What is the Deep State?

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

The idea of voter suppression goes way back, almost thirty years.  When the GOP knew that they could not win if more people voted.  So they decided to try and limit the vote, and to gerrymander districts.  

That would do the trick.  If you are not aware of these gerrymandering tactics, you should be.  Because this is how the GOP controls both statehouses and congress, that is the House.

The amazing thing to me is how late the Dems were in getting on to this.  And, in fact, Obama is now trying to counter it.

As per voting machines, that come out of Florida 2000. Which the Dems lost in two ways.  We got an Scalia appointed president, and the hanging chads gave us Diebold.

I have to say though that the last federal cyber voting guy, Krebs, did a nice job on checking those out and decreeing their accuracy which is why Trump fired him.

[Paul Brancato]

I forgot to mention gerrymandering. Interesting how the NY Democrats just got nailed by the courts for attempting the same. But without gerrymandering several red states including Texas would be blue. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please Pat.

Are you completely unaware with how badly HRC ran that campaign.

And the Trump forces knew it. 

As explained in the book Shattered, she thought she had certain Northeast rust belt states in the bag.  Therefore she did not visit some of them as often as she should have, some she did not visit at all for the last two months.

The Trump campaign noticed this, just like any moron would.  They decided to counter it.  They actually visited some of those states, more than HRC did.  And in some instances, it was not even close.  And the other factor was this: Trump conned the public with his image as a change agent, that he was going to protect and restore American jobs.  That is what really put the kabosh on the HRC campaign.  And this is proven by the exit polls and post election focus groups.

That book actually notes that Bill Clinton did not agree with this strategy. He also did not agree with the media focused tactics.  He thought HRC should be doing more work in public to try and convince the people she really was a change agent. Bill was sidelined.

The polls did not all miss.  Three of them said Trump would win. And 538 said it was going to be closer than the MSM said it was.

HRC and Robbie Mook ran an uninspiring, insipid and lack luster campaign.  She just did not give people a real reason to vote for her.  And she had all the advantages over Trump, including almost twice as much money. Nobody took Trump seriously, including HRC.  In politics, that is always a big mistake. 

Well, you clearly never read my series of articles on the election. The number of young people and minorities who came out to vote for Hillary more than offset the number of anger and religion-fueled whites who crawled out to vote for Trump. The problem, as has been pointed out, is that those young people and minorities were in states she was probably gonna win anyway. So her strategy could have been better.

But it wasn't because of a sudden rush of poor unemployed whites in the rust-belt states. The blue-turned-red states had better than average economies and lower than average unemployment. The people in these states who switched to Trump did so for cultural reasons, not economic reasons. (Note: this was missed by most every pundit in the aftermath of the election, but I wrote about this within days of the election, and it was months before anyone in the mainstream media caught up with me... Yep, that's me, giving myself a pat on the back.) In any event,  there was a sudden re-assessment by the mainstream media late in 2017 where they finally came to realize we were in the midst of a culture war, and that economics had little to do with the 2016 election. White Christians saw their way of life in danger and reflexively voted for the guy who told them they were the only real Americans. That was what it was about. Dems had aligned themselves with browns, gays, and Darwin, and that broke the bond they'd had with small town and rural pro-union whites that had once been a part of their coalition. We saw the same thing in the 60's, when Nixon broke a chunk off the Democratic coalition by going after Wallace voters. Well, it happened again. Former union people, many of them retired, voted for Trump because he made them feel good about themselves, in much the same way Fox News made them feel good about themselves. They were AMERICANS, and Trump was gonna MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, by upholding American values, and applauding those who chose to buy a pick-up truck and a gun rather than pursue a higher education. 

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I forgot to mention gerrymandering. Interesting how the NY Democrats just got nailed by the courts for attempting the same. But without gerrymandering several red states including Texas would be blue. 

Paul, gerrymandering has been going on for many many years by both parties but the right has reached a new level in the last 20 - 30 years.  I'm no expert but do recommend Rat F**ked by David Daley.  The technology amazes me, the secrecy and unscrupulousness are astounding.  If you have amazon prime the book is only $11.99, with the author getting a little of that I think.  Or, a used copy is $1.38 plus 3.98 shipping (hardcover).  Read the 271 reviews giving it overall a 4.5.

Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count: Daley, David: 9781631493218: Books: Amazon.com   

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Both And - That Ms. Clinton ran a poor campaign doesn’t mean that Republicans didn’t cheat their way to the White House. 

Paul-

What you and others are saying is--

1. Voting machines are hackable. 

2. Others have pointed out there are risks in mailing out millions of ballots and allowing absentee drop-box voting. This invites ballot-harvesting, and has been debated since at least 2004.  

OK, then you draw the conclusion that only one major political party engages in gaming the system. 

The 2016 Clinton campaign had double or triple the money of the Trump campaign, and hundreds of years more campaign experience. 

Really, an under-financed talk-show host (Trump)t, and his campaign staff of outsiders and amateurs, made it close, and won in the Electoral College. 

From this you deduce Trump (who was deeply unpopular even in the establishment GOP) gamed the system. If voting machines were hacked, it was by Trump. If ballots were harvested, it was by Trump.

Don't you think it is time to stop drinking the red or blue kool-aid?  

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, you clearly never read my series of articles on the election. The number of young people and minorities who came out to vote for Hillary more than offset the number of anger and religion-fueled whites who crawled out to vote for Trump. The problem, as has been pointed out, is that those young people and minorities were in states she was probably gonna win anyway. So her strategy could have been better.

But it wasn't because of a sudden rush of poor unemployed whites in the rust-belt states. The blue-turned-red states had better than average economies and lower than average unemployment. The people in these states who switched to Trump did so for cultural reasons, not economic reasons. (Note: this was missed by most every pundit in the aftermath of the election, but I wrote about this within days of the election, and it was months before anyone in the mainstream media caught up with me... Yep, that's me, giving myself a pat on the back.) In any event,  there was a sudden re-assessment by the mainstream media late in 2017 where they finally came to realize we were in the midst of a culture war, and that economics had little to do with the 2016 election. White Christians saw their way of life in danger and reflexively voted for the guy who told them they were the only real Americans. That was what it was about. Dems had aligned themselves with browns, gays, and Darwin, and that broke the bond they'd had with small town and rural pro-union whites that had once been a part of their coalition. We saw the same thing in the 60's, when Nixon broke a chunk off the Democratic coalition by going after Wallace voters. Well, it happened again. Former union people, many of them retired, voted for Trump because he made them feel good about themselves, in much the same way Fox News made them feel good about themselves. They were AMERICANS, and Trump was gonna MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, by upholding American values, and applauding those who chose to buy a pick-up truck and a gun rather than pursue a higher education. 

"and applauding those who chose to buy a pick-up truck and a gun rather than pursue a higher education."--PS

This dispirits me about the New Donks.  This simple contemptuous stereotyping of "the other"---people who do not vote like you. 

They must all be racist hillbillies, and people who work with their hands are a lot of dopes. 

Riddle me this: When was the last time the Donks made wages the big issue of the campaign instead of ID politics?

When was the last time the Donks advocated against more foreign interventionism, or the $1.4 trillion annual security budget?

When was the last time the Donks advocated trade and immigration policies that worked for the American middle class? 

This red-blue kool-aid pissing contest is waste of time. A diversion.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"and applauding those who chose to buy a pick-up truck and a gun rather than pursue a higher education."--PS

This dispirits me about the New Donks.  This simple contemptuous stereotyping of "the other"---people who do not vote like you. 

They must all be racist hillbillies, and people who work with their hands are a lot of dopes. 

Riddle me this: When was the last time the Donks made wages the big issue of the campaign instead of ID politics?

When was the last time the Donks advocated against more foreign interventionism, or the $1.4 trillion annual security budget?

When was the last time the Donks advocated trade and immigration policies that worked for the American middle class? 

This red-blue kool-aid pissing contest is waste of time. A diversion.

 

 

 

You're working from some incorrect assumptions. 

1. I'm not unfairly stereotyping Trump voters. I did months of research on Trump voters vs. Hillary voters, and Trump voters had far more guns and drove far more pick-up trucks than Hillary voters. (They also liked softball, strawberry ice cream and were far more interested in penis enlargement.)  While they were slightly more likely to have a high-school education than Hillary voters, they were far less likely to have a college education, or accept accepted science, like evolution. 

2. The economy was not the main factor in the election. Trump states, by and large, had lower unemployment rates than Hillary states. A number of the states, such as the Dakotas and Wyoming, were incredibly prosperous during the Obama years. And yet they voted for Trump and Republicans in general like never before. It was a culture war. Trump declared war on brown people, people who didn't speak English or worship Christ, LGBTQ people, educated women who "didn't know their place," etc. We saw this with Reagan. He promised to take the country from the 80's back to the 50's. Trump tried to take it back to the 20's, only with Mussolini as President.  

P.S. I am not now and never have been a Democrat. My father was a Republican booster in the 60's. He threw parties for Barry Goldwater, Jr. And my hero was Abraham Lincoln. As a result I could never register as a Democrat and have been an Independent since the 70's. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're working from some incorrect assumptions. 

1. I'm not unfairly stereotyping Trump voters. I did months of research on Trump voters vs. Hillary voters, and Trump voters had far more guns and drove far more pick-up trucks than Hillary voters. (They also liked softball, strawberry ice cream and were far more interested in penis enlargement.)  While they were slightly more likely to have a high-school education than Hillary voters, they were far less likely to have a college education, or accept accepted science, like evolution. 

2. The economy was not the main factor in the election. Trump states, by and large, had lower unemployment rates than Hillary states. A number of the states, such as the Dakotas and Wyoming, were incredibly prosperous during the Obama years. And yet they voted for Trump and Republicans in general like never before. It was a culture war. Trump declared war on brown people, people who didn't speak English or worship Christ, LGBTQ people, educated women who "didn't know their place," etc. We saw this with Reagan. He promised to take the country from the 80's back to the 50's. Trump tried to take it back to the 20's, only with Mussolini as President.  

P.S. I am not now and never have been a Democrat. My father was a Republican booster in the 60's. He threw parties for Barry Goldwater, Jr. And my hero was Abraham Lincoln. As a result I could never register as a Democrat and have been an Independent since the 70's. 

PS-

OK, accepted.

However, what would you think of a researcher who typified American black males as criminals, due to higher crime rates among American black males? 

Indeed, how would you feel about a researcher who merely identified  American black males as "crime-prone"? 

Should we not extend the same courtesies and benefit of the doubt to all fellow human beings? 

[Paul Brancato]

On 6/4/2022 at 5:54 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul-

What you and others are saying is--

1. Voting machines are hackable. 

2. Others have pointed out there are risks in mailing out millions of ballots and allowing absentee drop-box voting. This invites ballot-harvesting, and has been debated since at least 2004.  

OK, then you draw the conclusion that only one major political party engages in gaming the system. 

The 2016 Clinton campaign had double or triple the money of the Trump campaign, and hundreds of years more campaign experience. 

Really, an under-financed talk-show host (Trump)t, and his campaign staff of outsiders and amateurs, made it close, and won in the Electoral College. 

From this you deduce Trump (who was deeply unpopular even in the establishment GOP) gamed the system. If voting machines were hacked, it was by Trump. If ballots were harvested, it was by Trump.

Don't you think it is time to stop drinking the red or blue kool-aid?  

 

 

I actually didn’t say what you interpreted. I’m making a logical point that one does not preclude the other. 

[Paul Brancato]

On 6/4/2022 at 6:02 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

This red-blue kool-aid pissing contest is waste of time. A diversion.

 

Ben - that is too simplistic for my taste. It’s important to understand the deep rift between the two parties, and in American opinion since the beginning. Of course third parties, Deep State, etc uses this division, and sometimes feeds it deliberately, to maintain and consolidate power. I think our analysis should avoid white and black thinking and instead focus on the myriad shades of gray. Are you really going to deny that the increasing multicultural makeup of our society isn’t deeply troubling to today’s Republicans? They campaign largely for the white vote, and all their tricks are aimed at reducing the power of ‘brown’ people in governing the states and Federal government by restricting voter rights. There’s nothing at all new here, but over time the parties have shifted their relative positions on racial issues. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ben - that is too simplistic for my taste. It’s important to understand the deep rift between the two parties, and in American opinion since the beginning. Of course third parties, Deep State, etc uses this division, and sometimes feeds it deliberately, to maintain and consolidate power. I think our analysis should avoid white and black thinking and instead focus on the myriad shades of gray. Are you really going to deny that the increasing multicultural makeup of our society isn’t deeply troubling to today’s Republicans? They campaign largely for the white vote, and all their tricks are aimed at reducing the power of ‘brown’ people in governing the states and Federal government by restricting voter rights. There’s nothing at all new here, but over time the parties have shifted their relative positions on racial issues. 

 

I feel like you might have misunderstood Ben here, Paul. It could be my error also. I have a question for you or @Benjamin Cole. 
 

What are the Deep State motivations of multicultural policy or homogenous policy in the respective 2 party system?
 

Are you guys just arguing on separate strata’s? It seems to me that the actual motivations are somewhat esoteric.

We can see that the Dems love the influx of cheap labour, which serves big corporations and gives them maids or servants for peanuts. Under the guise of compassion it’s an easy sell. It triggers the basic emotions of their supporter base. 
 

The Republicans are still longing for how America was and basking in that idea of exceptionalism, which in their view was ultimately linked to one race (even though America is a nation of migrants). That made them feel chosen or special at the height of empire, the same with the British, Romans etc. This idea is easy to sell and perpetuate and it also plays to the basic primeval instincts of the supporter base. 

For the Deep State it serves as a huge distraction, it leaves America teetering on the edge of oblivion, or at least heavily fractured. Divide and rule, no unity equals a weak nation. Have you ever read about the Kalergi Plan? He was one of the godfathers of the EU project, funded by the Warburg's.
Lets just say that the objective is to break down nationalism and create a neutral society where every citizen has no proud heritage or attachments to the past. You desire a neutral society and one world government, with Orwell’s “1984” control, a submissive populous with no alternatives. The thing is; you have to break down the old culture and traditions to achieve that. You can’t just sell it to the population, you have to do it incrementally, slowly, or they’ll be revolt. You can’t make it look like a whitewash, to avoid revolution it must look like a fair contest, a natural transition which was the will of the people. We might have a look at China and what it has done to its population, the subservience and state control thats been achieved. If you were to try to do that to the west, a dominant culture, how would you achieve that? 

The Deep State goal would be a bonafide caste system, where nobody is voted in or out and which guarantees wealth in perpetuity for them. To have a society so distracted that they don’t see the chains that bind them. The rigged game just gets more rigged, at the expense of a poor and middle class that has become one, with no opportunity for upward mobility. You can’t see this if you are focussed on the minutia, only the macro view. 
 

Can you see these world governing bodies and power structures creeping in and increasing in scope and strength? WEF, WHO, NATO, IMF, International bank of Settlements etc etc. They’re forming almost unassailable global power structures. They’re manoeuvring right before our eyes and your two parties are handing national resources and power over to them. What is the end result? 
 

PS I’ve not checked this one for spelling or grammar. 
 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Chris - I would question your statement that Dems like the cheap labor of immigrants. I’d say that’s not solely the province of the Democrats. Let’s focus on non white citizens and the difference between the parties on that demographic. Why do they overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Sure they get lip service and tokenism, but by and large they see clearly the stark differences.The Republicans are pretty much united behind Trump, and tend to move in lockstep. The Democrats are deeply divided, despite their efforts to smooth over internal conflicts. I don’t see an equivalent in the Republican Party to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. It could not happen. She and other Democrats who call themselves Democratic Socialists, and actual socialists like Bernie Sanders, find themselves backed into an uncomfortable corner, not because they are corrupted by big money but rather because they are confronted by an intransigent Republican Party. They are forced to take the long view and hope that the change they campaigned on and stand for, rarely covered by msm, will be furthered by compromising with the corporate wing of the party for the sake of unity. All kinds of shenanigans go on, but at least the Democrats have progressives in their ranks. It’s a much more diverse party, and not just in appearance. They are not tools of hidden actors. For me it’s the only bright spot in a very dark political landscape. Their stated goals are not Deep State priorities - things like universal healthcare and preschool, affordable college education,  freedom of reproductive choice, much higher minimum wage. The obstacles they face are represented both by Republicans and corporate Democrats. If there is a Deep State, the Democratic Progressives are their enemy. 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ben - that is too simplistic for my taste. It’s important to understand the deep rift between the two parties, and in American opinion since the beginning. Of course third parties, Deep State, etc uses this division, and sometimes feeds it deliberately, to maintain and consolidate power. I think our analysis should avoid white and black thinking and instead focus on the myriad shades of gray. Are you really going to deny that the increasing multicultural makeup of our society isn’t deeply troubling to today’s Republicans? They campaign largely for the white vote, and all their tricks are aimed at reducing the power of ‘brown’ people in governing the states and Federal government by restricting voter rights. There’s nothing at all new here, but over time the parties have shifted their relative positions on racial issues. 

 

Paul-

It is unfortunate that America is riven by ID politics, now expanded to include a range of people, such as sexual preferences, immigrants, and people with disabilities. 

Both parties seem to thrive on exacerbating ID politics--while deep-sixing class interpretations of the US economic system and macroeconomic policies. 

Even the Donks, a couple generations ago aligned with labor, today never talk about, say, cutting taxes on wages, but always about ID politics. 

The Donks have become the party of globalist-billionaire donors and upper-class "progressives," the managerial class that has relatively benefitted from the neo-con and neo-liberal world of global trade and finance, and open borders for cheap labor. 

I care little if the US is multi-cultural or not.  

It is unfortunate that the populist wing of the GOP is taking positions that the Donks should on trade and immigration. 

Think about what issues are fanned constantly in the M$M, and how little these issues play in economic prosperity for the employee class: Abortion, gay rights, ID politics, gun control, foreign threats, domestic subversives. Trump, all the time, Trump. 

You don't think you are being played? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul-

It is unfortunate that America is riven by ID politics, now expanded to include a range of people, such as sexual preferences, immigrants, and people with disabilities. 

Both parties seem to thrive on exacerbating ID politics--while deep-sixing class interpretations of the US economic system and macroeconomic policies. 

Even the Donks, a couple generations ago aligned with labor, today never talk about, say, cutting taxes on wages, but always about ID politics. 

The Donks have become the party of globalist-billionaire donors and upper-class "progressives," the managerial class that has relatively benefitted from the neo-con and neo-liberal world of global trade and finance, and open borders for cheap labor. 

I care little if the US is multi-cultural or not.  

It is unfortunate that the populist wing of the GOP is taking positions that the Donks should on trade and immigration. 

Think about what issues are fanned constantly in the M$M, and how little these issues play in economic prosperity for the employee class: Abortion, gay rights, ID politics, gun control, foreign threats, domestic subversives. Trump, all the time, Trump. 

You don't think you are being played? 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve known, seriously, that we are being played since Nov 22, 1963. I was 15. I see different forces at work in the Democratic Party. ID politics is a Republican put down of a genuine Democratic effort. I won’t fall for it. My interpretation of current events different from most but they are deeply held beliefs. The echo chamber has made a mockery of multiculturalism by coining phrases and pushing ideas that belittle those efforts. Many pundits see through this, unfortunately not the ones we see on msm or in the halls of Congress. Genuine progressives distance themselves from the sloganeering approach, seeing it for what it is - divisive and artificial. I think this started when affirmative action went from being characterized as giving a hand to those that suffered from the long term ravages of slavery and inequality, to being an inherently reverse racist policy in a country that had moved beyond racism and no longer needed such adjustments in privilege. Then there was and is the right wing movement to de-legitimize liberal arts education. The enemy of authoritarian governance is good education. The gutting of public education and making universities prohibitively expensive are both in service of dumbing down a populace. And turning liberal ideas on their heads goes with all of this. Appointing a black woman to the Supreme Court is not tokenism, it’s a necessary adjustment. Wanting to see an elected government with equal representation for women and somewhat proportional representation for brown people is not an artificial construct. The alternative is wealthy white men, a reality for two centuries and counting. Slogans undermine these well intentioned attempts at redress for something inherently unfair. My version of the Deep State includes their hidden efforts to mock progressive ideals. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

If there is a Deep State, the Democratic Progressives Are their enemy. 

I see this a lot on here, a proclamation that one party is more virtuous than the other, based on the values of compassion. The trouble is a hierarchy uses such values and these progressives as a recruitment tool. Just having Bernie and co about is absolutely necessary for elections and the balance that is set. Without them and the hope that they generate, you face people walking away from the system that this hierarchy wants you to buy into. Compassion is one of the strongest emotions, it appeals to many and a government can get just about anything done as long as it’s dressed up as that. It's just a charade if your progressives are forever bridesmaids and never the bride, because delegates and the higher-ups choose an HRC instead of a Bernie. It suits an agenda is what I am saying, ie hope and promises that things can be better. The two parties are counterpoints, one can’t exist and get away with what they do without the existence of the other. The same as CNN and co can’t exist without their counterpoint, Fox. 

 

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Their stated goals are not Deep State priorities - things like universal healthcare and preschool, affordable college education,  freedom of reproductive choice, much higher minimum wage.

These are the carrot on a stick dangled. Everybody wants a better standard of living and a better future for their kids. 
 

Even in JFK’s time there were people in his government, democrats who were hamstringing progress and equality. Who were they serving? According to Quigley they were running the CFR and British equivalent. Prouty describes the exact same modus operandi / infiltration within the US military. We can see it, we understand how it works but, yet we still revert back to two party rivalry. How many times does a trick need to play out before a people realise that its a fix? I know all of the reasons why people won’t accept that, they’re all rooted in psychology and the vulnerabilities of the human mind. 
 

Lets put this another way; if the deep state or whatever we want to call them operates exactly how I am suggesting, ie a theatre is taking place instead of democracy, the world would look identical to the way it looks now. The only difference would be that if we believed what I am saying; then probability would make sense. Instead we believe in incredibly long odds, coincidences, happenstance etc. 
This is exactly the way kings and queens ran their nations in Europe, and the empires of old, they provided theatre, distraction and played on the emotions of the tribe to accomplish their goals. 
 

There is a hint of frustration in me explaining this; because I have a whole circle of close friends who know this to be the case, that we’re being played. IMHO it just gets more obvious. There are no new tricks being played, just slightly different versions of the old. 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Chris Barnard
Typo