Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"Deep State, Shallow State, Peak State"

29 Comments -

1 – 29 of 29
Anonymous Jeff W. said...

Mike Lofgren was formerly a Republican Congressional staffer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lofgren

He now hates Republicans more than he hates Democrats. Perhaps if he had been a Democratic staffer, he would hate Democrats more.

2/26/14, 6:09 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? What the heck is that? Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

2/26/14, 6:31 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

One constant mark of the deep state is that power, once claimed, is never given up. Hence, what one president asserts as being within the executive domain, will be zealously defended by his successor, regardless of petty differences of party politics.

One clear illustration of this principle is the frankly amazing continuity between George W. Bush and Obama. Truly Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Of course, this does invite a certain amount of black hilarity, such as when we see liberal democrats supporting things (the power of the president to order assassinations, say)that they would have condemned out of hand during a Republican Administration.

2/26/14, 6:38 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting piece, but I do wish that he hadn't hewn so closely to the PC line and confined his statements to what is permissible in polite company: wars, foreign policy, etc.

It would have been more daring (and more interesting) to see him expatiate on the deep state consensus on immigration..

2/26/14, 6:42 PM

Anonymous countenance said...

I read the whole thing, and while I think some of it is useful in terms of a conceptual framework, and a lot of it is true from an accuracy standpoint, Lofgren's base mentality is too conspiratorial for my tastes, and too conspiratorial for reality to bear. Another thing which raises my suspicion is that this is on Bill Moyers's website, and that's Bill Moyers as in PBS, as in Washington, D.C., as in the self same deep state.

That, and Lofgren has basically become a left wing kook. Notice his writings since he left The Hill have mainly appeared in a bunch of left-oriented MSM outlets and hard left alternate publications. It's appropriate, therefore, that his former boss, then-Congressman and now Ohio Governor John Kasich, is gradually moving leftward himself.

One more thing: This great man of the people, Mike Lofgren, who sees a conspiracy under every rock and hates the plutocrats that are behind all these supposed conspiracies, is probably for "comprehensive immigration reform," which is the #1 agenda item of the plutocrats he hates so much.

2/26/14, 7:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love when Steve just throws out a complete unsubstantiated idea of his as proof of another idea of his. There is no way Hoover conspired to overthrow Nixon seeing as how he was dead a month before the watergate break in. Nixon repeatedly stated that had Hoover been alive watergate would have been contained. If anything Felt was an example of a deep state becoming rudderless with the death of its leader and it's members become free agents out of bitterness for being passed up for a promotion.

Really an appalling level of historical ignorance.

2/26/14, 7:26 PM

Anonymous Auntie Analogue said...


Bingo, Anonymous 6:42, you nailed what I too found lacking in Lofgren's essay: imposition upon us of massive Third World immigration (legal & illegal) since 1965, because the Deep State discovered that massive immigration increases its power and profits by disempowering, displacing, and dispossessing the Deep State's biggest enemy: us, the American People.

2/26/14, 8:47 PM

Anonymous Sequester Grundleplith said...

Can anyone who wants to call Lofgren a kook please explain, for the benefit of the dumb kids in the back, which passages from this essay are kooky? Do you have a problem with the part where he points out that gay marriage and abortion are distractions from the truly important issues, on which our elites by and large agree? How about the part where he actually seems to feel that the proverbial "revolving door" between Washington and Wall Street is a scandal? Or maybe something else? Because it all sounded pretty reasonable to me.

I do agree that immigration is a very big part of the story here, but coming from a longtime GOP staffer this is an impressive indictment. It'll do for now.

2/26/14, 10:12 PM

Blogger Maxwell Power said...

He is replaying the Woodward-Bernstein mythology of Mark Felt's role. The latter was not trying to clean up the executive branch as much as ply Kay Graham's dynamic duo with tantalizing FBI tidbits. I don't see that as a classic Deep State maneuver but it's definitely a symptom of imperial bureaucracy. Also Felt was already suspected around town by other reporters -- conspicuously passed over for director, etc. -- and John Dean knew via friend-of-a-friend he'd approached Time magazine's Sandy Smith, thus Nixon probably realized who was making deals with Wood/Bern. Of course, to manage the retaliation risk at that point, there was little he could do with the knowledge. It didn't look so simple from the White House's view

2/26/14, 10:20 PM

Anonymous Simon in London said...

AA:
"the Deep State's biggest enemy: us, the American People."

I was wondering if that seems to be a characteristic of Deep States, they don't work and aren't necessary when a society is ethnically homogenous. Once a Deep State comes into existence it will promote Diversity in order to promote itself.
The American Deep State seems to have metastasised fairly recently, beginning in the 1992-2000 'neoliberalism' period and exploding with 9/11. Obviously there are precursors back decades and even centuries, but they seem relatively truncated to me, more like what you would traditionally see in Britain or Germany, not France or Turkey.

2/26/14, 10:31 PM

Anonymous Reg Cæsar said...

Do you have a problem with the part where he points out that gay marriage and abortion are distractions… --Sequester Stallone

Well, yes. When our so-called élite is pushing--here, and now abroad-- policies like these that have no place in civil society, with cockamamie pseudolibertarian arguments coming from the mouths of archstatists, I get a tad suspicious and so should you.

Lofgren says these issues are distractions from degenerate globalism. But Andrew Bacevich comes closer to the truth when he says these are examples of such degeneracy.

No serious person believes in "a woman's right to choose". And when a 40-year veteran of the libertarian movement declares that same-sex marriage is "a hostile takeover of civil society by the state", I sit up and take notice.

2/26/14, 11:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would happen if hypothetically (because I doubt it would be allowed to happen) that a president like Ron Paul came along ? That is he is sincerely committed in rooting out these unelected power players and delivering on his campaign promises ? The conspiracy theorists will say that he will be assassinated or a sex scandal will suddenly surface, I personally think even the deep state would not dare that.

All it takes is for the right candidate to be voted in to tackle this, he could make the head of the NSA someone who works for the EFF for example.

2/27/14, 12:52 AM

Blogger ErisGuy said...

When quoting you skipped the psychotic, anti-Constitutional paragraph denouncing Republicans.

2/27/14, 2:04 AM

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic said...

@Reg Caesar:

And when a 40-year veteran of the libertarian movement declares that same-sex marriage is "a hostile takeover of civil society by the state", I sit up and take notice.

Did I miss something in the OP? Who said this and where? It's a very smart statement.

2/27/14, 4:55 AM

Anonymous Dan said...

Does anyone, anyone at all feel actual surprise that the intelligence services spy (in theory) on anyone they wish to?

2/27/14, 5:39 AM

Anonymous el supremo said...

RE: @ Simon in London "I was wondering if that seems to be a characteristic of Deep States, they don't work and aren't necessary when a society is ethnically homogenous."

An interesting idea, but the examples of Turkey and Italy do seem to contradict it.

The deep state of post-war Italy existed in a basically mono-ethnic state (Italy's regional differences notwithstanding - although the criminal Mafias of the South provided resources for the deep state, you can't really see it as an ethnic conflict)

While Turkey has its Kurdish minority, the Turkish deep state never really tried to promote Kurdish diversity against Turks - if anything most members of the Turkish deep state were classic Kemalists who insisted on the ethnic homogeneity of Turkey and saw the Kurds were "Mountain Turks" (even if they used the various Kurdish organizations as part of their plots)

2/27/14, 6:22 AM

Anonymous Dahinda said...

Anonymous said...
"I love when Steve just throws out a complete unsubstantiated idea of his as proof of another idea of his. There is no way Hoover conspired to overthrow Nixon seeing as how he was dead a month before the watergate break in. Nixon repeatedly stated that had Hoover been alive watergate would have been contained. If anything Felt was an example of a deep state becoming rudderless with the death of its leader and it's members become free agents out of bitterness for being passed up for a promotion."

I don't think that this is what Steve said. He just said that Deep Throat teamed up with Woodward and Bernstein to take Nixon down. That is what happened. The J. Edgar Hoover mention seems like a sarcastic comment on a possible motive on the part of Deep Throat.

2/27/14, 6:43 AM

Anonymous Dahinda said...

Steve, There have been many times where you mention reporters or pundits in the main stream media who obviously secretly read your articles. Does this make you the deep state to the shallow state? Sort of a deeper shade of shallow?

2/27/14, 6:46 AM

Blogger Luke Lea said...

I think you need to mention the so-called "donor class" somewhere in this mix. That's the term NYT financial correspondent David Kay Johnston coined to designate the several thousand wealthiest families in America who bankroll both political parties and who, by consensus, more or less decide what will NOT be on the political agenda, most notably trade and immigration. I think that class is also pretty much wed to the idea of an American empire of global dimensions even though, in my amateur opinion, they are naive and foolish when it comes to China.

2/27/14, 8:02 AM

Anonymous countenance said...

Sequester Grundleplith

1. This alleged Deep State (and I don't think we can even call it a Deep State in the Turkish sense) is hardly on the conservative side of the marriage and aborticide issue.

2. Lofgren says (rightly) that we're acting like a dying decaying empire akin to the latter years of the Western Roman Empire, then he turns around in this piece implicitly and in other words of his more explicitly bashes and trashes the very people and the very groups doing the most to try to prevent, halt and reverse that, the Tea Party Movement.

3. Another one of his big problems is that, like I said above, his mentality is too conspiratorial for my tastes. To read his article here and extend it out logically, he has to think that everything is tightly and centrally controlled, nothing happens that the "Deep State" doesn't have its hands in. I don't think ours is the kind of society and culture where that is possible. Let me put it to you this way: If I thought our enemies had such a complete and consummate lock on public affairs, I would totally give up caring about politics and public affairs. That I have not and will not is proof that I don't think everything is so centrally controlled as Lofgren thinks it is.

4. And he was a John Kasich staffer? That doesn't say much for Kasich, who has Presidential ambitions, BTW. As someone who was a Senate campaign staffer in 2012 and one election away from being a U.S. Senate staffer right now, I can attest that these politicians know who they're hiring in terms of staffers.

5. Finally, my intelligence guided by experience leads me to believe that great "anti-establishmentarians" like Lofgren are multiracialist, racial egaliatrians and open borders types. You can't be against the system yet believe in the system's most crucial bromide at the same time.

2/27/14, 9:26 AM

Anonymous countenance said...

Maxwell Power

Not only do I think that Mark Felt wasn't Deep Throat, I think there was no such person as Deep Throat, at least in the Watergate narrative we're supposed to accept.

I think Woodward and Bernstein's "deep throat" was a grand juror illegally leaking and squealing.

2/27/14, 9:31 AM

Anonymous Otis said...

Hysteria and hyperbole are hallmarks of a bad writer. Lofgren makes some good points, though nothing earth-shattering. Having grown up in the DC area and read the Washington Post on a daily basis until my mid-30’s, I already knew all of this. Anybody with average powers of observation and an average social life would have known this as well. You’d know lots of congressional staffers that move from congressmen to senator to Such-and-Such Foundation and back to some house committee.

Lofgren reminds me a bit of Kevin Phillips – a former Republican who basically went insane.

You can learn a lot about somebody by the words they choose. He betrays his lefty instincts by referring to “voter suppression laws”. Asking that somebody identify themselves is not “voter suppression” any more than requiring a driver’s license at the airport is “travel suppression”. Using such a charged term is intentional and reveals a degree of bad faith.

“As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless” is an absurd statement, particularly from someone who goes onto to lament executive overreach. The Constitution clearly intended Congress to be the most powerful branch, and the House to be the most powerful half of Congress. Congressional Republicans “present objective” is to defend their interests. They are charged with doing this. Rubber stamping whatever Obama wants to do is not part of their job description.

Lofgren is at his most odious with his references to Tea Party “wahhabites”. We’re supposed to believe that normal white people disgusted by bank bailouts and the naked power displayed in ramming through “Obamacare” are the “wahhabites”…and not the people that socialize with and do the bidding of the Saudis – actual “wahhabites”.

His haughtiness is infuriating: “Like children playing with dynamite, the tea party and its compulsion to drive the nation into credit default has alarmed the grown-ups commanding the heights of capital; the latter are now telling the politicians they thought they had hired to knock it off.” Got it Lofgren…you morons that view “a deal” as the height of governing, that spend roughly $2 for every $1 in taxes received are the “grown ups”. And the people disgusted by the self-serving, short-sighted, and naked incompetence of our rulers are the children. He has the right analogy, but confuses the two sides. People like Lofgren are the destructive children playing with dynamite. I have an overwhelming urge to punch this guy in the face.

2/27/14, 9:35 AM

Anonymous Sequester Grundleplith said...

@Rogaine Caesar:

I appreciate your cordial reminder about the things I ought to sit up and notice, but I can't understand why my comment spiced up your Ovaltine as much as it did.

"But Andrew Bacevich comes closer to the truth when he says these are examples of such degeneracy."

As it happens, I agree that atomized individualism in the marketplace and atomized individualism in family/gender/sexuality reinforce each other to the overall detriment of society (although I'm not sure where that leaves the "libertarian movement"). On the other hand, the existence of positive feedback doesn't necessarily mean that attacking one phenomenon is just as effective as attacking the other. So when I say that, for example, gay marriage is a "distraction" (go back and read what I wrote, it might help you) I simply mean that it absorbs political energy that would be better spent on a push to withdraw from free trade agreements, or to sensibly restrict immigration, or to reconsider our relationship with Israel, etc. It serves this function quite well, as your comment shows. The fact that our leaders, who are not exactly philosopher kings but aren't complete morons, either, understand and seek to exploit this dynamic doesn't mean that we should take the bait, gibbering all the while about the cockamamie hobbledehoys and their insolent disregard of all that is good and decent. Trust me, they can hear you loud and clear.

2/27/14, 10:16 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What would happen if hypothetically (because I doubt it would be allowed to happen) that a president like Ron Paul came along ?"

Breaking up the TBTF banks and taking the central banking role back from the banking cartel would have a huge effect on the power of the bad guys.

The problem is keeping it that way as the scam is so profitable the banking mafia lay siege to any country that prevents it as shown by the history of the banking mafia's long battle to impose a cartel central bank on the US.

Long-term i think you need either a large number of people to understand the inherent destructiveness of usury or a religious ban on it.

2/27/14, 10:53 AM

Blogger fondatori said...

Years ago, when I was in high school a government or history teacher mentioned John J McCloy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McCloy who was maybe the top government insider in the middle 20th century. There was a book about him that I haven't read written I think by someone my teacher knew. He was such an insider he was on the Warren Commission along with Senators, Congressman, Chief Justice Warren and Dulles, the head of the CIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission

yet nobody knows about this guy.

2/27/14, 10:54 AM

Anonymous Reg Cæsar said...


Who said this ["a hostile takeover of civil society by the state"] and where? It's a very smart statement. --Anti-Gnostic

It was Jennifer Roback Morse at thisconference. She wrote a book, Love and Economics, which argued that contract theory, as useful as it may be to other fields of study, cannot be applied to sex, reproduction and family.

Were I to put two contemporary political tomes into a time capsule to be read in 2114, it would be this one, and Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions.

A white chick and a black guy. I don't believe in affirmative action; it's just that white men have been AWOL. At least on our side!

2/27/14, 2:34 PM

Anonymous Sequester Grundleplith said...

@countenance

Fair points, especially with regard to immigration/open borders, which we agree is the major part of the story that Lofgren doesn't tell.

On the other hand, it seems we just disagree about whether there's conspiracy-mongering going on here. When Lofgren says that he does *not* (his emphasis) intend an "expose of a secret, conspiratorial cabal" I take him at his word. For one thing, he (and we) wouldn't need the phrase and the concept of a "Deep State" if we were just talking about a conspiracy. His essay is reasonably clear that the permanent, unelected governing class to which he refers operates on the basis of mutual backscratching and shared understanding. Furthermore, as Steve often points out, Americans are conditioned to believe that any explanation of current events that even faintly suggests concerted sub rosa action by elites, never mind a true conspiracy, is to be mocked and ignored. It couldn't possibly happen here! Lofgren's essay would be a useful corrective even if it were several shades purpler than it actually is (and it is, here and there, you're right).

Anyway, again, thank you for your thoughtful response.

2/27/14, 2:36 PM

Anonymous Bert said...

I was never too impressed with Kasich. When he was in Congress he was a typical arrogant Gingrichite, and now that he's governor he's sinking into muddy mediocrity.

2/27/14, 4:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

For all you people complaining about the lack of an immigration discussion in Lofgren's piece, that's what the "commodifying of labor" is.

Yes it's subtle, but that's his discussion of it.

2/27/14, 9:21 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL