We are all so mesmerized these days by
the events unfolding before our eyes that we find it hard to
remember, or even imagine, that there was any time before the Trump
Era – before that fateful ride down the escalator. But that time
did exist, and it paved the way, in ways that are only now starting
to be revealed, for not only current events but for a long time to
come – possibly right up the end of the United States as a
republic. (Note that I said “as a republic”, not necessarily the
end of the United States. I can imagine – as many others
apparently can – a time when there will be a country called the
United States, but it will no longer be a republic, or a democracy,
or anything else resembling those concepts. Many people, in fact,
believe that we've already reached that point – or did reach it,
years or even decades ago. But that's too broad a topic for the
present, so I will press on.)
Consider, for a moment, what has
already been revealed not only by numerous investigations and in
numerous reports, but also (wittingly or otherwise) by the media, as
well as by our own eyes and ears. The opposition against Trump and
his administration did not appear overnight like some gigantic fungus
in the depths of the forest. The groundwork had been laid for a long
time, although the process did accelerate considerably under the last
administration. One can argue all day and into the night about the
when, the why, and the who, but the hard fact is that the State
Department, the FBI, the intelligence community, and the military had
been thoroughly politicized prior to the start of the 2016 campaign.
Government agencies and entities that, in order to function as
originally intended, should be as apolitical as possible had been
packed with people loyal to the liberal/progressive program, to the
Democrats, most recently to the Obama administration, and – above
all – to the globalists and globalism. Call it preemptive... call
it “insurance”... whatever, the point is that the dice were
already loaded in favor of Hillary Clinton (not least, as became
known, by the Democratic Party) and against whomever the Republicans
managed to nominate. And the most casual survey of the political
landscape at that time would have assured anyone on the
liberal/Democratic/progressive side that there was no one out there
with any chance of beating Hillary. So the final touches – the
politicization of those few parts of the government that had not
already been politicized by prior administrations was not just about
getting Hillary elected; it was a way of policing up the
battlefield... consolidating... establishing a future groundwork or
structure – a way of solidifying the Deep State in such a thorough
way that it could never be defeated or seriously threatened.
So the Deep State was already in place,
and politicized, and monolithic on June 16, 2015 – secure in the
knowledge that everything was under control, that another one of
their own would soon be president, and that there would be a seamless
transition between the Obama and Clinton II administrations.
But it goes deeper than that. The
solidification of the Deep State was intended to defeat any
future Republican (not to mention third-party) candidate for the
presidency – and to help defeat Republican candidates for lesser
offices as well. And this is not to say that old-fashioned chicanery
was no longer in the toolbox; there would always be (as we saw in
liberal strongholds like Florida and California) attempts to steal
votes, suppress opposition votes, create favorable votes out of thin
air – all the old tricks. And the Ministry of Propaganda (AKA the
mainstream media) would be running at full speed as well, as would
other “agents of influence” like the “entertainment”
industry, academia, and social media. (Please remember that the
totalitarian impulse is not compatible with close races. Overkill is
the method of choice, and total defeat of the opposition is the
goal.)
And
then we have the state of the Republican Party at the time, which was
manifesting all of its least savory traits – passivity, lack of
energy, lack of charisma, lack of principles, being easily
intimidated and cowed, and generally unable to come up with anything
in the way of arguments other than “we're almost as compassionate
as the Democrats”. So the Obama administration ran roughshod over
the Republicans in an overt, public fashion, and also set up a
structure – an insurance policy like unto none before – that
would keep the Republicans out of the White House forever. They were
winning on both overt and covert levels, in other words... and all
was well, until...
Until
the fateful escalator ride. And this Trump guy was clearly not just
another candidate – another lukewarm body spilling out of the
Republican clown car. And enough people in the Obama administration
noticed this and realized that, to quote Chris Berman, “He! Could!
Go! All! The! Way!” So the structures and people who were already
in place to act as insurance, and as agents of gradual change, went
into instant overdrive – All hands on deck! – Condition red! –
and everything that has happened since then is the result. And it
wasn't just that Trump was a Republican (albeit the least typical
Republican ever, but he did run on their ticket for lack of a more
viable option – not caring to repeat Ross Perot's mistake), but
that he came right out and challenged the Deep State (although few
called it that at the time) and its collaborators and facilitators in
and out of government. In other words, he challenged the
Establishment – the ruling elite – the status quo – pretty much
everybody who was anybody. And yes, it was, and remains, an
“existential threat” as long as he's in office, which is why the
effort to get rid of him has not flagged. They have too much to lose
– everything to
lose, in fact, since political power is the be-all and end-all of
their existence. Some people can take or leave politics, but not
these people; for them it's like air, water, sustenance, and whole
blood rolled into one; it's their life force, without which they
would perish.
So... anyone who
thinks the Deep State erupted out of nothing and out of nowhere,
somehow magically appearing, full-blown, on Escalator Day, is
mistaken. It was there, it was fully formed, armed and ready. The
networks were in place, as were the power structures and the
principal actors. But it was expecting to operate, as it had in the
past, in a subversive, subtle fashion – not in a way so obvious and
blatant that the most feeble-minded among the electorate could detect
it. But Trump changed all that. He forced their hand, and over the
ensuing 4 ½ years much of the weaponry, many of the tricks, much of
the corruption and deceit has been exposed – partly voluntarily but
mostly involuntarily. And there is more to come! And yet –
amazingly enough – the world would know nothing of this if Hillary
Clinton had been elected in 2016. It would all be there, fully
operational, but entirely hidden. But as things stand, the denizens
of the Deep State have, out of sheer necessity, appeared by the score
before Congressional committees, have stood up and proudly listed
their credentials and achievements, and have admitted, without the
slightest hint of shame, regret, or self-doubt, that each of them is
a single cell of a gigantic organism, and that organism is the power
center – the only real power center – in the government – a
fourth branch, in effect, compared to which the three branches we're
all familiar with are a sham and a facade. They have made it
abundantly clear that when it comes to a question of their programs,
attitudes, and opinions vs. those of the president who is their
nominal boss, it is their way or the highway (for Trump, in this
case). They are, after all, the experts... they have the experience,
the training, the networks, and the class consciousness necessary to
run the country, and Donald Trump does not. (And, in fact, no
president does, including Democrats.)
And it's this
realization, more than anything else, that has eroded “trust in
government” to the point where it no longer exists among
significant portions of the citizenry. And this should be troubling,
given our pretensions to honest, open, and above-board government...
to democracy (however defined)... to “a government of, by, and for
the people”. Now we see what we may have just suspected up until
now (and yes, that includes “conspiracy theories” cherished by
“right-wing nuts”) -- that there are “the people”, and there is
government – but that the power relationship only goes in one
direction – that we are no longer led by leaders, but ruled by
rulers. And some, having a historical perspective and lacking
protective naivete about human nature, will say that this is a
natural trajectory... that it is -- tragically, perhaps, but
inevitably -- what always happens to republics, democracies,
governments of the people, etc. in the long run – that there is a
gradual shift in power, an erosion of the rule of law, and a gradual
takeover by the rich, the cynical, and the unprincipled. It's as if
to say, why were we kidding ourselves that we were so different –
that we were the first society in human history that could pull it
off? But human nature rules in the long run, and we are living in
that long run right now (despite John Maynard Keynes, in the long run
we're not all dead). And of course, as I've pointed out previously,
no one wants to live in “history”; war, revolution, turmoil, etc.
are all well and good as long as they don't happen during my
time – leave it to others (our ancestors or descendants) to deal
with it. And this is especially true if current events all seem to
reflect a decline – defeat and disappointment – the next
generation not living as well as the previous one, etc. Then we see
a rise in nostalgia, like what is happening in our time (all across
the political spectrum, actually). But along with it comes a rise in
optimism and a simultaneous rise in pessimism, depending on where one
stands on the political spectrum. You can be both nostalgic and
optimistic, or both nostalgic and pessimistic, and there are plenty
of examples of each.
At this point,
to be perfectly fair I have to give credit to the opposition, by
which I mean the sum total of liberals/Democrats/progressives + the
Deep State and its facilitators + popular culture + the media. They
all describe Trump and his election as an “anomaly”, and they're
right – it is. And it's an anomaly for many reasons. They will
say that he shouldn't have been elected (or, in a delusional way,
following Hillary Clinton's lead, that he wasn't elected, that
he just somehow managed to sneak into the White House under cover of
night) because... well, just because. And because he's unsavory in
every way... and an outsider... and a businessman... and rich... and
everything a normal, acceptable candidate is not. He never buttons
his coat, and sits in chairs like some juvenile delinquent in the
principal's office. And then there's the fact that his base – the
people who elected him – the “deplorables” (and we have to
thank Hillary Clinton for etching that term of derision into the
lexicon of American politics for perpetuity, especially since it has
now become a badge of honor) – were, and are, people who really
shouldn't have any say in things, least of all presidential
elections, because the truth is not in them. Besides which, they are
racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. etc. And who knew
there were so many of them? – that's the really galling thing. I
mean, if the only people who voted for Trump in 2016 had been
card-carrying KKK members, or Proud Boys, or whoever, we wouldn't
have had this to deal with. But when there are more white
supremacists in the local family restaurant on Saturday morning than
there are ex-Nazis in Paraguay, drastic measures are in order.
That's the mind
set. And you can be certain that they won't make the same mistake
again – i.e. they won't let any Republican with two gonads to rub
together anywhere near the primaries or the election. Way too
chancy. The people who laughed at Trump on Escalator Day and were
laughing at him right up to Election Night have learned their lesson:
Assume nothing, infiltrate everything, leave nothing to chance, and
do whatever is necessary. No more mumbling to your girlfriend on
e-mail about “insurance”, no – it's time to get out the WMDs.
This is why the
election of 2020 is going to be so interesting (it already is,
actually), no matter which hapless Democrat gets nominated and no
matter who winds up running on the Republican ticket. (There is a
Republican convention, remember – Trump isn't going to be a shoo-in
for the nomination even assuming he makes it up to that point.) No,
what will be interesting is that the Deep State and all of its
allies, once unmasked, will see no point in holding back. They have
been exposed now, by their own doing... they are out in the open and
blatant... and there is no sense trying to scurry back under cover.
So they will be raining fire and brimstone down on the Republican
candidate, no matter who he or she is – partly because it's what
they do, partly to take care of people who haven't already learned
their lesson by seeing what they've done, and are doing, to Trump,
and partly as a warning to the Republican Party that if they want to
survive at all they need to be content with second-class citizenship
in perpetuity. In other words, if they are content to be wallflowers
and strap-hangers, fine – but don't start getting any ideas about
having any real influence, because what is happening to Trump and his
associates can happen to you too, under cover of night and in broad
daylight. You can wind up in jail for just existing; this has to
have a, let's say, chilling effect on any sort of political
assertiveness, and on expressing any opinions at all that are at odds
with those of the ruling elite.
There's a thin
line, I suppose, between realism and pessimism. In these times they
can seem to be pretty much the same thing, and maybe they are. The
problems facing whoever's in charge now or in the future are so
enormous, and so intractable, that to expect anything other than
frustration and failure is to show a high level of delusion. Once
again, history has caught up with us, as has human nature.
American-style democracy may soon go the way of The New Soviet Man,
or of the Ubermensch and the Master Race. And we've had a pretty
good run of it, quite frankly – certainly longer than the Soviet
Union or Nazi Germany, which had flaws that were too blatant from the
start. We were, if you will, sustainable – but not indefinitely.
This Republic was conceived by highly-intelligent, well-educated, and
certainly far from ignorant men who were under few illusions about
human nature. It would be interesting to find out how long they
expected it to last before succumbing to degeneration and decay; who
knows, they might be surprised it has lasted this long, even if in
vestigial form. But they were, after all, men of ideas, and ideas
only work if they are workable, and if there is sufficient political
will to make them work. So again, this was the case for quite a
while – way longer than the French Revolution which was similar in
many ways. But that revolution was in 1789 and by 1804 they had an
emperor, and in between they had a Reign of Terror and other
unpleasantries. (And we were their principal inspiration, by the way
– don't forget that.)
Well, we have
yet to crown an emperor, although we came close in the case of FDR.
Someone once joked that the American system is an odd one – it's a
monarchy where we elect a new king every 4 (or 8) years. But that
would be to unduly belittle monarchies, some of which have lasted for
centuries if not millennia. Maybe what works is not always what's
best from the point of view of poly-sci idealism.
To sum up,
whatever was put in place over time that has manifested itself in the
opposition is not going to go away. It won't go away when Trump
leaves office, and it won't go away if a Democrat becomes president.
It's a permanent fixture, and some will celebrate this fact, the way
one-party rule is celebrated by fans of totalitarian regimes.
Competing parties? Debate? Compromise? Way too messy. Much better
to just have a single party, and a single party leader – a
strongman who commands – demands – obedience from all of his
faithful subjects. We forget that this is as strong an impulse –
every bit as much as part of human nature – as notions of
“freedom”, democracy, populism, etc. And it's a highly cultural
phenomenon. The Russians, for example, apparently cannot get along
without a strongman in charge; democracy is just not in their blood.
The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, are the true “people's
republics”, whose leaders are so low-profile that no one knows who
they are. (Do you? I certainly don't.) We have European monarchies
that are, operationally, more democratic than most alleged
democracies or republics. Such are the paradoxes when it comes to
governments.
At this
particular time in our history it's the
liberals/Democrats/progressives who are all in favor of the
all-powerful state, the regulatory state, totalitarianism, and what
amounts to one-party rule. They seem to forget what happened to the
Old Bolsheviks who, once they had outlived their usefulness, were
hunted down by Stalin's henchmen and summarily shot. Their problem?
They were rebels and nonconformists by nature, and too full of ideas,
and those ideas started to clash with the desires of the more
pragmatic (i.e., cynical) types who were rapidly filling the
positions of power. There will always be revolutionaries like
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who will be at the front of the parade,
waving a red flag and playing an accordion. But the funny thing is
that they very seldom wind up in charge. Their position is like unto
that of the point man in a military operation – vital, but with low
life expectancy. Sometimes they wind up as cannon fodder for the
very entities that they thought were on their side, as happened to
the Red Guard in China. The revolution is cannibalistic; as has been
said, it always devours its own. But there's no sense in warning
them, because they never listen.
So even the Deep
State may not always be the property of today's “opposition”; it
has its own priorities, its own needs, and its own survival
strategies. One point to remember is that the Deep State is
motivated solely by its need to survive and expand; otherwise it is
as unprincipled, amoral, and unfeeling as a malignant tumor. It is,
if you will, reptilian in nature – without compassion and
unappealing except to those who see it as a pathway to power. So
Democrats who celebrate the Deep State and consider it their power
base might have to think again some day – but by then it will be
too late. They are, after all, expendable. And the Deep State,
because it's a thing and not a person, has staying power well beyond
the life span of any one individual. One may even say that it is
given birth by war, and nourished by conflict and strife; and if this
is the case, its origins followed very closely on the origins of the
Republic.
Now, maybe all
of this is fine with you. Maybe living under the watchful eye of Big
Brother (as currently manifested in the social media, communications,
and the intelligence community) is your idea of the good life. If
so, then you're quite fortunate, because you're already living in a
world tailored to your tastes, and about to live in a world even more
so. This will be a cause for celebration. For certain other people,
however, this is not the ideal; it's not what they voted for and it's
not the world they want to live in. And – most importantly –
they're not going away. They have become visible, they have an
identity and cohesiveness that's every bit a match for the
opposition. The clouds have lifted, and we now, at long last, see
that there are two Americas (and maybe more than two), two different
world views... two different worlds, in effect. Those worlds are
colliding now, in a way that is more open and obvious than ever.
The American public is now thoroughly politicized; no one is neutral,
no one is “undecided”. We are all “woke”, but in different
and opposing ways. (Did you think “wokeness” was limited to just
one end of the political scale? Think again. If it's a good thing
for one group, then it's a good thing for other groups as well.
Otherwise, it's just another word for tyranny.)
I, for one,
think the current flood of revelations is a good thing – as
stressful, time-consuming, and energy-consuming as it may be. The
marketplace of ideas has finally come to pass as somewhere everyone
can shop, not just activists and intellectuals. And who knows, if
enough people become interested in politics they might also become
interested in philosophy; wouldn't that be something! Because
politics is, after all, a manifestation of ethics, which, in turn, is
a manifestation of philosophy, which, in turn, is a manifestation of
our view of man and mankind – of his origins, nature, and ultimate
fate.
The downside, of
course, is we have to live in a time of war – a war of words, at
least. That, and pretty much every negative emotion in the book –
which tends to swamp and distract from everything else, things that
might be more worthwhile to the individual and, in the long run, to
society. But it's a rite of passage that we have to go through –
not necessarily in every generation but often enough. Societies
re-define themselves now and then, at least on the political and
social level if not on the deeper levels of faith, tradition, and
custom. Post-empire England is still England. Post-Soviet Russia is
still Russia. Post-Maoist China is still China. And so on. (The
post-Confederate South is still the South, much to the dismay of
non-Southerners.) Of course those were more coherent cultures to
begin with, whereas we take great pride in our “diversity”. But
that's also our weakness. What it means is that we lack the
connective tissue needed to weather storms such as the present one,
and come out in one piece rather than in shambles – divided,
therefore ready to be conquered. The United States has become
disunited, and the great American melting pot turns out to be more of
a stew pot. So yes, once this crisis is past we may find that we are
no longer the same, even on levels we always thought were permanent
and solid. We may, indeed, descend to a more primitive condition of
warring tribes. (It's already happening in our large cities.) If
so, it will take a government even more powerful, all-seeing, and
all-knowing than the one we have now to keep things together – if
that's even considered worthwhile. And it may not be, as witness the
increasing incidence of anarchy and “no-go zones” in our large
cities. The globalists of this world don't want a strong United
States with any sort of national pride; they want a muscular but
dim-witted and compliant servant to do their bidding – and they
already have it to some extent, but it's likely to become even more
so in the future.
And once again,
if this is OK with you, then fine. Go ahead and cast your lot with
the globalists and see how satisfying it is. But what does it take
to completely suppress all needs and desires for the eternal verities
– home and hearth, family, pride in work, faith, sense of place,
and, yes, ethnic and racial identity as a source of cohesion and
loyalty rather than a mere political weapon? These are signs of the
Natural Man, whereas loyalty to globalism, totalitarianism, and
authoritarianism is a sign of – what? I would call it despair. Of
giving up, of being less than fully human. Of basically opting out
of the human race in favor of a subhuman existence. But it's the
sort of despair that will not confine itself to the individual.
People who have lost whatever it is that makes them human will waste
no time before taking the same thing away from others, by persuasion
or by force. The impulse to share the misery and the fear is
something we see every day and everywhere in the public forum. It is
a sign of weakness and vulnerability. It indicates that we have been
conquered from within – and a people that is conquered from within
will soon be conquered from without.
Corollary: The Deep
State = The Regulatory State = The Surveillance State = The Perpetual
Warfare State.
These are four heads of the same beast.
They are not identical, but are highly interdependent and symbiotic.
No one of them can operate effectively without the others. For
example:
The Deep State depends as much on
regulations as on laws for its existence. Laws merely provide the
broad outlines; they have to be filled in by regulations. This is
why Trump's efforts to reduce the number of regulations are seen as
such a threat.
Regulations are designed primarily
to regulate, control, and restrict the activities of the citizenry.
Without surveillance, it would be difficult to assess whether
regulations were being adhered to.
Perpetual warfare requires the
Deep State for implementation, and surveillance in order to insure
that the citizenry are “with the program” and are not developing
an aversion to perpetual war.
Since the Deep State and the
Perpetual Warfare State are inseparable, it's foolish to be against
“big government” but in favor of war, as the neocons are. War is impossible without the Deep State, a highly-regulated economy and industrial base, and surveillance. Every war we've ever fought shows this, and yet there are people who don't believe that's it's necessarily the case.
It's also foolish to protest
against surveillance but be in favor of big government. Big
government naturally gives rise to surveillance as a means of
determining the level of cooperation of the citizenry. And, the
Surveillance State, over time, becomes an increasingly large portion
of the Deep State. One reason the Soviet Union collapsed is that
half the citizens were employed spying on the other half.
There are many more interconnections.
The point is that it is, ultimately, all one thing, so we each have a
choice – we can be for all of them or none of them. Anything else
is irrational, illogical, and a symptom of delusional thinking.
