Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

Saturday, Mar 4, 2017

Crisis: About Wikispooks


Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1. Wikispooks: About
2. Official Narratives
3. Deep politics

4. Deep state
5. Deep events
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Saturday
, March 4, 2017.

Summary: This is a crisis log but it is not an ordinary one. I ran yesterday into something that calls itself "Wikispooks" and said that I would return to it. This is
a return, which is motivated by the fact that I did not find enough articles to write
an ordinary crisis log.

So here are 5 items with 5 dotted links that all derive from the Wikispooks site: item 1 is about Wikispooks About; item 2 is about an article called Official Narratives; item 3 is about deep politics (because that is the field of Wikispooks); item 4 is about the deep state; and item 5 is about deep events.
March 4: As to the updating problem: The Danish site is OK once again; the Dutch site once again got stuck on February 27, for me (for the last days since then). Where it stuck for others I have no idea: It may be December 31, 2015. (They do want immediate payment if you are a week behind. They have been destroying my site now for over a year. And I completely distrust them, but also do not know whether they are doing it or someone secret service is.)
1. Wikispooks: About

All items today are from Wikispooks that I only found yesterday. I think Wikispooks is interesting, and since today I found few articles for my normal Crisis series, I decided
to invest some time into Wikispooks.


First, here is how it describes itself (quoted minus note numbers):

WikiSpooks is an open licensed, open source encyclopedia of deep politics. We currently have 11,576 user-generated pages (5,164 people, 1,638 groups, 635 events... ) supplemented by a further 1,351 third party documents.


WikiSpooks was established in 2010 as a collaborative space for the joint re-examination of recent history, focusing particularly on the last 60 years or so. We research people, events, groups and concepts not subject to much scrutiny by corporate media and as such, not tolerated in Wikipedia. WikiSpooks is particularly focused on those official narratives which do not seem to fit the facts.

This is a fairly interesting description of what WikiSpooks is. I also note this is focusing on "those official narratives which do not seem to fit the facts" seems rather close to what is known as "conspiracy theories".

Then again, I do not mind that fact, for (i) there clearly are conspiracies, and (ii) it is always difficult, especially about a real conspiracy, to get a decent grasp of the facts and the relevant backgrounds. Then again, I do require a rational approach towards evidence, and note that is often but not always missing.

There is this on WikiSpooks' editorial policy:

Editorial Policy

A fundamental premise of WikiSpooks' editorial policy is that authority
opposes anything which it perceives as a threat, and can bring greater resources to bear than are available to individuals or small groups. This power imbalance becomes especially acute where matters of deep politics are involved. Wikispooks therefore does not aim for a (status-quo friendly) Neutral Point of View and noting that newspapers and broadcasters (like governments) can and do lie with impunity, it does not assume the commercially-controlled media's publication of evidence to be a reliable indication of its veracity.
I think that is more or less correct and reformulate it as: (i) authorities very often lie or deceive and (ii) the mainstream media often service the authorities. Then again, to do this editorial policy passably well requires a rational and scientific view of evidence.

Here is the last bit I'll quote from the
Wikispooks: About page:

What Is Wrong With Wikipedia?

Wikipedia's editorial policies guarantee a blind spot around matters of deep politics, so information on such topics is superficial and fragmented at best and increasingly no more than a smokescreen. Its adherence to the official narrative as promulgated by establishment-friendly 'reliable sources' effectively means that, to use the astrolonomical analogy from Gallileo's time, "the heavens must always be represented as revolving around the earth".
I more or less agree (and remark that properly it is "Galileo"). I continue with the article "Official Narratives" that outlines WikiSpooks problems with information coming from the government or from mainstream media:

2. Official Narratives

The second item is by

The Official Narrative of an event is the story told about it by the establishment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wikipedia has no page on this important topic - the closest it comes is a generic page about cover-ups.

Hm. The "establishment" is itself a slippery term, and WikiSpooks also admits that its own article about it is not very clear. I simply turn back to what I said before: (i) authorities very often lie or deceive and (ii) the mainstream media often service the authorities. In this sense there is an official narrative, I think.

Here is some more on WikiSpooks views of the Official Narrative.

The Official Narrative about Official Narratives is that this is while not necessarily the whole truth, certainly a large part of it and are mistakes are due to accidental oversight or lack of evidence rather than deliberate mendacity. While other narratives are inevitably tainted by the suspicion of self-interest, the authorities are deemed creditworthy - in the establishment's view - by their 'official' nature (and imputed track record of reliability).

Problems

The official narrative, like any other narrative is a human creation, and as such may be just as susceptible to human failings, bias, lack of integrity or other such shortcoming as any personal accounts. From the "white man's burden" to "Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction", history is littered with official narratives which were abandoned either because their mendacity was exposed or simply because they had served their purpose and were no longer needed. If the official narratives of yesteryear were packed with self-serving lies, is it reasonable to expect (far less, as the establishment would have it, assume) that the official narratives of the modern day are any less mendacious?

I agree that "[t]he official narrative, like any other narrative is a human creation, and as such may be just as susceptible to human failings, bias, lack of integrity or other such shortcoming as any personal accounts" and I add that (ii) all narratives are in the end personal, while (iii) narratives from the government, from corporations, and from mainstream media are suspect because they have a whole lot of money, a whole lot of power, and are partial to furthering their own money and power.

This also doesn't mean that the government, the corporations, or the mainstream media are necessarily or always lying, but it does mean they have strong interests to do so and have strong capacities to manipulate information (which may happen in many ways).

Then there is this on the law:

Legal protection

For a few special topics, official narratives are of such central importance and/or so lacking in credibility that they are buttressed by national law. An outstanding example is provided by The Holocaust; in much of Western Europe, expansive claims of "free speech" notwithstanding, the establishment imprisons those who question this official narrative, terming them "Holocaust Deniers" not for denying but merely questioning the historical record.
Hm. I checked The Holocaust (about which I know rather a lot), and while I am for free speech, also about the holocaust, and against settling this by law, I think the evidence presented there is too partial to motivate the doubts about the holocaust it seeks to support.

Then there is this:

Recent Developments

Especially since 9/11, increasingly organised crowd-sourced efforts (such as this website) are scrutinising official narratives and are successful in undermining their credibility. One ongoing response to such beviour is to attempt to suppress it through casting aspersions about those who carry out such analysis (e.g. labelling as "Conspiracy theorists") another is to ramp up censorship, refusing FOIA Requests and issue less and less by way of official explanations, citing "national security" concerns as an excuse for a culture of secrecy.

I agree with this (and see above on conspiracy theories). Here is the last bit that I'll quote in this section:

Usage on Wikispooks

Many Wikispooks pages begin with an Official Narrative section. This reflects not a high degree of credibility in the official narrative, but rather the fact that:

  1. Most events have a certain number of indisputable facts which are generally[5] accounted for by the official narrative
  2. Repetition by government schools and/or the commercially-controlled media means that many readers are more familiar with this perspective than any other

The official narrative serves as a starting point for the ensuing discussion, just as an introductory "Background" section often sets the scene for articles about people by giving some basic facts. Most "official narrative" sections (as on this page) have a "Problems" subsection which highlights some key weaknesses of the official narrative, whether in terms of its internal coherence and implausibility or in terms of its failure to sufficiently explain observed reality.

Yes, but the fact that one can show difficulties with the official narrative does not mean that one's own narrative is without difficulties.

3. Deep politics

The present item is about the main thing WikiSpooks is about: Deep politics. This requires some explanations. Here is the first explanatory bit (minus note numbers)

Official Narrative

To say that there is no official narrative about deep politics would be incorrect since Wikipedia has a page about it, although that page is by no means clear. The phrase 'deep politics' occasionally has been used for over a century to indicate levels of intrigue beneath the immediately apparent facade of party politics, but were ad hoc isolated references until Peter Dale Scott took a more systematic approach. Professor Scott used the phrase to describe goings on that are so at odds with the public stories about what is happening that they are collectively repressed. If what is generally referred to as 'politics' is the 10% of an iceberg that is visible above the water, Deep Politics is the 90% which underlies it.
In fact "deep politics" links to Peter Dale Scott (on Wikipedia). I agree with WikiSpooks that this is hardly sufficient or clear. Then again, I'd say that the above interpretation seems to put too much on the analogy of the iceberg (such as the 10% vs 90%).

Here is - according to WikiSpooks - how "deep politics" arose in Peter Scott's mind as a more appropriate term for what he had previously called "parapolitics":
“Deep politics is a revision of Scott’s original concept 

“Scott came to see parapolitics as “too narrowly conscious and intentional to describe the deeper irrational movements which culminated collectively in the murder of the President.” In contrast deep political analysis presupposes “an open system with divergent power centers and goals”. The collapse of the First Italian Republic in the mid-1990s, involving large-scale criminal influence in government, offers a telling example. It originated as an American parapolitical operation to suborn the threat of communism which parachuted prominent U.S. Mafia hoods into power in post-war Italy “By the 1980s this... strategem had helped spawn a deep political system of corruption exceeding Tammany’s, and (as we know from the Andreotti trial of 1995) beyond the ability of anyone to call it off”. Another example... is the CIA-financed jihad against the Russian occupiers in Afghanistan that flooded Europe with opium and helped create Osama bin Laden, a modern version of the Old Man of the Mountains, who’s 11th Century followers – the Assassins – “sacrificed for him in order to perpetuate his crimes”
I take this for granted, but restate it as I did above (in general terms): (i) authorities very often lie or deceive and (ii) the mainstream media often service the authorities.

Here is what Wikispooks does, according to itself:

Deep Politics on Wikispooks

Wikispooks is an encyclopaedia of deep politics, a collective effort to try to see beyond deceptive official narratives issued by authorities in the thrall of deep state actors, and to uncover and witness to the truth. All readers are encouraged to reject the learned helplessness and lack of insight which is the main lesson of the commercially-controlled media in general and of television in particular, and strive instead to reach personal conclusions about the world around them, by weighing up all narratives, 'official' and otherwise on the basis of available evidence.
I more or less agree with that (and do not have a TV since 1970), but like to add that
while the official narrative does often appear to be deceptive, this does not mean that an alternative narrative is necessarily correct. And in fact, alternative narratives tend to be the work of individuals and small groups, that certainly have lot less power and a lot less money than the makers of the official narratives do.

We turn to the deep state - which is a term I only read in January of 2016 (namely here), with a good article on it by me the next month (and more later in 2016: see the index if you are interested).

4. Deep state

This item is about the term "deep state" that I think I first noticed in January 2016.
Here is its definition by WikiSpooks:
The deep state (loosely synonymous with the shadow government or permanent government) is in contrast to the public structures which appear to be directing individual nation states. The deep state is an intensely secretive, informal, fluid network of deep politicians who conspire to amplify their influence over national governments through a variety of deep state milieux.

Hm. I agree to the loose synonym "shadow government", but the rest consists of a fairly circular explanation ("deep state" by "deep politicians" doing "deep politics" to further the interests of the "deep state").

I reduce it again to this: (i) authorities very often lie or deceive and (ii) the mainstream media often service the authorities, while (iii) narratives from the government, from corporations, and from mainstream media are suspect because they have a whole lot of money, a whole lot of power, and are partial to furthering their own money and power.

That seems both true and not circular. Here is more on the term "deep state":

2017 Popularisation

After gradually increasing in use online, the term "deep state" experienced a meteoric surge in popularity since the 2016 US Presidential election. WhoWhatWhy noted in February 2017 that the term 'Deep State' was as popular as #resistance. Those interested in the deep state could do worse than study the work of the researcher who coined the term - Peter Dale Scott. Certainly, it would be wise to be circumspect about its use by commercially-controlled media - since there is a mound of evidence of deep state control of corporate media.

As I said, I first met the term "deep state" in January of 2016, thanks to the publication of a book by Mike Lofgren on the concept (on which he does not quite agree with Peter Scott).

Then again, knowing a whole lot about logic, I dislike circular explanations, and I also do not need the assumption that the "deep state control[s] [..] corporate media": All I need are the above assumptions.

Here is more on Mike Lofgren and the deep state (<- link to my article of February 13, 2016):

Non-partisan nature

Mike Lofgren (..) expresses the non-partisan nature of the deep state as follows: “There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.” Peter Dale Scott approves of this 'iceberg' metaphor for giving an impression of the size of the deep state, but emphasises that it fails to reflect the fluid nature of the deep state.

I notice that Peter Scott earlier agreed to the iceberg metaphor, and like to point out (as I did above) that it seems a mistake to me to transport the analogy of the iceberg  - it's 10% above the water, and 90% below - to politics as if that is a proven fact.

There is this on the supposed behaviour of the deep state:

Behaviour

As powerful and self-interest groups (probably even more dominated by psychopaths and sociopaths than other large hierarchies), deep states seek to frustrate radical and progressive change, so as to preserve their own power, and that of the establishment in general. In contrast to overtly authoritarian rule, deep states must operate more or less secretly, like terrorist groups, so preserving secrecy is a high priority. Control of the commercially-controlled media is essential to the effective preservation of secrecy need for the deep state to work effectively. In the US this is effected through deep state control of the CIA.

Hm. I think this is presuming too much, and return myself to my assumptions. Then again, I do agree with Peter Scott and also with Mike Lofgren that there is in the USA (and also elsewhere) behind the official government also a shadow government that may well be described as the deep state, that has the following supposed composition:

Composition

While the exact composition of particular deep state groups and deep state milieux varies, they appear to be more or less centered upon what Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the "Military-industrial-congressional complex", although intelligence agencies are essential to their functioning. They are made up of:

I note that this is a supposition, which I do think is plausible, indeed - at least - as plausible as Eisenhower's 1961 explanation of the military-industrial complex (link to Wikipedia).

Finally, there also are - according to WikiSpooks - deep events:

Deep Events

"Deep Events" are the footprints of the deep state. Low level deep events are typically unnoticed at the time, and discovered only as part of later investigations. Mid level deep events have a set of cover stories which are made available to a supine or venal commercially-controlled media to steer attention away from their deep political significance.
The classification into three levels seems to be again the work of Peter Scott (who investigated quite a few of them). I don't object, but do insist that it is again basically an assumption.

5. Deep events

The fifth and last item today is about the item deep events on Wikispooks, from which I will only quote one bit:

Official Narrative

Just as the official narrative on "deep politics" is that it doesn't exist, so the official narrative is that there are no "deep events". The (unspoken) meta-narrative of the corporate media is that any events which cannot be understood by superficial examination of the immediate circumstances are truly inexplicable.
The main problem I have are again the circular explanations, which also are easy to generate: use a term and put "deep" before it, after which one can say that the deep explanations are the proper ones.

I make do with the following assumptions:

(i) authorities very often lie or deceive and
(ii) the mainstream media often service the authorities,
while
(iii) narratives from the government, from corporations, and from mainstream media are suspect because they have a whole lot of money, a whole lot of power, and are partial to furthering their own money and power, and
(iv) there is - more probably than not - a deep state or shadow government behind
the official state, that tends to make some major decisions that are not really made
by the official state.

And I think I like WikiSkoops, but I notice it is too prone to circular explanations; it also is far from complete; and I do not believe everything it says.

But I also think that the present article and WikiSkoops contributed to my understanding of the phrase "the deep state" and several of its cognates.


-----------------


       home - index - summaries - mail