors are taking over the prosecution of known rioters.
Not sure if news sites are mentioning it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eem98To347c
Antifa Puts Out ALERT As FBI Starts Rounding Them Up One By One, Trump is WINNING
-
And this on Twitter today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ef3i5TLWkAAGtI6?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ef3i5TLWkAM8SEz?format=jpg&name=small)
When the 4chan moderators ban your content on morality grounds, it's really time to take a look at yourself.
Ya think? I just love that people who defend Netflix are asking anti-Cuties commenters, "Have you seen it?" So now you must watch child pron in order to denounce something as child pron.
-
Ben Shapiro gave a pretty balanced review of it. On the one hand he said it legitimately contained a message against the premature sexualization of girls, but presented it in a way that reveled in it.
Sounds like a reasonable perspective, and good enough to save me from having to watch it myself.
-
Some things once seen cannot be unseen.
The medium is the message, not the story line.
Instead of revulsion at the thought of watching borderline "soft" child pornography it now becomes an artistic expression and the narrative isn't that this is an outrage but that that it is just another point of view and needs to be discussed further.
Paging Hegel, paging Cthulhu ...
-
Some things once seen cannot be unseen.
The medium is the message, not the story line.
Instead of revulsion at the thought of watching borderline "soft" child pornography it now becomes an artistic expression and the narrative isn't that this is an outrage but that that it is just another point of view and needs to be discussed further.
Paging Hegel, paging Cthulhu ...
Pretty much. I know there are cops and judges and magistrates whose job it is to look at chomo pron so they can convict the creeps. I don't insist on reviewing all of the evidence. In the same way, I'll trust the people who are reporting on this movie. Then again, I'm pretty sure no one of any age should be doing that stuff or dressing that way in public, so...