Surviving Capitalism (Not) : The State Department’s Collective Madness

We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Saturday, June 18, 2016

The State Department’s Collective Madness

Click here to access article by Robert Parry from ConsortiumNews.

I am mostly posting this article as an illustration of how many political analysts only look at the political surface to analyze what is happening. This investigative reporter probably spent too much time in corporate media and brainwashed to think in a conventional ruling class-approved manner. Thus he implies that President Ronald Reagan brought the neocons into the US-led Empire, and tries to explain why some of the succeeding presidents were unable to oppose this element.

This is a popular way to look at political events. But others see below the surface reality and come up with a "deep state" kind of analysis. I am referring to people such as Stephan Gowans, Peter Dale Scott, Patrick L. Smith, Paul Street, and many others who have argued that a "deep state" organized by the One Percent really drives the policies of the Empire. Presidents such as Reagan, Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama are really only useful idiots who served the Empire and its imperial capitalist directorate for various reasons, but mostly they were seduced by all the fame, perks, and wealth that go along with that office.

(No doubt there will be people who object to Eisenhower being on this list because of his well-publicized warning (in alternative media) about the "military-industrial complex". He only made the warning in one single sentence in his final speech as president. No doubt he was trying to expiate his guilt. Otherwise he was completely passive as the CIA cancer grew to enormous proportions. It was under his watch that the CIA planned the invasion of Cuba which was inherited by John Kennedy who did what he could to stop it.)

Regarding the infiltration of the neocons into the circles dominating the Empire, I think one of my previous posts points to a much more accurate source--the Henry Jackson Society.

Nevertheless I do agree with Parry that a "collective madness" has overtaken the State Department, but not only this department. I think it is a symptom of a large section of the ruling class directorate. However, in my opinion they are not a dominant section. But who knows?