UK EU Referendum Thoughts
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
- Status
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
I've seen the term used before in the context of Turkey and Egypt, but I don't see how it can be applied to the UK. I was hoping someone could enlighten me.
Sorry to state the obvious:
You have your obvious factions of control in any society, 'the establishment' the traditional, self evident confluence of business, media, law & politics which exerts influence, but does so in a relatively obvious fashion.
Then you have a second, less apparent tier of control involving elements of intelligence, security, economic, media, & political (sometime transnational) forces which strive to influence policy and structures.
The Deep State is a third tier. A clandestine rump which seeks to covertly influence policy and society. Rather than repeat wikipedia:
Clearly the deep state exists. Turkey's has been well publicised - I mentioned Italy above, and Gelli/P2/Gladio are arguably another example, and infact Gladio cultivated and exploited these tendencies throughout Europe.*
The question regarding the UK is what is the crossover between tier 2 (ostensibly acting along semi-legitimate lines) and tier 3 (acting covertly against the interests of the population)?
*When I heard of the most recent revelations about MI5 collusion with the IRA & the Shankill bombing I immediately thought of the red brigades and their CIA explosives..
You have your obvious factions of control in any society, 'the establishment' the traditional, self evident confluence of business, media, law & politics which exerts influence, but does so in a relatively obvious fashion.
Then you have a second, less apparent tier of control involving elements of intelligence, security, economic, media, & political (sometime transnational) forces which strive to influence policy and structures.
The Deep State is a third tier. A clandestine rump which seeks to covertly influence policy and society. Rather than repeat wikipedia:
Clearly the deep state exists. Turkey's has been well publicised - I mentioned Italy above, and Gelli/P2/Gladio are arguably another example, and infact Gladio cultivated and exploited these tendencies throughout Europe.*
The question regarding the UK is what is the crossover between tier 2 (ostensibly acting along semi-legitimate lines) and tier 3 (acting covertly against the interests of the population)?
*When I heard of the most recent revelations about MI5 collusion with the IRA & the Shankill bombing I immediately thought of the red brigades and their CIA explosives..
I appreciate what you're saying, but the evidence is incontrovertible. These forces exist in every state to some extent. They have brought down governments, manipulated media, fomented coups, committed acts of terror. The question you should be asking is 'why should the UK be any different'?
Not that I think this should be a primary focus - there are plenty of transparent methods and structures of power & control which are completely out in the open, some of which have been mentioned upthread.
Yeah, I think that's probably fair, methodology may be a factor as well.
You would like to think that those in legitimate positions of power would stop short of murdering their own citizens for political purposes... ...False flag domestic terror allegations have become the calling card of conspiracy nuts everywhere, but again, we know it has happened and has been well documented in Europe & the US. I guess the primary difference is that there is at least the remote possibility in theory of those in tier 2 being held accountable.
Look at David Kelly. Hutton uncovered all kinds of shenanigans in what was essentially a neutered inquiry but I don't think anyone credulous believes the whole story has been told.
You would like to think that those in legitimate positions of power would stop short of murdering their own citizens for political purposes... ...False flag domestic terror allegations have become the calling card of conspiracy nuts everywhere, but again, we know it has happened and has been well documented in Europe & the US. I guess the primary difference is that there is at least the remote possibility in theory of those in tier 2 being held accountable.
Look at David Kelly. Hutton uncovered all kinds of shenanigans in what was essentially a neutered inquiry but I don't think anyone credulous believes the whole story has been told.
Woebot
Well-known member
again im talking about the uk here
certainly we dont need to agree on this
the point im trying to make (without much success) is that while i accept decisions like this are made in societies and as leo suggests with trumps potential removal is a case in point - i dont believe they are made by cabals, by an "establishment" or a secret order. events and individuals come together in an ad hoc way. on each occasion it might be a totally different set of interests in play.
Youre arguing against a straw man, which, perhaps I have helped construct. Ignore the clandestine, conspiratorial explanations and look at the obvious.
As Vim points out, collusion is inevitable in almost any system, particularly in hierarchical systems, and human history is almost universally a tale of small numbers of people gaining power & wealth and using it to influence events in their favour.
Capitalist democracies are no different in that they are essentially plutocracies. This is implicit in structures of governance, law & barriers to entry. Sure, it gets messy, and establishment forces don't always get exactly what they want but generally things work as they should. Trends we've seen over the last 40 years in the UK - privatisation, destruction of the labour movement, erosion of welfare, criminalisation of protest, increases in intelligence and security activity, liberalisation of the financial & banking sectors - these all serve particular purposes and benefit particular groups.
There is no need for smokey rooms and cabals. It's structural. Politics is the shadow cast on society by business and those in positions of influence would simply not be there if they had not internalised this principle. The system endures & every 5 years we vote for the party which demonstrates the most effective control of the media.
In other news, water flows downhill, and bears shit in the woods.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
The way I understand a deep state is when a country's institutions such as the parliament or judiciary only have nominal power, with the real power being in the hands of the military and intelligence services. Egypt and Pakistan are examples of this.
A few thoughts:
1) In these situations the military and intelligence services can act without a mandate from the government. Are there examples of this in the UK? If anything the intelligence agencies are over politicised; being pressured into the dodgy dossier, claims of 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels, etc.
2) Are the populations in countries with deep states unaware of the military and intelligence services power? I imagine people in Egypt and Pakistan understand the role these institutions play in politics; its not a "secret" (to borrow Luka's terminology). The fact the UK population is unaware of a deep state would make us an anomaly in this regard.
3) Isn't it dangerous to use this terminology so offhandedly when talking about the UK? It cheapens the accusations of authoritarianism, which could mean they would be meaningless even if used in the correct context.
A few thoughts:
1) In these situations the military and intelligence services can act without a mandate from the government. Are there examples of this in the UK? If anything the intelligence agencies are over politicised; being pressured into the dodgy dossier, claims of 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels, etc.
2) Are the populations in countries with deep states unaware of the military and intelligence services power? I imagine people in Egypt and Pakistan understand the role these institutions play in politics; its not a "secret" (to borrow Luka's terminology). The fact the UK population is unaware of a deep state would make us an anomaly in this regard.
3) Isn't it dangerous to use this terminology so offhandedly when talking about the UK? It cheapens the accusations of authoritarianism, which could mean they would be meaningless even if used in the correct context.
That's not my understanding no. You are describing openly authoritarian states in which the Deep State has little or no need to conceal its existence. Its only in ostensible democracies where this is necessary. Italy, I think is the example to look at here.
Im not sure it is 'dangerous' to use the term - imprecise perhaps, but then again thats exactly why I posed it as a question rather than an assertion.
Im not sure it is 'dangerous' to use the term - imprecise perhaps, but then again thats exactly why I posed it as a question rather than an assertion.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Pakistan and Egypt are both ostensible democracies (the emphasis being on ostensible), but I see your point.
By the way I wasn't trying to criticise you with the dangerous comment, just putting an idea out there.
I'll take a look at your Italy example.
Woebot
Well-known member
Youre arguing against a straw man, which, perhaps I have helped construct. Ignore the clandestine, conspiratorial explanations and look at the obvious.
As Vim points out, collusion is inevitable in almost any system, particularly in hierarchical systems, and human history is almost universally a tale of small numbers of people gaining power & wealth and using it to influence events in their favour.
Capitalist democracies are no different in that they are essentially plutocracies. This is implicit in structures of governance, law & barriers to entry. Sure, it gets messy, and establishment forces don't always get exactly what they want but generally things work as they should. Trends we've seen over the last 40 years in the UK - privatisation, destruction of the labour movement, erosion of welfare, criminalisation of protest, increases in intelligence and security activity, liberalisation of the financial & banking sectors - these all serve particular purposes and benefit particular groups.
There is no need for smokey rooms and cabals. It's structural. Politics is the shadow cast on society by business and those in positions of influence would simply not be there if they had not internalised this principle. The system endures & every 5 years we vote for the party which demonstrates the most effective control of the media.
In other news, water flows downhill, and bears shit in the woods.
thanks droid. i think i get it now.
john eden
male pale and stale
Privately educated elite continues to take top jobs, finds survey
http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...o-take-top-jobs-finds-survey?CMP=share_btn_tw
- Status