"We Caved In to the Terr'ists!" - No - Common Sense Prevailed!

"Bwaaahahahaaa! We surrendered to dem North Korean terrorists! We need to remove 'the land of the free and home of the brave'  from the national anthem!  Boohoooo...Bwahahahaaa!"

Gimme a  break!  A major movie studio makes a damned turd of a movie about killing the leader of another nation  - then has the nerve to call it a comedy. Then  its phony "free speech" supporters (e.g. Judd Apatow, Rob Lowe etc.) whine like brats when theaters correctly pull it, unwilling to risk attacks- even from lone American psychos looking for any excuse to kill. And all this  transpiring pretty close to the same time polls have found most Americans (59%) believe torture is necessary in some or most situations.  Sorry, neither the film studio or the ones clamoring for it to still show the film (The Interview)  have any moral compass by which to set standards for anyone!

As I examined numerous online news sites yesterday evening I was appalled and amazed at some of the stupid comments, which have convinced me that most of the assholes who spout free speech blather (and demand to see this abomination of a flick)  are the same degenerates that support torture. Yes, it's entirely logical, as per this comment I read on one website, after the original commenter mentioned needing to acknowledge 'The Interview' was "terrible" and "objectionable for portraying the slaughter of a world leader as comedy".  The hare-brained response?

"It's good we have drones to eliminate those people with opinions like yours!"

This same jingoistic nitwit replied to a comment by me along similar lines, asking me how I could support using the threat of mass slaughter to halt a comedy. I informed the punk, asking him what planet he came from (Uranus?),  that no one supported either the hacking or the threats of a 9/11 slaughter but merely noted that when actions are taken which include making a film depicting slaughter of another nation's leader then there are bound to be consequences. We use the term "blowback" coined by Chalmers Johnson from his book by the same name.  This is why Sony never should have greenlighted this  $44 m mess of a film. It is NOT a matter of "free speech" but of common sense and sound judgment. A sane film studio, then, has the sense not to release a movie about assassinating a living leader - especially after it receives a heads up from thee Department of Homeland Security to the effect that "the film could provoke retaliation."

I also want to know where these self-proclaimed  "free speech"  people were when Ward Churchill of Univ. of Colorado- Boulder lost his job over an essay he wrote after 9/11, entitled "On Roosting Chickens". The obscure essay, dug up by a college sophomore with too much time on his hands, asserted that those working in the Twin Towers were "little Eichmanns" and conformed to the amoral ethics defined by philosopher Hannah Arendt in terms of the "banality of evil".  No matter how despicable you believe the essay to be, if you truly defend the "right to free speech" - you were (are) obligated to defend his right to write it without repercussions that impacted his life station. But no one with any power or in the media stood up for Churchill.It was as if a lynch mob punished him - and let's bear in mind he wrote an essay, concerning ideas - opinions - he didn't produce a film showing the murder of a real person.

Let us accept as a proposition that a nation - like a person- can go insane, either all at once or incrementally if the right conditions are evident and the right (wrong?) stimuli administered. In the process of going insane, the country's populace loses its bearings, its judgment and even common sense. Because it absorbs PR and propaganda it elects fools to office who actually plan to undermine its very security - even as it applauds torture, and making a movie showing the slaughter of another nation's leader. It can in no way ascend to a larger perspective to allow it to see its actions from the POV of other nations. It claims "exceptionalism" but is really not exceptional at all - it tortures like other nations, and lets the torturers walk free like other nations with dictators.  In the ultimate form, the insanity manifests as mass slaughter and even genocide.

Examples from history come to mind, including Rwanda in 1994 after years of talk radio led the resident Hutus to go on a genocidal rampage leaving more than 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered. Then there was Nazi Germany, where nonstop propaganda from the likes of Leni Reifenstahl slowly gutted the Germans' minds and sensibilities - leading them to accept actions, national decisions they otherwise would reject.  My good fortune has been that on two occasions - one in August of 1978, the other in May of 1985 -  I was able to meet and talk to actual flesh and blood Germans from the WWII era. One  (Kurt Braun) who had been a member of the Hitler Youth, forced to join at the point of a gun to his mother's head.

Kurt Braun, ca. Aug. 1978,  shows Nazi era films and how Germans were brain-fucked.

He showed me a sequence of vintage films - starting with Kristallnacht- that clearly depicted how the Germans' were gradually mind-fucked - to the extent that by the end  of the war they expressed shock that concentration camps even existed.  They had to be frog-marched by U.S. troops into places like Buchenwald and Dachau to see the spoils of what their Fuhrer had wrought.

I submit that the loony outcry from the pseudo-patriots and free speech phonies in the wake of this vile film being pulled -  with few people offering opposite opinions, shows how loopy and unhinged from reason we've become. We're more or less on the same track as the Germans ca. 1932, when one third embraced Hitlerian fascism.. It only remains to be seen what sort of fool we elect in 2016 that might take us all the way. Say some bombastic asshole like Chris Christie, with Ted Cruz as Obersturmfuhrer,.....errrrr.....VP..

As for 'The Interview'  being pulled by the theater chains, most dumbass critics don't seem to process that it was left to the chains themselves to deal with the threats . Other than allowing them out of their exhibition contracts, Sony provided nada nor any guidance.. Hell, it isn't even a matter of some actual terrorist  carrying out the threats. Given the U.S. population is riddled with nuts, many of whom own high -powered weapons, it would only take one lone wolf massacre - such as occurred in Aurora, CO in July, 2012-when James Eagen Holmes opened fire in a Cinemark Theater with his AR-15  and killed 12 and wounded 59. Then all the chains would reap the whirlwind, and all the twits now bawling about "the terrorists won" would be screaming "why didn't anyone see this coming and pull that film?"

Flash now to Hacktivist Hector Monsegur - now a security researcher - interviewed on CBS this morning, who disputes that the culprit was North Korea, as the U.S. is trying to claim. He noted first that "something like this to happen, it had to happen over a long period of time, You cannot just exfiltrate one terabyte or a hundred terabytes of data in a matter of weeks. It would have taken months maybe even years to exfiltrate one hundred terabytes of data without anyone noticing."

Which to me, suggests above all a disgruntled Sony employee who - given the content of the film - found it convenient to even leave North Korean 'tracks' (malware written in Korean) to mislead those trying to get to the source. Even Monsegur agreed the North Korean alleged language links don't tell him much as he's seen "Russian hackers pretending to be Indian, and Ukrainian hackers pretending to be Peruvian" - in other words leaving malware tracks to mislead. So we had better be careful before making wild accusations, or taking precipitous actions without 100 percent proof.

When pressed about the North Koreans as the hackers, Monsegur observed:

"In my personal opinion it's not. I mean look at the bandwidth in North Korea. I mean the pipes going in - they only have like one major ISP to handle all the data for the whole nation. That kind of information flow would have shut down the North Korean information flow completely.They don't have the infrastructure, they don't have the technical capability ...they do have state-sponsored hackers, very similar to Russia, to China and the good old USA."

Monsegur also suspects, like me, a former Sony employee (along the lines of Edward Snowden) downloaded all the info off Sony servers and sold it to someone else. Good luck on finding that lone wolf!

In the meantime, this country - now found guilty of the most abject and depraved tortures  (with a majority of its deluded people supporting them) - needs to back off and stop  its moral  posturing including yahoos squallering about the pulling of this disgusting flick out of theaters. And if you,  like the pundits,  make a really big deal out of protecting  "free speech" - be sure next time you support the speech of those like Ward Churchill too. Otherwise, don't waste your breath. Your 1st amendment eruptions don't mean diddly.

See also:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-japan-ceo-interview-20141220-story.html

And:

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/18/everyone_caved_how_much_of_the_interview_fiasco_is_actually_hollywoods_fault/


Excerpt:

"emails suggest Sony execs remained nervous about the film’s content, especially the ending. On July 9, Lynton wrote to Pascal, “we cannot be cute here,” saying they could work with “no melting face and actually not seeing [Kim Jong-un] die. A look of horror as the fire approaches is probably what we need.” Rogen, while willing to play ball, appears reluctant to completely scuttle the visuals in this Sept. 25 email to Pascal: “There are currently four burn marks on his face. We will take out three of them, leaving only one. We reduce the flaming hair by 50% … The head explosion can’t be more obscured than it is because we honestly feel that if it’s any more obscured you won’t be able to tell its exploding and the joke won’t work.”

Lynton and Pascal ultimately allowed the film’s ending despite their misgivings and despite the industry’s general reluctance (see Sacha Baron Cohen’s “The Dictator,” a Gadhafi-style fictional tyrant leading a made-up country) to directly provoke volatile dictators in the first place. They had a lot of money wrapped up in the project, after all, and Sony’s job is to make entertainments that make money. 

Obama Ought to do What JFK Would Have: Fire CIA Honcho John Brennan!

Why doesn't Obama have the same steely nerve as JFK? If he had, he would have handed CIA Director John Brennan his head on a platter instead of opining about what "a tough job" these guys have, and we need to show some compassion for them - and leave out harsh judgments. Sorry, Obama, you may do that but not citizens who respect the Constitution as you should!

The fact this guy's spook organization - now as out of control as the NSA under his watch (he late the lying James Clapper off last year)  - could spy on Senate staffers when the Senate is charged with their oversight is an abomination and affront to everyone. This is especially as the spying involved the Senate's investigation into CIA rendition and torture.

If it had been JFK under whose watch this had occurred, Brennan and likely half his senior staffers would now be taking a hike. But Obama seems to let everything pass, even when the evidence comes out in blinding fireballs of what the spooks are doing.

John F. Kennedy was put on notice from the moment he took office that the CIA believed they were ruling the roost. Without Kennedy's knowledge or oversight, the clandestine services under Richard Bissell had mounted an assassination program to target Fidel Castro. Specifically, the program operated under 'CIA Staff D', a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”

With the Bay of Pigs invasion, JFK was further played, as Ike was with the 1960 U-2 fiasco.  JFK, however, retaliated by firing Allen Dulles, and his deputy Gen. Charles Cabell. (Recall that Cabell's brother, Earl, was Mayor of Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963) JFK also vowed to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" so furious was he at the level of CIA treachery. JFK went further by emulating Ike in setting up a Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board - the express purpose of which was to bring the CIA under the control of the President. Kennedy addressed the group on May 15, 1961 and informed them he was "undertaking a total reassessment of U.S. covert action policies and programs".

Kennedy went further, creating a Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible to him, and soon mandating all overflights of Cuba be done by the Strategic Air Command, not the CIA. He also defined a list of directives on what the CIA could and could not, do.

Of course, this stuck in the CIA's craw - bit time - and the shit really hit the fan after they instigated the coup on the Diems in November, 1963. In an early September, 1963 meeting Kennedy was informed by a David Bell of AID (a CIA cover organization) that the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program had “already been cut off”,  essentially assuring a coup would ensue with the Diem government in South Vietnam. (James Douglass, 2008,, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Orbis Books, p. 192.   )

Kennedy was evidently livid and directly asked Bell who had told him to do that, to which Bell replied, “No one” (ibid.). The will to power disclosed here indicates the CIA felt it more powerful than Kennedy’s government or his decision-making. If they felt that way, there is nothing that they wouldn’t do to prevent the President from getting in their way. JFK made bold moves to cut the run amuck spooks off at the knees, but the coup went through, and then they took out JFK on Nov. 22, 1963.

 

Perhaps all of this backstory explains why Obama is playing nice with the whole national security state, including the torturing CIA as well as the mass surveilling NSA.

 

While Obama yesterday in a news conference did strongly criticize the CIA saying he could understand why the agency used its controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" after 9/11, conceding "We tortured some folks", he didn't go far enough in exacting costs to the agency. He employed great rhetoric on how the agency "crossed the line" and he condemned torture, he then undermined all his remarks and moral courage by insisting we ordinary citizens "not feel too sanctimonious" - adding that he believed the spooks responsible were "acting under intense stress and fear".

 

Please, Mr. President! Don't treat us like puerile idiots.  It's not a case of "sanctimony" when we hold the spooks (and YOU!) up to constitutional standards. It's our discernment that this isn't a fascist state (yet) and we expect our officials and the security apparatus that proposes to keep us safe to follow the rules. Those rules are most specifically established in the Constitution itself, which one of my ancestors fought to make a reality during the War of Independence.  So don't tell a guy with such ancestors not to be "sanctimonious" over a bunch committing misdeeds you yourself earlier  condemned.

 

But this is typical Obama, and we've seen it before when he gave a pass to the NSA in its overbearing spying, including on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as well as Brazil's President., Dilma Rousseff.

 

Giving a pass for torture is one thing, but Obama overstepped the bounds of  legal propriety by not holding these fiends to account when he let Brennan remain on his perch - even after lying about spying on the Senate. There is simply NO justification for the actions of Central Intelligence Agency officials who intentionally and surreptitiously hacked into a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Worse, Brennan lying his ass off about it afterwards and declaring it never, ever could have happened.

 

Only a nitwit on the Constitution or historical fool would fail to see Brennan's Agency's antics are a breach of the separation of powers (as Sen. Mark Udall noted)  and not merely a crime. Hence, those who perpetrated - as well as those under whose watch it took place - have violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution as well as the trust of citizens. Worse, those who did it certainly knew it so are doubly accountable. IF it had happened under JFK, he'd have handed them all their proverbial heads.

 

But Obama gives them a pass, and this is a guy who supposedly had been a Constitutional law professor.

 

Given all this, the take of the Denver Post's editors is applicable:

 

"Heads should roll, starting with CIA Director John O. Brennan.  And it shouldn't end with the firings of those who should have known better."

 

Brennan especially needs to be sent packing after his March outburst where he put on his indignant face and warned that no one should accuse his agency about improper snooping. At the time, I felt he did protest too much, and thus there was much to hide, at least as much as NSA top spook James Clapper a year earlier - who insisted to the Senate Intelligence Committee that his bunch would never, ever do mass surveillance on Americans.

 

Oh no, perish the thought! The spooks are totally on our side and doing their best.

 

The Denver Post again (Editorial, Aug. 1):

 

"It makes us wonder about Brennan's character and competence. If he didn't know CIA employees were improperly searching computers used by congressional staffers.

 

At the very least he should have found out before denouncing the possibility."

 

Again, let's bear in mind that Brennan's   extraordinary apology was induced after the CIA Inspector General found that the Agency's personnel had improperly monitored computers set aside by Senate staff.

 

In many ways this CIA Inspector general's report reminded me of the one released on the Bay of Pigs invasion - and how it cleared JFK and blamed the Agency instead.

  As per a Baltimore Sun piece ('Internal Probe Blamed Bay of Pigs Fiasco on CIA', p. 6A, Feb. 22, 1998), it was noted:

"The 150-page report, released after sitting in the CIA Director's safe for nearly three decades, blames the disastrous attempt to oust Fidel Castro not on President John F. Kennedy's failure to call airstrikes, but on the agency itself.

The CIA's ignorance, incompetence, and arrogance toward the 1,400 exiles it trained and equipped to mount the invasion was responsible for the fiasco, said the report, obtained by the Associated Press yesterday.

The document criticized almost every aspect of the CIA's handling of the invasion: misinforming Kennedy administration officials, planning poorly, using faulty intelligence and conducting an overt military operation beyond 'agency responsibility as well as agency capability'."


Some things never change. Unfortunately, other things and people do. Kennedy didn't tolerate the Bay of Pigs engineers - firing CIA Chief Alan Dulles as well as his second, Cabell.

If Obama wants to walk in the steps of JFK, as opposed to being a wimp, then he needs to do what Kennedy did.

At the very least, he needs to stop making stupid statements, like:

 “I have full confidence in John Brennan"

And:

“Keep in mind though that John Brennan was the person who called for the [inspector general] report and he’s already stood-up a task force to ensure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.”

 Not good enough, Mr. Prez! His head still needs to roll and I think you know it! At the very least he's shown himself incompetent and his character questionable. You would be impeached for less so don't make light of it.

We, the citizens, expect you to act - even if it might mean taking some "T".
 

 Clapper kept his job after his lying before the Senate, this should not be a repeat! Show the same respect for the Constitution as when you taught it, sir!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/kevin-zeese/57350/demand-that-clapper-and-brennan-be-fired

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/weldon-berger/57366/folks-torturing-folks-obama-plants-his-flag-firmly-on-the-wrong-side-of-nuremberg

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/tom-engelhardt/57357/the-fourth-branch-the-rise-to-power-of-the-national-security-state

Citizens - Regarded As Too Dumb Or Dangerous To Read Full CIA Torture Report

Douglas Rushkoff, in Chapter Four ('Individually Wrapped').  of his  book, Life Inc. - How Corporations Conquered the World and How We Can Take It Back, singles out the arena of public relations (PR)  and its perverse uses to bamboozle citizens. The essential thesis is that properly applied, PR divides each citizen from every other - each accepting his or her own version of political and economic truth.  The outcome is that the citizenry is disarmed from opposing the excesses of the state or corporations, because they are instead fighting each other.

Rushkoff singles out the immediate era after Edward Bernays - the author of 'Propaganda' - signed on with the corporate state, to promote fascism. As he observes (p. 109):

"American corporatists saw in fascism a counterbalance to FDR's strong-handed tactics and aggressive social welfare programs.....Henry Luce, a co-founder of TIME magazine, put Mussolini on the cover five times and traveled the country arguing that corporations - not government - were really in charge of America.  Luce convinced many business people that fascism might be corporatism's best hope for organizing and influencing people."

Rushkoff goes on to note that by the end of World War II fascism had revealed itself as "ruthlessly dehumanizing" so  American industry had to take a different tack known as "Americanism. This approach used advertising PR to turn citizens into consumers - driven by spending on all manner of fluff and nonsense- to take their minds off serious politics and economic issues. Combined with this the media empire developed to the point it was able to frame issues, events, ideas to shape the minds of the masses.   This followed Edward Bernays' PR description in his work, 'Propaganda':

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country."

If then this power is wielded to split consumers into "brand" factions along with their political affiliations and beliefs, the effect is polarizing and also dissolves any united citizens' front, i.e. to hold the Deep State or corporations to account.  It additionally is designed to keep citizens at the infantile level of "consumers" who shy away from examining what their government is up to. If a person then refuses to venture outside this compromised matrix of PR he remains a mental invalid and automaton run by the Deep State. Believing whatever it spouts, or what its talking heads blab, or distort.

It is no accident that Bernays' use of the term 'invisible government'  equates to 'the true ruling power of the country'.  Today, this ruling power inheres in a military-corporate- security state nexus called the  Deep State, and it requires deep politics - not its superficial media counterpart-  to plumb its depths. This is irrespective of  examining the Ukraine crisis, the JFK assassination, the yen for pretext "wars" as in Iraq, the related monstrous Pentagon budget, or the growing inequality in the country.

It also pertains to the examination of the CIA torture program which went on for years, and which report - of 6,300 pages- will now likely never be seen by the American people. As a Senate committee moves to declassify a landmark report about the Central Intelligence Agency’s descent into torture, among the only certainties is that the public won’t see the vast majority of it. Instead we will be told by PR talking  media heads what they want us to think about it, and only dribbles released concerning what we can actually  be allowed to know.

True,  the Senate select committee on intelligence has waged an unprecedented and acrimonious public battle with the CIA over the secret 6,300-page investigation  known as the "Panetta Report", concluding torture  is an ineffective intelligence-gathering technique and that the CIA lied about its value. But now they ought to release it in full to citizens wanting to know - so we can at least see what the spook degenerates did in our name. Instead, we're told to expect a similar micro-managing of files as was done  previously with the  HSCA Investigation of the JFK assassination back in 1978. So the Senate  vote has allowed only  a slice of the CIA Torture report to be made public. Worse,  the CIA will have a significant degree of influence over how large and how public that slice will be. Of course, this is reminiscent of the perverse manner in which information was controlled with the files released by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, once the CIA got control of it, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html

 

Thus, the committee is not going to release the 6,300-page report. Its chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein of California, said on the Senate floor three weeks ago that only the “findings, conclusions and the executive summary of the report” were the subject of the committee’s declassification efforts. The vast majority of the Senate report – effectively, an alternative post-9/11 history detailing of years’ worth of CIA torture and cover-up – will remain shielded from public view.

So what gives? Why prevent us from accessing a report we paid for with our tax dollars?  The short answer is that part of the Deep State's PR conditioning process - to dissuade any remaining citizens (who haven't mutated into totally infantilized consumers) from pressing the national security state to back off - is framing and omission.  Both techniques were first noted by Michael Parenti in his 'Dirty Truths', to do with how the media manipulates the public mind.  Omission here serves the same purpose it does with the National Archives refusing to release all the files on the JFK assassination. If we are then prevented from knowing the dark aspects of our history, and the extent of our own government's complicity in it-  i.e. in having Kennedy assassinated- then we can't break out of the realm of false tropes and American goody-goody exceptionalism. Hence, it dovetails precisely with the post-WWII corporatists embrace of "Americanism" as a practical substitute for fascism.

 

The problem with that is that it's still leading us down a path of fascism, which in its most fundamental definition means the control of a nation's destiny by the wealthiest using corporate power. It is also a feature of fascism that it extols expanded military power - because for every dollar wasted in unprovoked conflicts or insinuating American power where it doesn't belong, there is less available for the public commons or the general welfare. It's a 'win-win' for the Deep State because with military expansionism more money is pumped into pockets of defense contractors, corporations while more is taken out of struggling citizens' hides. Thus, everything from the dramatic increase in student college debt to our crumbling infrastructure and the stagnation of middle class wages can be laid at the door of creeping fascism.

 

Meanwhile, Steven Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, considers the CIA's  role in managing the Torture Report file release a conflict of interest.  He stated in an interview with the UK Guardian:

 

" They functionally control the declassification process, and they have an interest in how they as an agency are portrayed in the final product.  They’re not an impartial party, and that’s a flaw in the process.”

 

Of course, neither were they an "impartial party" in the case of the JFK assassination files released by the HSCA.  In the latter case, none other than CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator  Jim Lawderman – on July 27, 1977- wrote out the terms of the CIA’s control of  HSCA head Robert Blakey’s investigation. (Mellen, J., ‘Farewell to Justice’, p. 345).  One of the terms cited was (ibid.):

 

“ Certain areas relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be entirely disregarded based upon our contention they are without merit or corroboration” (ibid.)

 

Thus, the CIA was effectively judging the evidence even before there was any. This statement in many ways is as glaring and outrageous as the terms of the document NSC-68 paving the way for perpetual war.

 

In this way  practical citizenship can be kept at bay in the Deep State, and citizens (actually mostly consumers) can be set against each other because each will have different purviews of knowledge, media exposure and extent of research into what's really going on.  The Deep State has nothing, nada to worry itself over, since those of us who DO this digging into its nefarious backgrounds will often be dismissed as "tin foil hats" or "conspiracy theorists" or some such misbegotten term. Each of which betrays the inner fear the infantilized citizen has for facing the unsavory truth. That he really inhabits a gangster corporate-militarist state which doesn't have his best interests at heart.

 

The refusal of the Senate committee to release the full CIA Torture report is in line with all of the above and Feinstein et al regard their decision as justified because  they see American citizens are either too dumb or dangerous to place the full report in their hands.   Thus, we will likely never know the extent to which we, as citizens, supported a horrific policy of torture done in our name.

 

Welcome to Americanism V. 2.0 and the Deep State!

 

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/medea-benjamin/55186/the-cia-whistleblower-and-the-torture-report

 

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bob-burnett/54660/the-war-on-democracy-the-deep-state