This infuriatingly undefined question is one of the reasons I decided I don't have time to struggle with this game. I like having a reputation as a superforecaster from GJP4, but this game seems designed to teach us humility by forcing us in cases like this to forecast the organizers of this game instead of the apparent question. Instead, now I'm concentrating on the upcoming Hybrid Forecasting Competition. I hope to help design one of the competing versions of this game, but if I turn out to not be on a winning proposal team, then I'll jump at the chance to forecast on some other contractor's version of the game. http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/hfc
@ravel: In a recent comment @000 made a point along the lines of: "and the people don't know." Beside not knowing the general operation of informal political processes, my point is that they don't know the *mechanisms* of these processes, and these mechanisms are as subject to study as any other set of process mechanisms. Murder is simply one of those mechanisms. It's far more commonplace than "many people know."
OK now we've lost @rjfmgy who appears to be uncomfortable with the Deep State narrative as it applies to the US of A.
As far mechanisms, the Panama Papers offer a good baseline on what people at a certain level (I won't say "deep") are comfortable with in terms of entitlements.
@000, It's not that I'm uncomfortable with it, I just don't see the point. I don't think links to websites that delineate elite social networks demonstrate the existence of a deep state. In fact, they demonstrate the opposite. A true deep state is not detectable through open sources. What you call the "deep state" everyone else (including me) calls "the establishment." They are two different things. Anyway, I'm not "uncomfortable" with talking about it, I just disagree with the term you use to identify what you're describing, and see no point in going on about it indefinitely.
@rjfmgy, is there any situation in which you find the term of art "deep state" applicable and helpful, or do you just think it is a ridiculous term? Either way, what definition do you go by? Also, if you do like the term in some contexts, where do you draw the line in clusters so that there is clearly a cluster you would label "deep state" on one side, and another cluster you would label "establishment" on the other?
I don't mind you being caustically dismissive as long as you can bring a little game to the definitions.
If I was caustically dismissive it was because of your insinuation that your collection of who-knows-who web sites scared me off or somehow rattled me to such an extent that I was no longer comfortable engaging. If you want to think that, fine; but if you say it publicly, expect a response.
I used the term "deep state" in my above comment because the author of the piece you linked used it. You commented that GJO questions regarding U.S. politics are also about the "deep state," and I disagreed. As to whether the term is helpful or applicable, I don't know, but your examples have failed to convince me that it applies to the U.S.
As for what I understand the "deep state" to be, I understand it to be hidden. If you can see it, it's the "shallow state" as it were. Simple connections between people don't prove anything, even when those people act in concert. I'm reminded of something Gore Vidal said years ago: "People who already think alike don't have to conspire." If you want to say that we have an out-of-touch, less and less accountable elite that perpetuates itself through intermarriage and mutual favoritism, I agree. But that's a caste of nobles, not a deep state.
@rjfmgy, I didn't reference those websites to scare you or rattle you. They are simply evidence of a way of thinking about a topic. You are imputing a motive to me that is incorrect. I'm not a big peruser of those websites. They came to my attention because a friend of one of our colleagues in this forum has earned a page on one of them for being photographed standing on street corners in Fairfax County while waving anti-Muslim placards. (I will say that that person was rattled when shown their entry on the powerbase website. But it was in no way my intention to scare or rattle you in the context of this discussion, nor was it really in the case of that person; I just thought it was funny and wanted to get some hard core neocon feedback on it.) Those websites are in the genre of conspiracy-thinkers. That doesn't mean they're always wrong (sometimes even paranoids have enemies) or that the people mentioned in them actually constitute some kind of establishment (sometimes they're just fired up about standing on streetcorners). The websites are just points in the politics information space that were relevant to this discussion.
Precisely whether a deep state is hidden or is something that hides in the open is discussed in this book, which was referenced earlier in this thread. You can argue the premise, but it is debatable enough to form the core topic of a best-selling book: http://smile.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0525428348
I'm going to go out on a limb here and conclude that you don't like the term "Deep State" in any context. So you wouldn't apply it for the "establishment" in Russia for the social and financial network around Vladimir Putin, for example, or any of the social and financial networks highlighted in the Panama Papers. Which, for lack of terminology, means that you may find it difficult, in terms of definitions, to discriminate between the Russian "establishment" and the Washington "establishment". Maybe that is correct.
This infuriatingly undefined question is one of the reasons I decided I don't have time to struggle with this game. I like having a reputation as a superforecaster from GJP4, but this game seems designed to teach us humility by forcing us in cases like this to forecast the organizers of this game instead of the apparent question. Instead, now I'm concentrating on the upcoming Hybrid Forecasting Competition. I hope to help design one of the competing versions of this game, but if I turn out to not be on a winning proposal team, then I'll jump at the chance to forecast on some other contractor's version of the game. http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/hfc
Anyone who wants to follow me offline as I seek the Holy Grail of a more powerful aid to us forecasters, you can reach me at carolyn.meinel@cmeinel.com. Meanwhile I'll do my best to get OFF this game instead of being listed as inactive. So hasta vista to my followers who aren't already interacting with me outside this game: @Xsess @Dwight-Smith @thmnewman @Gil-Edgar @tmahoney @lsgold7 @Counterintelligence @Enthu @Hochstetler @Delorean @g @howard @facetious @The_Gnome @BG1 @DrStrangelove @Flyn1200 @PianoPicasso @AndersAsa @writeitdown @HW15 @tkimble @Doudtful @firemansghost @mparrault @lindsey @Dima-K @crntaylor @azivkovic @Mos @MattWard @AlexisTocqueville @luckyomari @Ermonic @Pstauble @Edwinian @Clairvoyance @ACurmudgeon @ @ts2m @M3T1tus @dada @GeneH @S1 @ConnorM @peterhansen90 @Bklyn_j @dniewood @deggen @Etsudo @praedico @Spyglass @Manfred @VoxVox @FuturoMAGE @subject1138 @MAA414 @richtyge @gkamstra @RCScheffers @Random @Spandrelbarca @Rene @gstaneff @fifty-sixty @spotter @dbealick @davidk @terobrandstaka @RobK @walt @Rectitude @malcmur @dominich @Konrad @balbec @Ioana @Raisinville @rjfmgy @Rote @TopQuark @ESR @Xu @sharms10k @Paul15 @NickLutz @Ritam @seveDB @Jean-Pierre @Bill @Agent0090 @RolandKofler @Aches @JoeG @madre @Paul_Theron @September @DariusX @AgentCarter @JeanP @tumbleweed @Reynard @SmallTown-Gal
Comment deleted on Apr 16, 2016 08:15PM UTC
@ravel: In a recent comment @000 made a point along the lines of: "and the people don't know." Beside not knowing the general operation of informal political processes, my point is that they don't know the *mechanisms* of these processes, and these mechanisms are as subject to study as any other set of process mechanisms. Murder is simply one of those mechanisms. It's far more commonplace than "many people know."
OK now we've lost @rjfmgy who appears to be uncomfortable with the Deep State narrative as it applies to the US of A.
As far mechanisms, the Panama Papers offer a good baseline on what people at a certain level (I won't say "deep") are comfortable with in terms of entitlements.
@000, It's not that I'm uncomfortable with it, I just don't see the point. I don't think links to websites that delineate elite social networks demonstrate the existence of a deep state. In fact, they demonstrate the opposite. A true deep state is not detectable through open sources. What you call the "deep state" everyone else (including me) calls "the establishment." They are two different things. Anyway, I'm not "uncomfortable" with talking about it, I just disagree with the term you use to identify what you're describing, and see no point in going on about it indefinitely.
@rjfmgy, is there any situation in which you find the term of art "deep state" applicable and helpful, or do you just think it is a ridiculous term? Either way, what definition do you go by? Also, if you do like the term in some contexts, where do you draw the line in clusters so that there is clearly a cluster you would label "deep state" on one side, and another cluster you would label "establishment" on the other?
I don't mind you being caustically dismissive as long as you can bring a little game to the definitions.
Comment deleted on Apr 16, 2016 08:15PM UTC
If I was caustically dismissive it was because of your insinuation that your collection of who-knows-who web sites scared me off or somehow rattled me to such an extent that I was no longer comfortable engaging. If you want to think that, fine; but if you say it publicly, expect a response.
I used the term "deep state" in my above comment because the author of the piece you linked used it. You commented that GJO questions regarding U.S. politics are also about the "deep state," and I disagreed. As to whether the term is helpful or applicable, I don't know, but your examples have failed to convince me that it applies to the U.S.
As for what I understand the "deep state" to be, I understand it to be hidden. If you can see it, it's the "shallow state" as it were. Simple connections between people don't prove anything, even when those people act in concert. I'm reminded of something Gore Vidal said years ago: "People who already think alike don't have to conspire." If you want to say that we have an out-of-touch, less and less accountable elite that perpetuates itself through intermarriage and mutual favoritism, I agree. But that's a caste of nobles, not a deep state.
@rjfmgy, I didn't reference those websites to scare you or rattle you. They are simply evidence of a way of thinking about a topic. You are imputing a motive to me that is incorrect. I'm not a big peruser of those websites. They came to my attention because a friend of one of our colleagues in this forum has earned a page on one of them for being photographed standing on street corners in Fairfax County while waving anti-Muslim placards. (I will say that that person was rattled when shown their entry on the powerbase website. But it was in no way my intention to scare or rattle you in the context of this discussion, nor was it really in the case of that person; I just thought it was funny and wanted to get some hard core neocon feedback on it.) Those websites are in the genre of conspiracy-thinkers. That doesn't mean they're always wrong (sometimes even paranoids have enemies) or that the people mentioned in them actually constitute some kind of establishment (sometimes they're just fired up about standing on streetcorners). The websites are just points in the politics information space that were relevant to this discussion.
Precisely whether a deep state is hidden or is something that hides in the open is discussed in this book, which was referenced earlier in this thread. You can argue the premise, but it is debatable enough to form the core topic of a best-selling book: http://smile.amazon.com/Deep-State-Constitution-Shadow-Government/dp/0525428348
I'm going to go out on a limb here and conclude that you don't like the term "Deep State" in any context. So you wouldn't apply it for the "establishment" in Russia for the social and financial network around Vladimir Putin, for example, or any of the social and financial networks highlighted in the Panama Papers. Which, for lack of terminology, means that you may find it difficult, in terms of definitions, to discriminate between the Russian "establishment" and the Washington "establishment". Maybe that is correct.
@000, Since you're just playing some kind of game, I quit.
@rjfmgy, that's exactly how this particular thread started!