Review of The Deep State: An indispensable guide and expose of the harsh reality of the corrupted american political system. The author surveys the history, dynamics, and increasing lunacy of a system that has drifted into distortion and dysfunction. The portrait is a sobering indictment of a national decline, and an international menace. I would point to one limit in the analysis: the failure to consider that the 9/11 terror attack had deep sources in another version of the ‘deep state’, that pointed to in such thinkers as Peter Dale Scott.
But all in all this book from an insider xrays the core malfunction of a republic/democracy that has become an olitgarchic plutocracy.
We are confronting a system that has fooled us completely, and even its correct indictment is problematical. But as the overall picture sets in the fixer we confront the rogue nature of the american sentimental masterpiece and the result is shocking in the extreme. The basic analysis of The Deep State, the expose of the JFK and 9/11 conspiracies, the expose of drug mafias in the pursuit of covert action, the history and legacy of the CIA, the surveillance crisis of the national security state, the military industrial complex and its wars for profit, the neoliberal capture of democratic government, the place of money in politics, the influence of Israel on american foreign policy, the crime against humanity in the destruction of Iraq and the ambiguity of imperialistic predation in Afghanistan. All this but the cap to a prelude of almost two centuries of expansionist and Monroe Doctrine capitalist aggression. It is very difficult to fill out the total picture of statist depravity.
And the ominous question comes to the fore: is there any chance of reforming this system? It seems there is not, and it seems that the endgame is coming in the form of a climate crisis to which the US can’t even contribute solutions politically in the psychotic onset of the Trump era. This system now puts a gag order on scientific communication and is set to destroy its EPA. sic!
We must not suffer this overall calamity to destroy a planet. And we must consider that the nature of power in the US is coming to a climax of domination after which activist, radical, and reformist gestures will confront a tyranny that is beyond modification. Is it there already? Some might think that reformist gestures are all we can envision. But the proponents of this are either incompetent or pulling their punches in a state of fear before the Leviathan in question. We cannot abandon them in the name of some revolutionary aspiration but by the same token we cannot abandon the revolutionary option however remote at first its realization. We confront a generation conditioned to Gandhian thinking and in the wake of bolshevism we recoil from the question of violence in the process of change. We are constantly sermonized as to the successes of non-violent tactics. The reality is that we have lost two generations of tactical activist to this illusion/ The reality is that non-violent action is one tool in a kit of potential methods. And even a revolutionary option should consider its uses. But we are not involved in a path of Jain enlightenment and world indifference. We must change the world however we can manage. The legacy of MLK here has confused people. For some strange reason he outdid even the incompetent Gandhi. Perhaps because of the dynamic of his historical situation. Those who sound off on non-violence need to explain how the abolition of slavery might have occurred via Gandhian peace marches.
We must be clear and honest. Non-violence may be our only option. But that is very different from saying we should as a matter of Jain ethical reasoning espouse non-violence. There is so such reasoning in Christianity despite a number of echoes of themes of non-violence. The Reformation was one of the most violent conflicts in world history, as was the Puritan revolution.
This is not a rationale for some kind of freak out violent conversion. On the contrary. The simple gesture of revolutionary abstraction can by itself induce change. We can see the dangers of indiscriminate violent action and might be wary of recent activities of groups like the Black Block. Tactics require great thought, and first class leadership.
Gandhi’s legacy is grossly misleading. His Jain background politicized a spiritual path resembling the buddhist type and moved to renounce the world, not change it. Its extreme non-violence was a path of world renunciation. Gandhi’s red herring has had a limited success at best, certainly not in India, and is simply the mirror image illusion of the bolshevik opposite of extreme violence.
We cannot sacrifice the future of human freedom on the altar of a Jain religious tradition that many Jains themselves would reject.
The larger question of war, revolution, and pacifist methods remains in a kind of flux.
We cannot expect to deal with a system so pathological as the one we confront now with peaceful protest marches. The non-violent approaches must nonetheless continue.
The point is not revolution or violence, as such, but the real meaning of revolution: the trigger of regime change and constitutional re-foundation, however arrived at.
We cannot just agitate for a wage increase for a few subsets of the working class in a system as pathological as the one we see.
All those gains, as we can see, will likely be eliminated by the powerful mafia now in control. The coming of Trump shows this to be so: we are likely going to lose the gains of the era of the New Deal and beside that witness the destruction of the Union movement.
So, as to Gandhian sentimentality, we can’t evade the reality that history shows us: all the major forms of democracy emerged in revolutionary regime change. A post-capitalist communist could hardly be different.
The truth of the matter is that once we adopt a strong stance on this question we also create the possibility of transcending violence by being clear that we won’t be intimidated by the current system whose powers of domination can be exaggerated. The system is actually very vulnerable at many points. For example, behind the facade of politic rhetoric many politicians are aware of the terminal character of the system as it is. Thus a leftist challenge actually has a huge number of hidden supporters, even in the capitalist class.
We can adjourn to our twin manifestos to conclude this post: we have proposed the first fundamental of a postcapitalist system, but we haven’t renounced markets altogether as such. This framework can rescue the issues from the ill-conceived brand created by the bolshevik era with a system that can achieve a first step, yet able to evolve to a larger result.
It is possible the crisis could suddenly predispose a majority to revolutionary/constitutional change with or without revolution. We are in an case confronting a revolution from the right that has shown its hand in an instance such as that of Trump who quite stupidly shows the hand of the elite class intent on slow but surely corrupting and then abolishing democracy.
We need to fulfill the prophecies of the end of capitalism and its successor templates with a first step hybrid combination of revolutionary/evolutionary potentials. And we need to act soon because the system is commencing a nosedive leading to plane crash.