A couple of weeks ago I finished listening to Owen
Bennett-Jones' BBC series on the Benazir Bhutto assassination. I enjoyed it and
learned a few things. In typical fashion, it ignored certain aspects of the
context and larger story but that is to be expected.
But something struck me yet once again. The BBC and American
outlets like NPR will unhesitatingly refer to the 'Deep State' when it comes to
nations like Pakistan and Turkey. It's almost universally acknowledged that
these nations have shadow governments and parallel power structures. The
military-intelligence apparatus has on more than one occasion intervened in the
politics of these nations and has staged coups d'état in order to countermand
the agenda of democratically elected administrations.
In fact having some of grasp of the Deep State is important
if not essential when it comes to properly understanding the nature of their
systems and how they function.
To the Western ear and eye, hearing about such machinations
in exotic oriental places like Turkey and Pakistan is perfectly within bounds
but when anyone suggests that similar mechanisms function in the context of the
Western system... then immediately you are decried as a conspiracy theorist and
given the current political climate, you're a danger, a dupe and ironically...
part of a vast conspiracy.
I suppose in some respects that's the most ironic aspect of
today's situation in the West. The conspiracists of whatever variety are being
countered by a vast conspiracy theory regarding Russia and various media
outlets. What was once an enigma can now only be described as a veritable
wilderness of mirrors, a labyrinth beyond comprehension.
Some politicians and academics in nations like the United
States, United Kingdom, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey and
even within the Vatican will acknowledge not only the realities of Deep State
structures in their own systems but in many cases tie them to the United
States. In fact it is through these various Deep State apparatus that the
United States has often wielded power and moved to cement its imperial control
of the Western Order... an order it established in the wake of 1945. In fact
the US has meddled in the politics of every aforementioned nation and in some
cases has either attempted to or has (often through proxies) assassinated members
of the elite and political classes of these nations. And this is just to list a
few allied states.
Some who deny the reality of a US Deep State will
nevertheless grant that such mechanisms exist in places like Italy. It's
virtually undeniable, but that said, Orwell's Memory Hole though presented in
somewhat metaphorical and device-like terms is a reality. Much of history is
continually and often completely swept under the rug and such 'deeper' stories
become the province of specialists and tucked away corners of academia,
appreciated only it would seem by the connoisseurs of arcana.
But officially such talk is out of bounds and is immediately
dismissed within the platforms of major and mainstream media. These outlets
exist to generate profits and are wed to the Establishment. They're not going
to risk either affiliation or aspects of (whether official or not) their
charters.
Bennett-Jones is completely convinced the Musharraf
government was involved in the assassination but admits the bulk of the
evidence is circumstantial. For this theory to stick, it must be granted that
the elements with the Pakistani government, particularly within the military
and ISI have close ties to the Pakistani Taliban and either control it or have
some kind of relationship with it.
This suggestion which I believe is true is completely 'within
bounds' when it comes to reporting on Pakistan but if you ever for a moment suggested
that Western governments like the US/UK have conspired with terrorists or members
of the underworld and/or have been involved in assassinating members of its own
government or elite... you're immediately discounted as crazy. In the West the
Taliban-connected assassin who killed Bhutto would (despite all the evidence to
the contrary) be labeled as a 'lone wolf' or 'lone nut' that acted without
outside influence and was never part of a conspiracy.
To suggest the government might have been involved... you
probably need to be committed.
I marveled as a listened to the programme and tried to
imagine the BBC or PBS running such a penetrating and officially sceptical programme
on the Kennedy's, King or even more obscure figures. It's all but unthinkable.
On occasion it seems like something 'slips through' and PBS or NPR will run a
story that raises eyebrows like in the case of the CIA and drugs or the October
Surprise of 1980. And yet, those days seem to be long past. One thing that is
very clear to me is that journalistic outfits, if challenging the system are
either quickly suppressed or appropriated.
Is there hard evidence to suggest this? You're not likely to
find a memo but what you will find is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. I'm
not sure what Bennett-Jones would have to say about that.
We know from inquiries, leaks and whistleblowers that the US
Deep State embarks on such projects and when one watches news outlets like
MSNBC, NPR and Al Jazeera begin to transform over the course of several years,
the philosophical shift must be accounted for. Is it possible it finds its
origins in other sources? Yes, and as usual the process is complicated, obtuse
and not all who are involved are motivated by the same concerns... and yet the
change is real.
I've written before about how I used to struggle and strain
to access international news. The Internet was wondrous in the 1990's as for
the first time I could easily access news outlets like the BBC. Later podcasting
and streaming technology meant I didn't have to wake up at 2am and press
'record' on my cassette-radio in order to tape the BBC World Service which NPR
would broadcast from midnight-5am. I would then listen to the cassette the next
day in the car or at work. Not everyone lives in a place where it's easy to get
a hold of the New York Times and in those days I frequently purchased The
Economist and other magazines.... almost anything I could get my hands on.
Today, the choices are overwhelming and seemingly infinite
and yet I feel like the news situation is worse than ever. We are living in a
dark age. And while there are many alternative outlets that (for a season it
seems) put out some good information they all too often lose their way. There's
a lot of good investigative journalism and some good books but in terms of
day-to-day news... I find it hard to recommend anything. That's how bad the
situation has become and how agenda driven are the mainstream outlets. I still
utilise the BBC, France24, Deutsche-Welle and even RT and Al Jazeera. To a
lesser degree I will still listen to NPR, some Democracy Now and read the New
York Times, but in all cases I find myself frustrated and often put off.
Discernment and a wide range of reading and knowledge are required, something I
realise most people are not going to do and in many cases don't have the
capacity to do so. The reasons for this are varied and in some cases it just
boils down to time... something I feel acutely.
In many ways I pity the younger generation. This is the only
world they know. Where to begin? I constantly push the reading of history but
even this is a potentially dangerous endeavour. There have always been 'hack'
and partisan histories out there but today they seem to all but dominate the
scene and many of the most 'respected' historians are little more than court
chroniclers and mouthpieces for the establishment. Many an expose' is in
reality part of the cover-up.
We live in a world of lies. Listening to Owen Bennett-Jones
on the BBC reminded me of that.