➡ The article discusses the concept of the ‘deep state’, a term used to describe a group of unelected, unaccountable individuals who hold power behind the scenes of the visible government. The author argues that this idea has been simplified and mainstreamed in recent years, often being used in political analysis and conspiracy theories. The term was originally coined by Peter Dale Scott to describe hidden networks of power, often linked to illegal activities. The author suggests that the true ‘deep state’ is more complex and less openly discussed than the mainstream version.

➡ Peter Dale Scott’s book provides a comprehensive analysis of the concept of the ‘deep state’, a term originating from Turkey. The book discusses how the deep state, which is not a solid structure but more like a weather system, has influenced major events and changes in American society. It also explores how the deep state has protected certain interests over the American people, and its role in events like 9/11. The book encourages readers to understand the deep state as a complex, amorphous system rather than a singular, solid entity.

➡ The text discusses the concept of the ‘deep state’, a hidden power structure operating behind the scenes of politics. It suggests that this deep state is not a solidified structure, but rather a convergence of various groups with ideological similarities. The text also highlights a fundamental ideological split between those who believe in openness, transparency, and persuasion, and those who believe in top-down coercive force. Understanding and articulating this concept is crucial to confronting and overcoming the deep state.

➡ The text discusses the concept of the ‘deep state’ and its role in society. It encourages readers to explore this topic further using resources provided in the show notes. The author, James Corbett, also promotes his book and the importance of supporting independent media. He ends by thanking readers for their time and interest in the topic.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly accepting the administration of Woodrow Wilson. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the bank of the United States, only on a far bigger and broader basis. President Franklin D. Roosevelt letter to Colonel Edward Mandel, House, November 21, 1933 Perhaps you have seen that quotation before in various documentaries over the years, and unlike many such quotations, this one is real.

You can actually go and dig up the actual source of this quotation, as I did, and of course will be linked in the show notes for today’s episode. But yes, it is an openly acknowledged fact that has been talked about time and after time by statesman after statesman over the centuries, that there are powers operating behind the scenes that in some ways may be more important than the powers that operate in public view. The idea of the power behind the throne, as I say, goes back centuries. Just that phrase power behind the throne goes back a couple of centuries in the English language itself.

It was popularized by William Goodwin and in his paraphrase of a speech that was made in the House of Lords on 2 March 1770 by William Pitt, the one time Prime Minister of Great Britain, not the Prime Minister at the time that he uttered these words, but shortly after his time as Prime Minister. He was talking about the setbacks and pitfalls that he had experienced in his time in power. And he said all the obstacles and difficulties which attended every great public and popular popular measure arose not from those who were out of place. They were formed, improved and supported by that invisible influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very dependents, first by secret treachery, then by official influence, afterwards in public councils.

A long train of such practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something within the court greater than the King himself. End quote. Once again, that was a speech on the House of Lords by the former Prime Minister of Great Britain. And as I say, that was popularized by William Goodman with that phrase power behind the throne. But we’ve probably heard different permutations of that idea under different names, like the establishment. Remember my recent questions for Corbett on what happened to the anti establishment? Well, where did that phrase come from? The establishment? What does it mean? Well, hate.

Henry Fairley, writing in the Spectator in September of 1955, talked about that concept. He said, by the establishment I do not mean only the centers of official power, though they are certainly part of it, but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. So, yes, again, the same concept that there are powers operating outside of public purview that may be more important than the powers that are dangled in front of the public. And if we’re talking along these lines, who can forget one of the most famous speeches of the 20th century, or at least should be one of the most famous speeches, the Farewell Address of Dwight D.

Eisenhower, in which he said, in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Yes, the military industrial complex, another way of formulating that concept of the power behind the throne. And of course, there’s everyone’s least favorite conspirator, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who you may or may not recall let the cat out of the bag back in 2007 when he said, I don’t believe in this notion of some sort of secret societies controlling people.

But of course, in any political system, there are sort of over the table and under the table arrangements. Yes, in any system, there are under the table arrangements that, again, the public may have no clue are taking place, but that are absolutely affecting political. Political reality. So, once again, whatever you call it, the power behind the throne, the Eminence Greece, the. The establishment under the table arrangements, there is, and has been for centuries, an openly acknowledged power or force that is operating behind the scenes of publicly understood political power. There is another term for that, of course, one that has become increasingly popular in recent years.

And that term is the deep state. And that is what we are talking about today. Welcome, friends. Welcome to Questions for Corbitt, that regular series where you ask the questions and I supply some answers. And for this week’s question, we’re going to turn to the comment section of my recent episode 485 on the Dark legacy of Dick Cheney. If you have not checked out that podcast, I suggest you do. I have been reliably informed by a number of people that it was a particularly powerful one, and there was a lot of feedback and commentary, including this comment from Gilbert, who wrote just one question.

You claim unconditionally that a deep state exists. I tend to disagree with this narrative and believe that it’s just another talking point put forward by the state to mislead the peasants into believing that justice and fair play is possible through government. Can you give me any examples of the state ever Being victorious over the deep state, if not the state and the deep state must be one and the same. When I look at important matters concerning government, the deep state always seems to come out on top. Even with all the evidence you presented here today against the Strangler Dick Cheney, was the state the benevolent part of government able to put him behind bars? In fact, who has this benevolent faction of government ever put behind bars? That was of note.

Okay, thank you for the question, Gilbert. I think this is one of those questions that relies on the fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology itself. Because it seems to me that embedded in your definitions, for example, of the state as the benevolent part of government, and I assume you are contrasting that with the deep state, the malevolent part of government. That is not my conception or definition of those terms at all. And if you had asked me a few years ago, I wouldn’t have even been able to conceive how anyone could come up with such a definition.

I would like to thank my audience, my regular audience subscribers who are leaving on corporatereport.com would at least give me the benefit of the doubt for not believing in the benevolent part of government. The good old state guys vote harder. You know, I mean, you know, if you watch the corporate report, that that is not my position at all. So please don’t do me the disservice of putting words in my mouth that I would never utter. There is no benevolent part of government. Government itself is evil. It is malevolent. It is the use of force. I have stated that over and over again, and I will reiterate it here.

As I say, I couldn’t imagine how anyone could even conceive of that particular division. State good, deep state bad. Until recent years when the term deep state went from becoming one of those conspiracy realist terms that only conspiracy realists would use and that others would immediately point at you and laugh for being a conspiracy theorist to being part of the regular mainstream political discourse. And in that mainstreaming of the term deep state, we have definitely encountered the dumbing down of those words so that it is now possible for some people to mistakenly believe that state is good and deep state is bad.

And for examples of that phenomenon, we do not have to turn any further than the current President of the United States and his minions and followers and propagandists, qanonors and other kool Aid drinkers besides who have decided that the deep state is the Democrats who are fighting against the good Trump who’s making America great again. Here’s my plan to dismantle the Deep State and reclaim our democracy from Washington corruption once and for all. And corruption it is. What do you mean, agents of the Deep State? There were people that were working at the FBI and may still work there.

Their days are probably numbered that did not want President Trump in office. They saw him as a threat to their power and their control. It’s about a deep State trying to drag a crook across the presidential finish line and trying to destroy the man Americans wanted in the Oval Office office. Trump had two ways to go with all of this. He could prosecute all of these incredibly prominent people, household names, or they could use the information to blackmail the Deep State. He says tonight we forcefully condemn the blatant corruption of the Democrat Party, the fake news media and the rogue bureaucrats of the Deep State.

The only message these radicals will understand is a crushing defeat on November 3, 2020. Oh yes, won’t someone think of poor Donald Trump being accosted by those Democrat deep staters? Oh, if only Qanon and the white hats can come and save us. That will fix it all. Yes, such nonsense and twaddle leads to the absolute nadir of political analysis. That Trump can’t release the Epstein files because he’s using them to blackmail the Deep State. Yes, he’s using child predatory, disgusting practices as just leverage against those damn Democrats who are the Deep State. No, that is such absolute terrible political analysis that unfortunately has become mainstreamed in recent years to the point where I guess I can understand why people who believe that that is the definition of deep state or that is the conception of deep state that they’re working from can believe that any mention of the term deep state is just playing into that left right nonsense.

That twaddle. Now, interestingly, this mainstreaming and dumbing down of the term deep state is something that I noticed almost 11 years ago now. I wrote an article called Deep State Rising the Mainstreaming of the Shadow Government where I talked about this very phenomenon. I said, for example, it goes by many names. The shadow government, the Deep State, the secret team, whatever it’s called. The idea is simple. There is an unelected, unaccountable, largely unknown group behind the facade of the visible government that wields power and works toward long term agenda goals, no matter which political party or puppet politician holds office.

Long the domain of the dreaded conspiracy theorist community. The idea has surfaced here and there over the years. The JFK assassination has given rise to many inside accounts and outside exposes of the secret team link. The Iran Contra scandal led to a bill Moyers documentary on the secret government link that is still worth watching 19 years later. It was even openly acknowledged link that a shadow government had kicked into operation on 9 11. But an odd phenomenon has taken place in recent years and intensified in recent months. The idea of a deep state or a shadow government controlling politics even in the US is becoming mainstream.

And from there I go on to talk about various examples of that, including two two books written by Washington Beltway analysts about deep state and the deep state articles in Salon and American Conservative financial analysts talking about the deep state in relation to the Federal Reserve Bill Moyers having an interview about the deep state, the Boston Globe with its article on Vote all youl Want, the Secret Government Won’t change and the New York Times with America’s establishment has embraced deep states. Heck, it was even talked about on the World Bank’s blog and links to all of those are of course in this article, which will be linked in the show notes for today’s questions for Corbett.

But yes, suffice it to say there was a concerted effort to mainstream the term deep state about a decade ago and at the time I was wondering why what is this? Clearly the deep state the idea of the power behind the throne has been that part of politics which as as we have seen statesman after statesman has readily acknowledged for a very long time but has never been allowed to be openly discussed in the wide mainstream propaganda circles. But now it’s suddenly being discussed and this article was an exploration of that and what’s going on and why now, et cetera.

I don’t think I had the handle on it at that time because this was written in January of 2016, which you will recall is before Trump became the selected candidate for the Republican party in the 2016 selection. So we didn’t even know that that was going to happen yet. And the make America great again QAnon all of that was still in the future at that point, but this was clearly preparatory towards that because as I talk about they the vote all you want the secret government won’t change America’s establishment has embraced deep states is talking about the preparatory for that 20162017 handover of power to the total outsider Trump who had multiple Goldman Sachs insiders on his in his administration, Pompeo and other deep eminent deep State insiders as part of his administration etc.

Etc. What a rogue outsider. We need a deep state to take him on. And deep state as happened over the course of the preceding proceeding years, it became something like the bureaucracy, the bureaucrats who don’t change despite the administration changing something along those lines. That’s the Deep State guys don’t think about all those conspiratorial things. Well, obviously this is nonsense. The mainstream version of Deep State and the one that you hear about on Fox News and MSNBC and everywhere else, that is propaganda nonsense. So what’s the real story? Well, we could start an exploration, even at a recent semi reasonable exploration of this concept by John and Nisha Whitehead in an article that’s been posted up on off Guardian just in the past couple of days.

Rule by Thieves. The police state becomes a pay to play shadow government in which they talk about, well, they talk about kleptocracy, AKA rule by thieves and put it in that framework. But they do talk. They do mention a study which I did talk about in that Deep State Rising editorial. They say it has been more than a decade since researchers at Princeton and Northwestern concluded that the US Is a functional oligarchy in which, quote, political outcomes overwhelmingly favored very wealthy people, corporations and business groups, end quote, while the influence of ordinary citizens was at a non significant near zero level, end quote.

So yes, that’s one way of getting a handle on the fact that yes, the political processes and levers of power and control that are dangled out in front of the public mean nothing and they do not actually operate. But still, I think this doesn’t quite encapsulate it all. I think what’s being gestured to here is not necessarily kleptocracy, although that’s an aspect of it, but plutocracy, rule by the rich. And at least from that framework we can see that Trump, the billionaire or whatever he claims to be, is not exactly an outsider to the plutocratic system.

So that at least gives us a handle on this. But again, I don’t think it goes far enough to explaining what’s really happening here. So if we want an actual explanation of the Deep State, we should turn to the man who coined the term, at least in English, Peter Dale Scott. I would certainly hope that my regular audience is familiar with Peter Dale Scott, the official website of poet, political researcher and former Canadian diplomat Peter dale Scott@peterdalescott.net if not, here’s your chance to familiarize yourself with him and his writings. But yes, as I say, he was the person who coined this term in English in its context in 2007.

And if you want an example of that, I’m not sure this is necessarily the very first example, but this was a 2007 article that Peter Dale Scott penned 9 11, JFK and recurring patterns in America’s Deep Events. Talking about deep politics and deep events, which Peter Dale Scott has been writing about for some time. And I’m not sure again if this is necessarily the first appearance of this term, but it is certainly one of the earliest ones in English deep state. So let’s see what he has to say about this concept. He says if history is what is recorded, then deep history is the sum of events which tend to be officially obscured or even suppressed in traditional books and media.

Important recent deep events include the political assassinations of the 1960s, Watergate, Iran Contra and now 9 11. All these deep events have involved what I call the deep state, that part of the state which is not publicly accountable and pursues its goals by means which will not be approved by a public examination. The CIA with its ongoing relationships to drug traffickers is an obvious aspect of the deep state, but not the only one, perhaps not even the dirtiest. When I talk of a deep state, this term, as opposed to others like deep politics, is not my own invention.

It is a translation of the Turkish gizli Devlet or Derendevlet, a term used to describe the networks revealed by the so called SuserLuk incident of 1996, when. When the victims traveling together in what became a deadly car crash, were identified as, quote, an mp, a police chief, a beauty queen and her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hitman called Abdullah Chatley. The giveaway was that Chatley, a heroin trafficker on Interpol’s wanted list, was carrying a diplomatic passport signed by none other than the Turkish Interior Minister himself. He was carrying narcotics with him at the time of the crash, end quote.

So this is where the term comes from and this is the context in which the real, the actual deep state can be situated. This isn’t a thoroughgoing total explanation or definition even, but it is at least gesturing towards what Peter Dale Scott is talking about with deep history, deep events, deep politics and the deep state. So where do we go for the real, the actual fleshing out of this? How about Peter Dale Scott’s full length treatment of this, the American Deep State, Big Money, Big Oil and the Struggle for US Democracy, which was published in 2014 and revised in 2017, I believe.

But in this book, Peter Dale Scott goes over and thoroughly examines this concept of the deep state. If you want to know about the deep state, I suggest you read this book. This will, this will be the full fleshing out that we can only scratch the surface of in a short, relatively short podcast exploration like this one. But to give you an idea of what is included in this in the contents you’ll see the different chapters for example the Doomsday Deep Events and the Shrinking of American Democracy which should raise some some nostalgia bills should should be significant and and remember memorable struggling for the right term here to viewers of the Corbett Report because you’ll remember in the aforementioned episode 485 on the Dark legacy of Dick Cheney I was talking about and citing Peter Dale Scott’s work on the continuity of government operation planning that was preceded that preceded the events of 911 and that were enacted on 911 by Rumsfeld and Cheney, two of the key figures that were involved in that planning.

So you’ll already be familiar with some of this concept. But in this book he also talks about the deep State, the Wall Street Overlord and Big Oil. He talks about how COG on 911 subordinated the US Constitution, talks about the deep history of US protection for Al Qaeda terrorist Ali Mohammed how the deep state has protected Arab Gulf states rather than the American people Deep State Uses and Protection of Al Qaeda terrorists, the CIA, 9 11, Afghanistan and Central Asia Deep Power Takes Its Toll on US Presidents the Doomsday Project and Deep Events the American Deep State America’s Unchecked Security State America’s Unchecked Security State and Lawlessness why Americans Must End America’s Self Generating wars so there’s plenty of analysis of deep events and deep history in here, but in this book he goes on to talk about a number of things that I think are important to our study today.

For example, he again cites the foundation of this term deep state in its Turkish origin in the Sirsulik incident and what that exposed about the Turkish deep state and his appropriation of that term for describing the American deep state and other deep states that exist, including the International deep state. We’ll get more into what the structure of the deep state is or is not in a moment, but let’s look at some of the things that he has to say about this. For example, in expounding on that Sursiluch incident, he does note that largely inscrutable it remains a largely inscrutable intelligence related event, or what I in this book call a deep event, like similar events in the United States, such as the John F.

Kennedy assassination. Nearly all Western accounts of the car crash overlook the claim that it was not an accident but an intended assassination, which is another important part of that story. But anyway, that’s beyond the bounds of our study today. And that particular deep event but he does get into various definitions of deep state, various people who have talked about it over the years and what it means. For example, in saying that these deep events have contributed collectively to a major change in American society. I am not attributing them all to a single manipulative secret team, rather than I see them as flowing from the workings of repressive power itself.

More on that in a moment. But again, he talks in many different contexts about the meaning of this term, its historical origins, people who have cited it before, like FDR, etc. And what that means. Again, I will just exhort you to read this in its entirety, but let’s get back to that question of the structure of the Deep State. Well, again, Peter Dale Scott has some incredibly important things to say about that concept, that idea precisely. I think the deep state, for a long time it was essentially polycentric. And I say in my book that it’s wrong to think of it as a structure.

Mike Rovkin in his book talks about it like an iceberg, most parts of which you can’t see. And that’s a helpful reminder. But what’s wrong with it is that it suggests that what you can’t see is also solid, like what you can see. And essentially it’s more, much more amorphous than that. And I said in my book, it’s more like a system, like a weather system, which is a weather system is very hard to define. But nobody can doubt that when you have a hurricane, it can be very, very powerful. Now, it might not be immediately apparent, but what Peter Dale Scott, the point that he makes there is so incredibly important that I think we need to pause, dwell on it and underline it.

Because it turns out that once again our language itself fails us. When we talk about the deep state. The deep state we tend implicitly, just by the use of the definite article there, we tend to ascribe to it a structure, a solidity that may or may not exist. And in fact, as Peter Dale Scott argues, does not exist in the way that people might believe it does, as if this is an organization, a card carrying organization to which one is a member. And if you don’t have the membership to the Deep State, then you are not part of the deep state because it is a singular thing that exists.

Again, what language we employ, what metaphors we use to describe the deep state, can profoundly influence our analysis and throw us off on that analysis, which is how we lead to these ridiculous ideas about, oh, the deep state is the Democrats, I tell you, or the Trump is blackmailing the Deep State by withholding the Epstein files for your good guys or whatever nonsense pretzel logic people will twist themselves into, or the cartoon type conspiracies that I’ve derided in the past, that it’s all one monolithic conspiracy in which all of the conspirators get together in a singular room and they’re all handed their script.

Putin, you will say this tomorrow. Xi, you will say this tomorrow. Trump, you will say this tomorrow. Again, I think that’s the cartoon conspiracy logic that flows from a conception of the Deep State as a singular structure. So I think this is an important point to dwell upon. And let’s use some quotations from Peter Dale Scott’s American Deep State book in order to do so. He, for example, points as he did in that interview, he points to Mike Lofgren, one of the authors of one of those Deep State books that came out just over a decade ago, where he says, in that book, Lofgren says, quote, 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 selections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the deep state, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. Now, as Scott goes on to remark, there is some aspect of that in which that gets closer to the truth than a lot of people in their formulations of Deep State. Certainly it does gesture to that seen and unseen part of the way that power is operating, I think rather accurately.

But as he asserts, the iceberg metaphor itself does a disservice because as he says later on in the book, Lofgren’s metaphor of the Deep state as an iceberg, though useful, risks suggesting a too solid or structural relationship to the overworld. Unlike the state, the Deep State is not a structure but a system as difficult to define, but also as real and powerful as a weather system. You know, that really is such a great metaphor and really does go some. Some way, maybe all the way towards articulating a concept that I have tried to articulate many times, but I certainly haven’t seen anyone really pick up on this.

And I think it is an important aspect of real analysis of real deep events. As I have said numerous times the big spectacular deep events that everyone knows, the JFK’s, the 9, 11s, et cetera, I do not think are the result of a singular clique, a singular group that decided this is going to happen. And that singular group with card carrying members all acted out that plan. Exactly. No, as I have tried to articulate many times, I think those gigantic spectacular events come about because there are a number of, of players at the table whose interests converge on that particular deep event taking place.

And so they all have an interest in making it happen and covering it up after the fact, etc. That is how the spectacular, the truly large deep events occur. And I think this is a good way of articulating that in a simple and easily understood metaphor. It’s like a weather system. You can’t exactly define all of the constituent parts of that weather system that has resulted in that hurricane, but you absolutely know the hurricane when it hits, whether it was because of that butterfly flapping its wings in Taipei last week or whatever the case may be.

At any rate, it has converged in that way at that time. And that might be a better and more useful way for understanding and parsing what is really happening here. So that does of course leave us with the question then, how again, how do we put a handle, how do we really understand what the deep state is, what or how it’s operating if it is as vague and amorphous under the surface as a weather system? Well, again, there is a coordinating principle at play here. And again, I think I have tried to articulate this in various ways, but let’s defer to Peter Dale Scott in his articulation of this concept, namely that at the end this is about ideological convergence.

Again, there are different cliques that may or may not be actual parts of different functioning government agencies and, or military and, or intelligence and, or the corporate world and, or finance and, and usually multiple bodies like that, as well as other organizations like a Bilderberg or a World Economic Forum or Trilateral Commission, etc. But what really brings these people together for various deep events are ideological similarities. And this is one of the ways that Peter Dale Scott articulates that. He talks about the two mindsets, the two political cultural mindsets that are found in all societies. They correspond to two different and opposing modes of power and governance that were defined by Hannah Arendt as persuasion through arguments versus coercion by force.

Arendt, following Thucydides, traced these to the common Greek way of handling domestic affairs, which was domestic affairs, which was persuasion, as well as the common way of handling foreign affairs, which was force and violence. In another essay, she wrote that violence and power, that is persuasive power, are not the same. Power and violence are opposites, where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Arendt’s defense of persuasive power as the norm for an open constitutional society can be contrasted with the defense by Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington of top down, coercive or d dark power as a prerequisite for social cohesion.

The coercive power extolled by Huntington was antithetical to that of persuasion and openness. In his words, power remains strong when it remains in the dark, exposed to the sunlight, it begins to evaporate again. I think once we start to understand the concept of the deep state, a deep state in this way, we start to get more at the heart of the matter. There is certainly an ideological split between those who think that openness, transparency, persuasion argument is the way to proceed forward as humans living together in society, versus those who think that only top down coercive force can be used to.

To foment social cohesion and that that fundamental distinction is what is at. At play when we start to talk about the deep state. Those who absolutely believe that power through violence is the only way to bring about that social cohesion. And of course, again, that plays into so many different aspects of, and should resonate with those who have looked at the political philosophy of various conspirators, including for example, the progenitors of the neocons, writing about the noble lies that must be told in order to create public cohesion around various matters. That whatever the conspirators may truly believe that they are saving Western civilization or America or whatever they think they are doing, but they are doing it in this particular way.

And so this explains how various deep historical events occur and why and why various players may come together for certain deep events, even if they are ideologically opposed in other ways. Again, it’s a concept with a lot of explanatory power. So I don’t know exactly what Gilbert’s position in all of this is or was, but I think for people who are interested in examining the deep state or deep a deep state or deep politics, deep events, deep history, in more depth, I think this is a way forward for that analysis that is fruitful. It identifies something that is real and observable and now somewhat admitted, namely that there is a political process that is dangled out before the public, but there is something that is happening behind the facade of that process that does not mean that a constitutional democracy is thus a good thing, and that’s what we should be striving for.

But it does mean that that is the way that government is portrayed, but that is not the principles on which it is actually functioning. And I think that is an important and important distinction to be made. It is an important identifiable phenomenon that must be understood, articulated, and then confronted. And until we get through the understanding and articulating phase of this in a way that doesn’t evolve into devolve into some cuan nonsense about blackmailing Trump is blackmailing the deep state. Guys, if we don’t want it to devolve there, we have to articulate this in a way that actually makes sense and actually identifies what is happening.

Of course, that does leave us on the doorstep of the question of what to do about that deep state. And to some extent I would say that that is the question that certainly the corporate report and I think many members of the independent media have been investigating throughout. Well, certainly again throughout my career, going on 18 years now of doing this work. So I think that that is an incredibly important question and obviously something that I’m not going to definitively be able to answer in just a few minutes here at the end of this podcast. But I will point people once again to that essay that we were looking at earlier on 911 JFK and recurring patterns in America’s Deep Events, in which Peter Dale Scott, as we saw, formulated perhaps for the first time in English, the concept of deep state.

Well, right after he does so, he makes an important point that he does go on to expand on in the American Deep State book. But let’s look at it here. In this essay. He says, quote, what I have learned over the years is that it is helpful to look at all these deep events together. This is. Oh, sorry, I’ve highlighted the wrong passage here. Let’s look at the other passage. The study of these deep events has slowly become more respectable in the almost half century since the JFK assassination. A major reason has been the emergence of the Internet and other forms of new media where the deep same deep events tend to get far more extensive treatment.

If the new media come in time to prevail over the priorities of the old, it is possible that we will see a paradigm shift with respect to what is appropriate for serious public discourse. Such an important observation. Let me remind you this was being made in 2007 at the very time really when I was just starting the Corbett Report and many, many people like myself were starting to think about getting involved in the independent media space and affecting that paradigm shift. I’m certainly not attributing that to myself, but as I say, the independent media phenomenon on the Internet has demonstrably changed the paradigm with regards to respectable public discourse.

And one way that I have articulated that in the past, I will just put as an example again right now. Just the concept of false flag terrorism was unthinkable, unimaginable, completely non understandable to the average person on the street 20 years ago. It is now so common a concept that it is now just used in mainstream headlines because people understand that concept. That is not a trivial or minor thing. The understanding and awareness of deep events, deep politics, deep history, and the deep state is something that has happened in the past couple of decades. And as I say, understanding and articulating in the proper way the deep state is an incredibly important point towards that overcoming the deep state.

If we do not understand what this is, how it is operating, who is behind it? Again, implying that it is a solidified structure with a card carrying membership. Maybe the wrong way to look at that, but who is involved in various deep historical events is an important exercise, etc. Once we do that, we will better understand how to work against that hidden structure that is operating behind the scenes of politics. Hint Spoiler the answer is not to vote harder guys. Let’s return to a constitutional republic. How could that go wrong? Oh right. That is the exact story of the United States, which was totally we’re gonna chain down government guys, and we’re gonna make it our master, our servant, not our master.

And of course it becomes the biggest empire the world has ever seen. Anyway, so no voting and returning to some public state in the democratic sense of constitutional republic is not the answer. I would never and have never and will never advocate for that in case there is any dispute about that. But anyway, we should at least know how this is operating and the game that has been played. The reason so many people believe in the state is because they do not understand how power actually operates in society and that this term deep state is one potential key for unlocking the door of understanding in the minds of the general public.

There’s a lot to think about today and I hope that you will avail yourself of the resources in today’s episode at the in the show notes@corbettreport.com so that you can start exploring this in greater detail at your own leisure. But anyway, food for thought. It is an important question, what is the deep state or what is deep state? Perhaps to avoid that definite article is an important question, and I hope that this is the beginning of an answer for various people out there who may have misunderstood what that concept is about. Having said that, I think I’m going to wrap up this exploration here today.

And if you are interested in supporting that independent media which is changing the paradigm on conversations like this one, I would humbly suggest that it would be very nice if you could become a member of the Corporate Report and help to make this work possible. And also, of course, you can go to reportagebook.com to purchase my book. Having said that, we’re going to leave that exploration here for today. This is James Corbett of CorbettReport.com thanking you for investing your time in this exploration and looking forward to talking to you again in the near future. The Deep state false flags 911 truth the federal Reserve Secret wars and Hidden Histories Fake News Medical Martial Law Ceaseless Propaganda James Corbett Reportage Essays on the New World Order Available Where Books Are Sold Until They’re Not Reportage book dot com.
[tr:tra].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.