Deep State Wise Up

Deep State Wise Up

Open Message To The Institutions Of The Deep State

The Deep State is the collective institutions that consist of the military, intelligence agencies, military-industrial-complex, and others. The Deep State is known as a double government since it consists of organizations largely established through undemocratic means such as appointed, technocratic, and meritocratic leaderships. Due to this undemocratic nature, the Deep State has collectively drifted away from public control or oversight. With this in mind, the Deep State needs to stop creating false enemies abroad and start self reflection at both itself and the public institutions of government.

The potential for the Deep State to stand with the citizenry and demand complete new elections in the United States on all levels, as well as submitting itself to the re-acclimation of public institutional control, would be a far better strategy than attempting to draw war with foreign powers. The assertion that Russian interference resulted in the election of Donald Trump is not an acceptable excuse when there are blatant domestic corruptions that have far greater influence.

The domestic election system is objectively largely illegitimate, whether it is due to the influence of money in candidate races, voter suppression laws like ID laws, or the gerrymandering of districts; these all render the integrity of our election system illegitimate. It is no longer acceptable to shrug off as mirror acceptable corruption or deliberately design by elite benefactors. If election systems do not offer a direct democratic means of participation of the citizenry then it is constitutionally illegitimate for violating the fundamental and inherent right to vote. The illegitimacy has finally been recognized as several states, including South Carolina, have been deemed to be not functioning democracies anymore.

Any social momentum picking up that is pushing towards the civil and constitutional rights and security of persons of all the citizenry must be embraced and assisted by any means via the Deep State institutions. The regression of United States civilization and its institutions is a threat to national security. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act is a direct example of millions of lives being endangered and where the security of persons is threatened for tens of millions; especially since there is no proposed replacement. The inaction and even rejection of climate change policy is a direct hazardous risk to the entire nation and all aspects of national security. The ignoring of racial tensions and inability to create truth and reconciliation between communities across the nation; or the massive wealth disproportionality systematically enforcing poverty and lower living standards. Crumbling infrastructure that is directly harming the lives of and the living standards of entire communities such as Flint Michigan. All of these atrocities are affecting the people of the United States is no longer acceptable to be justifiable because certain people believe in them, that people's beliefs justify the continuation of these atrocities is not excusable in the 21st-century.

The Deep State has the human and material resources to completely rebuild national infrastructure, provide the security of persons, and ensure rights such as healthcare, truth and reconciliation, access to quality infrastructure, etc. The Deep State also has the coordination efforts to mobilize this level of human and material resources towards required projects and programs that could rapidly reindustrialize and raise living standards in a matter of months. The civilian economy at the beginning of US involvement in World War II was transformed into a fully militarized production apparatus in six months. We can repeat such a mobilization level tenfold given our advanced technology today. As the public institutions continue to be stripped and degraded by special interest, corrupt politicians, and antithetical individuals are placed in critical positions within agencies and governmental departments fundamentally upending and derailing the institutions; the need for the Deep State to take the initiative of liberation and organization on the behalf of the citizenry is imperative. Any sort of continuation of conflict with foreign powers to distract from domestic issues will inevitably result in Civil War, World War, and the extinction of the human species.

Institutions that make up the Deep State have once lead a large-scale social movement in history once prior. The abolition movement that eventually became embodied within the Emancipation Proclamation resulted in the force of law being used to change a social order that sought to separate the conception of liberty from a segment of humanity. Those same institutions once again have an opportunity to play a role of momentous occasion. Social justice and revolution pushing towards multiculturalism is an inevitability of the cultural melting pot that is the United States, a Union of States. Just as when the force of law was used to help in the liberation of repressed peoples, so too can the Deep State use its influence and abilities to directly aid the entire citizenry, all the peoples of the United States. We can and must do better, and it is imperative that the Deep State plays its role in that effort.

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

The Dangers Of Ideology And The Importance Of Free Speech & Debate

Universities are currently policing thought, indoctrinating students into a radical egalitarian ideology, and crushing dissenting opinion.

It’s truly amazing to consider how quickly the culture on college campuses has changed over the last several years. Once staunch defenders of speech and academic freedom, modern universities are quickly turning into ideological echo chambers, indoctrinating students into a radical left-wing egalitarian worldview, while crushing dissenting opinion.

The disturbingly Orwellian trend to quell free expression on campuses can best be illustrated by an event that unfolded last year at James Madison University’s freshman orientation, when “student leaders” distributed a list of 35 things that incoming students should avoid saying, including phrases such as “you have a pretty face,” “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” among other expressions.

You might find yourself laughing this off as nonsense, an isolated set of events perpetuated by a select group of fringe radicals. Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is not an isolated incident. In addition to the slew of protests that erupted at universities last year in response to conservative speakers being invited to campus, these kinds of events are indicative of a larger, and more pernicious attempt by the radical left to control the linguistic territory.

At universities across America, the campus left now demands that people accept certain preconditions for discussion. Not the kind of reasonable preconditions such as “treat people with respect,” or “don’t resort to personal attacks.” Rather, It is demanded that you accept a neo-Marxian worldview, rooted in the notion that the world is nothing more than a power struggle between two groups of people: those who oppress and those who are oppressed. They demand that people accept notions like white-male privilege as axiomatic – not to be debated – and force people to acknowledge how they've been privileged by the current socio-economic structure.

Refusing to accept these presuppositions not only bars someone from participating in the discussion. To challenge an idea, such as white privilege, is to reject the fact that racism and bigotry exist in our society. To challenge the notion that being white necessarily means you must be more privileged than a person of color is akin to blasphemy. To push against the idea that certain classes of people in America are ‘victims of systemic oppression’ is to deny the humanity and individual experiences of people of color, women, and other minority groups.

The campus left emphatically espouse the notion that “the personal is political.” Thus they believe, unequivocally, that the primary responsibility of the University should be to ensure students from “diverse cultural backgrounds” feel safe – and by safe they mean “not having their identities challenged;” and by identities they are referring to their belief systems – the lens by which they perceive the word.

From the perspective of a radical leftist, to participate in debate is not seen as merely engaging in criticism of some abstract idea. To challenge an idea is to challenge someone’s identity, and to challenge someone’s identity is to debate their humanity.

And that is one of the axiomatic rules of the campus Left – you cannot debate someone’s humanity.

Indeed, with more than a fifth of college undergrads now believing its okay to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive or hurtful statement,” the future of the First Amendment itself is currently uncertain.

What exactly is so dangerous about this movement?

For starters, the freedom of speech has wrongly been construed as just another value that we in the West hold in high regard. But it is more than a Right that we share as citizens of this nation. It is, ultimately, the mechanism by which keep our psyches and societies functioning.

See, most people just aren’t that good at thinking. I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, but we’re all insufficient and we have limited awareness of most things because we just can’t know everything. We rely on communication with one another to facilitate the process of learning about things outside our realm of knowledge. Often we have to, first, stumble around like the blithering idiots we are, espousing our biased beliefs in a public forum, and subjecting our ideas to criticism before we can properly orient our thoughts.

When the open exchange of ideas is allowed, you get the opportunity for multiple people to put forward their biased oversimplifications and engage in debate that raises the resolution of the particular question and answer at hand. Ideas are hit with hammers, combed for contradictions, inadequacies and even falsehoods. On an individual level, this kind of scrutiny sharpens the schema you use to navigate the world because other people can tell you things you can’t know by yourself.

Maybe it’s an opinion espoused, or a behavior that manifests itself, or a misconception you hold- in any event, subjecting your beliefs to criticism is, in the short term sometimes painful because we often learn things about the world and ourselves that are uncomfortable; but, in the long term, it is the only way method we have for moving closer towards something that more closely resembles truth – and if not anything true, at least something less wrong. As a result, the lens by which you look at the world becomes clearer.

Further, it is also through a collective process of dialectic that we identify problems in our societies, formulate solutions, and come to some sort of consensus.

Thus the right to say what you believe should not just considered as "just another value." It's a conical value, without which all the other values we hold dear, that people have fought so hard, in such an unlikely manner, to preserve and produce all disappear.

Without it, there can be no progress. Without it, individuals abdicate their responsibility to engage in the sacred process of discovery and renewal. Without it, we can’t think. Without it, there can be no truth. Without it, there can be nothing but nihilistic psychopathology. The end result is a populist that is not only afraid to say what they think, but that doesn't even know what they think because they haven’t been allowed to stumble around in the dark to find some tiny fragment of light.

Therefore, when we consider placing restrictions on the freedom of speech we must do so with the most extreme caution. By setting ridiculous preconditions for discussion, the campus left not only makes the process by which we solve the problems with our society more difficult, but also, if taken to its extreme, it can lead to totalitarianism.

In the wake of dozens of campus protests last year, universities are now in a position where they have to choose between two incompatible values: truth or social justice. The former will lead us to a greater understanding, while the latter can only divide.

Cover Image Credit: Teen Vogue

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being An English Speaker Is A Privileged Status

Multi-lingual is the way to go

English is not the official language of the United States of America. But even if it was, a country apparently founded on the idea of valuing every citizen as a free individual could do a much better job welcoming people who do not speak English.

While it is natural that one language became the most common, and that this has simplified many processes, this same simplification is not afforded to those who do not speak the language.

Language barriers can reduce one’s job opportunities, meaning that even if one has degrees and plenty of experience, many jobs are simply not available. Many employers are unfortunately unaccepting of those who do not speak English fluently, and some even discriminate against those who do not natively speak English.

Education becomes extremely complex for non-English-speakers. On the student side, while many schools offer English as a Second Language programs, which is wonderful, it should be acknowledged that these students face more work and less support than students who are native English speakers. To add to this, if parents do not speak English, communication from the school or with teachers becomes harder to access.

One of the greatest privileges of English speakers lies in healthcare. They can be sure that they will find a doctor who speaks their language and can clearly explain their medical situation in that language. The same goes for psychologists, social workers, and others in the health professions.

This becomes especially complicated for those who speak languages that are not commonly studied.

A friend of mine who teaches was mentioning recently that while there are many students and families in her district who speak Arabic, there are so few people working in psychology, social work, or other support services who speak the language that for the district to access them is not only difficult but expensive.

This too often means that schools fail to offer students and parents speaking these less-commonly studied languages sufficient aid.

So what is the answer? To adopt English as an official language would be so wrong in our country full of diverse and wonderful languages, backgrounds, and cultures. Instead of attempting to make English more and more widespread, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that people in this country who do not speak English can receive all of the same support as those who do speak English.

Some of this lies in ensuring that systems and institutions offer resources in several languages and that employers will not discriminate against those who are not native English speakers.

Much of the solution, however, is on us, especially if we are students entering a people-oriented profession. In fact, in all professions, becoming multi-lingual does not merely open doors for us but creates a society where more people have access to the services they need.

Cover Image Credit: Maialisa

Related Content

Facebook Comments