Rolling in the Deep

There’s a party game I was introduced to a few years back called “Innuendos”. The rules are simple. Each round, you pick a noun, such as “coffee”. Each person goes around and says “I like my men like I my coffee…” and then follows it up with a sexual joke. For example, you might say:

I like my men like I like my coffee…tall and black.

Or, instead of being banal and unimaginative, you might be clever and say something like:

I like my men like I like my coffee…I pick them up at Starbucks and I finish them in my car.

If you play it with the right people, you’ll often end up in stitches. Make it into a drinking game and things will get uproarious very quickly.

Over the past few months, there have been moments when you would be justified in wondering if Neoreaction likes its governments like it likes its swimming pools…deep. Talk of deep states has been simmering somewhat periodically for about half a year now. I’ve touched on the subject myself a few times. Here I am revisiting it yet again, and this time it gets a full post to itself, instead of a chunk in one of the fragments.

Necessary review here. Read it before we begin.

In democracies, voting is intended to be a feedback mechanism in order to ensure that the actions of the government are in accord with the will of the people. The system starts to function in unintended ways, however, when the will of the people becomes something manufactured by sanctimonious elites striving for secular holiness. The political process stops being a means to ensure that the will of the people is carried out, and instead becomes a tool to stir up social and political tension. This conflict then acts as vector by which to drive surreptitious shifts in targeted societal structures.

So is propaganda and mass media the underlying cause behind the rise of a deep state? I don’t know, but it seems to be something more akin to a “necessary but not sufficient” condition. This description doesn’t quite seem to encapsulate what is actually going on, but as a placeholder term it seems sufficient at this point in the process of this inquiry.

There is still speculation as to which factors are most conducive to the rise of deep states. This is not a topic on which I am versed enough to speculate openly, but I will say this: the Iron Law of Oligarchy does not necessarily entail that the resultant group of decision-makers need be publicly known or acknowledged. This allows for grounds to question whether deep states are likely (or even inevitable) occurrences within sufficiently advanced democratic polities.

A deep state may or may not be an inevitability (or something resembling one) in a democratic society, but in a society that was once capable of democratic government but is now no longer so capable, a deep state becomes a necessity for keeping up the same level of functioning (or perhaps more accurately, the appearance of upholding the same level of functioning). Yet, even though a deep state may be needed, any single deep state that emerges is likely to be an insufficient solution to the growing challenges that would obvious be presenting themselves in any society that had begun degenerating from a prior state of being.

Furthermore, as I’ve mentioned before, it is not an unknown occurrence for the leaders of an organization to run said organization for their own benefit, not for the good of the organization.This is where things get really interesting.

The worrisome implication here is not that the rise of a deep state in a democratic society is a symptom of dysfunction and decline. The worrisome implication here is that the deep state will become an existentially self-justifying entity that facilitates continual breakdown and decline (or at the very least, allows a continued degeneration) as a means of perpetuating its own existence, which seem the be the exact thing that our current deep state is now doing.

I certainly understand the sentiment that a deep state is an improvement on the sclerotic mess that currently masquerades as the center of power in American society. It probably is, but I’m not sure that “being better” is the best metric to go by, especially when one notices that the current powers behind the throne are acting in a way that looks suspiciously like sinking the ship while stealing the life boats. Forgive me if I find it difficult to condone that sort of behavior.

While I do agree that there are situations in which a deep state is a useful (dare I say necessary?) entity, I cannot overlook the simple fact that any particular deep state is likely to still do harm in the long run while enriching itself in the process. Save for remarkable circumstances, we cannot put our faith in deep states as anything more than a temporary mechanism.

We could gamble on it, of course. I’ve got pretty good luck. The lesson you learn when you have luck like mine, however, is to never gamble on any wager that forces you to rely on the luck of others. With 320 million people in the United States, that is exactly what this sort of bet would be.


6 thoughts on “Rolling in the Deep

  1. Alan J. Perrick 06/07/2015 / 5:45 PM

    That game you play sounds like a prelude to homosexual activity, didn’t know you went that way “Lego”… Uh, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, though…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s