Monday 28 April 2025
Wednesday 16 October 2024
AMERICA IN THREE LAYERS
16 October 2024
UNDERSTANDING FOREVER WARS
The Deep State – three layers
Aaron Good’s concept of the American state is a critique and a framework for understanding power in the United States - power that goes beyond the visible democratic institutions presented in the MSM.
Good suggests that the true state comprises three interconnected layers of American power:
- the visible state, that governs and arbitrates justice,
- supported by the deep state that assures security and continuity of interest,
- on behalf of corporate America, the "overworld" he calls the Fortune 500; with connections to the underworld for certain ops such as assassination attempts :
1. The Visible or Madisonian State:
• This layer represents the familiar institutions of American democracy as outlined by James Madison in the U.S. Constitution. It includes the president, Congress, the Supreme Court, and elected representatives. These institutions are visible to the public, and through them, laws are passed, budgets are voted on, and political campaigns are conducted. This layer embodies the democratic ideals of representation and the rule of law but is largely limited in its scope and power.
2. The Security State:
• Often referred to as the "deep state" or the permanent state, this layer includes the military-industrial complex and the various intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA and NSA. Good emphasizes the massive scale of this layer, with a trillion-dollar budget and global military reach. This is the apparatus that wields significant power and largely operates outside public oversight. Military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon benefit from this system, reinforcing a cycle where the U.S. is constantly preparing for or engaging in wars. According to Good, this state is always ready for war, thrives on conflict, and supports regime change operations when necessary.
• Importantly, Good argues that the CIA and other intelligence agencies operate in near-total secrecy. These agencies have little accountability, with oversight committees often functioning more as rubber stamps than genuine checks on their power.
3. The Overworld:
• The third layer, which Good calls the overworld, represents the corporate and financial elite that benefit from America’s global dominance. This includes Wall Street, Big Oil, and, increasingly, Big Tech, Big Pharma particularly at the time of covid. These industries are intertwined with the security state, as they profit from the military's global reach, oil pipelines, and data surveillance. The "overworld" works to preserve a global system that protects their interests and wealth through regulatory control, surveillance, and military backing. The overworld’s relationship with the security state is symbiotic; they provide financing, technology, and resources, while the security state ensures their continued dominance.
• Good also notes that this elite class is becoming increasingly tied to Big Tech, which now plays a critical role in surveillance, data collection, and collaboration with government agencies, as WikiLeaks and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden have exposed. Platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon are tied to the state through contracts with the NSA and other intelligence agencies, the infamous “back doors” for example, blurring the lines between private business and state power.
• The underworld. The CIA, for example, has historically been involved in covert operations, assassinations, and regime changes, often in partnership with organised crime or the "underworld." Eg attempts on the life of the Cuban leader.
Is the American Deep State Real?
• Aaron Good’s analysis suggests that the deep state is not just a conspiracy theory but a structural reality within American governance. The deep state refers to the networks of power that operate beyond the democratic institutions, shaping policies and ensuring the continuity of U.S. hegemony regardless of which political party is in power. Good criticises the notion that elections bring meaningful change, as presidents and politicians are quickly brought into line by the permanent state apparatus, as noted by Vladimir Putin in a 2017 interview where he observed that U.S. presidents enter office with ideas but soon are confronted by the men in dark suits and learn the reality of the purpose and machinations of the deep state and the extent of its influence.
Critical Review of Neoconservative Influence
• Good’s model is a critique of neoconservatism, particularly its role in expanding U.S. military intervention and perpetuating a global order, election after election, generation after generation, favourable to American elites. From Vietnam to Iraq and now Ukraine and Palestine, Good sees a pattern of endless wars, regime change, destabilisation operations, splintering polities all the easier to rule over and pillage resources, none of which serve the American “public interest”, but rather the security state and its corporate partners. These wars have cost trillions, drained public resources, and destabilised entire regions, while benefiting the military-industrial complex, Big tech and big oil interests. This does make one cynical as regards the stated moral purposes and practical legitimacy of U.S. exceptionalism and the true ends of its foreign policy.
Opening the Debate for Alternatives
• Good’s work opens up the debate on how the United States could move beyond this system. He challenges the necessity of maintaining a unipolar world, where U.S. dominance is enforced through military might and covert operations. Instead, he points to historical alternatives, like Gorbachev’s vision of a Common European Home with the UN-based international order, in place of the Pax Americana with the American “international rules-based Order”. The former focused on collaboration the latter on dominance.
• Moving forward, future historians may view neoconservative policies as a form of nostalgia - an attempt to cling to an outdated world order based on American supremacy. In a multipolar world, where powers like China and Russia and other rising BRICS nations, challenge U.S. hegemony, maintaining this Order becomes increasingly unsustainable and dangerous. The question arises: should the U.S. continue to pursue global dominance, or should it embrace a more cooperative, multipolar world order?
Conclusion
Aaron Good’s tripartite model of the U.S. state - comprising the visible state institutions, the supporting security apparatus, and the overworld beneficiaries - offers a comprehensive critique of the deep structures of power that drive American foreign and domestic policy. The deep state, in this view, is not a conspiracy theory but a structural reality, wherein the military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and corporate elites work together to perpetuate the goal of continued U.S. hegemony. By highlighting the dangers of this system, Good calls for a rethinking of America’s role in the world, urging for alternatives that focus on global cooperation rather than unending war and dominance, fighting for territories, resources and populations.
Monday 14 October 2024
THE SURVIVORS' CLUB
14 October 2024
I'm here at my local café with friends and it's like a real survivors club. The atmosphere is intense, try to imagine - everyone's telling their stories.
Like trying to navigate the Main Street in a flat bottom boat when you've got doors and toilets seats and furniture sailing down and hitting you.
The water was five meters above river level. A metre in the street. It forced in all the shop fronts and demolished walls.
The power and water has only just come back on. The pumps weren't working, so a metre of water came into your house and turned your tables and chairs and fridges upside down, saturated your mattresses, your bedding, what would you do?
So everyone's exhausted from cleaning up and especially dealing with the trauma of the last two weeks, it's been very emotional for some.
Certain have worked nonstop, leading relief efforts, setting the example; others are grateful to have someone to figure out the next steps.
I was very lucky. The property manager organised the resistance and the cleanup fterwards. The staff have been magnificent and the residents who stayed made a close community.
I was lucky to escape the worst by going to my hotel in the mountains, but now we’re back and all sticking together to get through this.
Hope nothing like this ever hits you!
Post script
Why it's not a good idea to walk home in a flooded street on the pavement....it's better to walk in the middle of the road.
Saturday 12 October 2024
WHAT IS NEO-CONSERVATISM
12 October 2024
The sun is setting on the American world order
Neoconservatism: An Ideology of American Power
Pax Americana
Neoconservatism can be called an ideology, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy. It originated as a reaction to liberal policies in the 1960s and 1970s, took hold in the 90s and 2010. When american power was unchallenged, and has developed into a distinct worldview that prioritises the projection of American power and values globally. While the promotion of democracy is a key tenet, the underlying purpose is to maintain a unipolar world where the U.S. holds hegemonic sway. This pursuit of global dominance, backed by military strength, underpins neoconservative thought and has shaped many of its policies.
1. Beliefs, Values, and the Pursuit of Hegemony
American Exceptionalism and Unipolarity: At the heart of neoconservatism is the belief in American exceptionalism—the idea that the U.S. is a unique force for good in the world, tasked with spreading democracy and free markets. However, the broader goal is not simply to promote American values but to ensure that America remains the unchallenged global hegemon. A unipolar world, where America sets the rules (" the rules based international order"), is seen as essential for global stability and prosperity. This worldview interprets any challenge to U.S. dominance—whether from Russia, China, or transnational entities like the European Union—as a threat to its global order.
Moral Clarity and Interventionism: Neoconservatives often frame international politics in stark moral terms—good vs. evil—with the U.S. on the side of righteousness. This belief in moral clarity fuels military interventionism, justified by the need to spread democracy or counter threats. The overthrow of regimes such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, is seen as both morally justified and strategically necessary to maintain U.S. influence.
The Death of Diplomacy:
As a consequence, world gov.ts are divided into democracies and authoritarian regimes, into good and evil. When it comes to conflict resolution, this manichean view means that it is impossible to deal with or compromise with evil, after all, you do not sup with the devil, you defeat it, and this is why there is no diplomacy and no negotiations, only military and economic force in the service of uncompromising political objectives.
Unilateralism and Pre-emptive Action: Neocons tend to favour unilateral action if multilateral channels (like the UN) are seen as ineffective or opposed to U.S. goals. Pre-emptive strikes, like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, are justified on the grounds of eliminating potential future threats to American dominance, even at the cost of bypassing international norms or institutions.
2. A Critical Review: The Consequences of Neoconservative Interventions
Despite the ideological clarity neoconservatives claim, the consequences of their interventions have often been far from the successful outcomes they envisioned at the start of operations. In many instances, neocon policies have led to destabilisation, prolonged conflict, and significant humanitarian costs. The most glaring example is the Iraq War, but there has been Afghanistan and Syria, and now, Ukraine.
The Iraq War (2003): Promoted as a necessary intervention to spread democracy and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq War became the neoconservatives' defining moment. However, the consequences were disastrous:
Destabilisation: The removal of Saddam Hussein led to a power vacuum that fuelled sectarian conflict, civil war, and the rise of groups like ISIS. Iraq’s instability spilled over into neighbouring regions, contributing to broader Middle Eastern chaos.
Humanitarian Catastrophe: Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the conflict, and millions were displaced. Far from promoting stability, the war resulted in widespread destruction and long-term suffering for the Iraqi people.
Damage to U.S. Credibility: The failure to find weapons of mass destruction, coupled with the prolonged insurgency, damaged America’s global standing. Neoconservatives’ insistence on unilateral action alienated traditional allies and raised questions about the legitimacy of U.S. interventionist policies.
The War in Ukraine (2014-2025): the fight at this time was over, not weapons of mass destruction, but Ukraine's admission to NATO. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Ukraine was not admitted to NATO. Otherwise, the consequences have been much the same: mass death and destruction, crippling costs, destruction of Western credibility and influence, and a war that could prove to be the greatest and the last of neocon catastrophes, with the destruction of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and the creation of an alternative world order centered on China, Russia and Iran.
2. The Legacy of Endless Wars:
So Neocon-driven interventions - whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, Syria or Libya - have often left countries in worse physical and financial condition than before and with a clear rejection of liberal democratic values. These conflicts have contributed to endless wars, with no clear exit strategy or long-term solutions. Moreover, they have drained U.S. resources and further eroded public support for military interventions, leading to what some describe as "war fatigue" and censorship of views at home in the U.S. and Europe.
Unintended Consequences: Beyond the immediate destruction, neocon policies have often empowered adversaries. The Iraq War, for example, enhanced Iran’s influence in the region, as Tehran expanded its footprint in post-Saddam Iraq. Similarly, the chaotic aftermath of Libya’s intervention has turned the country into a breeding ground for extremism.
Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban after a disastrous cut and run by America; and Ukraine will have lost a quarter of its territory, access to the Black Sea, as well as the destruction of its communication, infrastructure and energy systems in the remaining Western, neutral, rump.
3. The Nostalgia of Neoconservatism: Opening the Debate for Alternatives
As neoconservative policies have faced increasing scrutiny, future historians may look back on this neocon era not as the height of American power but as a period of nostalgia for a unipolar world that was already slipping away. The post-2014 global order, marked by the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the fragmentation of western alliances, represents a shift away from the neocon vision of U.S. global dominance.
The Decline of Unipolarity: The neocon dream of maintaining a unipolar world has become increasingly untenable. The rise of multipolarity - where power is distributed among multiple global actors - has created a new reality that neoconservatives are reluctant, unwilling even, to accept. The Ukraine crisis and the U.S.’s waning influence in the Middle East underscore the limits of U.S. power in this evolving order.
Alternatives to the Neocon Worldview: As the unipolar world continues to fragment, alternatives to neoconservatism have gained traction. These include:
Realism: A more realist foreign policy approach advocates for restraint and a focus on U.S. national interests rather than ideological crusades. Realists argue that the U.S. should prioritise diplomacy, avoid unnecessary interventions, and recognise the legitimacy of other powers' spheres of interest.
Multipolar Engagement: Rather than enforcing a unipolar order, some suggest the U.S. should engage in cooperative multipolarity, acknowledging the rising power of nations like China, Russia and Iran, while working through international institutions such as the UN to build a more balanced and stable world order. This would be an alternative to the NATO Alliance, which works only for a group of western countries.
Non-interventionism: Critics of neoconservatism advocate for a non-interventionist stance, focusing on addressing domestic issues and limiting U.S. military engagement abroad. This approach resonates with a growing segment of the U.S. population, weary of endless wars, foreign entanglements and growing debt?.
Rethinking Global Governance: Future historians may also reflect on the missed opportunity to reshape global governance. Rather than clinging to outdated notions of Pax Americana, the world might have benefited from pursuing new security architectures and cooperative frameworks, such as Gorbachev’s "Common European Home" or the UN-based international law. These alternatives, sidelined in favour of NATO expansion and unilateralism, might have led to a more inclusive and sustainable global order.
Conclusion
Neoconservatism, while rooted in a strong belief in American exceptionalism and global dominance, has faced significant criticism for its failure to achieve it's goals and instead its disastrous consequences. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have shown that unilateral military interventions, based on moral clarity and the pursuit of a unipolar world, often lead to mass depth destruction and displacement of peoples, lasting instability, long-term conflict, and the erosion of American power.
As the global landscape continues to shift towards multipolarity, the neoconservative worldview may increasingly be seen as nostalgia for a world order that no longer exists. The challenge for policymakers is to rethink America's role in a more pluralistic world and to explore alternatives that embrace cooperation, diplomacy, and shared leadership on the global stage. Whether the future lies in realism, multipolar engagement, or non-interventionism, the era of neoconservative dominance is fading, and a new approach to collective security and world order, will be needed to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.
Friday 11 October 2024
WHY POLITICIANS THESE DAYS ARE SO MEDIOCRE
11 October 2024
Politics, the political process at the national level, is in a disastrous state across Europe. Our politicians are mediocre and unimaginative, and in any case, they have little room to make their own decisions in the national interests, with an overbearing hegemon breathing down their necks all the time.
This has lowered the quality of candidates for high office and created a vacuum into which populist parties enter, lowering the overall tone of national debate and governance.
Just look at the UK, where apparently Boris Johnson is threatening or hinting at making a comeback, and the competition in the current leadership race is so intense.... yet no one has anything new to put forward. Johnson was the one who did America's bidding and triggered the start of that disastrous war in Ukraine.
To me, and maybe I've said this before in other posts, this problem of a vassalised Europe is a symptom not of burgeoning American power but of its and the West's, decline.
After the cold war (1945 - 1991), there was the unipolar moment (1991 - 2014) when America was the unchallenged world leader, and Washington felt relaxed enough in its hegemony to allow its allies in Europe some freedom in deciding their own external national policies.
Then around 2014 the challenges started. There was the Chinese 2025 belt and road initiative. There was the start of the Ukraine war over its entry into NATO. And not long after there was Trump with his withdrawal from the world stage, cancelling the Paris accord and questioning NATO.
America could have agreed to these changes, gone with the flow and become part of a multipolar world; or it could resist. Well, it chose to violently resist.
It it seems from the record that during the unipolar moment, America was focused on imposing its values ( at least that is what it said) on the Middle East by restructuring that region with wars in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq and early outliers Kosovo and Yugoslavia.
Then post 2014, post unipolar, renewed great power rivalries in Ukraine, the war on ISIS, the second Libyan war, Nagorno-Karabakh.
Europe did have choices. Remember the UK had earlier refused to join in Vietnam and Paris refused Iraq. It could have pursued Gorbachov's Common European Home and included Russia. It could have gone with the UN idea of international law and order. Of course, America's greatest fear at the time was Europe, and particularly a Europe where Germany was allied with Russia.
But instead, Europe, fearful of Russia, scurried under the skirts of America, adopted NATO and the Pax Americana, aka the rules based international order, in place of the U.N.
The words we will remember from this post unipolar period are I think "double down" and "escalation". That's what America did to halt the decline and keep its place as no. 1. America was in reality fighting the challenge from Mackinder's heartland, from central asia.
On defense spending, on trade policies and on sanctions against Russia and Iran, Europe felt itself. forced to comply. Against national interests.
The line, the political position, the insistence dictated by America on all these issues and conflicts, grew stronger and stronger. The sovereignty of European nations was increasingly crimped, "if you are not for us, you are against us" was the ruthless American policy, leaving less wiggle room in European parliaments for policy choices. There was less room for creative initiatives, the quality of candidates for political positions dropped because there is less opportunity for able and ambitious people to make their mark on national life. I also believe there is more corruption in politics today because this is the way Americans get things done. (I always remember for example the planeloads of $100 bills shipped into Iraq.)
With the attention of european elites turned more to america than their own people and national interest, the electorates started turning against leadership. Then couple that with the policy of open borders and a massive rise in immigration, which may arguably suit the needs of the economy and benefit the owners of capital, but ordinary people saw migration as an invasion, stressing the countries' welfare, housing, infrastructure and transport systems, and menacing, a countries long established culture with takeover, a completely alien culture, and you have the foundation for a rise in populism.
Populism with all its known weaknesses. Populist political parties often rely on charismatic leaders, offer simplistic solutions to complex problems, and focus on short-term popularity rather than sustainable governance. Historians will recast this as mediocrity. It can lead to inconsistent policies, further societal division and loss of the middle ground, and being outsiders, inexperience in governing and impatience, creating conflicts with democratic institutions, further weakening their long-term effectiveness.
European politics is in a state of decline, with mediocre politicians lacking the ability to make independent decisions due to American pressure. Only Hungary under Viktor Orbán maintains a distinct voice.
The situation worsened after 2014, with rising global challenges like China’s Belt and Road initiative and the Ukraine war. America responded with resistance, enforcing a stronger unipolar order through NATO and economic sanctions. European sovereignty diminished as the U.S. dictated policies, leaving little room for national interests or political creativity.
In response to the leadership turning to america rather than its electorate, came a rise in the "populist" vote, and potentially divisive figureheads with oversimplified solutions and little respect for democratic institutions.
The loss of soverignty and rise in immigration create a political vacuum into which steps populism. The consequence is that we lose the outstanding talent of yesteryear and "the national interest" suffers. Thus, the overall result of becoming vassals of a foreign power is to lower the quality of our own home leadership.
References
Glen Diesen, "The Ukraine war and the Eurasian world order"
https://www.youtube.com/live/ZNUNMxoYNkY?si=KHuIHPL-mlgDFJGD
