Thursday, November 3, 2016

RT — Assange: WikiLeaks did not receive Clinton emails from Russian govt (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

In a John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast by RT on Saturday courtesy of Dartmouth Films, whistleblower Julian Assange categorically denied that the troves of US Democratic Party and Clinton work and staff emails released this year have come from the Russian government.…
Looks like it could be a revolt in the deep state.

RT
Assange: WikiLeaks did not receive Clinton emails from Russian govt (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

9 comments:

Matt Franko said...

But I thought Hillary/Obama were the 'deep state'????

Tom Hickey said...

They are the surface state.

Matt Franko said...

I guess I need a new score card....

Tom Hickey said...

I guess I need a new score card....

That is the point of the surface state v. deep state.

The surface state is the people that stand for election and their principal appointees, although often the principal appointees also belong to or have strong ties to the deep state, so the boundaries are vague. But someone moving between the surface state and the deep state is a tell. For example, DefSec Chuck Hagel emerged from the surface state, while Ash Carter from the deep state.

The deep state is the haute bureaucracy (Russian nomenklatura) and intelligence services (Russian sloviki) who maintain the continuity of policy across administrations. They are not elected and occupy key positions that ensure their continuity. They are mentors and promote proteges.

As far as I can tell, the deep state began to emerge in its present form during WWII with the rising importance of the intelligence services (over 40 branches). It became established post-WWII with Truman establishing the CIA to coordinate US intelligence. The deep state took of at the outset of the Cold War in the Eisenhower administration with the close interconnection of the US State Department, CIA, and the military-industrial complex, with a revolving door linking civilian government, paramilitary intelligence, the military and industry. Then think tanks like RAND Corp were added to the network. Ike indicated that he was already concerned about it. Events bore that out.

This informal network became the US foreign policy and military establishment that forms the core of the US deep state. It is somewhat similar to the "neoliberal conspiracy" that runs Anglo-American policy from the economic side. If one tries to get too specific about it, it degenerates into conspiracy theory. Rather, these are webs of interrelated interest and power in which the connections are loose.

One of the most influential NGO think tanks is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which publishes Foreign Policy. There's a lot of conspiracy theory swirling around it, like other groups that bring together the movers and shakers —Bilderburg, Davos and Bohemian Grove. Most of that is just that — conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theories are based on a germ of truth.

continued

Tom Hickey said...

continuation

The inner circles of these groups are part of a network of key players whose views and decisions are decisive in the world. I would not put CFR or these other orgs as part of the deep state, but they are all part of a network of elites, often competing as well as cooperating. "What good for America" means what's good in general for the network of elites, and through there are tradeoffs among factions of the elite that form different elites — financial (Wall Street"), industrial (formerly "Detroit"), technological ("Silicon Valley"), etc.

For the most part, this all happen as a result of shared interests and voluntary cooperation in achieving them. Elites both cooperate and compete. They generally regard as in their interest to have government policy remain relatively constant as long as it favors their interests. The deep state in government generally promotes those interests globally.

For example, Pete Peterson is a member of this network made up of sub-networks, inner circles and "secret handshakes." How far inside he is, I don't know. But his promotion of the market state over the welfare state through his advocacy of sound finance fits the plan to transfer social spending to military spending as well as to promote the interests of finance and industry that "make America strong."

This network is a curious mix of nationalists championing Anglo-American exceptionalism and globalists favoring transnational capitalism. A third chief force is the Anglo-American Zionist library, often called the "Israel lobby," incorrectly I believe because it promotes not the interest of Israel as a nation but a particular view of it interns of its domestic politics and internationally with respect to geopolitics and geostrategy.

The deep state is one sub-network in the larger network of "the establishment" that comprises the elite in terms of status, power and influence, and wealth. It is bipartisan wrt its interprets but there are competing factions of the elite, such as industry v. finance. Different politicians and parties cultivate relationships with different factions of the elite. But they are all subject to the influence of the deep state wrt to foreign and military policy because the deep state produces and controls this vital information.

Joe said...

Tom, I assume you've read Imperial Brain Trust about the cfr? Pretty old at this point but gives good historical background on how during/after ww2 various academics, business leaders, and government officials worked closely to plan the post war international order.

Tom Hickey said...

I view all this an example of massive groupthink that is self-reinforcing and self-augmenting rather than as a "conspiracy." Were and are there some actually conspiracies. Very likely, but the overall problem is with groupthink.

This particular groupthink is about a vision of America, who should rule it, and America's place in the world.

This group (network) involves a whole lot of people but still only a tiny percentage of Americans.

Some are more powerful and influential that others and they know each other. Do they "conspire" to promote their interests and achieve their ends. It would be naïve to think not.

Moreover, those at the top of the pyramid are not only able to promote groupthink but also to influence it strongly, if not control it.

This is unsurprising since it is the things have operated historically on a global scale. Anywhere there is a group, especially where interests are involved, there is political, power and political maneuvering. There are mutual interest, wink-wink relationships, and whispering behind the scenes out of hearing.

Think serfs, transpeople, minor nobility, landed nobility (with different size fiefdoms), the palace court, royal advisers, the monarch intimates, the monarch' family, and the monarch. Similar structures are found in most political situations.

The US "inherited" the British imperial position post WWII as the nation that controlled air and seas. FDR cemented that on leaving Yalta and directing his ship to set course for the ME, where a meeting with King Said was prearranged. FDR concluded a deal wrt to oil that shut Britain out of the game. Upstaged and outsmarted, Churchill tried to reverse it unsuccessfully.

Where things became very different post WWII was the decision not only not to disarm but also to ramp up against the USSR ("Russia") and Red China. Then the stakes became huge, the amounts of money involved astronomically, and the politics Machiavellian.

US elite network groupthink is still in this mode, even though conditions have shifted greatly and are very much in flux.

The American people are along for the ride unless there is a fourth "spiritual awakening" that results in a new way of thinking about America and its place.

Meanwhile the rest of the world stands by watching with bated breath, unable to do much about it — excepting Putin and Xi.

Bob said...

The kind of group think that gets us all killed is in no one's interest.

Tom Hickey said...

The history of human on human conflict is not reassuring. Starts with males siblings and escalates.