Jump to content

Deep state: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Icy13 (talk | contribs)
100 edits
Reworked "Overview" section in two three substantive sections to both increase quality of the page as well as remove "overview' which is considered poor Wikipedia style.
Line 5: Line 5:
A '''deep state''' (from {{lang-tr|derin devlet}}), also known as a '''state within a state''', is a form of [[wikt:clandestine|clandestine]] government made up of hidden or covert networks of power operating independently of a state's political leadership, in pursuit of their own agenda and goals. Examples include [[organs of state]], such as the [[armed forces]] or [[Public-benefit corporation|public authorities]] ([[Intelligence agency|intelligence agencies]], [[police]], [[secret police]], [[administrative agencies]], and government [[bureaucracy]]). A deep state can also take the form of entrenched, career [[civil servant]]s acting in a non-conspiratorial manner, to further their own interests. The intent of a deep state can include continuity of the state itself, job security for its members, enhanced power and authority, and the pursuit of ideological objectives. It can operate in opposition to the agenda of elected officials, by obstructing, resisting, and subverting their policies, conditions and directives. It can also take the form of [[government-owned corporation]]s or [[Privately held company|private companies]] that act independently of regulatory or governmental control.<ref>[[Daniel De Leon]]: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1903/jun04_1903.pdf "Imperium in imperio"] in: ''Daily People'', June 4, 1903.</ref>
A '''deep state''' (from {{lang-tr|derin devlet}}), also known as a '''state within a state''', is a form of [[wikt:clandestine|clandestine]] government made up of hidden or covert networks of power operating independently of a state's political leadership, in pursuit of their own agenda and goals. Examples include [[organs of state]], such as the [[armed forces]] or [[Public-benefit corporation|public authorities]] ([[Intelligence agency|intelligence agencies]], [[police]], [[secret police]], [[administrative agencies]], and government [[bureaucracy]]). A deep state can also take the form of entrenched, career [[civil servant]]s acting in a non-conspiratorial manner, to further their own interests. The intent of a deep state can include continuity of the state itself, job security for its members, enhanced power and authority, and the pursuit of ideological objectives. It can operate in opposition to the agenda of elected officials, by obstructing, resisting, and subverting their policies, conditions and directives. It can also take the form of [[government-owned corporation]]s or [[Privately held company|private companies]] that act independently of regulatory or governmental control.<ref>[[Daniel De Leon]]: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1903/jun04_1903.pdf "Imperium in imperio"] in: ''Daily People'', June 4, 1903.</ref>


== Etymology and historical usage ==
==Overview==
The modern concept of a deep state is associated with [[Turkey]] and the secret network established in 1923 by [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]].<ref name= "Filkins Turkey">{{cite news|last= Filkins |first= Dexter |date= 12 March 2012 |title= The Deep State |url=http://abrahamson.medill.northwestern.edu/WWW/IALJS/Filkins_TheDeepState_NYer_12March2012.pdf |work= [[The New Yorker]]|accessdate= 31 December 2018}}</ref> Similar ideas are older. The [[Greek language]] κράτος ἐν κράτει, (''kratos en kratei'') was later adopted into [[Latin language|Latin]] as ''imperium in imperio''<ref>from [[Baruch Spinoza]]: ''[[Tractatus Politicus|Tractatus politicus]]'', Caput II, § 6.</ref> or ''status in statu'').
The modern concept of a deep state is associated with [[Turkey]], and the secret network established in 1923 by [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]].<ref name="Filkins Turkey2">{{cite news|last=Filkins|first=Dexter|url=http://abrahamson.medill.northwestern.edu/WWW/IALJS/Filkins_TheDeepState_NYer_12March2012.pdf|title=The Deep State|date=12 March 2012|work=[[The New Yorker]]|accessdate=31 December 2018}}</ref> Similar ideas are older. The [[Greek language]] κράτος ἐν κράτει, (''kratos en kratei'') was later adopted into [[Latin language|Latin]] as ''imperium in imperio''<ref>from [[Baruch Spinoza]]: ''[[Tractatus Politicus|Tractatus politicus]]'', Caput II, § 6.</ref> or ''status in statu'').


In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries political debate surrounding the [[separation of church and state]] often revolved around the perception that if left unchecked the Church might turn into a kind of State within a State, an illegitimate encroachment of the State's natural civil power.<ref>Cf William Blackstone, [[Commentaries on the Laws of England]], IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54, where the charge of being ''imperium in imperio'' was notably levied against the Church</ref>
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries political debate surrounding the [[separation of church and state]] often revolved around the perception that if left unchecked the Church might turn into a kind of State within a State, an illegitimate encroachment of the State's natural civil power.<ref>Cf William Blackstone, [[Commentaries on the Laws of England]], IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54, where the charge of being ''imperium in imperio'' was notably levied against the Church</ref>


At the beginning of the 20th century, the deep state was also used to refer to [[Government-owned corporation|government-owned corporations]] or [[Privately held company|private companies]] that act independently of regulatory or governmental control.<ref>[[Daniel De Leon]]: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1903/jun04_1903.pdf "Imperium in imperio"] in: ''Daily People'', June 4, 1903.</ref>
⚫
In the field of [[political science]], this [[pop culture]] concept is studied within the literature on [[the state]]. Current literature on the state generally traces a lineage to ''Bringing the State Back In'' (1985)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/bringing-state-back?format=PB&isbn=9780521313131#pkTewkspw1IAhOi2.97|title=Bringing state back - Comparative politics|website=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> and remains an active body of scholarly research to this day. Within this literature, the state is understood as both ''venue'' (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as ''actor'' (with its own agenda). An example of a non-conspiratorial version of the 'state as actor' from the empirical scholarly literature would be "doing truth to power" (as a play on speaking truth to power, which is what journalists often aspire to do) as studied by Todd La Porte.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9600406570652932200&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5|title=- Google Scholar|website=scholar.google.com}}</ref> Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as venue.'


== Scholarly understanding ==
⚫
The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a characteristic of all states which can have both good and bad effects and should not be seen as bad by default.
{{See also|State (polity)}}Within social science in general and political science specifically, scholars distinguish between [[positivism]] ("what is") and [[Normative (disambiguation)|normativism]] ("what should be").<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|last=Johnson, Janet Buttolph, 1950-|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55948042|title=Political science research methods|date=2005|publisher=CQ Press|others=Reynolds, H. T. (Henry T.)|year=|isbn=1-56802-874-1|edition=5th ed|location=Washington, D.C.|pages=28-29|oclc=55948042}}</ref> Because political science deals with topics which are inherently political and often controversial, this distinction between "what is" (positive) and "what should be" (normative) is critical because it allows diverse people with different preferred worlds to discuss the causes, workings, and effects of policies and social structures.<ref name=":4" /> Thus, while readers may disagree on the normative qualities of the "deep state" (i.e. whether it is good or bad), it is still possible to study the positive qualities (i.e. its origins and effects) without requiring a normative judgement.<ref name=":4" />

⚫
In the field of [[political science]], the normative [[pop culture]] concept of the deep state is studied within the literature on [[State (polity)|the state]]. Current literature on the state generally traces a lineage to ''Bringing the State Back In'' (1985)<ref name=":12">{{cite web|url=http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/bringing-state-back?format=PB&isbn=9780521313131#pkTewkspw1IAhOi2.97|title=Bringing state back - Comparative politics|website=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> and remains an active body of scholarly research as of 2020.{{Citation needed|date=January 2020}} Within this literature, the state is understood as both ''venue'' (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as ''actor'' (with its own agenda). An example of a non-conspiratorial version of the 'state as actor' from the empirical scholarly literature would be "doing truth to power" (as a play on speaking truth to power, which is what journalists often aspire to do) as studied by Todd La Porte.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9600406570652932200&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5|title=- Google Scholar|website=scholar.google.com}}</ref> Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as actor.'

⚫
The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a functional characteristic of all states which has effects that may be [[Normative (disambiguation)|normatively]] judged as "good" or "bad" in different times, places, and contexts. From a [[Positivism|positivist]] [[Social science|scientific]] perspective, the state-as-venue, colloquially known as the "deep state," simply "is" and should not be assumed to be "bad" by default.

== Popular understanding ==<!--CONTROVERSIAL BUT CRITICAL: before one enter's into an edit war in this section, please see the talk page to discuss the importance of distinguishing between the popular culture use of the term "deep state" and the scholarly understanding of state autonomy or "state-as-actor."-->

In the [[United States]] after the [[2016 United States presidential election]], the term "deep state" has become much more widely used as pejorative term with an overwhelmingly negative definition by both the new [[Presidency of Donald Trump|Donald Trump administration]] as well as the wider news media.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Michaels|first=Jon D.|date=March 2018|title=The American Deep State|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tndl93&i=1699|journal=Notre Dame Law Review|volume=93|issue=4|pages=1653-1670|via=HeinOnline}}</ref> In the [[United States]] [[news media]] and [[social media]] usage during the [[Presidency of Donald Trump|Donald Trump administration]], the term deep state has come to be an all-purpose [[Scapegoating|scapegoat]] for elements of the [[United States federal civil service]] which the administration opposes.{{Sfn|Michaels|2018|p=1653-1654}}<!--An overwhelming number of news media articles can be cited here as examples should that be desireable. Here is a list from the footnotes of Michaels 2018:

See, e.g., Daniel Benjamin & Steven Simon, Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in
the Deep State, POLITICO (Mar. 21, 2017), https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/20 1 7/
03/steve-bannon-deep-state-214935; Daniel Chaitin, Trump Promotes "DeepState'-FocusedEpisode of "Hannity,"WASH. EXAMINER (June 16, 2017), http://www.washingtonexaminer.com
/trump-promotes-deep-state-focused-episode-of-hannity/article/26262 7 2 ; Alexandra Glorioso, Rooney Callsfor "Purge"of "DeepState" Workers at DOJ,FBI, POLITICO (Dec. 26, 2017),
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2017/12/26/rooney-calls-for-purge-ofdeep-state-workers-at-doj-fbi-1 61479; Jeremy W. Peters, The Right Builds an AlternativeNarrative About the Crises Around Trump, N.Y. TIMES (May 17, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/
2017/05/17/us/politics/trump-scandal-conservatives-media.html; Tom Porter, Deep State:
How a Conspiracy Theory Went from PoliticalFringe to Mainstream,NEWSWEEK (Aug. 2, 2017),
http://www.newsweek.com/deep-state-conspiracy-theory-trump-6 45 3 7 6 ; Brooke Seipel,
Donald TrumpJr.Shares Tweet He Says Is "ConfirmationDeep State Is Real,"HILL (July7, 2017),
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/341074-donald-trump-jr-shares-tweet-he-says-is-confirmation-deep-state-is-real; Z. Byron Wolf, Trump EmbracesDeep State ConspiracyTheory, CNN
(Nov. 29, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/201 7/11/29/politics/donald-trump-deep-state/
index.html.--><!--Possible subsections to develop:
History of use in popular discourse
-- News media usage
-- Social media usage - 4chan, 8chan, reddit-->

=== Differences from scholarly understanding ===
In the field of [[political science]], the normative [[pop culture]] concept of the deep state is studied within the literature on [[State (polity)|the state]]. Within this literature, the state is understood as both ''venue'' (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as ''actor'' (with its own agenda).{{Sfn|Skocpol|1985|p=}} Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as actor.' The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a functional characteristic of all states which has effects that may be [[Normative (disambiguation)|normatively]] judged as "good" or "bad" in different times, places, and contexts. From a [[Positivism|positivist]] [[Social science|scientific]] perspective, the state-as-venue, colloquially known as the "deep state," simply "is" and should not be assumed to be "bad" by default.


==Cases==
==Cases==

Revision as of 02:32, 25 March 2020

For other uses, see Deep state (disambiguation).
"State within a state" redirects here. For examples of states whose territory is surrounded by or otherwise part of another state, see Enclave and exclave § Enclaved countries, Federated state, Constituent state, States of the Holy Roman Empire, Suzerain, Dominion, Client state, and Vassal and tributary states of the Ottoman Empire.
"imperium in imperio" redirects here. For other uses, see List of Latin phrases (I) § imperium in imperio.

A deep state (from Template:Lang-tr), also known as a state within a state, is a form of clandestine government made up of hidden or covert networks of power operating independently of a state's political leadership, in pursuit of their own agenda and goals. Examples include organs of state, such as the armed forces or public authorities (intelligence agencies, police, secret police, administrative agencies, and government bureaucracy). A deep state can also take the form of entrenched, career civil servants acting in a non-conspiratorial manner, to further their own interests. The intent of a deep state can include continuity of the state itself, job security for its members, enhanced power and authority, and the pursuit of ideological objectives. It can operate in opposition to the agenda of elected officials, by obstructing, resisting, and subverting their policies, conditions and directives. It can also take the form of government-owned corporations or private companies that act independently of regulatory or governmental control.[1]

Etymology and historical usage

The modern concept of a deep state is associated with Turkey, and the secret network established in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.[2] Similar ideas are older. The Greek language κράτος ἐν κράτει, (kratos en kratei) was later adopted into Latin as imperium in imperio[3] or status in statu).

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries political debate surrounding the separation of church and state often revolved around the perception that if left unchecked the Church might turn into a kind of State within a State, an illegitimate encroachment of the State's natural civil power.[4]

At the beginning of the 20th century, the deep state was also used to refer to government-owned corporations or private companies that act independently of regulatory or governmental control.[5]

Scholarly understanding

See also: State (polity)

Within social science in general and political science specifically, scholars distinguish between positivism ("what is") and normativism ("what should be").[6] Because political science deals with topics which are inherently political and often controversial, this distinction between "what is" (positive) and "what should be" (normative) is critical because it allows diverse people with different preferred worlds to discuss the causes, workings, and effects of policies and social structures.[6] Thus, while readers may disagree on the normative qualities of the "deep state" (i.e. whether it is good or bad), it is still possible to study the positive qualities (i.e. its origins and effects) without requiring a normative judgement.[6]

In the field of political science, the normative pop culture concept of the deep state is studied within the literature on the state. Current literature on the state generally traces a lineage to Bringing the State Back In (1985)[7] and remains an active body of scholarly research as of 2020.[citation needed] Within this literature, the state is understood as both venue (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as actor (with its own agenda). An example of a non-conspiratorial version of the 'state as actor' from the empirical scholarly literature would be "doing truth to power" (as a play on speaking truth to power, which is what journalists often aspire to do) as studied by Todd La Porte.[8] Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as actor.'

The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a functional characteristic of all states which has effects that may be normatively judged as "good" or "bad" in different times, places, and contexts. From a positivist scientific perspective, the state-as-venue, colloquially known as the "deep state," simply "is" and should not be assumed to be "bad" by default.

In the United States after the 2016 United States presidential election, the term "deep state" has become much more widely used as pejorative term with an overwhelmingly negative definition by both the new Donald Trump administration as well as the wider news media.[9] In the United States news media and social media usage during the Donald Trump administration, the term deep state has come to be an all-purpose scapegoat for elements of the United States federal civil service which the administration opposes.[10]

Differences from scholarly understanding

In the field of political science, the normative pop culture concept of the deep state is studied within the literature on the state. Within this literature, the state is understood as both venue (a set of rules under which others act and interact) as well as actor (with its own agenda).[11] Under this dual understanding, the conspiratorial version of the deep state concept would be one version of the 'state as actor' while the non-conspiratorial version would be another version of the 'state as actor.' The fundamental takeaway from the scholarly literature on the dual nature of the state is that the 'state as actor' (deep state) is a functional characteristic of all states which has effects that may be normatively judged as "good" or "bad" in different times, places, and contexts. From a positivist scientific perspective, the state-as-venue, colloquially known as the "deep state," simply "is" and should not be assumed to be "bad" by default.

Cases

Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia

The Soviet secret police have been frequently described by historians as a "state within a state". According to Yevgenia Albats, most KGB leaders, including Lavrenty Beria, Yuri Andropov, and Vladimir Kryuchkov, always competed for power with the Communist Party and manipulated communist leaders.[12]

According to Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov in 1991, "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a supreme power. The Political Bureau is only a shadow of the real supreme power that stands behind the chair of every Bureau member ... The real power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power is NKVD—MVD—MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on the Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau or Stalin's personality, but on the organization and the techniques of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman."[13] However, he also noted that "To say that NKVD is ‘a state within the state’ means to belittle the importance of the NKVD because this question allows two forces – a normal state and a supernormal NKVD – whereas the only force is Chekism".

According to Ion Mihai Pacepa in 2006, "In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state. Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country's 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin. The KGB successor, rechristened FSB, still has the right to electronically monitor the population, control political groups, search homes and businesses, infiltrate the federal government, create its own front enterprises, investigate cases, and run its own prison system. The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin's Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens.[14]

Chechnya

According to Julia Ioffe, the Russian Federal Subject of Chechnya, under leadership of Ramzan Kadyrov, has become a state within a state.[15]

United Kingdom

The Civil Service has been called a "deep state" by senior politicians in the United Kingdom. Tony Blair said of the Civil Service, "You cannot underestimate how much they believe it's their job to actually run the country and to resist the changes put forward by people they dismiss as 'here today, gone tomorrow' politicians. They genuinely see themselves as the true guardians of the national interest, and think that their job is simply to wear you down and wait you out."[16] The efforts of the Civil Service to frustrate elected politicians is the subject of the popular satiric BBC TV comedy, Yes Minister.

United States of America

Main article: Deep state in the United States

In the United States of America, the "deep state" is used to describe "a hybrid association of government elements and parts of top-level industry and finance that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Intelligence agencies such as the CIA have been accused by elements of the Donald Trump administration of attempting to thwart its policy goals.[30] Writing for The New York Times, the analyst Issandr El Amani warned against the "growing discord between a president and his bureaucratic rank-and-file", while analysts of the column The Interpreter wrote:[30]

Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation’s leader and its governing institutions.

— Amanda Taub and Max Fisher, The Interpreter

Venezuela

Further information: Cartel of the Suns

The Cartel of the Suns, a group of high-ranking officials within the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela, has been described as "a series of often competing networks buried deep within the Chavista regime". Following the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, the Bolivarian government initially embezzled until there were no more funds to embezzle, which required them to turn to drug trafficking. President Hugo Chávez made partnerships with the Colombian leftist militia Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and his successor Nicolás Maduro continued the process, promoting officials to high-ranking positions after they were accused of drug trafficking.[31]

Italy

The most famous Italian case is Propaganda Due.[32] Propaganda Due (better known as P2) was a Masonic lodge belonging to the Grand Orient of Italy (GOI). It was founded in 1877 with the name of Masonic Propaganda,[33] in the period of its management by the entrepreneur Licio Gelli assumed deviated forms with respect to the statutes of the Freemasonry and subversive towards the Italian legal order. The P2 was suspended by the GOI on 26 July 1976; subsequently, the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the P2 Masonic lodge under the presidency of Minister Tina Anselmi concluded the P2 case denouncing the lodge as a real "criminal organization"[34] and "subversive". It was dissolved with a special law, the n. 17 of 25 January 1982.

Other alleged cases

Africa

Central and South America

Germany

Turkey and the Ottoman Empire

Other places

See also

References

  1. ^ Daniel De Leon: "Imperium in imperio" in: Daily People, June 4, 1903.
  2. ^ Filkins, Dexter (12 March 2012). "The Deep State" (PDF). The New Yorker. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  3. ^ from Baruch Spinoza: Tractatus politicus, Caput II, § 6.
  4. ^ Cf William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, IV, c.4 ss. iii.2, p. *54, where the charge of being imperium in imperio was notably levied against the Church
  5. ^ Daniel De Leon: "Imperium in imperio" in: Daily People, June 4, 1903.
  6. ^ a b c Johnson, Janet Buttolph, 1950- (2005). Political science research methods. Reynolds, H. T. (Henry T.) (5th ed ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 1-56802-874-1. OCLC 55948042. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ "Bringing state back - Comparative politics". Cambridge University Press.
  8. ^ "- Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.
  9. ^ Michaels, Jon D. (March 2018). "The American Deep State". Notre Dame Law Review. 93 (4): 1653–1670 – via HeinOnline.
  10. ^ Michaels 2018, p. 1653-1654.
  11. ^ Skocpol 1985.
  12. ^ Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia--Past, Present, and Future. 1994. ISBN 0-374-52738-5.
  13. ^ The Chechen Times №17, 30.08.2003. Translated from "Technology of Power", 1991, chapter 34 Russian text
  14. ^ Jamie Glazov (23 June 2006). When an Evil Empire Returns — The Cold War: It's back., interview with Ion Mihai Pacepa, R. James Woolsey, Jr., Yuri Yarim-Agaev, and Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, FreeRepublic.com. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  15. ^ Julia Ioffe (24 July 2015). "Putin Is Down With Polygamy". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  16. ^ Khan, Shehab (6 February 2018). "David Cameron's former director of strategy says Tony Blair warned him about a 'deep state' conspiracy". The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
  17. ^ Priest, Dana; Arkin, William M. (2011). Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0316182218. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help)
  18. ^ Ambinder, Marc; Grady, D.B. (2013). Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry. Wiley. ISBN 978-1118146682.
  19. ^ Scott, Peter Dale (March 10, 2014). "The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld". The Asia-Pacific Journal. 12 (10, No. 5).
  20. ^ Michael J. Glennon (2014). "National Security and Double Government" (PDF). Harvard National Security Journal. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-03-01. Retrieved 2016-01-12.
  21. ^ Lofgren, Mike (2016). The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. Viking. ISBN 978-0525428343. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help)
  22. ^ Jordan Michael Smith (October 19, 2014). "Vote all you want. The secret government won't change". The Boston Globe.
  23. ^ Anand Giridharadas (September 15, 2015). "Examining Who Runs the United States". New York Times.
  24. ^ Bob Burnett (March 7, 2014). "The War on Democracy: The Deep State". Huffington Post.
  25. ^ Geoff Dyer (December 10, 2014). "CIA report is a strike back against America's deep state". The Financial Times.
  26. ^ Peggy Noonan (October 28, 2013). "The Deep State". The Wall Street Journal.
  27. ^ Lofgren, Mike (2014-02-21). "Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State". BillMoyers.com. Retrieved 2018-11-15.
  28. ^ Jessop, Bob (2015). The State: Past, Present, Future. John Wiley & Sons. p. 224.
  29. ^ "State Within a State?". The New York Times. 1963-10-06. p. 194. Archived from the original on 1963-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-23. Is the Central Intelligence Agency a state within a state?
  30. ^ a b Taub, Amanda; Fisher, Max (February 16, 2017). "As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a 'Deep State' in America". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-11-15.
  31. ^ Venezuela: A Mafia State?. Medellin, Colombia: InSight Crime. 2018. pp. 3–84.
  32. ^ "BBC ON THIS DAY - 26 - 1981: Italy in crisis as cabinet resigns". 1981-05-26. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
  33. ^ Dino P. Arrigo, Fratelli d'Italia. Cronache, storie, riti e personaggi (per capire la Massoneria), Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino, 1994, p. 45.
  34. ^ Willan, Puppetmasters, p. 50.
  35. ^ "Ex CIA director sees Serbs as masters of "deep state"". B92. 13 February 2018. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
  36. ^ Who Controls Pakistan's Powerful ISI?, Radio Free Europe, August 14, 2008
  37. ^ "Pakistan's shadowy secret service, the ISI". BBC News. 3 May 2011.
  38. ^ "The City: A state within a state". BBC News. 2011-11-04. Retrieved 9 April 2017 – via www.bbc.co.uk.
  39. ^ [Thailand's Deep State, Royal Power and the Constitutional Court https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472336.2016.1151917?journalCode=rjoc20]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_state&oldid=947232478"