Crooke: Deep State a "Structure"

The four paragraphs from the Wall Street Journal article, “Biden Gets the Chicago Treatment,” Rod Blagojevich wrote that Alastair Crooke cites in the opening of his SCF essay bludgeon any further thought that the Outlaw US Empire is a democracy at the national level when it comes to electing the chief magistrate—the elected king as the position was called by the Anti-Federalists prior to the ratification of the 1787 Constitution that allowed for the Deep State structure to be built. Readers will need to view Crooke’s chat with Judge Napolitano to hear him describe the Deep State in that manner, although he does mention it in passing below. The metaphor of cigar-smoke filled rooms where the fat cats decide who gets to run for president or other elected positions was always true to a degree. Now with both the DNC and RNC as private corporations according to the courts they can nominate whosoever they choose and pull the public’s chain the entire time. It’s even possible that Harris could be the nominee and pulled from the ballot and replaced by any number of DNC Neocons. The RNC could do the same with Trump, but it would face two huge problems: their base would stage a massive revolt and the Rs have nobody capable of filling Trump’s shoes.

Much of the current focus is on the massive show of support and confession of being an accomplice to the Zionist Genocide in Palestine along with what appears to be a false flag attack by the Zionists on Syrian Druze living in the occupied Golan Heights, who Crooke points out are Syrian citizens, not Zionists whatsoever, to ignite the greater war Netanyahu wants versus Hezbollah and by extension Iran—his concentration on Iran before the Outlaw US Congress made very clear what his aim is and that he seeks direct involvement by the Empire.

All that’s a good preamble to the essay and chat. It would be good for Crooke to use the term Megalomania to describe Netanyahu’s psychological illness because the term eschatological doesn’t fit the facts as well, IMO. Now for the essay:

Is there a risk that Kamala Harris might “go soft” on foreign policy?

Extraordinary Times: Biden renounces his election bid via in the slimmest of Sunday afternoon postings; retreats into a silence which finally is broken by a ‘long farewell’ pronounced from the Oval Office. Biden’s staff didn’t hear of his renunciation until a minute before his letter was posted. Then the internet was struck down by CrowdStrike, and the head of the U.S. Secret Service gives an account of the Trump assassination attempt that leaves both sides of the aisle in Congress aghast at the seeming incompetence – or mooting something ‘worse’.

Everyone is left reeling.

With all media information streams tainted, and with no ‘believable someone’ to explain what is going on, we are pushed completely to the ‘outside’. For now, it is impossible to orientate. The media increasingly is about one thing: ‘Let us think for you. Let us be your eyes and your ears. Make our new words and phrases into your language. The explanations and hypotheses that are offered appear so unconvincing that they evoke rather, a deliberate attempt to dis-orientate the public – and to loosen their grip on reality’.

Nonetheless, even if the essence of the internal U.S. conflict is shrouded, a veil on the working of the Deep State has been peeled away: It is widely understood the Biden ouster was masterminded – behind the curtain – by Barack Obama. Pelosi was the ‘enforcer’ (“We can do this [Biden’s ouster] the easy way – or the ‘hard way’”, Pelosi warned the Biden circle).

Rod Blagojevich (who has known Obama since 1995) explains the gist of what is happening in the Wall Street Journal:

“We [he and Obama] both grew up in Chicago politics. We understand how it works—with the bosses over the people. Mr. Obama learned the lessons well. And what he just did to Mr. Biden is what political bosses have been doing in Chicago since the 1871 fire – selections masquerading as elections. Mr. Obama and I know this kind of Chicago politics better than anyone. We both rose up in it and I was brought to ruin by it”.

“While today’s Democratic bosses may look different from the old-time cigar-chomping guy with a pinky ring, they operate the same way: in the shadows of the backroom. Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rich donors—the Hollywood and Silicon Valley élites—are the new bosses of today’s Democratic Party. They call the shots. The voters, most of them working people, are there to be lied to, manipulated and controlled”.

“All along, Mr. Biden and the Democratic politicians have been claiming that this year’s presidential race is about “saving democracy”. They are the biggest hypocrites in American political history. They have successfully maneuvered to dump their duly elected candidate for president … [Biden’s] unfitness to run for re-election today didn’t just happen. The Democrats have been covering it up for a long time. [However, after] June’s presidential debate, Mr. Obama and the Democratic bosses could no longer hide his condition. The jig was up, and Joe had to go”.

“The Democratic National Convention in Chicago next month will provide the perfect backdrop and place for Mr. Obama to finish the job and choose his candidate, not the voters’ candidate. Democracy, no. Chicago ward-boss politics, yes”.

Well, it seems that Kamala Harris—who never won a primary—is again about to circumvent the primary process through orchestrated acclaim, which rumour suggests is concerted by the Clinton family, whilst the Obama family (Dons of the Chicago political mafia) are against her, and fume quietly.

Is it done? Will Kamala Harris be the Democratic contender?

Maybe so—but were there to be a major international crisis—say, in the Middle East, or with Russia—possibly things might then change.

How so?

To get where Harris ‘is’, she “went from being a tough-on-crime prosecutor as a district attorney in California – to the far Left”, California delegates at the RNC told The American Conservative:

“She and Gavin Newsom, in charting their rise through the Democratic Party of 2024, tried to keep tacking to the far Left. They had to be the most extreme on crime, on abortion, on DEI, on the open border, on economic policy and confiscation level taxation. That really doesn’t play well in most of the country”.

Harris has also differentiated herself from Biden foreign policy by being explicitly more sympathetic to the plight of Gaza’s Palestinians.

U.S. foreign policy strategies however, are not widely discussed publicly, and are viewed by the ruling-strata as vital and being of the essence. The electorate will not be privy to what those entanglements are at the structural level, since they involve state secrets. Nevertheless much of U.S. politics rides on the back of this ‘less divulged’ bedrock.

Will Harris commit to these foundations of foreign policy structures (i.e. such as the Wolfowitz Doctrine)? Will she go soft on the structures out of a desire to tilt towards the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in respect to Gaza? Will she go party-partisan and break the bi-partisan canon (already under stress)?

Ignore the money-laundering aspect to foreign policy expenditure. The important thing is that no one can be allowed to go soft on these policies and treaties on which the ‘free world’ structurally now depends, and has done so for decades. That is the Deep State stance.

It will not play well in the U.S., were Harris to ‘go soft’. There was clear evidence in Netanyahu’s address to Congress that the longstanding bipartisan consensus to back Israel has eroded. This will worry the foreign policy grandees.

“The one adhesive that has maintained the resilience of the Israeli relationship is bipartisanship”, said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator and adviser to Republican and Democratic administrations. “That is under extreme stress.” He added: “If you have a Republican view and two or three Democratic views about what it means to be pro-Israel, the nature of the relationship is going to change”.

Mr Netanyahu was evidently well aware of this risk. He struck a pointedly bipartisan tone throughout his address. And the address undoubtedly was a masterful display of his feel for the American political psyche. It hit the required spots and carefully melded into a ‘State of the Union’ mode of delivery and structure.

Of course there were dissenters, yet Netanyahu seized the audience with his “crossroads of history” grand theme which portrayed Iran’s “Axis of Evil” confronting America, Israel and their Arab allies. And he cemented his hold over much of that audience by promising that—together—America and Israel would prevail: “When we stand together something very simple happens: We win, they lose. And my friends”, he pledged, “We will win”.

It was a replay of the ‘Israel is America and America is Israel’ meme.

So the foreign policy questions in respect to the Harris candidacy are two-fold: First, might Harris – as presidential candidate presumptive – choose to tear down, weaken or expose the load bearing foreign policy ‘givens’ in the eyes of the Establishment?

And secondly, what should be the stance of Deep State panjandrums should a serious international crisis arise in the near future?

A clamour then will surely swell that an experienced foreign policy hand must take the helm – which Harris isn’t. It would invite calamity, were someone with no foreign policy experience to knock down certain policy ‘structures’ on which so much U.S. policy rides.

Is Obama then awaiting the moment to insert his final choice as the new Party figurehead (as the GOP Convention goers suspect), or is he convinced that Harris will not prevail in November, and as party elder statesman, would prefer to pick up the pieces of the Party – in the aftermath – and mold it to his liking?

Just to be clear, an international crisis precisely is that which Netanyahu intends to begin to build out during his Washington visit. Of course, the address of Netanyahu’s ‘grand theme’ will be pursued quietly, away from the public gaze. Speaker Mike Johnson is convening a private gathering with Netanyahu alongside some of the most influential Republican mega-donors and political power players.

Netanyahu is on record that 7th October has evolved to become a war on Israel from all points of the compass, and that Israel needs the support and practical assistance of the “free world” … “at a time when it is more viciously demonized than ever”.

Whilst Hezbollah is being confronted daily by the IDF, it has manifestly neither been dismantled nor deterred. And that dictates that Israel cannot live with ‘terrorist armies’, openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction encamped at, and near, its borders, Netanyahu complains.

This constitutes ‘the imminent crisis’: The prospective Israeli military operation in Lebanon to push Hezbollah back from the border. Reportedly, the U.S. already has committed to limited support for this military objective.

But Netanyahu also insists that Israel needs the support and practical assistance of the ‘free world’ ‘to counter the regime at the heart of the existential threat – Iran’. What if Iran intervenes in Lebanon in response to a massive Israeli assault? Netanyahu casts this as the ‘barbarians’ coming for western civilisation – coming too for America as much as Israel.

The recent Israeli attack on Hodeida port in Yemen – at least in part – can be seen as an Israeli teaser clip to show the western world that Israel is able to confront adversaries at long distance (1,600 kms) showcasing its own in-flight re-fueling capabilities for a large phalanx of aircraft. The raid inflicted heavy damage on the port. The message was clear: If Israel can do this to Yemen, it can (theoretically) strike at Iran, too.

Of course, hitting out at Iran is entirely a different proposition. And that’s why Netanyahu is seeking U.S. support.

There is a photograph of Netanyahu and his wife aboard the Wing of Zion (the new Israeli State aircraft) with a MAGA-style baseball cap on the desk beside him, only it is blue, not red, and is emblazoned with two words: “Total Victory”.

“Total Victory” plainly is Israel ‘winning together, with the U.S., in confronting Iran’s axis of evil’: Is the U.S. aboard? Or are U.S. foreign policy circles so distracted by the extraordinary succession events cascading out in the U.S. and Ukraine that the élites cannot, at the same time, attend to Bibi’s “crossroads of history”? We shall see. [Bolded Italics My Emphasis]

I must disagree with Crooke that the Outlaw US Empire’s stated foreign policy is based on “state secrets.” And there’s a big snag within Netanyahu’s “pledge”: “When we stand together something very simple happens: We win, they lose.” Both the Zionists and the Outlaw US Empire have backed the Ukrainian Nazis who are losing badly, and it stands to reason that the Zionists must back the Empire in its conflict with China where both will lose again. The Zionist attempt to retaliate directly against the Iran proper failed miserably. Iran’s message about intervening needs to be looked at closely. The most recent status was mentioned during a call between presidents Pezeshkian and Macron:

“The Zionist regime will be making a big mistake if it attacks Lebanon, which will carry heavy consequences for them (Israelis),” the Iranian president warned.

A statement was also issued on Sunday by spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry Nasser Kan’ani and published by PressTV but didn’t add anything more than what President Pezeskian told Macron. So, Iran’s possible motivation for a response and greater involvement remains murky. IMO, Iran will enter if the Zionists directly target innocents again as is their modus with a mass bombing of Beirut or something similar where it can easily be seen by the wider world that the Zionists are expanding their Genocide to other regions.

As for the “free world,” that is now the domain of the Global majority that rightly accuses the Zionists of their many crimes now and in the past. In his latest interview for an Italian audience, Dr. Hudson describes the former “free world” and the current Big Picture conflict thusly:

Is it going to be a financialized, neoliberal post-industrial economy, which is what the United States and Europe are pushing? Or is it going to be the kind of economy that textbooks talk about, where economies produce agricultural and industrial goods to feed themselves and make everybody prosper? I almost would use Rosa Luxemburg’s phrase, Barbarism or Socialism, because the West no longer has the means of real economic control over trade and production. It only has military force, terrorist violence and corruption to maintain its control.

The NATO West does financial control by having loaded down the global South and even many Asian countries with dollarized debt for the last 70 years. That dollarized debt holds them in a financial neocolonialism, an international debt peonage. Besides that, the ultimate power that the United States and Europe have to maintain their unipolar control to prevent other countries from going their own way and pursuing their own interests is to bomb them and mobilize terrorism. [My Emphasis]

One can see why Netanyahu would see the NATO West as his kinsmen since they both use terrorism as a form of control to maintain hegemony. As for Rod Blagojevich’s op/ed that’s behind a paywall, Crooke’s citation is enough to go by when it comes to the additional evidence it brings to proving the hypothesis that at the federal level the USA is an Oligarchy and has always been one since the overthrowing of the Articles of Confederation that had no executive or upper-class Senate. And when a serious, detailed look is made into US history, it becomes clear that the structure that evolved once the 1787 Constitution was approved by the current oligarchy it proceeded to construct an oligarchy. The one big piece of evidence of Oligarchic fear of democracy came with the election of Stonewall Jackson who supposedly ushered in an Era of Jacksonian Democracy, and of course lurking in the background constantly was the denial of the vote for women at the federal level. I know it’s now well in the past and little can be done about it, but I suggest to those with an interest that they read Federalist #10 by Madison specifically his strawman argument against democracy, the word appearing a whole four times versus the strawman—faction—which appears 17 times in #10 and 26 times overall in those five essays beginning with Federalist #6 by Hamilton. Apparently, Madison was dissatisfied with his argument in #10 and returned to the topic in #14 and in #48, after which he was apparently satisfied. IMO, it’s easy to see where American Exceptionalism got its start—from the elites that overthrew democracy and installed their oligarchy never bothering to ask the opinions of common folk because they were common folk—the rabble, the very sort Madison feared in #10.

And so today we have a Deep State that’s become worse than a parasite on the body politic because of its addictions to pleonexia and megalomania. And armed with the Wolfowitz Doctrine and its two slight upgrades it will continue to wage war on the world as it cannot abide any peer competitors, although two have essentially passed it in ways where the Empire will never be capable of undoing. And for us watching a force that’s beyond citizen control is rather horrific for it refuses to alter its path and has zero appetite for peace. What would Madison say to that?

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!