Houston We Have a Problem

Not that this group needs more evidence of the problem but here's some 
that is pretty clear.

 From my perspective, it appears those who disbelieve the existence of 
the Deep State <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state> are engaging 
in artificial ignorance 
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/artificial-ignorance-owen-ambur/> in 
service to The Politics Industry 
There is nothing mysterious or particularly nefarious about it.  People 
who believe that more, bigger, centralized government is the solution to 
every problem naturally will strive to create more of it.  If that's 
what they truly believe, who can blame them?  Certainly not others who 
share their point of view.

Given that dynamic, relevant questions include:

 1. how "deep" the State will become,
 2. how much the Fourth Estate
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate> may continue to
    collaborate in further deepening it,
 3. whether the Fifth Estate
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate> will play a reinforcing
    or counterbalancing role,
 4. at what point the "free world" virtually ceases to exist (and
    whether, at that point, anyone will care) and
 5. what, if anything, this group may care to try to do about revealing
    the personal values and political motivations that influence not
    only perceptions of truth but also and particularly what is
    considered to be /worthy/ of attention.

With respect to the fourth point, both extremes on the political 
spectrum seem to fear the other will take us there but it is hard for me 
to see how that can be the case when one side wants /less/ government.  
How does that lead to totalitarianism?  I have yet to see any evidence 
that recent immigrants from totalitarian countries fear that outcome 
from the less-government side of the equation.  I've seen multiple 
reports from those who fear we're heading for what they left.

See also some of thevalues espoused by George Orwell 

A related issue is that the lesson to be taken from Afghanistan, Syria, 
NoKo, Russia, and China seems to be that brutality wins. The choice 
between freedom and life isn't much of a choice for most people and 
those most likely to impose that choice are those who believe they know 
what's best for everyone else.  Which side is arguing those who disagree 
with them have no right to make a living, much less be left in peace to 
live their lives as they see fit?

BTW, for those who value stories, here's a short one:

    During a ride on the DC subway in 2016, that National Archives and
    Records Administration's chief counsel told me that, although he was
    a strong Democrat, he could not vote for Hillary Clinton because of
    her E-mail server issue.  Both he and I knew that she had willfully
    violated the Federal Records Act but the news media helped to
    obfuscate that fact, in order to minimize an October Surprise
    adversely impacting their anointed candidate.

In any event, our "democratic" political system had delivered two 
candidates for which neither one of us could vote.  If anyone believes 
such a system is the best we can do, that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

I believe we can do better ... albeit not if we continue to engage in 
artificial ignorance.

I look forward to learning what this group might be willing and able to 
do about that.


Received on Thursday, 23 September 2021 02:48:38 UTC