The Deep State

The term “deep state” is increasingly used today in political discourse, transitioning from journalism into common political language. However, the term itself is becoming somewhat vague, with different interpretations emerging. It is, therefore, essential to take a closer look at the phenomenon described as the “deep state” and understand when and where this concept first entered into use.

This phrase first appeared in Turkish politics in the 1990s, describing a very specific situation in Turkey. In Turkish, “deep state” is derin devlet. This is crucial because all subsequent uses of this concept are in some way connected to the original meaning, which first emerged in Turkey.

Since the era of Kemal Atatürk, Turkey developed a particular political-ideological movement known as Kemalism. At its core is the cult of Atatürk (literally, “Father of the Turks”), strict secularism (rejecting the religious factor not only in politics but also in public life), nationalism (emphasizing sovereignty and the unity of all citizens in the ethnically diverse political landscape of Turkey), modernism, Europeanism, and progressivism. Kemalism represented, in many ways, a direct antithesis to the worldview and culture that had dominated in the religious and traditionalist Ottoman Empire. From the creation of Turkey, Kemalism was and largely remains the dominant code of contemporary Turkish politics. It was based on these ideas that the Turkish state was established on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.

Kemalism openly dominated during Atatürk’s rule, and afterward, this legacy was passed on to his political successors. Kemalism’s ideology included European-style party democracy, but real power was concentrated in the hands of the country’s military leadership, especially in the National Security Council (NSC). After Atatürk’s death, the military elite became the guardian of Kemalism’s ideological orthodoxy. The Turkish NSC was established in 1960 after a military coup, and its role significantly grew following another coup in 1980.

It is important to note that many senior Turkish military officers and intelligence officials were members of Masonic lodges, intertwining Kemalism with military Freemasonry. Whenever Turkish democracy deviated from Kemalism — whether to the right or left — the military annulled election results and initiated repressions.

However, the term derin devlet emerged only in the 1990s, precisely when political Islamism was growing in Turkey. Here, for the first time in Turkish history, a clash occurred between the deep state’s ideology and political democracy. The problem arose when Islamists, like Necmettin Erbakan and his follower Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, pursued an alternative political ideology that directly challenged Kemalism. This shift involved everything: Islam replacing secularism, greater ties with the East over the West, and Muslim solidarity instead of Turkish nationalism. Overall, Salafism and Neo-Ottomanism supplanted Kemalism. Anti-Masonic rhetoric, particularly from Erbakan, replaced the influence of secular military Masonic circles with traditional Sufi orders and moderate Islamic organizations, such as the Nur movement of Fethullah Gülen.

At this point, the idea of the deep state (derin devlet) arose as a descriptive image of the military-political Kemalist core in Turkey, which saw itself as standing above political democracy, canceling elections, arresting political and religious figures, and positioning itself above legal procedures of European-style politics. Electoral democracy functioned only when it aligned with the Kemalist military’s course. When a critical distance emerged, as with the Islamists, the party that won the elections and even led the government could be disbanded without explanation. In such cases, the “suspension of democracy” had no constitutional basis — the unelected military acted based on “revolutionary expediency” to save Kemalist Turkey.

Later, Erdoğan began a full-scale war against Turkey’s deep state, culminating in the Ergenekon trial in 2007, where nearly the entire military leadership of Turkey was arrested under the pretext of preparing a coup. However, later, Erdoğan fell out with his former ally, Fethullah Gülen, who was deeply entrenched in Western intelligence networks. Erdoğan restored the status of many deep state members, forming a pragmatic alliance with them, primarily on the common ground of Turkish nationalism. The debate over secularism was softened and postponed, and especially after the failed coup attempt by Gülenists in 2016, Erdoğan himself began to be referred to as a “green Kemalist.” Despite this, the deep state’s position in Turkey weakened during the confrontation with Erdoğan, and the ideology of Kemalism became diluted, although it survived.

Main Features of the Deep State

From the modern political history of Turkey, we can draw several general conclusions. A deep state can exist and makes sense where:

1. There is a democratic electoral system;
2. Above this system, there exists an unelected military-political entity bound by a specific ideology (independent of the victory of any particular party);
3. There is a secret society (such as of the Masonic type) uniting the military-political elite.

The deep state reveals itself when contradictions emerge between formal democratic norms and the power of this elite (otherwise, the existence of the deep state remains obscure). The deep state is possible only in liberal democracies, even nominal ones. In overtly totalitarian political systems, such as fascism or communism, there is no need for a deep state. Here, a rigidly ideological group openly acknowledges itself as the highest authority, placing itself above formal laws. Single-party systems emphasize this model of governance, leaving no room for ideological and political opposition. Only in democratic societies, where supposedly no ruling ideology should exist, does the deep state emerge as a phenomenon of “hidden totalitarianism,” which manipulates democracy and multi-party systems at will.

Communists and fascists openly acknowledge the necessity of a ruling ideology, making their political and ideological power direct and transparent (potestas directa, as Carl Schmitt put it). Liberals deny having an ideology, but they do have one. Therefore, they influence political processes based on liberalism as a doctrine, but only indirectly, through manipulation (potestas indirecta). Liberalism reveals its openly totalitarian and ideological nature only when contradictions arise between it and democratic political processes.

In Turkey, where liberal democracy was borrowed from the West and did not quite align with the political and social psychology of society, the deep state was easily identified and named. In other democratic systems, the existence of this totalitarian-ideological instance, illegitimate and formally “nonexistent,” became apparent later. However, the Turkish example holds significant importance for understanding this phenomenon. Here, everything is crystal-clear — like an open book.

Trump and the Discovery of the Deep State in the U.S.

Now let us focus on the fact that the term “deep state” appeared in the speeches of journalists, analysts, and politicians in the U.S. during the presidency of Donald Trump. Once again, the historical context plays a decisive role. Trump’s supporters, such as Steve Bannon and others, began to speak about how Trump, having the constitutional rights to determine the course of American politics as an elected president, encountered unexpected obstacles that could not simply be attributed to opposition from the Democratic Party or bureaucratic inertia. Gradually, as this resistance intensified, Trump and his supporters began to see themselves not merely as representatives of the Republican agenda, traditional for previous politicians and presidents of the party, but as something more. Their focus on traditional values and critique of the globalist agenda struck a nerve not only with their direct political opponents, the “progressives” and the Democratic Party, but also with some invisible and unconstitutional entity, capable of influencing all major processes in American politics — finance, big business, media, intelligence agencies, the judiciary, key cultural institutions, top educational institutions, and so on — in a coordinated and purposeful way.

It would seem that the actions of the government apparatus as a whole should follow the course and decisions of a legally elected president of the United States. But it turned out that this was not the case at all. Independent of Trump, at some higher level of “shadow power,” uncontrollable processes were underway. Thus, the deep state was discovered in the U.S. itself.

In the U.S., as in Turkey, there is undoubtedly a liberal democracy. But the existence of an unelected military-political entity, bound by a specific ideology (independent of the victory of any particular party) and possibly part of a secret society (such as a Masonic-type organization), was completely unforeseen for Americans. Therefore, the discourse on the deep state during that period became a revelation for many, transforming from a “conspiracy theory” into a visible political reality.

Of course, the unresolved assassination of John F. Kennedy, the probable elimination of other members of his clan, numerous inconsistencies surrounding the tragic events of 9/11, and several other unsolved secrets in American politics had led Americans to suspect the existence of some kind of “hidden power” in the U.S. Popular conspiracy theories proposed the most unlikely candidates — from crypto-communists to reptilians and Anunnaki. But the story of Trump’s presidency, and even more so, his persecution after losing to Biden and the two assassination attempts during the 2024 election campaign, make it necessary to take the deep state in the U.S. seriously. It is no longer something that can be dismissed. It definitely exists, it acts, it is active, and it… governs.

Council on Foreign Relations: Towards the Creation of a World Government

In search of an explanation for this phenomenon, one must first turn to the political organizations in the U.S. of the 20th century that were the most ideologically driven and sought to operate beyond party lines. If we try to find the core of the deep state among the military, intelligence agencies, Wall Street tycoons, tech magnates, and others, we are unlikely to reach a satisfying conclusion. The situation there is too individualized and diffuse. First and foremost, attention should be given to ideology.

Setting aside conspiracy theories, two entities stand out as most fitting for this role: the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), founded in the 1920s by supporters of President Woodrow Wilson, an ardent advocate of democratic globalism, and the much later movement of American neoconservatives, who emerged from the once marginal Trotskyist milieu and gradually gained significant influence in the U.S. Both the CFR and neoconservatives are independent of any one party. Their goal is to guide the strategic course of U.S. policy as a whole, regardless of which party is in power at any given time. Moreover, both of these entities possess well-structured and clear ideologies — left-liberal globalism in the case of the CFR and assertive American hegemony in the case of the neoconservatives. The CFR can be considered the left-wing globalists and the neocons the right-wing globalists.

From its inception, the CFR set its sights on transitioning the U.S. from a nation-state to a global democratic “empire.” Against the isolationists, the CFR put forward the thesis that the U.S. is destined to make the entire world liberal and democratic. The ideals and values of liberal democracy, capitalism, and individualism were placed above national interests. Throughout the 20th century — excluding a brief break during World War Two — this network of politicians, experts, intellectuals, and representatives of transnational corporations worked to create supranational organizations: first the League of Nations, then the United Nations, the Bilderberg Club, the Trilateral Commission, and so on. Their task was to create a unified global liberal elite that shared the ideology of globalism in all aspects — philosophy, culture, science, economics, politics, and more. The activities of globalists within the CFR aimed at the establishment of a world government, implying the gradual withering away of nation-states and the transfer of power by former sovereign entities into the hands of a global oligarchy, consisting of the world’s liberal elites, trained according to Western models.

Through its European networks, the CFR played an active role in the creation of the European Union (a concrete step toward world government). Its representatives — particularly Henry Kissinger, the organization’s enduring intellectual leader — played a key role in integrating China into the global market, an effective move to weaken the socialist bloc. The CFR also actively promoted the theory of convergence and managed to exert influence over the late Soviet leadership, up to and including Gorbachev. Under the influence of the CFR’s geopolitical strategies, late Soviet ideologists wrote about the “governability of the global community.”

The CFR in the U.S. is strictly non-partisan and includes both Democrats, to whom it is somewhat closer, and Republicans. In essence, it serves as the general staff of globalism, with similar European initiatives — such as Klaus Schwab’s Davos Forum — acting as its branches. On the eve of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the CFR established a branch in Moscow at the Institute of Systemic Studies under academician Gvishiani, from which the core of Russia’s liberals of the 1990s and the first wave of ideologically driven oligarchs emerged.

It is clear that Trump encountered precisely this entity, presented in the U.S. and worldwide as a harmless and prestigious platform for the exchange of opinions by “independent” experts. But in reality, it is a true ideological headquarters. Trump, with his old-conservative agenda, emphasis on American interests, and critique of globalism, came into direct and open conflict with it. Trump may have been the president of the United States for a brief period, but the CFR has a century-long history of determining the direction of American foreign policy. And, of course, over its hundred years in and around power, the CFR has formed an extensive network of influence, spreading its ideas among the military, officials, cultural figures, and artists, but primarily in American universities, which have become increasingly ideologized over time. Formally, the U.S. does not recognize any ideological dominance. But the CFR network is highly ideological. The planetary triumph of democracy, the establishment of a world government, the complete victory of individualism and gender politics — these are the highest goals, from which deviation is unacceptable.

Trump’s nationalism, his America First agenda, and his threats to “drain the globalist swamp” represented a direct challenge to this entity, the guardian of the codes of totalitarian (like any ideology) liberalism.

To Kill Putin and Trump

Can the CFR be considered a secret society? Hardly. While it prefers discretion, it generally operates openly. For instance, shortly after the start of the Russian Special Military Operation, CFR leaders (Richard Haass, Fiona Hill, and Celeste Wallander) openly discussed the feasibility of assassinating President Putin (a transcript of this discussion was posted on the official CFR website). The American deep state, unlike the Turkish one, thinks globally. Thus, events in Russia or China are considered by those who see themselves as the future world government as “internal affairs.” And killing Trump would be even simpler — if they cannot imprison him or remove him from the elections.

It is important to note that Masonic lodges have played a key role in the American political system since the U.S. War of Independence. As a result, Masonic networks are intertwined with the CFR and serve as recruiting bodies for them. Today, liberal globalists do not need to hide. Their programs have been fully embraced by the U.S. and the collective West. As “secret power” strengthens, it gradually ceases to be secret. What once had to be guarded by the discipline of Masonic secrecy has now become an open global agenda. Freemasons did not shy away from physically eliminating their enemies, although they did not speak openly about it. Today, they do. That is the only difference.

Neocons: From Trotskyists to Imperialists

The second center of the deep state are the neoconservatives. Originally, they were Trotskyists who hated the Soviet Union and Stalin because, in their view, Russia built not an international but a “national” socialism, meaning socialism in one country. As a result, in their opinion, a true socialist society was never created, nor was capitalism fully realized. Trotskyists believe that true socialism can only emerge after capitalism becomes planetary and triumphs everywhere, irreversibly blending all ethnic groups, peoples, and cultures while abolishing traditions and religions. Only then (and not a moment earlier) will the time come for the world revolution.

Therefore, American Trotskyists concluded that they must help global capitalism and the U.S. as its flagship, while seeking to destroy the Soviet Union (and later Russia, as its successor), along with all sovereign states. Socialism, they believed, could only be strictly international, which meant the U.S. needed to strengthen its hegemony and eliminate its opponents. Only after the wealthy North establishes complete domination over the impoverished South and international capitalism reigns supreme everywhere will the conditions be ripe to move to the next phase of historical development.

To execute this diabolical plan, American Trotskyists made a strategic decision to enter big politics — but not directly since nobody in the U.S. voted for them. Instead, they infiltrated the major parties, first through the Democrats, and later, after gaining momentum, through the Republicans as well.

Trotskyists openly acknowledged the necessity of ideology and regarded parliamentary democracy with disdain, seeing it merely as a cover for big capital. Thus, alongside the CFR, another version of the deep state was formed in the U.S. The neocons did not flaunt their Trotskyism but instead seduced traditional American militarists, imperialists, and supporters of global hegemony. And it was with these people, who until Trump had practically owned the Republican Party, that Trump had to contend.

Democracy is Dictatorship

In a certain sense, the American deep state is bipolar, meaning it has two poles:

1. the left-globalist pole (CFR)
2. and the right-globalist pole (the neocons).

Both organizations are non-partisan, unelected, and bear an aggressive, proactive ideology that is, in essence, openly totalitarian. In many respects, they align, differing only in rhetoric. Both are fiercely opposed to Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China, and they are against multipolarity in general. Within the U.S., both are equally opposed to Trump, as he and his supporters represent an older version of American politics, disconnected from globalism and focused on domestic issues. Such a stance by Trump is a true rebellion against the system, comparable to the Islamist policies of Erbakan and Erdogan challenging Kemalism in Turkey.

This explains why the discourse around the deep state emerged with Trump’s presidency. Trump and his policies gained the support of a critical mass of American voters. However, it turned out that this stance did not align with the views of the deep state, which revealed itself by acting harshly against Trump, stepping beyond the legal framework and trampling on the norms of democracy. Democracy is us, the American deep state essentially declared. Many critics began talking about a coup d’état. And that is essentially what it was. The shadow power in the U.S. clashed with the democratic facade and began increasingly resembling a dictatorship — liberal and globalist.

The European Deep State

Now let us consider what the deep state might mean in the case of European countries. Recently, Europeans have begun noticing that something unusual is happening with democracy in their countries. The population votes according to its preferences, increasingly supporting various populists, especially right-wing ones. Yet, some entity within the state immediately clamps down on the victors, subjects them to repression, discredits them, and forcibly removes them from power. We see this in Macron’s France with Marine Le Pen’s party, in Austria with the Freedom Party, in Germany with the Alternative for Germany and Sahra Wagenknecht’s party, and in the Netherlands with Geert Wilders, among others. They win democratic elections but are then sidelined from power.

Familiar situation? Yes, it very much resembles Turkey and the Kemalist military. This suggests we are dealing with a deep state in Europe as well.

It immediately becomes evident that in all European countries, this entity is not national and operates according to the same template. It is not just a French deep state, a German, Austrian, or Dutch one. It is a pan-European deep state, which is part of a unified globalist network. The center of this network is located in the American deep state, primarily in the CFR, but this network also tightly envelops Europe. Here, left-liberal forces, in close alliance with the economic oligarchy and postmodern intellectuals — almost always from a Trotskyist background — form the unelected yet totalitarian ruling class of Europe. This class sees itself as part of a unified Atlantic community. Essentially, they are the NATO elite. Again, we can recall the Turkish military. NATO is the structural framework of the entire globalist system, the military dimension of the collective West’s deep state.

It is not difficult to locate the European deep state in structures similar to the CFR, such as the European branch of the Trilateral Commission, Klaus Schwab’s Davos Forum, and others. This is the authority that European democracy collides with when, like Trump in the U.S., it tries to make choices that the European elites deem “wrong,” “unacceptable,” and “reprehensible.” And it is not just about the formal structures of the European Union. The issue lies in a much more powerful and effective force that does not take any legal form. These are the bearers of the ideological code, who, according to the formal laws of democracy, simply should not exist. They are the guardians of deep liberalism, always responding harshly to any threat that arises from within the democratic system itself.

As in the case of the U.S., Masonic lodges played a significant role in the political history of modern Europe, serving as headquarters for social reforms and secular transformations. Today, there is no longer a great need for secret societies, as they have long operated openly, but maintaining Masonic traditions remains part of Europe’s cultural identity.

Thus, we arrive at the highest level of an undemocratic, deeply ideological entity that operates in violation of all legal rules and norms and holds complete power in Europe. This is indirect power, or a hidden dictatorship — the European deep state, as an integral part of the unified system of the collective West, bound together by NATO.

The Deep State in Russia in the 1990s

The last thing left is to apply the concept of the deep state to Russia. It is notable that in the Russian context, this term is used very rarely, if at all. This does not mean that nothing similar to a deep state exists in Russia. Rather, it suggests that no significant political force with critical popular support has yet confronted it. Nevertheless, we can describe an entity that, with some degree of approximation, can be called the “Russian deep state.”

In the Russian Federation, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, state ideology was banned, and in this respect, the Russian Constitution aligns perfectly with other nominally liberal-democratic regimes. Elections are multiparty, the economy is market-based, society is secular, and human rights are respected. From a formal perspective, contemporary Russia does not differ fundamentally from the countries of Europe, America, or Turkey.

However, some sort of implicit, non-partisan entity did exist in Russia, especially during the Yeltsin era. At that time, this entity was referred to by the general term “The Family.” The Family performed the functions of a deep state. While Yeltsin himself was the legitimate (though not always legitimate in the broader sense) president, the other members of this entity were not elected by anyone and had no legal authority. The Family in the 1990s consisted of Yeltsin’s relatives, oligarchs, loyal security officials, journalists, and committed liberal Westernizers. They were the ones implementing the main capitalist reforms in the country, pushing them through regardless of the law, changing it at will, or simply ignoring it. They acted not just out of clan interests but as a real deep state — banning certain parties, artificially supporting others, denying power to the winners (such as the Communist Party and LDPR), and granting it to unknown and undistinguished individuals, controlling the media and education system, reallocating entire industries to loyal figures, and eliminating what did not interest them.

At that time, the term “deep state” was not known in Russia, but the phenomenon itself was clearly present.

It should be noted, however, that in such a short period after the collapse of the overtly totalitarian and ideological one-party system, a fully developed deep state could not have independently formed in Russia. Naturally, the new liberal elites simply integrated into the global Western network, drawing from it both ideology and the methodology of indirect power (potestas indirecta) — through lobbying, corruption, media campaigns, control over education, and setting standards for what was beneficial and what was harmful, what was permissible, and what should be banned. The Yeltsin-era deep state labeled its opponents as “red-brown,” preemptively blocking serious challenges from both the right and the left. This indicates that there was some form of ideology (formally unrecognized by the Constitution) that served as the basis for such decisions on what was right and wrong. That ideology was liberalism.

Liberal Dictatorship

The deep state arises only within democracies, functioning as an ideological institution that corrects and controls them. This shadow power has a rational explanation. Without such a supra-democratic regulator, the liberal political system could change, as there are no guarantees that the people will not choose a force that offers an alternative path for society. This is precisely what Erdoğan in Turkey, Trump in the U.S., and populists in Europe tried — and partly successful — to do. However, confrontation with populists forces the deep state to step out of the shadows. In Turkey, this was relatively easy, as the dominance of Kemalist military forces was largely in line with historical tradition. But in the case of the U.S. and Europe, the discovery of an ideological headquarters operating through coercion, totalitarian methods, and frequent violations of the law — without any electoral legitimacy — comes across as a scandal, as it deals a heavy blow to the naive belief in the myth of democracy.

The deep state is built on a cynical thesis in the spirit of Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Some democrats are more democratic than others.” But ordinary citizens may see this as dictatorship and totalitarianism. And they would be right. The only difference is that single-party totalitarianism operates openly, while the shadow power standing above the multi-party system is forced to conceal its very existence.

This can no longer be concealed. We live in a world where the deep state has transformed from a conspiracy theory into a clear and readily identifiable political, social, and ideological reality.

It is better to look the truth squarely in the eye. The deep state is real, and it is serious.

Alexander Dugin’s books can be purchased here.