Showing posts with label #Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Democracy. Show all posts

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.

Wednesday, 26 June 2024

FRENCH LEGISLATIVES FIRST ROUND

26 June 2024


https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2024/06/25/legislatives-2024-ce-qu-il-faut-retenir-du-debat-entre-gabriel-attal-jordan-bardella-et-manuel-bompard_6243693_823448.html

1. Introduction

- Participants: Gabriel Attal (Prime Minister), Jordan Bardella (President of Rassemblement National), Manuel Bompard (La France Insoumise).

2. Key Topics Discussed

- Purchasing Power
  - Bardella emphasised reducing energy VAT, budget constraints.
  - Bompard advocated for price controls on necessities.
  - Attal proposed a "purchasing power package" with wage and pension increases.

- Pension Reform:
  - Attal opposed repealing reforms.
  - Bardella suggested flexible retirement ages based on work start age.
  - Bompard aimed to lower retirement age to 62, eventually 60.

- Taxes:
  - Attal promised no new taxes.
  - Bompard proposed higher taxes for the wealthy.
  - Bardella called for an audit of state finances.

- Environment:
  - Bompard prioritised climate change.
  - Attal highlighted budget increases for ecological transition.
  - Bardella promoted nuclear energy, opposed new wind projects.

- Immigration:
  - Bompard argued immigrants benefit the economy.
  - Bardella questioned loyalty of dual nationals.
  - Attal criticised Bardella’s stance on binational job restrictions.

3. Summary

The debate covered economic policies, pension reform, taxation, environmental strategies, and immigration, highlighting clear ideological divides between the participants.

Thursday, 7 September 2023

TRUMP HUNT

7 September 2023

Trump was challening the outcome of the 2020. If you're not allowed to protest, then no result, including any fixed result, can ever be questioned. The possibility of a challenge is what validates the entire election process and a challenge can be used to verify or otherwise a particular result. Challenging a particular result is not challenging the constitution itself, is not an insurrection or a coup and if electors cannot challenge a result that some believe is fixed then you risk living under one-party rule.

So I see the 6th Jan as a matter of public order, just like parents might protest an Educ Ctte decision on sex education by marching on the school. So long as it's peaceful, ok; otherwise disturbance of the peace. The parents are not challenging the existence of the school, they are challenging what this instance of its existence is trying to do. Otherwise the committee could do all kinds of weird stuff and the parents would have no recourse.

Imagine if a school organises a day where children must come dressed as a member of the opposite sex. Imagine that. And one of the parents organises the protests and gets 21 years in prison.

The 14th amendment as far as I can understand was designed by the Unionists to manage Confederate resistance.

I don't want to be picky, but the 14th does say "and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States". Shall be. It isn't talking about running for office, it's talking about someone already in the office of the president. Running for office, it requires the candidate be a citizen of a certain age, nothing else. A candidate can even run a campaign from a prison cell.

Basically, before thinking about the specifics of whether I am pro or anti Trump, I would leave the elections process well alone and let the people decide who they want to be their next president. If the possibility to challenge an election result is banned, then think about the powers an administration, "the swamp", would now have to ban any candidate it doesn't approve; and that could include your being excluded when it is your adversary's turn in office.

Democracy is about alternance in office. The incumbent must recognise the other party as legitimate. If an adversary can't challenge a result then we'd just have another autocracy, ie we'd wind up with one-party rule by a government with an exclusive monopoly on the truth.