D.C. Insider: There's a Shadow Govt. Running the Country, and It's Not Up for Re-Election

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dc-insider-theres-shadow-govt-running-country-and-its-not-re-election



Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was their return cargo.


—"The Martyrdom of Man" by Winwood Reade (1871)

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates on its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

During the last five years, the news media have been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: in the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.

As I wrote in " The Party is Over," the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal which voter suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets; because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of Congress.

Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct “dragnet” surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, to include arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite their habitual cant about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from congressional Republicans about these actions — with the minor exception of a gadfly like Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save for a few mavericks like Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either — even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.

[malaise]

1. As in the Politburo

and it's nowhere in Constitution

[xchrom]

2. indeed nt

[ReRe]

3. This is exactly what I thought....

... when reading, and then listening to the interview at the bottom of the page of another OP here today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101685846

What we always thought of as the "Shadow Government"

[xchrom]

4. +1

[ReRe]

6. Come again?

I'll take a stab and say "No."

[WinkyDink]

13. This is the stupidest "argument," to wit: IF there is no difference, then VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT.

See how that works?

BTW: Romney is insane.

[ReRe]

17. "...what exactly is the democrat going to do for me, I wonder?"

You tell us. The assumption is that you're a democrat when you become a member of DemocraticUnderground. Are you telling us you're not a democrat? Wait a minute... are you saying it would have been better to have Willard as President, rather than PO? Boy are you lost!

[erronis]

42. No, I'm not a Democrat - so fire me

I am a voter with extremely liberal tendencies that usually (not always) votes for progressive or Democratic candidates. If I accidentally logged onto *YOUR* democrat-only site, I guess I should be removed.

Jeez!

[WhiteTara]

54. If you think Libertarian is being liberal, you are just a republican who

wants to get high and you aren't the least bit progressive.
BTW You're fired. Buh-bye

[bemildred]

7. You become what you hate. nt

[woo me with science]

8. They put on a good show for us every four years. nt

[jsr]

16. The Greatest Show on Earth

[bvar22]

31. The Greatest Show on Earth.... AND a Big Business worth BILLIONS.

Its produces even MORE revenue if you can make it look like its a Neck & Neck Horse Race.

In 1987, The league of Women Voters refused to host the Presidential Debates.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

[font size=3] "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public".[/font]

" campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions."
This would also include the Primaries of both Parties.

[truedelphi]

37. That is great information. Thank you. And

Then even outside the apparent billions and tens of billions of bucks that get made via the Big election business, for TV, radio stations and newspapers, there is the matter of SuperPac's. That is one way that candidates get their moohla.

Boy oh boy, if I had understood the election process the way I do now, it is possible I would not have returned any small amounts of change resulting from my year 2000 run for City Council. Rather I should have immediately put that money into a Super Pac created for my run for Calif Senate!

And when I didn't win at that, any remaining monies could go into my run for the Presidency.

Fat chance I'd be elected to any of those offices, but I too could be buying jewelry at Tiffany's, like Mr Gingrich did.

[bvar22]

39. I don't think you could do that..... and sleep at night.

I've gotten to know you a little through our shared years at DU.
Scamming people and pocketing the money with a smile and a handshake?
I'll bet you have too much of a conscience.

The 8th and 9th circles of HELL
are reserved for those who have that "talent",
and they can appoint Bill Clinton as their spokesperson when he gets there.

"The American Worker can compete with any Worker in the World!!!"

[DhhD]

43. Reminds me of the first Presidential debate of 2012.

[Enthusiast]

75. That gave me pause.

[pipoman]

9. We are moving closer to a

Populist movement success in this country.

[merrily]

14. I hope you're right.

I think they keep most of us us just comfortable enough and just scared enough.

[Progressive dog]

10. That is funny, especially

the starting quote from the guy known for being a social Darwinist.

[blackspade]

23. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

'Social Darwinism' is a late 20th century definition that lumps all late nineteenth century social theory together without considering the wide range of social beliefs present at the time.

[Progressive dog]

26. I'm sure they had different socila beliefs, so what,

some still do.

[blackspade]

28. My point is that your use of social Darwinism....

As a way of discrediting an entire OP doesn't hold water.
Every social thinker at that time falls under the blanket of social Darwinism even those with diametrically opposite points of view.

The quote in the OP is from one of the more liberal minded of that bunch.

[rhett o rick]

34. You are trying to argue with someone that has to include "progressive" in his name to

remind himself he is supposed to be progressive.

[blackspade]

44. !

Ouch.

[rhett o rick]

50. How about the screen name of: "AReallyReallyLiberalProgressiveDemocatHonest." nm

[blackspade]

66. LOL!

[cui bono]

82. I prefer Demodogs.

[jsr]

61. Sometimes people forget to look at their name tag

LOL

[Progressive dog]

92. You are even funnier than the social Darwinist.

[rhett o rick]

96. What could be funnier than you claiming to be progressive? nm

[Progressive dog]

98. Me caring what you think a progressive is nm

[L0oniX]

100. ^^^^this^^^^

[El_Johns]

33. Social darwinism = touting "survival of the fittest" as appropriate social policy.

[blackspade]

45. Incorrect.

See post 28

[El_Johns]

46. Post 28 says nothing

[blackspade]

47. Sorry you don't understand.

Social Darwinism is a catch all for late nineteenth century social theory.
The theoretical concepts collectively known as social Darwinism have a wide range of tenants from hard core racism and eugenics to collectivism and Marxism.

[El_Johns]

48. So what? The core idea is that the "strong" SHOULD prosper and the "weak" SHOULD not.

[Rex]

59. ...

[El_Johns]

64. same to you.

Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml

[blackspade]

65. The point that I was trying to make that you are either ignoring

or just not understanding is that "the "strong" SHOULD prosper and the "weak" SHOULD not" is one end of the social Darwinist spectrum. Otherwise you are jettisoning almost all contemporary social theory which has its roots in the late nineteenth century.

Marxism? Social Darwinism.
Social comportment and manners? Social Darwinism
Racism and eugenics? Social Darwinism.

Seeing a pattern here? And out of these various theoretical models within social Darwinism comes our modern liberal/conservative dynamic.

Like it or not, your social convictions have their roots in one of the schools of social Darwinism.

[El_Johns]

67. Please explain to me how Marxism is social darwinism.

then how manners = social Darwinism.

[blackspade]

69. Seriously?

What was the central tenant of Marxism? In simple terms, that the workers would wrest control of capital from the bourgeois as a natural evolution from capitalism to communism. This is social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism is a description of an entire period of social thought that originates in the Victorian Period.

[El_Johns]

70. First, i disagree with you on what you call the "central tenant (sic) of Marxism". But for

argument's sake, please explain how your "central tenant" = social Darwinism.

[blackspade]

71. I already did.

If you just can't understand after a clear explanation, your on your own.

[El_Johns]

73. No, actually you just said one thing = another, as though it were self-evident.

"the workers would wrest control of capital from the bourgeois as a natural evolution from capitalism to communism. This is social Darwinism."

If you don't understand the difference, oh well.

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a "law of the jungle." But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.

The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility.

http://autocww.colorado.edu/~toldy2/E64ContentFiles/SociologyAndReform/SocialDarwinism.html


"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

— Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858[13]

[blackspade]

77. I'm not sure what your beef is but,

My point was this: Social Darwinism is a description of an entire period of social thought that originates in the Victorian Period.

Condemning the OP for a quote from this period does not actually address any fallacies with its argument.

As for the quote you just posted, I'll highlight some parts that you have apparently missed:

The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility.

Notice the last word in the second sentence: Capitalism.
Communism is a form of Capitalism. Communism as practiced is an unfortunate implementation of the social evolutionist theories of Marx and Engels. Social evolution is a Darwinian concept that was applied to various social theories throughout the nineteenth century. In the case of Marxism, with which I am an advocate of, it was theoretically more benign, and I would argue, a progressive form of social Darwinism that tragically was bastardized by authoritarians during the 20th century.

The pejorative use of the word came into vogue during the late 1940s principally in the writings of Richard Hofstadter as a response to the the extreme Victorian ideologies of racism, antisemitism, eugenics that were embraced by early twentieth century dictators and politicians. Unfortunately we still have them today (republicans and libertarians).

As for manners and comportment (I missed this in your last comment), both are a result of theories that the common person could be elevated above their base animal instincts by adopting a rigid set of social codes that covered everything from eating, socializing, education, clothing, etc. The idea was that Victorian morality would elevate those that could be civilized while those that could not were doomed to be socially and culturally inferior. I find it remarkable that many of these ideas still are ingrained in our society today.

[El_Johns]

78. I disagree with you and am asking you to explain why you think Marxism is social darwinism.

The part you bolded doesn't explain anything to me. Many past and present social policies and theories can be characterized as social Darwinism; that doesn't mean Marxism can, and that doesn't mean that all those social policies and theories don't share something in common: namely, the idea that power-holders in society hold power because they are the "strongest" or "fittest," therefore they hold power justly (and vice versa, the powerless are so because they are "unfit" and so their condition is just).

I think where you start going wrong is in equating "social evolution" & "social Darwinism" (they're not the same).

This is producing muddled thought (IMHO) in which anything having to do with power can be labeled 'social Darwinism."

Also, communism is not a form of capitalism, another kind of muddle.

I don't think there's any point in continuing when we don't speak the same language.

[blackspade]

79. Your entitled to your opinion.

You appear to be the one muddling though this theoretical discussion though.
You continue to view a very narrow spectrum of Victorian social thought as social Darwinism rather than the broad spectrum that it actually is.

And how is Communism not a form of Capitalism? That makes no sense at all.

I do agree that there is little use in continuing at this point.

[El_Johns]

80. Ideas aren't just matters of opinion. There is no theory in your discussion. Victorian thought

may be a broad spectrum, but again "social Darwinism" and "Victorian thought" are not identities.

Your repeated assertion & apparent belief that distinct things are the same thing. That produces muddled thinking.

[blackspade]

88. Victorian social thought is a part of Victorian culture

Which is definitely an identity.

Your repeated misinterpretation of my clear statement that social Darwinism is a collection of social theories that range from eugenics to Marxism seems to be your problem.

Where you seem to be getting confused is in your conflation of a mid twentieth pejorative term with a group of Victorian social theories.

Again, to return this discussion to the OP: the pejorative use of the term social Darwinism as a way to discredit the content of the OP was a fail.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

85. I just read up on this for something else. YOU are wrong.

Eugenics, discrimination, laizze fair government, and a whole host of other bad ideologies/policies have stemmed from social Darwinism.

[blackspade]

87. No shit

I clearly stated that already.
But thanks for trying.

[Progressive dog]

94. Which word, social or Darwinism?

I really don't care if the stupid quote came from someone who believed himself to be genetically superior to the masses. It is just another justification for establishing an inherited ruling class.

You don't find this funny?. I couldn't get past the first sentence and the misspelling just adds to the humor.

Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face.

[arendt]

27. Only Nixon could go to China

If Noam Chomsky wrote this, no one would care.

The fact this guy is hard right makes it hard for him to be dismissed by the Shadow Govt. But, dirtied-up? I could see that happening.

Yeah, he's a flawed messenger. But even good messengers, like Snowden, will be mercilessly criticized.

[Progressive dog]

91. Only Nixon could go to China

has nothing to do with the funny quote from the social Darwinist.
Are you saying only a social Darwinist could say something as funny as the quote?

[rhett o rick]

35. So your addition to the discussion here is that you think the OP is funny? Care to elaborate? nm

[Rex]

60. Well looky there...it is a progressive doggy!

[rhett o rick]

72. PINO

Progressive in name only.

[Progressive dog]

90. If you don't get it,

I doubt that an explanation would help, but I'll try.
There is no shadow government in the USA.
It's a simple concept that governments actually do stuff. When they do stuff that affects the governed, the governed are going to know about it. If they don't know about it then either it didn't happen or it wasn't government.

[rhett o rick]

99. You gotta love the absolute certainty. "There is no shadow government in the USA."

How do you know? Do you think that your declaration makes it so? A real progressive would be a little more open-minded and say that they dont believe there is a shadow government. But some people think they know what's what with "absolute certainty." With due respect it's usually conservatives that proclaim they know all with "absolute certainty."

I dont know if there is a shadow government but I am secure enough to entertain the idea and try to discuss it with an open-mind. I personally with my own humble opinion do believe there is a shadow government. It certainly would explain a lot.

[Progressive dog]

101. Do you believe in creationism as opposed

to evolution?
I can't prove that God isn't just putting fossils there to trick us, anymore than I can prove that a shadow government doesn't exist. So what, rational people deal with evidence.

[rhett o rick]

104. So you dont know with absolute certainty that there isnt a shadow government yet

you stated, "there is no shadow government." I guess you meant "in your opinion". And if you were interested in "evidence" you would welcome ideas like presented in the OP. Maybe you dont agree, but a progressive most likely would enter the debate in an honest manner and not try to shut down debate by declaring, "THERE IS NO SHADOW GOVERNMENT" as if you know.

There are far too many people pretending to be Democrats, or liberals, or progressives, that dont believe in liberal/Democratic principles.

Support the 99% and not ALEC, dont support the TPP.

[Progressive dog]

109. There is no shadow government,

there is no evidence of one, there is nothing to debate.

[rhett o rick]

110. Again with the adacious absolute certainty. Just because you dont know of any evidence doesnt

mean that none exists. I bet you havent even looked. And I bet if it bit you on the leg you would still deny it's existence. Absolute certainty is comforting. I bet you prefer cherry flavor.

Your absolute certainty makes further discussion futile.

[Progressive dog]

111. In this case, yes absolute certainty.

Absolutely no evidence.

[L0oniX]

102. Simplistic and primative. If you don't see it it isn't there. Enjoy your rock.

Maybe a little Bill Moyers might help you but I doubt it.

[Progressive dog]

103. So you think there is a shadow government?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
But a tiny bit of evidence would be nice, remembering that even 100% of Americans believing in creationism can't make it true.

[rhett o rick]

113. It's useless to present evidence to someone in denial. Do you accept the evidence for climate

change?

[Progressive dog]

114. Yes but not for creationism, shadow governments,

or visitors from other planets. You have no evidence, that is the reason you won't present any.
BTW Even most RWers don't dispute climate change. The argument is over the cause.

[KG]

12. their palace is on Wall st

[Martin Eden]

18. Must Read, IMO K&R n/t

[7962]

19. I'll just cut & paste this on "Infowars"

Alternet seems to be about as reliable

[bvar22]

32. If you don't like Alternet, you can see the original at Bill Moyers.Com.

....unless you think that Bill Moyers is just about as reliable as "Infowars".


Here.
I'll make it easy for you.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight/

[7962]

36. I'm just tired of all the "shadow government" crap. Same thing the right says all the time.

Obama and Bush are the same. I used to hear people on the left saying that Bush wouldnt leave office because he would declare martial law. Now I hear the right saying the exact same thing.

[bvar22]

41. If you are too tired to listen to Bill Moyers or Mike Lofgren,

...it seems like you would be too tired to post to this thread telling us you don't care.

Most people don't bother to post to threads discussing something they don't care about.
It a paradox.
As soon as you care enough to post to a thread saying you don't care,
you have discredited your own opinion.

[7962]

49. Didnt say I didnt care, I said I was tired of it. I'm also tired of "obama is kenyan";

9/11 was faked, etc. And I respond to them because they need to be responded to.
And of course I'm not saying you'd ever see a "kenyan" conspiracy on DU, I mean generally.
No, I dont believe there are bigger more powerful people as a part of some secret organization behind Obama telling him what to do. I DO believe there are people who try to influence him, just as any president has.

On edit, if this was all true, then why do we get so worked up about voting and who to vote for? Why would it matter if its Hillary or Warren? They'll just be told what to do.

[reACTIONary]

52. +10 (nt)

[bvar22]

53. Ahhhh....Got IT!!!

To YOU,
an in depth article with references, quotes, and cites featured on Bill Moyers Website = "Obama is a Kenyan".

That is not only a lame attempt to discredit one of the few reliable sources on information in the USA,
but [font size=1 color = gray]embarrassing[/font].
DU does have its standards (or used to).

To avoid future public embarrassment,
please check out:
Shooting the Messenger Logical Fallacy
AKA Ad Hominem Logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
(see your post 19 this thread)

ALSO:
The False Equivalency Logical Fallacy:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/logicalfallacy_files/False_Equivalence.html
(see your post #49 this thread)

No Charge

[7962]

63. Regarding my post 19, see post 57.

Yes, Bill Moyers and any of his guests are never wrong I guess. These stories have been around since I was a child old enough to read them. I lump them in with the Free Masons and Skull & Bones and Tri-Lateral Commission and on and on.
And to ask again, if this is all true, then why would we worry about Romney winning the election? Wouldn't we still get the policies that "they" want?
But to each his own. I could be wrong. It's happened!

[cui bono]

83. You don't think they're getting the policies they want now?

TPP, prosecution of whistleblowers, KXL pipeline, spying on citizens, SS cuts on the table, banksters in the White House, no prosecution of WS, revolving door appointments... looks pretty good for them to me.

[7962]

89. Then why worry about Romney winning? You think they also want the POSITIVE things Obama's done?

The government cant keep a secret when it involves a lot of people. Someone would be talking about these secret orders they administration is given. Or someone who used to work with the "real" government would.
I guess there's no point in me wasting any time or money on the '16 elections; it's already decided.

[L0oniX]

105. LMFAO ...you rock!

[cui bono]

84. As tired as you may be of hearing it, the country is a million more times "tired" of it happening.

I'm curious, did you read the article or simply dismiss it?

[2banon]

56. thanks bvar, just watched this..

The guy nails it quite succinctly. I liken it to an Octopus because the tendency to call out Wall Street banksters, the MIC etc. etc. is actually missing the target. It's a confluence of all those arms, and they have the intelligence community working on their behest. Meanwhile, both parties play the circus clowns distracting the audience with juvenile antics, shenanigans and brawls. It's pretty much how I see it. This guy articulates it quite well I think.

[L0oniX]

95. +1 Everyone would do well to pay attention to Bill Moyers.

[truedelphi]

38. However, so many things that Infowars has told us have

Come true. Starting w/ Alex Jones's Spring 2001 statements that airplanes would be hitting buildings in DC and NYC, and how the main fallout from that event, outside of direct loss of life suffered during the event itself, would be a totalitarian police state.

[reACTIONary]

57. LOL, Every other day...

...he predicts a terrorist event! Once in a while, one happens.

The most celebrated of Jones’ predictions among his followers involved the events of 9/11. Weeks earlier on July 25, 2001 on his Infowars program, Jones asked listeners to “Call the White House and tell them we know the government is planning terrorism.” He said it will be someone like “bin Laden, who was a known CIA asset in the 80s, running the Mujahedeen War…is the boogeyman they need in this Orwellian phony system.”48 Despite using the phrase “like bin Laden” and not offering a date, Jones and his followers claim he predicted 9/11.49

I've listened to this so-called prediction... it's just the same crap he spews all the time. There is nothing in his remarks that "predicts" 9/11.

[7962]

62. Thanks for saving me the time and finding that!!!

Not to mention a LOT of people knew that Islamists wanted to attack using planes. Unfortunately nobody thought they could pull it off. I didnt either.

[rhett o rick]

74. It's easy to criticize. But much harder to commit. So tell us what you think about this. nm

[heaven05]

20. and it's not going away

anytime soon. Per the statement of congress being divided as it was immediately preceding the american civil war, true. This 'shadow government' will let us kill each other over partisan political disagreement only because it keeps us divided and not observing their slow march toward fascism(militarized police forces that kill at will) that keep us cowed and oppresses us all. Republican RW politics is designed to keep us at each others throat. Fox news, idiots like limpig and beck et al are their tools to do this. 47% of the american electorate believe every word spewing from the mouths of these type of brown shirted clowns. Actually I feel like I'm in the Weimar Republic just prior to hitler taking power in 1933. Brown shirt laws, SYG, murder of so called 'thugs' judicially protected, taking food away from the unworthy. Food stamps and social help for the poor withdrawn with a let them fight over crumbs mentality fostered by an unfeeling RW mentality. Greed capitalism is the only 'new' element in our modern equation. And it is unfeeling and vicious. Basically an ubertool of the club of the super rich running the 'shadow governments' of the world. Racism running rampant. I'm waiting for mass book burning(s) and our own 'kristallnacht' against the poor and people deemed inferior and unworthy. We need to wake the fuck up and make a government for the people and by the people. Acknowledging that the people really do not hold the power of their future n their hands is a first step in that direction. Whether the PTB's believe it or not, it really is our country. And it's fate is in ALL our hands. With constant awareness, such as article above, we can have the country we desire. I do hope.

[relayerbob]

21. Just figuring this out?

[cantbeserious]

22. Well Worth The Read

eom

[blackspade]

24. Excellent, depressing read.

While none of this is new, it is a great summary for the unaware.

[toby jo]

25. and the black budget produces their kool-aid

[johnnyreb]

29. K&R - this article is from billmoyers dot com

.. where there's also a video interview with the author for the first 20 minutes:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

[progressoid]

30. Marking this for a later read.

[blkmusclmachine]

40. The shadow Government is "The Family." Been calling the shots for decades. The White House is mere

window dressing.

[pscot]

51. Nice post

[yourout]

55. Sadly it's far easier to screw up government then it is to make it work.

[jsr]

93. It's in their benefit to perpetuate dysfunction

It's easier to control and corrupt a dysfunctional government.

[DeSwiss]

58. Duh.

- If only someone had said something sooner......

K&R

[blackspade]

68. Those are some damning quotes.

[defacto7]

76. Couldn't have said it better myself.

As a matter of fact, I could never have said it better. I have said it, over and over, blog after blog, comment after comment. But no one listens to me... nor should they.

I'm glad, even relieved when I see confirmation of my observations and experiences during 25 years lurking the walls of the élite as a fly on said wall. This is as far as it goes, but it is therapeutic to say the least. It doesn't matter.

Thanks Bill for being the stand up for the rest of us that I always knew you were. And here's to you Mr. Lofgren. May we finally realize "...of the People, by the People and for the People..." de facto.

[aquart]

81. SO DON'T BOTHER TO VOTE BECAUSE IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Thank you for your fucking concern.

[L0oniX]

97. Bumper sticker: "WE SUCK LESS"

[JackRiddler]

106. DON'T BOTHER TO READ - ANYTHING!!!

YOU ALREADY KNOW IT ALL!!! Just aggressively attack anything that doesn't fit! Based on headline! Reading gives you headaches! Kill deviant ideas! Hooray!

[woo me with science]

107. Oh, for pete's sake. nt

[rhett o rick]

112. Exactly because voting means you are free. The only obligation of a citizen is to vote.

Doesnt matter if the vote is stolen or gerrymandered or if your only choices are Corp-Thing 1 or Corp-Thing 2. As long as you vote you're golden, you're free.

[snot]

108. K&R'd – terrific article!

The infowar is in essence a class war over knowledge as a form of wealth.
As a corollary, information is a commodity for which there are markets that are (absent effective regulation) manipulable.

Greater transparency maximizes efficiency and profits for a group as a whole, but individuals within the group profit most when they're not transparent while others in the group are.

So long as a system as a whole remains mostly transparent, it's a more-than-zero-sum game (i.e., the whole can become greater than the sum of its parts, because the whole pie grows). But where transparency has sufficiently deteriorated, the competition among "players" devolves into a race to see who can loot the most the fastest, even if valuable resources (including personnel) are wasted in the process.

(The transparency I mean here is, of course, that of our leaders in relation to their citizens, not vice versa.)

[woo me with science]

115. kick

[woo me with science]

116. Please, everyone, pass this article on beyond DU.

[woo me with science]

117. kick