If, in my Peak State theory, the chief puppetmaster in a Deep State is more likely to be the public top guy (or, in case of term limits, the obvious de facto top guy, like Putin in Russia) than anybody else, how can we account for assassinations? For example, Pakistani president General Zia-al-Haq's airplane fell out of the sky in 1988 in a highly suspicious manner.
Well, assassinations of the top guy show that it is important enough to be the top guy that other guys will risk their lives to kill the top guy.
Well, assassinations of the top guy show that it is important enough to be the top guy that other guys will risk their lives to kill the top guy.
Posts
25 comments:
I'm still a little fuzzy on the concept of Peak State, and how it differs from Deep State, as well as the more established ideas of oligarchies, etc.
who's the top guy in iran?
Ha, ha! Well, if you want to avoid "conspiracy theories", you really should avoid Zia's mysterious death, which also took the lives of most of his top generals, the U.S. Ambassador, and a visiting American general.
There are all sorts of wild "conspiracy theories" floating around, promoted by real nutjobs like the former New York Times Bureau Chief and the former U.S. Ambassador to India---you know, exactly the sort of marginal crackpots our good friend "Wes" spends so many blog comments ridiculing.
Interestingly enough, these conspiracy theories received massive coverage in the Pakistani press over the last few years, which is probably one reason that Pakistani public opinion isn't very friendly, and the elites are just as hostile. Strangely enough, not a single word about any of this was ever published in the American MSM.
Whoever it is, the Top Goy in the US will be pretty ineffectual.
The reason Putin has to do all the cheesy photo-ops is because he's being pushed aside by Medvedev. He's becoming increasingly irrelevant.
It is rather disturbing that people are giving more credence to the American and European press than the Pakistani media.
Pakistan has a long history of free speech and free inquiry going back centuries. Truth be told, most our our Constitution was actually stolen from the enlightened Pakistani intellectuals. With a literacy rate approaching 50%, I would certainly give Pakistani public opinion it's due weight.
Just see it in terms like the mafia getting rid of one of their top guys. They become a danger to the others through incompetence or greed, or are a barrier to the ambitions of the underlings, therefore they've got to go. Lower level members who become problems can be gotten rid of with less to-do.
Rothschild's Rejoinder to Peak State Theory:
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
>most of our constitution was stolen from enlightened Pakistani intellectuals.
Yes, we sent a crack team of Iroquois intellectual piracy experts forward in time to do it. Wait, it was really their wives, unfairly expunged from misogynist HIStory.
Think medieval and early modern English history. Violent competition for the top spot was a commonplace among the elite aristocracy.
The drive for dominance is an important element in human nature inherited from our prosimian forbears -- as is the will to resist. See "Hierarchy in the Forest" by Christopher Boehm and his concept of "reverse dominance hierarchy" for the way "second best" males band together to fend off dominant males. Madison's theory of factions in a representative democracy is a related idea. Corporate CEO's don't like being dominated anymore than anybody else -- and they are in a position to defend their freedom in the final analysis. Bulwarks of democracy in a complex society perhaps? Iron law of oligarchy? It will be interesting to see how long China can maintain government by committee.
Wes: It is rather disturbing that people are giving more credence to the American and European press than the Pakistani media.
Given the very strong credentials of the proponents of this particular "conspiracy theory," we can draw an important conclusion from the willingness of our good friend "Wes" to casually dismiss it with zero argument or explanation. I think we can feel confident that "Wes" has served as both a New York Times Bureau Chief AND a top ranking U.S. Ambassador. We should feel proud that an individual of such exalted professional accomplishments is so eager to devote so much of his time each day to posting endless comments on this particular blogsite, helping us to avoid slipping into grievous error.
It appears that Putin is no longer the real top guy in Russia. He had a very public falling out with Medvedev over the Libya resolution at the UN. Putin was for vetoing it, Medvedev took a "pto-Western" stance. Medvedev won. Several months earlier Medvedev fired the long-term mayor of Moscow who, among other things, was famous for banning gay pride parades. This firing was widely seen as Medvedev's initiative, not Putin's. Two big issues on which Putin's side lost.
What does Medvdev stand for? I would say thievery, oligarchs, social leftism.
"RKU said...
Ha, ha! Well, if you want to avoid "conspiracy theories", you really should avoid Zia's mysterious death, which also took the lives of most of his top generals, the U.S. Ambassador, and a visiting American general.
There are all sorts of wild "conspiracy theories" floating around, promoted by real nutjobs like the former New York Times Bureau Chief and the former U.S. Ambassador to India---you know, exactly the sort of marginal crackpots our good friend "Wes" spends so many blog comments ridiculing."
Who ever said that there are NO conspiracies? Wes never said anything such thing. There is a big difference between believing that there are conspiracies and "believing in conspiracy theories" - i.e., believing any ridiculous, house-of-cards scenario that someone - anyone - somewhere has cooked up out of their own fevered imaginations.
And by the way, I find it difficult to care much what you think, given that you are greatly exercised about conspiracies in Pakistan, but you are completely okay with the massive invastion of this country by Mexico - as you have attested to numerous times here.
Sounds like the plot of Game of Thrones.
http://www.fastpasstv.eu/tv/game-of-thrones/
Speculation was that the Soviets sabotaged Zia's flight with aerosolized fentanyl (the same stuff they used a while back when Chechen terrorists seized hostages in a theatre - they ended up killing several theatergoers because they didn't have a fentanyl antidote handy).
The Mafia explanation is probably the best model. Its not a state like America, Germany, Britain, or Switzerland. Not even one like Italy or Turkey. More akin to tribes/clans organized around crime/corruption.
Wes, You've got to be kidding -- was your post sarcastic?
If not, please not that the Pakistan Times, as far back in the 1950s and 1960s, was run by an unrepentant communist, Iftikhar, who had his own son, Sohail, murdered because of his democratic sympathies.
It was anything but free, Wes.
Kristen, Yes that was my attempt at sarcasm. Hehehe. Someone was claiming that we should listen to the voice of the Pakistani people on some issue, as opposed to Western media. We all know the problems with the Western media, but I not running into the arms of the Pakistani Times for salvation.
The Pakistan Times may be of the usual quality of things Pakistani, but I think it may be worth checking into on the subject of Gen Zia's plane crash.
Remember, at the time, the Western reaction was "Was tinpot military dictator assassinated in a sleazy plot? Probably, they usually are. Did Milli Vanilli lip-synch? Let's read more!"
--Anonymous Coward
Some nations don't really have top guys but a top system. Soviet Union after the death of Stalin was ruled by an oligarchy than a dictatorship. Putin never had dictatorial powers. He was just the top dog among other big dogs(whose support and approval Putin required at every turn).
But even under Stalin, many people were killed not at the behest of Stalin but due to the climate of fear created by Stalin. If Stalin gave orders for people to be 'vigilant' against counter-revolutionaries, many officials got the message that it was either them or their 'enemies' which could be anyhone. So, unless you got rid of your rivals first--even among fellow communists--, they would get you. Stalin later came to regret the killings of some of his 'comrades' carried out by 'over-zealous' commissars.
And even if Putin had a hand in the killing of whoozits, there's the question of whether it was a personal order or a decision made at the behest of the powerful Russian Intelligence. Suppose Putin initially said it's not a good idea to kill him, but then suppose some top guy in Intelligence said 'the guy knows too much' and other intelligence officers agree that he must be killed. Then the pressure is put on Putin to push the button the guy. In the final scenes in CASINO, we are shown how the big bosses discuss matters before deciding who lives and who dies. And sometimes, they give the order to kill not so much to protect themselves but to protect their friends or even bigger guys who'll be pissed if someone lives and 'talks'.
Or, a killing can take place by lower-level officers on their interpretation of the general policy set by the leader. For example, how much did Reagan really know about Iran-Contra? It's possible that he gave general orders to his men to 'look into' the possibility of releasing US hostages and funding the Contras, and this got 'creatively interpreted' by his underlings into the Iran-Contra affair. Some leaders are sticklers for detail while others hand down general orders which are to be carried out by underlings in the way they see fit.
In some cases, an underling may have his own motive for getting rid of a guy, and then justify his act to the leader who, after the fact, gives approval based on the account he is given.
"Well, assassinations of the top guy show that it is important enough to be the top guy that other guys will risk their lives to kill the top guy."
There can be all sorts of reasons. It could be cuz the lower guys feel the top guy has become too unruly and dangerous, as when German officers tried to take out Hitler.
Or, it could be because the lower guys sense the top guy is really weak, ineffective, and a pushover, as when Tony Montana feels that his boss 'has no balls'.
Or, it could be due to a convergence of factors which produce a ripe moment for taking out the top guy--either by assassination, coup, or pressurefrom military to step down(recently with Mubarack).
There is always an element of gamble, as when Sollozzo tried to kill Don Corleone and came pretty damn close. In Sollozzo's case, he felt the Don was old, behind-the-times, and 'finished'. The don stood in the way of the new business--narcotics.
It also depends on how much control the top guy has over Intelligence, Secret Police, and the military(or foreign sponsorship). When Soviet Union withdrew their support of Eastern European commununist leaders, they crumbled like a house of cards. Though some of the commie bosses wanted continue in power, the fact was their position had really been secured with Soviet backing.
Hitler's power was shaky before he gained control of the German police and military. And Stalin's iron grip on USSR wasn't assured until the great purges of the 30s. Stalin was smart in understanding that communist power really lay with bureaucratic agencies. Though created and led by intellectual leaders, the communist system was run by clerks and thugs. Mubarack was weak cuz his power depended too much on US backing(foreign power) and approval of the Egyptian military, over which he never gained full mastery.
Also, it helps for the leader to have a kind of mythic aura and rapport with the people. Lower guys will be less willing to take out a MAN OF THE PEOPLE as they'll been as a kind of Judas. The coup against Chavez failed cuz he was popular with many Venezuelans.
As for the US, its real masters are the controllers of finance, media, academia, big business, law firms, courts, etc, which produce the ideas, people, and policies that direct government. Because it's a mighty multi-headed hydragon-octopus, it's almost impossible to overthrow. If one attack one head, the other heads will attack you in unison. Look what happened to Glenn Beck.
The reason Wes is still fuzzy on the concept of Peak State is that it's not a good moniker. It draws the mind to "Peak Oil" so strongly you spend your time trying to figure out why that's wrong. Maybe "Pyramid State" would be better, as you say "it's not about the bottom levels, it's about the top of the pyramid that all the other levels support."
"Anonymous said...
Mubarack was weak cuz his power depended too much on US backing(foreign power) and approval of the Egyptian military, over which he never gained full mastery."
Are you aware that Mubarak is an Air-Force General? And he did govern Egypt for nearly 30 years. Sounds like he had mastered the Eygptian military pretty well.
An example of deep state/public state leadership is the USSR under Stalin. Throughout most of his reign he was simply the General Secretary of the Communist Party. There was both a President and a Prime Minister - the USSR having the most democratic constitution in the owrld, as Stalin correctly boasted. The CP being the ultimate state within a state was not greatly affected by the ravages of democracy. The interesting difference was that everybody at home and abroad, knew the Secretary was in charge, treated him as such & ignored the titular President.
Or how much is it a difference? Bo the functionaries who make policy in Washington do talk to the dunctionaries who make policy in Brussels and Beijung even as the official leaders pose for photos.
Wait, so your idea of the deep state leader of these countries is the person who is actually leading the state? Then where is the "deep state" to it? That they use behind the scenes players and espionage to pull off acts of the state? Probably all countries do that, whether acknowledged by them or not. No need to postulate a deep state, then.
Post a Comment