People like Dominic Cummings, chief advisor to former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, have a habit of revealing things we’re not supposed to know about how government operates. They often expose the motives and acts of what many these days call the deep state.
One of the most reasonable definitions of the “deep state” was offered by US defence analyst-turned-writer Mike Lofgren in his 2014 essay “Anatomy of the Deep State“:
The Deeper State: Insi...
Best Price: $1.80
Buy New $5.48
(as of 01:36 UTC - Details)
[T]here is another government concealed behind the one that is visible[.] [It is] a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out.
The oft-inconvenient comments about that deep state, when uttered by the likes of Cummings, either go unreported by the legacy media or the disclosures are spun to misdirect public attention. That’s because the job of the legacy media and its newer iteration, the Mainstream Alternative Media (MAM), is to maintain the public’s faith in the Establishment and its state—not to prompt us to question it.
Let’s consider the revealing remarks Dominic Cummings made in December 2024 (we’ll insert the names of the current incumbents):
So if you think of two roles, right, the Foreign Secretary [David Lammy] of Great Britain and the private secretary in the PM’s office responsible for foreign affairs [Ailsa Terry], an official whose name has never been in the newspapers, that person [Terry] was, like, ten times more powerful and important than the [foreign] secretary of state [Lammy]. This is something which, I think, people just don’t really realise. [. . .] It’s part of how the whole system has become fake. So, you have fake meritocracy, fake responsibility, and then fake cabinet government. [. . .] [I]t’s all nonsense. The cabinet is just like a staged theatre.
It may come as a relief to many that David Lammy is more window dressing than decision-maker. But that fact does prompt us to ask why, if unelected bureaucrats are running everything behind the scenes, we bother to engage in the political charade at all. Moreover, whom do the bureaucrats serve? And how do we challenge the power of those who really exercise it if they are not the politicians we elect to represent us?
Cummings’ December 2024 comments were not the first politically uncomfortable observations he has voiced in public. I previously reported that during a 2021 Parliamentary Committee hearing Cummings confessed [scroll to 14:02:35]:
In March [2020] I started getting calls from various people saying these new mRNA vaccines could well smash the conventional wisdom. [. . .] What Bill Gates and people like that were saying to me and [to] others in Number 10 was you need to think of this much more like the classic programs of the past [. . .] — the Manhattan Project in WWII, the Apollo program. [. . .] That’s essentially what we did.
On that occasion, Cummings described how “people like Bill Gates and that kind of network” of globalist oligarchs were telling the UK government what its Covid emergency response should be. In other words, Cummings was confessing that the general public’s perception of government is “all nonsense.” Government is just “staged theatre” to keep us believing in the “fake” political system.
The BBC kindly fact-checked Cummings’ 2021 Committee statement to ensure the British people were being properly informed. But, instead of investigating his revelation about an oligarch networks, the BBC desperately tried to convince its audience that politicians alone were the ones making the decisions (even though Cummings had clearly indicated that they are not the decision-makers).
Sky News, for its part, not only failed to report the nature of Cummings’ revelations about the network of “Bill Gates-type people” but squeezed in Cummings’ inference that these oligarchs were some of “the most competent people in the world.” There is, however, no reason to think they are.
Of course, Cummings isn’t the only insider to have blown the whistle on the true nature of the British state. Liz Truss, the shortest-serving prime minister in British history, was similarly shocked. She said:
What I found out when I got into Number 10 [UK prime minister’s residence and government HQ] is that, if I got to the top of the tree, I would be able to implement those Conservative policies. [. . .] What I discovered, is that I was not holding the levers. The levers were held by the Bank of England, the Office of Budget Responsibility [OBS]. [T]hey were not held by the prime minister or the chancellor [UK finance minister].
By virtue of its Royal Charter, the Bank of England is a private enterprise entirely independent of the UK government. The OBR is a public-private partnership that is an independent fiscal policy watchdog. Describing itself that way suggests it simply monitors government fiscal policy—taxation and expenditure. But the OBR also offers forecasts and, by presenting them to the respective parliamentary committees, actually shapes government fiscal policy.
The OBR’s “forecasting methods” are overseen by its advisory panel. This means that representatives from Vanguard, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, EDF Energy, McKinsey, KPMG, Barclays, and a slew of privately funded academic research departments and think tanks, such as Chatham House, are steering UK government fiscal policy—irrespective of which party is elected into office.
Like Cummings’ admissions, Truss’s revelations only confirm something many of us already know: Government policy does not reflect the will of the people. Government is not of, for, and by the people. These are baseless truisms. So, why do we believe them?
Why Do We Believe In Fake Government?
I suggest most people imagine electoral politics is meaningful because the entire legacy media has been perpetuating that illusion for decades, if not centuries. Conditioned as we are, we don’t stop to question the system and its players. Rather, we step back and allow the ones in charge to get on with business as they please.
The same deep state network funds both the corporate wing of the legacy media and the supposedly independent MAM. The corporate branch serves the powerful by directly propagandising for the state and by covering up on behalf of the state. Usually, this is done by calling everything that doesn’t align with a state narrative a conspiracy theory. Thus, the role of the corporate legacy media is to maintain the majority’s faith in government institutions and in the partisan political process.
The MAM’s role, on the other hand, is more subtle, and its objectives are slightly different. The MAM acknowledges concepts such as the uniparty and the deep state. But it then steers the conversation toward advocating some sort of party political solution—usually in the form of one political saviour or another. The MAM’s goal here is to return those who have wandered away from the Overton Window back to a degree of hope that the state can be reformed as long as they continue to engage in the muck of party politics.
The MAM’s other task is to openly discuss suppressed information and thereby gain the trust of those who no longer trust the corporate legacy media. Once that trust is secured, the MAM then reinterprets the previously suppressed information to suggest solutions or narratives that are amenable to the oligarchs but are actually anathema to their audience. In doing so, the MAM averts the possibility of the disillusioned taking any action against the oligarch’s interests by holding them in a state of confusion and apathy.
Here’s a concrete example. American MAM reporters have openly admitted that global governance overreach is a problem. These kinds of admissions are not within the remit of the corporate legacy media. The MAM then advocated the ideas of billionaires like Peter Thiel—a Bilderberg steering committee oligarch and prominent supporter of the Trump administration—as a hopeful solution to globalist overreach. But Thiel is offering gov-corp Technates as a path forward. These Technates are the most extreme form of Technocracy—which is the social control mechanism favoured by globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum.
Thus, the American MAM has acknowledged Republican voters’ wish to escape globalist control but has steered them to blindly accept gov-corp Technates. Encouraged to vote for Trump, what freedom-minded Republican voters have ended up with is perhaps the most authoritarian form of globalist oligarch control imaginable. At the same time, many ordinary Americans evidently believe they have struck a blow against global governance overreach by electing Trump.
That said, we should also note that election results seem to be so heavily manipulated that the degree to which they actually reflect the “will of the people” is highly dubious. Not that it matters much, because government is “fake” anyway.
The Deep State
The “deep state” enables “Bill Gates-type people” to meet and discuss their objectives with the bureaucrats and occasionally with the politicians who will implement the deep state’s collective agenda as policy. The oligarchs we see, like Gates, are really just the “philanthropist” PR guys for the globalist networks that convene within the deep state milieu.
Some politicians are more closely linked to the oligarchy than others. The newly appointed—not elected—Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, is among the most closely connected. In an interview with Juno News, given shortly before he replaced Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party, Carney argued that his perceived weakness—being part of the globalist inner circle—is actually his “core strength“:
I know how the world works, I know how to get things done, I’m connected. [. . .] People will charge me with being elitist or a globalist, to use that term, which is, well, that’s exactly, it happens to be exactly what we need.
While his surprising confession is yet another deep state revelation, legacy journalists don’t care to comment on it with any degree of seriousness. When they do address the subject, they consider mention of Carney’s ties to the “elite” a slur heaped upon him by opponents. In their view, he’s really a liberal-minded free-market capitalist. There’s nothing worth questioning about his so-called “global elite” status. Just forget the deep state and move on.
In August 2023, political scientist Francis Fukuyama published “In Defense of the Deep State.” In that piece, he acknowledges limited aspects of the history of the deep state, which he describes as “a complex of military and security agencies manipulated the political system and operated in a completely non-transparent way to affect politics.”
I believe Fukuyama is referencing the branch of Operation Gladio without saying so. Operation Gladio—a four decades long false-flag terrorist campaign run across Europe by the intelligence agencies—also operated in Turkey. The Turkish branch was exposed when the Susurluk Scandal broke in the mid-1990s—something else Fukuyama didn’t mention, though he alluded to it.
Fukuyama writes that the deep state has been mischaracterised by US conservatives as a permanent and therefore undemocratic bureaucracy. But by arguing that the deep state is simply “the administrative state,” he embarks on a straw man argument:
The United States does not have a “deep state” in the Middle Eastern [Turkish] sense of the term. It has a large and complex civil service at federal, state, and local levels that is responsible for providing the bulk of the services that citizens expect from their government, what is known as the “administrative state”. [. . .] [T]he US “deep state” needs to be defended and not vilified.
Notably, Fukuyama is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a deep state think tank. In that capacity, he was influential in the 1990s creation of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Among his other deep state roles, he is an advisory board member of one of the CIA-run nongovernmental operations (NGOs)—the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Big Intel: How the CIA...
Best Price: $2.40
Buy New $15.79
(as of 02:26 UTC - Details)
In such positions of power, Fukuyama and his fellow propagandists are reframing the deep state—characterising it as something it is not and selling the falsehood to the unwitting public.
The New York Times (NYT), agreeing with Fukuyama’s depiction of the deep state, describes it as “awesome.” Based on a six-minute propaganda-packed video, the NYT contends that the deep state was formed by “the workers otherwise known as civil servants, the everyday superheroes that wake up ready to dedicate their careers and their lives to serving us.”
Political science, however, has disproved the NYT’s and Fukuyama’s straw man arguments by empirically demonstrating that the deep state—as it is commonly perceived—does exist. It appears Fukuyama conveniently—if not deliberately—ignored that objective reality in his 2023 essay. Likewise, the NYT has failed to report the evidence of the deep state’s existence.
In political science, there are several related theories that debunk Fukuyama’s premise. One is the Economic-Elite Domination theory, which proposes that government policies are created for the interests of institutions or individuals whose economic and financial resources are significant. In such a system, the politician’s primary objective is to secure the favour of the so-called “economic elite.”
