Deep lobbying
 Deep lobbying(deep politics)   | |
|---|---|
| Long term lobbying that mainly uses indirect methods |
Deep lobbying aims to use long-term strategies to influence attitudes, moods, preoccupations and agendas in the population and the political establishment and to steer them in a certain direction. Political decisions are therefore influenced indirectly by influencing the public, the bureaucracy, science and media. Deep lobbying thus goes beyond influencing individual legislative proceedings.[1]
As a rule, deep lobbying does not lead to direct lobbying success, but lays the foundation for successful lobbying. Therefore, deep lobbying should not be viewed as an individual measure, but as part of large-scale and long-term lobby strategies.
Due to its lack of transparency, deep lobbying is a particularly invisible lobbying instrument. It is often difficult to see who is behind apparently scientific studies or who finances public opinion campaigns. This makes it difficult to critically examine deep lobbying campaigns. Deep lobbying about the promotion of certain think tanks or institutes does not necessarily require that the initiator or sponsor exert influence on specific research projects. It is sufficient that organizations or scientists with a suitable focus are funded and thus given more public weight. This procedure is also known as agenda setting.
Examples would include the way the school, university and medical systems were deeply influenced with financing from the Rockefeller Foundation and other oligarchs at the beginning of the 20th century, the way capitalism, free enterprise and "the American example" is promoted, or the military-industrial complex and the promotion of "security".
Deep Lobbying and Covid-19
One way to analyze how the Covid-19 situation was managed, is to treat it as an example of deep lobbying. Actors, such as pharmaceutical companies, identified the immense profit opportunities in vaccines and gene-editing technology. Getting the entire population to have regular vaccines would be an expansion of the market.
Researchers who supported a particular view or made research that came to certain conclusions (Neil Ferguson,Christian Drosten]]), received support and were promoted. Over the years, a body of scientific work was built up
Partnerships with government and international medical bodies led to a mutually supporting network of bureaucrats and politicians beholden to Big Pharma and supporting certain actions. Media ownership and advertising pressure made certain views received opinions, where questions of vaccine safety or deeply entrenched medical corruption were demonized, while pharmaceutical interventions were always the right answer.
The medical security apparatus, especially the American one, had a revolving door with Big Pharma. Medical 911 options were role played, and obscure solutions (lockdowns, mandatory face masks, social distancing) that benefited the industry decided as solutions for future use.
Over the years, these people reached top jobs and started molding the system their way. Certain problems and certain types of solutions were implemented. The definition of pandemic was changed in 2009, to now no longer needing a significant number of dead.
