Is there really a deep state?

[Broken Fence]

Of course there's a deep a state. Political decisions are not made entirely by elected officials or people appointed by them. The bulk of government positions are composed of career bureaucrats who, while elected leaders come and go, pursue their own political policies independent of which party controls the government. This is what we call "the deep state".

That is a very good definition. So if we the people have no one to represent us, what then?

 

[Tom 1]

That is a good question. Have we always had a deep State in politics? And I just never realized.

Any state needs an army of staff in order to function. Making things run is incredibly boring and requires large numbers of people to do repetitive and tedious work, day in day out. What would the alternative be?

 

[thecolorsblend]

What would be the difference between the normal, functioning apparatus of the state in any country, as in this article, and what people call ‘the deep state’?

A new head of state gets elected on a reformer platform. In theory, he now leads that government.

He takes office but the reforms upon which he campaigned get stymied by the people who actually control the government.

At most, there have been only three American Presidents in the last century who weren't totally controlled by this group. The rest were all controlled to varying degrees. The actual number could be fewer than three. But it's certainly not more than three. No, I won't say which Presidents I believe were truly independent because it's guaranteed to invite debate rather than consideration and research.

And I really hate saying the stuff above because "Q-anon" says a variation on the same thing and I think that whole Trust The Plan bit is absolute nonsense.

 

[Broken Fence]

Any state needs an army of staff in order to function. Making things run is incredibly boring and requires large numbers of people to do repetitive and tedious work, day in day out. What would the alternative be?

I truly have no idea.

 

[timothyu]

Yes I have, which is why I am at loss.

The helplessness people felt being quarantined was just to get us used to the helplessness we will shortly feel when the Technocratic age or fourth industrial revolution as some call it, comes to fruition. There has got a be is a reason cash was suddenly looked down upon and cheques were sent to those who could not get a bank account to cash them. Cashless society. There has got to be a reason tracking apps suddenly came to be in vogue. There has got to be a reason police are suddenly destabilized in favour of techno surveillance/monitoring and people will be re-programmed by a new policing agency instead of incarcerated except of course for those needed to run the private enterprises within the private prisons. There has got to be a reason small and even medium businesses were forced out of business due to 'virus' yet the monopoly bound enterprises thrived and got bailed out, creating what once would have been called a corporate takeover to eliminate competition, but this time without having to buy them out. .ETC.

 

[Broken Fence]

A new head of state gets elected on a reformer platform. In theory, he now leads that government.

He takes office but the reforms upon which he campaigned get stymied by the people who actually control the government.

At most, there have been only three American Presidents in the last century who weren't totally controlled by this group. The rest were all controlled to varying degrees. The actual number could be fewer than three. But it's certainly not more than three. No, I won't say which Presidents I believe were truly independent because it's guaranteed to invite debate rather than consideration and research.

And I really hate saying the stuff above because "Q-anon" says a variation on the same thing and I think that whole Trust The Plan bit is absolute nonsense.

Yea I don't like either sides plan which I guess is my problem.

 

[Tom 1]

who actually control the government.

What do you actually mean by that, though? What might be some examples of that? From what I’ve seen from other people there seems to be some imaginary notion of a state apparatus that functions like a flock of starlings or a shoal of fish, changing direction instantly and without thought whenever someone new is in charge. That might be possible if government staff were replaced with mindless AI drones, but with people it is literally impossible. Bear in mind also that, whether or not a person supports his policies etc, Trump is an extremely dodgy character, his whole career and business life is built on deception, fraud, betrayal and getting in to bed with anyone he can profit from. Anyone working in government, and in the intelligence services in particular, would have to be an utter dufus not to treat him with extreme suspicion.

 

[timothyu]

Can you explain what you mean?

Simply that the new government is not the same as the old government and to their advantage they were able to grow without the people recognizing the changes until now because they were taught to think in the old ways. Yet ironically these old ways may be the downfall of the new world order even thought they have spent decades trying to eliminate the old analog thinking out there, including allowing the analog generation to be wiped out by virus because they couldn't wait another 15 years for us to die out naturally. lol Greed on their part is an achilles heel.

 

[timothyu]

Trump is an extremely dodgy character, his whole career and business life is built on deception, fraud, betrayal and getting in to bed with anyone he can profit from. Anyone working in government, and in the intelligence services in particular, would have to be an utter dufus not to treat him with extreme suspicion.

Trump is a pawn in a bigger game. And who better to distract attention from the real players. Thinking Trump or right/left or even the US is thinking too small in this new world.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

the real players.

.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What do you actually mean by that, though? What might be some examples of that? From what I’ve seen from other people there seems to be some imaginary notion of a state apparatus that functions like a flock of starlings or a shoal of fish, changing direction instantly and without thought whenever someone new is in charge. That might be possible if government staff were replaced with mindless AI drones, but with people it is literally impossible. Bear in mind also that, whether or not a person supports his policies etc, Trump is an extremely dodgy character, his whole career and business life is built on deception, fraud, betrayal and getting in to bed with anyone he can profit from. Anyone working in government, and in the intelligence services in particular, would have to be an utter dufus not to treat him with extreme suspicion.

I'm close friends with some of President Trump's former business partners. Without getting too specific, they worked with him on a handful of deals back in his Apprentice days. Relatively small deals to start with then bigger ones as time went by.

Independently of each other, they've all said variations of the same thing: honest, above-board, very lucrative deals, would do it again tomorrow if they could, etc.

Others of my friends were involved in Trump deals as contractors rather than direct partners. Same thing although they have more experience with him overall. Same thing. Good deals, never missed a chance to work with him when they could, honest, so on and so forth.

None of these people are what you used to be called Tea Party Patriots. They're all broadly East Coast liberals who had no reason to love or to hate Trump. If my friends would've had a negative experience with him, there wouldn't have been a reason to lie about how wonderful he is. Because I've heard them trash talk plenty of other prominent East Coast businessmen. But they all mostly enjoyed their dealings with Trump.

Honestly, their experiences with Trump count far more to me than some overpaid shill journalist on CNN or wherever repeating the words his paymasters have given him.

 

[Broken Fence]

This is a very interesting Twitter feed linked to this article. The college student singing National Anthem is very touching especially when a stranger joins her.

Twitter

 

[Broken Fence]

I'm close friends with some of President Trump's former business partners. Without getting too specific, they worked with him on a handful of deals back in his Apprentice days. Relatively small deals to start with then bigger ones as time went by.

Independently of each other, they've all said variations of the same thing: honest, above-board, very lucrative deals, would do it again tomorrow if they could, etc.

Others of my friends were involved in Trump deals as contractors rather than direct partners. Same thing although they have more experience with him overall. Same thing. Good deals, never missed a chance to work with him when they could, honest, so on and so forth.

None of these people are what you used to be called Tea Party Patriots. They're all broadly East Coast liberals who had no reason to love or to hate Trump. If my friends would've had a negative experience with him, there wouldn't have been a reason to lie about how wonderful he is. Because I've heard them trash talk plenty of other prominent East Coast businessmen. But they all mostly enjoyed their dealings with Trump.

Honestly, their experiences with Trump count far more to me than some overpaid shill journalist on CNN or wherever repeating the words his paymasters have given him.

Thank you for sharing your friends.

 

[Broken Fence]

.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

That is a very good definition. So if we the people have no one to represent us, what then?

I wouldn't say we have no-one to represent us, it's that politics, even in a modern democracy go far beyond elections. Election results, when they are consequential, are end results of political movements years, often decades, in the making. As far as what to do? Well, if there was an obvious solution, the problem would be solved. We have to look at what has and hasn't worked in the past, and how to apply that to the situation we are now. Fortunately recent years we've had a few successes to draw from.

Any state needs an army of staff in order to function. Making things run is incredibly boring and requires large numbers of people to do repetitive and tedious work, day in day out.

Not all of it is repetitive and tedious. Some of it involves important decision making.

What would the alternative be?

The problem is not the existence of the deep state. The problem arises when the operatives of the deep state take upon themselves to dictate policy against the wishes of their lawfully elected superiors, generally under the pretense that due to their education or history of employment that they "know better" than everybody else and are specially suited to make policy decisions. This is merely rationalization, however. What guides their decisions that they have acquired during their careers is not really knowledge and experience but merely the personal biases and prejudices that are encouraged in their professional and social circles.

 

[timothyu]

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith

And as a result we have a 180 degree turn of affairs and we also saw what happened to JFK who represented the old system and wished to dismantle the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of. Today we have the medical/military-industrial complex..

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Thank you for sharing.

You're welcome.


.

 

[Tom 1]

Trump is a pawn in a bigger game. And who better to distract attention from the real players. Thinking Trump or right/left or even the US is thinking too small in this new world.

Can you be a bit more specific? The reason that no-one has ever beaten the Afghans on their own territory is that war is a way fo life for them - those who engage in war that is - when there is no invader, they fight over territory. The British, the Soviets, the US have all been in there with superior firepower in the last few hundred years, demonstrating every time that however many Afghan warriors are killed there will always be more, and they will never cease hostilities, ever. If you are alluding to some other set of reasons or global conspiracy etc please provide details.

 

[timothyu]

I wouldn't say we have no-one to represent us

The Hebrew people had no one to represent them until Moses came along. Oppressed people are not represented. In this new world we the newly oppressed of this recently changed world will have no representation until Jesus comes along to set His people free. Face it, the ways of the last century or more are gone.

The problem arises when the operatives of the deep state take upon themselves to dictate policy against the wishes of their lawfully elected superiors,

The problem is that your elected superiors work beneath those of the global deep state.

 

[Broken Fence]

I wouldn't say we have no-one to represent us, it's that politics, even in a modern democracy go far beyond elections. Election results, when they are consequential, are end results of political movements years, often decades, in the making. As far as what to do? Well, if there was an obvious solution, the problem would be solved. We have to look at what has and hasn't worked in the past, and how to apply that to the situation we are now. Fortunately recent years we've had a few successes to draw from.



Not all of it is repetitive and tedious. Some of it involves important decision making.



The problem is not the existence of the deep state. The problem arises when the operatives of the deep state take upon themselves to dictate policy against the wishes of their lawfully elected superiors, generally under the pretense that due to their education or history of employment that they "know better" than everybody else and are specially suited to make policy decisions. This is merely rationalization, however. What guides their decisions that they have acquired during their careers is not really knowledge and experience but merely the personal biases and prejudices that are encouraged in their professional and social circles.

A very rational post, and very accurate I think. Thank you