Affichage des articles dont le libellé est deep politics. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est deep politics. Afficher tous les articles


Deep Politics and the Deep State

[This is the english translation of the original article - Ceci est la traduction de l'article original paru en français]

The "deep politics" concept has been coined by Pr. Peter Dale Scott. The first occurrence in a published work appeared year 1993.[1] In this book Scott coined the terms "deep political system" and his study as "deep political analysis" too. 

The goal of this article is to synthesize the proposed definitions and those for associated concepts. The approach of deep politics is fundamental and essential for a better understanding of power legitimacy in the current political affairs. This announces the openness of a new and large field in political sciences, with an impact similar to the release of The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli.

With the rise since the second world war of socio-technical systems remained hidden from Parliament's control (like systems for mass surveillance of citizens) deep politics are in our view a comprehensive approach to how power acts -- from the design of the stakes up to the decision-making process -- that becomes much more relevant. Note however, that events caused by deep politics (deep events) have been identified since the Roman Republic. Thus its relevance is not limited to a certain American country in the XXI-st century. It is symbiotic of power, and valid at all times and in all places, to different degrees and different scales.

It is of paramount importance to civil society in each country to put a word defining this danger, which if it not managed can lead to the death of democracy.[2] If there is a word available to link a concept, then we can discuss this concept and study it as a tangible question, instead of an evanescent risk or a vague scare felt during a moonless night.[3] U.S. civil society has mastered this approach and has published more than 32.000 pages of studies since 1995 [4] in order to clarify in a comprehensive, consistent and public way all the details surrounding the death of JFK, that the American public state has refused to do for 50 years.

Some academic literature on State Crimes against Democracy (SCAD), that is to say, ultimately against citizens, exists but is still few in number.[5] This can be explained by the exceptional societal difficulty to publish on this subject since the 40s and by the fact that this literature comes in a second time to consolidate the theoretical contributions of numerous books and essays written by civil society (including scholars), retrospectively documenting SCAD in a historiographical way.[6]

In November 1996 [7] appeared in interviews and political studies the term "deep state", first within Turkey.[8] Démirel, former President of Turkey, has said: [9] 
“There is one deep state and one other state, […]. The state that should be real is the spare one, the one that should be spare is the real one.”
Prime Minister Erdoğan also said: [10] 
“Every state has its own deep state; it is like a virus; it reappears when conditions are suitable. We continue fighting these structures. We cannot of course argue that we have completely eliminated and destroyed it because as a politician, I do not believe that any state in the world has been able to do this completely.”
It is very significant to note that a related concept (the dual state) was proposed by Fraenkel in 1941 to characterize Nazi Germany.[11] He thought that the Nazi regime consisted in fact of two distinct states: a "normative" one and a "prerogative" one. In the first one administrative and judiciary bureaucracy acts according to rules; in the second one the Party, especially the Gestapo, act without any ultimate legal constraint. The prerogative state, of course, has in practice full power and can arbitrarily replace the normative state's actions in whole or part.

It is relevant to mention General MacArthur’s Cleveland speech of September 6, 1951 in the course of which the Mt. Vernon Register-News reported that :
[...] he cited the State Department as an example of what he called a "steady drift toward totalitarian rule." He said the department is assuming the character of a "prime ministry." [11b] 
The Sarasota Herald Tribune gave others details :
General Douglas MacArthur said Thrusday night he has noted a "steady drift toward totalitarian rule" and suppression of individual liberties in the United States.
In a speech bristling with attacks on the Truman administration, he said that if the trend is not stopped, it could lead to a dictatorship.
"This drift has resulted in an increasingly dangerous paternalistic relationship between federal government and private citizens, with the mushrooming of agency after agency to control the individual," the general asserted.
The speech, in which he said the administration's leaders are not to be trusted,... 
The San Bernardino Sun reported :
His speech, latest in a series of major policy addresses, was devoted almost equally to domestic and foreign issues. It contained four central points :
1. That "our leaders" have lost the military victory gained in World war II, through a too rapid disarmament and diplomatic blunders, and that they can no longer be trusted now.
2. That the United Nations, as an organization, is "inherently weak," and is threatened with failure.
3. That the time may come when Japan may be "firmly established within the protective folds of our own cherished liberties, while we ourselves shall have lost them." 
4. That since his return from the Orient, he has noted our "steady drift toward totalitarian rule with the suppression of those personal liberties which have formed the foundation stones to our political, economic and social advance to national greatness." MacArthur, amplifying the last point, went on to say: "If long countenanced by free men, it can but lead to those controls upon conviction and conscience which traditionally have formed stepping stones to dictatorial power." [11d]
The Rome News - Tribune reported :

In 1955 Morgenthau used the concept of dual state to characterize the United States.[12] O. Tunander summarized it: "There was on the one hand the regular democratic state hierarchy that acts according to the rule of law, and, on the other hand a more or less hidden security hierarchy, [...] that monitors and controls the former, or at least is able to "exert an effective veto over its decisions" to quote Morgenthau.
[...] In fact, this parallel security structure, [...] what some would call the "deep state", is the very apparatus that defines when and whether a "state of emergency" will emerge. This aspect of the state is what Carl Schmitt in his work Politische Theologie from 1922 qualifies as the "sovereign"." [12b,c]
We immediately note that the integration of the state of emergency is one of the key concepts on which the US deep state spent the last decades of the twentieth century.[13a] See below the distinction between Tunander and Scott about the exact meaning of the term 'deep state'.

It is in this context of deep state that we must also understand the famous farewell address of President Dwight Eisenhower January 17, 1961 as well as the one of President John F. Kennedy "The President and the Press" given for American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961 ten days after the Bay of Pigs failed invasion by the CIA. But also in the perspective of F.D. Roosevelt April 29, 1938 speech "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies" who stated : [13e]

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

Both lessons hit home.

Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
December 23, 1913 the term "The Invisible Government" was used by Congressman Lindbergh in the Federal Reserve Act debate : "When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized.[13f] This term was used 1928 by Edward Bernays [13h] and again in the 60's. [13b] Pr. Antony C. Sutton also used it after 1972, but only with a focus on US foreign policy acted by the public state and the links with private firms (industries, banks, medias, think tanks). He did not explore the links with state agencies like CIA.

In 2014 in the context of the NSA scandal, Pr. Michael J. Glennon reused the "Double Government" theory, a term coined by Bagehot [13c], in his excellent sociological and constitutional study of the recent US administrations : 
"National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints."
Glennon also mentioned the term "deep structure" used by H. Heclo in 1999 but this one was limited to describing "those elements that remain the same when the administration changes." [13d]

Glennon did not study the illegal and covert actions by the deep state like Scott has done. But we can note these sentences, p. 99 :
"Inspectors general were set up within federal departments and agencies in 1978 as safeguards against waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality, but the positions have remained vacant for years in some of the government’s largest cabinet agencies, including the departments of Defense, State, Interior, and Homeland Security.[...]  
The CIA’s Office of Inspector General “has generally produced better results when addressing discrete, isolated problems,” but “when the largest problems surfaced, the statutory OIG did not add significant remedial value”; 
When it was Dana Priest who broke The Washington Post story about secret CIA prisons—prisons that OIG had not investigated before the story— it leads to the conclusion that intelligence insiders deem Ms. Priest (or Mr. Risen, or Mr. Lichtblau, or Mr. Pincus, or any other investigative reporter) a more effective agent of change than OIG. And not only did the whistleblower choose Ms. Priest either instead of, or in addition to, OIG, he or she did so despite the risk of being disciplined, discharged, or even arrested for disclosing secrets to a reporter.”

Daniel Inouye was chairing a special committee (Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition) from 1987 until 1989 in the Iran-Contra investigations of the 1980s. During the hearings, Inouye referred to the operations that had been revealed saying:
"[There exists] a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." [13g]
We used the term deep state in 2012 into a chronological description of U.S. political events during the last century [14] in acknowledgment of Scott's work, who used it himself since 2007.[15]

Today the deep state is the term mostly used in mainstream media [16] but its explanation remains very simplistic and often confusing.

Definitions and meanings

Scott's works offer the most comprehensive contribution, and historically make reference.

About parapolitics [17] and the relations with deep politics[18]
"...the investigation of parapolitics, which I defined (with the CIA in mind) as a `system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished.'...I still see value in this definition and mode of analysis. But parapolitics as thus defined is itself too narrowly conscious and intentional... it describes at best only an intervening layer of the irrationality under our political culture's rational surface. Thus I now refer to parapolitics as only one manifestation of deep politics, all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged."
About the deep political system and its analysis :
“A deep political system or process is one which habitually resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society. In popular terms, collusive secrecy and law-breaking are part of how the deep political system works. […]
Deep political analysis focuses on the usually ignored mechanics of accommodation. From the viewpoint of conventional political science, law enforcement and the underworld are opposed to each other, the former struggling to gain control of the latter. A deep political analysis notes that in practice these efforts at control lead to the use of criminal informants; and this practice, continued over a long period of time, turns informants into double agents with status within the police as well as the mob. The protection of informants and their crimes encourages favors, payoffs, and eventually systemic corruption […] where the controlling hand may be more with the mob than with the police department it has now corrupted.”[19]
It is important to understand that this mechanism has no limit of dissemination in the political system: in 1985 the CIA director and ex-FBI director testified in favor of Jacquie Press (a member of Reagan presidential team and also one of the leaders of the Teamsters mob) stating that his illegal activities had been authorized. [20]
“A deep political analysis enlarges traditional structuralist analysis to include indeterminacies analogous to those which are studied in chaos theory. A deep political system is one where the processes openly acknowledged are not always securely in control, precisely because of their accommodation to unsanctioned sources of violence, through arrangements not openly acknowledged and reviewed.”[21]
About the deep state and the relations with the public state :

According to Scott, the political organization in a country « correspond to two overlapping systems of statal institutions: the deep state and the public state. The second interacts with and is responsive to civil society, especially in a democracy; the first is immune to shifts in public opinion.

Thus the deep state is expanded by covert operations; the public state is reduced by them. Following the same distinction as Hans Morgenthau in his discussion of the dual state, Ola Tunander talks of a “democratic state” and a “security state.” His definitions focus more on the respective institutions of the dual state; mine, on their social grounding and relationship to the power of the "overworld"
» [that is to say the realm of wealthy or privileged society that, although not formally authorized or institutionalized, is the scene of successful influence of government by private power].

« Deep state and security state are not quite identical. By the deep state I mean agencies like CIA, with little or no significant public constituency outside of government. By the security state, I mean above all the military, an organization large enough to have a limited constituency and even in certain regions to constitute an element of local civil society. The two respond to different segments of the overworld and thus sometimes compete with each other. »

« Archival history is a chronological record of events, as reconstructed by archival historians from public records; as opposed to deep history, which is a chronology of events concerning which the public records are often either falsified or nonexistent. » [22]

About influence and geopolitical strategies, the main difference between a public state and a deep state is that the latter is not limited to agreed frontiers and to its embassies. It is present where lies and moves each of his pieces. Collusion with trans-national companies and organizations (NGOs, but also relay antennas within institutions) gives it momentum. P.D. Scott has called this the supranational deep state. [23] 

P.D. Scott summarized his fundamental ideas on deep politics in this video :

... and in this interview too:


[1] “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”, Peter Dale Scott, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993. Scott explained (pp. vii) this book was written from two manuscripts released in 1971 and 79.
[2] (03/07/2014) ; (01/26/2014) ; (02/01/2014)
[3] I published this article 3/15/2014 in a period when the non elected leaders of European Commission force all EU citizens to take commitments in a fast track mode without following regular processes, that are opposed to what the EU people wish: integration of Ukraine into EU, signature of TTIP agreement with the US, and soon new laws restricting liberties because supposedly « the EU is not any more in security and must do everything possible to protect herself from Russia ». Think about it when you will count the NATO boots in your streets. (Update 5/3/2014: for instance read this published 4/24/2014).
[4] JFK / Deep Politics Quarterly (1995 – 2013).
[5] a) in “Government of the shadows: Parapolitics and Criminal Sovereignty”, Dr Eric Wilson, éditeur, 2009, London: Pluto Press (A copy of O. Tulander's article is here); b) Six articles published in American Behavioral Scientist, February 2010; 53 (6) ; See a copy of the article written by L. deHaven-Smith here to separate and distinguish between SCAD and what is called "conspiracy theory" ; c) in « The Dual State - Parapolitics, Carl Schmitt and the National Security Complex », Dr Eric Wilson, Ed., 2012, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
[6] For instance, the two lists of books mentioned here.
[7] Insight Turkey (Vol. 11 / No. 4 / 2009).
[8] a) See for the use of this term about Turkey ; b) The New Yorker (03/2012); c) See in the case of Egypt: (07/2013), GlobalPost (09/2013), GlobalPost (01/2015) ; DNAIndia (04/2014) about deep state in  India; Maine's NPR News Source (01/2015) about Argentina.
[9] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (January/February 2006) ; NTV (11/2005)
[10] Today’s Zaman (12/2012)
[11] “The Dual State. A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship”, Ernst Fraenkel, translation from the German by E. A. Shils, in collaboration with Edith Lowenstein and Klaus Knorr, Oxford University Press, New York, 1941 ; Fraenkel lived in the U.S. starting 1939 and worked for Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and US government between 1942 and 1951, and closely with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a predecessor of the CIA -- as explained by Gerhard Göhler, Dirk Rüdiger Schumann: Vorwort zu diesem Band, in: Ernst Fraenkel. Gesammelte Schriften, Band 3, Neuaufbau der Demokratie in Deutschland und Korea, Baden-Baden 1999, Pp 9–49. The US government has then paid for his return back in Germany. This could explain why he described only positively the US political system in his 1960 book titled « Das amerikanische Regierungssystem ».
[11b] Mt. Vernon Register-News, 7 September 1951, p 2.
[11c] Sarasota Herald Tribune, 7 September 1951, p 1.
[11d] San Bernardino Sun, 7 September 1951, p 1.
[12] Hans J. Morgenthau, in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 1955 ; Reprinted in « Politics in the Twentieth Century, Vol. 1: The Decline of Democratic Politics », Hans J. Morgenthau, Univ. Chicago Press, 1962.
[12b] "Dual State: The Case of Sweden", Ola Tunander, in Eric Wilson, ed., "The Dual State: Parapolitics, Carl Schmitt and the National Security Complex", Ashgate, 2012, pp 171–192.
[12c] "Securitization, Dual State and US-European Geopolitical Divide or The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order", Ola Tunander, Fifth Pan-European International Relations Conference, The Hague, 9-11 September 2004.
[13a] See the chapter about Continuity of Government (COG) in "The road to 9/11 - Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America", Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press, 2007.
[13b] "There are two governments in the United States today. One is visible. The other is invisible. The first is the government that citizens read about in their newspapers and children study about in their civics class. The second is the interlocking, hidden machinery that carries out the policies of the United States in the Cold War. The second invisible government gathers intelligence, conducts espionage and plans and executes secret operations all over the globe." (David Wise, Thomas B. Ross, 'The Invisible Government', Random House, 1964) ;  Quoted by J. Kuzmarov.
[13c] Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867.
[13d] Michael J. Glennon, "National Security and Double Government", Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 5, 2014, Pp 1-114. A short review can be found here.
[13e] F.D. Roosevelt, "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies", April 29, 1938.
[13f] Speech before the House of Representatives by C.A. Lindbergh (1859-1924), December 22, 1913, Congressional Record, Vol. 51, p. 1446.
[13g] Speech before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, 1987.
[13h] "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." (Edward Bernays, "Propaganda", 1928, Pp. 37).
[14] (09/2012).
[15] “Road to 9/11 - Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press, 2007 ; Global Research (06/2008).
[16] The Guardian (07/2013) ; Financial Times (07/2013) ; Huffington Post (07/2013) ; WSJ (10/2013) ; New York Times (12/2013) ; Tom Hayden in the Huffington Post (07/2013) called it "state within a state" ; Note also Moyers & Company (02/2014) ; Charles Hugh Smith (02/2014) ; Huffington Post (03/2014).
[17] The term parapolitics (that has a different meaning than the deep state) was used by P.D. Scott in one of his first book published in 1972. In 1977 the term parafascism appeared.
[18] “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”, Peter Dale Scott, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1993, pp. 6-7.
[19] Ibid, pp xi-xii
[20] See the sources listed on Wikipedia about this lawsuit.
[21] Ibid, pp xiii
[22] “Road to 9/11 - Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America”, Peter Dale Scott, University of California Press, 2007, pp. 267-271.
[23] Peter Dale Scott, "The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld", The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, No. 5, March 10, 2014.

05/03/2014 : added a new link in Ref 3
05/09/2014 : added MacArthur speech and references 11b, c, d ; precisions added in ref 11.
05/15/2014 : added a § about the 'invisible government'.
06/05/2014 : added Refs 13c, 13d and corresponding §
06/09/2014 : added Ref 13a and corresponding § ; added Ref 8b ; added new links in Ref 16 and Ref 8c
09/29/2014 : added Refs 12b, 12c
10/10/2014 : added Ref 13f
01/31/2015 : updated Ref 8c
03/03/2015 : added Ref 13g
05/11/2016 : added Ref 13h


Questions Internationales: les Etats-Unis, JFK, et la CIA

A.I. Solzhenitsyn
 Le bimensuel Questions Internationales publie ce mois (N°64, nov-déc 2013) un large dossier de 80 pages sur les "Etats-Unis: vers une hégémonie discrète". L'équipe éditoriale brosse au fil des articles un portrait des plus rassurants pour la situation de ce pays. Il restera le seul dominant nous dit-on ("hégémonie") et il choisit de lui-même de se montrer plus "discret". Pas fuyant, ni en déroute, ni même en retraite. Ni absent, ni ralenti, ni malade, ni convalescent, ni bien Sur impuissant. C'est un "repli apparent", "une politique extérieure furtive", et même "une modestie internationale affichée... qui nourrit une stratégie à long terme d'une hégémonie durable" selon Serge Sur (rédacteur en chef).

Page 8 on peut cependant noter un passage intéressant à propos du Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) et des relais de l'influence des USA en Europe: 
"C'est ainsi que le projet, dont la négociation est ouverte, de zone de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et les Etats-Unis, tend à absorber l'Union dans une sorte d'Otanie économique qui compléterait la vassalisation sécuritaire, monétaire, financière de l'Europe occidentale. Règles, normes, standards américains seraient, par la force des choses, plus que jamais la loi commune au lieu de la compétition actuelle avec une Union qui sait conserver son autonomie. 
Pour cela, les Etats-Unis disposent, dans l'Union même, de relais actifs, publics ou privés. François Mauriac polémiste évoquait, à propos de certains hommes politiques européens, des "poulets nourris aux hormones américaines". Ils ont beaucoup de descendants dans tous les milieux."
Nous aurons l'occasion de revenir sur ce dossier USA de manière plus détaillée, comme nous l'avons déjà fait (en février, en mars). Il est plus urgent pour aujourd'hui de passer à un problème plus grave dans cette publication.

Questions Internationales est publié par La Documentation Française, imprimé par la Direction de l'Information Légale et Administrative, et bénéficie de la participation de Sciences Po Paris. Son rédacteur en chef, au CV académique, est actuellement juge ad hoc à la Cour internationale de justice de La Haye. Fort bien.

Pourquoi dès lors accepter la publication p110-114, à l'occasion du 50ème anniversaire de la mort de JFK, d'un article de Charles Cogan, ancien chef de la CIA à Paris, et qui commence par ce résumé:
"L'assassinat de John F. Kennedy fut commis par un tueur isolé, Lee Harvey Oswald dont l'acte s'explique en partie par son admiration pour Fidel Castro et son animosité envers le gouvernement et le président des Etats-Unis. Deux éléments suggèrent que Fidel Castro aurait pu être le commanditaire de l'assassinat : le caractère outrancier du personnage et le fait qu'il était au courant des complots ourdis contre lui par les frères Kennedy. A ce jour, aucune information probante n'est toutefois apparue pour corroborer cette hypothèse et la question reste ouverte."
De l'avis même de son auteur, rien ne vient corroborer cette hypothèse castriste 50 ans après les faits. Par contre, d'autres pistes ont été depuis patiemment investiguées, et qui viennent à la fois totalement invalider le rôle de Castro comme commanditaire de l'assassinat, révéler le rôle déterminant et positif joué par Robert Kennedy (dont je me souviens) auprès de son frère, pour le soutenir contre son entourage de conseillers dans la résolution de la crise des missiles; qui viennent également totalement invalider la thèse officielle du tireur isolé, et qui mettent en lumière le rôle de l'état profond (qui recouvre les officines comme la CIA et le FBI) dans la gouvernance du pays. 

J'aurais attendu du comité scientifique et du comité de rédaction d'un tel journal publié par nos institutions de la République un respect plus marqué des valeurs de vérité historique. Au strict minimum, une mention comme "Selon la thèse officielle de la commission d'enquête Warren,..." au début du texte aurait par exemple permis au lecteur de comprendre le nécessaire recul à avoir. Un encart pour donner brièvement un autre point de vue n'aurait pas été de trop non plus.

Je me vois donc obligé de mentionner moi-même ces éléments, puisque cela n'a pas été fait, afin qu'on ne pense pas qu'au pays des Lumières un tel discours honteux qui fait obstacle à la raison et à la vérité passe sans qu'un citoyen ne remplisse son devoir. Nous ne sommes pas à Washington, Dieu merci.

Pour être concis, nous rappelons les références suivantes. Les liens qui ne sont pas en italique conduisent aux textes intégraux et à leurs références documentées qui corroborent les propos: 

"The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions" Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, October 2009
- The Assassinations of the 1960s as `Deep Events'Peter Dale Scott,, October 2008
JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying BothPeter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 2006
- The CIA, the drug traffic, and Oswald in Mexico, Peter Dale Scott,, December 2000
- The 3 Oswald deceptions: The operation, the cover-up and the conspiracy, Peter Dale Scott; This piece was originally published in:Deep Politics II
- The Kennedy-CIA divergence over Cuba, Peter Dale Scott,; This piece was originally published in: Deep Politics II
- CIA files and the pre-assassination framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, Peter Dale Scott; This piece was originally published in: Deep Politics II 
Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico and Cuba. The New Revelations in U.S. Government Files, 1994-1995. Newly Revised Edition, 1996. JFKLancer Publications
- Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Peter Dale Scott, 1993, University of California Press.

On pourra aussi s'intéresser aux travaux publiés de la commission parlementaire "Select Committee on Assassinations" de 1979 qui concluent notamment:
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy."

Et je rappelle à Serge Sur que le maintien de cette parole est une condition nécessaire de justice. Je cite en anglais puisqu'il comprend fort bien cette langue:
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." 
(A.I. Solzhenitsyn, 1918 – 2008 ; The Gulag Archipelago, 1958-68)
J'ai résumé les causes socio-politiques qui ont conduit au drame du 22 Novembre 1963 dans la première partie de cet article publié en Mars. Parce que la justice n'a jamais pu s'exercer de manière satisfaisante, cette date marque celle de l'émancipation officieuse mais définitive de l'appareil sécuritaire américain vis-à-vis de l'Etat de droit. Ce n'est pas un acte de naissance de l'Etat profond, mais c'est un acte hautement visible et symbolique de son pouvoir, geste rendu logique à ses yeux parce qu'il n'avait pas pu contrôler cet opposant puissant.

La leçon que l'Histoire nous a donnée, retranscrite ici par Solzhenitsyn, nous explique la lente dérive du contexte socio-politique américain étouffé par cet Etat profond jusqu'au coup d'Etat permanent démarré en 2001. J'ai synthétisé l'accélération de cette dérive jusqu'à nos jours dans la deuxième partie de l'article, donnant ainsi un cadre cohérent pour appréhender les conséquences prochaines que j'exposent en conclusion, et en particulier l'inévitable contre-révolution du peuple américain qui conduira nécessairement à ré-exposer en pleine lumière l'intégralité des dessous de cette affaire.

Une société qui se pense libre ne peut en aucun cas faire l'économie de la justice, et réciproquement: une société qui fait l'économie de la justice ne peut se penser libre. C'est pourquoi le système judiciaire américain est autant miné de l'intérieur, et le premier ouvertement remis en cause. Sa défaillance a entraîné les sonneurs d'alarme toujours plus loin, en boule de neige jusqu'au tremblement de terre Snowden qui a écroulé les jeux d'alliance chancelants du gouvernement US.

L'Histoire retiendra que les individus au sein de l'Etat profond ont voulu jouer avec des forces sociales qui les dépassaient, et dont ils n'ont jamais compris la portée, comme tous les tyrans. Ils ont vécu dans l'illusion, ont donc voulu imposer l'illusion de masse à un niveau jamais atteint dans l'Histoire, et ils sont finalement rattrapés par la réalité. Tout le monde peut voir maintenant qu'un César multiforme a bel et bien franchi le Rubicon et que les institutions sont devenues des simulacres. Les masques et les décors de carton tombent. C'est l'effet de dévoilement de la crise.

Le long processus de dé-américanisation du monde passe nécessairement aussi par une dé-américanisation de l'Europe. Dans ce berceau historique de l'esprit démocratique, ce mouvement se traduit de manière plus aiguë par un dépassement des représentants de ce que Francis Dupuis-Déri a nommé l'agoraphobie politique, c'est à dire la peur ou la haine du peuple assemblé pour délibérer et se gouverner. Cette peur justifie dans l'esprit de ceux affectés qu'une élite auto-proclamée exerce son «pouvoir sur» le peuple, se situant donc dans un rapport dialectique de domination hiérarchique et de confiscation du pouvoir.

[Conclusion de l'article complétée en plusieurs ajouts entre le 20 et le 26/11]


Remembering Bob K.

A revolution is coming — a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough — But a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability. 
(R. F. Kennedy, 1925 - 1968 ; Speech in the United States Senate, 9 May 1966) 

Our answer is the world's hope; it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress. This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease.[...]
First, is the danger of futility: the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills — against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. [...]
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.[...]
The second danger is that of expediency: of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course, if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But [...] there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities, no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems.[...because] it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief — forces ultimately more powerful than all of the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.[...]
And a third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.[...]
For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger, my friends, is comfort, the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. [...] 
There is a Chinese curse which says, "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. And everyone here will ultimately be judged — will ultimately judge himself — on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort. 
(R. F. Kennedy, 1925 - 1968 ; Day of Affirmation Address, 6 June 1966)

     O captain! dear father! 
     This arm beneath your head; 
     It is some dream that on the deck, 
     You've fallen cold and dead. 
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still; 
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will; 
The ship was long ago anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage since never closed and done; 
From fearful trip, the victor ship, has yet to come in with object won; 
(inspired by W. Whitman - 1865)


The inevitable counter-revolution of the American people (The U.S. in 20th/21st c., Part 2)

Here is the introduction of my article published this month in the Magazine of Political Anticipation (M.A.P.) number 8, which is freely available in several translations: frenchenglishgerman, spanish.

Please note that another version of this article, longer than the one published in the M.A.P., is also available but only in french for the moment. This one represents the part 2 in this serie 'The U.S. in 20th/21st c.'.
Part 1 is here.

Updated 05/2014: Part 3 is now available.

The inevitable counter-revolution of the American people

(translation : Ian Shaw)

The American Republic has seen extraordinary and continuous changes since September 2001. We must call these changes a revolution, or a permanent coup, which has gradually rolled back the US Republic’s institutions to the level of simple charades. This revolution is a Great Decline, i.e. a movement which will only be reversed with the victory of a counter-revolution led by the American people, the first signs of existence of which are seeing the light of day. At the end of this long fight, none of the current federal institutions will survive without being, at best, deeply changed.

The global systemic crisis is, above all, reflected as a crisis of the status quo, which characterizes an era when changes, although present and deep-seated, are very few and far from perceptible on the surface or in the mainstream media. The crisis therefore acts as an unmasking, together with acceleration in the dynamics of change, while preserving the major trends. This is why it’s essential to examine the American Republic’s progression from a dynamic angle, instead of a frozen image usually limited to a snapshot of the situation. 
We identify four principal forces, often opposing, of time-varying intensity and the result of which at each instant explains the situation in the past, present and future: 
  • the dynamic of morals, which produces ideologies at the core of society ;
  • the social dynamic of exchanges between individuals, produced by the dominant ideology (which includes, amongst others, all the elements of classic economic analysis) ;
  • the external dynamic, that put to work by other countries through relations (trade, financial, monetary, military, political etc.) between governments and organizations; foreign policy aiming at influencing these relations to obtain effects favourable to the country ; 
  • the internal political dynamic, produced by the relationship between citizens, organizations and the federal government, and of which justice is an essential part.

A thought unsuited to the 21st century

The dynamic of morals is that which evolves the slowest. The creation and especially the airing of ideology in society require decades. Neoliberalism is dominant, and an environmental policy is still in its infancy in the US. In the corridors of power, the ideology of a strong executive has obliterated any other idea.

The progressive forces are disorganized and in the babble major media is reduced to only produce individual resistance strategies at best, otherwise warnings or wake-up calls for comfortably numb minds, but not political organizations to spread fundamentally new ideas of social justice. Religion only has a role as custodian, unlike what occurred in South Africa. Citizens are reduced to accumulating rations and ammunition whilst waiting for worst, and that’s why it’s what will happen.


After this introduction you can read the remaining part and the references used for this article by downloading the free and newly released Magazine of Political Anticipation number 8. The article is located pages 11 to 17