With elections looming in the US, UK and EU, it’s worth examining the term “Deep State” being used by populists in the hope of understanding their perspective.
I’ve been enjoying your analyses over the last several months. It’s always clear-eyed, fair, and unsentimental. This article continues that trend, and it gives an accurate picture of the populist right but also provides insight into the perspective of the entrenched elites. Once again, excellent work.
The 'blunders' of the deep state spring from the imperative of the profit motive, neocolonialism and capital accumulation organized within the Western Collective project. Capitalism doesn't follow a logical path, it is open to contradictions. For example, Western industry was outsourced to China and parts of Asia because of low labour costs, which backfired. Iraq was invaded not just because of its oil, but to ensure control over access to its oil necessary to maintain US hegemony and consumer markets. This again backfired, with Iran aligned with Iraqi forces. Any sign of independence from the IMF is a threat to Western capitalist interests, and leaders such as Hussein, Ghaddafi and Assad must be removed. China moves in instead. The populist view does not incorporate the contradictions inherent in the political economy of capitalism. This is something socialists do. I would like to see a blend between the two (populist, socialist) perspectives, which would solidify critique and unite opposition to elites in power from both sides of the political spectrum, left and right.
I remember wondering how the Roman Empire continued when there were no longer any significant quantity of ethnic romans left. We see the answer in the American empire - the organization brings in new blood which gain a stake. It's easier to jockey for power inside an existing organization than leave and create your own.
I remember this cute Venezuelan girl who'd grown up in a favela, but attebded law school after coming to the USA. Traditional girl, and when it came to Venezuelan politics as right wing as could be. When it came to the politics of the United States, however, she was the reverse - and she has become an unwitting regime toady. I think she married a state dept guy; she definitely was "very concerned" over the 'vid. She's just one example; I meet so many ppl like this. The regime plays divide and conquer, not even particularly adeptly, but at massive scale
I’ve been enjoying your analyses over the last several months. It’s always clear-eyed, fair, and unsentimental. This article continues that trend, and it gives an accurate picture of the populist right but also provides insight into the perspective of the entrenched elites. Once again, excellent work.
Thank you! That's very kind of you!
You’re welcome.
The 'blunders' of the deep state spring from the imperative of the profit motive, neocolonialism and capital accumulation organized within the Western Collective project. Capitalism doesn't follow a logical path, it is open to contradictions. For example, Western industry was outsourced to China and parts of Asia because of low labour costs, which backfired. Iraq was invaded not just because of its oil, but to ensure control over access to its oil necessary to maintain US hegemony and consumer markets. This again backfired, with Iran aligned with Iraqi forces. Any sign of independence from the IMF is a threat to Western capitalist interests, and leaders such as Hussein, Ghaddafi and Assad must be removed. China moves in instead. The populist view does not incorporate the contradictions inherent in the political economy of capitalism. This is something socialists do. I would like to see a blend between the two (populist, socialist) perspectives, which would solidify critique and unite opposition to elites in power from both sides of the political spectrum, left and right.
I remember wondering how the Roman Empire continued when there were no longer any significant quantity of ethnic romans left. We see the answer in the American empire - the organization brings in new blood which gain a stake. It's easier to jockey for power inside an existing organization than leave and create your own.
I remember this cute Venezuelan girl who'd grown up in a favela, but attebded law school after coming to the USA. Traditional girl, and when it came to Venezuelan politics as right wing as could be. When it came to the politics of the United States, however, she was the reverse - and she has become an unwitting regime toady. I think she married a state dept guy; she definitely was "very concerned" over the 'vid. She's just one example; I meet so many ppl like this. The regime plays divide and conquer, not even particularly adeptly, but at massive scale