As dismissive as I am of the last presidents constant prodding of a "deep state" conspiracy, is it really any question that such a group exists? And in case rhetorical questions are lost on this site, the answer is no, and its not appropriate to mock.
Practically we know working in companies "leadership" only has a vague capability to steer the sheep, and that control becomes more and more vague every day. It seems to be a direct result of the complexity of the modern world. Systems operate by a zeitgeist made up of their component parts. "Culture eats Strategy for breakfast" etc etc.
The military industrial complex's defining culture is "we do the dirty work no one else is willing to do to keep western democracy safe" whether you agree thats true or not. I think its something to be noted if the powers and capabilities of this group are being expanded into tech corporations, who don't seem to have any defining culture other than make cash and retire.
>is it really any question that such a group exists?
Yes, there are many questions.
Cultures emerge in any organization, and the U.S. government is known to be bureaucratic. But, acknowledging this is a far cry from sowing blanket distrust via facile allusions to some vague, vast, unseemly conspiracy that has still not been defined.
These charges side-step important questions, such as: who specifically are these people? How are they organized and who leads them? What are they actually doing? What are their objectives? And, most importantly, are their supposed aims and activities in contravention with stated U.S. interests? For instance, are they aiding adversaries, like Russia, to the detriment of U.S. policy/security?
It's reckless and irresponsible to lob these vague conspiratorial charges: "Systems! Control becomes more vague! Zeitgeist! Culture!".
Point to something tangible or it's all dangerous FUD and nonsense.
OTOH, the former president who manufactured the charges you're repeating, does so in an effort to undermine the U.S. government and justify supplanting it with a regime of his own making. And, that proposed regime's stated goals do directly contravene U.S. policy and democratic principles. The would-be regime is openly declaring that they'll replace the entire bureaucracy with loyalists, use the DOJ to prosecute opponents, etc.
And instead of being concerned about that, you have people mindlessly repeating, "Destroy the deep state!".
>its not appropriate to mock.
Needless to say, I disagree. It's as appropriate to mock as Flat Earth theory and anything else as equally non-substantive.
Days later seeing this, I just wanted to clear up a thing.
> the former president who manufactured the charges you're repeating
Trump complained that the "deep state" was thwarting his efforts. I don't think he manufactured that in the least, and I don't think him being frustrated by the rank and file of the government was a bad thing.
> who specifically are these people?
I think when you look at who the intelligence community is staffed by (high number of mormons for instance), life long diplomats and civil servants, I think you're looking at people who get a frustrating and thankless job for often lower pay than the corporate world, and they do so out of a sense of duty, out of a true belief in the trappings and history of the American experiment. I think you have a group who cares about democracy, who cares about the longevity of this nation. More than average anyway.
Just because I think there is something we can refer to as the "deep state", something most definitely not FUD or nonsense, doesn't mean I agree with the cheeto. I think it did a damn good job trying to limit the damage that kleptocratic traitor could do in his 4 year term.
